I was a bit surprised to see that there is no Babylon 5 thread - I'm pretty sure that lots of people have seen this series in a place like this.
Babylon 5 is widely praised as a really really good sci-fi series. On the other hand, it is still surprisingly conventional in many ways, and of course there's the standard "it's not sci-fi, it's just space opera" criticism. Some will probably be put off even by the occasional silly humour.
So, what do you people think? Am I right in seeing this as not only good in its genre, but overall a VERY good series, or is it just crap? Naturally, any random B5 discussion will fit nicely in here.
A few random thoughts:
It was a decent but somewhat uneven show. Certainly outstanding, but the accolades it receives are more indicative of the sorry state of SF on the screen than of the show's quality in itself.
Highlights:
pretty much everything with Londo and/or G'kar. Garibaldi. The Narn-Centauri conflict was well done. In general it were the side characters and side stories that kept me watching.
What annoyed me was how it turned from "somewhat serious" SF (limited scope, everday political bickering, and occasionally even Newtonian movement) more and more into chliche-ridden space opera (yet another galactic war with lots of rayguns and 'splosions and magical bio-tech).
O yeah, and O'Hare > Boxleitner.
>>1
<3 B5. I need to see the entire series at some point, I've only seen a large amount of episodes.
B5 rules. PERIOD
B5 was great until the shadow war ended, then it pretty much lost any kind of direction and the "magic" it had because the Shadows/Vorlons/other mysteries were already solved at this time, and there was no strong storyline to follow.
B5 was awesome because of it's politics and psychology.
Though it was indeed an uneven show, but I'd say it's more than good enough, even with the less good moments.