B5TV.COM. Babylon 5 forums Babylon 5 message for the fans from Claudia Christian Babylon 5
Old May 27th 19, 19:20   #161
Looney
Telepath
 
Looney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Middle West U.S.
Posts: 572
Re: Game of Thrones, HBO series

A lot to think about, but most noteably where the conclusion of this epic compares and contrasts to Babylon 5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
But isn't that also how Babylon 5 ended? Even after the formation of the Alliance, the same shit continued to happen as we saw in Deconstruction of Falling Stars. Besides, I had the impression that the political situation at the end of the show implied there would be peace - at least for the foreseeable future.
In answer to Springer's question about this being the same way Babylon 5 ended I say no. On the surface there are many similarities in structure, but that is about it. With Babylon 5 we have a new alliance and a new community coming together with hope for a better world. Game of Thrones on the flip side has not much of a new alliance and an old community coming together in a slightly different way than they had before and missing a huge chunk of itself. So where as B5 has many groups coming together to start something new, Game of Thrones has fewer groups than they started with trying to do things in a slightly new way. In Babylon 5 these groups have come together to make themselves stronger and more united. In Game of Thrones these groups have come together out of a new necessity for survival.

I really would be sooo much more satisfied with this aspect of the finale if Sansa hadn't been allowed to branch off. Now many might argue that the Interstellar Alliance was moving forward without one of its largest members, The Centauri, just like The NOW Six Kingdoms were moving forward without The North. Firstly, The Interstellar Alliance started out with The Centauri. It was only through the intervention of dark forces that the Centauri were forced to separate. Sansa chose to say no to unity from the start. AND roughly speaking she chose to take huge portion of the realm with her. I forget the exact comparison, but wasn't The North fully 1/3rd or close to half of Seven Kingdoms? That puts the Six Kingdoms at an enormous disadvantage where the Interstellar Alliance brought more groups together than had been united before. If Sansa had not fractured off then I would say there is more of a comparison, but what she did was the opposite of what we saw with B5.

And with both series we know the same things will continue to happen. Wars will come, but in Babylon 5 there is hope that those in the Alliance are better prepared. In Game of Thrones they are more like one attack away from being wiped off the face of the map.

Anyway long story long, Babylon 5 ends on a note of progress, change, and unity in hopes of creating strength and a better future. Game of Thrones ends with a fractured and weakened nation that is vulnerable and has made one minor step toward a positive future. So I don't see the comparison in the regard of future prosperity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
Let's face it, we'll be watching Daenerys from a different perspective from now on!
See I was already there. I saw the monster inside her the whole time. My hope was that this story was about a character's growth and learning to conqueror her demons to do the right thing. That is why I thought it was great when it was suggested her ending might be that she realizes she has to give up the crown and possibly her life for the good of the people. I don't need to see her journey again because the monster was always there and I saw it. It was those around her who kept her in check and made her better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
I asked the question earlier, if it had been B5 instead of GoT, how would we be reacting?
I'm not sure what you mean? Are you asking how we would react if Delenn had decided to blow up the station? Well that wouldn't make sense. As I said before, the monster was always in Daenerys. I'm not saying her actions didn't make sense, I am saying the decision to end her story in this manner was a bad decision. If Babylon 5 had ended in a way that didn't make sense for a story to end I probably wouldn't love it so much, though I often imagine how great it would be to see alternate universe stories. The Shadows won, The Vorlons won, Clark won, Sheridan died and stayed dead on Z'Ha'Dum. Ivanova died and Marcus couldn't bring her back. Of course I would want to see the whole story. If B5 ended on one of those notes, other than Sheridan or Ivanova dying, I probably wouldn't love the series so much.

I will confess there are two things about the end of Babylon 5 that really annoy me. One I didn't think it was realistic that the member planets of the newly formed Interstellar Alliance would be so willing to base the headquarters on Minbar, but I understand the planet of the most powerful member seems the most secure. Second is that the station became redundant. The formation of The Interstellar Alliance should have insured the necessity of Babylon 5 into the distant future. I know JMS wanted there to be story closure and the fulfillment of prophecies, but the destruction should have taken place well into the future. This doesn't ruin the series for me because I know the need for closure when it comes to a story, unlike Game of Thrones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
I certainly remember the bitching after Z'Ha'Dum had aired

