Did Deep Space Nine Rip Off Bablyon 5?

[Soviet Heavy]

I know that JMS gave Paramount his series bible when he pitched the show to them, but it was rejected. Instead, Paramount decided to greenlight Deep Space Nine.

Now, I've never watched Babylon 5, so any information I have on it is second hand, but for people who watched both, can you give me a straight answer? Just how much do the shows parallel each other, apart from both being on space stations during wartime?

Captcha: Doctor Squirrel

 

[Sixcess]

Just how much do the shows parallel each other, apart from both being on space stations during wartime?

They're both set on space stations, but that's it really. It took until the 'soft reboot' of Way of the Warrior at the start of season 4 for DS9 to adopt a more story arc focused structure, and to broaden its main cast beyond Starfleet personnel plus Quark. In contrast B5 had its story arc up and running from the middle of season one, and over half the main cast members were not Earthforce personnel.

I suppose there are some similarities in that both Sisko and Sheridan ended up being 'chosen' by higher beings, but even so it's arguable that Sheridan wasn't the focal point of the main arc that ran from season 1 to the middle of season 4.

He was the leading character, but most of the arc revolved around Londo Mollari - I'd call him the Gul Dukat of B5, but that doesn't do Londo credit. Dukat was always a secondary figure, more developed than a villain-of-the-week but still always a villain regardless. Londo on the other hand does terrible things but he's almost always a sympathetic character and his character arc throughout the entire run of the show is a classic tragedy.

And B5 was a lot more cynical. In the Pale Moonlight is a justifiably famous and rare instance of the 'good guys' doing bad things in Trek. B5 had very few characters who could unequivocally be called 'good' to begin with.

So I'd say while the concept is similar the execution was very different.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Just how much do the shows parallel each other, apart from both being on space stations during wartime?

They're both set on space stations, but that's it really. It took until the 'soft reboot' of Way of the Warrior at the start of season 4 for DS9 to adopt a more story arc focused structure, and to broaden its main cast beyond Starfleet personnel plus Quark. In contrast B5 had its story arc up and running from the middle of season one, and over half the main cast members were not Earthforce personnel.

I suppose there are some similarities in that both Sisko and Sheridan ended up being 'chosen' by higher beings, but even so it's arguable that Sheridan wasn't the focal point of the main arc that ran from season 1 to the middle of season 4.

He was the leading character, but most of the arc revolved around Londo Mollari - I'd call him the Gul Dukat of B5, but that doesn't do Londo credit. Dukat was always a secondary figure, more developed than a villain-of-the-week but still always a villain regardless. Londo on the other hand does terrible things but he's almost always a sympathetic character and his character arc throughout the entire run of the show is a classic tragedy.

And B5 was a lot more cynical. In the Pale Moonlight is a justifiably famous and rare instance of the 'good guys' doing bad things in Trek. B5 had very few characters who could unequivocally be called 'good' to begin with.

So I'd say while the concept is similar the execution was very different.

Interesting. Regarding the Way of the Warrior reboot, I thought that was because the execs wanted something to spruce up the show, which is why the Dominion was put on the backburner for most of Season 4. Interesting to hear about the difference in direction between the two shows. I suppose you could argue that DS9 was taking influences by increasing their focus on serialized arcs over standalone episodes, given the rather uneven first two seasons and the weak in the middle third season. Ultimately it worked out for the best though.

I heard somewhere that the Babylon 5 creators tried to sue Paramount for infringement with DS9. Is that true?

 

[Sixcess]

I heard somewhere that the Babylon 5 creators tried to sue Paramount for infringement with DS9. Is that true?

Not that I'm aware of. Straczynski was at one time rather sceptical of Paramount's claims that they hadn't used his work (and who can blame him) but I don't think it ever came near to coming to legal blows. To be honest I think it's another one of those rivalries that exists mostly in the minds of the fans of the respective series.

Edit: though to be fair I don't know what was in the story bible. It's possible that DS9 was more similar to JMS's original concepts for B5, if not to what ended up on the screen.

