4 ms·

I think CGI-wise we are just spoiled by the multi-million dollar blockbuster CGI. For the time and the media their CGI is pretty good. And yes, it's not perfect

by smsm42 2y ago

I think CGI-wise we are just spoiled by the multi-million dollar blockbuster CGI. For the time and the media their CGI is pretty good. And yes, it's not perfect, but completely adequate to the time I think. And I don't think the aliens looked "silly" at all - I saw much worse work on many shows, I think B5 had good variety and depth without going overboard - when you shooting over a hundred episodes, making designs that would take 12 hours for an actor to get into is going to be kinda hard. And to be honest, probably won't add that much to the show beyond the initial novelty moment.

actionfromafar 2y ago
The CGI got comments when I talked about it with friends back then. “Oh that show with the cheesy effects?” I also don’t think it was too bad for its time, but I think it was too early to rely on CGI to that extent. Great show though.
- compsciphd 2y ago
  watching on a small 4x3 TV in the 90s, the CGI didn't bother me.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    It was state of the art for 3d CGI during its time, but it also happened at a time when miniature > 3d CGI. The station still looks pretty great...
  - willcipriano 2y ago
    The CGI doesn't bother me now, the space scenes are a small part of the show. This isn't Trek where the Enterprise is a character in and of itself. This is more Deep Space Nine. Babylon 5 is about politics and personalities, the spaceships and stuff are just the background.
    - devoutsalsa 2y ago
      In my opinion, the 30 year old B5 CGI is better than the most recent season of Star Trek Discovery in 2024, which I found to be quite bad, especially in the opening scene of the first episode.
      - smsm42 2y ago
        Well, comparing things to the STD is not really setting a high bar on anything IMHO :)
      - willcipriano 2y ago
        B5 was more tasteful with it. They knew the limitations and steered into what they could do well. Tom Bakers Doctor Who I think is the best example of using a shoestring budget to tell huge sci-fi stories well. B5 takes a lot from that book.
        smsm42 2y ago
        Yeah I thought about Doctor Who too, and if you look on it over its history the designs there are pretty basic and yet I never felt anything was really missing there. It's not about prettiest pictures.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      It's no coincidence that you noticed similarities with DS9 - Paramount ripped off[1] the BS5 script J. Michael Straczynski had submitted to them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtaDXnB1YsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtaDXnB1YsA
      - smsm42 2y ago
        Wow! Never heard about it. That may explain why I like DS9 the most of all the Trek things.
SkeuomorphicBee 2y ago
> "For the time and the media their CGI is pretty good. And yes, it's not perfect, but completely adequate to the time I think." I watched it then, and i can tell you that NO, it wasn't pretty good for the time nor the media, it was terrible even for that time. Not because their CGI was particulary worse, but because all CGI was terrible at the time. The technology wasn't ready yet to do much, so everyone else at the time relied on practical effects, miniatures, and built full set; but for practicality and cost reasons they decided to use the crude CGI of the time for many things that were not good enouth at the time, and it shown terribly. In subsequent seasons they walked back that decision slightly, mostly abandoning CGI for indoor scenes in favour of building sets for their actors like everyone else. And the last few seasons had fairly good CGI for external shots of the station and ships, because by that time the tech evolved to be good enouth (that is when you start seeing such CGI being used in all other shows as well).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by smsm42 2y ago

actionfromafar 2y ago

The CGI got comments when I talked about it with friends back then. “Oh that show with the cheesy effects?” I also don’t think it was too bad for its time, but I think it was too early to rely on CGI to that extent. Great show though.

compsciphd 2y ago
watching on a small 4x3 TV in the 90s, the CGI didn't bother me.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  It was state of the art for 3d CGI during its time, but it also happened at a time when miniature > 3d CGI. The station still looks pretty great...
- willcipriano 2y ago
  The CGI doesn't bother me now, the space scenes are a small part of the show. This isn't Trek where the Enterprise is a character in and of itself. This is more Deep Space Nine. Babylon 5 is about politics and personalities, the spaceships and stuff are just the background.
  - devoutsalsa 2y ago
    In my opinion, the 30 year old B5 CGI is better than the most recent season of Star Trek Discovery in 2024, which I found to be quite bad, especially in the opening scene of the first episode.
    - smsm42 2y ago
      Well, comparing things to the STD is not really setting a high bar on anything IMHO :)
    - willcipriano 2y ago
      B5 was more tasteful with it. They knew the limitations and steered into what they could do well. Tom Bakers Doctor Who I think is the best example of using a shoestring budget to tell huge sci-fi stories well. B5 takes a lot from that book.
      - smsm42 2y ago
        Yeah I thought about Doctor Who too, and if you look on it over its history the designs there are pretty basic and yet I never felt anything was really missing there. It's not about prettiest pictures.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    It's no coincidence that you noticed similarities with DS9 - Paramount ripped off[1] the BS5 script J. Michael Straczynski had submitted to them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtaDXnB1YsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtaDXnB1YsA
    - smsm42 2y ago
      Wow! Never heard about it. That may explain why I like DS9 the most of all the Trek things.

SkeuomorphicBee 2y ago

> "For the time and the media their CGI is pretty good. And yes, it's not perfect, but completely adequate to the time I think." I watched it then, and i can tell you that NO, it wasn't pretty good for the time nor the media, it was terrible even for that time. Not because their CGI was particulary worse, but because all CGI was terrible at the time. The technology wasn't ready yet to do much, so everyone else at the time relied on practical effects, miniatures, and built full set; but for practicality and cost reasons they decided to use the crude CGI of the time for many things that were not good enouth at the time, and it shown terribly. In subsequent seasons they walked back that decision slightly, mostly abandoning CGI for indoor scenes in favour of building sets for their actors like everyone else. And the last few seasons had fairly good CGI for external shots of the station and ships, because by that time the tech evolved to be good enouth (that is when you start seeing such CGI being used in all other shows as well).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]