MovieChat Forums > Babylon 5: The Lost Tales (2007) Discussion > First half horrible, second half great!

First half horrible, second half great!


I read some bad reviews of this DVD and approached it prepared for something disappointing. The first half bore that out for two reasons:

1) The dialogue was so artificial it was unbelievable. The priest launches into a speech on the history of religion the second he sits down, and the whole thing sounds like some student essay. When they confront the possessed man, he lays the entire conflict of the story out in the plainest language possible. People don't talk like that!

2) The whole conflict and resolution of the story was ridiculous. Lochley is responsible for saving the universe from Satan? WTF?!!! Satan didn't try to escape until now, and his plan for escape is ridiculous. And she solves it, exploiting some until-now unheard of technicality of possession which states that demons who possess people are put to sleep by sleeping drugs administered to the person they inhabit. Sigh. And they will pass word on to stop demons from escaping earth from now on. It's so friggin' forced, unbelievable, and in the end so neatly resolved of a story. ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE!

The second story started out feeling the same way... The banter between President Sheridan and the reporter was stilted in a similar way as that of the first story. Why would Sheridan open up to this reporter about his personal feelings regarding Londo and how he doesn't laugh anymore? Not very statesmanlike or prudent for a President to speak that way about the leader of another power in the universe, particularly a troubled one who has publicly expressed hatred of Earth at the end of B5.

But then, as soon as Galen and Sheridan started arguing about how Sheridan didn't like Galen showing him these visions of destruction... That was fantastic and unexpected -- a great twist on a scene that could have been cliche. From that point on the episode had me, and I enjoyed it to the end, with the minor caveat that the wide shot digital matte painting of B5's landing bay was ridiculously static. There were small people painted on it who didn't move a millimeter while Sheridan was walking around and talking above them.

So, in the end, it was a refreshing achievement after the disappointment I felt on watching "Legend of the Rangers." My personal hunch is that JMS is a workaholic who takes on so many scriptwriting projects in comics, TV, and movies at once that sometimes he rushes through stuff too fast and turns out things that could use another couple drafts to come out right.

reply

I don't disagree with any of this, other than to say that a lot of the dialogue in the first story was top-notch. You point out, rightly, the two bits of long exposition as the weakest things in the story other than the story itself.

The "interview" segment of the second story strikes me as a bad idea for three reasons:
(1) they really didn't have enough time to do the whole story properly, and so this segment wasted time they didn't have
(2) the conversation was, as you note, far to unguarded on Sheridan's part. They could have done this in a video conference with Delenn and spent no more money.
(3) JMS introduced a new, and silly, "quantum space" travel system just to pull off a sophomoric gag. Quantum space does not appear to exist another ten years in the future.

But your point about TLotR is valid; it is no longer the last thing JMS has done in the B5 world, thank goodness!

reply

I couldn't agree more!





Jack Marshak: What kind of people would bend a man's lockpicks?!

reply

I have to agree this DVD was bad. The second story was better then the first but that's about it. I must ask why those guys even came out with this DVD? I hope since this was so bad it didn't end Babylon 5 for good.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I also found the first part far more interesting. The second part was a bit too predictable for my tastes - I mean, who actually thought that Sheridan would kill that kid in the end, no matter how much Galen acted the Dumbledore? We're not in Harry Potter, where some people are somehow "born evil" and that cannot be changed.

I have to disagree on the first story being "silly". It raised so many interesting question, like what are the problems of the church ("sadness, loneliness, helplessness"), what is faith all about, do people need "proofs" like the burning bush to believe in God, what is the nature of evil - is it somehow sent by God to keep people humble and in their place, or is it in their hands to eventually leave it behind it at a certain stage of evolution? The demon is just a metaphor. As Father Cassidy put it: What is the "lie", and most importantly, why is it - that's what the key question is here.

Ah, and the dialogue complaints once again. Don't people visit theaters anymore? It's a piece of intimate theater - of course in reality "people don't talk like that".

reply

The main problem I had was that Asmodeus's origins, or even the nature of his being, were never discussed. Anyone viewing this without prior knowledge would assume that angels and demons inhabit the Babylon 5 universe. JMS is an avowed atheist, so its unlikely that he would make him a literal demon. But I for one would have liked some explanation as to what exactly he was, be it vorlon, technomage, or whatever.

reply

I think that this was quite deliberate, to leave Asmodeus' origin open. Having the priest pointing out that the case is quite different from ordinary possessions, and Lochley talking about "things" and "creatures" made it clear enough for me that while Asmodeus is an alien entity to Burke, he's no "demon" in the biblical sense. By *not* telling us what exactly Asmodeus was, we are once again without final answers. And for the meaning of the story the only thing that matters is that he *could* be brought back to Earth and be banned there; his true nature is irrelevant.

reply

There is a theory that the angels mentioned in the bible and other cultures are the aliens we "know" today. Theres also an idea that aliens can act in other levels of existence, i.e. in "spirit". Maybe that assumption will satisfy the less religious audience. In my opinion the dialog was really great, and the whole idea was much more exciting to me than the Constantine/Exorcist approach to the subject.

reply

Just posting here to say: AOL.

reply