B5:TLT - Show Discussion Thread (Spoilers)

[Cell]

I never said Burke wasn't possessed. I'm saying what he was possessed by wasn't truly a Biblical-style demon but instead was an alien consciousness trying to use him to escape Earth.

I don't buy that, because the idea of an alien consciousness being bound to a specific planet is too far fetched for my B5.

One can go down this road with the Vorlons too: did the Vorlons pretend to be angels or did human belief in angels come about as a result of them encountering Vorlons way back when. Same too with Asmodeus: was he pretending to be a possessing demon or did the human concept of a possessing demon come about as a result of encountering Asmodeus, and possibly others like him, that have been somehow confined to Earth by other aliens way back when. As with the Vorlons, not everything has been answered about Asmodeus, and I think it's unrealistic to expect to have been, given jms's blatantly stated desire that he enjoys telling stories in which he doesn't explain everything. He did the same thing with souls over the course of B5; there are plenty characters in the story that believe souls are real, but there's nothing that proves they are. In "Over Here", Cassidy and Lochley lean toward believing Asmodeus is a demon given both of their past histories but they also don't absolutely believe it; both of them express their doubts in the story, and their doubt gives us the room to see that the story isn't definitively saying Asmodeus is a true demon.

Like I said earlier, that is not the vibe I took away from the story at all. There are times when a story isn't very clear and there are times when it is very clear, and this to me was one of those times where the vibe of the story was very clear, and I didn't like it one bit, at least not in my B5.

The stories of The Lost Tales were never intended to be like episodes of the show. The series itself is a novel. The Lost Tales are short stories. jms told us from the beginning that TLT were going to be smaller, more intimate, character stories, and that's exactly what we got. The point of the stories is not to explain every potential plot detail but to explore the minds of characters, what and how they think.

That's fine, and I am fine with that. But, as I have said a few times, the Lochley story was not a B5 story at all. It was a religious possession story masquerading as a B5 story, and it just didn't work.

I am as sensitive as anyone to having religion pushed on me. You are new to this board, so you are unaware of the major, explosive arguments I've gotten into on here with religious members. And I in no way whatsoever felt the religious aspect of "Over Here" was pushy, it was a shade of the Lochley character that we hadn't seen before. It gave us the ability to see how she dealt with religion and how she figured out and then fended off someone who sought to use religion as a mask to achieve a non-religious goal.

There are stories that deal with such a subject as this that are tackled through subtlety and handled in a subdued fashion. That was not the case with the Lochley story. It was heavy handed and it was pushy. From the moment the story starts we are bombarded with religious dogma and overtones and it never stops. You are never given any reason to believe otherwise and the st-pry has no room to breathe or become more than a heavy handed story that clunks all throughout the room because it is too big for its own good.

G'Kar has told us twice (that I can remember) over the course of Babylon 5 that "nothing ... is as it appears". Why fall into the assumption that that wisdom from G'Kar doesn't apply here when it's been a foundation stone to the stories of Babylon 5 from the beginning.

There is also such a thing as looking too far into things. Sometimes there are dual meanings, and sometimes there aren't. I don't believe there is in this case, what is presented on screen is what we get. Although JMS is a big fan of sloppy justification stories later down the line, as evidenced by his other non-B5 work and even some of his B5 work. That being said, as I said, what we get on screen is what we get and I believe that this is a situation where by trying to read so deep into the story you are missing what is actually right there in front of you.

 

[vacantlook]

I don't buy that, because the idea of an alien consciousness being bound to a specific planet is too far fetched for my B5.

Why is it far fetched? Just because we're not given the details as to how it was done? The Shadows kept coming back to Z'ha'dum, and for a long time we think it's because it's their world, but we eventually find out that it's because that's where Lorien is. What we were initially led to think the significance of Z'ha'dum to the Shadows was one thing because of our being given perceived facts through the filter of a character, mostly Delenn and G'Kar. If all we had to go on was "Revelations" then we'd think that Z'ha'dum meant something to the Shadows because it was their world. What we get in "Over Here" is only one small snippet of whatever greater story could be told about Asmodeus; we probably won't get any more because TLT are short stories, but that doesn't mean that the ultimate truth behind what Asmodeus is is what only one single 40 minute story told us.

The ancient aliens in B5 are never fully explained. Lorien stays on Z'ha'dum for what? He very demonstratively doesn't have to stay there, but he does and we're never told why. Not every aspect of B5 stories is given to us. Why demand this one be any different than other times in B5 when we've gotten limited information about some aspect of the story.

