In which, I confess I am a Nerd.

So, I'm a fan of Babylon 5. Season 1 was almost universally awful (except for the finale) and most of season 5 was unremarkable (except for the final few episodes), but the bulk of the series had enough good moments to outweight the cringe-inducing moments.

Part of the problem with the original run of B5 was that it started out on The WB network, and was shifted to TNT, neither network known for quality original programming, or a large audience. You also had budget problems (small, unknown series with lots of makeup, sets, and special effects on smaller networks), scheduling problems (constant schedule changes, including a jump from broadcast to cable), and an always uncertain future (the season finale for season 4 was filmed separately, and the series final filmed at the end of season 4 because B5 was not renewed until partway through its season 4 run. There were casting problem (poor actors). But the biggest problem was that there had never been a similar series on American TV before, and no one knew what to do with it.

B5 was an experiment, essentially: A sci-fi series, with a planned 5 year run. Set beginning, middle and end points. Allowances made for cast changes. Extensive use of CGI. A real relationship with Earth, politics, homelessness, religion, poverty and crime. Truly alien aliens and environments. Unforunately, early on, Warner Brothers wanted a Star Trek like 'alien of the week' series, and it shows.

And if the whole series was re-made today, starting from scratch, every single problem would be solved.

Planned Series

Lost, Battlestar Galactica, and others. All planned. Well, Lost WAS planned - but they were extended by an extra 2-3 seasons, and it shows. But, generally speaking, networks (and viewers) know how to deal with that now.

No Sci-fi Stigma

Sure, BSG isn't considered strictly sci-fi, but it's made it 'cool.' The last run of superhero movies haven't hurt to dimished the nerd stigma around sci-fi either. Just as importantly, sci-fi has also expanded past Star Wars and Star Trek. It'd be easier to attract quality actors and staff, and have some sway with the networks.

CGI

The occasionally hilariously bad CGI can be traced to both its pioneering use, and the low budgets. Better CGI is available now, for lower cost.

Of course, I'm not a TV executive, producer, director or writer. But it's nice to dream. It could be done. Of course, B5 has already been made once. There's no real need to do it again (for 20 years or so - look at BSG.

Aquent: Shooting Themselves in the Foot

Aquent, for those who might be unaware, is a talent staffing company. They're large, multinational, and supposedly reputable. Theoretically, I'm a ‘Registered Talent’ with them, though that's merely a technicality (I have, in 5 years, received 1 job lead and no interviews, nor do I receive any correspondence from them whether I initiate it or not). They also have a partnership of sorts with the AIGA.

Last week, Aquent created a contest on 99Designs (no link, because they don't deserve one) where anyone could submit a design for their website. The winner would receive $500, and their design would be produced.

Curiously, the AIGA has a very strong stance against spec work (working for free in an attempt to win paying work), and design contests.

Essentially, the AIGA says that spec work and design contests cheapen and devalue our profession. It's true. It sets up the designer to essentially have your work stolen, and to have a company get away with work for free or at an extremely steep discount. This is different (though the AIGA does not make the distinction) from a new business pitch for an agency. In the case of contests, it's essentially irredeemable for a large company like Aquent to actually attempt this. Besides seeming cheap (a website the size of Aquent costs more than $500) it devalues Aquent's position of design as a rare skill, to be cultivated and promoted. Instead, Aquent has said, “Any idiot with Photoshop can do this. Why bother paying for our talent?” It hurts both designers and Aquent.

Certainly spec work & design contests have their place. Non-profits who have no money, and rely on donations for their labor can be excused for soliciting designs. Agencies and studios do spec work all the time in the form of business pitches. But the situations where it's appropriate are few and far between, and it's sad to see Aquent devalue themselves so.

This could have been a win for Aquent though. The contest could have been opened to its members (and prospective members) with the winner receiving a consulting-type placement with the shop that's actually building the site. They get experience, exposure and a paycheck. Aquent gets a good reputation by turning to its own members for design. Better yet, Aquent could have truly opened up to its community, and open sourced the design on its website – finding exactly what members think is broken, and how they'd fix it (and allow the community to work with the production team to prioritize and integration changes).