Quark's

1108 readers

2 users here now

Come to Quark’s, Quark’s is Fun!

General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

ValueSubtracted@startrek.website

Admin@startrek.website

williams_482@startrek.website

What's the consensus here regarding Babylon Five? (startrek.website)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by startrekexplained@startrek.website to c/quarks@startrek.website

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have the series on DVD but I've never seriously cracked it, only seen a few episodes. Was wondering what people here think, is it as good as the internet often says it is? I know it was an inspiration for one of my favorite franchises (Mass Effect) and The Orville had a cute reference to it by making its main actor the president of the Planetary Union, but that's the extent of my B5 knowledge. So anyway, should I binge the series?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Best thing since slice bread. You just have to accept it looks cheap and old.

[–] djmarcone@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cuz it is old and had limited funds iirc

[–] ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The old is more important than limited funds. I remember reading an interview from JMS where he mentioned B5 was about $1 million an episode. Which after accounting for inflation is about $2 million an episode in today's money. The BSG remake was at about $1 million per episode.

I can tell you in 1995 the CGI on B5 was pretty great.

[–] djmarcone@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

On bsg they cut every corner on every square thing because they were literally cutting all corners they could for budgetary reasons.

[–] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nah, it looked video gamey and cheesy even then. Season four was better, but the main station model never kept up l.

I just didn’t think the resolution was there to make completely CGI models believable.

[–] ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For sure it looks fake as can be, but compared to video games (of the time) it was amazing.Look at some screenshots of MechWarrior 2 or Descent and compare to B5.

At the time B5 had some of the better CGI, it's just that amazing CGI in 1993 was awful.

[–] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

The thing is there were great physical models in other shows. It was just Straczynski’s determination to go completely digital that was driving it.

DS9 was made with models because Paramount understood the technology wasn’t there yet. I just wish they’d kept high definition analogue film rather than video.