![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
We're all travelers on Spaceship Earth
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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!
no subject
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!