I always wonder who sets those higher expectations, though. We keep getting higher fidelity effects at a higher cost, but i don't know that audiences care about that. A lot of the most beloved shows, including B5, looked "cheap" for their time, but that was a-ok.

Always worth pausing for the headlines!

Everytime in see this comparison im more compelled to see the Expanse finally all the way through.
I bounced off the first season a few times, but so did many people in Babylon 5. So its gotta be worth sticking with it!

Will they face each other on the shelf, perpetually bickering?

Reflection is the key there, I think. Its not about "they should've done something different" but "will they reckon with what they did?"
And the question what they are fighting for. Just removing Clarke and restoring the EA as before would feel like failure, because its restoring what led to Clarke

Rock and a hard place is exactly right and looking at examples like Rebels in SW, its an area we keep exploring in stories. Andor and co make it unequivocally clear how evil the empire is, and yet, they also keep showing less savory sides of the rebellion we didnt touch im the original trilogy.

I think that's the point: He takes this action because all else failed. From the very first hint at Santiagos death down to every battle of the civil war, they always try and fail to avoid bloodshed. Its possible to do the right thing and still fail in some way. That doesn't diminish good intention!

In Season 1, Babylon 5 feels most like home to me. The rest of the show has grand, amazing stories. But if i think about a normal day on B5, it'll always be during Sinclairs tenure. And i think that lends the rest of the show a lot more impact.

That's fair, B5 has plenty bleakness. What i enjoy is that Sheridan gets a whole shadow storyline to be a hero, only to then struggle and even fail in the civil war and its aftermath. Its not saying everything was for nothing, but that the right side can flawed and just one step in that direction

President of an alliance barely holding together, a strained relationship with Earth which he cannot be part of, and a telepath war on the horizon because their strife they all fail to fix.
The show really has no illusuions about this being a perfect outcome or their coup fixing deeper issues.

Coming from DS9, how are you feeling about the first foray into the space politics of this new world?

I am so curious what you'll think about the first episode proper, Midnight on the Firing Line.

It is a shame that when the crews methods are questioned, it's coming from someone manipulated by "the regime", so it gets largeley invalidated.

That said, I'd argue the show is very open about the fact that a coup is neither a good or permanent solution to fix systemic issues.

Its not shy to show that, yes, crime and drugs and overpopulation are real issues, but they are issues to be overcome together, not to be avoided by running away to cabin in the mountains.
Its not glorifying the station, shows where it falls short of the ideal, and yet is uniquely important.

It's the strangest feeling to look back and think "didn't we all grow up watching these stories about how bad authoritarianism and nationalist ideologies were?" So much of our culture always revolved around these warnings and yet, so little of it seems to have stuck.