We're all travelers on Spaceship Earth

[my_daroga]

I have exactly one quarrel with the new Battlestar Galactica. And it's not even the poor thing's fault. But everywhere that people are selling this show to others, I see something like this: "Oh, it's not science fiction! I mean, it's scifi but with real characters!"

If you don't see something wrong with this sentiment, you are among the people who think science fiction is something completely different from what I think it is. And that strikes me as strange. To me, a show without proper characterization or plot is a bad show, regardless of genre. So this "scifi for not-scifi-people" thing that BSG has going for it is an affront to every good scifi lovin' geek out there. It's an implication that, to the popular consciousness, scifi=lasers in space. This is due, I think, to the weakness of the visual medium when dealing with genre, in that a few coded items (jumpsuits, computers, spaceships) can mean science fiction regardless of what else is going on. I'm not going to come out as a hard sf advocate, but I *do* think that the essential components of science fiction are these: a strong "what if" scenario and internal consistency.

For me, Battlestar Galactica, with its complex relationships and through lines and attention to detail, is a good show. It also happens to be science fiction. The fact that people feel the need to do the "scifi, but..." bit in its defense means that people don't have a good idea about what science fiction should be doing all the time: creating worlds and situations that reflect upon our own. I read and watch science fiction because it is able to explore complex and important social, political, and scientific issues outside the constraints of our own culture. BSG, in other words, should be the standard, not the exception.

Comments

[filmnoir6.livejournal.com]

That was nicely said, Ms. D. :)

[inlaterdays.livejournal.com]

I admit, I find lasers and space pretty cool all by themselves. -_-;

But well-said.

[my_daroga]

That's valid, and I would never argue against lasers. They have their place. But as a delimiter of what is sf and what isn't? The general public is misinformed.

[phantoms-siren.livejournal.com]

Its an unwinnable argument, much like Fantasy=dragons/tinycostumes/big swords. Good fantasy is like good SF but people who don't watch/read a lot of it are never going to understand that. Hence it has its own section in the book/dvd store to protect the normals. And why great shows/movies/writers get dismissed as 'just SF' or 'just fantasy'. It a statement gets more people to watch a good show then let it be.

I have yet to see the new version of BSG, could never stand the old version, I think ST:TOS has fulfilled my quota of shonky old sci-fi.

[filmnoir6.livejournal.com]

Your thoughts about the older BSG--and previous watching, including the film version (1978; essentially a 100-minute version of the TV show except someone actually swears)--are why I have not watched its current iteration. Hey I only liked the Cylon voices when I was a kid... heh

[my_daroga]

T, don't discount the new BSG. Seriously, I am converted as you can see, but it's nothing to do with the old version. It's a "reimagining" rather than a remake, and there's nothing old-tv or bad-scifi or cheesy about it. It's really quite breathtaking. Having watched S1, I almost can't believe it's really as good as I think it is.

[filmnoir6.livejournal.com]

Oh, I haven't discounted it too much, Ms. D: I will probably watch it sometime to most likely get a personal comparison to the older series.

But in the meantime, I'm fully immersed in.....X-FILES! :)

[my_daroga]

Yay! It's been so long since I watched any of those. How are they aging?

[filmnoir6.livejournal.com]

Very well, actually. It just reminds me more and more of how well-written, shot, acted, etc. the series was.

[my_daroga]

Cool. I actually encountered the opposite opinion from another on my flist a few days ago; she found the dialogue somewhat stilted.

Definitely the emotional through-line was always lacking. But how much can we ask for, right?

I need to find out which of my videos still work.

[my_daroga]

That's a very good point. I do think that movies contribute to this a lot, in the sense that visually we can categorize is more quickly and along visual, not thematic lines. I know I can't win, but hopefully BSG can start to help some.

As to that, BSG is NOTHING like the original. I'd venture to say they're nearly unrelated except for names and a general theme. It's serious, well-made, consistent, and deep(ish). It's like if your favorite author decided to write Scooby-Doo or He-Man fanfic or something. I would warn against letting the originaly dissuade you.

[phantoms-siren.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure some of Pratchett books already count as He-Man fan fics :p

I dunno if that would make it better or worse for me, I tend not to like reimaginings of things. oh well I'm sure someone I know will buy or DL it eventually.

[my_daroga]

Well, having never seen the original, I don't have the same problem. But it's definitely the best scifi I've seen on tv in... oh god, ever.

[phantoms-siren.livejournal.com]

Better than Firefly?! Better than Babylon 5?!? Better than Hyperdrive?!?!?11!one

[my_daroga]

Of those you mentioned, I've only seen Firefly.

Yes, it's better.

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

WOOT. Yes indeedy to the scifi rant. (And I'm still interested in BSG, just apparently not enough to actually put it on my Netflix queue. *ammends*)

[my_daroga]

Thanks. And I think you'll like it; I hesitated awhile as well, but OMG.

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

*also, lassos that extra "m" in amends*

[my_daroga]

I figured you were, you know, making a yummy amends. Like, mm-mm-good ammends? No?

