Why Babylon 5 is the Best — and Worst — Television Science Fiction Show Ever Made


Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

87 Responses

  1. Avatar Damon says:

    You make a good point. As I recall, Straczynski, wrote the five year story arc and pitched to the networks. It’s a very good concept and the story lines (broadly) are very compelling. Indeed there is some crap episodes, but I think that the individual shows got better, in general, as the series aged. A few of the elements I loved:

    The good vs evil story that was upended at the conclusion of the Shadow Wars, and the Earth “holy war” that followed.
    The Technomages
    The Narn/Centari war-the moral delimas and sacrafices incurred by the Narn
    The idea of “The First Ones” and their place in the galaxy.
    The “Redemption” of Londo.Report

    • Avatar Kim says:

      The fun thing about Straczynski though, is the more you would talk with him, the more he would change the story. It was a dynamic, growing thing in his head — an editor could bring up a point “well, what about…” and that might completely change the rest of the show.

      Straczynski wrote more like a gamer, with multiple plots that could be threaded together naturally — or removed, if needed.Report

  2. Avatar Damon says:

    I’d also encourage you to watch the entire Farscape series and related movie.Report

    • Avatar Patrick says:

      Seconded. Maybe when we get done with B5. They need to produce a version that doesn’t make my eyes want to bleed on an HDTV though.Report

    • Avatar JD says:

      I actually scrolled down to the comments to post exactly this.

      There is, IMO, no way in which Farscape fails. It is perhaps a top 10 television program of any genre.Report

  3. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    Creating elaborate detailed universes that are fully described is hard. So is writing moving prose with above average plotting and characterization. Doing both is nearly impossible. Narnia works better as a literary phenomena. Lewis wrote much more delightful prose than Tolkien.

    I think one reason why sci fi and other genre fiction generally does not get its due was that so many writers ignored prose and characterization for so long.Report

    • Avatar Kim says:

      I think it’s because so many of the kids taken with the lazer guns were engineers, and it’s difficult to find someone who’s both good with science and writing. The Literary SciFi crowd didn’t seem (from what I’ve read) to be terribly focused on the science.

      Now that there are more psych people in the field, you’re getting better characterization. [Gerrold had a fantastic piece on psychology from ages upon ages ago, definitely worth the read, all the moreso because it has two endings.]Report

  4. Avatar North says:

    Regarding GoT, my Todd, the way that the show writers are wobbling off script even now during their interpetation of some of GRRM’s strongest book in the series suggests that they will likely be very ready to apply considerable editing/altering when things start sprawling out into horrible bloat.Report

    • Avatar Kim says:

      If Martin can’t stick the landing, the show’s writers won’t be able to either. Oh, sure, they can do substitutions… in the Middle. But the End? If the end isn’t good enough (and Martin’s obvious stalling seems to suggest he’s not confident — as well he shouldn’t be! few writers do well without a quality editor nearby).Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq says:

        Even fantasy suffers from this division though. It’s not just about engineers.Tolkien created a richer universe than Lewis but his writing wasn’t as lively.Report

      • Avatar Kim says:

        Robert Jordan, one of the worst “literary” writers in fantasy, is a physicist.
        Martin’s degree is in journalism.

        See the difference?Report

  5. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    I think the reason why American TV does not do arcs well is that the business aspect wants popular shows to go for as long as possible. If the goose is still laying golden eggs, you don’t kill it. This comes to the detriment of how good a show is though.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird says:

      I’ve also heard that even though 100 is the magic number, they know that certain shows are likely to have better ratings than others (everybody loves the Friends episode where that thing happens!) *AND* that syndicated shows that need you to have watched the last 4 episodes tend to do better than shows that you can just sit down, turn on, and turn your brain off (see any procedural).

      (The shows that strike me as doing the best at this are the newish USA shows where they devote 40 minutes to The Drama This Week and 5 minutes The Drama This Season. Burn Notice being the perfect example.)Report

      • Avatar DavidTC says:

        Burn Notice had a bit of a weird problem in that the seasonal arcs were sometimes completely unconnected to what was going on in the episode, so those five minutes, usually at the very end of the show, often seemed rather forced.

