• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Love or loathe it, the Hand a tactical blunder?(spoilers)

Dave Thomer put it best, I think:

"In my case, that's only true in the sense that what I was expecting (or, more accurately, what I was hoping for) was something somehow new, exciting, or surprising, and the Hand were not that. The Hand had the same 'going back to the well' feeling that season 5 of B5 had for me.
If people like it, great, more power to 'em. I can't help but think that there would be a way to get newcomers to the story engaged in a way that also surprised and energized more of those familiar with B5. I thought the characters succeeded on that score, and I think it would have been an improvement if the plot had as well."

As for the condescending bit somebody else posted about [simple-minded] WOWers and Trekkers -- don't try to discredit those with whom you disagree.

FWIW, in my own case I have never been a Trekker. I've enjoyed TOS (of course), several of the movies, and parts of TNG. I was bored with the rest -- hey have never been appointment shows for me. I was into reading SF as a kid YEARS before Star Wars came out. Compared to the classics of the literature, most SciFi TV is mediocre at best. Sure they are fundamentally different media, but I have high expectations/hopes.

That's part of why B5 was such a huge deal for me -- I'd long ago given up hope of anything on TV with that degree of depth and complexity.

I gave Enterprise a try for several eps, hopeful that TPTB for that show would truly break out of their rut.

And to my mortification LOTR had some of the same weaknesses that Enterprise did. *Neither* show should get a pass on every fumble just because it's new. Both of them are coming from experienced teams working in an already established universe (LOTR more so than ENT because the latter is a prequel).

I wasn't impressed by Enterprise, and I will NOT hold a double standard for LOTR just because I'm a B5 fan.

------------------
newscaper,
from the SciFi Channel Farscape BB
 
GkarsEye - funny, I was just saying to my husband last night that he was a Vorlon and I was a Shadow and so we fit perfectly together. Neat.
laugh.gif


Anyways, another way to think of the movie for those avid sci-fi novel readers: the movie was basically like what you find on the back cover of a book: (taking on deep spooky voice that sounds like something out of the Twilight Zone) "The Shadows nearly got the best of us in book one, but in the end, they were defeated. Now it seems there's a bigger badder race out to wreak havoc with the younger races. But is everything just like it seems? Or is it yet another mystery in the fastinating world of JMS..."

------------------
Pam Kanik
pkbab5@aol.com

"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this ..
all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
-Sinclair, Babylon 5: Infection
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Look folks, it's very simple. The movie geared for two audiences:

1. Those unfamiliar with Babylon 5
2. Those familiar with Babylon 5
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's precisely the point. A lot of people didn't think it succeeded with either audience.
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/317563p1.html



------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."
 
OK, that's just slightly irritating. The above mentioned article included the line:

"For example, we are introduced to a new superrace, called The Hand, and told these guys are even more powerful, more advanced, and more dangerous than the nasty, human-fueled, almost-indestructible Shadows combated in B5. Yet these villains are easily deceived, and are dispatched by our clunky little hero-ship with disappointing ease."

I tend to discount authors of reviews who don't even take the time to get the facts of what they're reviewing straight.

------------------
Pam Kanik
pkbab5@aol.com

"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this ..
all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
-Sinclair, Babylon 5: Infection
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> I'm sorry, I wouldn't exactly call the review on filmforce a good one. Any reviewer who misses plot points, misunderstands the characters they are reviewing, makes utterly inaccurate comparisons to another show and gets the details of that show wrong and misunderstands the universe he is reviewing totally fails in that endeavour.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I would agree with you if I saw any of that in the review, but I simply didn't. I've read that article several times and I don't see any missing plot points, misunderstandings or inaccurate comparisons.

I mean the guy tries and give a little history on B5 and the b5 universe (there are people out there who've never seen it). You could waste a few hundred pages talking about that alone and you still probably wouldn't cover everything -- reviewers are typically limited in how much they can write. Anyway, after the history lesson, the guy says that the movie sucks. He then comments that the show is a wannabe Star Trek -- how can that be an inaccurate comparison? It's his friggin' opinion of what he saw! He then goes through a quick run down of the main characters, comments on the lackluster acting, and sums up by stating that the movie didn't do any favors for the B5 franchise.