I suppose you could argue that DS9 was taking influences by increasing their focus on serialized arcs over standalone episodes, given the rather uneven first two seasons and the weak in the middle third season.

Agreed. If there was a conscious decision to copy B5 it came in season 4, not season 1. That's quite plausible, given that by season 3 B5 was at the peak of its arc, whereas DS9 was, as you say, meandering without much overall direction. Even so, I feel DS9 remained more 'grounded' (wormhole aliens and season 7 mysticism aside) than B5.

All in all I like both shows. DS9 is, for me, the best by far of the modern Trek series, and B5 remains an early and extremely well executed example of a multi-season story arc.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

All in all I like both shows. DS9 is, for me, the best by far of the modern Trek series, and B5 remains an early and extremely well executed example of a multi-season story arc.

Very true. It's just as shame that both shows had rather underwhelming final seasons. (Yes I said I haven't watched much Babylon 5, but SF Debris is a great helper) They're not bad really, but not up to the standards of their respective shows. Hell, Season 7 of DS9 has some of the best episodes in the show's entire run, but things started getting a little too goofy and overblown around the time the Breen appeared.

Babylon 5's final season had to deal with the fact that the massive, show defining war had been neatly wrapped up already, leaving it to try and deal with little content that could keep people interested.

 

[Sixcess]

Babylon 5's final season had to deal with the fact that the massive, show defining war had been neatly wrapped up already, leaving it to try and deal with little content that could keep people interested.

I think JMS did pretty well considering he'd been forced to wrap it all up in season 4 due to the network deciding not to renew for the final year. Then when it did get picked up by a different network he had to pull something out of nothing. At its best S5 made for an interesting epilogue at least.

But yeah, seasons 2 to 4 of B5 are the best of it - season 1 is essential but doesn't really get going until about halfway through the year, and season 5 is generally weaker than what came before.

As for DS9, I didn't mind the Breen (but I'm a sucker for Worf/Dax so that helped) and it does have some really good episodes and a great character arc for Gul Damar, but I do agree with SFDebris that Gul Dukat's story should have ended in season 6. The weird mystical nonsense that made up his arc in season 7 was pretty awful.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Babylon 5's final season had to deal with the fact that the massive, show defining war had been neatly wrapped up already, leaving it to try and deal with little content that could keep people interested.

I think JMS did pretty well considering he'd been forced to wrap it all up in season 4 due to the network deciding not to renew for the final year. Then when it did get picked up by a different network he had to pull something out of nothing. At its best S5 made for an interesting epilogue at least.

But yeah, seasons 2 to 4 of B5 are the best of it - season 1 is essential but doesn't really get going until about halfway through the year, and season 5 is generally weaker than what came before.

As for DS9, I didn't mind the Breen (but I'm a sucker for Worf/Dax so that helped) and it does have some really good episodes and a great character arc for Gul Damar, but I do agree with SFDebris that Gul Dukat's story should have ended in season 6. The weird mystical nonsense that made up his arc in season 7 was pretty awful.

The thing about Season Seven was that far too much time was spent, as you said, on the Bajoran mysticism. It was definitely there in the preceding seasons, but it only really came to a head in late Season 6 with the Pa-Wraith attacking Jake and then the Wormhole. And that was nicely wrapped up in the two parter opening Season 7. If the Bajoran prophecy had just ended there, I would have been fine. Sisko saved the Celestial Temple, fully embraced his role as the Emissary, and defeated the Pa-Wraith.

So why bring it back up with Dukat? You've resolved those two plotlines, you don't need to mash them together in a story regarding a magic book. It just took away from everything else that was happening and things just got sillier and sillier.

The Breen seemed like a late inclusion to up the threat level, which didn't seem to matter before. The Jem'Hadar are pretty much the deadliest species in the series, upping even the Borg just for their brutality. The Breen to me just looked like giant Boussh cosplayers.

Spoiler

It didn't work for me.

 

[Candidus]

I think that hijacking the basic premise was the full extent of Paramount's legally dubious theft. Having watched both series, and bearing in mind the too-suspicious timing of DS9's announcement.

