Discuss and Rate the Last Thing You Watched (non-movies)

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,465
3,005
118
Chewster said:
Sharp Objects. 4.5/5

Hella dark/slow. Well acted and fascinating for someone who grew up in a small-ish town but has never been to the South and probably never will.

So yeah. If you're down for a murder mystery that has some commentary about small town Missouri and based on a book by the writer of Gone Girl, give this a spin. It's excruciatingly slow paced and the ending was a bit predictable but it's relentlessly gloomy and Amy Adams does well as a very broken alcoholic reporter.
Just finished it yesterday. Liked it too but I have two specific complaints about the show.

1) It gets ridiculously morbid, like fatalistic-teen morbid. You know that adolescent sensibility of shock = seriousness? It's not enough that the girl protagonist cut herself, she needs a dead sister and another dying sister and a suicidal friend and a controlling mother and two dead girls in town and so on. This is less an inherent flaw and has more to do with my personal taste.

2) The whole procedural angle felt undercooked. Amy Adams doesn't do much investigation and the plot or our understanding of it doesn't really move forward much until the final episode. I'm pretty sure Amy Adams doesn't figure out anything throughout the show, things just sort of land on her lap. There're also a bunch of red herrings that go nowhere, like characters disappearing or "important" plot details that go unmentioned or ignored or unexplained towards the end.

Other than that I liked it enough, good acting and set up and ambience. Better than the Dark Places movie, not as good as Gone Girl.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
The Librarians: Season 3 (3/5)

When I ranked season 2, I stated that the show was a mixed bag in how it paced itself over a season. As in, the overarching plot was weak, but when it did individual episodes that stood on their own, it could be enjoyable. Come season 3, that remains as true as ever, at least when it comes to the flaws.

So, in this season, we have not one, but two recurring villains, namely Apep and DOSA, neither of which are particuarly interesting. In fact, Apep's easily the weakest villain in the series, and that's a pretty low bar. Prospero and Moriatry were at least fun to watch Dulaq at least had a motive. Apep's motive is, literally, "I'm evil, and I'm going to flood the world with evil." As in, end of days stuff...which the cast don't seem that worried about whenever not being told that "this is a bad thing, and we should take the bad thing seriously." Apep's a terrible villain, DOSA is basically a poor man's version of UNIT (remember the DW references I mentioned back in season 1), and, yeah. If anything, it makes me pine for Stargate, because at least the goa'uld were interesting and intimidating. This at least has an underground base attacked by Anubis and werewolves, but Stargate Command it ain't.

Still, like season 2, the season can be enjoyable when it forgets about the Apep crap and focuses on dealing with stand-alone episodes. Still, it doesn't work quite as well. Partly because at times, Apep (or DOSA) are still weighing the show down, partly because the stand-alone episodes aren't quite as good, partly because the whole 'breakout season' was in season 2, so the individual character stuff doesn't work quite as well, and if anything, comes off as underbaked. It's frustrating, because there's the seeds of a good, enjoyable show here, it just needs either:


a) To cut out the season arcs, because they're not working

b) Get better writing

c) Both

Course, since season 4 is the last and the show's been cancelled, that's unlikely to happen. Don't know when or if I'll get to season 4, but, yeah. Better than season 1, worse than season 3, and while it's had its moments, the series is an exercise in unfullfilled potential for me so far.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Babylon 5: Season 4 (4/5)

If asked to nominate the best season of Babylon 5, from what I can tell, most people nominate this one. Having since seen the season...I've got no idea why.

That's not to say it's bad mind you - it's quite good, as the rating shows. Key difference however is that seasons 1-3 all got a stamp of "excellent" (even season 1). And if I can boil it down to one thing, what hinders this season is the same thing that hinders Season 4 of Battlestar Galactica and Season 7 of Game of Thrones - it's not that the writing or plot in of itself gets bad, it's that it's rushing the latter, leading to problems with the former. Similar to BSG, it has an understandable excuse, in that from what I understand, B5 was facing cancellation at this point, so they needed to wrap things up within a season. Course that didn't happen, and season 5 is reportedly a mess because of it, and in that context, it really shows.

So, let's see - this season has a number of plot arcs it has to get through. First, bizzarely enough, is the Shadow War, which is wrapped up within the first third of the season. This is...weird. Like, really weird. Usually the 'big battle' thing is left to the end of a storyline, not 80% through it - yes, you can point to Lord of the Rings, how Sauron is defeated before the Scouring of the Shire, but that's the exception, not the rule. This is also mixed with the situation on Centauri Prime, with Cartagia being insane and wanting his world to burn, prompting Londo to work with G'Kar to save both their worlds. This side of the arc is well done. The overall Shadow War arc? Not so much. It's certainly got good elements, especially as the vorlons are revealed to be no better than the Shadows at the end of the day (Kosh aside, because Kosh is awesome), but the whole Order vs. Chaos thing is, in the year 2018, very played out. Big as the stakes are, it comes off as both rushed and cheesy. Given how season 3 ends, it kind of makes sense that season 4 ploughs straight into the Shadow War thing, but again, rushed. Even the Centauri-Narn arc suffers from this as the centauri pretty much go "well, our emperor's dead, let's just pull out from Narn because...reasons." Tries to make it work, but this has got to be one of the quickest pull outs from occupied territory in galactic history. Oh, and again, while G'Kar and Londo becoming 'friends' of sorts over the remainder of the season is nice, it's never given enough time to breathe.

So, second plot arc. Minbari Civil War. This is in the background, and is a thing. It comes up, is dealt with, and more than anything shows how a limited budget can affect storytelling. "Yes, the cities are burning, and our world is at war, but we can't show you any of that because...reasons." More cheese, basically, and far too neat an ending for a civil war. I get that this is sci-fi, but in a world gripped by civil strife, it comes off as overly idealistic.

Third plot arc is the Earth Alliance Civil War (I'm grouping Garabaldi's arc here as well). Of the 'big three,' this is easily the best, in part because it has the most time to have it fleshed out. Now, to be honest, I'm again left wondering why this arc happens after the Shadow War, because while more time is dedicated to this arc, it's more miniscule in the scale of the setting. Still, that does allow us to go into the nitty gritty of a morally compromised war. The Shadows are dicks. The vorlons are dicks. Earthforce certainly has dicks, and President Clark is a dick (even if we never really see him, which is another strange choice), but not everyone is a dick, so the Resistance has to fight their way to Earth, sorting out the dicks from the not-dicks. In this, it's well done. Likewise, Garibaldi's arc - now, to be honest, I think it would have worked better if we were never getting hints that he was under mind control (cliche as it is, it works here, partly because Bester is an awesome dick), but the revalation of how and why he acts the way he does through most of this season is a brilliant moment. What doesn't work as well is how, in the last handful of episodes, he's so quick to get redemption. Him making up with Sheridan, after betraying him off screen (which leads to one of the best episodes of the season with him being tortured/interogated), is far too 'clean.' Now, I like happy endings, such as when the EAS Apollo comes in to aid the Agamemnon at the final battle at Earth at the last moment, showing that even Clark loyalists have limits to the insanity they're willing to tolerate, but shades of grey can help also.

Also, ending sequence - got from not!League of Nations to not!Space United Nations with the League of Non-Aligned Worlds dissolving to become the Interstellar Alliance. Idealistic as it is, it does work. Season finale is kinda balls, but win some, you lose some.

So, yes. Season 4 of Babylon 5 is definitely good. There's a lot I do like. There's a reason why B5 was, and still is, my #1 sci-fi show. But it just isn't up to par with what's come before. And while a lot of that can be attributed to circumstances outside the writers' control, I can't deny that the end product suffers as a result.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
The Wharf Review: 2018 (4/5)

Think it was Trey Parker and/or Matt Stone who said that they didn't parody Trump because the parody was too close to the real thing. Having seen this...yeah. I see their point.