I actually disagree with half of the things the guy says, but it's a pretty good review. LOTR probably didn't even deserve such a well-written and lengthy review.

------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nyght:
I'd expect that kind of review from someone utterly uninterested in sci-fi with no real knowledge of B5 or Star Trek. For someone who claims to like both shows, well its obvious how true it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as one point of fact: Glen Oliver (who wrote that review) has been a B5 supporter from way back. He was the one who kept giving B5 positive cyber-ink over at Ain't It Cool News when he was there. As soon as Glen left AICN the site basically started ignoring everything Babylonian. That is until, citing multiple requests for coverage on it, they put up a scathing pan of a review written by someone whose handle was "Captain Pike".


------------------
 
Hmmm let's see:

1) G'Kar - The reviewer assumes that because G'Kar has a decided spiritual bent at the end of the B5 series he's lost his rather impish since of humor. I guess he thought G'Kar was going off to be the Dali Lama or something. Considering how G'Kar kept his sense of humor throughout season 5 I'd say the reviewer missed a rather large number of B5 episodes.

2) Hand- Going on about the crew of the Liandra facing the Hand when it is perfectly clear they are facing servents of the Hand. Definately shows someone was not paying attention.

3) Comparions to Star Trek crew: One example, Dulann = Spock because both are somewhat telepathic, second in command (and possibly because they have a dry sense of humor, though that is really more the later Spock of the movies than the one in TOS). Of course Minbari are not even remotely like Vulcans, but that is forgotten. I guess Sarah is like Worf and therefore a klingon in disguise. Then he switches to a criticism about the doctor staying in sickbay. Which Doctor and is he comparing the Healer to a doctor on Star Trek and, if so, which one? No McCoy who was everywhere but sickbay. Crusher moved about quite a lot. There was no Doctor in DS9 and the one in Voyager had to stay there until he received his mobile emitter. Sorry but that comparison was very simplistic and not thought out in the least.

4) Name criticisms- Too many of the names seemed similar. Oh now that is really in-depth. I suppose most languages won't have any names that sound remotely alike. I'll forgive the fact that he didn't remember or likely didn't know that Tannier had already been introduced in an episode of B5.

As far as the criticism about the acting abilities of the cast, that is personal opinion. I thought the cast did very well, the reviewer disagreed but since both sides can quote the same scenes to support their cases those criticisms end in a draw.

And to end the review by basically saying there is no where for the crew to go doesn't make any sense in the least. Its like saying, "Oh they caught the assassin at the end of "The Gathering" so Babylon 5 really has no place else to go. Mystery solved."

Need I say more?

------------------
Lyta lives!
 
Alright then.

Missing plot point:

The author thought that the star shaped ships that the Liandra beat WERE ships of the Hand. He missed the plot point that explained that they were NOT ships of the Hand, but charity donations to a completely different and much inferior race that served the hand.

Misunderstandings:

The author complains about the use of the name David for the captain, because Sheridan and Delenn have a son named David. He doesn't understand that David is a VERY common name for humans and this complaint is pointless. He complains about the similarity of the name Dulann to Delenn and the similarity of the name Tannier to Lennier. He doesn't understand that in some languages (Asian and Russian languages being two biggies, I think), there is much similarity in names of people belonging to the same family, group, or occupation, with only small differences in prefixes or suffixes to distinguish between members of the group. It is obvious that this practice is followed in Minbari culture. Not to mention that Tannier (as a character) was introduced in the original series, NOT in B5LR, although he is played by a different actor.

I can't really talk about the innaccurate comparisons with Star Trek as I am not well-versed in the Star Trek universe. I'm sure someone else can help me out here.

