Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Location:
Discussion Forum
Discussion: Serious Sci-Fi & Babylon 5 #1
Watch
 psikeyhackr |
Serious Sci-Fi & Babylon 5 #1
Mar 17 2008, 10:36 PM EDT I don't want to start a [b]Babylon 5[/b] versus [b]Star Trek[/b] debate because I am not concerned with the coolest looking space ships or the best space battles, but is there any meaningful social value to good sci-fi shows? Just to state my position to begin with I think [b]Babylon 5[/b] is somewhat better than the best [b]Star Trek[/b], which is Deep Space 9, though there are areas in which Trek is superior. Some people accuse Star Trek of being socialist propaganda and other people like it for that: [quote]So, what, specifically, do I mean by "Star Trek socialism"? Nothing. I mean nothing specific. I mean it as an invitation to imagine, not as a definition to impose. Such is the nature of utopia--it is, above all, an exercise of the imagination, which is a core part of what makes us human. By using the term "Star Trek socialism" I want to indicate and help re-establish an alternative viewpoint that is not just valuable in itself, but also for the sorts of discussions it can generate. The viewpoint is that which we can see embodied in the United Federation of Planets, and how we can imagine ways to "Make it so," as Captain Picard would say.[/quote] http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=354 I don't know what to call the Star Trek economy since it apparently works by magic but I think the important thing is that it portrays a future society that is significantly differnt from today's. That is what is [b]wrong[/b] with Babylon 5 as a portrayal of the future. Star Trek probably is not correct but I hardly think society will be so little changed in 250 years as is shown in B5. to be continued 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
psikeyhackr |
RE: Serious Sci-Fi & Babylon 5 #2
Mar 17 2008, 10:39 PM EDT But if one of the functions of good sci-fi is to make people think then what B5 does is not necessarily [b]BAD[/b] it is just a method of using the magic looking glass of sci-fi to show us ourselves instead of showing us a possible future. Or maybe even another side of ourselves if you encompass the entire human race. Very few TV programs, at least in the US, bring up the concept of reincarnation. And yet that is an integral part of the backdrop of the Babylon 5 story and a common belief in many non-European cultures on this planet. Who knows what the real aliens think? [quote]Where the Star Trek portrayal would have you believe that religion has been eradicated like disease and poverty, Babylon 5 instead shows all of it's major characters on a spiritual journey. The Bible is frequently quoted on the show, and the overall story arc is epic in an almost Biblical way[/quote] http://merecatholics.blogspot.com/2004/06/faith-manages-on-babylon-5.html [quote]On the topic of religion...yes, we've spent a fair amount of time on the subject, and to your note that the "show has portrayed religion exceptionally well; it is nice to know that faith is not dead in your future as in all the ST shows," someone commented on another forum that because I'm an atheist, and don't have any particular axe to grind, it's possible to treat the beliefs of others with some measure of equanimity. - jms [/quote] http://midwinter.com/b5/CompuServe/cs94-09-02 [quote]So the soul form in Minbari is different from the soul form in humans; also, in their view, having been civilized longer than us, their soul form is more elevated, more evolved...and thus the pices are more precious, to them, and to the Soul Hunters.[/quote] http://midwinter.com/b5/CompuServe/cs95-12 to be continued 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
psikeyhackr |
RE: Serious Sci-Fi & Babylon 5 #3
Mar 17 2008, 10:42 PM EDT Many of the current struggles in today's world involve religion and economics and it is the changing technology in the background that makes this a kind of For Real Sci-Fi planet. So can we learn anything from the fictional sci-fi? There are a couple of things I will say are wrong with B5. There is no Scotty type character and they flushed out the techno-babble. LOL B5 is a 5-mile long space station with a fusion reactor and lots space fighters and ships to maintain and a jumpgate into hyperspace but apparently there is no chief of engineering high up in the command staff? Tell me another one. And can you imagine what kind of techno-babble conversations must occur on a nuclear submarine during a typical mission? Although I think Trek often went overboard with it, though I just find it amusing, I think pretending it ain't going to happen in the future is absurd. You want I should tell you about the impulse response test that is done on my Vandersteen bi-amp capable speakers to measure the phase alignment of the dynamic drivers? ROFL Believe it or not that question made perfect sense. psikey 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 PsiProne |
RE: Serious Sci-Fi & Babylon 5 #1
Mar 25 2008, 2:07 AM EDT Babylon 5 and Star Trek just look at the future in different ways. I don't either one of those views as more superior than the other. Its the writing, to me, that's important.I think its alittle unfair to judge Star Treks economy on the sole notion that's its different, yet without getting a real explanation of how it works. Picard explains in First Contact they humans have no more need of money, so how does the Federation deal with aliens like the Ferengi who are all about the money er latimun? Do you find this valuable? |
|
psikeyhackr |
RE: Serious Sci-Fi & Babylon 5 #1
Mar 26 2008, 1:36 PM EDT Science fiction is not looking at the future. It is the writer(s) projecting of a future. That projection can incorporate their understanding of the present and its technology and their hopes, wishes and fears about the future. One of the great potentials of science fiction is its ability to get people to think about the future and realize that it is the decisions they make today which create the future. I see nothing wrong with criticizing the writer's projections during the analysis. I don't consider sci-fi to be just entertainment to be accepted at face value. We have to decide what to do with these computers. How do we use them in the education of our children or do we just leave it to educators to possibly sabotage the technology to protect their jobs. Do you hear any educators suggesting mandatory computerized accounting? Double entry accounting is 700 years old. How hard can it be with today's computers. psik Do you find this valuable? |
|
PsiProne |
RE: Serious Sci-Fi & Babylon 5 #1
Mar 28 2008, 10:41 AM EDT Science fiction may not necessarily have to look at the future, but the shows in discussion, Star Trek and Babylon 5, they do. They look at it by giving us some kind of possibilitites. Do you find this valuable? |
|
psikeyhackr |
Sci-Fi Perspective
Mar 30 2008, 2:29 AM EDT Maybe I should point out that I started reading sci-fi before the original Star Trek came on the air. I'm a fossil. I tend to look at a particular work of SF from 3 different perspectives. First there is the turn off your brain and enjoy to ride mode. This works fine by itself for shallow stuff like Star Wars which I don't really regard as science fiction. Then there is studying the depth and imagination of the story. Like "Amok Time" and "Doomsday Machine" were both written by REAL SF writers, Theodore Sturgeon and Norman Spinrad respectively but though they are both good episodes "Amok Time" definitely wins in the imagination and depth category. "Doomsday Machine" is another Enterprise saves the day with subplot variations. "Amok Time" fleshed out Vulcan culture which influenced episodes of Voyager and Enterprise. The third aspect is the culture and marketplace for the work. The writer is trying to make a living and may be producing what sells rather than what is good. This affected Star Trek with the original pilot, "The Cage" not being aired but another made and that one wasn't shown first. The executives gave us the Salt Monster first. Ad in Voyager got replaced by 7 of 9 and it shouldn't be hard to figure out what market segment she was aimed at. That 3rd level of evaluation is more important for movies and TV than books because they are so expensive to produce and need to attract large markets. but I think sci-fi books have suffered from a Star Wars effect since the early 80's. Since I taught myself science because of SF books that is another component that interests my though it doesn't seem to matter to a lot of SF enthusiasts. psik Do you find this valuable? |