        Especially when sometimes it was some guy ‘I’ll talk to some people, get back to you about that’ at the end of one episode, and at the end of the next episode he does, indeed, get back to them. Ooo, slowly doling out information, how exciting…I mean, how boring.

        I often found myself thinking ‘Perhaps we should spend 20 minutes on arc stuff on this every four episodes instead of five minutes every episode’.

        Sometimes TV gets a little forced-arc-y. I mean, I like seasonal arcs, but sometimes they seem to think that every episode must somehow touch on the arc, and no episodes till the last (And maybe the first) episode can do too much arc stuff. It’s not butter, the arc doesn’t have to be spread evenly over the season.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        The arc stuff is what made me turn to Maribou and say “you wanna watch another?”, though.

        The show itself was solid (even when it wasn’t good). The arcy stuff, though… that’s what gets me to binge on a lazy Saturday.Report

      • Avatar DavidTC says:

        Ah. Yeah, that’s a consideration I forget about. I watch TV different than most people. I *watch a show*. From start to end. If I have watched a certain episode of a TV show, I almost certainly am going to watch the next episode.

        There are a few out there that can’t quite hold my interest, like Bones, I and I keep getting back episodes waiting while I choose to watch Robot Chicken or some other rerun of a show I’ve already see.

        And some shows I’ve actually dropped (Breaking Bad, if you can believe it, halfway through the first season.) So not every single show.

        But most of the time, I will go from the start to the end. If I start, I will finish.

        I guess presenting an open question, like they did on Burn Notice, and always having more answers promised next week, is good to keeping normal people interested, though. Or to cause binge watching. So I can see why they do it even though it’s a little annoying.

        But I stand by my statement it often seemed forced the way the arc was distributed on Burn Notice. While admitted that such a distribution was probably a good idea, viewerwise. 😉Report

  6. Avatar greginak says:

    If you want to see a fantastic universe read Perdido Street Station by Mieville. Its got his wonderful prose and a world to lose yourself in.

    ST:TOS succeeds for some of the reasons you say B5 does. Yeah Shatner has these…odd….pauses that people have been making fun of for years and is in general a giant slab of ham. But there are times when “bad” or odd acting just seems like a unique character not an actor doing a poor job. Kirk’s speechifying wasn’t Shatner being bombastic it was Kirk being who he was for better or worse. The same thing with every new planet being clearly a sound stage or SoCal, they were just weird/odd/different enough to maintain suspension of disbelief to build a cool universe. You could see through them if you wanted to, but you were drawn in enough that you didn’t have to.Report

    • Avatar zic says:

      If you want to see a fantastic universe read Perdido Street Station by Mieville.

      I still dream about this book.

      And Anathem by Neil Stephenson.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        I like Stephenson, but I found Anathem so, so dull. Not sure why, its various strands just never seemed to jell into a single compelling story for me.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko says:

        Oh, I disagree. I was utterly at sea for about 100 pages of Anathem and then it jelled and I realized that it was the awesomest thing I’d read in years. Since The Baroque Cycle, actually.Report

    • Avatar Kim says:

      TOS was alternately good or bad, depending on who was writing and editing.
      The new Dr. Who (Russel T. Davies Edition) seems to go the same way… (although
      I’m actually wondering if everyone whose stories are being used is actually getting royalties — please don’t quote me on this question. it’s just a question.)Report

      • Avatar greginak says:

        Rodenberry was the good and the bad of ST. If ever there was a creator who needed to be shuffled away from his brilliant creation after a year or two it was himReport

      • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

        You misspelled “George Lucas”.Report

      • Avatar Murali says:

        For Lucas, it isn’t half a year or 2. Sometimes, I wonder whether it was actually Lucas who made the original trilogy. Everything else he put his hand to sucked.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        I wonder whether it was actually Lucas who made the original trilogy. Everything else he put his hand to sucked.

        Eh, it’s more mixed than that.

        Lucas only directed ep IV out of the original trilogy. For Empire and RoJ he was smart enough to bring in other directors (though he was obviously heavily, heavily involved).

        American Graffiti and THX-1138 were both pretty good, and he directed those.

