2 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoYeah, sorry, I went for name recognition rather than accuracy or precision. You make very good points.
- throwanem 7y agoFair, 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 agoI 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 agoCheers! 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