Babylon 5 and the absurdities of the plagiarism charge

[Sci]

I'll admit, I never watched B5. I just know that whenever the DS9/B5 similarities are brought up, that's included and among the various similarities, that particular one has always amused me.

Honestly I think the Robert Foxworth Hague/Leyton thing is emblematic of the entire claim that DS9 ripped off B5: It's based on only seeing superficial similarities without acknowledging how context makes them totally different.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

West Side Story ripped off Romeo and Juliet
Kiss Me Kate and 10 Things I Hate About You ripped off The Taming of The Shrew
The Lion King ripped off Hamlet
Forbidden Planet ripped off The Tempest
Ran ripped off King Lear
The Magnificent Seven ripped off The Seven Samurai
Clueless ripped off Emma

- except that none of them did and neither did DS9 rip off B5. The premise might be similar but it's the execution that's important.

According to Christopher Booker, there are only seven basic plots in any case:
The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories
Mind you, he was wrong about lots of things.

 

[Orphalesion]

West Side Story ripped off Romeo and Juliet
Kiss Me Kate and 10 Things I Hate About You ripped off The Taming of The Shrew
The Lion King ripped off Hamlet
Forbidden Planet ripped off The Tempest
Ran ripped off King Lear
The Magnificent Seven ripped off The Seven Samurai
Clueless ripped off Emma

Uh....those were retellings of/heavily and officially based on those older works, so they are not a very good comparison to the DS9 and B5 situation (neither is based on the other, and their similarities are coincidental)

 

[Bad Thoughts]

West Side Story ripped off Romeo and Juliet
Kiss Me Kate and 10 Things I Hate About You ripped off The Taming of The Shrew
The Lion King ripped off Hamlet
Forbidden Planet ripped off The Tempest
Ran ripped off King Lear
The Magnificent Seven ripped off The Seven Samurai
Clueless ripped off Emma

- except that none of them did and neither did DS9 rip off B5. The premise might be similar but it's the execution that's important.

According to Christopher Booker, there are only seven basic plots in any case:
The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories
Mind you, he was wrong about lots of things.

It is true that films and television will draw inspiration from or borrow forms and concepts from previous works. However, this fact only highlights how different the two series were, even from the respective pilots. Babylon 5 drew heavily from science fiction and fantasy literature. The number of ideas and concepts taken from Lord of the Rings and The Simarillion is so extensive that Tolkien himself could have been raised from the grave. DS9 didn't draw as heavily from genre fiction, save through the legacy of Star Trek, but rather took numerous pointers from stage and film. Brandon Tartakoff wanted The Rifleman in space, and indeed, the pilot and much of the first season show it, from Sisko's personality, his relationship with his son, the lawlessness of the station, etc. Duet drew from Man in the Glass Boot. There are a number of references to The Sand Pebbles throughout the series. There are references strong references to Sam Peckinpaw and John Ford. There are strong references to any number of war movies. If you want to say that DS9 ripped something off, Babylon 5 would not really figure on a long list. The situation between DS9 and B5 is more like two girls showing up to prom in the same dress.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yes, I was saying what looks like a ripoff often isn't and probably wasn't in this case. There are only so many ways you can boil an egg. I would say that DS9 perhaps subliminally took inspiration from the well-worn tropes used in B5 and ended up with a number of points of similarity as they were both set on space stations, had aliens with names that sounded like someone clearing their throat, had a religious element etc. I'm just glad we ended up being able to enjoy both series.

 

[DonIago]

Not having a legal interest in the situation, and without clear proof that plagiarism actually occurred, I'm content to enjoy both shows.

Beyond "it's a series set on a space station, and later on they get a ship and there's a big war", I don't see a lot of similarities in terms of how their stories unfold.

 

[Qonundrum]

For some reason, I've seen more and more people recycling the claim that Deep Space Nine was plagiarized from or otherwise "ripped off" Babylon 5. I'm glad that people are taking more of an interest in B5, and it had more than a few good episodes and should be credited for challenging the look of space combat in science fiction. However, I feel that there needs to be some sort of comprehensive critique of the conspiracy theory

Ah, like Jeannie vs Samantha all over again...