[stoney321.livejournal.com]

Haha, no, just spazzmatazz with my fingers this morning.

:)

[tkp.livejournal.com]

Dude, I didn't know you were watching BSG! Yippee!

I think part of the problem arises with the very real and yet difficult to lay your finger on difference between hard sci fi and soft sci fi. I love soft sci fi; I quite dislike most hard sci fi, and tend to be pretty iffy about the stuff in between the two.

There really are some people who just dislike anything with lasers and spaceships, period, just because it has lasers and space ships. But I think there's a great deal of people who actually would greatly enjoy soft sci fi, if only they didn't confuddle it in their heads with hard sci fi. But since they think they don't like sci fi, they don't know enough about it to know the difference, which is disappointing. Those are the people to whom I give the "it's sci fi, but..." schtick--because they don't know any better.

It's the same with the fantasy genre.

[my_daroga]

I don't know if it's about hard sf at all. I don't know if I've ever seen hard sf on television, or film, to be honest. I think the trouble is that what people think of as SF really isn't--as in, Star Wars is space fantasy or something, it's not consistent. For me, it's the softer stuff that (on tv) tends to give SF a bad name because it's ONLY about the visuals/aliens/gadgets. I could be wrong.

[stefanie-bean.livejournal.com]

I think there are two things going on with BSG in particular, and sci-fi on TV in general. With BSG, it's mostly a marketing thing. Sci-fi is seen as a "man's genre," especially on TV. BSG however has a lot of crossover appeal to women, and that may be why critics see it as "Sci-fi but actually good!" (i.e. women would never watch crap; only men do that ... LOL)

Also, a lot of sci-fi really is terribly written, plotted, directed (:cough:Sci-Fi Channel original movies:cough:) A lot of TV programming labelled "sci-fi" really isn't at all - it's mainly horror, some kind of harum-scarum monster oozing out of the deep film, where the action hero has to go stab it or blow it up or whatever.

There is also old sci-fi occasionally on TV (like whenever they do a "Twilight Zone" marathon, for instance), but some of that is hard to watch, with its cheesy production, as well as suffering the consequences of 1950s TV and movie censorship.

Babylon 5 and Crusade (an aborted B5 spinoff that went on for 13 or so delicious episodes, then crashed) IMO are quite good TV sci-fi, because they go back to the fundamental principles of "classic" science fiction, like Azimov and Heinlein, with focus on politics, economics, religion, deep characterizations, lots of moral dilemmas, wars, and much food for thought. I guess if you wanted to put it in a subgenre, it would be "military sci-fi," but a lot of it involves not so much battles as diplomacy and politics as well.

BSG is holding my interest largely because it's beautifully filmed and scored. I don't know where you are in the series (i.e. if you're watching earlier seasons on DVD) so I don't want to gripe and then give spoilers. In general I like it, but there are a few too many "jumps" in characters' lives; not enough "infill" regarding what's going on with them emotionally, in relationships etc.

[my_daroga]

Those are good thoughts. I guess my main problem is that there is *reason* for someone to say "scifi but good"--maybe I'm just sore that there's enough bad out there to make something decent an exception.

I clearly need to see Babylon 5.

And I am sad that BSG is slipping with you. I just started S2, so everything still feels okay to me. I'm sorry that it doesn't continue with such standards!

[stefanie-bean.livejournal.com]

I guess my main problem is that there is *reason* for someone to say "scifi but good"--maybe I'm just sore that there's enough bad out there to make something decent an exception.

Well, I think it comes down again to the economics of TV/movie-making. It's always easier to make a blow-em-up action/adventure story (in jumpsuits, with laser cannons - LOL.) Keep dialogue to a minimum so it can be easily subtitled for the overseas market (which is where the money is in films and even TV.)

I don't want to sound too down on BSG, because I really haven't watched that much (the mini-series pilot), and Season 3. So maybe I should quit while I'm ahead, or at least until I've watched some more ... ; )

ETA: Just got back from the library with Season One. Yay!

[ludditerobot.livejournal.com]

My favorite "Science Fiction" movie is Death Watch. It's the story of this woman who, despite the fact that cancer has been cured in this far-off future, decides to die of cancer anyway, and a reporter who stays with her, broadcasting every moment. He lost his eyes in a Middle East war and has bionic replacements. Those are the only sci-fi elements in the show. Otherwise, it's straight drama and not too far from what gets broadcast every night.

(My favorite "Sci-Fi" movie is Empire Strikes Back. I'm a lemming like everyone else.)

Harlan Ellison pronounces sci-fi "skiffy" to distinguish it from the good stuff, SF. BSG is darn close to being SF and not skiffy.

[my_daroga]

That's a good distinction, I guess, but it's still somewhat aggravating that we have to define something "good" as "not" belonging to its genre. I'm a library cataloger and I encounter situations all the time where I have to decide whether to honor the science fiction elements or make it visible to the public. And Michael Crichton always goes into popular fiction, for some reason.

I haven't heard of Death Watch, but it's going on my list.