Which is odd, because it wasn't the first time TWR parodied Trump, but it hit far too close for the real thing for me. Actually, a lot of its political sattire did. Liberals are a bunch of backstabbers, Labour won't stand for anything, Greens have forgotten what they did stand for, and the whole world (or at least Australia) is screwed. Strangely enough, they didn't parody One Nation or Palmer United this time. Go figure.

But yeah, solid performances as always. One of the best years I can remember.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Hawki said:
So, yes. Season 4 of Babylon 5 is definitely good. There's a lot I do like. There's a reason why B5 was, and still is, my #1 sci-fi show. But it just isn't up to par with what's come before. And while a lot of that can be attributed to circumstances outside the writers' control, I can't deny that the end product suffers as a result.
Best sci-fi show? Really? X-Files, Classic Who, Quatermass, Blake's 7, Flash Gordon ... I always had the theory the reason why people like Babylon 5 is in much the same vein as why they like Firefly. The fact that it waseither cancelled, or threatened with cancellation and routinely defunded, and thus somehow it 'speaks to its credit' as if what could have been ... all without considerig fora moment that tv showsoften have to bankroll themselves with advertiser interest from season 1 in order to justify the funding it gets ... and on that note Babylon 5 failed precisely because it failed to actually generate interest even when it was around, and lo and behold became as if this trendy 'auteur, pure sci-fi' label when it doesn't do a single thng right.

Seriously, you say Babylon 5 has great writing ... yet it suffers Star Trek disease of being the cringiest fucking show to watch when it just so happens to deal with romantic themes. Seriously, it's gross. Like, what planet do these writers live on that whatever they want to pass off as 'romantic' is downright creepy, and whatever they want to consider 'passionate' is downright corny?

Shows like Babylon 5 and anime in general are the reasons why people think nerds are basement dwellers...

I forced myself to binge watch Babylon 5 recently and you know what the most interesting thing about S4 is? The Mars conflict. We got none of it. No nuance. No meaningful rebel leaders who are actually fighting and dying.

The Shadows controlling human society so much they deign to bother about the fashionable length of what skirts? Apparently the Shadows are the Illuminati, but the Earth Alliance continued to build Babylon stations regardless? What was the game plan there, fellows?

Hell ... one of the Babylon stations was crucial in a fight against the Shadows ... like, the Shadows if manipulating humanity could have simplydefunded the Babylon project after Station 3 blew up; cited obvious reasons that are obvious why the Babylon project should be scrapped after three attempts, and case closed. Shadows win.

Seriously, what was the game plan here?

You know what's really disgusting, though? The Shadows would probably make better rulers. Hear me out. The resources of an entire galaxy and you've got that Ranger Marcus waxing poetic about how he no longer cares about the needs of the poor because he takes solace in the universe being unfair. None of the races seem to actually want to get their shit together and would rather their societies degenerate into shitholes where most of them live in abject poverty even onboard what is supposed to be the premier diplomatic station in the galaxy ...

All the Shadows seem to want to do is pit races against eachother to see them become stronger, and apparently that's somehow worse than races inflicting needless poverty on their own people inspite of the resources of an entire galaxy.

What's actually worse, huh? And I'm supposed to give a shit when Clarke just flatly makes out the poor are mentally ill, not because society is unjust? Really? You're going to go there show writers after this...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03bOrvlAyeQ

Fuck off. I'd have zero guilt shooting him in the back of the head as a doctor he is supposedly talking to. Bring on the Shadows, I say. At least in a culture of strength the strong are considered worthy. Not this fucking nonsense posing as philosophy.

Say what you like of U.S. military adventurism, but at least the most gungho amongst them spout off things like liberty, freedom from tyrants and democracy. You know ... basic things like idealism and nobility of the human spirit to craft their own destiny. But apparently the writers won't actually stop for a moment to interrogate what they're actually saying and what characters are saying it.

After all, how would a doctor respond? Is there a missing scene where Franklin gives Marcus a thorough dressing down or at least a derisive scoff like a normal person? Are they really going to leave this scene in a way that pretend it's somehow profound? Why ... it certainly seems they did ... exuent backstage it seems ... Fuck this show.

Let's break it down, shall we? A person who has to deal with kids suffering cancer? Or schizophrenia sufferers? Or people with MND? Their career is entirely based on the idea that Marcus is talking shit... And the showrunners and writers thought this is how this scene should go down even after showing us the injustices suffered by the poor?

Do the writers legitimately believe this? It certainly seems that they do. Why am I still watching this utter garbage of ugly people producing ugly content and pretending it's not ugly?

All of the main and supporting cast deserve to be thrown up against a wall and promptly shot in a revolution. That's how the show should of ended.

Who exactly are you supposed to root for? Because the show keeps on telling me these people are decent at heart but in truth they're either cowardly, shameful, repugnant, cruel, or utterly disingenuous. And what's worse is the show pretend that through these knowiungly broken characters it pretends to present a 'realistic face' or some deeper morality at work ... when in yruth it's just ridiculously ugly people you wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes alone with pretending to actually have a point in existing because the moral arguments and trials they face are fucking nonsense.

Londo is the best character on the show precisely because he at least you know the show writers are making a statement of the perpetually compromised of morality and their relationship to political power. Londo, Vir and G'Kar are the only ones I would stand to have a drink with. Whether because they recognize they're flawed people who are self-saotaging and at least desire, if given opportunity, to do the right thing. Even if they won't...

They are the only likeable characters of the entire series.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Best sci-fi show? Really? X-Files, Classic Who, Quatermass, Blake's 7, Flash Gordon ...
Of those, only seen Blake's 7 and Classic Who.

Blake's 7 is good, but the only thing it has going for it is its characters, and only a handful at that. Classic Who is sci-fa, and has aged terribly. If you said NuWho you might have had a leg to stand on, but again, different genre.

I always had the theory the reason why people like Babylon 5 is in much the same vein as why they like Firefly. The fact that it waseither cancelled, or threatened with cancellation and routinely defunded, and thus somehow it 'speaks to its credit' as if what could have been ... all without considerig fora moment that tv showsoften have to bankroll themselves with advertiser interest from season 1 in order to justify the funding it gets ... and on that note Babylon 5 failed precisely because it failed to actually generate interest even when it was around, and lo and behold became as if this trendy 'auteur, pure sci-fi' label when it doesn't do a single thng right.
Except B5 does pretty much everything right, and wasn't cancelled, so it's hard to put it in the same boat as Firefly.

As for Firefly, while I do think a lot of its hype comes from the possibility of what could have been, it helps that its season by itself is very solid.

Seriously, you say Babylon 5 has great writing ... yet it suffers Star Trek disease of being the cringiest fucking show to watch when it just so happens to deal with romantic themes. Seriously, it's gross. Like, what planet do these writers live on that whatever they want to pass off as 'romantic' is downright creepy, and whatever they want to consider 'passionate' is downright corny?
Completely disagree. It's got some of the most natural romatic interaction in the genre. It never dissolves into schlock or cringe, but feels natural.

I forced myself to binge watch Babylon 5 recently and you know what the most interesting thing about S4 is? The Mars conflict. We got none of it. No nuance. No meaningful rebel leaders who are actually fighting and dying.
No nuance?

Remember when the Mars Resistance is initially attacking civilian targets before Stephen puts a stop to it?

Remember the issue of the bloodhound units and the reception Lyta gets?

Remember how by extension, it feeds into the mutual distrust of telepaths and normies?

Remember Edgars's attempt of a "final solution" to the telepath problem, recognising it is a problem, and being torn up by his actions?

Yeah. No "nuance."

The Shadows controlling human society so much they deign to bother about the fashionable length of what skirts? Apparently the Shadows are the Illuminati, but the Earth Alliance continued to build Babylon stations regardless? What was the game plan there, fellows?
The Shadows didn't start taking control of EarthGov until well after B5 was constructed. They act through Clark. The Babylon Project was Santiago's initiative.

Hell ... one of the Babylon stations was crucial in a fight against the Shadows ... like, the Shadows if manipulating humanity could have simplydefunded the Babylon project after Station 3 blew up; cited obvious reasons that are obvious why the Babylon project should be scrapped after three attempts, and case closed. Shadows win.
Sabotage. That doesn't speak of high level infiltration.

