For those who feel nuGalactica failed...

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

There's someone on the internet who does wordy, mediocre reviews of Babylon 5 episodes, but he had a few words that I think are relevant here:

“I am serialized!” shouts Babylon 5 during “Babylon Squared.” It’s impossible to miss at this point. “Midnight On The Firing Line” contained one scene that seemed to promise that something more would happen. And “Signs And Portents” certainly had the feel of an episode from a serialized show. But if you sat down and described their events to someone, they wouldn’t seem that special. Two empires have tensions rise, but the crisis gets resolved, in the first; in the second, a major character has a difficult situation get resolved by a bizarre ally in the second. “Babylon Squared,” on the other hand, offers no other explanation than that this is a tremendously ambitious show. The questions raised cannot be answered without a surprising (for the time) escalation of storytelling intensity.

Here’s what Babylon 5 has to deal with thanks to “Babylon Squared”: It has to explain where Babylon 4 went in time, to a great war between good and evil. To a lesser extent, it also has to explain how this happened: time travel, such a staple of the Star Trek universe, hasn’t been presented as a possibility here, and it isn’t explained at all. Sinclair’s flash-forward, which shows Garibaldi fighting off overwhelming unseen invaders on Babylon 5, is too intense to forget about. Finally, and most importantly, we see an aged Sinclair, who is treated with reverence and called “The One” by the alien Zathras, He is also clearly responsible, with Delenn (whose lack of direct appearance demands questions of its own), for stealing the station.

This kind of gamble reminds me of nothing more than the “Opera House” flash-forward from Battlestar Galactica, which appeared at the end of its long-running Kobol arc in its first and second season. There, like here, we had an intense look at a crucial moment in the future for several major characters. It acts as a promise; it says that there’s a deeper meaning to the whole story.

But B5’s promise is significantly better and more interesting than BSG’s Opera House (and this isn’t even going to get into the end results of the prophecies). Ironically, one of the reasons for that is that Battlestar Galactica was, 20-odd episodes in, a much better show than Babylon 5. B5 was struggling to find its footing for most of its first season, so it needed a jolt of intensity and mystery, which this episode provides. On the other hand, BSG had plenty of intensity and drama already, making its prophecy a distraction from what it had already done so well. Along those lines, “Babylon Squared” is a significant improvement over the average B5 episode, whereas BSG’s Kobol storyline is the first time that show meanders. This is also an effective delineation between the two shows, arguably the best non-Trek space operas on television: Babylon 5 started slow, but was remarkably effective at taking risks that paid off in the short and long term, while Battlestar Galactica started amazingly well and frittered that away by taking unnecessary risks.

[jollyreaper]

Stark, there is simply no point in engaging with you in any level.

It's ok, the adults are talking now.[/quote]

Claiming something to be so does not make it so, Starkums.

[Stark]

Absolutely, if there had been a successful payoff for the mysteries and magical business I doubt people would even mention it was pulled out of a writer's hat at one point. I think that even putting aside the different writing approaches (ie having story sketched out in broad terms and 'I just wanted to try this out') things like resurrection of main characters is probably riskier than 'and there was this time travelling space station around', because they could have dropped it or minimised it without affecting other elements as much.

Hey JR how are those +1 posts working out for you? Post count getting nice and big?

[jollyreaper]

Why do you insist on this straw man idea that what everyone wants is endless technobabble? Stuff like that isn't annoying because there's no meaningless technobabble "explaining" how it "works", it's annoying because it's a blatant plot device. It shows up out of nowhere when it's needed, then goes away without explanation and nobody ever asks what happened to it. It's a sign of a bad writer who, through laziness or incompetence, can't bother to keep up with a coherent plot.

Very good point. Technical details that drive the plot are not a bad thing. The same imaginary concerns come up in fantasy stories as well with prophecies and curses. Doing it poorly is doing it poorly, just like doing the drama poorly makes it melodrama.

Those out-of-character moments, that's like dramababble. And that's what so many people object to. Someone risking everything for love or revenge is great motivation. Someone risking all for something that was just dumped in his lap without any support feels like lazy writing.

And now let's look at a couple ideas for how to resolve the problem without a five-minute technobabble speech:

Turn it into more drama: "We've discovered they're tracking a radiation leak from the engines of one of our ships." Now they have to decide whether to risk the entire fleet by keeping the damaged ship and trying desperately to repair it, or abandon them to certain death to save the majority. And choose fast, because the next attack is only 17 minutes away, and we're not sure we can hold it off this time. And no matter what you choose it makes perfect sense that it's just a one-time thing.