Much seems to hinge on the fact that J Michael Straczynski pitched B5 to Paramount in 1988 or1989. This is not in itself proof of anything: many scripts and pitches are shopped around Hollywood. However, the suggestion seems to be that because JMS had conceived of the narrative of the entire story of B5, that Paramount had it available to them at all times. This is not true. Not all the stories were written, let alone all the scripts. More importantly, JMS admits to hiding and lying about details in the story that he suspected might scare off studio executives. For instance, the series bible said that there were rumors of a coming war that would never happen. It literally says that there would be no war in Babylon 5.

Interesting

JMS borrowed heavily from science fiction and fantasy literature, making it difficult to claim that specific creations were uniquely his. The most glaring examples are the heavy borrowings from Tolkien, which include large narrative threads, character developments, and even names. The number of analogs between B5 and LOTR are extensive, and would clearly overwhelm any commonalities between B5 and DS9. Moreover, it seems absurd to claim that JMS would have some exclusive right to borrow from literature, but then insist that DS9 could not.

Most shows do borrow. How they innovate and add new things to feel like their own thing is more important. Even Star Wars from 1977 was a silly imitation of Flash Gordon.

To that point, many of the so-called similarities are scènes à faire, the generic elements of science fiction that could not on their own be claimed as being unique. Some so-called similarities are really trivial, like fictional names.
Many commonalities were things that actually appeared in DS9 first, then Babylon 5, probably inserted by JMS into the stories in order to rile up his supporters. Case in point: Dukhat, a character that appears late in B5's run.

"Dukhat" is Bulgarian for "Blow"... "Doctor Who" has a habit of using words from other languages verbatim as alien names. "The Dominators", "Kinda", and "Snakedance" are three episodes that will, eh, blow your socks off in that regard.

The conspiracy theorists ignore how Deep Space Nine was still Star Trek: narrative threads were picked up from the previous series and developed, production and writing interests were carried over from TNG to DS9. The Borg and the Bajoran-Cardassian matter were already established: they were not invented for the backstory of DS9. Sisko being a widow was something organic to Star Trek. Moreover, the relationship between Bajor and Cardassia only resembled the Narn and Centauri in that they were occupations. The fact that DS9 embraced some serialization, mostly late in the series, could not be seen as something taken from the B5 bible. It grew out of the frustration of the TNG writers who became DS9 writers over the limitations on character development over more than one episode.

^^this

Conspiracy theorists ignore how many of the same people worked on or influenced the direction of both shows, potentialy influencing the look and execution of both. Case and point: Jeri Taylor did a lot to convince both JMS and Michael Piller to put women more at the center of stories. At the time, TNG was proudly being held up as a guiding light of equality and aspirational politics. Even before DS9 aired, there were conversations about when women would be showed more in prominent positions of authority. Hence Kira and Takashima.

^^this

Supporters ignore the extensive documentation and interviews that have been made about the making of Star Trek as a whole, not just DS9. Star Trek was such a big enterprise (pardon the pun) that it consumed much of the science fiction world of the 1990s that it overwhelmed genre specific magazines and made many appearances on mainstream magazines. There were numerous interviews of producers and writers describing the development of Star Trek, including DS9.

DS9 was revolutionary and monumental, that's increasingly clear.

Supporters make it seem as if Berman and Piller were complete amateurs when it came to making television, or that they were completely duped by the studio. There were already responsible for many hours of TNG, had experience with creating locations and situations and races, but they needed to borrow from the Babylon 5 bible (assuming they had it) in order to get DS9 started? I still find that there are more significant similarities between DS9 than the Rifleman, especially in the relationships between Sisko and Jake as well as between Sisko and Quark. JMS claimed that he didn't think Piller and Berman did anything, but that they were influenced by the "studio executives." I think it strains credibility to say that Berman and Piller had that much "guidance."

^^this

There are too many mentions of legal filings and a settlement that never happened and for which there is no reporting. There is a video of Patricia Talmann, wherein she claims that there was a lawsuit that ended up in a settlement, proving that somehow Paramount implicitly admitted to plagiarism or was afraid to have the claim examined in public. There are no records of any legal action from WB or PTEN against Paramount. JMS says that Warner was unwilling to pursue a lawsuit. The video is an outright lie, which is shocking given that Talmann was an executive for JMS's production company for a while.

^^this

JMS clearly resented Star Trek, finding that it frustrated his ability to bring B5 to television. I understand how it must have felt not being able to get the series produced because executives felt that they could not compete with Star Trek, or having to share actors and production facilities with Star Trek. Being the alternative to Star Trek, though, became a rallying cry. He wanted his fans to reject DS9, not just watch his show.
Even in the beginning, the two shows were not that similar. DS9 did the TNG thing in its first season before become more character focused. The writing tended to build on what had been accomplished in previous episodes rather than establish a grand narrative. Babylon 5 was very insistent on being a grand narrative, sometimes sacrificing character development in the process. B5 told a more comprehensive story, DS9 presented more comprehensive characters. The things that the two series shared were not important beyond superficial looks.