Misjudgments:

Although this is just an opinion, and therefore not as critique-worthy, I still have to bring it up. The author says about G'Kar in the movie:
"He butts-in, he's annoying, arrogant, and conducts himself with an effeminate flamboyance that grates from minute one."
G'Kar was only annoying if one finds humor and truth annoying, arrogant because he was wiser and more influential than those he was speaking to, and therefor arrogant by right, and as for the effeminate flamboyance, I don't think any of the qualities he exhibited can really be truthfully confined to the characteristics of one sex or the other. Just cause someone doesn't get violent does not mean he's a sissy.

(BTW, I am not slamming any person here, I am critiquing a review. I hope that no one will take any of my comments personally.)

------------------
Pam Kanik
pkbab5@aol.com

"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this ..
all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
-Sinclair, Babylon 5: Infection
 
IMHO, the review appears to suffer from a lack of Attention paid to the movie.

My guess: the reviewer had the Movie and the Game on at the same time and tried to watch Both.
The big question is which did he have in the small Window?

I found his comment about how Minbar has been "redesigned" kinda stupid.

In the series, we saw views of maybe 6 exteriors on Minbar.

Now we see, for the first time, a Nightime view of a Different neighborhood.

I didn't know it was all supposed to look exactly alike.

So, which is the REAL American city?
Washington DC and the Pentagon?
Chicago and Lakeshore Drive?
Seattle and the Space needle?
New York and Central Park?

Now, let's visit England and Big Ben.
Moscow and the Kremlin.
India and the Taj Mahal.
Rome and the Colliseum.

Which of these defines what "Earth" looks like?

Talk about Stoopid.

------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."

[This message has been edited by bakana (edited January 31, 2002).]
 
What if he made up the hand? Maybe their is no such thing, but he gets everyone to worry about some big bad race that cause them to over look what his race is actually doing

------------------
We are Rangers
We walk in the dark places no one will enter
We do not break away from combat
We Stand on the bridge and no one may pass
We do not retreat, whatever the reason
We live for the one, We die for the one
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> What if he made up the hand? Maybe their is no such thing, but he gets everyone to worry about some big bad race that cause them to over look what his race is actually doing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

trying to keep the IA worried about spending its resources on lesser attacks when they think a larger more powerful enemy is near? that whole bluff technique
tongue.gif


------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> What if he made up the hand? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlikely. JMS doesn't cheat like that.
And it Would be a Cheat.

JMS may Mislead us by making us look Stage Left when we should be watching Stage Right, but all the clues are in plain sight.

The Hand will be Real.
They will be Nasty.

It's How the Rangers will Solve the problem that will matter.



------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by newscaper:
And to my mortification LOTR had some of the same weaknesses that Enterprise did. *Neither* show should get a pass on every fumble just because it's new. Both of them are coming from experienced teams working in an already established universe (LOTR more so than ENT because the latter is a prequel).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


About the "experienced team", IMHO it's not quite totally right.

That's true for the 4 head peoples: JMS (script), Doug Nettle (production), Chris Franke (music) and Mike Vejar (directing).

But the rest of the team was totally new on this experience: Actors, production crew, FX artists, etc.

my 2 cents

- Garibaldi's Hairs (the french one)




------------------
"You are all in violation of security ordinance 22V3A. That means get the hell out of here!
"
- Zack
 
Funny, I don't recall placing anyone in any particular group. I just espoused my opinion of the various criticisms I've read about the movie on this site. If you disagree with them great,but please actually disagree with them. Don't attempt to avoid a discussion by belittling people.

If you feel an analysis is "simplistic" then explain why.

I'm sorry, I wouldn't exactly call the review on filmforce a good one. Any reviewer who misses plot points, misunderstands the characters they are reviewing, makes utterly inaccurate comparisons to another show and gets the details of that show wrong and misunderstands the universe he is reviewing totally fails in that endeavour.

I'd expect that kind of review from someone utterly uninterested in sci-fi with no real knowledge of B5 or Star Trek. For someone who claims to like both shows, well its obvious how true it is.

I posted an longer criticism of that reivew under one of the threads Alex started, so I won't repeat it here.

