Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Science of Battlestar Galactica

Posted by samzenpus on from the set-phasers-on-unrealistic dept.

gearystwatcher writes "TV science adviser Kevin Grazier talks about getting rid of the Trek babble in Battlestar Galactica. From the article: "Grazier's job was to help keep the technology and science real and credible — even when there were some massive leaps. Grazier didn't just make sure that there was a reason for what we saw — bullets instead of lasers — but also that when the science bit did break into the open, it was more mind-blowing than the writers could have conceived — such as when the humans discover their mechanical Cylon persecutors have evolved to look human.'"

4 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. I don't like syence fyction any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    it's just not the same

  2. Oh, they meant the NEW Battlestar Galactica. by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was confused there for a centon.

  3. This gives me hope by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    So you mean in the future really hot female asian robots will be feasible? Well I now have reason to live as long as possible.

    --
    Monstar L
  4. Re:Science fiction ... by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good science fiction can and should also refer to social sciences by putting people into extreme situations that are probably easier to conceive in a fictional setting then in a setting of the current world.

    That's just fiction, not science fiction. Real science fiction should have a large science component. That's what it's primarily about. Stories about people who use science to overcome difficulties, or who struggle in worlds ruled by scientific principles, etc. Think of it as fiction based on the core principles of the Age of Enlightenment.

    Someone at syfy is reading your comment and writing a newton/leibniz buddy comedy.
    "Don't be derivative!" - gottfried's catchphrase