Star Trek vs. Babylon 5

  • Thread starter Thread starter David_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

David_B

Guest
What do you like better? Star Trek or Babylon 5? Although a life long Star Trek fan, there’s just something about Babylon 5 that resonates with me, perhaps it just seems like a more realistic portrayel of the future with many of the social ills of today still existing such as poverty, and of course the existence of religion (and even monks!) makes it a bit more appealing to me.
 
I don’t know David. I think Star Trek exhibits secular humanism at its best. Hard to beat that.

(Waaaaa! I miss Enterprise!)
 
B-5 without being overt about it was probably the most Catholic of sci-fi programs. I mean gosh, there are cyber monks appearing! But it is more than that…it is good vs. evil… The whole tenor of the plot is Catholic. Trek was secular. B-5 was not.
 
Hello All,

Though I love Star Trek, I have to admit that Baylon 5 was one of my Favorite shows and I think it is the BEST SCI-FI SERIES EVER!!! :rotfl: :yup: :dancing: :clapping: :tiphat: :bounce: 👋
 
Are you kidding? B5 is someone’s attempt at cashing in on the Star Trek phenomenon. Five television series, 10 movies, over almost 40 years.
 
When I was Kid we had three channels—all cowboy :banghead: shows. Star Trek saved my parents TV from getting a brick thrown in it.

Live long and go to Mass.
 
I don’t care… what is Babylon 5?? but star trek rocks!
 
Not only did B-5 have a spiritual side but it had a more interesting storyline and not all the problems got solved in 42 minutes.

Now Star Trek DS9 had an interesting forey into mysticism which I found interesting even though that show started off REAL S-L-O-W.

Also, I really liked the development of the Klingon empire and their code of honor even if I did find it bellicose.

But Babylon 5 was more engrossing and the spirituality did not appear out of noware like it did on StarTrek DS9. It was fascinating to watch G’kar start out as a simple believer following the faith of his fathers, then his call and life as a prophet and his unending search after completing his mission.

I for one want more!
 
STAR TREK, but only the original. The spin-offs were waaay too politically correct and anti-religion for my tastes. Not to mention that the writers of the spin-offs couldn’t write a script that didn’t depend on techno babble to bail the crew out of yet another logjam. Viva Kirk!!!
 
40.png
Steve-o:
STAR TREK, but only the original. The spin-offs were waaay too politically correct and anti-religion for my tastes. Not to mention that the writers of the spin-offs couldn’t write a script that didn’t depend on techno babble to bail the crew out of yet another logjam. Viva Kirk!!!
Click to expand...
Ick! Kirk is icky! Oh well… that one wasn’t too bad!
 
40.png
Fashina86:
Ick! Kirk is icky!
Click to expand...
A rare case of an opinion being wrong… 😉 J/K Fashina86…

I like Kirk because he was a man of action, who let his core beliefs help him in his decisions, whereas Picard was too busy being intimidated by his superiors and was cold and distant to his crew, not too mention his irrational fear of children. Plus the world’s worst French “accent.” It just so happens that William Shatner can speak French fluently.
 
I’m one of those whose ST enjoyment is pretty much limited to STII Wrath of Khan.

The Next Generation was iritating. The ship should have been called the USS Therapy instead of the Enterprise.

Scott
 
Bab 5 rocks!

I’ve always loved G’kar & Londo’s antagonism. For non-human characters, they were much more real than those Star Trek socialists. Never could stand the Federation…I much prefer the Klingon or Ferangi. Heck, even the Cardassians are more interesting…
 
The Ferengi are the worst villains ever invented. For a society based on profit, they sure had a stupid book of rules about it. How they ever made money I’ll never guess.

Give me a Klingon any day.
 
Havng been subjected to both Star Trek (in all it’s incarnations) and Babylon 5 I found on it’s own merits Babylon 5 to be better than some of the Star Treks.

My husband is a SciFi fan and managed to make sure we watched both Star Trek (which ever one was being aired at the time) and Babylon 5.

I liked both DS9 and Next Generation although DS9 was the better of the two. It was a bit “deeper” in plot than Next Generation and definitely far deeper than the original!

As far as Kirk being a man of action, that could get old after awhile because if you watch them you will see a “formula” to them, Kirk has a love interest who dies (or is transferred) and he has to have a major fight with someone 😃 Yuck and more yuck.