------------------
Lyta lives!
 
Glen Oliver may be a big B5 fan but he definately missed the boat on his review. Myself and others just pointed out a ton of things in there from plain opinion to serious misunderstandings that have to (if you are honest) cast doubt on his being impartial in reviewing the subject. Frankly a reviewer has to step back, no matter how vested in the material and look at it. His review, to me, sounds like he really didn't want to like Lotr and found lots of little things to criticise, then tosses around some comments on the acting and bundles it off for his boss.

Other favorite Star Trek comparisons: The ship gets major damage forcing the heros to think out of the box to save the day. Sure ST has done that like a million times, but if the Liandra (Enterprise, Defiant, Voyager, etc.) coudl simply blow their enemy away at will where would the tension be? At least we know the Liandra is old, barely repaired from her previous fight and not as tough 1 on 1 as her opponents. Even if she was at full strength I doubt she could take on one of those vessels we saw and win. The Enterprise (pick a version) was always portrayed as one of the toughest ships around, but it takes a couple of hits and oops there go the shields, then the weapons, ack the hull is collapsing, eject the warp core... oh Geordi (or Scotty) fixed everything and yea we win! Or they can't fix everything but someone promptly reconfigures something which produces a totally new and effective weapon in 5 minutes, but then this major technological advance is utterly forgotten about and never seen again. *sighs*

Which leads to my other favorite criticism, the engineer who fixes everything. Umm lets see... The Liandra barely gets off the ground because repairs are rushed. Then after a nasty fight, she loses her jump engines, and her weapons and normal space engines are at 25% of normal. Then after *hours* of running and hiding the Liandra has to resort to a trick to destroy an enemy ship. Sure her engines are up to 80% of normal but that is not enough to out range her foes and her weapons are still barely useful. So they use a trick. Then the Liandra takes more damage knocking out the weapons array until they can return to dock. Meanwhile her jump engines still are not fixed, necessitating they return to the jump gate to try to escape. Yep that Narn can sure fix anything!

Frankly, if she was in Starfleet she would be let go for gross incompetence. Take the ST: Wrath of Khan, the Enterprise gets its butt kicked hard by Khan but through a trick, manages to do enough damage to force the Reliant to withdraw. Then two hours later, she has her impulse drive back, partial main power and full weapons capability. Not enough against a mostly whole Reliant so they run to the Nebula where both adversaries will lack shields. JTK outsmarts Khan tactically but oops the Genesis device is active. So Spock runs down to Engineering, grabs his gloves and in 5 minutes fixes the warp engines that even Scotty the miracle worker couldn't do in two hours. How many other times has Scotty or Geordi managed to take a badly, practically crippled (if you believe the dialogue) ship and return her to full fighting trim in under 10 minutes?

The G'Kar comments still burn me the most. Glen calls him a "bitchy queen", which smacks seriously of a gay sterotype.

When is he arrogent? With the Ranger council, whose leader told him to butt in whenever he felt like it. Considering the Minbari penchance for arrogence to less advanced races it is appropriate and definately got their attention. They are about to get rid of a Ranger for actions G'Kar feels deeply about, the caring for others and thinking about the future. He shoves their slavish devotion to tradition in their face and forces them to rethink their decision.

When is he prissy? With a bunch of scared dimplomats who are demanding luxery accomodations or being dropped off on some rock where they can easily be found. G'Kar from Season 4 on never suffered fools much and so he is very sarcastic with them. Again, this is typical G'Kar, at least to anyone who watched all 5 seasons of B5. Here he is dealing with people thinking only of themselves, not the crew of the Liandra who are doing all they can to save everyone and certainly not the importance of getting home alive with what they know. G'Kar doesn't appreciate that selfishness much either.

When is he contemplative, understanding and caring? With the inexperienced crew of the Liandra, he mentors them, supports them and helps them without taking over. Certainly G'Kar has a lot more combat experience than David, but does he take over the ship? No, he offers advice when asked and moral support. Could he have taken over the ship? With his reputation, he definately could have. He knows there are more battles being fought than just against the Hand's servants. So he stays in the background.