You know what's really disgusting, though? The Shadows would probably make better rulers. Hear me out. The resources of an entire galaxy and you've got that Ranger Marcus waxing poetic about how he no longer cares about the needs of the poor because he takes solace in the universe being unfair.
That's some wilful misconstruction on your part.

Marcus never states he doesn't care - he even quotes Dickens to those who don't care. The entire point of that scene is that he can take small comfort in the universe being unfair because if it WAS fair, it meant that everything bad that happened to him was because he deserved it, and by extension, to everyone else. That the poor were poor were because they deserved to be.

Marcus is one of the most moral characters in the show.

None of the races seem to actually want to get their shit together and would rather their societies degenerate into shitholes where most of them live in abject poverty even onboard what is supposed to be the premier diplomatic station in the galaxy ...
Name one race in the setting that actively seeks to curate poverty among its populace.

All the Shadows seem to want to do is pit races against eachother to see them become stronger, and apparently that's somehow worse than races inflicting needless poverty on their own people inspite of the resources of an entire galaxy.
Again, name one race that seeks to curate poverty.

After all, how would a doctor respond? A person who has to deal with kids suffering cancer? Or schizophrenia sufferers? Or people with MND? Their career is entirelybased on the idea that Marcus is talking shit.
Yeah...no.

Wilfull or otherwise, you've missed the entire point of that scene.

All of the primary characters deserve to be thrown up against a wall and promptly shot in a revolution.
Why?

Who exactly are you supposed to root for?
Um...the main characters?

Because the show keeps on telling me these people are decent at heart but in truth they're either cowardly, shameful, repugnant, cruel, or utterly disingenuous.
How?

And didn't you cite Blake's 7 as being better? Y'know, a ship filled with morally dubious individuals (only a handful of which are fleshed out, but that's another issue)?
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Hawki said:
Of those, only seen Blake's 7 and Classic Who.

Blake's 7 is good, but the only thing it has going for it is its characters, and only a handful at that. Classic Who is sci-fa, and has aged terribly. If you said NuWho you might have had a leg to stand on, but again, different genre.
Splitting hairs. What, exactly, is the defining difference between science-fiction and science-fantasy?

I mean B5 has a fucking arcing plot about reincarnation and human and Minbari souls as if categorically provable a thing. About the closest to on the fucking nose that is in Classic Who is Time Lords and regeneration. And even then not that fucking on the nose.

Also the original Quatermass serials basically singlehandedly defined the whole idea of human-alien first contact danger in sci-fi. Invasion of the Body Snatchers harks back to it, Alien harks back to it, even Species.

Except B5 does pretty much everything right, and wasn't cancelled, so it's hard to put it in the same boat as Firefly.
Except Firefly actually got a real budget.

As for Firefly, while I do think a lot of its hype comes from the possibility of what could have been, it helps that its season by itself is very solid.
Mileage may vary.

Completely disagree.
Then you're blind, and deaf, and likely an alien.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F5iTSXXFC0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjvsv8Wyv3U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzv6JnrxJKU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03WpQdyxNBo

That last one is actually funny... but once again, Jurasik is one of the few only likeable main cast.

No nuance?

Remember when the Mars Resistance is initially attacking civilian targets before Stephen puts a stop to it?
And? You're telling me a revolutionary front that spans multiple colonized worlds is just going to stop every one of its underground resistance cells because of a single character? You're telling me that not one of those resistance cells benefits from expanding the nature of the conflict to include civilian targets? You're telling me that somehow a single resistance leader could make those guarantees or the merits of their revolutionary activities are judged by some capacity to centralize their activities to affordsuch control, all while trying to stay alive?

That's what I call a lack of nuance. It's almost as if a problematic argument when we apply it to current discourse on terrorism.

Remember the issue of the bloodhound units and the reception Lyta gets?
What, that thing that telepaths were already hated for? Shock horror. The Psi Corps elements of the show were actually legitimately interesting (beyond its own established ridiculousness) ...


The Shadows didn't start taking control of EarthGov until well after B5 was constructed. They act through Clark. The Babylon Project was Santiago's initiative.
And yet immediatey after that line (or before it, I can't remember) he talks directly about how they manipulate currency markets? So apparently the Shadows control market speculation itself without any consideration to fiscal and monetary policy of Earth's governments ... and yet you're telling me that this control doesn't extend to governent funding?

Or the simple fact of the matter is that the Shadows didn't even bother to make their move until after B5 was constructed despite having proof of human intervention via B4?

Or the fact that this complete control of fiscal and monetary policy and apparently the fashion scene just magically emerged in the last handful of decades?

Sabotage. That doesn't speak of high level infiltration.
They literally manipulte all of Earth's currency markets and their fashion scene. Now one ofthose I can buy, the other the Shadows don't strike me as being the literal fashion police as if a high priority thing. The insinuation is quite clear. The Shadows have been manipulating the younger races for eons.

That's some wilful misconstruction on your part.
No,it's just a hypocritical character that is treated as if profound and thoughtful.

And what's more is that a doctor seemingly agrees with him despite his entire profession is based on thinking Marcus is full of shit. Regular people would scoff, or be derisive, or simply query whether they actually want this person following them around.

Marcus never states he doesn't care - he even quotes Dickens to those who don't care. The entire point of that scene is that he can take small comfort in the universe being unfair because if it WAS fair, it meant that everything bad that happened to him was because he deserved it, and by extension, to everyone else. That the poor were poor were because they deserved to be.
That is literally not what he says. At best it's pure apathy, at worst it's hypocritical psychopathy. Which is worse?

Marcus is one of the most moral characters in the show.
How? His very ending scene he literally takes a ship out of the fight, beats up two medical technicians, simply to save a person who he already knew would hate him for it.

Name one race in the setting that actively seeks to curate poverty among its populace.
Name one species that actually makes it a prerogative to actually redistribute the wealth of the galaxy to its race's membership and improve their livelihood? This is the thing ... the show itself routinely reinforces just how non-existent the welfare state is... and no one ever stops to question why that is?

Under the previous admitration of Santiago? The poor were still mistreated and still poor. Under Clarke, no less the same. Nothing has even changed for them ... just more excuses.

Yeah...no.

Wilfull or otherwise, you've missed the entire point of that scene.
Choosing instead to focus on how divorced the writing is from actual human discourse is not an example of missing the point. Once again, I didn't choose to edit and frame the scene as they did. They chose that.

Because none of them have an actual moral bone in their body. Any virtue to be had is purely circumstantial, not on the basis of actual thoughtful character portrayal. The show has entire reins on the progress of the plot, but its individual scenes of when they actually wish to portray character vignettes to round out that portrayal are shot in a way I question whether the writers are really that broken.

Which character would you like me to break down?

And didn't you cite Blake's 7 as being better? Y'know, a ship filled with morally dubious individuals (only a handful of which are fleshed out, but that's another issue)?
Because that;s the whole point of Blake's 7 ... even Blake himself isn't entirely on the level, and the show makes it quite clear from the very first episode that the universe that these characters operate in is entirely morally dubious. That's the thing I'm getting at ... I love Blake's 7 precisely because the show does not waste time rattling of about virtue and the moral highground and doesn't pretend to either. Whereas repeatedly Babylon 5 tells me these characters are genuinely decent people at heart and it's a load of garbage.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Splitting hairs. What, exactly, is the defining difference between science-fiction and science-fantasy?
Science fiction: "Fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component."

Science fantasy: "A mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon and/or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy."

I'm not completely happy with either definition, but sci-fa is distinct from sci-fi in that it combines the tropes of fantasy and sci-fi. Sci-fi can have some fantastical elements, but that would make it more "soft" sci-fi. Sci-fa would involve the tropes having equal representation, whereas sci-fi would have any fantasy elements being fringe.

