Heresy

As you loyal readers have undoubtedly noticed, I recently ruffled the feathers of some of my know-it-all sci-fi fanboy friends by suggesting that 2001: A Space Odyssey was the worst movie I'd ever seen.^I I was assailed with insinuations of iconoclasm and calls to turn in my Sci-Fi Geek Card.^II All in all, it was rather an ugly scene.

And it's only going to get worse, because I'm about to publish another heresy.

At last week's meeting with the OGC, I borrowed season one of Babylon 5 from Curtis. Since last Thursday, I have watched the entire first season - all 22 episodes, plus director commentaries (2 episodes), the special features, and the two short documentaries. I am really digging this show.

I have always had a special place in my heart for this series. I first started watching B5 when it was originally in syndication. I enjoyed it, but it was on at such a time that I wasn't able to watch it regularly. Still, I could sense that there was something special going on with the show, even if I didn't know exactly what it was. Now that I've seen the full first season, I have a much better understanding and appreciation of the series.

And all of this leads me to today's heresy: Babylon 5 is better science fiction than either Star Wars or Star Trek.

Yes, yes, blasphemy, mea culpa and so forth. But don't banish me just yet. For your consideration, I present the following arguments in my defense.

A. The writing is better. This is where all the differences really begin. Star Trek had/has some interesting story arcs, but nothing to match the long-term, intricate, epic feel of B5. Not even the Dominion War - a pretty good story arc in its own right - really compares. And Star Wars? Don't even get me started on how bad the writing for that has been in recent years.^III

B. The character development is better. Admittedly, Star Wars is at a disadvantage here - you can't do a lot in the way of character development with two hours every three years. Still, it's hard for me to believe that a cardboard cutout like Anakin (and face it, that's what he's been in the first two Episodes) could be transformed into an awesome presence like Darth Vader.^IV Star Trek has traditionally had good character development - at least for most of the important characters. Even so, it took the writers there two to three seasons to uncover the kind of character depth I've seen in the first season of B5.

C. The science is better. Admittedly, science fiction requires the willing suspension of disbelief where science is concerned. That 300,000 km/sec rule can be a real pain when dealing with interstellar distances, after all. And yes, as the old sci-fi adage goes, any sufficiently advanced science or technology is indistinguishable from magic.^V But good science fiction has to have a sense of realism, too, and I feel that B5 excels here. Starfuries obey Newton's First Law where Runabouts and TIE Fighters don't. B5 simulates gravity the old-fashioned way, with rotational motion.^VI Energy blasts look like beams, not bullets. Not all creatures breathe oxygen. Ships behave differently in atmosphere than they do in a vacuum. And so forth. No, I'm not a science purist. I just think the B5 folks have done a better job with the details, and I like that fact.

D. The humor is better. Star Wars has some classic funny moments - most of them in the original trilogy, and many of them involving Han Solo. The 'prequel' episodes have suffered from much of the comedy being forced (read: Jar-Jar Binks). In Star Trek, it seems that a lot of the laughs come at the expense of the 'fish out of water' characters: Worf, Data, Spock, Odo, and so on. Still, both of these franchises are good for a lot of laughs from time to time. But as I watched the various B5 episodes, I found myself laughing a lot. Garibaldi's self-depreciation, Ivanova's bright and cheery fatalism, Londo's obnoxious, over-the-top, and often inebriated buffoonery, Na' Toth's caustic observations - these all come across so spontaneously and sincerely that they don't seem scripted. And humor is best when it's real.

E. The overall feel is better. The self-stated purpose of science fiction is to point toward the future, to offer a glimpse into what is to come for humanity. In this respect, I feel that Star Wars tends to look back, not forward. Yes, there are a lot of neat tech-toys and gadgets around, but the saga feels more like the past - the Old West, or feudal Asia - than the future. Star Trek offers a vision of the future that is hopeful and optimistic, but sometimes that vision can come across as sterile and antiseptic. Progress comes from adversity, and the Borg and Dominion notwithstanding, the human race doesn't have to face much adversity. All the big problems - crime, poverty, greed, war, etc. - have already been solved in the Star Trek universe. The human race is the master of its own fate and destiny. The Federation (read: humanity) is the bright and shining beacon of all that is good and right in the galaxy. As such, Star Trek tends to get overly moralistic and preachy sometimes. B5, on the other hand, shows a future in which the human race is striving to find its place in the universe. All of our current problems are still to be found there.^VII Furthermore, our place out there is very uncertain. There are powers older, bigger, and badder than us in the universe. Yes, we've learned a lot by the time we get to B5, but there is still much more for us as a people to see and learn and do. As it should be, I dare say.

I mean no disrespect to either the Star Wars or Star Trek franchises. I've seen all the movies and the vast majority of the TV episodes, most of them many times. I enjoy the time I spend in those universes. But Babylon 5 offers an experience unlike anything found in the other two shows. And I like that experience. I wish it were more accessible and more renowned.

Okay, that's my bit. Take your next vacation on Risa or Naboo, if you'd like. Me, I'll take a room in Red Sector and spend my days in the gardens or the marketplaces of the central corridor, topped off with dinner at the Zogalo. And if you'd like to join me, I'll save you a place.

--
^I In all honesty, I probably didn't answer the right question there. 2001 was simply the first bad movie that came to mind when I saw the question. But even if it's not the worst movie I've ever seen - and granted, it's probably not - I still think it's probably the most overrated. It's certainly the most soporific.

^II Fine, if that's what you really want, I'll turn in my card - but you'll all have to turn in your IDICs in return. Deal? Otherwise, get off me.

^III George Lucas seems to be the only person who doesn't recognize what a poor writer he has become. His plot lines are shallow, and his dialogue is downright painful. If not for the extended battle sequence at the end, SWE2:AotC could also have been my nominee for 'worst movie I've ever seen'.

^IV I really hope E3 will give me a reason to make some connection between the two characters/incarnations. Of course, I had hoped that E2 would give me a reason to feel sorry that Anakin had fallen, and it didn't. We'll see.

^V Or, if you're a gamer, that sentence ends with "...from plot device."

^VI Just like in 2001: A Space Odyssey. There, I said something nice about it. Satisfied?

^VII After all, can we really expect in 250 years to eradicate the problems we have failed to overcome in the last six millennia of recorded history?