Would the Season 1 G'Kar have done that? I don't think so, he had his moments, such as when he had Narn fighters hunt for Catherine Saki, but he was still too angry a person inside. For the post Season 5 G'Kar, his actions are perfectly in character.

For those who seem to have forgotten G'Kar's humor... Opening of Season 5, President Sheridan's inaugeration.

G'Kar "Do you want to be President?"
Sheridan "yes"
G'Kar "Put your hand on the book and say I do."
Sheridan *places hand on book* "I do"
G'Kar "Fine, let's eat".

Classic G'Kar.

------------------
Lyta lives!
 
I never said that I agreed with Glen's review or argued in support of his view about B5:LotR. In fact I disagree with much / most of what he said.

I just pointed out that concluding from that review that he must never have been a fan of B5 was incorrect.

------------------
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> 1) G'Kar - The reviewer assumes that because G'Kar has a decided spiritual bent at the end of the B5 series he's lost his rather impish since of humor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a reasonable assumption to make. I also thought that I would be seeing an older and wiser G'Kar. As far as season five goes, the less said about it the better.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> 2) Hand- Going on about the crew of the Liandra facing the Hand when it is perfectly clear they are facing servents of the Hand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the whole thing was somewhat confusing to me, because I thought the aliens on the other ships were the hand until the mysterious alien of the other ship made some comment that his masters don't take defeat well. Once that piece of information had registered(thanfully, I wasn't in the bathroom at the time) it muddied other things. Like, for instance, if the hand were supposedly unable to come here, then how did they arm races with advanced starships. But as far as referring to the minions of the hand as the hand, instead of actually calling them the minions of the hand, I don't see it as a big deal. The minions, the ugly ships .... they're all just manifestations of the hand.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>3) Comparions to Star Trek crew: One example, Dulann = Spock because both are somewhat telepathic, second in command (and possibly because they have a dry sense of humor, though that is really more the later Spock of the movies than the one in TOS). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You actually picked the one comparison that I thought was apt. You gave three pretty good reasons why the reviewer made the comparison. But then again, I'm not the one who thinks LOTR is a Star Trek wannabe. I disagree with that, but that doesn't mean the guy was wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> 4) Name criticisms- Too many of the names seemed similar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've had a problem with that for awhile now. I don't know why it is, but JMS has a jones for the name David -- almost like Gene Roddenbury had a jones for the name William Boone. A good example of the confusion it brings was last year when details of this telemovie were coming out. How many people assumed that the David in Rangers was the same David that was born to Sheridan and Delenn. Even after details of the timeline were released, people still asked and wondered if this was the same David. I've probably seen B5 as many times as anyone here, but I still confuse Sheridan and Sinclair at times -- I have to sit and think for a moment which was which. There are other examples, like the Delenn/Dulann thing, but I can't argue with the guy for raising the issue -- though it does seem a little trivial.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> As far as the criticism about the acting abilities of the cast, that is personal opinion. I thought the cast did very well, the reviewer disagreed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole thing is basically personal opinion. The only factual error you pointed out was the thing about the Hand -- which even if you do consider to be a fatal error, is by no means uncommon ... you should check out some of the reviews on AICN, Dark Horizons or TV Guide.com and see what passes as a critique these days -- this review is like Shakespeare in comparison to some of those. As for the acting, I think the reviewer stated that not all of the acting was bad... only a large part of it, which I can't disagree with.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> And to end the review by basically saying there is no where for the crew to go doesn't make any sense in the least. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It made sense to me. The point he was trying to make was that there was nothing new that could come from this series since it has all been covered before. Strictly going by the telemovie, I'd have to agree.

------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."
 
Pillowrock- I never said he wasn't a fan, but that he claimed to be. I felt, and still do, the errors he makes regarding B5 either 1) shows he is not as huge a fan of the show he is presenting himself to be or 2) hasn't watched B5 in a while and is basing his opinions on what he remembers the show to be and not what it was. I could be totally wrong and he could have his house and life dedicated to B5, but I'm basing it on this review.



