I finished the first season of Babylon 5 last Friday, and so thought I’d try to jot down a few words about it. I’ve done my best to avoid any spoilers, and I like to think that there’s not many of them, and that the few that are, are so vague that they’re hardly spoilers at all, really.
A nice place to begin this little review might be the main concept, the premise. Babylon 5 is a space station orbiting an uninhabited planet in a neutral sector of space. It’s intended to be a place where the different races can meet, in order to work out their differences and such things. In other words, ultimately the manifestation of the Liberalist idea of interconnection as a barrier to conflict, and all that foreign political stuff. It is also the fifth of its kind — but the only one to have seen active service. The first three were sabotaged and blown up, and B4 simply disappeared with a skeleton crew of 1400 people or so.
When it comes to the plot, it seemed as if season 1 mainly dealt with setting up what I guess is the primary conflict of the show — the war between Light and Shadow. (I think I need to stop reading Wikipedia articles on shows I haven’t seen yet…) It did this by revealing the past history of the different races and their relationships to each other; by showing all the seeds of conflict within the races and the characters; and by revealing some precious few things about this “Shadow” thing. All of this is done primarily through small revelations made during the unfolding of the episode plots. Of which there are usually two per episode, each related to one or more of the main characters, and often thematically linked in some way. I’m a little unsure of how consistent this was done, as I didn’t start taking any real notice of it until pretty late in the season, but I got the impression it was rather consistent.
As for the quality of these plots, I thought they were relatively good. Most of them were what I in a Buffyverse setting would have called “monster-of-the-week’y”, each episode being quite self-contained and able to stand alone. Personally, though, I prefer somewhat more arc-heavy shows, and in spite of there being a very clear and realistic feeling of consistency and continuity to this first season of B5, it’s not as much of it as I would have prefered. Also, quite often these episodes tend to tie in with the main characters in a relatively indirect way, mostly through characters who only appear in one episode. This is an entirely adequate solution, but I sometimes felt it prevented me from connecting with the main characters themselves. How they reacted to what happened to their friends was of course one way to connect with them, but I suspect that this might have been even better if things had happened more directly to them. But then again, maybe not.
As for the characters themselves… the main-main character is probably Commander Sinclair. He’s like the Angel or Buffy of this show, only, well, kinda boring. I mean, the suspense they’ve built up around him and his fate is probably one of the show’s stronger sides, but he is so proper, and so… Sure, he has his demons, and he’s kinda witty, too. I just don’t like him.
Then his second-in-command is a different story entirely. Lieutenant-Commander Susan Ivanova is Russian, and a pessimist, and she is very aware of both these things, often claiming they’re basically the same thing. She, too, has her demons, but to me these were more profound than Sinclair’s. Where his is “oh-am-I-a-hero-or-am-I-a-traitor?”, hers seems to me to be a more personal one, in that it’s related to her family and her childhood. Of course, Sinclair’s issues are also identity related, but his never really seem to interfere with his duties, whereas Ivanova came close to breaking Earth Force law once, if she didn’t actually do it.
The third major human character, is Security Chief Michael Garibaldi — as I choose to regard both Talia and the docor as more secondary characters, at least for now. So. Garibaldi. What to say? First of all, this is probably my favourite character, next to a couple of the alien ambassadors. He is devoted to his job, but most of all to Sinclair, to B5, and to justice. He’s temperamental, yet down-to-earth, and he’s basically just a good man. Without thinking this through, I believe he has all the qualities I admire. Awesome character. Also, he’s one of Londo’s best friends.
Londo. Ambassador to Babylon 5 from the Centauri Empire, the race that tried to convince humans when they first met us, that they were our ancestors, and that we should join their glorious empire. The problems are that (1) that humans and Centauri are in no way related, and (2) that the Centauri Empire isn’t very “glorious” any longer. Londo seems like a human, though, perhaps more than any other of the alien ambassadors, especially in his appreciation of the carnal pleasures. This, however, also illustrates the state in which his beloved empire finds itself: decadence and the following decay. This is reflected in his personality in an amazing way, in that he has the pride of someone aware of the past glories of his people, while at the same time also displaying that he is well aware that the might of his empire is waning. And I’m just a sucker for characters who displays such impotent braggadocio, especially when there’s some potential for this braggadocio being realised. A great character, in so many ways.
