Addendum_Forthcoming said:
So trying to categorically prove religion though souls and reincarnation is science-fiction, not science-fantasy?
Both of these concepts have real-world parallels. A setting doesn't arbitrarily become sci-fa because of their presence.
W40K is an example of sci-fa, among the reason of which is that souls are integral to the setting, and constantly reinforced as such. The souls in B5 aren't even explicitly confirmed as such, are lightly touched upon, and while they're a key point once (the end of the Minbari War), they're kept in the background.
Like, they're literally implying they can prove reincarnation and human souls. I'm straining to remember anything more fantastic than that in Classic Who.
Off the top of my head, antimatter monsters.
Clearly it's not, however. For intance, not once do you get an explanation how hyperspace works.
Which isn't relavant. Hyperspace is a natural phenomena in the setting. It's traversed through technological means.
Ditto in Classic Who, you often get a 'rational' reason to something that happens.
Please, Classic Who (Doctor Who in general) barely has any rationale behind it at all, in part because by its nature, the level of its technology is never consistent.
Star Trek lacks a cohesive setting. Still science-fiction.
Except Star Trek's setting is cohesive. Even in TOS, we get a sense of how the Federation operates, who their rivals are, and how society generally functions.
They seem to gain assistance, materiel, and even recruit off-world it appears. Moreover even if we just isolate it to Martians themselves ... revolutions don't work like that on our planet. Why would you pretend it would elsewhere? Moreover it flie in the face of the Bloodhounds aspect entirely. If you're worried about Telepaths lcating resistance cell members, you don't put all your eggs in one basket by having a single organization. You create a series of idependent cells that act autonomously.
First of all, getting material from off-world doesn't mean cohesion - we know that Clark has Proxima blockaded for instance and were shooting down civilian transports. In contrast, Mars is still open to people from Earth.
Second of all, it's stated that the resistance already was spread out, with its use of codenames and whatnot.
Third of all, again, unlikely that it stopped entirely, but they've got every reason not to do it via the war of propaganda.
Civilians die in war. The people that build tanks are not military, still deserving of being targeted if you want to kill a nation's military production. Targeting enemy shipping is still viable resistance tactic. And sure, your car bomb to take out some politicians or that police station is liable to kill bystanders.
There's a difference between collateral damage and targeting civilian targets explicitly. It's something that in modern warfare is rarely done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJT5XBT6oRM
You...do realize that the entire point of that scene is that the Shadows are avoiding the question completely, right?
"Who are you" is the 'vorlon question.' True to the Shadows, the agent avoids really answering it at all. Similarly, when Sheridan asks the 'Shadow question' to Kosh...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSD75pPsquM
Kosh's response is very vorlon. The agent's response is very Shadow. It's repeated in season 4 with the visual storytelling in the "Order vs. Chaos" choice.
Strikes me as weird as a person who clearly does not like the show I have to bringing these points up concerning kep plot points. Maybe the writing isn't as memorable as you like to think?
Plot points I keep disagreeing with.
I disagree with your 'plot point' about the Shadows controlling everything because it's clearly not a plot point, and it's not backed up by the scene you're citing.
Yeah, it's garbage rhetoric. A doctor that has to, say, deal with kids suffering cancer. Or people with schizophrenia. Or how about refugees with war wounds? Quite clearly adoctor is one of those few professions which are wholly dictated by a senseof idea that evils inflict upon us unfairly and that ... yeah, all of us shouldn'tfeel apathy in unjust suffering.
And nothing in the scene suggests apathy. Nowhere does Marcus suggest that they should never try to alleviate suffering, only that he'd made peace with the notion that the universe is unfair.
Evidence would be nice. I did actually link the scene.
The scene itself is the evidence.
And yet the show pretends I'm supposed to like him because ... why? See, this is the thing ... even you are turning around and telling me he;s the 'most moral of the main/supporting cast' ... but clearly that's not true. He'san egotistical arsewipe... that is his entire schtick.
I never said he was the "most" moral, I said "one of the most."
Marcus never does anything morally compromising. He's willing to fight the good fight without any hope of reward, personal or professional. He gives up his own life to save that of someone he loves. He barely has any ego - when is he shown to actively crave adulation beyond self-depricating humour (e.g. there's a line in season 4 where he says "great, I'm finally a war hero and no-one knows it" (paraphrased).
That's garbage... we see poverty on other planets, as well. We even have numerous scenes talking about poverty on Earth.
Which planets? We barely tread on any in the series.
We don't see any on Centauri Prime or Minbar. There's that frontier world where G'Kar is captured. Narn? Well, sure, maybe, but that happens when your planet is bombarded by mass drivers and your world occupied. Also, "show, don't tell."
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The show establishes that poverty still exists in human society in the 23rd century. It says nothing about the welfare state outside of Clark's regime.
Then why make it an issue?
To acknowledge in the 23rd century that poverty is an issue, adding to worldbuilding, and in the context of B5's development and airing history, help distinguish it from Star Trek, where poverty is pretty much non-existent.
