I don't understand how JMS could suggest putting ITB first.
He did so on two grounds:
1) In the nature of things, as
B5 seeps into the culture and people catch odd episodes here and there out of sequence before trying the show from the beginning, many of the "mysteries" that so enthralled the original audience aren't going to
be mysteries anymore. So why try to fight that?
2) Showing
ItB first is only a problem if you approach the show
as a mystery. While this can be fun, it isn't the
only way to enjoy it. A couple of examples, the first one used by JMS to illustrate his thinking:
You have a scene with two characters having drinks at an outdoor cafe. From earlier in the film, you know they're in danger. Suddenly a bomb goes off. This is shocking surprising.
Now: same cafe. This time instead of starting with the characters, you start with an empty table. We see a man come up to the table, plant the bomb underneath it and set the timer.
Then the two characters sit down and order their drinks. This creates
suspense. The technique is called "dramatic irony".
We know something the character's don't. Now the question isn't "what's going to happen?" it's "will they figure out what's happening in time to avoid the bomb?"
My example: Both
Columbo and
Murder She Wrote are detective shows about murders.
MSW is a traditional "whodunit" where we follow clues to figure out who committed the murder.
Columbo is a "how's he gonna catch 'em" /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif We
see the murder committed at the beginning of each episode, and the suspense comes from knowing what Columbo does not - how the murder was committed and what steps the killer took to escape detection. The fun consists of watching Columbo outwit the killer, not in solving the crime along with him. (Although there is a bit of that - we can see which clues mean something to Columbo as he investigates.)
Each show can be enjoyed on its own terms, and each is a valid variant of the detective formula. Similarly
B5 can be experienced as a unfolding mystery for the audience,
or as an unfolding mystery for the characters. JMS was never shy about putting his cards face up on the table. He tells us in "Midnight" that G'Kar and Londo will die strangling each other to death. In "Signs and Portents" he shows us the destruction of Babylon 5. What is missing in each case is the
context and the actual meaning of the events. Same with
ItB. It tells us why the Minbari surrendered, and that they believe Sinclair is somehow Valen returned, but it doesn't tell why they keep the secret, what their plans are for Sinclair, or even begin to hint at his ultimate destiny.
So I can see the show being enjoyed by a new fan either way. The fact is that none of us who watched the series in the original broadcasts can ever know how the show
plays when viewed that way. We can't erase our memories and go back and watch it in a different order. And I think it is a mistake to assume that the way we watched it is somehow the only "right" or "valid" way of experiencing
Babylon 5.
If JMS thinks otherwise, I'm at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though further up the thread I followed the conventional wisdom in advising that
ItB be held off for later. (BTW, if you're going to hold it back
at all I think you should wait until after you've shown a new fan "Atonement" before bringing
ItB out. Only waiting until after the end of S1, or even "War Without End" is just silly, since there are still "spoilers" for the events surrounding the start of the war.)
Regards,
Joe