^^this

 

[Jack Watkins]

1. Many commonalities were things that actually appeared in DS9 first, then Babylon 5, probably inserted by JMS into the stories in order to rile up his supporters. Case in point: Dukhat, a character that appears late in B5's run

Dukhat was mentioned as early as the third episode of the series and was a prominent part of Delenn's backstory. Not the best example.

My understanding is that JMS believes Paramount influenced series development but after the pilot DS9 went it's own way. His biggest complaints, post pilot, were coincidences like a starship being introduced in the third year (DS9's Defiant/B5's White Star), similar names (Dukat/Dukhat, both series have a redhead named Leeta/Lyta), and the Robert Foxworth situation. JMS even withdrew his complaint on the latter; dismissing the two-parter as a riff on "Seven Days in May."

I don't think discussions like this are very productive. It's a very one-sided argument because the folks at DS9 have rarely commented. Until that happens we have JMS alone making a legitimate but unsubstantiated claim. I don't blame anyone for believing DS9 stole from B5 but I don't think they can state it as fact. Nor can we absolutely dismiss these claims as bogus as there are quite a few similarities.

Personally, I have too much respect for Michael Piller's work to believe he stole from JMS. I love the DS9 pilot; it's easily the best of any Trek series and one of the best character pieces the franchise has ever done. It bent the rules of Trek without breaking them and used a fascinating science fiction conceit to explore grief. The heart of the episode is totally different than that of B5's pilot, which was not that series at it's best.

I'm glad we got both shows; both were brilliant in their own way.

 

[Tosk]

His biggest complaints, post pilot, were coincidences like a starship being introduced in the third year (DS9's Defiant/B5's White Star)

The Defiant debuted September 1994, over one year before the Whitestar did in November 1995.

similar names (Dukat/Dukhat,

Dukat first appeared in January 1993, over one year before Dukhat was mentioned by name in February 1994.

Personally, I have too much respect for Michael Piller's work to believe he stole from JMS.

Even JMS himself says he does not believe anyone who actually wrote for DS9 stole from him.

I'm glad we got both shows; both were brilliant in their own way.

Agreed.

 

[DonIago]

The thing about arguments involving when things showed up in the shows is that, given JMS pre-wrote, at least in the broad strokes, a lot of B5, they're essentially meaningless.

E.g. It doesn't matter if the Whitestar showed up later than the Defiant if JMS suggested the idea of a ship coming into the series when he pitched it to Paramount.

 

[Tosk]

E.g. It doesn't matter if the Whitestar showed up later than the Defiant if JMS suggested the idea of a ship coming into the series when he pitched it to Paramount.

He didn't. Besides which, the details of the pitch are often grossly exaggerated to try and create some kind of "proof" regarding the plagiarism claim. Also worth remembering is that the final direction of B5 veers away from a lot of the originally planned material. (As detailed in one of the published B5 script books that contains the originally planned five-year storyline with Sinclair.) The idea of adding a ship to a show about a station is so elementary that the notion that either of them copied the other is spurious.

Even ignoring that, if JMS says that he believes no one actually working on DS9 stole from him*, then anything that came about creatively as the show progressed (ie: not mandated by The Suits at Paramount) is already cleared. Are there similarities? Absolutely. But the similarities go in both directions. And would the claim have ever happened if the similarities remained other than the setting? I doubt it.

* "Were Pillar and Berman aware of B5 at any time? No. Of that I am also confident." - JMS, 1992

 

[Bad Thoughts]

* "Were Pillar and Berman aware of B5 at any time? No. Of that I am also confident." - JMS, 1992

In truth, this is where it should have ended. Once you admit that Berman and Piller did nothing wrong, there is no case for plagiarism or any other borrowings from a five-year old pitch that was not up to date with what PTEN was producing.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I don't think discussions like this are very productive. It's a very one-sided argument because the folks at DS9 have rarely commented. Until that happens we have JMS alone making a legitimate but unsubstantiated claim. I don't blame anyone for believing DS9 stole from B5 but I don't think they can state it as fact. Nor can we absolutely dismiss these claims as bogus as there are quite a few similarities.

