Jump to content

Babylon 5


Spence

Recommended Posts

So apparently JMS will be making a new Babylon 5 universe show.  Not a lot of details except it will not be a "reboot" and it will not include characters from the original B5. 

JMS has said that it will allow him to make the story that he originally wanted to. 

 

But it will be on the CW.  I don't really know what to think.

 

The B5 universe has a lot of great stories to tell, but will it be a solid show where the story was the priority like the original? Or will it be yet another modern production where identity politics is everything and story is a distant afterthought which has become the CW standard? 

 

From what I have read JMS is supposed to have complete control and according to a message (maybe twitter) his script has has been approved and he is only waiting for the final green light.  If he is still the JMS that made the original and actually has control this might be good.  After all Star Trek spawned TNG, DS9 and ENT. 

 

But CW...........

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   I’ve had this conversation in a couple of different places.   The main factor in all this is something we have no way of knowing.....How much fight does JMS have left in him?
    There are of course stories left to tell in the B5’verse.  The lost tales were kind of a bust. They seemed more like some of his old Twilight Zone scripts recycled for B5, but Crusade and Legend of the Rangers were very good.  Crusade especially had many potential seasons in it.  The Drak plague was only going to go one additional season before being cured and then the show was going to focus on the the darker forces still maneuvering about the galaxy.

    But the CW has never been very interested in shows with deep plot lines and mature casts. Whether it’s soap opera or flashy action-adventure their stars don’t tend to be older than their late 20’s.

   To keep Babylon 5 on course it’s going to take a show runner who can go toe to toe with the network on a weekly or even daily basis.  There have to be easier and probably more profitable things for JMS to do with his time.

   Seeing a hacked up version of this show would drive a stake thru my heart.  During a very bleak time in my life, looking forward to this show every week was all I had to keep me motivated. For the one hour of the show and for a few hours after I would be happy. I would rather have that memory than the same sick to my stomach anger I have towards Green Hornet. I’ll watch and wait, but I’m not hopeful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tjack said:

   I’ve had this conversation in a couple of different places.   The main factor in all this is something we have no way of knowing.....How much fight does JMS have left in him?
    There are of course stories left to tell in the B5’verse.  The lost tales were kind of a bust. They seemed more like some of his old Twilight Zone scripts recycled for B5, but Crusade and Legend of the Rangers were very good.  Crusade especially had many potential seasons in it.  The Drak plague was only going to go one additional season before being cured and then the show was going to focus on the the darker forces still maneuvering about the galaxy.

    But the CW has never been very interested in shows with deep plot lines and mature casts. Whether it’s soap opera or flashy action-adventure their stars don’t tend to be older than their late 20’s.

   To keep Babylon 5 on course it’s going to take a show runner who can go toe to toe with the network on a weekly or even daily basis.  There have to be easier and probably more profitable things for JMS to do with his time.

   Seeing a hacked up version of this show would drive a stake thru my heart.  During a very bleak time in my life, looking forward to this show every week was all I had to keep me motivated. For the one hour of the show and for a few hours after I would be happy. I would rather have that memory than the same sick to my stomach anger I have towards Green Hornet. I’ll watch and wait, but I’m not hopeful.

 

All I can say is "Yep, nailed it".

 

Green Hornet and Starship Troopers......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spence said:

 

All I can say is "Yep, nailed it".

 

Green Hornet and Starship Troopers......


   While I agree that Starship Troopers is a horrible adaptation by a Director who’s apparently still dealing with his mom being constantly short changed while working as a wh0re for the Nazis when they invaded his country and therefor despises all military and was dopy enough to have a star that looks like the a Third Reich recruiting poster play a character from Rio de Janerio named Juan Rico. And costumes that look like he got them from the wardrobe dept. of Schindler’s List.

   When friends asked why I never went off on the film I told them that Virginia Heinlein was now a widow with limited funds and her and her husbands medical bills to pay.  So every time anybody said or did something stupid I just pictured a cash register ringing and a bunch of bills being stamped PAID.

   But I’m not bitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

But also Superman and Lois. More mature characters, more sophisticated scripts, better SFX. Of course the CW isn't the only production company backing S&L, and its budget is higher than typical for that network.

I heard rumors it was moving to HBO Max (Warner's streaming service) but I'm not certain.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, death tribble said:

I have no problem with the movie version of Starship Troopers. And I read the book before I saw the film.

Heresy I know but I understand why they didn't do the full body armour. Look at what they did with Iron Man to see a contrasting view.

 

Green lantern on the other hand........


   Not doing the jump armor wasn’t ever a problem for me.  It was turning Heinlein’s memories of basic training and treatise on personal vs. political responsibility into an platform of the film directors views that all military action equals fascism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Tjack said:


   Not doing the jump armor wasn’t ever a problem for me.  It was turning Heinlein’s memories of basic training and treatise on personal vs. political responsibility into an platform of the film directors views that all military action equals fascism. 

 

I saw the movie more as a critique of American jingoism, and the end-product of not heeding Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex. Like DT, I had read the book (several times) before seeing the film, and don't really have a problem with the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

 

I saw the movie more as a critique of American jingoism, and the end-product of not heeding Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex. Like DT, I had read the book (several times) before seeing the film, and don't really have a problem with the movie.


   As to Paul Verhoven’s opinions about any military vs. strictly America’s I’m going by his statements on the subject.