...That being said, as I said, what we get on screen is what we get and I believe that this is a situation where by trying to read so deep into the story you are missing what is actually right there in front of you.

And I think that because of how much of a religious overtone the story has that you're busy looking at that and missing anything that's beyond the surface. I think if this had happened to non-human characters involving non-human religions that people, not just yourself, would be more willing to look further into the layers of the story.

 

[Cell]

Why is it far fetched? Just because we're not given the details as to how it was done? The Shadows kept coming back to Z'ha'dum, and for a long time we think it's because it's their world, but we eventually find out that it's because that's where Lorien is. What we were initially led to think the significance of Z'ha'dum to the Shadows was one thing because of our being given perceived facts through the filter of a character, mostly Delenn and G'Kar. If all we had to go on was "Revelations" then we'd think that Z'ha'dum meant something to the Shadows because it was their world. What we get in "Over Here" is only one small snippet of whatever greater story could be told about Asmodeus; we probably won't get any more because TLT are short stories, but that doesn't mean that the ultimate truth behind what Asmodeus is is what only one single 40 minute story told us.

That was a very nice attempt at sidestepping my original point. Lorien was not bound to Z'ha'dum, he chose to stay there, and eventually he chose to leave. Your idea about revelations only holds true when there is information beforehand or information to follow, and that is not the case with Asmodeus. His story is told as one self-contained story, and as I have said about 900 times by now, it doesn't jive with the regular B5 universe structure.

The ancient aliens in B5 are never fully explained. Lorien stays on Z'ha'dum for what? He very demonstratively doesn't have to stay there, but he does and we're never told why. Not every aspect of B5 stories is given to us. Why demand this one be any different than other times in B5 when we've gotten limited information about some aspect of the story.

Asmodeus can't be an ancient alien, simply because any and all of the First Ones are gone. I have no clue what Asmodeus actually is simply because the way the B5 universe is structured it is laid out as a universe of predestination and that totally eliminates the possibility of demons, gods, and angels in my mind. However, as I stated about Lorien earlier, his case and the case of Asmodeus don't have a thing in common. Lorien chooses to stay on Z'ha'dum simply because he wants to and then when it is time for him to leave he does as such. This story is not presented as a story that is limited in facts, rather it is presented as a pure possession story and one that does not in any way jive with the B5 universe.

And I think that because of how much of a religious overtone the story has that you're busy looking at that and missing anything that's beyond the surface. I think if this had happened to non-human characters involving non-human religions that people, not just yourself, would be more willing to look further into the layers of the story.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. As I stated somewhere else the religion in question has nothing to do with how heavy handed the story is. The story is heavy handed and pushy because of the way it is told and written. This could be a Narn religion, a Centauri religion or a Minbari religion in question and if the story was told in the same manner about one of those religions then it would still be just as heavy handed and pushy. At the end of the day the more I watch it the more I don't like it as a story because of this fact. It can't deliver an actual message or allow you to actual think about what is going on so it presents everything in a heavy handed manner and that is just bad storytelling.

 

[vacantlook]

That was a very nice attempt at sidestepping my original point. Lorien was not bound to Z'ha'dum, he chose to stay there, and eventually he chose to leave. Your idea about revelations only holds true when there is information beforehand or information to follow, and that is not the case with Asmodeus. His story is told as one self-contained story, and as I have said about 900 times by now, it doesn't jive with the regular B5 universe structure.

I wasn't sidestepping anything; I was making a point of my own: that not everything that Babylon 5 has had in it has been explained all out. Some things have been left mysterious and unanswered; that's how people who've watched the show for years can still keep on talking about it now.

Babylon 5 as a story hasn't ever had a 100% rigid structure to how its story gets told. Take "View From The Gallery" for example. Who were those aliens? Where did they come from? Where did they end up going after the events of the episode? None of that was ever explained, but that doesn't make the episode not part of Babylon 5. So too with "Over Here". It might not be a story told in the same way other stories told within the B5 universe have been, but that doesn't exclude it because not every B5 story has been told in the same way as it is.

Asmodeus can't be an ancient alien, simply because any and all of the First Ones are gone....

Who says he was a First One? There's plenty difference between the classification known as the First Ones and other older aliens that aren't as old as the First Ones. Plus, given that whole dimensional portal revealed deep within the planet in LOTR and the Thirdspace aliens, not every alien that's ever been in the galaxy necessarily came from this galaxy.