I thought it might be a hook into the whole resurrection ship thing. The cylons must have some sort of FTL transmitter built into them or something to account for uploading. They could have been using this to track the agents onboard the ships. If the writers intended the nature of the skinjobs to be a big mystery, this could have been one of the first clues to tease out.

[Zinegata]

There's someone on the internet who does wordy, mediocre reviews of Babylon 5 episodes, but he had a few words that I think are relevant here:

“I am serialized!” shouts Babylon 5 during “Babylon Squared.” It’s impossible to miss at this point. “Midnight On The Firing Line” contained one scene that seemed to promise that something more would happen. And “Signs And Portents” certainly had the feel of an episode from a serialized show. But if you sat down and described their events to someone, they wouldn’t seem that special. Two empires have tensions rise, but the crisis gets resolved, in the first; in the second, a major character has a difficult situation get resolved by a bizarre ally in the second. “Babylon Squared,” on the other hand, offers no other explanation than that this is a tremendously ambitious show. The questions raised cannot be answered without a surprising (for the time) escalation of storytelling intensity.

Here’s what Babylon 5 has to deal with thanks to “Babylon Squared”: It has to explain where Babylon 4 went in time, to a great war between good and evil. To a lesser extent, it also has to explain how this happened: time travel, such a staple of the Star Trek universe, hasn’t been presented as a possibility here, and it isn’t explained at all. Sinclair’s flash-forward, which shows Garibaldi fighting off overwhelming unseen invaders on Babylon 5, is too intense to forget about. Finally, and most importantly, we see an aged Sinclair, who is treated with reverence and called “The One” by the alien Zathras, He is also clearly responsible, with Delenn (whose lack of direct appearance demands questions of its own), for stealing the station.

This kind of gamble reminds me of nothing more than the “Opera House” flash-forward from Battlestar Galactica, which appeared at the end of its long-running Kobol arc in its first and second season. There, like here, we had an intense look at a crucial moment in the future for several major characters. It acts as a promise; it says that there’s a deeper meaning to the whole story.

But B5’s promise is significantly better and more interesting than BSG’s Opera House (and this isn’t even going to get into the end results of the prophecies). Ironically, one of the reasons for that is that Battlestar Galactica was, 20-odd episodes in, a much better show than Babylon 5. B5 was struggling to find its footing for most of its first season, so it needed a jolt of intensity and mystery, which this episode provides. On the other hand, BSG had plenty of intensity and drama already, making its prophecy a distraction from what it had already done so well. Along those lines, “Babylon Squared” is a significant improvement over the average B5 episode, whereas BSG’s Kobol storyline is the first time that show meanders. This is also an effective delineation between the two shows, arguably the best non-Trek space operas on television: Babylon 5 started slow, but was remarkably effective at taking risks that paid off in the short and long term, while Battlestar Galactica started amazingly well and frittered that away by taking unnecessary risks.

I have to agree, that's quite a lucid description of the problems of BSG. Strong start, then went all over the place.

[jollyreaper]

I really fail to see how either of those wouldn't be inferior to the episode we got. Explaining everything openly to the audience (even while avoiding technobabble) isn't a sign of great writing.

I can understand the argument that it might have been improved if the writers had an idea of what it was, since that might lead to other things later that the audience could piece together as related. That's a very different argument from "they should've told us in that episode exactly what's going on", though.

I think that it is symptomatic of the general approach they took to the writing. My contention is that BSG was presented as a mystery. The Cylons have a plan? What is the plan? It looks like they blew us all to hell and are now mopping up. But is there more to it? Why is head six fucking with Baltar? Is this more than simple extermination? What is the plan?

If it's not a mystery, then none of this really matters. If the Cylon plan is not important, they could have just been replaced with the sun going nova. Everyone had to flee to space because there's no home to return to, human drama in space. If you put killer robots in there, if you say there's a plan, then there needs to be a reason. Otherwise the robots could have been left out.

Therefore, if robots are important, if how they were made and why they are trying to be human is important, that's going to be a driving mystery of the whole series, the answer has to be important, and it will put the entire conflict in a new light when we find out. At least that's my take on it, YMMV.

You know, I just thought of something. BSG reminds me of the Doors. You listen to a song like The End and you're wondering what the deeper meaning is. It sounds great. It's haunting, it sticks in your ear. But ultimately it's just Jim drunk and stoned out of his fucking mind writing down random shit and the band writes music to go with it.

