Babylon 5 is an interesting case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
|Posted: October 26 2018 at 8:58am | IP Logged | 3
I only watched it occasionally during its original run--and of course, it's a show you can't just watch occasionally--so I didn't really learn to appreciate it until I watched it on DVD. I did that again last year, and it continues to amaze me in ways both positive and negative--mostly positive, but the negative is always there. There's so much that doesn't work: bad acting, cheap-looking production design, the early-CGI effects (which never looked all that good to me, and haven't aged well at all), and JMS's often overblown or cliche-ridden writing. But the show as a whole, the sum of the parts that don't work and the parts that do (Jurasik, Katsulas, Christian; the sheer ambition of the story; plenty of other things)--the whole show really does work. I don't think anyone could argue--love it or hate it--that B5 wasn't far ahead of its time, if only in doing massive, slow-burn story arcs. That's routine in prestige TV today, but it sure wasn't in the mid-nineties.
Glad to see so much appreciation for the late Michael O'Hare. I much preferred him to Boxleitner, who I still find thoroughly wooden and unlikable as Sheridan. And O'Hare and Mira Furlan actually had some chemistry. Had he been able to stay on, we'd have had a much more convincing love story.
Jozef Brandt: I'm a little over halfway through Season 5 now, which honestly is a little better than I remember.
Jozef, when I revisited B5 last year, I'll admit I skipped right to the last three episodes of Season 5. I remember being badly put off by both Lochley and the whole Byron plot. But you would recommend taking another look? What are your thoughts, sir?
Edited by Ted Downum on November 28 2018 at 2:31pm