...I have no clue what Asmodeus actually is simply because the way the B5 universe is structured it is laid out as a universe of predestination and that totally eliminates the possibility of demons, gods, and angels in my mind....

Which is what helps fuel my argument that Asmodeus is not an actual demon or that humanity's concept of a possessing demon was born out of alien encounters the way humanity's concept of angels being born out of Vorlon encounters might have been. If we know the whole Vorlon/angels manipulation thing, then we've been given enough of a basis to know how things go in the B5 universe to take that step on our own without having to have it spelled out uber-blatantly to us that Asmodeus was the consciousness of some alien being that's possessing poor ol' Burke. Hell, we even had Sheridan semi-possessed by some unexplained energy being in "Knives" that drove him to go to the time rift where it left his body and entered the rift. What was it? Where'd it come from? Where was it going? None of that was ever explained, but that being has its place within Babylon 5.

...Lorien chooses to stay on Z'ha'dum simply because he wants to and then when it is time for him to leave he does as such. This story is not presented as a story that is limited in facts, rather it is presented as a pure possession story and one that does not in any way jive with the B5 universe....

My whole referencing Lorien staying on Z'ha'dum is that we're not given every piece of information about him as a character. We don't know why he stays there. To say that he just does because he wants to is sidestepping the point that we're not told everything about every aspect of every part of the stories that take place in Babylon 5. Some things are there to make us think, if we accept that we have to think about it instead of have it handed to us and accept that not every question we think of has an answer.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. As I stated somewhere else the religion in question has nothing to do with how heavy handed the story is. The story is heavy handed and pushy because of the way it is told and written. This could be a Narn religion, a Centauri religion or a Minbari religion in question and if the story was told in the same manner about one of those religions then it would still be just as heavy handed and pushy. At the end of the day the more I watch it the more I don't like it as a story because of this fact. It can't deliver an actual message or allow you to actual think about what is going on so it presents everything in a heavy handed manner and that is just bad storytelling.

If it was some big Centauri boogedy boo named Velarino that was possessing some random Centauri and Lochley had to bring in some Centauri seer to help her deal with it, and everything was conducted the same way, no one would say it was pushy. People wouldn't think the story was trying to make everyone think Centauri religion was actual and true because everyone would put their own personal disconnect in their mind as they watched it because they know Centauri religion isn't real because the Centauri were completely made up for B5 wholescratch. But because it's based on a real human religion, it gets seen as pushy because it's born out of something we encounter in real life.

I like that because it makes me think about what are the true origins of mythological beliefs and stuff that humans have constructed stories around. For example, I've spent hours pondering the creation of human myths when I've stood outside before dawn looking at the planet Venus shining all bright. Knowing Venus was also called the "morning star", and that that was a name for Lucifer. It makes me think about how though people conceptualize Lucifer to be who he is now, did they once long before our modern day actually think Venus was God's angel Lucifer. Lucifer meaning "light bringer" after all fits given that Venus's morning time visibility is before the sun comes up; Venus could have been conceptually seen as a herald of the coming light of the sun. But then once the sun comes up, it outshines Venus causing Venus to visually disappear. Is this what led to some ancient humans thinking that Lucifer had been cast out of heaven because of the sun coming up and making him disappear? This is a long ass example, but the Asmodeus story makes me contemplate human mythology in the same way that looking at Venus in the morning makes me ponder.

I see a very significant message in the story of "Over Here", that people will pull religion on as a mask in order to manipulate other people into doing what they want. That's very much what Asmodeus does: he wants to escape so he's trying to trick others into doing it for him by manipulating them through their understanding and thoughts about religion, not too dissimilar from how some humans, especially preachers and the like, will easily pull on the mask of religion in order to manipulate people into doing things for them. It also continues that grand Babylon 5 tradition of understanding being a three-edged sword. The truth that leads Lochley to her solution is that neither of the sides of the argument that Asmodeus presents is the true one.

 

[Cell]

I wasn't sidestepping anything; I was making a point of my own: that not everything that Babylon 5 has had in it has been explained all out. Some things have been left mysterious and unanswered; that's how people who've watched the show for years can still keep on talking about it now.

B5 was made in the interpretive art form of TV, whether or not it was as ambiguous as it is there would still be a lot of discussion about it because that is what interpretive art endears. However not everything about B5 is unanswered, and some stories are very straight forward, this is one of them I believe.