Now, when DS9 breaks out of the mould of previous Trek series and drops the episodic model in exchange for protracted arcs, I think that's a direct result of B5's ongoings at the time; and I think the aping thereafter ranges from insignificant to explicit.

Just as an aside, I think DS9's handling of the 'chosen one' trope was by far the most dreadful.

Remember Susan Ivanova's diplomatic sex dance in B5? Embarrassing to watch, right? Crosses the line from cheesy-funny into completely uncomfortable, yes? You skip the scene or mute the television and go make some tea, right?

I had to walk away from DS9 a lot when it wasn't trying to be silly or funny. I am NOT a fan of "The Sisko" (snort), as the emissary.

 

[keiji_Maeda]

I know that JMS gave Paramount his series bible when he pitched the show to them, but it was rejected. Instead, Paramount decided to greenlight Deep Space Nine.

Now, I've never watched Babylon 5, so any information I have on it is second hand, but for people who watched both, can you give me a straight answer? Just how much do the shows parallel each other, apart from both being on space stations during wartime?

Captcha: Doctor Squirrel

i seem to remember that JMZ approached Paramount but it was denied on the basis that they considered him a risk, being untested in the field of creating a SF franchise on the scope he was suggesting. And that the premise (limiting it to one location being interacted with by cast, instead of a moving location interacting with various palces and getting a larger synergy going) wasn't really what they were going with at that particular moment.

But after Bab 5 had a good initial run, along came DS9. And i get the feeling that ,whether or not this was a coincidental launch, have a lot of fuel to the fire for Bab 5 fans.


now i read this on the old \(*)/ forums and they weren't quite impartial. And i do like Bab 5 quite a bit better than DS9. Slightly because of the morally ambigous characters, the more succesfull marriage of black comedy and drama. And the fact that it has that JMZ flaire, a deep mythology (that, granted, has a lot of Tolkien in it) solid characters (Misterr garibaldi) and a deep running story arc that focuses on several still interesting issues (transhumanism/morality/ the complete irrelevance of a life VS the sanctity of a being.

 

[keiji_Maeda]

also find real and serious enjoyment from watching Chekov walts around as a bigoted self entitled racist who snarks everyone into submission.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Can we please stop using the term "rip off"? Just because something is similar to something else doesn't mean it was ripped off!

As for DS9 well let me put it this way, was DS9 shaped like a penis? No. Did Babylon 5 have a giant wormhole sitting next to it? No. So was one a rip off of the other? NO!

 

[LordLundar]

Babylon 5's final season had to deal with the fact that the massive, show defining war had been neatly wrapped up already, leaving it to try and deal with little content that could keep people interested.

I think JMS did pretty well considering he'd been forced to wrap it all up in season 4 due to the network deciding not to renew for the final year. Then when it did get picked up by a different network he had to pull something out of nothing. At its best S5 made for an interesting epilogue at least.

Actually S5 was always meant to be an epilogue. The problem was that the major cast members lined up new work or other commitments before the S5 was picked up. This caused JMS to make modifications to accommodate the departures of key cast members.

It wasn't pulled out of nothing so to speak, but it was heavily changed from what it was meant to be.

As for me B5 is a personal favorite largely because so much was done right. The pacing was perfect, effects weren't overused to tedium like other shows, characters had depth, and almost everything involving the story is based around historical events with very little embellishment leading to a more natural feel for the show. DS9, while good was more exaggerated and characterization was either two dimensional or forced. By the time they got into a more natural flow the series was nearly over.

Can we please stop using the term "rip off"? Just because something is similar to something else doesn't mean it was ripped off!

As for DS9 well let me put it this way, was DS9 shaped like a penis? No. Did Babylon 5 have a giant wormhole sitting next to it? No. So was one a rip off of the other? NO!

Much like one thing in common does not equate a ripoff, a few incidental differences do not make a completely separate entity.

Most likely Paramount saw how B5 was faring (very well which has been a point of smugness from JMS in fact) and tried to emulate it using Star Trek as the basis. The catch is JMS had the entire B5 storyline fleshed out before the first script was ever written while DS9 was more cobbled together (a number of character interactions do not match up as an example) making a less fluid performance.