I mean B5 has a fucking arcing plot about reincarnation and human and Minbari souls as if categorically provable a thing. About the closest to on the fucking nose that is in Classic Who is Time Lords and regeneration. And even then not that fucking on the nose.
Case in point. B5 deals with some fantastical concepts (e.g. souls), but its more fantastical elements are esoteric in the context of its own universe. B5's setting primarily follows sci-fi in that it's a projected look of life in the 23rd century and beyond, with science and technology being the dominant forces.

Doctor Who is sci-fa in part because it lacks a lot of a cohesive setting, the nature of said setting varying by episode. So, one episode can deal with historical fiction. The next can deal with actual demons and ghosts.

Then you're blind, and deaf, and likely an alien.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F5iTSXXFC0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjvsv8Wyv3U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzv6JnrxJKU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03WpQdyxNBo

That last one is actually funny... but once again, Jurasik is one of the few only likeable main cast.
First is very good, don't know what the problem is.

Second isan emotive moment, considering that we know that Lennier has been in love with Delenn for ages, and she doesn't know it. It's the acknowledgement by his character that his love will never be requited.

Third is Vir being his usual adorkable self, going to Susan, not knowing that she's the last person you should go to for relationships on advice.

Fourth is comedic gold.

And? You're telling me a revolutionary front that spans multiple colonized worlds is just going to stop every one of its underground resistance cells because of a single character?
The Mars Resistance is its independent group. It's not the same group as those on Proxima or Beta Durani for instance.

But while it's dubious they'd stop completely, they have every reason to because a) they want Sheridan's support, and b) Clark's bombing civilian targets himself, so more reason to distinguish themselves.

You're telling me that not one of those resistance cells benefits from expanding the nature of the conflict to include civilian targets? You're telling me that somehow a single resistance leader could make those guarantees or the merits of their revolutionary activities are judged by some capacity to centralize their activities to affordsuch control, all while trying to stay alive?

That's what I call a lack of nuance. It's almost as if a problematic argument when we apply it to current discourse on terrorism.

And yet immediatey after that line (or before it, I can't remember) he talks directly about how they manipulate currency markets? So apparently the Shadows control market speculation itself without any consideration to fiscal and monetary policy of Earth's governments ... and yet you're telling me that this control doesn't extend to governent funding?
Don't remember any of that.

Or the simple fact of the matter is that the Shadows didn't even bother to make their move until after B5 was constructed despite having proof of human intervention via B4?
No-one apparently recognises B4. Also, if they did take out B4, they could alter the past. Maybe in their favour, but that sets up the possibility of a paradox.

Discussing time travel in sci-fi is applying made up science to made up science.

Or the fact that this complete control of fiscal and monetary policy and apparently the fashion scene just magically emerged in the last handful of decades?
Da fuq?

They literally manipulte all of Earth's currency markets and their fashion scene.
Source needed, especially on the fashion sense.

The Shadows have been manipulating the younger races for eons.
As have the vorlons.

One cancels out the other, or at least, levels of influence vary - Shadows get drakh, vorlons get humans, etc.

And what's more is that a doctor seemingly agrees with him despite his entire profession is based on thinking Marcus is full of shit.
Agrees that the universe is indeed unfair, and it's a horrible thought to imagine that every piece of misfortune that befalls anyone is because they deserve it?

Oh the humanity.

Regular people would scoff, or be derisive, or simply query whether they actually want this person following them around.
No, regular people would see the point, or at least appreciate the gallows humour behind it.

That is literally not what he says.
And that is literally wrong.

How? His very ending scene he literally takes a ship out of the fight, beats up two medical technicians, simply to save a person who he already knew would hate him for it.
Giving up his own life to save the person he loves.

Love can be selfish, sure, but this is already a person who's given it his all for the Rangers

Name one species that actually makes it a prerogative to actually redistribute the wealth of the galaxy to its race's membership and improve their livelihood? This is the thing ... the show itself routinely reinforces just how non-existent the welfare state is... and no one ever stops to question why that is?
The show never does anything of the sort. The only evidence we have of poverty is Down Below, and that's on an isolated space station.

You really think the show can go into the minutia of every race and how their welfare state works?

Under the previous admitration of Santiago? The poor were still mistreated and still poor. Under Clarke, no less the same. Nothing has even changed for them ... just more excuses.

Choosing instead to focus on how divorced the writing is from actual human discourse is not an example of missing the point. Once again, I didn't choose to edit and frame the scene as they did. They chose that.
Every piece of fictional writing is removed from actual human discourse, unless you're getting into the works of Pinter for example.

They didn't miss the point, you have.

Because none of them have an actual moral bone in their body.
Except most of the characters do.

Any virtue to be had is purely circumstantial, not on the basis of actual thoughtful character portrayal.
Which is wrong.

Sheridan could have taken the easy path and go along with Clarke's direction for instance. Delenn could have taken the easy path and abided by the Grey Council. Londo could have just followed power.

So on, so forth.

Which character would you like me to break down?
Take your pick.

Because that;s the whole point of Blake's 7 ... even Blake himself isn't entirely on the level, and the show makes it quite clear from the very first episode that the universe that these characters operate in is entirely morally dubious. That's the thing I'm getting at ... I love Blake's 7 precisely because the show does not waste time rattling of about virtue and the moral highground and doesn't pretend to either. Whereas repeatedly Babylon 5 tells me these characters are genuinely decent people at heart and it's a load of garbage.
-B5 never "tells" us the characters are any such things, their actions do.

-Blake's 7 isn't as morally dubious as you claim. Blake isn't on the level, sure, but the Federation is 99% an evil empire, and the remaining 1% is a few key moments that are irrelevant to the larger setting. B5 does a far better job with moral ambiguity because there's no single "bad" or "good" faction, whereas in Blake's 7, we have the "bad" faction being faced by "not as bad" people.

Also, if you to compare all your above points to Blake's 7, then let's see:

-Blake's 7 tells us virtually nothing about everyday life for everyday people in the Federation bar some inferences in the first episode.

-Blake's 7 lacks any kind of nuance with its take on terrorism - Blake attacks military targets, that's it.

-Blake's 7 never investigates the implications of telepathy existing in its setting - Cally's a telepath of an alien race that looks identical to humans (because...reasons), and that's it.

-We have little inkling of how the Federation actually operates.

-Blake's 7 has a handful of interesting characters in its main roster (Blake, Avon, Villa) and a couple of interesting villains (Servalan, and arguably Travis). By the end of season 3, apart from Avon, all of them are in the same place they were at the start in terms of character development. This isn't getting into dregs like Jenna, Cally, and Gant. In contrast, almost all of B5's major characters undergo an arc.

I say this as someone who likes B7 and acknowledges B5 isn't perfect, but B7 isn't even in the same ballpark.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Hawki said:
Science fiction: "Fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component."

Science fantasy: "A mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon and/or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy."

I'm not completely happy with either definition, but sci-fa is distinct from sci-fi in that it combines the tropes of fantasy and sci-fi. Sci-fi can have some fantastical elements, but that would make it more "soft" sci-fi. Sci-fa would involve the tropes having equal representation, whereas sci-fi would have any fantasy elements being fringe.
So trying to categorically prove religion though souls and reincarnation is science-fiction, not science-fantasy? 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.

Once again ... souls and reincarnation and 'scientific' proof of it.

And this isn't a throw away plotpoint. It stops a war and makes up much of the story arcs from season 1 and 2, and they revisit it constantly.

Case in point. B5 deals with some fantastical concepts (e.g. souls), but its more fantastical elements are esoteric in the context of its own universe. B5's setting primarily follows sci-fi in that it's a projected look of life in the 23rd century and beyond, with science and technology being the dominant forces.
Clearly it's not, however. For intance, not once do you get an explanation how hyperspace works. Routinely in something like Star Trek they talk about fantastic concepts of engineering, or a 'scientific' explanation of some unusual phenomena. Ditto in Classic Who, you often get a 'rational' reason to something that happens.

Doctor Who is sci-fa in part because it lacks a lot of a cohesive setting, the nature of said setting varying by episode. So, one episode can deal with historical fiction. The next can deal with actual demons and ghosts.
But they turn out not to be just 'ghosts and demons' ... they're aliens, or holograms, or some trapped lifeforce through advanced technology. And once again, what the hell does cohesion have to do with science fiction?