Babylon 5 as a story hasn't ever had a 100% rigid structure to how its story gets told. Take "View From The Gallery" for example. Who were those aliens? Where did they come from? Where did they end up going after the events of the episode? None of that was ever explained, but that doesn't make the episode not part of Babylon 5. So too with "Over Here". It might not be a story told in the same way other stories told within the B5 universe have been, but that doesn't exclude it because not every B5 story has been told in the same way as it is.

Aliens are an every day part of B5, that is why View From The Gallery can work as an episode perfectly fine. It fits well within the structure of the constructed B5 universe and doesn't seem out of place. The same is not true of Over Here that introduces a religious ideal as being the truth in a universe where it just doesn't fly.

Who says he was a First One? There's plenty difference between the classification known as the First Ones and other older aliens that aren't as old as the First Ones. Plus, given that whole dimensional portal revealed deep within the planet in LOTR and the Thirdspace aliens, not every alien that's ever been in the galaxy necessarily came from this galaxy.

Once again, I think this is a reach to deny what is right in front of you. Not every story is deep and far reaching with implications of ancient aliens or aliens from a different space. This story was very self contained and it was very self contained because it is supposed to be simply explained throughout the episodes without that far reaching effect. They saved that for the second part.

Which is what helps fuel my argument that Asmodeus is not an actual demon or that humanity's concept of a possessing demon was born out of alien encounters the way humanity's concept of angels being born out of Vorlon encounters might have been. If we know the whole Vorlon/angels manipulation thing, then we've been given enough of a basis to know how things go in the B5 universe to take that step on our own without having to have it spelled out uber-blatantly to us that Asmodeus was the consciousness of some alien being that's possessing poor ol' Burke. Hell, we even had Sheridan semi-possessed by some unexplained energy being in "Knives" that drove him to go to the time rift where it left his body and entered the rift. What was it? Where'd it come from? Where was it going? None of that was ever explained, but that being has its place within Babylon 5.

Actually I hate the being from Knives as well and it doesn't fit well within the B5 structure. The fact that B5 functions as a predestined story just makes Over Here even worse. That leaves out the aspect of demon possession, so all that leaves you with is another possible pathetic alien occupation as we saw in Knives. Now, if I couldn't stand that story and didn't think it had a place in B5, then the same holds true for Over Here.

My whole referencing Lorien staying on Z'ha'dum is that we're not given every piece of information about him as a character. We don't know why he stays there. To say that he just does because he wants to is sidestepping the point that we're not told everything about every aspect of every part of the stories that take place in Babylon 5. Some things are there to make us think, if we accept that we have to think about it instead of have it handed to us and accept that not every question we think of has an answer.

As I have said a few times some things are there to make us think, but not everything is. I don't believe Asmodeus is, and I don't believe it engenders much thought at all because of the heavy handed way the story was handled.

If it was some big Centauri boogedy boo named Velarino that was possessing some random Centauri and Lochley had to bring in some Centauri seer to help her deal with it, and everything was conducted the same way, no one would say it was pushy. People wouldn't think the story was trying to make everyone think Centauri religion was actual and true because everyone would put their own personal disconnect in their mind as they watched it because they know Centauri religion isn't real because the Centauri were completely made up for B5 wholescratch. But because it's based on a real human religion, it gets seen as pushy because it's born out of something we encounter in real life.

As I already stated earlier I would still think it was pushy, so that blows your theory out of the water right away. No matter the subject matter if a story is heavy handed and pushy it is heavy handed and pushy. This story was, so it could be a story about Varknel, the Shadow god of window dressings, but because of the way it was presented and the way the dialogue was written it would still be heavy handed and pushy.

I like that because it makes me think about what are the true origins of mythological beliefs and stuff that humans have constructed stories around. For example, I've spent hours pondering the creation of human myths when I've stood outside before dawn looking at the planet Venus shining all bright. Knowing Venus was also called the "morning star", and that that was a name for Lucifer. It makes me think about how though people conceptualize Lucifer to be who he is now, did they once long before our modern day actually think Venus was God's angel Lucifer. Lucifer meaning "light bringer" after all fits given that Venus's morning time visibility is before the sun comes up; Venus could have been conceptually seen as a herald of the coming light of the sun. But then once the sun comes up, it outshines Venus causing Venus to visually disappear. Is this what led to some ancient humans thinking that Lucifer had been cast out of heaven because of the sun coming up and making him disappear? This is a long ass example, but the Asmodeus story makes me contemplate human mythology in the same way that looking at Venus in the morning makes me ponder.