Londo’s most fierce rival is ambassador G’kar of the Narn. The Narn are quite fierce on a general basis, but when it comes to the Centauri they would be genocidal, if they had he chance. This has its reasons in history, as the Narn are a race recently liberated from slavery under the Centauri. The Centauri plundered their homeworld, changing it from a lush paradise to a barren waste. Also, the Centauri weren’t too lenient on their slaves, so there’s a lot of bad blood between the two peoples. The Centauri are pissed off, too, as the Narn are ever expanding on the expense of the Centauri. G’kar, then, hates the Centauri with a vengeance. He is also more stuck-up than Londo (while still being far from the dry sticks that are Sinclair and Delenn), but just as complex a character. One of my four or five favourites.
Third of the four ambassadors is Delenn of the Minbari. The Minbari are an interesting race. They seem to be divided into two casts, one religious and one military, and there is significant friction between the two. Ten years before the events in B5 the Minbari were at war with Earth, but surrendered after a decisive battle in space — a battle around which much of season 1’s main plot arc revolves. So, back to Delenn. This, too, is a complex character, with a lot of diverging loyalties that evolves throughout the season. She has a peculiar relationship with Sinclair, as well as with the other ambassadors. The Minbari, and especially her caste, are a very reserved bunch, and this limits at least my ties to the character, as I tend to prefer different kinds of characters, but she undoubtedly has a lot of potential.
One problem with the show, what concerns the character, is that practically all the bad guys are really bad, with hardly a sympathetic trait between them. If they’re bad, they’re bad. And even though I understand that this is supposed to be told from B5’s point of view, and that to them, these people ARE unsympathetic… well, I still think it’d be nice to at least refrain from making every damn Earth official a self-righteous, arrogant smeghead.
I’ve already mentioned that the character Delenn showed a lot of potential. And that word — potential — might be the word that best describes the whole show. Because this show has plenty of potential and promise, and even though it was a great season in its own right, too, I think its greatest strengths lays in the sheer amounts of suspense it builds for the rest of the show. “Signs and Portents”, indeed!
(Finally, allow me to apologise for the whimsical way I’ve written this. I’m half-way watching some kind of British show on the telly as I write it, so my concentration’s not too good. And as some of you might remember, I rarely proof read.)

Posts
I could comment on a lot of this, but I’ll not, so as not to spoil you. ^^ Have fun with season 2.
21. April 2007 @ 11:24 ( Permalink )
Thanks. ^^
I almost can’t wait to get back to Trondheim and the DVDs I’ve burned the show on. This is probably bad, though, as I can’t really afford to be hooked on a show right now, what with my project paper being due in three weeks or so… :\
21. April 2007 @ 12:00 ( Permalink )
Interesting review, Terje. Do you think I’d like the show?
21. April 2007 @ 12:09 ( Permalink )
I realize that you didn’t ask me, but; what are, approximately, your five favourite tv-shows? Your five favourite books? And your five favourite movies? Knowing if you’d like B5 is easier if I have some kind of base of references as far as your tastes in storytelling go.
21. April 2007 @ 12:52 ( Permalink )
B5 is the greatest sci-fi show ever!
The five years planed ahead plot.
The constant changing characters.
The different philosophy for every race.
The light vs. darkness war.
The use of Earth inspired mythology.
The cool CGI.
It is “The Lord of the Rings” in space.
21. April 2007 @ 14:43 ( Permalink )
Oh, I miss two - three episodes of B5 every evening. But after two years I’m still mad at…no, I’m not going to spoil it for you.
21. April 2007 @ 15:10 ( Permalink )
You’ve got a lot to look forward to here. Season 3 and 4 is one, prolonged rollercoaster of a story, and a lot of what you saw in 1 will make sense. This is one of the best ever series made for television, only Heroes seems to be better so far.. But Tim Kring of Heroes has clearly watched Babylon 5.
21. April 2007 @ 18:04 ( Permalink )
It is definitely one of the best sci-fi-series I’ve seen, but its strenghts are a bit limited, I feel - its main strong-point is the huge story which is at first slipped out bit by bit in independent episodes and then, as you say, by season 3-4 (and in a slightly different way, 5) are more or less omnipresent, but the extensive hinting and even straight out foretellings of the future throughout the series makes several of the interesting and cool plot-twists predictable and boring by the time they actually do happen, as any attentive viewer will have known of them for several seasons already. The amount of hints and forecasting tidbits are, to me, simply overdone. They are all ingeniously well done independently, but added together, they simply hand out too much information, undermining the actual occurring of these events in later episodes.