All the complaining: where did the Minbari ships that were guarding the station go?
My opinion is that they didn't go anywhere. That was just poor direction and planning. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think we are supposed to believe they were there and it was just a mistake that they forgot to show any of them in those exterior shots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
Why didn't Draal blow the Shadow ships out of the sky?
No actual fighting took place so we don't know that he wouldn't have tried to stop them if they started to fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
Why did the Shadows not check Sheridan for weapons?
Over confidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
How'd he get to that parapet?
I've always assumed it wasn't actually that far from where he had been. So he fought his way into hall and around the corner.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
Why didn't the Shadows just shoot the White Star down?
It all happened so quickly they didn't react in time. I mean we've seen that the surface of the planet didn't appear to have mechanized defenses. That means they solely rely on those ships to defend the planet and maybe the ships just couldn't react fast enough and get where they needed to be to stop it.
Looney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th 19, 12:08   #162
Springer
Ambassador
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 444
Re: Game of Thrones, HBO series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Looney View Post
I'm not sure what you mean?
I was really just alluding to how, if we were watching B5 for the first time now, with all the intensity of people's opinions on social media etc, I wonder how it would be received and whether it would have got the same backlash that GoT has received. The example of Z'Ha'Dum was just to highlight some of the criticisms that I heard when that episode aired (for the record, I don't agree with any of those criticisms, I agree with all of your responses to them, and Z'Ha'Dum is probably my second-favourite episode of the show after Severed Dreams). But imagine the response on social media now to how the Shadow War ended, or how most of season 5 played out, or Lennier's 'heel-turn', Londo's fate, and how we didn't get to see the Telepath War, or Sheridan and Delenn's son etc etc. Given the reactions to the final season of Game of Thrones, I imagine if B5 were new and airing for the first time today, many people's reactions to the choices taken in the show would be equally scathing, if not more so. So I guess I'm just trying to make a comparison between that and the backlash to Game of Thrones.

I think as fans we revere B5 and if we come on here and critique it, that critique is coming from a position of love for the show, where we accept its flaws but our love for the other things that the show did brilliantly far outweighs those flaws - it's a kind of friendly critquing. That's how I wish the reaction to GoT could be, but in general the response seems to be black and white, and very polarising - but that just seems to be how things are these days.
Springer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th 19, 14:13   #163
Looney
Telepath
 
Looney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Middle West U.S.
Posts: 572
Re: Game of Thrones, HBO series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looney View Post
I'm not sure what you mean?
I was really just alluding to how, if we were watching B5 for the first time now, with all the intensity of people's opinions on social media etc, I wonder how it would be received and whether it would have got the same backlash that GoT has received. The example of Z'Ha'Dum was just to highlight some of the criticisms that I heard when that episode aired (for the record, I don't agree with any of those criticisms, I agree with all of your responses to them, and Z'Ha'Dum is probably my second-favourite episode of the show after Severed Dreams). But imagine the response on social media now to how the Shadow War ended, or how most of season 5 played out, or Lennier's 'heel-turn', Londo's fate, and how we didn't get to see the Telepath War, or Sheridan and Delenn's son etc etc. Given the reactions to the final season of Game of Thrones, I imagine if B5 were new and airing for the first time today, many people's reactions to the choices taken in the show would be equally scathing, if not more so. So I guess I'm just trying to make a comparison between that and the backlash to Game of Thrones.

I think as fans we revere B5 and if we come on here and critique it, that critique is coming from a position of love for the show, where we accept its flaws but our love for the other things that the show did brilliantly far outweighs those flaws - it's a kind of friendly critquing. That's how I wish the reaction to GoT could be, but in general the response seems to be black and white, and very polarising - but that just seems to be how things are these days.
That is a VERY interesting point. I KNOW today people would jump all over Sheridan surviving Z'Ha'Dum, but I don't know that they would hate the show as a whole for doing it. But I think they would hate the end of The Shadow War and possibly turn on the show for doing it the way it originally unfolded. But that all depends on how it would be done today. I think we all realize the end of The Shadow War had to be a bit rushed. I think how it concludes is fine. I think the issue is that we don't see enough build up once the actual open fighting starts. I know if B5 were being done today that, in all likelihood, Sheridan does not survive Z'Ha'Dum and we get more episodes involving the actual battles of The Shadow War. I don't necessarily mean we see more CGI space battles, but more episodes to illustrate a passage of time on screen while the war is taking place. I mean I know part of the point was that there really wasn't much in the realm of actual battles because the powers involved were so far superior, but there would likely be more of an illustrated passage of time. Point being, if Babylon 5 were being done today I imagine things would be dramatically different.