Star Trek lacks a cohesive setting. Still science-fiction.

First is very good, don't know what the problem is.

Second isan emotive moment, considering that we know that Lennier has been in love with Delenn for ages, and she doesn't know it. It's the acknowledgement by his character that his love will never be requited.

Third is Vir being his usual adorkable self, going to Susan, not knowing that she's the last person you should go to for relationships on advice.

Fourth is comedic gold.
Tastes may vary then, and the fourth is decent at best. Comedy gold is perhaps a bit generous. It's more delivery than anything else, and I chalk that up to just how much Jurasik has personally invested into making it work.

The Mars Resistance is its independent group. It's not the same group as those on Proxima or Beta Durani for instance.
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.

Youy know ... like in reality. Moreover, it utterly ignore the fact that in a revolution there is no clear delineation between enemy and bystander. The Allies shouldn't feel bad killing civilian engineers when bombing the Third Reich's factories. For the same reason the whole 'shtloads of civilian labourers died when the Death Star blew up' is such a ridiculous fucking argument.


But while it's dubious they'd stop completely, they have every reason to because a) they want Sheridan's support, and b) Clark's bombing civilian targets himself, so more reason to distinguish themselves.
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.

Don't remember any of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJT5XBT6oRM

No-one apparently recognises B4. Also, if they did take out B4, they could alter the past. Maybe in their favour, but that sets up the possibility of a paradox.

Discussing time travel in sci-fi is applying made up science to made up science.
But these contradictions are within episodes of eachother.

Hey, it's not me that wrote this stuff. It's almost as if the show is bad even without me poking holes in it or something...

Source needed, especially on the fashion sense.
Above video link because escapist forums no longer embed youtube videos.

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?

As have the vorlons.

One cancels out the other, or at least, levels of influence vary - Shadows get drakh, vorlons get humans, etc.
Does it? The primary source material suggests otherwise.

Agrees that the universe is indeed unfair, and it's a horrible thought to imagine that every piece of misfortune that befalls anyone is because they deserve it?

Oh the humanity.
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.

No, regular people would see the point, or at least appreciate the gallows humour behind it.
Or call him a dickhead. But hey, some of us don't appreciate callous fuckwits. Go figure.

And that is literally wrong.
Evidence would be nice. I did actually link the scene.

Giving up his own life to save the person he loves.

Love can be selfish, sure, but this is already a person who's given it his all for the Rangers
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.

The show never does anything of the sort. The only evidence we have of poverty is Down Below, and that's on an isolated space station.
That's garbage... we see poverty on other planets, as well. We even have numerous scenes talking about poverty on Earth.

You really think the show can go into the minutia of every race and how their welfare state works?
Then why make it an issue? This is the thing ... clearly the show has something to say about poverty, and everytime it is handled it's handled so poorly that I have to legitimately start believing that the show writers simply treat the notion of abject, unjust suffering as if trite.

At least Star Trek has things to say concerning human dignity.


Every piece of fictional writing is removed from actual human discourse, unless you're getting into the works of Pinter for example.
Which is problematic when your target audience is other people.

They didn't miss the point, you have.
And yet I'm the one having to actually point out stuff that has actually happened in the series. What were yu, drunk while watching it? I mean, sure ... it probably helped that I was most nights watching it.

Except most of the characters do.
Like ... how?

Okay ... let's say Sheridan.

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.

Sheridan could have taken the easy path and go along with Clarke's direction for instance. Delenn could have taken the easy path and abided by the Grey Council. Londo could have just followed power.

----

Take your pick.
Given we're talking about Sheridan...

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. 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. 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.

This is what I was saying about any real virtue being circumstantial.

-B5 never "tells" us the characters are any such things, their actions do.
No, their actions do no such thing. Give me an example. I'm sure I'll find another example to contradict it.

-Blake's 7 isn't as morally dubious as you claim. Blake isn't on the level, sure, but the Federation is 99% an evil empire, and the remaining 1% is a few key moments that are irrelevant to the larger setting. B5 does a far better job with moral ambiguity because there's no single "bad" or "good" faction, whereas in Blake's 7, we have the "bad" faction being faced by "not as bad" people.

Also, if you to compare all your above points to Blake's 7, then let's see:
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.

-Blake's 7 tells us virtually nothing about everyday life for everyday people in the Federation bar some inferences in the first episode.

-Blake's 7 lacks any kind of nuance with its take on terrorism - Blake attacks military targets, that's it.
True enough. Though I never said Blake's 7 was nuanced. I said Blake's 7 is fun.

-Blake's 7 never investigates the implications of telepathy existing in its setting - Cally's a telepath of an alien race that looks identical to humans (because...reasons), and that's it.
Does it need to?

-We have little inkling of how the Federation actually operates.
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.

-Blake's 7 has a handful of interesting characters in its main roster (Blake, Avon, Villa) and a couple of interesting villains (Servalan, and arguably Travis). By the end of season 3, apart from Avon, all of them are in the same place they were at the start in terms of character development. This isn't getting into dregs like Jenna, Cally, and Gant. In contrast, almost all of B5's major characters undergo an arc.

I say this as someone who likes B7 and acknowledges B5 isn't perfect, but B7 isn't even in the same ballpark.
Blake's 7 occupies a special place in my heart due to nostalgia as a kid watching reruns of it on Australian tv, it's true. But For all its flaws, but it did more with less.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
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.

Does it need to?
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.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Finally delved into the depths of my Amazon watchlist and started on Black Sails over the weekend. I'm a bit of a latecomer to this series (it having started back in 2014) but I'm really enjoying it so far. The series, essentially, is a prequel to Treasure Island but works really well due to the style and tone of both the acting and the writing. Toby Stephens is excellent as Captain Flint, and the young John Silver is charismatic yet conniving enough to have you rooting for him one moment and hating him the next.

Shiver me timbers - 4.5 / 5
 

EscapeGoat_v1legacy

New member
Aug 20, 2008
2,788
0
0
I rewatched season 1 of Sherlock the other day while I was traveling. Definitely made the train journey pass quickly. It's still a fantastic show, and I think it's probably still the best season of the show as well, although I do love the second as well.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,207
4,481
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Started season 3 of Daredevil on Netflix. I?m about 5 episodes in and it?s really, really good. It?s sticking to what I like most about the series; it?s less about super abilities and more about being a good suspenseful and intriguing crime noire, and this time it is very austere, dark, and VERY violent. I know many people in here don?t like the darkening of hero spectacle, but Daredevil nails it, imho, and is well worth the watch for any fan of action entertainment/intrigue. The acting is great, the action amazing without being over-the-top and the characters are each really properly fleshed out, i.e.: everyone serves an integral purpose beyond ?love interest? or ?comic sidekick.? Oh, and?

BULLSEYE! Man, this character is REALLY dark, and the guy playing him is doing an incredible job. I never really cared for Bullseye much in the comics, taking him as more of a filler villain between significant story arcs, but his portrayal in this series and his backstory, wow.; it?s almost scary.

Anyway, if Daredevil falls victim to this latest trend of Netflix cancellations, I?m gon? be PISSED.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Doctor Who: The Greatest Show in the Galaxy (3/5)

No, that's not me declaring Doctor Who is the greatest show in the galaxy, it's just the name of the serial. Though the Reddit did appropriate the title to describe Doctor Who as a whole, so, go figure.

Still, this is OldWho, so by definition, it's the greatest show in the galaxy...if the galaxy underwent a catastrophe that eliminated almost all of human culture. It's...well, what can I say? It's the kind of acid trip you'd expect. Now, acid trips can be fun, but that doesn't mean they're good for you. It's one of the better Seventh Doctor serials I've seen, so there is that, but again, this hasn't aged well. Not in effects, and not in writing - fun as it is to see false gods saying "DOCTOR, YOU WILL ENTERTAIN US OR DIE," like acid, too much cheese is bad for you.