        And as a writer/producer on the first three Indy movies, he deserves some credit there (I like all three, never saw the fourth).Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko says:

        All three? I’ve got two words for you in dissent: Short Round.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        Again, I haven’t seen Doom in years, but I don’t recall what was so wrong with Short Round.

        I *suppose* you could say he’s an uncomfortable Asian stereotype, but he’s not the butt of the joke like Long Duk Dong – Short Round is on the ball, keeping Indy honest (“you cheat big!”) and on-track (“no time for love!”).Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

        Also the future Mrs. Spielberg ,who spent about 5 hours of a two-hour movie screaming,Report

    • Avatar KatherineMW says:

      I find the episodes of Star Trek: TOS that I’ve seen to be ridiculously bad: the acting, the silly plots, the terrible visual effects.

      The Next Generation has some amazing episodes; it doesn’t have an overall arc in the way that Babylon 5 has, and many other individual episodes are bad, so I don’t like it as well as B5 – but there’s a strong argument that at it’s best, it’s as good as B5’s best. And I love the idealism of it. I love having a main character whose default reaction to a possible danger is not to immediately start shooting at it. I love that reasonable and clever negotiation is frequently the answer to problems.

      After I spent the length of two X-Men movies repeatedly calling Patrick Stewart a sanctimonious ass, Picard made me a huge fan of him.Report

      • Avatar Kim says:

        Oh, the writers HATED the idealism. “Cant have any conflict in the TNG crew!” … hence Deep Space Nine, which is far more natural.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko says:

        Part of that was budget constraints (Borg episodes were ridiculously expensive) but the result was an overall feeling of the Federation’s attitude (personified in Picard) being “We can throw a punch, and we will if you push us, but we’d rather exchange college students and be good neighbors.” That attitude was so effective it got the Klingons to ally with the Federation (well, until they didn’t anymore).Report

  7. Avatar Poly Theist says:

    How you can praise Peter Jurasik without also invoking Andreas Katsulas is astonishing to me. Most of the praiseworthy Jurasik scenes were ones he performed with Katsulas. From an acting perspective, the two of them were the clear linchpins of the entire series: together or separate, they both gave incredible performances.Report

    • Avatar Damon says:

      I agree. And the process that both go in redemption is quite interesting.Report

    • Avatar Pinky says:

      I think the show had some better acting at the lower levels, too. Lennier and Vir both did everything the scripts needed them to do. Morden and Refa were both well done, as I recall. Garibaldi was always sort of the dry-drunk divorced cop cliché, but I can’t fault the acting. And that was definitely one of the bigger characters.Report

  8. Avatar Maribou says:

    I loved this post.

    While I basically agree with everything you said, I would caution that fans who DO read for the world-building rarely think of the books they love as wooden and clichéd at the writing or character level. I am one of those rare both/and fans you almost never meet, and also someone who does reader’s advisory for (part of) a living, and the thing we most often talk about in this area professionally is appeal factors. Nancy Pearl calls ’em doorways. So we ask what appeals to a particular reader about a particular writing style, rather than whether it is “well-written,” which is only a useful term if you know the tastes of the person making the statement. Readers often enjoy the “voice” of the main character enough to think of him/her as a “good character”, or of the writing as a selling point, whether the writing is particularly skillful-by-English-major terms or not. (I actually feel that way about Qvothe, or Harry Dresden, or even the walking, talking caricature that is Drizzt do’ Urden – I don’t really care that they are utter cliches because I am so damn charmed by them. Cliched as they are, those characters are part of why I love the books they are in.)Report

    • Avatar Saul DeGraw says:

      People are often agashst when I call Tolkien are horribly wooden writer.Report

      • Avatar Kim says:

        I don’t see why. All writers have their skills (I write some decent dialogue, myself — it’s my plotting that sucks).Report

    • Avatar morat20 says:

      Jim Butcher has turned “Rule of Cool”, “Rule of Awesome”, and “Crowning Moment of Funny and/or Awesome” into a career.

      And I cheerfully give him money for it. Although there are people that do it better, some for free. (The nice fellow who wrote the Mass Effect/Exalted crossover “Glorious Shotgun Princess”, for instance…which I would pay good money, RIGHT THIS SECOND, to own as a video game.)Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

        Though less well than Steven Brust does, and Brust is a much more skilled (and much funnier) writer. If you’ve never read the Vlad Taltos books, you should check them out.Report

      • Avatar Patrick says:

        Seconded on Vlad.