------------------
Lyta lives!
 
PsionTen-

G'Kar - Again, 90% of the time G'Kar is on the screen he is quiet, contemplative, mentoring showing us how he has matured. For two scenes he demonstrates some older habits.Therefore what? G'Kar has changed? He is being badly written? Or maybe he is not the character you want him to be? G'Kar left to explore with Lyta because he was afraid of being turned into some deep religious figure on Narn. Yet it is exactly that pigeon people seem to want to put him into. I find that ironic.


Star Trek- I picked Dulann=Spock comparison because it was the best of a poor bunch of comparisons and then only superficially. Give me three items about yourself and I bet I can find some really nasty person from history you resemble. Would you think that a fair comparison? I wouldn't and I don't buy it here. The David=Kirk is really bad and the comment about Firrel doesn't even make sense. Is he comparing her to a Star Trek doctor or just trying to be pissy that the doctor actually stays in sickbay dealing with the wounded? Its not like the Liandra has a huge medical staff, so the doctor can wander around whenever he/she wants.

Hand- I think G'Kar makes two things very clear when David asks him what is going on. First, there are myths in every culture he has visited where dark and light fought and the dark was banished someplace. Many criticized JMS all the myth WE have heard seem to reflect on the Shadows. I think if you go back to those episodes you see that those stories are very specific to the Shadows, though not directly by name. The book of G'Quan is the most specific, but the other races, like the Drazi, all refer to a darkness a thousand years or so before. That is pretty specific. The myths G'Kar is talking about seem older. I'm guessing Christianity's God vs Satan belief would fall into this category.

Second, that recently someone broke through or the barrier weakened and made contact with the Hand. Not set them free, but made contact. That is very crucial. Kafta says the Hand are incredibly powerful and more dangerous than the Shadows, so they allied with them. Again, he doesn't mention they are free, just his belief of their power. The ships themselves are not that powerful, not like a battlecrab, but no where are they identified as being constructed by the Hand. They could be older tech, or built by those who have allied with the Hand on their instructions. So you can't say they are even a good representation of the Hand's technology. Finally, the hooded figure mentions the Hand as being his Masters.

So it is clear throughout the movie these guys the crew of the Liandra are up against are not the Hand. Obviously people jumped to that conclusion but then people have always jumped to conclusions about B5.

Names - Writers often give characters similar sounding names. It can be annoying but basically its trivial. B5 is no better or worse than Star Trek. Kahless, Klang, Kor, Khan, Kholos, Kurn- pick the Klingons out of the bunch.
smile.gif
Spock, Sarek, Sonn, and Sybok. T'Pol, T'Pau, T'Pring.... Need I say more?
smile.gif


I find those types of criticisms, along with those about how Minbar looks, to be very trivial and not worth including in a review. I do find it vastly amusing that he thinks Minbar should look a certain way based on a few distant shots but then criticise Minbari names for being similar. So their cities should all be the same but their names should be really weird and different from each other? You can't have it both ways in my opinion.

Where to go from here- I'd like to know about the Hand, even if you don't. I'd like to see how the Rangers continue to evolve as an organization. Obviously there are tension between the traitional beliefs of the minbari and new thinking by humans. Then you still have the reluctence to accept other races into the Rangers. How bad are the Raiders? Who did kill the original crew of the Liandra? Obviously a Ranger, but did that person escape and who gave him or her their orders and why? Is there corruption within the Rangers and if so who is behind it? The Hand? The Drakh? Really anti-anybody not minbari, minbari? What kind of problems will the Rangers face policing the new alliance?

Those are just off the top of my head. If none of that appeals to you, that's fine. It appeals to me and I think others as well. And those are only based on the little tidbits we know about. JMS tends to throw curves in and I'd really like to know what he has planned.



------------------
Lyta lives!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 461 (members: 2, guests: 459)

Share this page

Back
Top