2 ms·

Bingo! Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh? Like I mentioned in a sib comment, it turns out that this was a tension

Bingo! Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh? Like I mentioned in a sib comment, it turns out that this was a tension going right back to the original series. It's hard to write! (You like the Klingons? To me they seemed derivative of (LotR) Orcs but I haven't spent time to really know.) > I miss that, because (with the possible exception of the Orville) there's nothing like that anymore. I've been thirsty as hell for some good (video) sci-fi for a while now and have been looking and (IMO) you're correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_films_of_the_2010s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_films_... (And don't get me started on the blurring of the "sci-fi" genre. Superhero movies are not sci-fi. Sharks attacking are not sci-fi even if they have lasers on their heads, or six heads, or swim through ice. Fast & Furious isn't sci-fi. Harry Potter isn't sci-fi. (WTF Sy-fy channel!?) Zombies aren't sci-fi. Nor vampires, nor bigfoot, nor giant animals. Godzilla isn't sci-fi. I'm just ranting... ignore me. Swords and magic: not sci-fi. ...okay I think I'm done...)

throwanem 7y ago
> Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh? There's a hell of a take! Whatever Roddenberry's virtues, I don't recall him ever having the gumption to write a story in which the heroes go to war against the gods because the gods aren't doing it right. (It's a very Klingon thing to do, though, unless Worf was joking about that.)
- carapace 7y ago
  Yeah, sorry, I went for name recognition rather than accuracy or precision. You make very good points.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    Fair, and thank you! Fwiw, I'd have aimed the shot at the 2003 Battlestar Galactica instead, where it is very much deserved. Wild that Ronald Moore, who wrote so much of what's best in TNG, could also produce something that's so grim for the sake of grimness...
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I personally loved the reimagined BSG in its own way (different from my feelings for Star Trek or B5). I only wish they'd explored the hybrid utterings angle further, there was a lot of space for some out-there (and possibly Lovecraftian) ideas.
    - carapace 7y ago
      Cheers! I want to add that I'm impressed by the depth and breadth of your lore. :-) BG is better, yeah, but having thought about it I should have said Andromeda! :-D
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh? I'd wish! I find B5 to be great in a different way than Star Trek. It has one of the deepest and most interesting stories I've ever seen explored in sci-fi on the screen. I wish there was another show like this. Alas, it seems that if you take away a vision for a better future, the shows you get today are cookie-cutter action flicks. They're sometimes fun to watch, but I don't feel enriched in a way I felt after Star Trek or B5. > (You like the Klingons? To me they seemed derivative of (LotR) Orcs but I haven't spent time to really know.) Not initially, and not from the looks - though the series did manage to (spoiler alert) turn them into what you'd expect to see in TNG in the latter seasons. What I liked about the Klingons in DIS is that they didn't feel like space brutes who value violence and hate the Federation for no reasons. In DIS, they had a good reason, that resonates with people today - cultural imperialism. They went to war with the Federation because they felt it's the only way to protect their cultural identity, as they perceived UFP to be a civilization that conquers in times of peace, through slowly infusing everyone with their views and values. The DIS Klingons have seen that as a threat to the survival of their species' identity. And put that way, it's a very believable as a justification for conflict. > And don't get me started on the blurring of the "sci-fi" genre. (...) In complete agreement (though I liked Iron Man 1; it was more serious than other MCU movies, and also scratched my tech porn itch). My additional complaint is the pressure put on inter-character drama and general "character development". As I often repeat, if I wanted to watch the deep emotional struggles of people and their relationships, I'd pick literally any other literal/movie genre. Sci-fi (and to some extent fantasy) is unique, because it can get away with extensive world building and exploring ideas that are hard to explore otherwise. It serves as a real-life holodeck simulation. And I'd prefer my sci-fi to focus on that.
- carapace 7y ago
  In re: B5, I've a confession to make. I never watched it. I've seen a few episodes, of course, but I was homeless at the time it ran and I've just never gotten around to it since. I should probably go order the DVD set right now, eh? I know a teeny bit about the story and characters, and I've heard that it was written as a single super-arc, which sounds awesome. Those Klingons sound more interesting than what I was afraid they were like. > My additional complaint is the pressure put on inter-character drama and general "character development". As I often repeat, if I wanted to watch the deep emotional struggles of people and their relationships, I'd pick literally any other literal/movie genre. Sci-fi (and to some extent fantasy) is unique, because it can get away with extensive world building and exploring ideas that are hard to explore otherwise. It serves as a real-life holodeck simulation. And I'd prefer my sci-fi to focus on that. I couldn't have put it better myself. So much this. And I find it doubly exasperating because there's so much written science-fiction to draw on, going back decades! Where is the movie/mini-series of "Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? ...oh! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress#Film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress#F... > In 2015, it was announced that Bryan Singer was attached to direct a film adaptation, entitled Uprising, in development at 20th Century Fox. I wonder if that's still happening? I think "The Legacy of Heorot" would work really well as a movie. I know it's kind of a cliche (and more work than it seems) but I kind really want to start a sci-fi production house... just a little one. Y'know? Specializing in hard sci-fi mostly, but not neglecting the other, uh, dimensions worth exploring.