If you enjoyed the movie then we respectively can agree to disagree,  although I will admit to being fond of Dina Meyers shower scene.😈

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verhoeven's movie is about as accurate an adaptation of Heinlein's book as Cameron's Aliens movie is. That is to say they all have "marines" fighting aggressive aliens with a hive-like organization. And that's pretty much it. A (more) faithful adaptation of the book--and I'm not just talking about the powered armor, but also the political and social philosophy behind it all--would have far more interesting things to say and questions to pose (to audiences) than Verhoeven's movie, IMO. But somebody would have to pry the IP rights from Sony's death grip first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tjack said:


   Not doing the jump armor wasn’t ever a problem for me.  It was turning Heinlein’s memories of basic training and treatise on personal vs. political responsibility into an platform of the film directors views that all military action equals fascism. 

 

3 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

I saw the movie more as a critique of American jingoism, and the end-product of not heeding Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex. Like DT, I had read the book (several times) before seeing the film, and don't really have a problem with the movie.

 

It depends on the version of the book you read.  The actual book as written, or the various "corrected" versions edited after he died.

Most of the times I hear people talk about the book I know they didn't actually read it.  Especially if they say that the government in the book was a militaristic one with only veterans being able to vote or hold office.

But the movie was a complete miss if it was trying to resemble the book.   Or any topics in the book. 

 

The saddest thing is the so called movie dumbed down or simply erased significant parts.  Instead of the bugs being an advanced civilization with starships and hi tech weaponry, they became mindless insects and farted starships out of the sky. 

 

A "bug-hunt"?  Sure. 

Starship Troopers, not.

 

The maybe good news is that there is a movie in work.  I don't remember the name of the guy that will be making it, I very seldom remember anyone in Follywood anymore.  But it the short clip I watched he has actually read the book and wasn't impressed with the fiasco that was made before.  He actually touched on several of the key points that were central themes to the actual book and completely ignored by V'dumba$$. 

 

While I have come to believe that Follywood is incapable of actually producing entertainment anymore.  There have been a small microscopic number of films that against all reason or hope were actually entertaining and well made.   Dune is one and I understand the last Spiderman as well.  One day when it releases, I plan to watch it.  The last Ghostbusters wasn't as strong as Dune IMO, but it was definitely a great and entertaining movie.  One of the better movies in the last year or so. 

 

But for Starship Troopers it could be a fantastic movie especially if they hired an actual combat veteran to "translate" the concepts and avoid the preconceptions by head in the sand Follywood. 

1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

Here's the original thread on the new Babylon 5 series--perhaps the discussion should be continued there.

 

Thanks, I didn't see that one and for some reason my Hero Forums Search-Fu failed :nonp:

 

Wow!  I had even responded in the other thread a while ago. 

They say the mind is the first thing to go.......:stupid:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

 

It depends on the version of the book you read.  The actual book as written, or the various "corrected" versions edited after he died.

Most of the times I hear people talk about the book I know they didn't actually read it.  Especially if they say that the government in the book was a militaristic one with only veterans being able to vote or hold office.

 

 

The actual requirement to vote or hold office in the book was to have performed Federal service--usually military, but there were other forms of service available. Mind you, it's been at least a decade since I last read it, so my details may be a bit fuzzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

The actual requirement to vote or hold office in the book was to have performed Federal service--usually military, but there were other forms of service available. Mind you, it's been at least a decade since I last read it, so my details may be a bit fuzzy.

Actually the military was the least used path and the MI was really looked down on as a "useless" vestige of an earlier era.  Federal Service could be anything.

The "navy" was a actually mostly consisting of cargo ships to supply the colonies. 

The only reason that the book features the military is because the central character was in the MI.  In the book it pointed out that "what" you did to gain you franchise of citizenship and the vote wasn't important.  What was important was you committed and completed service period of two years.

 

“Why, the purpose is,” he answered, hauling off and hitting me in the knee with a hammer (I kicked him, but not hard), “to find out what duties you are physically able to perform. But if you came in here in a wheel chair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find something silly enough to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe. The only way you can fail is by having the psychiatrists decide that you are not able to understand the oath.”

Heinlein, Robert A.. Starship Troopers (p. 33). Penguin Publishing Group.

 

IIRC the MI only had two brigades in total and the only military starships were the Fleet Transport Corvettes used to move the MI. The entire "military" was essentially seed stock in case there ever arose a need to defend humanity. 

 

The entire first part of the book was the MC going through MI training while literally everyone he knew, including his family, thought he was throwing his future away.  And the MI was constantly trying to get them to quit and go do something else.   The after the Bug War started was humanity getting is collective a$$ kicked and having to throw its very few combat troops into hit and run raids as they lost colony after colony.  Things didn't start turning around until the last few chapters as they started cranking out actual warships as well as getting trained troops to flesh out the MI. 

 

But the big thing is that Federal Service could be military, but 99% of it wasn't.  The concept was that in order to be a full citizen and uphold the responsibility of the vote, you demonstrated a minimum ability to be reliable and complete a beneficial function.  Be it cleaning bedpans at a hospital or driving a delivery truck. 

More of a Meritocracy than anything else.

 

None of that is in any way reflected in the movie.

Instead we get bugs and a cheap image of fascism. 

By cheap I mean is makes light humor about a seriously screwed up reality. 

Extremely sad....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been a long time since I read it too...probably about 8 years ago or so.  But Dubois was pretty heavily the philosophical POV character...and he was ex-MI, and advocated for it.  It is also pretty commonly believed Dubois is Heinlein's stand-in.  

 

So, yeah, the militaristic aspect can readily be inferred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...