I see a very significant message in the story of "Over Here", that people will pull religion on as a mask in order to manipulate other people into doing what they want. That's very much what Asmodeus does: he wants to escape so he's trying to trick others into doing it for him by manipulating them through their understanding and thoughts about religion, not too dissimilar from how some humans, especially preachers and the like, will easily pull on the mask of religion in order to manipulate people into doing things for them. It also continues that grand Babylon 5 tradition of understanding being a three-edged sword. The truth that leads Lochley to her solution is that neither of the sides of the argument that Asmodeus presents is the true one.

As I have said a few different times, Over Here doesn't make me think. Maybe if it was written better and it was just a better overall story that fit within the overall B5 universe it would make me think. But it is none of those things to me so it doesn't make me think. If it makes you think that's fine, there are plenty of stories in B5, and other lit, that make me think that do nothing for other people. But, Over Here does next to nothing for me, not in a philosophical sense, a visual sense, a critical thinking exercise, or anything else because it is simply put a story that isn't good and doesn't work for me.

 

[vacantlook]

It's starting to feel like we're just going to end up going around in circles over and over and over again on this -- that we'll never agree on anything when it comes to this part of Babylon 5. I guess we're just going to have to leave it at that because the discussion isn't going to go anywhere beyond us butting heads.

While I've got you here though, can I ask you where specifically your avatar comes from?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

I'm an atheist, and I didn't think it was "pushy.'

 

[mandragora]

... b because the way the B5 universe is structured it is laid out as a universe of predestination and that totally eliminates the possibility of demons, gods, and angels in my mind

I'm sorry, I can't follow that part of your argument at all. Delenn and Zathras are talking about people having a destiny, but that doesn't mean that we are dealing with a universe governed by predestination. As JMS has repeated countless times, one of the most important themes of the show is that people make choices, choices have consequences and the responsibility for these consequences must be borne. It's also a recurring theme that we create the future. As Lady Morella said, there's always choice and as long as one understands that, there is hope. The destiny part is about people's ability to create the future - they can embrace it, or not.

Lady Morella showed Sinclair "a possible future". The time travel in War without End shows us two possible future timelines - which one will become real, depends on the choice made by Sinclair. In a universe of predestination, the future is immutable and choices don't matter.

And what do you mean by predestination rules out the possibility of demons, gods, and angels? The ultimate advocate of a doctrine of predestination was John Calvin, the founder of the Calvinist church.

I see a very significant message in the story of "Over Here", that people will pull religion on as a mask in order to manipulate other people into doing what they want.

That's what I thought as well. The line by Father Cassidy "What is the lie" refers to Asmodeus trying to manipulate people with religion. In a more indirect sense, it also refers to the option he laid before Father Cassidy to use him, Asmodeus, to bring people back to the church. And I suspect there may be an even more subversive meaning: The idea that evil as a threat is somehow send by God to keep humans in place is identified as a lie promoted by certain religious schools. The exploration of how lies are used in a religious context is definitely an important theme in this episode.

Frankly I fail to understand why, in a universe where "no-one is exactly what he appears to be", just because Asmodeus introduces himself as a demon for clearly ulterior motives, it is taken as a given that he is indeed a demon. To me, from what the rest of his story turned out to be, it's pretty clear that he isn't. The important question for me is, what is behind the idea that he has to remain banned on Earth.

 

[Cell]

While I've got you here though, can I ask you where specifically your avatar comes from?

I did a google search on B5 images, and that one came up. I believe it is either from Lost Tales or A Call To Arms, because of the new tech effect of the jump point graphics.

I'm sorry, I can't follow that part of your argument at all. Delenn and Zathras are talking about people having a destiny, but that doesn't mean that we are dealing with a universe governed by predestination. As JMS has repeated countless times, one of the most important themes of the show is that people make choices, choices have consequences and the responsibility for these consequences must be borne. It's also a recurring theme that we create the future. As Lady Morella said, there's always choice and as long as one understands that, there is hope. The destiny part is about people's ability to create the future - they can embrace it, or not.

There is still choice in predestination. However all your choices do are either help you to move more quickly or slowly down the path. B5 is a universe that is completely about predestination, and that isn't because Delenn has said as such, or Zathras, it is because of the way the stories have panned out. B5 is a world where prophecy comes true all the time, and prophecy is the major tent of predestination. B5 is a world where people like Londo Mollari try to evade their destiny, but no matter what they do they can't. The end is there, and it always has been, it's a simple matter of the choices they make to get there.

