Sorry for the lag in response time!
On Monday, November 22, 1999 1:15 PM john grigg starman125@hotmail.com
wrote:
> >One thing in favor of "Babylon 5": at least it wasn't "Star Trek.":)
>
> Hey, now I realize that "Star Trek" has been accused of growing stale but
it
> has alot going for it! "Star Trek" has shown not just this nation but the
> globe a vision of the world where humanity lives in harmony with itself
and
> many other species with the goal of peaceful exploration. This show has
> broken racial stereotypes in terms of tv and inspired many young people to
> pursue careers in science.
So. I nowhere deny its influence, but this does not mean it's a great show or that I have to like it.
> And frankly while I am not the biggest fan of "Voyager" I did love "Deep
> Space Nine" and really enjoyed the final season even if some called it
world
> war two in space. I got to really care about the characters and did not
> find them to be cardboard like with some science-fiction programs.
Maybe so, though a lot of the stuff was only just above cardboard.
> I do love "Babylon Five" and in some ways found it superior. The aliens
> were certainly generally more alien! Though the Narn and the Centauri
were
> as "human" as Klingons and Romulans. Also, sadly it is possible that B5
is
> a more realistic take on what the future may be life for humanity. We may
> not have a benevolent "Federation" to govern and protect us. Humans may
> very well not be dominant "big shot" race as as they appear to be in "Star
> Trek."
I agree. I didn't like, however, that humans appeared for the most part to be the peacemakers of the galaxy. My bet would be if anything close to the B5 universe existed -- and I highly doubt this; I like Sagan think any contact between different sentient beings will not be between anything close to the equality of B5, ST, Battlestar Galaxative -- I think humans would be just another species. Nothing special. Unique in some respects, but not a big deal to galactic culture and politics.
> To end my post I will make this statement...
> "One thing in favor of "Star Trek, at least it wasn't "Battlestar
> Galactica!" :)
Good comments, but none of this makes me like "Star Trek.":) Frankly, TV science fiction as a whole is pretty lame. I guess I shouldn't expect much, as I have my tastes and chances are others who have similar tastes are just not a big enough block for producers to take notice.
(We should also be careful here. A lot of science fiction in print -- aside from TV and film -- is garbage. This should not be surprising. This is so with most things, I believe. The good old 80/20 rule, I reckon.:/)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/