Thus, I feel like the series’ greatest strenght, while still strong, is kept from being brilliant by spoiling itself thoroughly. (This is, though, obviously a far less problematic situation for those watching it week-by-week for five years, but for people like me who watch the show on DVD and in a shorter time-span, the early seasons and their preminitions and predictions are still fresh in time by the time the actual events come around) Another weakening factor here is that [SPOILER FOLLOWS, SKIP TO NEXT PARAGRAPH IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE ENTIRE SERIES] they were forced to end the main-plot a season earlier than they otherwise would, making for the flow or the extended afterplay seeming odd and slow and at times even slightly boring.
In other words, I quite like the show’s strong, well-thought out and impressively multi-faceted story, but between a number of weak single episodes (especially in the early seasons) and in the two factors mentioned above, it has enough weaknesses to, well, still lack something, story-wise. Still, beyond a doubt one of the best series I’ve seen, story-wise, but if it is THE best, well, of that I’m not sure. I’m not saying it is not, either, just that I’m not sure it is.
A second point B5 is good at is characters. But again, they’re a step or two short of greatness. While several of their main cast is brilliant, both in personalities and character-arcs (to avoid spoilers I won’t mention names), others vary between stereotypical-yet-interesting and sadly two-dimensional. The same goes for their supporting cast and recurring characters, though with a slightly higher amount of weak characters compared to the number of strong ones. I’d liken it to, hm, considering whose weblog this is, I think Veronica Mars is a fair comparison that’ll make sense. Several very strong central characters, but with a supporting-cast who varies from stereotypical-yet-rather-interesting-nonetheless (Mac, for instance, or the principal) to rather two-dimensional and boring, like, say, Piz (a new guy in season 2). Come to think of it, I’d actually say VM has a higher percantage of excellent recurring-characters than B5 had, as the only really good ones I seem to remember on B5 was a couple of Minbari and Narn politicians, and of course the ever-brilliant Bester. Here it is clearly a “good-but-not-quite-great” show, falling vastly behind all of Joss Whedon’s shows, and maybe also behind shows such as “Battlestar Galactica” and, in time, when it’s been going on for longer and the characters have gotten to evolve, maybe also “Heroes”.
In dialogue, I must admit it’s been too long a time since I watched B5 to make any claims to certainity, but I seem to remember this being another very strong point, and one which counts for a lot to me. However, there seems to be a relation between character-strenght and quality of dialogue - good characters got a lot of good dialogue, less good characters got less good dialogue. Again, rather Veronica Mars-y, I think. (Of course, this is not quite fair, counting it as two different points - good characters make for good dialogue, flat characters make for flat dialogue, and if you have either, the other usually follows on any show with half-decent writers, and B5 had very good ones)
Special-effects and such were rather good, but this is a very minor thing for me, one which holds little sway over how much I like a show as long as it is not so utterly crappy it interfers with buying the story going on. However, I quite liked the look and the scenery and, some few “why do all the aliens look so human?”-issues aside, the entire world seemed believable visually, which is a great plus.
All in all, definitely a very good tv-show, and one of the best sci-fi-shows I’ve seen, though I’d put both “Battlestar Galactica” and “Firefly” above it, and in time, maybe, also “Heroes”, which has impressed me greatly lately. It does, however, measure up to the same legue as shows such as these, which is a great feat all on its own. It’s also older than them, the makers of later excellent sci-fi shows no doubt more or less familiar with B5 themselves and able to learn from it, and no doubt that is a handicap that shouldn’t be overlooked, too.
21. April 2007 @ 19:23 ( Permalink )
Ah, and I should specify - my definition of a “sci-fi-show” is explicitly a show focusing heavily in either setting or theme on advanced technology and/or space- or time-travel. It’s not so broad a definition as to involve everything fantasy - I’d not consider, say, “Angel” a sci-fi-show - and I guess I should have made that clear. ^^
“Heroes”, for this reason, well, it seems to fall a little between two chairs, due to the age-old problem of sci-fi being mainly defined by setting, while fantasy, and especially epic fantasy, is defined by plot. “Heroes” kinda feel like sci-fi, but when you look closely at it, there is very little science fiction involved, and quite a lot of fantasy, both in the basic premise and the basic plot. (I should thus clear up that even though I mentioned “Heroes” as a sci-fi-show above, I’m open to the objection that it’s not.)