Lost in a Roman...wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane
All the children are insane
Waiting for the summer rain, yeah

There's danger on the edge of town
Ride the King's highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby

What does it mean? Nothing. It just sounds cool. That's all there is to it. Why are the Final Five listening to Dylan in space? Quit harshing the buzz, daddio. Just groove with the flow, man.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Absolutely, if there had been a successful payoff for the mysteries and magical business I doubt people would even mention it was pulled out of a writer's hat at one point. I think that even putting aside the different writing approaches (ie having story sketched out in broad terms and 'I just wanted to try this out') things like resurrection of main characters is probably riskier than 'and there was this time travelling space station around', because they could have dropped it or minimised it without affecting other elements as much.

Yeah, I mean, the fact that Darth Vader was Luke's father was settled really late in the game, and that's still the gold standard for Western Space Opera plot twists. You don't need to have it all plotted out in advance (though unless you're really confident in your powers, it's really not a bad idea), all that matters is that you stick the landing, and BSG failed miserably in that. In a way, setting up Big Questions without having any idea of how to answer them is maybe the most dangerous thing you can do on a show, since a bad answer isn't just a bad episode or bad direction for the show to take - it can feel like a betrayal, like all the people who watched because they were interested in the Big Question were being cheated out of their time. The audience feels like it retro-actively makes all the episodes leading up to the non-answer suddenly devoid of value.

And remember, 'time travelling space station', but also 'protagonist as time travelling old wise leader and discussion of Great Eternal War'. That's pretty hard to write around.

[Stark]

Maybe I don't remember s1 B5 properly. Lol.

Earlier I compared the writing to that of Lost, where I believe they just added shit on and threw out crazy ideas for years. That was a big draw initially because everyone loves a mystery, but the longer you go without a payoff or the weaker that payoff turns out to be, the worse the impact on the whole show. I think when people were watching the show originally people began to sense that there was no unifying payoff coming during season 3.

[jollyreaper]

Hey JR how are those +1 posts working out for you? Post count getting nice and big?

I'm politely replying to people who are posting in the thread, starkypoo. I'm not polishing an epeen with post counts.

As I originally stated, this is a thread for people who feel nuGalactica failed. If you disagree, there's always an opportunity to start a thread on why nuGalactica succeeded.

I am a fan of scifi and always root for shows to succeed. When something falls apart, I'm sad. I am curious to know what other people who thought it fell apart thought, where they thought it failed, where they thought it lost relevance.

[Flagg]

I just think in the case of Lost that they had the answers, it's just that other people had better theories than what the answers ultimately were. Or people guessed them and they changed shit. But I think it's impossible for any type of payoff to be satisfying to everyone or even most people after 6 years of questions get answered in a few episodes at the end. I mean it's clear to me that the writers of Lost knew the broad strokes and alot of what they were doing, as opposed to shows like the X-Files or Heroes.

I think nBSG failed for people more invested in the mysteries than in the characters.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Yeah, Lost and BSG are two peas in a pod. Came out at the same time, high production values, critically acclaimed, serialized, genre-shaking sci fi, but both ended up wasting themselves on empty mysticism, 'what could this meeeaaannn?' mysteries, and failed attempts to shake up the status quo to no avail. My luck is that the one I watched all the way through and so it is my cross to bear was the slightly shorter one.

[Flagg]

I almost prefer it when there are no real answers and you have to extrapolate shit for yourself. That's why I liked Starbucks ending so much. Meanwhile I thought the Final Five info-dump was kind of lame.

[Stark]

I'm politely replying to people who are posting in the thread, starkypoo. I'm not polishing an epeen with post counts.

As I originally stated, this is a thread for people who feel nuGalactica failed. If you disagree, there's always an opportunity to start a thread on why nuGalactica succeeded.

I am a fan of scifi and always root for shows to succeed. When something falls apart, I'm sad. I am curious to know what other people who thought it fell apart thought, where they thought it failed, where they thought it lost relevance.

This is just funny as hell. Right now I'm having a reasonable discussion with someone when we really don't like each other, and you're lecturing me on style over substance? Try making less posts that are literally nothing but OMG I DON'T LIKE TEH STARKZ.

And frankly I think you've failed to understand what people are saying. Guys like Tucker might like nBSG, but I certainly do not. I'm talking about specific plot elements and their success or otherwise, not whatever bullshit popularity contest shit you imagine is happening.