        Now *there’s* a replacement for Breaking Bad.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly says:

      @maribou I am also one of those both/and fans, at least for books. I go through phases where I want to be challenged by writers, and then phases where I want to just have fun. (Brain candy is my phrase of choose for there books.)

      For movies and TV, though, it’s a lot less so. The other night I started watching the movie SWAT because it was on and I was wanting brain candy, but even though I just wanted brain candy — and it had a terrific cast — I just couldn’t get through it because of the script. Watching it was like slogging through mud.Report

  9. Avatar veronica dire says:


    I think you have it right, and remember well getting swept up by B5, back in the day. I’m not sure if I’d get on the ride again, as my tastes have changed so much, and I’ve gotten spoiled by all the girl-power shows available, which ring stronger in my heart.

    But yeah, amazing show. Hasn’t quite been matched.Report

  10. Avatar Waterblu says:

    I guess you haven’t watched Deep Space Nine. For me it’s the best Star Trek tv show hands down. It does a very good job with long story arcs and actually is compared to B5 quite often.Report

    • Avatar Saul DeGraw says:

      DS9 is the best Star TrekReport

    • Avatar Tod Kelly says:

      I have watched DS9, and while I like it it doesn’t do what Babylonm 5 did. In fact, it’s kind of three different series, the last two of which were sagging ratings based changes:

      DS9 Series 1: Remote western outpost in space meme, where the story arc revolved around local political intrigue and fundamentalist religious plots.

      DS9 Series 2: The war with the Gamma Quadrant, as seen from the remote western outpost POV.

      DS9 Series 3: The same war, but introducing a starship to make the show more similar to the other Star Treks.

      The series still worked well, but it was also clear that they kept changing directions to try to woo viewers into watching.Report

    • Avatar Patrick says:

      DSN isn’t a Star Trek series.

      They don’t Trek anywhere. There ain’t no Trekkin’ to be had. Star Trek is supposed to be about First Contacts, not How The Galaxy Actually Gets Along.

      Not that it’s bad, you could make an argument that it’s a better series than any of the ST series, but it would have been better completely unlinked to the ST universe, iff’n you ask me.Report

  11. Avatar Saul DeGraw says:

    When it comes to this stuff, I am always reminded of the CS Lewis essay an experiment in criticism.

    CS Lewis divided readers into two camps. He called them literary readers and non-literary readers and basically concluded that literary readers were reading for the prose, the writing, the playing with language and non-literary readers were reading for the sensation, plot, etc. The non-literary readers liked the short hand of clichéd sentences like “his blood ran cold.” Stuff that would make a literary reader howl, sneer and attack. This was not meant negatively.

    I see myself as being a literary reader. Most if not all of the fiction I read counts as literary fiction including the SF and Fantasy I read. I don’t have time for massive series like A Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan but I do love the real world magnum opuses like A Dance to The Music of Time by Anthony Powell or Tales of the City by Armistead Maupin. For world-building, I like the more is less genre. Edith Wharton describes everything you need to know about the world of the characters in a few paragraphs at the opening of The Age of Innocence. Hesse does the same with his description of Mariabonn cloister at the start of Narcissus and Goldmund. As does Giorgio Basani in The Garden of the Finzi Continis and John Williams in Stoner, Fitzgerald in Gatsby, John Iriving in the Hotel New Hampshire, etc. Pages and pages of mythologizing and world building bore me. I also find that the pseudo-formal speech in a lot of SF and Fantasy comes of as pompous but hardcore SF and Fantasy fans seem to lap it up.Report

    • Avatar Kim says:

      I find Martin’s work to have some really poetic turns of phrase. I’m currently reading The Red Badge of Courage, and it’s surprisingly bland and plain.(Then again, Steinbeck’s prose, who I quite liked, has all the beauty of a sword. It’s plain, and sharp, and deadly).