throwanem 7y ago

> Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh? There's a hell of a take! Whatever Roddenberry's virtues, I don't recall him ever having the gumption to write a story in which the heroes go to war against the gods because the gods aren't doing it right. (It's a very Klingon thing to do, though, unless Worf was joking about that.)

carapace 7y ago
Yeah, sorry, I went for name recognition rather than accuracy or precision. You make very good points.
- throwanem 7y ago
  Fair, and thank you! Fwiw, I'd have aimed the shot at the 2003 Battlestar Galactica instead, where it is very much deserved. Wild that Ronald Moore, who wrote so much of what's best in TNG, could also produce something that's so grim for the sake of grimness...
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I personally loved the reimagined BSG in its own way (different from my feelings for Star Trek or B5). I only wish they'd explored the hybrid utterings angle further, there was a lot of space for some out-there (and possibly Lovecraftian) ideas.
  - carapace 7y ago
    Cheers! I want to add that I'm impressed by the depth and breadth of your lore. :-) BG is better, yeah, but having thought about it I should have said Andromeda! :-D

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> Take away Roddenberry's vision of a better future and you've got Babylon 5, eh? I'd wish! I find B5 to be great in a different way than Star Trek. It has one of the deepest and most interesting stories I've ever seen explored in sci-fi on the screen. I wish there was another show like this. Alas, it seems that if you take away a vision for a better future, the shows you get today are cookie-cutter action flicks. They're sometimes fun to watch, but I don't feel enriched in a way I felt after Star Trek or B5. > (You like the Klingons? To me they seemed derivative of (LotR) Orcs but I haven't spent time to really know.) Not initially, and not from the looks - though the series did manage to (spoiler alert) turn them into what you'd expect to see in TNG in the latter seasons. What I liked about the Klingons in DIS is that they didn't feel like space brutes who value violence and hate the Federation for no reasons. In DIS, they had a good reason, that resonates with people today - cultural imperialism. They went to war with the Federation because they felt it's the only way to protect their cultural identity, as they perceived UFP to be a civilization that conquers in times of peace, through slowly infusing everyone with their views and values. The DIS Klingons have seen that as a threat to the survival of their species' identity. And put that way, it's a very believable as a justification for conflict. > And don't get me started on the blurring of the "sci-fi" genre. (...) In complete agreement (though I liked Iron Man 1; it was more serious than other MCU movies, and also scratched my tech porn itch). My additional complaint is the pressure put on inter-character drama and general "character development". As I often repeat, if I wanted to watch the deep emotional struggles of people and their relationships, I'd pick literally any other literal/movie genre. Sci-fi (and to some extent fantasy) is unique, because it can get away with extensive world building and exploring ideas that are hard to explore otherwise. It serves as a real-life holodeck simulation. And I'd prefer my sci-fi to focus on that.

carapace 7y ago
In re: B5, I've a confession to make. I never watched it. I've seen a few episodes, of course, but I was homeless at the time it ran and I've just never gotten around to it since. I should probably go order the DVD set right now, eh? I know a teeny bit about the story and characters, and I've heard that it was written as a single super-arc, which sounds awesome. Those Klingons sound more interesting than what I was afraid they were like. > My additional complaint is the pressure put on inter-character drama and general "character development". As I often repeat, if I wanted to watch the deep emotional struggles of people and their relationships, I'd pick literally any other literal/movie genre. Sci-fi (and to some extent fantasy) is unique, because it can get away with extensive world building and exploring ideas that are hard to explore otherwise. It serves as a real-life holodeck simulation. And I'd prefer my sci-fi to focus on that. I couldn't have put it better myself. So much this. And I find it doubly exasperating because there's so much written science-fiction to draw on, going back decades! Where is the movie/mini-series of "Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? ...oh! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress#Film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress#F... > In 2015, it was announced that Bryan Singer was attached to direct a film adaptation, entitled Uprising, in development at 20th Century Fox. I wonder if that's still happening? I think "The Legacy of Heorot" would work really well as a movie. I know it's kind of a cliche (and more work than it seems) but I kind really want to start a sci-fi production house... just a little one. Y'know? Specializing in hard sci-fi mostly, but not neglecting the other, uh, dimensions worth exploring.