Babylon 5 definitely had a good religious undertone to it which is one of the reasons I really liked it.

Now as far as all the Star Treks being too PC after the first one, well, if you are a true Star Trek fan you will know that the original was PC waaaay before being PC was in

:whacky:

Gene Rodenberry (sp?) purposely had someone from all the nationalities in his main cast as well as a woman in a prime position (Lt. Uhura was an officer of some importance as the communications expert). He made sure to include our “Cold War” enemies, a Russian as one of the crew members. He also had a hand in at least one of the later shows (Next Generation for sure but don’t remember the others).

Brenda V.
 
Brenda V.:
Now as far as all the Star Treks being too PC after the first one, well, if you are a true Star Trek fan you will know that the original was PC waaaay before being PC was in
Click to expand...
And just two years before the original debuted in 1966, there was segregation, the murder of Civil Rights workers, the bombing of a church in Alabama that killed three young girls and racist governors denying the entrance of black students into universities, so I’d say something pro-equality and justice for all was needed. Not that the show “cured” anything, but it’s ambitions were certainly higher than say, “The Beverly Hillbillies.”

:whacky:
Brenda V.:
Gene Rodenberry (sp?) purposely had someone from all the nationalities in his main cast as well as a woman in a prime position (Lt. Uhura was an officer of some importance as the communications expert). He made sure to include our “Cold War” enemies, a Russian as one of the crew members. He also had a hand in at least one of the later shows (Next Generation for sure but don’t remember the others).
Click to expand...
And guess what? Women have been in positions of power and responsibility (Margaret Thatcher, Corazon Aquino, Golda Meir) and surprise! The Russians are no longer our “Cold War enemies.” Looks like Roddenberry’s vision was something attainable and real. Sure, it was cheapened by those future Trek incarnations and waay too much PC-ness, but the original vision was a noble, decent undertaking. Unless of course one prefers segregation, blatant and institutional racism in the “Land of the Free.”
 
40.png
Steve-o:
And just two years before the original debuted in 1966, there was segregation, the murder of Civil Rights workers, the bombing of a church in Alabama that killed three young girls and racist governors denying the entrance of black students into universities, so I’d say something pro-equality and justice for all was needed. Not that the show “cured” anything, but it’s ambitions were certainly higher than say, “The Beverly Hillbillies.”

:whacky:
Click to expand...
And that is why Mr. Rodenberry wrote his show the way he did! He wanted things to change (and I do believe his show helped to some extent in this).

I still don’t like the original Star Treks. I was not allowed to watch them when they first came out as I was prone to night terrors without food for my imagination! I can watch some of them now and not be terrified but it is funny how something as benign a they are by todays standards can still terrorize me. I did not like the “Borg” episodes of Next Generation or later ones either. I didn’t even like it when Dr. Who had the Daleks on - I would leave the room and go read when my husband watched some of these shows. (okay, I told you my huband was a SciFi fan, before we got Satellite he watched just about anything SciFi that he could even if it was on in the middle of a Saturday afternoon when it was nice outside! Now that we have Satellite the tv is set to the SciFi channel when he is home.)

Brenda V.
 
I never could get into B-5, but liked pretty much all of the ST series except Enterprise. It might have gotten better, but the first episodes were so slow I just lost interest and tuned out.

DS9 to me was by far the best and most intelligent of the series, constantly exploring difficult issues. I was very sad when that one went off.
 
Babylon 5 all the way. It had so much that no other sci-fi at the time had.

I liked it for the concept of a story arc. Problems weren’t solved in neat little 60 minute packages. They continued and were always a part of the show.

People actually were flawed! The show had an alcoholic, a man struggling with faith, problems with love, and problems with loss. Sometimes the good guys didn’t win.

I liked it because it was about the fiction more and the science less. With Star Trek, towards the end, the answer to all problems involved tachyons, and what happens when you reverse those tachyons. That’s it.

B5 must’ve been good, Paramount more or less stole the idea for it. JMS pitched the show originally as a Trek show but got blown off by paramount. Fortunately for Paramount, they managed to have their own show about a space station that involves diplomatic problems between various races who don’t get along, is defended by a small ultra powerful space ship, and focused on an ultra powerful alien race as the primary villain.

I liked that B5 was about ideas, self sacrifice, and faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top