post

Battlestar Galactica

I’ve finished the remade Battlestar Galactica and it is to Sci-Fi what Sarah Palin is to a competent political career.

Though mildly entertaining it was more of a Thornbirds in space or Dynasty with rocketships than it was anything close to Science Fiction.  The story was internally inconsistent and the writers had only one formula for conflict resolution – direct face to face conflict usually incorporating some manner of physical exertion.

Plot development was arbitrary and the BSG universe made no inherent sense. e.g. a society that had developed faster than light travel was unable to develop weapons more devastating than bullets and nuke-u-lar bombs?  Then again Colonial society was in the process of dumbing down with each generation.  The residents of Kobol were able to make Cylons, and even make them in a human form, this technology was then lost to (and forgotten by) future generations. The show ends with all the colonials giving up all the technology they had and integrating with the indigenous population on Earth.  Bah.  Not one person resisted? When the entire show was built upon someone taking great offense to every decision that was made? Stoopid stoopid ending to a stoopid stoopid show.  At least Battlestar Galactica remained consistent in that regard.  The first episode sucked.  The last episode sucked. The episodes in between were able to bridge the sucky ends by being iterations of suck. Ahh.

If you liked the show great!  If you think the show is good Science Fiction then you surely also believe that Sarah Palin resignation from being Alaska’s Governor is due to her amazing plan to make herself president in the next election.  Good Luck with that.

:-)

More to learn!

About Matthew

Comments

  1. James says:

    I could not disagree with you more. There were a few suck episodes, but overall I thought it was one of the best sci-fi series around.

    Are you seriously going to complain that their weapons technology isn’t better? I think you’ve just been watching too much Star Trek. Their military ships were basically aircraft carriers. The entire point was that the tech was not much beyond ours, except for the FTLs. I dont’ see that as breaking from a lot of hard sci-fi, actually.

    The plotting was not realistic no. But again, this is sci-fi. What do you think is a well plotted, always on show that best exemplifies sci-fi? B5 was awesome, but still had lots of poor plotting and character development. Same with DS9. Firefly never hit its stride in creating a good universe, with Serenity completely ruining what it had created.

    Ultimately, it’s a TV show. Logical consistency, realistic plotting, and fancy guns have to take a back seat to storytelling, bar none.

  2. kestrachern says:

    My point was not that it was a horrible series. But that it was not a Sci-Fi series. As for story telling there was one but on the same level as Dynasty or Dallas, Days of Our Lives or General Hospital. Spaceships do not make a show Scifi. The Muppet show had Pigs in Space. The Muppet Show was not SciFi.

    “Logical consistency, realistic plotting, and fancy guns have to take a back seat to storytelling, bar none.”

    Only that I see that logical consistency and realistic (and by that I mean internally consistent or realistic in the universe that the series has created) plotting are essential to story telling. BSG did stupid stupid plot twists. One example that comes to mind is the debate by the six Cyclon models on whether or not to lobotomize the Raiders. As each of the representatives of the models voted a deadlock was established. A single model 8 decides to vote against her type and somehow that swings the vote. Why was that possible? Did each representative’s vote carry the weight of all members of that particular model or did it simply count as one vote. If one vote then another 6 could counter the 8. If votes carried the weight of the entire model then having one dissenting unit is not sufficient for breaking the tie. Stoopid plot development.

    The overall “moral” of BSG was a poorly stated version of what Michael Criton has said more eloquently in his works – “Be wary of technology for it will always come back to bite you in the ass”

    As for the level of technology.
    You and I have access to guns.
    We do not have access to space ships or FTL drives.
    You and I have computers.
    We do not have access to space ships or FTL drives.
    Guns are a technology centuries old.
    FTL drives are a technology centuries into the future.
    FTL drives demand a technology and an understanding of the physical world well beyond that of the nuclear level (or even quantum level). Else we would have them now.

    The work and effort necessary to develop FTL would necessitate other advancements in technology beyond that of guns. As an example an entire manufactured race, the Cylons, was created and reduced to only five living members before FTL drives were invented. Projectiles might still have been the most effective method for damage during that time, but instead of chemical reactions propelling the bullet I would expect more of a mass driver or other non mechanical or non chemical method. For what its worth, regardless of the ship BSG being the futuristic equivelant of an aircraft carrier it would arm itself with something much more sophistocated than slow-ass chemically propelled projectiles. Today’s carriers arm themselves with as advanced defensive and offensive armament as possible.

    As for the Sci-Fi shows you mentioned in the last six months I have watched B5 and Firefly/Serenity but not yet DS9 (it is on the list) among other series. (F/S universe should be saved for the subject for another post)

    I’m glad you enjoyed the show. For me however, BSG was not SCiFi as it suffered from uninspired writing and an unimaginative and pedestrian plot. BSG should be considered one of the first entries into a new genre, the space drama.

    :-)

Speak Your Mind

*