This is the thing ... clearly the show has something to say about poverty,
Disagree. It acknowledges it exists. It never presents itself as having some deep insight into it.
At least Star Trek has things to say concerning human dignity.
Please don't bring that up. Picard's sanctimonious enough.
Star Trek doesn't say as much as it thinks it does - there's nothing interesting about utopia. Nothing. Saying "we're perfect and poverty doesn't exist" isn't some great insight unless it provides the means of showing how that's popular, the extent of which is that the Federation is a post-scarcity society.
Let's just say that's one of the reasons why I find B5 a far more interesting setting than Star Trek. Imperfection is usually more interesting than perfection in fiction.
Which is problematic when your target audience is other people.
So, by your logic, every piece of fiction ever written is problematic.
And yet I'm the one having to actually point out stuff that has actually happened in the series.
Pointing stuff out and completely missing the point and/or misconstruing said point. I'm the one pointing stuff out that you missed, forgot, or ignored.
You make an argument why they're a moral character and just from memory I'm willing to bet Ican check every one of your arguments with examples.
Off the top of my head:
-Helps those working against Clark, staying true to the principles of Earthforce rather than the letter.
-Seceeding from Earthgov in light of Clark's attrocities, and giving those who disagree the option to leave.
-Providing security for narn and G'kar even after the war with the centauri.
-Facing down Kosh, willing to give up his own life if that was what it took
-Giving up his own life in a bid to end the war with the Shadows (yes, Lorien resurrects them, but he went in the knowledge of his death)
-Cutting off the Markab homeworld in a bid to save their civilization from looters.
-Giving the White Star captain full awareness and choice of his plan to lure the Shadows
-Involving himself in the vorlon-Shadow conflict even though B5 would have been spared.
-Pulling out all the stops he can to minimize Earthforce casualties when he moves against Clark's forces
-Willingly sacrificing himself to take out the last of Earth's defence grid (and would have done if not for the Apollo)
-Refusing to give into torture and taking the easy path out to freedom
Need I go on?
Oh? is this before or after he asked an entire capital ship of people to commit suicide in a grasping-at-straws operation to try to lure the Shadows into a direct confrontation? Yeah, that happened.
Key word "asked." And it worked. It's an example of why Sheridan is a moral person because he can play the game of numbers (needs of the many vs. the few), but be torn up about it. An immoral person would have given the order Sheridan uses people until the very end.
Sheridan is also then presented as a person with no flaws. Name me one situation in his time on the show where he actually has to make a hard decision in relationship to his character or his responsibilities?
Yeah ... about his biggest character flaw is apparently being overly loyal to his dead wife.
Where's that a flaw? Going to Z'ha'dum? It's established that he knows Anna isn't on the level, but he plays the game in the hope of ending the war, even in the knowledge that he's going to die in the process.
And then, despite this complete bland-in-a-box character he just does disgusting things and the showrunners write it off as if noble sacrifice as opposed to what it really is is the fact that he had, on a batshit insane guesstimation, sent people off to knwingly die for perhaps noreason whatsoever unless the fucking plot demanded it.
And...they worked?
Sheridan does morally compromising things, such as smuggling the telepath on Earth Fleet ships, but guess what? It works. It saves lives.
A good person will still do bad things. That doesn't change their status as a good person inherently - it depends on motive.
No, their actions do no such thing. Give me an example. I'm sure I'll find another example to contradict it.
See above.
Also, contradictory examples don't mean much. A character without flaws isn't an interesting character. Obviously Sheridan does morally compromising actions, that doesn't change the fact that he's a good person at the end of the day.
Ehhh, kind of? The universe, like with the tachyon funnel, that technology and social development of humanity is going to be a clustrefuck. Blake himself is killed (presumably) due to the fact that the moral complexity of a massively expansive of humanity made up of trillions of humans islikely going to be bleak place requiring excessive ideas of coercion to keep together.
A lot of which is left up to interpretation.
Reguarly, B7 shows us humans that live outside the Federation, even having apparently regressed to pre-industrial technology (e.g. that Goth planet), but because aliens look the same in this setting (see Cally), I can't be sure.
No, it doesn't need to, but apparently it's an issue in B5, so one would assume it should be an issue in B7.
Key difference is that B5 gives the time and effort to explain how telepaths work and how they're regarded. B7 doesn't. B7 isn't inherently diminished from that, but B5 is elevated.
We see their justice system, we get a long and hard look at the degeneracy and wasteful excesses of effectively a type of pseudo-nobility in a culture of strength that the Federation has become.
Justice system? You mean the pilot episode?
Wasteful excesses? Don't recall that. I mean, there's indulgence on that casino planet Avon and Villa go to, but was that even inside the Federation? Again, it's left vague as to what's a Federation colony and what isn't a lot of the time.
Nobility? Don't remember that. I remember in season 3 Servalan is kind of living the high life as she fills the power vacuum of the Federation, but a lot of that came from simply using a real-world manor.