And yet the story keeps coming up, affecting how people who have yet to see DS9 approach the series. It's not fans of DS9 who are doing it. It is indeed more productive to discuss the innate flaws of the plagiarism charge because it allows people to enjoy both series independently of one another. I see no reason why people who hold to this canard should be entertained when it is the source of antagonism.

 

[RAMA]

People are just recycling and old supposition. It happens from time to time, It has no merit whatsoever.

RAMA

For some reason, I've seen more and more people recycling the claim that Deep Space Nine was plagiarized from or otherwise "ripped off" Babylon 5. I'm glad that people are taking more of an interest in B5, and it had more than a few good episodes and should be credited for challenging the look of space combat in science fiction. However, I feel that there needs to be some sort of comprehensive critique of the conspiracy theory.

1. Much seems to hinge on the fact that J Michael Straczynski pitched B5 to Paramount in 1988 or1989. This is not in itself proof of anything: many scripts and pitches are shopped around Hollywood. However, the suggestion seems to be that because JMS had conceived of the narrative of the entire story of B5, that Paramount had it available to them at all times. This is not true. Not all the stories were written, let alone all the scripts. More importantly, JMS admits to hiding and lying about details in the story that he suspected might scare off studio executives. For instance, the series bible said that there were rumors of a coming war that would never happen. It literally says that there would be no war in Babylon 5.
2. JMS borrowed heavily from science fiction and fantasy literature, making it difficult to claim that specific creations were uniquely his. The most glaring examples are the heavy borrowings from Tolkien, which include large narrative threads, character developments, and even names. The number of analogs between B5 and LOTR are extensive, and would clearly overwhelm any commonalities between B5 and DS9. Moreover, it seems absurd to claim that JMS would have some exclusive right to borrow from literature, but then insist that DS9 could not.
3. To that point, many of the so-called similarities are scènes à faire, the generic elements of science fiction that could not on their own be claimed as being unique. Some so-called similarities are really trivial, like fictional names.
4. Many commonalities were things that actually appeared in DS9 first, then Babylon 5, probably inserted by JMS into the stories in order to rile up his supporters. Case in point: Dukhat, a character that appears late in B5's run.
   
5. The conspiracy theorists ignore how Deep Space Nine was still Star Trek: narrative threads were picked up from the previous series and developed, production and writing interests were carried over from TNG to DS9. The Borg and the Bajoran-Cardassian matter were already established: they were not invented for the backstory of DS9. Sisko being a widow was something organic to Star Trek. Moreover, the relationship between Bajor and Cardassia only resembled the Narn and Centauri in that they were occupations. The fact that DS9 embraced some serialization, mostly late in the series, could not be seen as something taken from the B5 bible. It grew out of the frustration of the TNG writers who became DS9 writers over the limitations on character development over more than one episode.
   
6. Conspiracy theorists ignore how many of the same people worked on or influenced the direction of both shows, potentialy influencing the look and execution of both. Case and point: Jeri Taylor did a lot to convince both JMS and Michael Piller to put women more at the center of stories. At the time, TNG was proudly being held up as a guiding light of equality and aspirational politics. Even before DS9 aired, there were conversations about when women would be showed more in prominent positions of authority. Hence Kira and Takashima.
7. Supporters ignore the extensive documentation and interviews that have been made about the making of Star Trek as a whole, not just DS9. Star Trek was such a big enterprise (pardon the pun) that it consumed much of the science fiction world of the 1990s that it overwhelmed genre specific magazines and made many appearances on mainstream magazines. There were numerous interviews of producers and writers describing the development of Star Trek, including DS9.
8. Supporters make it seem as if Berman and Piller were complete amateurs when it came to making television, or that they were completely duped by the studio. There were already responsible for many hours of TNG, had experience with creating locations and situations and races, but they needed to borrow from the Babylon 5 bible (assuming they had it) in order to get DS9 started? I still find that there are more significant similarities between DS9 than the Rifleman, especially in the relationships between Sisko and Jake as well as between Sisko and Quark. JMS claimed that he didn't think Piller and Berman did anything, but that they were influenced by the "studio executives." I think it strains credibility to say that Berman and Piller had that much "guidance."
   