Lady Morella showed Sinclair "a possible future". The time travel in War without End shows us two possible future timelines - which one will become real, depends on the choice made by Sinclair. In a universe of predestination, the future is immutable and choices don't matter.

Actually Lady Morella showed Sinclair the exact future as it would happen, right down to the shuttle leaving B5 just as it exploded. In a predestined universe the other non-future is there for a very specific reason, to nudge a character along into making the choices that will eventually lead to the actual real future.

And what do you mean by predestination rules out the possibility of demons, gods, and angels? The ultimate advocate of a doctrine of predestination was John Calvin, the founder of the Calvinist church.

Calvin took his beliefs in predestination somewhere else, while a lot of other predestinationists went in a different direction. I don't ascribe to either group, but if I were it would be with group #2 as I believe that predestination means that everything happens as it should and for this very reason there are no gods, demons, or angels to muck around in the works.

 

[mandragora]

There is still choice in predestination. However all your choices do are either help you to move more quickly or slowly down the path. B5 is a universe that is completely about predestination, and that isn't because Delenn has said as such, or Zathras, it is because of the way the stories have panned out. B5 is a world where prophecy comes true all the time, and prophecy is the major tent of predestination. B5 is a world where people like Londo Mollari try to evade their destiny, but no matter what they do they can't. The end is there, and it always has been, it's a simple matter of the choices they make to get there.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. The point of the prophecies in B5 is that they can come true one way or another, that the image does *not* set a particular path in stone. For instance, there were at least two possibilities how B5 could end up in fire - either through the Shadow attack a week after the events of WWE (if Sinclair hadn't decided to take B4 back into the past), or by being blown up eventually 20 years later.

Lady Morella said to Londo that *this part of his destiny* could no longer be avoided - to become Emperor. To have gotten to that point was the result of *his choices*. Londo Mollari *had chosen* to make his deals with Morden, and by that choice, he went down this path. Nothing and no-one forced him to do so, no matter how often he says he has no choice. At the point he called Lady Morella, he was down a path that could no longer be reversed - but this was by his own doing. Her prophecy was about his chance to redeem himself - by letting himself be killed by G'kar, thereby giving Delenn and Sheridan to save his people.

The part about the Valen prophecy makes the nature of prophecy in B5 especially clear. Hadn't Sinclair chosen to go back in time, the future would have been the one seen by Garibaldi - and Babylon 5 would have been destroyed a week later. Sinclair was only able to make his prophecy because he *came* from the future, and therefore knew what had to be done to make that future - and not the alternative future - happen. "Lennier, you know the truth as well as I do. Valen only knew what Sinclair knew, could not see beyond that. Once he left us, the future became fluid. I had assumed things would continue on, like some great clockwork mechanism. As long as the war was won, we would be all right. I was wrong." (Delenn, in Rumours, Bargains and Lies) It was by no means inevitable that his prophecy came true, it Sinclair's decision to follow his own advise that made it come true. The prophet made his own prophecy come true.

In a predestined universe the other non-future is there for a very specific reason, to nudge a character along into making the choices that will eventually lead to the actual real future.

Whether the character is nudged into doing something by a vision is irrelevant, it is still *his/her choice* that makes one vision of the future come true or the other. Either you are saying that prophecy, as shown in a vision, always comes true, or that visions are shown to nudge the characters in the opposite direction. You can't have it both ways.

The stone garden in the pilot, illustrating the power of one mind to change the future, as well as Ivanova's speech at the end of the series couldn't have made it more clear: "It taught us that we have to create the future...or others will do it for us." Not to mention countless statements by JMS about the power of an individual to change the future, all indicating that in B5, the future isn't set in stone.

 

[Cell]

Actually, you can have it both ways, as the idea of choice within predestination has been a belief of many predestinationists for some time now. The basic belief is that the big things are planned out, that the end result is already known. But you can make choices along the way that may affect you at the time but will not in any way affect the end result. No matter what you do, no matter what choices you make, that end result will still be the same. That is why someone can receive a vision of a possible non-future. They may think it affects the end outcome, but it doesn't, it merely causes them to make another choice that moves them towards their preordained destiny.

As for the statements of JMS himself, those hold no weight with me whatsoever. B5 is an interpretive art form and as such it is left up to the individual viewer to interpret it for themselves. Someone can look at what JMS says and find it helpful or choose to use it as their guide. But, in the end those are just JMS' thoughts and musings on what his intentions may have been or what he believes, not what the viewer actually interprets as they watch it.