21. April 2007 @ 19:31 ( Permalink )
Oh, and yes, B5 is clearly a fantasy-show too, with its good vs. evil-themes, but it comes better out of a sci-fi-only-league in my book ’cause I’m a committed Whedonite and it thus won’t have to compete with BtVS and “Angel”, so I chose to focus on that…
21. April 2007 @ 19:33 ( Permalink )
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Nice to get some traffic.
But Loki. You speak of categorising sci-fi by setting, and fantasy by plot. While you do specify that the latter is most true for Epic Fantasy, I’m not sure if I quite agree with you here. Granted, I haven’t thought this through all that much, but the other day it struck me that a convenient way of placing a piece of, say, literature, in one of the genres, is to look at the superficial first. That is to say, the setting. Because in most cases, it’s relatively easy to look at the setting of a story, and say that “this is fantasy”, or “this is sci-fi”. Then, you can go deeper into the stories, and place them into the subgenres: space opera, sword and sorcery, epic fantasy, hard sci-fi, you name it.
Then there’s the Asimov approach, which I was made aware of in a discussion about the place of BSG within the genre over at Tolkiens.net. According to Asimov, “‘[H]ard science fiction’ [is] stories that feature authentic scientific knowledge and depend upon it for plot development and plot resolution.” Everything else is fantasy, according to this view. I don’t quite agree with it myself, as I feel that it leaves out a lot of the developments in the sci-fi genre in the last 30 years or so, but it is none the less a semantically valid definition.
Finally, of the major methods of distinction between these two related genres I know, the one I might just like best, is R. Scott Bakker. His, too, is quite simple, in that he says that sci-fi is fiction which deals with our individual and collective relationships with the future — our expectations, our fears, and so on. Fantasy, then, is more concerned with our perception of the past — some fantasy is very romaticising of the past (Tolkien, anyone?), while other fantasy is more concerned with reassuring us that the past wasn’t really all that different from the present (say, Martin).
Naturally, all of these definitions tend to generalise — but so do most definitions, no matter how accurate they strive to be. One place I feel that they might be a little better than yours is, though, is that they judge the books, television shows, movies, and what have you, which might be sci-fi or fantasy, by the same standards. They don’t look at one thing to decide if it’s sci-fi, and another thing to evaluate its fantasy-ness, but rather examine the same thing in all the works, and make a desicion based on this.
However, as you probably know — what with all the discussions we’ve had in the last two years or so — I’m no good at seeing the logical consequences of my thoughts, so I’m probably missing a lot of stuff which ought to have been obvious. So, you got any comments?
(Mind you, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just asking you to expand some on the thoughts you briefly mentioned above, and also to comment on all that ranting of mine, if you feel like it. I’m a feebleminded Socratean when it comes to discussions, so…
)
21. April 2007 @ 20:10 ( Permalink )
Oooh, and look at me! I managed to write the proper HTML code (or whatever) and make a nice link! How about that?
21. April 2007 @ 20:12 ( Permalink )
I disagree in principle on genre being defined by setting, and that includes sci-fi. Trouble is, there is no sci-fi-staple as far as plot is concerned, save maybe the dystopian one.
Name any other genre. Mystery. Horror. Romantic drama. All genres that leap to mind - and do tell me if I’m not remembering some excellent examples that don’t fit in with this statement - are defined mainly by some distinct elements in plot, narrative and story. Not by setting. (Though you could make a case for it being defined by mood instead, which would be an interesting and maybe, I’m thinking, valid approach)
Fantasy and sci-fi are the exceptions. Everything that has a wizard? Labeled “fantasy”. Or even sci-fi, sometimes. Everything that has a space-ship? Labeled sci-fi. This is all well and good if these weren’t treated as genres on the same level as, say, criminal novels, but they are. In 90% of the cases, or probably moe, they’re not considered a helpful category *in addition* to the genre, they’re *replacing* it. If Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had let on that Dr. Moriarty had the ability to conjure forth demons from the depths of hell itself, the Sherlock Holmes-stories would be labeled “fantasy”, even if nothing else about them changed - which would be okay - and that’d remove the old genre-label - which would not be okay. Genre denotes plot in all other kinds of fiction. Why not in sci-fi and fantasy?
