3 ms·

I remember watching Babylon 5 when I was young, but I was probably too young to grasp all the meanings. I will rewatch it, thanks!

throwanem 6y ago
Oh, do! I also saw a few early episodes as a kid, but didn't really have a chance to get what they were trying to do; it wasn't until years later, when I had a chance to watch the full series straight through thanks to a friend's carefully made VHS tapes, that any of what I was seeing really made sense to me. Nothing since then has even come close to replacing B5 at the head of my SF TV affections. Reflecting on that experience, I think the major flaw of B5 is that, in structure and intent, it was twenty or more years ahead of its time. Given the handicaps under which the creators then had to labor, it's even more remarkable how much they accomplished - B5 might have been the very first example of what we today call the 'binge-worthy show', made on a shoestring in a time when syndication and time slots and missed episodes were still problems that a show could have. This show overcame them admirably - even so, I can't help but wish a little for the chance to see what the same people could've accomplished today, with the kind of resources available for something like Stranger Things. That won't happen, of course, not least because the show is niche even by comparison with something like Firefly. For the same reason, even a Trek-style HD remaster is unlikely - a shame in its own right, since the then-revolutionary CGI space effects are by far the part of the show that's aged most badly, and a shame all over again because the creators were looking far enough ahead to shoot in 16:9 and 5.1 surround throughout, which would give an HD remaster the kind of payoff that, if we're being honest, the ones done for old Trek shows never really have. In any case, it's a small miracle the show got made at all, and another that it ended up being so close to what JMS intended it to be. Anyone who can enjoy TNG or DS9 today can, I think, enjoy B5 at least as well, and on that basis I recommend it without the slightest reservation.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  I'll definitely watch then, thank you. As a sidenote, I think that the TNG I watched has remastered CGI. I remember remarking how good the CGI looked for the 90s, and realized/heard later than they redid all the CGI. The new CGI was definitely not out of place, if not fairly good, but I'm not entirely sure that what I'm saying is true. Just mentioning it in case you wanted to look into it.
  - BugWatch 6y ago
    TMK very little of its effects are strictly new: almost all are digitally re-composited, color-corrected and slightly enhanced high-resolution scans of the original film footage (which used physical models and optical effects), since they were still available. IIRC, planets - as seen from space - are a notable exception (and better for it). It was a major remastering process, with beautiful results. (Although major, remastering cost less (for the whole series) than a single episode of the (IMO) abomination called "Discovery".) Sadly, such an approach is impossible for the majority parts of the latter series (DS9, VOY) since their effects were mostly CGI, and rendered directly to standard definition video. Further more, many of the 3D models and scenes have been lost, so it would probably require a total effects re-do from scratch (on top of film stock scans), which is "a very costly proposition with questionable (financial) returns".
  - throwanem 6y ago
    I saw the originals when they were first broadcast, and have since seen the remasters. The latter definitely improve on the look of the series, but incrementally, and they also suffer from some of the same problem that led the makers of Generations to underlight scenes on, and finally blow up, the Enterprise-D: while TNG's space effects were on par with movies of their time, its sets and props were decidedly not, having been designed with the understanding that SD TV quality would hide a lot of imperfections that would be visible otherwise. Beside that, the pillarboxing necessary to render 4:3 content on a 16:9 display feels really obtrusive these days, or so at least I've come to find it since 16:9 became the standard. The thing about B5 is that few of its space scenes involve much compositing, since they were all CGI from the start and compositing was hard back then. For that reason, I think a space-effects redo would be unusually feasible for that show, albeit still too expensive for anyone to actually do one. A harder, if smaller, remastering issue would be that they shot practical effects on video and special effects on film, largely due to that being the cheapest option for both. In standard definition you can't really see the difference, but watching the show today you definitely do.

throwanem 6y ago

Oh, do! I also saw a few early episodes as a kid, but didn't really have a chance to get what they were trying to do; it wasn't until years later, when I had a chance to watch the full series straight through thanks to a friend's carefully made VHS tapes, that any of what I was seeing really made sense to me. Nothing since then has even come close to replacing B5 at the head of my SF TV affections. Reflecting on that experience, I think the major flaw of B5 is that, in structure and intent, it was twenty or more years ahead of its time. Given the handicaps under which the creators then had to labor, it's even more remarkable how much they accomplished - B5 might have been the very first example of what we today call the 'binge-worthy show', made on a shoestring in a time when syndication and time slots and missed episodes were still problems that a show could have. This show overcame them admirably - even so, I can't help but wish a little for the chance to see what the same people could've accomplished today, with the kind of resources available for something like Stranger Things. That won't happen, of course, not least because the show is niche even by comparison with something like Firefly. For the same reason, even a Trek-style HD remaster is unlikely - a shame in its own right, since the then-revolutionary CGI space effects are by far the part of the show that's aged most badly, and a shame all over again because the creators were looking far enough ahead to shoot in 16:9 and 5.1 surround throughout, which would give an HD remaster the kind of payoff that, if we're being honest, the ones done for old Trek shows never really have. In any case, it's a small miracle the show got made at all, and another that it ended up being so close to what JMS intended it to be. Anyone who can enjoy TNG or DS9 today can, I think, enjoy B5 at least as well, and on that basis I recommend it without the slightest reservation.

StavrosK 6y ago
I'll definitely watch then, thank you. As a sidenote, I think that the TNG I watched has remastered CGI. I remember remarking how good the CGI looked for the 90s, and realized/heard later than they redid all the CGI. The new CGI was definitely not out of place, if not fairly good, but I'm not entirely sure that what I'm saying is true. Just mentioning it in case you wanted to look into it.
- BugWatch 6y ago
  TMK very little of its effects are strictly new: almost all are digitally re-composited, color-corrected and slightly enhanced high-resolution scans of the original film footage (which used physical models and optical effects), since they were still available. IIRC, planets - as seen from space - are a notable exception (and better for it). It was a major remastering process, with beautiful results. (Although major, remastering cost less (for the whole series) than a single episode of the (IMO) abomination called "Discovery".) Sadly, such an approach is impossible for the majority parts of the latter series (DS9, VOY) since their effects were mostly CGI, and rendered directly to standard definition video. Further more, many of the 3D models and scenes have been lost, so it would probably require a total effects re-do from scratch (on top of film stock scans), which is "a very costly proposition with questionable (financial) returns".
- throwanem 6y ago
  I saw the originals when they were first broadcast, and have since seen the remasters. The latter definitely improve on the look of the series, but incrementally, and they also suffer from some of the same problem that led the makers of Generations to underlight scenes on, and finally blow up, the Enterprise-D: while TNG's space effects were on par with movies of their time, its sets and props were decidedly not, having been designed with the understanding that SD TV quality would hide a lot of imperfections that would be visible otherwise. Beside that, the pillarboxing necessary to render 4:3 content on a 16:9 display feels really obtrusive these days, or so at least I've come to find it since 16:9 became the standard. The thing about B5 is that few of its space scenes involve much compositing, since they were all CGI from the start and compositing was hard back then. For that reason, I think a space-effects redo would be unusually feasible for that show, albeit still too expensive for anyone to actually do one. A harder, if smaller, remastering issue would be that they shot practical effects on video and special effects on film, largely due to that being the cheapest option for both. In standard definition you can't really see the difference, but watching the show today you definitely do.