The Science of Battlestar Galactica
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.'"
The networks keep canceling all good TV shows and instead keep crap like American Idol and 90210 alive.
Yes, that is one sentence.
But I don't think "evolved" is applicable in this situation.
Ok, let's get one thing straight -- the Cylons "evolving" into human form was not "mind blowing". It just wasn't.
It looked like a shameless ploy to reduce production costs, (which it probably was) and to have a bunch of scenes with James Callis dry-humping Tricia Helfer (which got tiresome after the second or fifth time).
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Evolved simply means changed. It doesn't mean "biologically improved by a process of natural selection". A model of car evolves from one year to the next.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I liked BSG because they don't bother with all the techno-babble. How does an FTL drive work? They don't tell you and it doesn't matter. It just makes the spaceship go and uses up some fuel. Quite refreshing from Star Trek and their neutrino flux combobulator matrices and anti-gluon snark fields.
The result: BSG was barely science fiction - at least to purists.
I risk to differ: 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. When doing that kind of science fiction it will most likely tell you more about the time when it was created then about a possible future and IMO that is a good thing, because the future is not foreseeable anyway and the fiction should reflect and influence the now. I think BSG did an excellent job at that.
Don't get me wrong. I drooled over BSG, and it was a welcome change from Star Trek (victory for modernized scifi). But the part where Starbuck dies, then miraculously appears alive, and ends up stumbling over her dead previous body... culminating in her literally vanishing into a puff of smoke -- it made me facepalm IRL. I think some of the original appeal of BSG was what it could have become; the hope that, as you're watching it, all the crap religion and character idiocy will be tossed out in the later episodes. Unfortunately it only got worse. If BSG accomplished one thing, it was in showing a version of humanity even stupider than our own -- surely a remarkable feat.
"Moore wasn't messing around when it came to getting the "facts" right."
Except for the episode (S2E01, Scattered) where Gaeta "networks" some computer systems of the BSG to do faster jump calculations, and somehow the Cylons can infiltrate what... the cables? Pretty sure if they could do that, they could do much worse to the systems outright.
I always found the episode very lame from a tech perspective.
I'm still angry at BSG for ending with "You know all of those cool questions we left unanswered? Yeah, those. Yeah, God did it."
You should read more. There're probably more great sci-fi books out there than you think. In fact, you shouldn't watch TV at all...
Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
The writer's strike killed Heroes. The end of that season was basically a complete 180 that totally invalidated every minute of the season up to that point. After that it was never the same.