 

[mandragora]

Actually, you can have it both ways, as the idea of choice within predestination has been a belief of many predestinationists for some time now. The basic belief is that the big things are planned out, that the end result is already known. But you can make choices along the way that may affect you at the time but will not in any way affect the end result. No matter what you do, no matter what choices you make, that end result will still be the same. That is why someone can receive a vision of a possible non-future. They may think it affects the end outcome, but it doesn't, it merely causes them to make another choice that moves them towards their preordained destiny.

What I meant is that you can't on the one hand argue that in B5 prophetic visions always comes true, while on the other hand when presented with counter examples of visions that *don't* come true argue that they are there to nudge characters in the opposite direction. Either prophetic visions always come true, and this is evidence of predestination. Or they don't. If they don't always come true, they can't be used as evidence that B5 is a universe governed by predestination. Otherwise this amounts to using scenes as evidence just as they fit.

As for the statements of JMS himself, those hold no weight with me whatsoever. B5 is an interpretive art form and as such it is left up to the individual viewer to interpret it for themselves. Someone can look at what JMS says and find it helpful or choose to use it as their guide. But, in the end those are just JMS' thoughts and musings on what his intentions may have been or what he believes, not what the viewer actually interprets as they watch it.

Fair enough. But then this is *your interpretation* - mine is quite different. I don't see this as a universe governed by predestination at all.

 

[vacantlook]

I did a google search on B5 images, and that one came up. I believe it is either from Lost Tales or A Call To Arms, because of the new tech effect of the jump point graphics.

I asked because of how small it is I couldn't be sure, but it really looks to me like it's Father Cassidy's shuttle coming out of the jumpgate from TLT, which struck me as slightly humorous given the discussion we've had in this thread over that story.

Actually Lady Morella showed Sinclair the exact future as it would happen, right down to the shuttle leaving B5 just as it exploded....

The exploding B5 she saw was from the "alternate" reality/timeline that the broadcast message from Ivanova at the beginning of "War Without End" came from. In answering someone's question about whether the alternate destruction of Babylon 5 occurs in the past or the future, jms said:

Nope. The scenes are all in the future. Garibaldi specifically
identifies the distress call as coming from 8 days in the future.
Sinclair's vision wasn't a flashback, but a flash forward; even the
blowing of B5 was identified by Lady Ladira as in the future....

 

[Cell]

What I meant is that you can't on the one hand argue that in B5 prophetic visions always comes true, and when presented with counter examples of visions that don't come true argue that they are there to nudge characters in the opposite direction. Either prophetic visions always come true, and this is evidence of predestination. Or they don't. If they don't always come true, they can't be used as evidence that B5 is a universe governed by predestination. Otherwise this amounts to using scenes as evidence just as they fit.

One can exist aside the other, because as I said the end result is all that is predestined. The fact that prophecies come true on a regular basis in B5 supports this. The fact that not all prophecies come true also supports this. It shows that you can have an image of what you think your decisions will lead to, but they won't because that is not the actual preordained ending.

Fair enough. But then this is *your interpretation* - mine is quite different. I don't see this as a universe governed by predestination at all.

That's fine, and I respect your interpretation. That is what I love about interpretive art. The fact that two people can watch the same show an come away with two completely different things.

 

[Cell]

Something from a non-storyline aspect that struck me as I watched this today, why wasn't Keegan McIntosh in the main credits with everyone else? He has one of the more significant roles in the movie, he is on the screen for quite a bit of time, and yet he is taking a back seat to the ISN reporter that really is superfluous to the story and is on screen for about 2 minutes total. Was there ever any reason given for this oversight?

 

[Jan]

It's not about the part, it's about the pecking order, I think. Teryl Rothery has many and recent acting credits and her agent can negotiate a prominent place in the credits. Keegan McIntosh has been out of acting for several years and therefore has a weaker negotiating position.

Jan

 

[dreamer]

Only yesterday I watched the Lost Tales and since I wasn't disapointed one bit, I have to conclude that I must like it. I've been a fan of the original show for quite a bit now but never really got into that horrendous Crusade-thing at all, and somehow perhaps unconsciously I kept avoiding the Lost Tales on account that I might get upset over how it wouldn't seem to fit into the frame - let alone the same wall.

