Martin-Pierre Frenette

• Seven Reasons Babylon 5 is still relevent (or why you should watch it)

  14.12.2011,TV/Movies, Blog,Martin-Pierre Frenette,

  Babylon5 was an epic sci-fi series from the nineties which developped a cult following which sadly, didn't resonate throughout the entire sci-fi community.

  In "the Big Bang Theory", Sheldon often jokes that no one watched Babylon 5 but not a lot more is given. Perhaps you've seen one or two episodes but lack an understanding as to what it is exactly.

  In short, it's a 5 year TV show spanning 110 episodes (and 5 television movies), followed by a failed spin-off (Crusade) and 18 books.

  Babylon 5 is a space station built by Earth 10 years after humans were nearly wiped out during a war with the mysterious Minbari race. When they were about to destroy the Earth, they mysteriously surrended and became our allies. Together with the three other major races (The Centauri, the Narns and the Vorlons), they created Babylon 5 as a kind of United Nations, a democratic station to prevent further wars, our last best hope for peace.

  Over the course of it's 5 years series, Babylon 5 fails in it's mission and becomes something bigger: Our last best hope for victory. Babylon 5 is a epic sci-fi series which was unique in that it's 5 year story was planned years before the first episode was made, allowing a wide series of arcs and storylines, many present since the first season.

  As a hard-core fan of the show (I own all of the DVDs, all of the books but 2 and all of the scripts), I've decided to write a list of 7 reasons you should today, watch Babylon5.

  1. It's profound and tought provoking. There are multiple episodes discussing philosophical issues like religion and parenting (Believers), propaganda(The illusion of truth), polygamy(Soul Mates), etc.. However, in most cases, the episode doesn't impose a point of view on the viewer but rather provokes discussion. Most issues are presented with arguments from both sides, a rare commodity in today's world. The telepath revolt in the beginning of the 5th season for example, is extremely complex and none of the factions are clearly right or wrong.
  2. It relatively portrays a war in a realistic fashion: Sheridan has to make tough choices and pretty much decides most of the war away from the battle line. He doesn't step in every fight and when he has to make a sacrifice, we feel the weight on his shoulders. The war he has to fight isn't strictly fought with firepower, but he has to use strategies, rally his allies, adapt to the situation on the spot. It could have been done better, but in my opinion, it's still the best display of a war in a sci-fi show. Certainly better than in Battlestar Galactica and Deep Space Nine.
  3. The nightwatch arc: During the second season, the Earth government becomes more and more obsessed with loyalty from its citizens and began invading privacy in an ever increasing scale. When Babylon 5 was initially airing, that segment was seen as pure fiction as it could never occur in a democracy. However, today, in a post 9/11 world, the patriot act, the DCMA, SOPA, Carrier IQ and other such measures such as the upcoming US law allowing the army to detain indefinitely enemy combatants show that Babylon 5 was prophetic and serves as a brilliant morality lesson.
  4. It is quotable: many characters have amazing quotes like "Understanding is a three edged sword", or "The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements. Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest.", or even this great speech by Captain Sheridan: "If more of our so-called leaders would walk the same streets as the people who voted them in, live in the same buildings, eat the same food instead of hiding behind glass and steel and bodyguards, maybe we'd get better leadership and a little more concern for the future". I have on my wall this amazing quote by Marcus: "I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all of the terrible things that happen to us come because we deserve them? So now, I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe".
  5. It pioneered arc television: When Lost later came to television, people were excited that it was a story they could follow with intricate plots and long term story goals. Now that Lost is over, its writers pretty much admitted they were inventing it as they went along. Babylon 5 on the other hand, had 90% of its story planned in advance, years before the show began filming. Sure, there were changes along the way such as a changes of characters but the overall story follows a clear path. After watching the show's last episode, you get the feeling that it is complete in itself and that ever since the first season, the ending was planned. For example, we see the deaths of two of the main characters, in the far future of the series, in the very first episode of the show...
  6. G'Kar: In Babylon 5, there are 5 main races with ambassadors on the station. G'Kar is the Narn ambassador. He begins Babylon 5 as a war hungry military leader bent on revenge on the Centauri for having enslaved Narns for close to a century. He is absorbed by his hatred and anger and slowly, in the course of the show, he loses everything only to be reborn a philosopher in one of the most powerful character arcs ever written for television. We learn to love G'Kar in gradual doses, initially our of pity and eventually out of admiration. G'Kar shows us what being human can be. 
  7. But more important, it's fun for the whole family. Sure, the first season has quite a few boring episodes when the show was trying to find itself, but overall, most of the episodes find a great combination of humor, action, drama and even, occasionally, love. You get to like each of the characters for their own virtues and flaws and get to see them react to this great galaxy shaping event each in their own way. You cry with them, laugh with them and get to miss them once the show is over.