Now, with fantasy, you have a save; as there actually is such a thing as a distinct plot that’s very common to what’s called “fantasy”. It does appear in genres without the fantasy-label, and it also appears a lot in sci-fi, and it is far from ALWAYS present in fantasy, but it is still very common, and there is no denying that. I’m talking about High Fantasy, or Epic Fantasy, or whatever you want to call it, with the classical Hero-In-Training, the Journey and Quest, the Object of Power, the Thief, the Warrior, the Wizard, the Evil God, the whole shebang. (David Eddings’ “The Belgariad” is pretty much a teaching-manual in fantasy stereotypes, by the way, it’s fun how I always keep thinking of his books when I start talking about these, even though I’ve read tons of others which fits the model)
Sci-fi, to my knowledge - and I could be wrong, as I’ve seen and read very little sci-fi compared to fantasy - has no such arch-plot. Save the very same one, of course, as is the case with Babylon 5, Star Wars, and numerous others.
21. April 2007 @ 20:28 ( Permalink )
Lotta: It seems to me you’d like Babylon 5. Maybe not as much as BSG, but I still think you’d like it. It has a lot of moral greys and internal conflict and devious politics, which you seem to like, but there’s a clear, underlying moral This Is Good, and This Is Bad-division, which the characters may not always see, but the viewer usually does. I’m unsure if this would appeal to you as much as the less shallow ambiguities of, say, “The Malazan Book of the Fallen”, “Sin City” or “Battlestar Galactica”.
Still, I think you’d enjoy it rather well, and what to I know, after all, maybe you’ll love it like nobody’s business.
21. April 2007 @ 20:31 ( Permalink )
I see your point, and it’s a very good one. Let me just ask one question, to see if I understand you correctly:
You suggest that sci-fi and fantasy are treated differently than other forms of fiction, in that they’re classified as such mainly because of their setting, while most* other works of fiction are classified by their plot, narrative and story?
If so, I think I’d have to agree. Take, for example, “American Gods”. Plotwise, it has a few things in common with the typical Epic Fantasy** in that there is a form of conflict between divine powers (although it is hard to say that one of them is more evil or more good than the other), but primarily, it’s more of a detective story or a thriller — or a combination of these. But with its clear fantasy setting, it’s classified as fantasy. (Basically your Sherlock Holmes example, only reversed.)
* Or all; I have to concede that I can’t come up with another genre defined by setting rather than plot, maybe except from Alternative History, and those usually have an additional plot-related label attached to them.
** As for High, I tend to think of Epic as the Black-and-White, Tolkien-Jordan-Erikson style plot fantasy, and High as more of a setting related label, and I apply it to Tolkienesque fantasy with elves and dwarves and such things — I’m doubt that this is the way others do it, though, so I’ll probably have to change my views here. I do, however, like the way this (i.e. my) use of the High label works with the Low label, as they in concert reflect the distinction between fantasy set in secondary worlds and fantasy set in our world.
On a different note entirely, to me “maybe you’ll love it like nobody’s business” sounds kinda perverted. But that’s probably just me.
21. April 2007 @ 22:35 ( Permalink )
“You suggest that sci-fi and fantasy are treated differently than other forms of fiction, in that they’re classified as such mainly because of their setting, while most* other works of fiction are classified by their plot, narrative and story?”
Exactly so. Nobody goes around saying “I hate books set in dictatorships in the 20th century!”, though those would be just as fictional as fantasy and sci-fi-books, and the clear, distinct similarities between the settings I think is arguably as big.
“American Gods” is indeed a good example. As is the entire Malazan-series, and, so far, Song of Ice and Fire, though it seems like it has potential to “go epic” near the end, what with the Others and the Three Dragons and the One God and everything. I think maybe the Deverry-books, if I remember corretly, might at some points deviate rather strongly from the Epic-norm as well. And probably tons of others which don’t spring to mind right now or I simply haven’t read…
I agree on the High-Epic-distinction, I think I at some point used the same one myself, but I’ve fallen a bit behind on the terms. “Still trying not to refer to you lot as ‘bloody colonials.’ ”
“But that’s probably just me.”
WELL UP ‘TIL NOW IT WAS! X(
21. April 2007 @ 23:20 ( Permalink )
*Piz, a new guy in season *3*.
Better to catch one’s mistakes late than never, eh?
23. April 2007 @ 13:23 ( Permalink )