But all and all I doubt people would react the same way. Nothing in Babylon 5 takes a heroic character and turns them into a monster who murdered thousands. Londo is the closest, but he ends up with what could be argued a well deserved tragic end. Londo did not always operate out of a desire to help the common good. His own self-interest and the good of the Centauri always took precedence. Jon Snow and Daenerys did not deserve what they got. Up to that point Daenerys had made mistakes, but she did not deserve to be turned into a monster. I don't recall a time when Jon Snow did not try to do the right thing for the good of all. Imagine B5 taking Delenn or Sheridan and having them go crazy and kill thousands so then the other's life is destroyed when they have to execute the monster?

The only character I felt B5 gave an undeserved tragic ending was Lennier, but it made sense and you could kind of see it coming. It was painful, but it was not a moment that turned him into a monster. I doubt people would say the entire series was ruined by what they did to Londo or Lennier or Lyta for that matter. I left out Lyta. I doubt many would think Lyta became a monster and that what she did to Sheridan and the others was a shock. She was mistreated and she started standing up for herself. It was highly inappropriate and over the top, but she did what she felt she had to do.

Now on the lighter side people might turn on the show because of Byron. Of course if the show were being done today that whole situation would likely be very different.

Last edited by Looney; May 28th 19 at 14:16.
Looney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th 19, 16:01   #164
Springer
Ambassador
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 444
Re: Game of Thrones, HBO series

It could be argued that what Londo did was far, far worse than anything Daenerys did, and in a way he got off lightly, compared to Refa. Yes he had to have the keeper but it was his choice, and he continued breathing, at least until he asked G'Kar to end it for him. But, sometimes in real life and in fiction, people don't always get the justice they deserve!

I actually don't think Jon got a bad ending. In fact, it was a much better ending for him than I thought he was going to get! He was conflicted by love and duty, but he chose the hero's choice, and took on that burden to save Westeros - which is what heroes do. And though he was 'banished' to the Night's Watch, he was really going to where he was happiest, beyond the wall with the Wildlings who he helped save. As he watches the gate at Castle Black close, he allows himself a little half-smile. The whole ending, for Tyrion, for Arya, for Sansa, for Jon, was a reminder that there could always be new beginnings - even, as Ivanova said, for people like them. And since Bran and Sansa are both young and will likely have long reigns, and are unlikely to go to war with one another, then peace probably did last on Westeros for a long time (though I could imagine the Ironborn causing minor problems).

That said, if they'd had Jon do what Dany did, which in essence was to lose sight of reality while chasing power (I don't think she is a monster at heart, despite acting monstrously, but maybe I'm splitting the hair too thin with that analysis), I'd have been upset and probably as angry as other viewers who were angry at Dany's turn! So I guess, as Obi-Wan said, it all depends on your point of view.
Springer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th 19, 14:10   #165
Looney
Telepath
 
Looney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Middle West U.S.
Posts: 572
Re: Game of Thrones, HBO series

Sorry I am taking so long, but I will give a proper response when I have time.
Looney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd 19, 16:13   #166
Looney
Telepath
 
Looney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Middle West U.S.
Posts: 572
Re: Game of Thrones, HBO series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
It could be argued that what Londo did was far, far worse than anything Daenerys did, and in a way he got off lightly, compared to Refa.
I disagree that is something that could be argued. She knowingly burned thousands of people alive. Londo never exhibited such cruelty. Londo never took any action that he knew would mean the slaughter of thousands. He knew his actions would start wars, but he had no knowledge of exactly how that would play out. It wasn't Londo's plan to bomb Narn into submission, though he did go along with it in the interest of ending the war in victory with a minimum of Centauri deaths. Londo never says that thousands need to die so they'll fear him if they don't respect him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springer View Post
I actually don't think Jon got a bad ending. In fact, it was a much better ending for him than I thought he was going to get! He was conflicted by love and duty, but he chose the hero's choice, and took on that burden to save Westeros - which is what heroes do. And though he was 'banished' to the Night's Watch, he was really going to where he was happiest, beyond the wall with the Wildlings who he helped save. As he watches the gate at Castle Black close, he allows himself a little half-smile.
See that is all open to interpretation. I would think it was a good ending for him if he didn't seem so broken. I saw the half-smile differently.

Last edited by Looney; June 2nd 19 at 16:35. Reason: Edit
Looney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:10.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2018 B5TV.COM