NUA, wasn't lost ALSO a show where people often came for the mysteries and ended up being more interested in the character stuff? I believe Flagg (who liked the show) was primarily watching to find out more stuff about the people, and not the ISLAND OF INCREDIBLE AND EVER INCREASING MYSTERY.

There's definitely a place for mysteries that have no answer. I mean I watch fucking Gundam where bizarre magical crap is happening all the time and nobody bats an eye. I think its possible the mistake shows make is promising an answer, rather than leaving a mystery.

[Batman]

The difference, at least for me, between B5 and nBSG was B5 was fun from the word Go while nBSG was not. Sure, there were stinkers in S1 and throughout the rest of the series, but most of the 'yeah, right,what' episodes of S1 were resolved during the rest of the series. nBSG was 'Nifty SFX, but can the Cylons win already' pretty much from the word 'Go'.
I watched B5 because it was entertaining. I watched nBSG because oBSG was entertaining and other than TNG/SG-1 reruns, that was the only SciFi to be had at the time.

[jollyreaper]

Yeah, I mean, the fact that Darth Vader was Luke's father was settled really late in the game, and that's still the gold standard for Western Space Opera plot twists.

You get away with what you can get away with. The moment the fans start going "That's aweso---no, wait, what?" you lost it. The Shield was, as I understand, written largely by the seat of the pants but the crew did such a good job of hewing to established story that it felt plotted out. The Death Note manga was also seat of the pants and it held together pretty well until about the middle. The author took a huge gamble that was ballsy as hell and didn't quite pay off.

You don't need to have it all plotted out in advance (though unless you're really confident in your powers, it's really not a bad idea), all that matters is that you stick the landing, and BSG failed miserably in that. In a way, setting up Big Questions without having any idea of how to answer them is maybe the most dangerous thing you can do on a show, since a bad answer isn't just a bad episode or bad direction for the show to take - it can feel like a betrayal, like all the people who watched because they were interested in the Big Question were being cheated out of their time. The audience feels like it retro-actively makes all the episodes leading up to the non-answer suddenly devoid of value.

Yeah, it's kind of like contextual hype. Star Wars was awesome in part because it came out of nowhere. Even if the prequels were excellent, they'd still suffer from overhype. Nothing could be as good as the anticipation. You say "Hey, I hear this movie is good" and it's a revelation, your friend will not be disappoint. You tell him it's going to redefine his entire world view, I can't think of a movie in existence that could live up to that kind of hype. You need to know what you can deliver before you start bragging on it.

Funny enough, the Valen arc is the only thing I really didn't like from the original B5 storyline -- seasons 1 to 4. I still consider season 5 an anomaly. I thought time travel was too Trek, too much of an out-of-character moment for the show, and not really needed. It also seemed like a really convoluted workaround for losing O'Hare in season 2. But I could overlook all that because the rest was great. Of the many mindscrews I liked was the breaking away from Earth. Given that it was pretty much Trek or nothing before B5, the whole idea of the Enterprise rebelling against the Federation is unthinkable because Earth is good guys, right? And that's exactly the preconception B5 poinged square between the eyes. Might not have as much of a payoff for people rewatching now.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Flagg: In a perfect world I would agree; a proper treatment of the inexplicable, the ineffable, the incommunicable, can be incredibly compelling in fiction.

But the disease that is the disgusting success of j.j. abrams and damon lindelof in hollywood, and the incredible bullshit that is everything they touch, render me extremely wary of any new fiction that does it as another example of the infection.

NUA, wasn't lost ALSO a show where people often came for the mysteries and ended up being more interested in the character stuff? I believe Flagg (who liked the show) was primarily watching to find out more stuff about the people, and not the ISLAND OF INCREDIBLE AND EVER INCREASING MYSTERY.

I think that's right, and it's again, I think, a case of a show where the acting and the directing of those actors outpaced the writing. B5 never had this problem for obvious reasons.

[Stark]

That's right - the acting was terrible! :V

Didn't the cachet Moore bought to the show a part of its popularity? I know around here people liked his ST stuff, and it was felt that he had a blank page on which to create his masterpiece. Doesn't this make him one of those creators who don't really live up to their name?

[jollyreaper]

This is just funny as hell. Right now I'm having a reasonable discussion with someone when we really don't like each other, and you're lecturing me on style over substance? Try making less posts that are literally nothing but OMG I DON'T LIKE TEH STARKZ.

And you'll make fewer +1 posts lambasting me for being a failure of a human being and poor scifi fan?

And frankly I think you've failed to understand what people are saying. Guys like Tucker might like nBSG, but I certainly do not. I'm talking about specific plot elements and their success or otherwise, not whatever bullshit popularity contest shit you imagine is happening.