      I have a short story that I very, very badly want to read… but it’s gone now. I wonder whether you’d have called it literary or non-literary, because it was an intricate puzzlebox of a story.Report

    • Avatar KatherineMW says:

      I read for the prose and writing (as well as the characters), and I love The Lord of the Rings specifically because of its writing style. There’s something about the way Tolkien pairs the almost comic style he uses to write about hobbits and the Shire with the mythic tone of everything else that I find incredibly appealing. He gives a lot of background on Middle-earth, but he knows to leave some past things obscure to create a stronger sense of history and myth and the unknown.

      The only other thing in fantasy I’ve found that comes close to that level of writing, stylistically, is A Wizard of Earthsea (but none of LeGuin’s other works).Report

  12. Avatar James Hanley says:

    I’m currently a little over halfway through A Feast for Crows, and I’m having deja vu from Star Wars episode II–when the hell is he going to move the story forward? I’m also irritated by his terrible writing. Suddenly, it seems, he hit upon giving ages a “three and ten” instead of “thirteen” and decided it was such a cool trick it had to be repeated endlessly. The same with “much and more.” I’ve hated Martin’s writing since the first page of the first book, what with his juvenile fascination with alliterative names. Who among us can’t help but snigger at “Brand the Builder?” Good thing the guy wasn’t named Chuck.

    I’ll make it through, but everytime I see the blurb that says Martin spent years in Hollywood writing scripts that didn’t sell, I get a sense that I know why.Report

    • Avatar KatherineMW says:

      He’ll start moving the story forward – hopefully – in The Winds of Winter (Book 6), if he ever finishes it. Sorry for the bad news.Report

    • NobAkimoto NobAkimoto says:

      Once you hit A Feast for Crows you’re fucked. It’s the LeBarre Tar Pit of Westoros and you’re going to keep stagnating and sinking.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling says:

      Bran the Builder

      I have to admit, that stuff reminds me of the sketch where the Coneheads were on Family Feud:

      “Can you name a famous explorer?”
      “Narkon the Inquisitive.”Report

  13. Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist says:

    I love the Blacklist, specifically because of Spader. That show would be nearly un-watchable if it wasn’t for the fact that he plays the over-the-top mastermind so deliciously.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly says:

      I agree. As far as I’m concerned, all the scenes can be divided into two groups: The scenes with James Spader, and the scenes where you wait for the scenes with James Spader.Report

      • Avatar Maribou says:

        I sometimes feel like my entire videographic experience could be divided up that way… ok, not quite, but it’s tempting to do so. *adds The Blacklist to her list of things to watch sometime*Report

    • Avatar Will Truman says:

      I read that Keefer Southerland was allegedly an earlier choice for that part. Would not have turned out well, I don’t think.Report

    • NobAkimoto NobAkimoto says:

      Which is why Boston Legal was maybe the best TV show of the 2000s. The writing? It was David E. Kelly dross.

      But the acting?

      When you stick the wonderfully scene chewing Spader with the excesses of Bill Shatner with straight men like Rene Auberjonois and John Laroquet, then the truly beautifully dry Candice Bergen (like a fine, fine wine she’s so much better than she was in Murphy Brown) you get TV bliss.Report

    • Avatar James K says:

      Season 1 of Blacklist is howing down here at the moment. I’m starting to sour on it, but James Spader is the one note of consistent awesome.Report

  14. Avatar Peter Moore says:

    typo: Peter Jusalik => Peter JurasikReport

  15. Avatar Connie Colvin says:

    Peter Jurasik and Andreas Katsulas are two of the best actors ever in a SF series. And B5 is so over the heads of most people, they cannot even grasp it. I have Zero interest in Breaking Bad, I really couldn’t care less about it. B5 should have won many more Emmy’s and it is a pity it didn’t.Report

    • Avatar KatherineMW says:

      Science fiction series tend to have sub-par acting. Those two, along with Sir Patrick Stewart on Star Trek: The Next Generation, are the major exceptions.Report

      • NobAkimoto NobAkimoto says:

        Which is why one of the best scenes ever is Picard vs. Tomalok from The Defector. (Katsulas was a big Trek guest star and he was one of Picard’s major adversaries until he got his B5 role)Report

      • Avatar Damon says:

        Yah, side note:

        If you’ve watched a lot of sci fi on tv, you see a lot of the same “guest actors” show up in various series. It’s kinda cool.Report