Anyway, not much else to say.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Killjoys: Season 2 (4/5)

Killjoys Season 2 is better than Killjoys Season 1. That said, whether you agree with that statement is something that may come down to how you want to watch TV series. Because here's your options:

Option 1: Individual episodes are nothing special. There's some inter-episode continuity, but it's very much in the background, and isn't strung on that long. Relatively relaxed, even if the setting is fairly grim.

Option 2: Individual episodes vary a bit in quality. There's a high amount of inter-episode continuity that draws you in, wanting you to know more, though the overall plot can feel convoluted. Setting is shifted/developed, and becomes much darker. Characters go through the ringer, both physically and emotionally.

You can probably guess that Option 1 is referring to Season 1, and Option 2 is referring to Season 2. To which I say, well done. Have a cookie.

Now, that may be an oversimplification, but that's generally the difference between the seasons, and yes, I do think season 2 does improve from season 1, even though yes, the plot does get a bit convoluted, since a plot device is literally "green plasma" (yes, that's what it's called). I'm also left to ask exactly how far in the future Killjoys takes place at this point, because we're talking centuries of interstellar society, to the point that an "Old Tongue" can develop within this society, and fall out of use in the same timeframe. It's also a bit systemic of what I've noticed in sci-fi over time, that no-one seems to want to use aliens anymore. It's implied that there might be aliens, but no, the Hullen are humans that have bonded with a neuro-parasite. Not aliens.

So, okay, the plot gets a bit convoluted, but on the other hand, there's the characters. What's funny is that when I look at season 1, D'avin is probably the one that goes through the most shit, what with his PTSD and memory issues...issues that are sorted out fairly quickly all things considered. Here though, the stakes feel more intimate, and more real. John is the real standout in this season IMO, especially his relationship with Pawter. Thanks to ff.net, I knew that she died at some point, but seeing it happen here, and seeing him take revenge...holy shit. It's not exactly Game of Thrones "no-one is safe" level, but it is "you think all's good, then suddenly the knives come out" level. Like, Red Wedding, except inside a bar sort of stuff. The Dutch-Khlyen thing is done well, mostly, but suffers a bit from the whole convolution issue I mentioned. Thus, when the season ends with two potential plot points, one interesting (thanks to John's actions, the Quad is probably going to get a lot messier and lot more violent) and one not as interesting (the Aneela/Green Plasma/Black Root...stuff).

I should also mention that the season does seem a bit more sure of itself. Part of that is due to the music. Now, you can tell a lot about a piece of media based on what music is used for it, and Killjoys is a case where the de facto choice is heavy rock (like Firefly it's a space western, but Firefly used softer, country music for its themes for instance). Killjoys uses this as well, but unlike season 1, it seems to use it less as a crutch. As in, season 1 might use it to say "look, the characters are cool!" whereas season 2 is more "we've established the characters are cool, so we don't need to use rock as a crutch anymore). If you want an example of this, compare the season 1 intro theme to the season 2 one.

So, yeah. Far from perfect. It's not on the level of other space westerns like Cowboy Bebop or Firefly. But still, it's good. Flawed, but an improvement from the prior season.

Also, this is the second fictional world where Dutch's actress works alongside or in opposition to "Sixers." Make of that what you will.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Falling Skies: Season 2 (4/5)

Like Killjoys, this is a case of a show having an average first season followed by a good second season. Unlike Killjoys, I have no reservations in saying that this season is better than its predecessor.

That's not to say it's perfect though - far from it. However, this season is bereft of many of the issues I had with season 1, so first point of call is to compare the two:

-I mentioned in my review of season 1 that it really felt like the second season, given the amount of stuff that happens before it. Season 2, however, doesn't have the same issue. It can follow on from season 1 naturally.

-The season is far better with its use of music. I mentioned before that season 1 tended to use music like a crutch, like every little thing was, by the music, some great big thing. Season 2 does this at times, but it's far more sparing with it.

-The character actions feel more natural. I don't remember if I mentioned Weaver specifically in my review of season 1, but regardless, god he could lay it on thick. I'm going to attribute it more to direction, because here, like the music, his melodrama is toned way down.

So, now that those points of contrast are over, let's get on with what it does well:

-This season is darker. Like, literally - part of the plot involves heading into winter, which means dark, snow, and everything that comes with it. However, the content gets darker as well, as we get to, among other things, Holocaust-esque imagery, execution of POWs, torture, mind rape, coups, and whatnot. Now, it's hardly Walking Dead-esque levels of dissection of the human condition, but it's still a shift from season 1, which while not free of moral ambiguities, they were still the exception rather than the rule.

-It does drive the plot along, I'll give it that.

-Relationships are done well...sort of. But better than season 1, so there is that. Also, Evil!Karen is sexy Karen, so there is that (I'm guessing the actress had fun in acting it up; at the least her character is more memorable this time round).

Right, now that you've got an idea of what the season does well, let's get a sense of where it falters:

-This isn't really the show's fault, but there's kind of a sense of self-importance that isn't earned. There's a feature in the extras titled "Retelling the American Revolution," and if you look at the show in that context, you can see this - it isn't even that subtle about it, with statues from the war, to characters outright discussing it and the idea of rebuilding America. However, if you want to argue that the show is retelling the American War of Independence...how? The War of Independence was a colony fighting for independence from empire. This is aliens invading. I mean, you might be able to draw a parallel between the arrival of Europeans in America and the effects on the natives, or go for the same analogies as War of the Worlds, but nope, War of Independence. Okay then. 0_0

-At this point in time, I'm left to ask what's going on in the rest of the US, or heck, even the world. Now, it's understandable that this isn't shown - in-universe, there's no way of that kind of communication. Out of universe, the show's focusing on one specific resistance group, it would be hard to dilute it across continents. I mean, Walking Dead (you'll see a lot of refeences to Walking Dead here) never leaves Rick's group effectively. We can only assume that the world is in the same state in the US. However, that doesn't work quite as well here, because part of the plot is that the skitters are in rebellion against their overseers. If we assume that the espheni have a presence all over Earth, and are actually afraid of this rebellion, then presumably it's occurring around the world as well. Now, again, we can kind of assume that what's going on with the 2nd Mass here is being replicated to some extent in various countries, but it's a dearth of information that becomes noticable.

-On the subject, while this criticism can be levelled at almost any media, the espheni really, REALLY suck at tactics. They can wipe out 90% of Earth's population with neutron bombs, but on the ground, they're pretty incompetent. Maybe that's intentional, maybe not, but either way, it's noticable.

-There's some really wonky charfacterization at times. For instance, in the penultimate episode, there's a general who resents the passive course of action the leader of Charleston has put them on. Episode ends with him springing out the characters who want to make an attack. The very next episode, he orders them...not to make the attack. Like, huh?

-On a related note, seriously, why do people like Pope so much (people as in fans?). He's an arsehole. He's not deep, he's not layered, he doesn't have some heart of gold, he's just an asshole. I've seen some people compare him to Daryl Dixon, but Daryl at least had layers, and didn't keep abandoning Rick's group. Pope, on the other hand...he's an asshole!

So, yeah. Improvement over the first season. That said, I've got the sense that at some point Falling Skies goes off the rails at or after season 3. I'd be curious if anyone can elaborate on that. But regardless, at this point in time, the season gets a stamp of "good."
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
The Librarians: Season 4 (4/5)

Good news about this season is that it's the best of the bunch, and the first to actually be "good" as opposed to "average." Bad news is that it's the last season. Medium news is that its strengths from previous seasons remain, as do its weaknesses. Key difference is that the strengths vastly outweigh the weaknesses in this season. Course it generates a big weakness of its own at the end, but, well, more on that later.