So ripoff? No. But certainly an emulation attempt.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Can we please stop using the term "rip off"? Just because something is similar to something else doesn't mean it was ripped off!

As for DS9 well let me put it this way, was DS9 shaped like a penis? No. Did Babylon 5 have a giant wormhole sitting next to it? No. So was one a rip off of the other? NO!

Much like one thing in common does not equate a ripoff, a few incidental differences do not make a completely separate entity.

Most likely Paramount saw how B5 was faring (very well which has been a point of smugness from JMS in fact) and tried to emulate it using Star Trek as the basis. The catch is JMS had the entire B5 storyline fleshed out before the first script was ever written while DS9 was more cobbled together (a number of character interactions do not match up as an example) making a less fluid performance.

So ripoff? No. But certainly an emulation attempt.

Lest I'm mistaken, the only thing those two shows had in common was that they were set on a space station. Though I've only seen like 2 episodes of Babylon 5 so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the idea to do DS9 came from seeing the success of Babylon 5, I don't know, but I sure as hell wouldn't call it a rip off. (fuck, I'm sick of that term)

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Yes. Well, i guess not so much ripped off as influenced. But thats good for star trek, gives it something different than another ship flying through space.I love Babylon 5, prefer it to Star Trek although i like the original as a kid. But when it comes to space there is only so much you can do without being compared to others. You can either set it on a planet, a space ship or space station. So yes it could be just coincidence. Still prefer Babylon 5 though. Although been watching Andromeda recently and enjoying that.

 

[SpcyhknBC]

Can we please stop using the term "rip off"? Just because something is similar to something else doesn't mean it was ripped off!

As for DS9 well let me put it this way, was DS9 shaped like a penis? No. Did Babylon 5 have a giant wormhole sitting next to it? No. So was one a rip off of the other? NO!

Much like one thing in common does not equate a ripoff, a few incidental differences do not make a completely separate entity.

Most likely Paramount saw how B5 was faring (very well which has been a point of smugness from JMS in fact) and tried to emulate it using Star Trek as the basis. The catch is JMS had the entire B5 storyline fleshed out before the first script was ever written while DS9 was more cobbled together (a number of character interactions do not match up as an example) making a less fluid performance.

So ripoff? No. But certainly an emulation attempt.

Lest I'm mistaken, the only thing those two shows had in common was that they were set on a space station. Though I've only seen like 2 episodes of Babylon 5 so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the idea to do DS9 came from seeing the success of Babylon 5, I don't know, but I sure as hell wouldn't call it a rip off. (fuck, I'm sick of that term)

There are some other similarities:

Both stations are near powerful ancient alien artifacts (Wormhole in DS9, created by the profits; The Planet machine in B5).

Both series have a war with an extremely powerful enemy which seems hopeless at first (Dominion in DS9, Shadows in B5).

Both series have commanders which are revealed to be important to the primary ally species (Sisko is the Bajorian Emissary, Sheridan is Valen for the Minbari)

So while rip off might be a strong word, there are some strikingly similar plot points between both series. Personally, I like B5 more, but I think they are both great shows and deserve to be watched beginning to end by everyone.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Can we please stop using the term "rip off"? Just because something is similar to something else doesn't mean it was ripped off!

As for DS9 well let me put it this way, was DS9 shaped like a penis? No. Did Babylon 5 have a giant wormhole sitting next to it? No. So was one a rip off of the other? NO!

Much like one thing in common does not equate a ripoff, a few incidental differences do not make a completely separate entity.

Most likely Paramount saw how B5 was faring (very well which has been a point of smugness from JMS in fact) and tried to emulate it using Star Trek as the basis. The catch is JMS had the entire B5 storyline fleshed out before the first script was ever written while DS9 was more cobbled together (a number of character interactions do not match up as an example) making a less fluid performance.

So ripoff? No. But certainly an emulation attempt.