  16. Avatar Kazzy says:

    Call me when they make Babylon 6. Of course, in another year, F&F will be on lucky number seven.Report

  17. Avatar wardsmith says:

    Babylon 5 was a great series for its time and as a former president of the Amiga Users Club I loved that Ron used networks of Amigas for all the special effects /long/ before other TV shows were doing full on CGI.Report

  18. Avatar Mike Schilling says:

    As someone who still can’t force himself through Feast for Crows after several tries,

    Interesting. I disliked AFfC on the first reading, but it really grew on me the second time. I’m currently rereading ADwD, which I hated the first time, and while it’s still very slow in spots, it really does have a narrative drive that escaped me before. I’m feeling much more optimistic about the series than I was a few weeks ago.

    Of course, that’s assuming the sixth book actually starts to resolve some of the existing storylines rather than adding yet more. Though I predict that there’s going to be a new one set in the Westerlands, because that’s the one part of Westeros we haven’t seen yet.Report

  19. Avatar KatherineMW says:

    Considering the quality-level of the special effects, I suspect Babylon 5 couldn’t afford to hire better actors. Although I think Andreas Katsulas, and to a lesser level Claudia Christian, do a good job as well. The actor for an upcoming character in Season 3 is also fine, although I may be biased by him being ridiculously good-looking.

    The story arc of B5 was amazing, especially when you realize that they had to make at least three major changes that would have derailed any other show. It’s extremely impressive that Strazynski worked out ahead of time how he could modify the plot to compensate for the departure of any of the major actors from the show.

    (On a Game of Thrones note: I’m been less impressed with each successive season, although that may be partly because the novelty is wearing off, but based on Weiss and Benioff’s statements that they want the series to be 7 seasons long at most, and based on the limits to how long the audience will tolerate dragging out Dany’s Meereen arc, and based on the inclusion of some material from books 4 and 5 already in Season 4, I expect us to be at, near, or past the end of both AFFC and A Dance with Dragons by the end of Season 5. So it won’t drag as much, and they can cut a lot of the extraneous material.)Report

  20. NobAkimoto NobAkimoto says:

    I spent a LOT of time prowling the usenet mailing lists with JMS in the late 90s and spent a fair amount of time with fan communities like The First Ones, and I have to admit I’ve gotten LESS impressed with B5 the longer I spent listening to the background chatter. The over-acting and terrible effects were fine, even if they haven’t aged well. It’s the…well sometimes JMS is too cheeky. He’s a comic book author and it shows when it comes to the over the top homages and in-jokes.Report

  21. Avatar Roger says:

    I guess I need to try watching an episode. I have absolutely no idea what this show is about.

    I am all caught up on every other series except House of Cards and Sherlock. Still waiting real time for the next episodes of Orphan Black, De Vinci’s Demons and GOT.Report

  22. Avatar Matthew says:

    I’m kind of surprised nobody linked to this:


    I haven’t read any Rothfuss, but Mievelle’s Embassytown, which is one of my favorite books, is striking for being idea-driven rather than character- or event-driven. Perdido Street Station and Kraken are decidedly milieu-driven.Report

  23. NobAkimoto NobAkimoto says:

    In terms of world building I’ve always loved writers like Steven Erikson and Stephen Brust who do such a fun job of creating huge intricate worlds, but then just showing rather than telling by working within the limits of character perspectives.

    In general The Malazan Book of the Fallen has always felt to me one of the few series that does both the actual prose writing and the world building really well. It is, of course, super long, but it’s also one of the few series that’s actually completed despite spanning 10 humongous volumes.Report

  24. NobAkimoto NobAkimoto says:

    Also in terms of sci-fi I think Tod’s thesis only holds if you restrict to western live-action TV shows. Animated shows in Japan featuring giant robots has often had very good combinations of writing and plotting and scale.

    For example: The Universal Century related Mobile Suit Gundam and its many many spinoffs basically plots 50 years of conflict with a very detailed fictional universe combined with well scripted series. It’s true that not all of the series were shining beacons of greatness, but the great majority are well plotted with good character arcs and a character fatality rate that, frankly, makes George RR Martin seem like an amateur.Report