9. There are too many mentions of legal filings and a settlement that never happened and for which there is no reporting. There is a video of Patricia Talmann, wherein she claims that there was a lawsuit that ended up in a settlement, proving that somehow Paramount implicitly admitted to plagiarism or was afraid to have the claim examined in public. There are no records of any legal action from WB or PTEN against Paramount. JMS says that Warner was unwilling to pursue a lawsuit. The video is an outright lie, which is shocking given that Talmann was an executive for JMS's production company for a while.
   
10. JMS clearly resented Star Trek, finding that it frustrated his ability to bring B5 to television. I understand how it must have felt not being able to get the series produced because executives felt that they could not compete with Star Trek, or having to share actors and production facilities with Star Trek. Being the alternative to Star Trek, though, became a rallying cry. He wanted his fans to reject DS9, not just watch his show.
11. Even in the beginning, the two shows were not that similar. DS9 did the TNG thing in its first season before become more character focused. The writing tended to build on what had been accomplished in previous episodes rather than establish a grand narrative. Babylon 5 was very insistent on being a grand narrative, sometimes sacrificing character development in the process. B5 told a more comprehensive story, DS9 presented more comprehensive characters. The things that the two series shared were not important beyond superficial looks.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

For the most part true, but I still find it amusing that both shows did a story about a flag officer plotting a coup, and both shows cast Robert Foxworth as the flag officer.

To be fair, just look at him. Isn't that a flag officer who is plotting a coup?

The whole conspiracy theory mostly comes from the idea that having a show on a space station is such a unique, special idea it's impossible two different people could ever come to it independently.

 

[TopperHenly]

I know I am not going to popular by saying this. While DS9 is my favourite ST series, Babylon 5 for me is far superior although that is done to personal taste as I prefer long story arcs that have dark morally ambiguous elements to it.

I've been fully aware of this topic for years and it doesn't hold up. The two series are totally different with the only similarity of both being set on a space station. Sure, there are similar plots and characters but the same could be said of any sci-fi TV series.

 

[JesterFace]

The two series are totally different with the only similarity of both being set on a space station.

I'm speaking on behalf of those who haven't watched Babylon 5 from start to finish (yet?) because I haven't.
But, what are the nasty ripoffs other than both series having a space station?

 

[tomswift2002]

I'm speaking on behalf of those who haven't watched Babylon 5 from start to finish (yet?) because I haven't.
But, what are the nasty ripoffs other than both series having a space station?

Having a main character be greedy for something (on DS9 it’s money with Quark, and on B5 it’s Londo Mollari who is greedy for power and will let nothing stand in his way to get that power) as well as have an assistant (Rom/Vir Coto) who is the opposite of that character and ends up as the leader of their home planet at the series end.

 

[Tosk]

I know I am not going to popular by saying this. While DS9 is my favourite ST series, Babylon 5 for me is far superior although that is done to personal taste as I prefer long story arcs that have dark morally ambiguous elements to it.

It's pretty unlikely anyone here is going to hold that against you.

 

[Farscape One]

Exactly. Particularly true for me, as I absolutely love B5, as well.

 

[TopperHenly]

It's pretty unlikely anyone here is going to hold that against you.

Thanks. A lot of forums, regardless of content, can be pretty unforgiving so wasn't sure how my reply would be taken.

Simply put, the reason why I prefer B5 is the tight, lean plot-lines throughout season 2 to season 4. There wasn't many standalone episodes throughout those seasons and even ones that are considered duff like "A Late Delivery from Avalon" I enjoyed a lot. The series is understated in the history of modern TV because it is was a forerunner of the binge TV style that is normal for any series now. I had watched B5 on it's first run on UK TV and since then I've watched it about 6 or 7 times in the series entirety over the years. With DS9, I had tried my second watch at the start of the lockdown and while I binged quite a lot of Dominion arc starting from Season 4, I just can't get the excitement that I did with B5 and the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica re-watches. The thing is I had actually enjoyed the standalone episodes of DS9 on the second re-watch more than I did with the ones related to the Dominion arc, even though they were still as exciting as compelling.

Thinking about this, I just want to put forward an observation. I think B5 dealt with myths that was prevalent in the events through it's story and DS9 dealt with the individuals throughout the events throughout that story. In B5, we had the Shadows & Vorlons, Sheridan & Delan and a new age where they younger races came into their own. In DS9, we got to see how individuals coped with the events in the Dominion war. We get to see what they did when they were away from fighting and we got to see events not related to the war as well. In short, while the war happened, life of a sort went on.

The two series had different styles of telling their stories and while I do prefer B5, I do like DS9 as well with the combination of both story and character.