Lest I'm mistaken, the only thing those two shows had in common was that they were set on a space station. Though I've only seen like 2 episodes of Babylon 5 so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the idea to do DS9 came from seeing the success of Babylon 5, I don't know, but I sure as hell wouldn't call it a rip off. (fuck, I'm sick of that term)

There are some other similarities:

Both stations are near powerful ancient alien artifacts (Wormhole in DS9, created by the profits; The Planet machine in B5).

Both series have a war with an extremely powerful enemy which seems hopeless at first (Dominion in DS9, Shadows in B5).

Both series have commanders which are revealed to be important to the primary ally species (Sisko is the Bajorian Emissary, Sheridan is Valen for the Minbari)

So while rip off might be a strong word, there are some strikingly similar plot points between both series. Personally, I like B5 more, but I think they are both great shows and deserve to be watched beginning to end by everyone.

The war thing didn't happen in DS9 until the last couple of seasons so I wouldn't really count that. As for the rest, well I didn't know about that since I haven't really seen much of B5.

 

[Frungy]

Did "Noddy goes to Toyland" rip off Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace"? ... because honestly, even if DS9 did copy some ideas from Babylon 5 there's just no comparison between the two. Babylon 5 is a superbly complex narrative, with superb pacing, foreshadowings (no pun intended) that stretch seasons ahead, plot arcs that spanned years, a coherent meta-plot, and is the "Lord of the Rings" of Sci-Fi, with its own complete and compelling mythology. Characters are complex, evolve and change, and act in an internally consistent fashion. My friends and I watched B5 as it came out, and used to sit down together to watch each episode and then chat afterwards about what we thought was coming next... and the great thing was that, because the characters were internally consistent and B5 didn't hide vital information and then produce a rabbit out of the hat later, we sometimes could predict the storyline and the meaning behind tiny details in background shots. And of course Kosh's enigmatic one-liners were the source of much debate, and sometimes (after a lot of casting around), we even got the right meaning. The aliens were genuinely alien and mysterious, while still being clearly individuals with their own motivations and agendas, and trying to predict their actions sometimes required major shifts in perspective and paradigm. B5 was engaging on so many levels that it had something for everyone.

DS9, while undeniably enjoyable and a good watch, just isn't in the same class. It was definitely a hundred times better than the normal Star Trek episodic "the mystery element of the week did it", had actual plot arcs that spanned a single season, and generally was a massive step up from the normal drivel foisted on Star Trek fans. That being said, the characters were the normal two-dimensional racist stereotypes (the greedy Ferengi, the belligerant Bajorans, the Nazi'ish Cardassians, the wise and benevolent Federation humans, etc), with individual personalities subordinate to the racial profile. Despite having some plot between episodes it still tended to run from season to season with very little or no meta-plot, and certainly wasn't up to anything as complex as foreshadowing events more than a few episodes ahead...


I'm not knocking DS9. In terms of the Star Trek series it was miles ahead of the pack. However, comparing DS9 to B5 is a massive insult to B5. DS9 is enjoyable, and for those who just watch shows without engaging their brains too much it may seem that DS9 and B5 are similar. However, to anyone who actually watches and analyses what they're watching B5 is in a completely different class. My only regret is that most people just look at their TVs, they don't actually WATCH what's going on, and most people don't seem to enjoy thinking, so B5 was almost cut several times, which resulted in a few unfortunate compromises. Sadly many great shows suffered as a result of the unfortunate tendency of the TV networks to cater to the wrong side of the bell curve ... perhaps because so many of the world's idiots sit at home all day and watch TV as opposed to spending their time more productively, like arguing the relative merits of two TV series on an internet foru.... oh dear... I think I'll shut up now...

 

[Deathlyphil]

B5 is a better put together series. From series 2 onwards there are no filler episodes. None at all. As much as I love DS9 (In the Pale Moonlight by itself seals it as the best Trek), it does have a lot of filler in it. Lots of Ferengi episodes and holodeck "mishaps".

Sisko's speak from In The Pale Moonlight. Spoiler warning, as it is from series 4 or 5.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTgGtJ-PisA