• Great phone call from ReGenesis...

  13.02.2009,TV/Movies,Martin-Pierre Frenette,

  In ReGenesis, a canadian TV show, David Sandtrom, one of the world's best biologist is the chief science officer of NorBac, a North American agency based in Toronto which is a little like the CDC.
  
  He always aswers his cell phone with an aggressive "What ?", never with Hello or hi nor his name.
  
  This is a guy who hates his boss in Seasons 3 and 4 Wes. Wes was dying at the hospital, and David asked him : "How are you ? Feeling a lot of pain I hope ?".
  
  In Episode 4x05, he is in a meeting trying to decide with his team which of 3 experimental drugs to give to a patient about to die when his cell phone rings.
  
  Here is my transcript (...) means that the other party is talking and David take a pause to listen, but we don't hear the other party.
  
  "What ?" [in an aggressive tone, as usual]
  (...)
  Who is this ? [getting more irritated]
  (...)
  Seriously, who is this ? [getting even more irritated]
  (...)
  Fuck off, who is this ? [almost yelling to the other person]
  (...)
  Well, yeah, it does kinda sound like you sir [Suddenly calm and nervous. BTW, he NEVER calls ANYONE sir]
  (...)
  Hum, yeah sure, okay [almost shy, which is odd for David]
  (...)
  Right, I understand [almost apologizing for his behaviour. We can see his coworkers wondering what the hell is happening to David]
  (...)
  He then hangs up without adding anything.
  
  He turns to his coworkers and says : "Hum, that was the Prime-Minister"
  
  I thought back to the conversation to fill in the blanks. Here is the beginning of the conversation :
  
  "What ?" [in an aggressive tone, as usual]
  (Is this David Sandstorm ?)
  Who is this ? [getting more irritated]
  (Paul Martin, Prime-Minister of Canada)
  Seriously, who is this ? [getting even more irritated]
  (This is Paul Martin, Prime-Minister of Canada)
  Fuck off, who is this ? [almost yelling to the other person]
  (Don't you recognize my voice ?)
  Well, yeah, it does kinda sound like you sir [Suddenly calm and nervous. BTW, he NEVER calls ANYONE sir]
  
  I was like, wow...

• So, I watched Sicko yesterday...

  28.05.2008,Politics, TV/Movies,Martin-Pierre Frenette,

  Aside from all of the comments I could make on the different health care systems (or lack thereof), one thing struck me when the comparison between the French social system and the US (absent) social system.
  
  One of the ladies mentioned that in France, the government is afraid of the people, while in America, the people are afraid of the government.According to that theory, that’s the main reason the French government takes better care of its citizens than in the USA.
  
  I don’t necessarily agree, since the Canadian federal and provincial governments aren’t particularly afraid of its citizens.
  
  But there is definitely a pattern, in my opinion, and that’s the structure of the electorate. In the USA, the same two parties have been dominating the elections for decades, alternating frequently.
  
  Having been close to politicians, I can tell you most are relieved to work occasionally in the official opposition, since it moves the focus of the population away from them while the party in power is free to stumble and pave the way to a return to power.
  
  Therefore, neither the Democrat nor the Republic have to fear staying out of power for more than eight to twelve years, and in most cases, they don’t even have to campaign to improve the lives of their constituents since the elections are generally either on “lets re-elect the current guys” or “lets get rid of the current guys” themes, and not so much on party platforms.
  
  In France, the proportional system is doomed to force parties to listen to their constituents, since most of the governments are bound to be either minority governments, coalition governments or rare majority governments you won’t be able to re-elect because of political entropy.
  
  In Canada, we have a system similar to the USA, but since our prime-minister is elected by our house of commons, the focus in elections is on the House of Commons, not on the presidential race like in the USA. Furthermore, campaign contributions are not only very restrained, but at the same time, parties get funding from election Canada in proportion to the vote they get (50 cents per year per vote) so small parties are able to exist.
  
  In my opinion, the system the USA has pretty much guarantees a docile population since even if it elects a congress in opposition of the senate and/or the president, the bickering will simply either discourage the general population or cause a blame wars between the two parties which will further confuse the issues.
  
  And since corporations can finance the candidates, the elections are mostly a war of visibility and not a war of ideas. This suits the lobbies perfectly, since it allows “buying” a candidate by spending a lot of money on his election/re-election
  
  In the end, the politicians in the USA seem to only care about them, their lobbyist and the other party, but never about the voters.
  
  Since corporations are not pushing for a more social USA; that leaves the Americans without universal health care…