Having said that, if you've read my prior reviews of this series, there isn't too much to say beyond that. If not, then go read them, because I'm not repeating myself. But basically, I said earlier that if the show was to improve, it needed to either forsake the whole overarching threat idea (in part because it could never devote enough time to it), or get better writing. Well, on that note, the season kind of splits the difference in that while it's revealed that there's technically an overarching threat, the theme of this season is internal conflict - that there can only be one Librarian, so with Flynn gone (more on that later), Eve needs to choose just one to stay on. So, on one hand, we get the stage set for interpersonal drama. On the other, unlike past seasons, the plot thread actually complements the drama rather than being separate from it. So while the season doesn't technically doing anything new in having character-centric episode, the pace and context of the season doesn't subtract from them.

On the other hand, there's the question of Flynn. Now, up to this point, Flynn's been to this show what Tommy Oliver was to Season 1 of Power Rangers - obstensibly the most important member of the team, but the one that shows up sporadically. In seasons 1-3, the out of universe reason was (I'm guessing) is that Noah Carlyle had to split time between Librarians and Falling Skies, differences including that one character has a beard, the other doesn't). The out of universe reason varied per season, but it was the culmination of his arc (such as it was) in season 3 to stop running. Yet he does it AGAIN in season 4, and I can't think of any in-universe or out of universe reason for it (yes, there's technically a reason, but it's pretty flimsy, not to mention repetitive).

There's also the final problem that due to the last five minutes of the season finale, technically nothing in this season actually occurs due to time travel. Which sucks. In theory, at lot of what happened in this season still happens, but it's really aggravating because it effectively means that a lot of character development is reset, and some of it was determinant on plot points that will no longer occur. Also, Rachel is, by extension, forgiven for her actions, and, no. Just no. Some villains get a redemption story, some don't, or if they do, they deserve better than this. Which is a shame, because while we don't see much of her, Rachel is at least enjoyable as a villain, and seeing the actress from Continuum play someone on the opposite end of the moral scale is fun (so much that I did a oneshot based on it). Now, this is only the last five minutes of the season finale, the finale itself being quite fun (if a repeat of the season 1 finale in a lot of ways), but while it casts a shadow over this season, it doesn't ruin it for me. Like, it's not Merlin finale-level bad.

So, that's The Librarians. If I had to rank the seasons, it would go 4>2>3>1. When I first started, I called it a "poor man's Doctor Who." Having since reached the end of it, I can say that while it doesn't surpass Doctor Who, it did become a fun show in its own right. And considering that I've pretty much given up on Doctor Who at this point in time, both old and new alike, I wouldn't have minded this show to stick around. It's not getting a spot in my top fantasy shows list, nor is its cancellation some travesty of television, but hey, I had fun. That's what it sought to provide, and after awhile, that's what it gave me. Right now, i can only hope that it continues in EU form or something, but that's probably too much to hope for.

So, yeah. Flawed, but fun.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Dark Matter: Season 1 (4/5)

When I went back to rewatch Dark Matter (to do a "proper watch," so to speak), I asked myself after seeing the first two episodes "wait, was this show as good as I remember it being? Had I just imagined it. With trepidation I started watching ep. 3 and "ah, there we go! Now I remember why I like this show!"

So, yeah. Dark Matter is still good. Not perfect, but good. Good enough for it to get into my top 10 sci-fi shows list (which is becoming a top 20 - if it ever reaches 20, maybe I'll make a thread on that). Thing is, having rewatched this season, there's arguably not too much I can say, becauese I've already said it on the 'net elsewhere. Still, "elsewhere" isn't "here," so shadup and listen.

Okay, let's deal with the most common criticism of Dark Matter, one that I kinda agree with - worldbuilding. Dark Matter has very thin worldbuilding, and as it came out alongside season 1 of Killjoys (which, if nothing else, did worldbuilding quite well), which made its failings here even more pronounced. There's little sense of scale in Dark Matter, and most of the time, the crew's either on the Raza, or sets that are obviously repurposed from real-world locations or other shows. Still, having done a "proper watch," while its thin worldbuilding is still an issue, it's not so much an issue as I recall it being. From watching it, we can gather the following:

-Earth still exists.

-There's a body called the Galactic Authority (or Galactic Authorities), but it's vague as to whether that's just some kind of interstellar police force, or a governing body in its own right

-Corporations control a lot of the setting, to the extent that they can field warships and armies. By extension, we know that poverty is very widespread (85% of children live on less than one "bar" a day).

-Independent city-states (planet-states?) exist in some cases.

-Humanity has a sphere of influence with "outer colonies." Also, if we pay attention to some names, we get stuff like "Vega 5," Eridani 6," and the "Procyon Insurrection." Vega, Eridani, and Procyon are all the names of real-world stars, so if these names conform to these star systems, humanity's sphere of influence is within the scale of dozens of light years around Earth.

There's other elements, but these are the basics. So, while something like Killjoys, The Expanse, or Firefly has the benefit of a defined astro-geographic setting, Dark Matter isn't completely without scope and scale, though again, it's very thin.

So, yeah, that's perhaps the biggest issue of Dark Matter. That, and its low budget. Now, let's get to the characters, which are the heart and soul of the show. What Dark Matter succeeds on more than anything else is its character dynamic. Of the seven characters that call the Raza home, some are more engaging than others (e.g. Four is arguably the most stereotypical), but these are people that feel defined, both in terms of their own characters, and how they relate to those around them. The whole plot of amnesia and discovering their pasts, along with the ship's android becoming more human, could have been hackneyed and cliche, but here, it's executed adroitly. Past the first two episodes, you start to feel for them. This feeling lasts throughout the entire season. Again, with Killjoys, a lot of the time the show was reminding you of how "badass" the characters were, either directly or indirectly. The main trio were fine, sure, but each easily fit an archtype. Dark Matter has its archtypes as well, but they're much better rounded archtypes. The show doesn't need to tell me they're "badass," It's content with letting their actions and character dynamic speak for them. Remember how in my review of Killjoys Season 2 that unlike season 1, it didn't rely on music as a crutch? This is true here. Music's sometimes used to sell the moment, that these guys are/were contract killers, but it does it with a scalpel rather than a hammer. And of course, there's the question of "hey, maybe we don't want to be those people anymore," but past and circumstance keeps catching up to them. Or in the case of poor Five, dragging her into the mud.

So, yeah. Very strong first season. I won't go straight into season 2, in part because there's only three seasons and the show was never completed, in part because I'm afraid it won't be able to live up to this season. But, whatever. Still a fun sci-fi romp.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Prisoner Zero: Season 1 (3/5)

If I had to describe Prisoner Zero in one word, it would be "frustrating." Not the kind of frustrating where it's constantly assaulting me with how frustrating it is (though that's at times true), but the kind of frustrating of seeing something that could be good, even great, but is constantly shooting itself in the foot.

Before I get to why that is, I'll get with the stuff I actually do like. First and foremost is the animation - this show looks pretty beautiful actually. It's got a very vibrant aesthetic, it's well animated, it's 2D animation but where the characters look 'thicker' - it's hard to explain. Maybe Disney's Paperman is the best example? Whatever. It looks slick. Second of all there's the voice acting. While there is some wonkiness at the start, all the characters look and sound distinct, and there's a fairly wide range of accents, though British, Scots, and Australians seem to be the dominant groups of the future. Of course, praising voice acting is a pretty low bar if that's the first, or even second thing that comes to mind when you're looking to appraise a work of animation, but these are about the only things I can praise unequivocably. The rest is a really mixed bag.