What you said does not follow.

NUA, wasn't lost ALSO a show where people often came for the mysteries and ended up being more interested in the character stuff? I believe Flagg (who liked the show) was primarily watching to find out more stuff about the people, and not the ISLAND OF INCREDIBLE AND EVER INCREASING MYSTERY.

And this is a thread for people who thought they fell short. Frankly, I liked the character drama and they lost me when it became soapy with inconsistent, muddled motivations and stunt writing. But again, YMMV. I have a friend who doubts my sanity for liking Rush (the band) and I think his taste in jazz is too purist and exclusionary. I'm not going to try to convince him otherwise.

There's definitely a place for mysteries that have no answer. I mean I watch fucking Gundam where bizarre magical crap is happening all the time and nobody bats an eye. I think its possible the mistake shows make is promising an answer, rather than leaving a mystery.

Ambiguity can either be good or a complete copout. Again, it comes down to what a writer can get away with and some fans may differ. And there's always the case that some might feel a given idea is the dumbest thing ever and others feel its the best thing in the series.

This thread isn't meant to convince people that they shouldn't like a show they enjoy. It's for people who fit the demo, who are fans of the genre, who started watching and enjoying it eventually lost interest.

Like I said, you can pander to an audience and give them pablum that sells or you can challenge them and risk financial failure in pursuit of artistic success. But it can be pure egotism to see commercial failure as a lacking in the audience and not a lacking in the work.

If you disagree with the premise of the thread, this is not the thread for you.

[jollyreaper]

Flagg: In a perfect world I would agree; a proper treatment of the inexplicable, the ineffable, the incommunicable, can be incredibly compelling in fiction.

But the disease that is the disgusting success of j.j. abrams and damon lindelof in hollywood, and the incredible bullshit that is everything they touch, render me extremely wary of any new fiction that does it as another example of the infection.

Huge agreement here. It's dramatic pareidolia, just throwing random shit on-screen and leaving explanation an exercise for the viewer. Where does artistic daring end and laziness begin?

I feel the same way about dramatic pareidolia as I do about shakycam, tools useful when used with restraint, utterly ruinous when used in immoderation.

[Batman]

Far as I'm concerned shakycam is more than useless in fiction. Yes, the cameraperson is not in a position to keep the camera on the action all the time. I don't give a flying fuck? I don't want to see what some moron with a camera manages to tape, I want to see what's actually going on out-of-universe observer style.

[Stark]

It was fine in the miniseries, but watching Exodus when it couldn't hold the camera straight on two people standing still in a tent without zooming in on random objects and being dropped on the floor was a bit silly.

But I think the story issues are more interesting than the directing decisions, overall.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

That's right - the acting was terrible! :V

Hey, be fair. Those people almost always remembered their lines, and rarely looked directly at the camera!

Didn't the cachet Moore bought to the show a part of its popularity? I know around here people liked his ST stuff, and it was felt that he had a blank page on which to create his masterpiece. Doesn't this make him one of those creators who don't really live up to their name?

Yeah, probably. He and Ira Steven Behr (who I think went on to make another less well-known but similar mystery show, the 4400) were the only people who left Star Trek with some prestige, since DS9 looked really good in comparison to Voyager.

[JLTucker]

It was fine in the miniseries, but watching Exodus when it couldn't hold the camera straight on two people standing still in a tent without zooming in on random objects and being dropped on the floor was a bit silly.

But I think the story issues are more interesting than the directing decisions, overall.

I've been told that it is similar to, if not, cinema verite (documetnary filmmaking style). I guess it's like there's an observer on the battlefield and is just as fucking erratic as the characters on screen. I personally like it, but there are times when you want it to stop.

[Batman]

It was fine in the miniseries, but watching Exodus when it couldn't hold the camera straight on two people standing still in a tent without zooming in on random objects and being dropped on the floor was a bit silly.
But I think the story issues are more interesting than the directing decisions, overall.

I was mostly venting on my general hatred for shakycam rather than actually commenting on its use in nBSG (which I gsve up on somewhere during s2).

[Batman]

It was fine in the miniseries, but watching Exodus when it couldn't hold the camera straight on two people standing still in a tent without zooming in on random objects and being dropped on the floor was a bit silly.
But I think the story issues are more interesting than the directing decisions, overall.

I was mostly venting on my general hatred for shakycam rather than actually commenting on its use in nBSG (which I gave up on somewhere during s2).