I'm not a serious scifi fan. I generally don't even like scifi - unless it draws from something else than just being your generic science fiction, and it's funny that because of this two of my all-time favourite TV shows are scifi.
​

The first story was very interesting and I just love scifi that doesn't shy from drawing matters of faith into the context. Not only was the matter of religion important because of the ages, but I'd like to think that Burke really was possessed by a very earthbound demon - and I say earthbound not because of how things turned out, but rather to underline that these parts of recorded history/fantasy on earth are a tremendous resource for writers if they find a way to fit them into the story that makes sense. To me this story was nothing but nothing but right.

There were of course few things that which kinda stick out and the first thing was that how empty the place looked if it was supposed to be few seconds away from a big celebration. That should've definitely been underlined. I know about the budget thing, though. However, another thing that literally caught my eye was how JMS seemed to think that it's good idea to have to camera falling like into deep water when shooting the scenes with Burke. This gimmick has been proven before to be very effective on portraying possession, but it was so overused that it demanded attention from what was going on, and that, in my books is a very big no-no. It made made me a bit nauseous too.
​

I loved the second story. Hell, how could you not? It had Sheridan! I enjoyed the story more too because it reminded me of what B5 was about - more than the first one did anyway. It has apparently been discussed here that how true is the... prophecy of Galen. I would say very true and perhaps unavoidable, if not directly caused by the prince per se. Haven't the predictions or prophecies of the technomages always come true in the show? Haven't they been very specific about them, like when Elric says to Mollari in a certainty that millions will cry out his name in pain. Other prognosticators are more vague about their predictions and I've always thought that the technomages see the future with more certainty and details. It would fit that to have little to none technomages running around in the original series, since why bother to do anything if you could just ask a technomage?

Can't really point out anything that bad in this episode. I think it fits Sheridan's character at this point of his life to not to have a lot of people buzzing around (meaning that he travels alone because he's always surrounded by people because of his job/position) and at the end I hoped that they wouldn't actually show the ceremonies - when in the first episodes I kinda wished that they did. The one thing that I was almost sure that would happen was when Sheridan talked with Galen at B5, that he'd say "The universe doesn't give you points for doing things that are easy" when Galen demanded to know why he didn't stick with his plan. That would've made the episode for me, definitely.

​

I have to watch this thing many, many times before I can really say if I really like it or not, but at least I wasn't disapointed and that's the most important thing to me at this point. Franke's soundtrack was fabulous (second to only that miraculous soundtrack of the unreleased B5 game) and B5 has never looked better. Hearing G'kar's voice send chills down my spine.

Can't wait til the annual B5 marathon

Oh, and hi everyone! This was my first post.

 

[Elipsis]

Finally saw this. The first story felt really out of place. It kind of ignored the entire past history of the show's main arc. Haven't we already established that many religions were heavily influenced by the Vorlons and Shadows fucking with us? Why would Lochley ignore all of the knowledge in the B5 universe to date and turn to theology as the only rational explanation for the observed phenomenon. This is a universe with overpowered telepaths, absurdly old races presenting themselves as dieties and a cast of main characters who are fully aware of the recent history. I'm not saying that we couldn't have had the story play out the way it did... but I want to see a lot more skepticism and reasoning coming from a character who otherwise has demonstrated leadership on Babylon 5.

It was so great to see Babylon 5 again with the gorgeous CG. Yes the cast was a little thin but I thought the intro sequence did a great job bringing the place back to life after all this time.

The second story was better and at least intrigued me to know more about the B5 universe. The problem here is that, as my friend said to me, "There are so many great stories about B5... you'd think they would want to film one of them." This criticism struck a cord with me as well... Sheridan's story is very referencial, and you've got to know a lot about the B5 universe to get much out of the 2nd story. This may be great for us here but it doesn't do well at all as a stand alone. There are a ton of alusions to the past and future here... and in regards to that future... ya know I really would love to see some of it some time.

I would buy another TLT if it were to be made, but I can't say I was terribly impressed with either of them... particuarly the Lochley story... although seeing everything again on screen really did feel wonderful just for nostalgic purposes.

 

[Triple F]

There’s something that has been niggling me about the second story since watching it.

Warping in?? But the main one is about the technomage showing Sheridan the future battle and the destruction of New York by the Centauri prince as he’s decided that he needs to remove the only power strong enough to stop his expansionist plans. The only power that has stopped them in the past. When did that happen??

Is it in a book or something. As far as stuff seen on screen goes earth never directly fought against the Centauri (never mind defeat them) – the ISA yeah, but not Earth.

 

[Elipsis]

Also "Quantum Space" was stupid and unnecessary, presenting a ton of new issues, complications and opportunities for the universe and yet treated as an offhand light hearted kind of joke.