So, let's talk about bags. I've seen two sources of inspiration for Prisoner Zero, namely Star Wars: The Clone Wars (apparently it was billed as a replacement) and Avatar: The Last Airbender. In that, I can see shades of both inspiration, in that we have a galaxy-spanning empire (though the show seems to use "galaxy" and "universe" interchangeably) with a group of heroes trying to overthrow said empire (not exclusively the domain of TLA, but it's effectively there). However, Prisoner Zero falls short on both these fronts, and it would fall short even if it wasn't being compared to much better shows. As in, we get that the Imperium's this galaxy-spanning empire that rules humanity, but we don't get much of a sense of what life is like for the everyday person. Star Wars, especially the prequels, established the sense of the world. PZ isn't without worldbuilding, but a lot of it comes from inference, and there's a sense of disconnect from the protagonists and the people they're supposedly fighting for. Similarly, TLA benefitted from strong geography. In the first season, we had our heroes on the south pole, and they had to get to the north pole. Along the way, they met interesting people with interesting cultures. PZ is bereft of this focus in terms of astro-geography, the denizens, and its plot (more on that later). Also, TLA, even in season 1, showed us that the Fire Nation wasn't some absolute evil empire, and we had Zuko and Iroh as examples of this. In contrast, PZ doesn't have nearly as many shades of grey. Sure, Vykar's fun to watch, but a character like him is never going to have as much depth as a conflicted character like Zuko. And likewise, the protagonists kinda fall short as well. For instance, there's a male character who has a husband...and we don't find out he's his husband until around the 2/3 mark. Prior to that point, I assumed they were brothers by virtue of having the same surname. I'm not complaining that they're gay, I'm complaining that it took over two thirds of a season to specify their relationship. Also worth noting that character's husband dies in the second episode, and flashbacks aside, we never see him again. You can't make me invested in a character mourning over the death of another character if I barely know the character I'm mourning. The season really needed to start earlier in its timeline IMO, to show the stuff that keeps being mentioned. It's not that I don't understand these characters' histories, it just feels that it would have worked better if they weren't relegated to flashbacks in a lot of cases.

Plus, there's the issue of plot. Prisoner Zero is effectively tangling with two main plot threads in its first season, and it's kind of a mess. Basically, the two plot threads can be boiled down as follows:

1) Shut down the Imperium, the Bioweave, free humanity

2) Deal with the return of the Dark Times

So, yeah. It's worth mentioning before going on that despite its claims, PZ isn't sci-fi, it's sci-fa, and the two plot threads complement this...sort of. Thing is, you can probably guess just by looking at them that one of these plot threads is more immediate and concrete than the other.

And look, the idea of an approaching evil isn't an inherently bad idea. You want an example of what does this well? Game of Thrones. The White Walkers are the ultimate threat, but the show takes time to build them up, to the point that it's only at the end of the seventh season that they even breach the Wall. However, PZ is far more messy in its approach, in that for the first two thirds, plot thread 2 feels far more prominent than plot thread 1, as we reguarly encounter supernatural creatures and whatnot. Yet the 66% point involves the Bioweave transmitter being destroyed. You'd think that would be a series finale, but nup. It's more a "oh yeah, wasn't this show meant to be about something else?" and spending the last third focusing almost exclusively on plot thread 1. But when a character references all the good they've done in fighting the Imperium prior to this point, I'm left to ask "what good?" Most of the time they've been dealing with non-Imperium threats. Heck, even Andromeda does this better. Andromeda's another case of squandered potential in epic sci-fi, but it at least waited a whole season to reveal the magog worldship, and reveal

More than anything, the series finale is indicative of the issue at the heart of Prisoner Zero. On one hand, it looks great - DBZ-eque fighting without the filler, high stakes, high action. On the other, it makes no sense.

This is the problem at the heart of Prisoner Zero. This could have been a good show. It could even have been a great show. The ingredients are there, and every so often it delivers a character moment so good, or an action scene so great, that you forget why you were irritated in the first place. But it doesn't come together well. It's like the writers had a number of ideas that they all just threw together. I should mention that the show's last third is much better than the first two, but it isn't without its issues, and most of it boils down to a renewed sense of focus. But it might be for naught. Because when I labelled this entry "Prisoner Zero: Season 1," I was kinda lying. Oh sure, that's what it's called, but it's been two years, and there's no second season in sight. The finale leaves it wide open for one. The producers have stated their intention for one. But I doubt it's coming. No idea why, despite these thoughts, because hey, it's a children's cartoon, and if it made big bucks, that should be enough. Or maybe it didn't. So if this is the only series we get, I don't know how to feel about that. On one hand, a second season at the level of quality of the first isn't much to write home about. On the other, if the writers took a look at what worked and what didn't, and kept those lessons in mind for the second season, it could be good. Heck, great.

Now for a final question - why isn't this show more well known? Seriously, I've seen no hype for it. On ff.net, it's another case of where the stuff I've written for it is the only set of entries in its section. You might be saying "it's flawed, you know why," and sure, okay, but there's lots of stuff that gets popular that, IMO, is crap. You might also say that because it's made in Australia, it's too obscure, but that doesn't cut it either. Slugterra is made in Canada for instance, but that's huge, on ff.net and beyond for instance. Besides, it's on Netflix, so it should be easy to find. This isn't me claiming that PZ deserves to be some kind of cultural phenomenon in the same way that Last Airbender or Clone Wars are/were, but I feel it deserves to be known a bit more. Because again, there's nuggets of gold here. There's a lot of potential here. But it isn't met, and I'd like to see it at least get the chance to meet it.

Well, whatever. That's Prisoner Zero for you. Aims for the stars, but a lot of the time, it just gets burnt.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Falling Skies: Season 3 (4/5)

If I had to plot the quality of Falling Skies on a graph, it would, at this time of writing, resemble a bell curve. It starts off low with season 1. Then it shoots upwards with season 2. With season 3, it goes down - not as low as season 1, but not as high as the season preceeding it. That said, if this is supposedly the season where the show jumped the shark, I don't agree. I can sort of see why some might say that, but while the execution of this season's plot isn't flawless, it does feel natural...mostly.

Okay, that said, let's see where it diverges from past seasons. Season 1 had a goal - survive, which meant travelling around the country (or rather one particular part of it). Season 2 had a clear goal - get to Charleston. Season 3 is much more static, both in location and in plot - defend Charleston while the volm prepare a weapon that will knock out the espheni defence grid, allowing more of their forces to come to Earth. Now, speaking personally, I don't mind the introduction of the volm - it does add to the show's mythology. However, the show either can't or won't show us much of them (or the rebel skitters) - likely because of budget, but it does lead to a kind of clash from what's on screen, and what we know is happening off-screen. There's a whole sub-plot as to whether the volm can be trusted or not, whether allying with them is the best move humanity can make. The answer to that is...maybe? I won't spoil anything, but the finale does try to have it both ways. There's a sense of the season being comparatively static to the previous ones - a lack of urgency, as a result of this.

Second issue is that by this time, the lack of information on other parts of the world, or heck, even the country, is starting to become noticable. Part of the plot involves making contact with the actual president, despite Charleston being declared the capital of the "New United States." This could have been interesting, could have led to political tension, and could have functioned as worldbuilding as we got the sense of what other resistance groups are doing. Well, we do get some sense, but this plot point is quickly dropped. And when the volm 'offer' to transport the people of the NUS to Brazil, I'm left to ask "wait, what about the people already in Brazil?" Like, are they not there? If so, why? No-one asks. No-one even seems to care. The earlier seasons could get away with a microscopoic perspective because it started off as being about survival, and they were without the means to communicate. But at this point, the blackout on areas outside the US is noticable, because assuming the espheni have forces stationed everywhere on Earth (and there's nothing to suggest they don't), even if Charleston is giving them a hard time, if they're dominating other areas, couldn't they transfer them? Granted, it is established that the espheni suck at countering gurilla warfare, and we know that they're running low on fuel (least in the eastern US), but while none of these issues break the setting or story, at this point it's becoming harder and harder to ignore.

Still, despite these gripes, the season does overall remain solid. There's a mole sub-plot that's fairly well done (though the moment the viewer finds out who it is, it's very underbaked in a sense, but the character reactions sell the gravitas. Likewise, the characters remain engaging mostly. Also, despite the above gripes, I do like how the show has progressed in the sense that we see how humanity is fighting back more effectively against the invaders, per better tactics and better weapons. Yeah, we only see one particular group of humans doing that, but despite what some have said, it does feel like a natural evolution from what's come up to this point. And as underbaked as the Lexis sub-plot is, I'm holding out judgement on it for now.

So, yeah. That's season 3. On one hand, it's flaws are very pronounced, like season 1. Unlike season 1 though, the foundation remains solid enough that they aren't enough to sink the season. So, good, if not great stuff.