mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
“It’s not enough to survive. One has to be worthy of surviving.”
—Adm. Bill Adama, Battlestar Galactica
Battlestar Galactica presents a problem for me and my Star Trek-fan friends. Why do we love it so much? We call each other up after each new episode and ramble in nervous high-pitched voices, batting back and forth theories and questions and “OH MY GOD” moments… all the while feeling vaguely guilty that no Star Trek clash with the Borg or tampering with the time-space continuum ever engaged and obsessed and haunted us to such a profound extent.
Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica have wildly different aesthetics and ideologies, and both aspire to very different goals. Fundamentally, it boils down to this: Star Trek is about who we want to be, and Battlestar Galactica is about who we are.
* * * * *
Star Trek takes place in a world where all the ugly things about human existence have been erased. Interstellar globalization has brought us new technologies to make transportation and translation effortless. Machines called replicators can produce absolutely anything you want, so the economics of inequity are gone. The injuries of race and class and gender have been surmounted, if not forgotten altogether. Scarcity, borders, money, and culture have all ceased to exist. Interpersonal tensions are relics of a more savage age. No destructive love affairs, no chafing under authority, minimal arrogance to put your fellow crew members at risk. There’s something nice about visiting a world like that—just like it’s nice to pretend that institutional racism and violence against women and poverty are getting better instead of worse. Much of mainstream fiction is built on this kind of wish-fulfillment.
That’s why the world of Battlestar Galactica feels so fresh, and so challenging. People still drink too much, and beat their spouses, and work too hard, and hate their bosses, and distrust the government, and fear death. The crew of the Galactica is not boldly exploring the universe for exploring’s sake, learning about fascinating new cultures and inviting alien species to join the benevolent Federation of Planets. It’s running away from a race of genocidal robots bent on their complete annihilation, while trying to maintain some shred of humanity and civilization.
Star Trek revels in its geekiness. Physicist in-jokes and gleefully incomprehensible technobabble are found in every episode. People say things like “The secondary gyrodyne relays in the propulsion field matrix have just depolarized.”
As a nerd, I find this fun. It’s part of Star Trek’s fantasy appeal. It’s part of the idea that science and reason and the intellect will prevail. But we’ve been telling ourselves that lie for a long time now.
In a very concrete sense, Battlestar Galactica descends from the sci-fi community’s realization that darker and more complex times demand darker and more complex science fiction. Ronald Moore, the developer/writer/executive producer of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, has a Star Trek pedigree that makes him the idol of Trekkies everywhere. He scripted 27 episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and was promoted to co-producer and later to producer. On Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, he was a supervising producer and a co-executive producer, writing several of the series’ most controversial episodes. He co-wrote the scripts for the films Star Trek Generations and Star Trek: First Contact. And while he was hired as a producer of Star Trek: Voyager, he left after only two episodes. In a January 2000 interview with Cinescape magazine, he outlined some of the frustrations with that show:
“I think the audience intuitively knows when something is true and something is not true. Voyager is not true. If it were true, the ship would not look spic-and-span every week, after all these battles it goes through. How many times has the bridge been destroyed? How many shuttlecrafts have vanished, and another one just comes out of the oven? That kind of bullshitting the audience I think takes its toll. At some point the audience stops taking it seriously, because they know that this is not really the way this would happen. These people wouldn’t act like this.”
Galactica is sci-fi without that BS. Sci-fi with all the anger and stupidity and sadness that real people experience. Sci-fi without the conviction that we will conquer our own ugliness. Sci-fi for the age of peak oil and 9/11 and natural disasters compounded by climate change to the point where they can completely destroy major cities. Galactica’s message is that unless we come to terms with our own history, we are doomed. Mankind created the Cylons to fight our wars and to do our grunt work for us. Eventually they rose up and wiped out 99.999% of us. This basic lesson is one we still haven’t learned: that exploitation leads to exploitation, that if you oppress someone you sow the seeds of your own oppression. “You can’t play God and then wash your hands of the things you’ve created,” says the Galactica’s commander, William Adama. “Sooner or later, the day comes when you can’t hide from the things that you’ve done anymore.”
* * * * *
The apocalypse obsesses us. These days, the idea of society’s total collapse has broad traction across the political spectrum. Even Oprah’s worried—that’s why she picked Cormac McCarthy’s The Road for her book club. No getting around it: we’re afraid. We want to prepare ourselves mentally. We buy batteries. We lap up every new zombies-destroy-humanity movie. All of a sudden, it’s disturbingly easy to imagine the human race reduced from billions of people to tens of thousands. These days, Battlestar Galactica’s warning that technology and progress will bring us to the brink of total annihilation is far more resonant than Star Trek’s hope that technology and progress will solve all of our problems.
Star Trek doesn’t pretend that human beings are perfect—prior to the discovery of the Warp Engine, Earth had been brought back to the edge of the Stone Age by the “Eugenics Wars”—but it does take for granted that human beings are good, and that history represents a fumbling messy sort of progress towards perfection. What makes Battlestar Galactica so haunting is the existential question it poses to all of us: “Do we deserve to exist?” In light of Auschwitz and Darfur and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Tibet and 9/11 and Abu Ghraib and global warming, can we honestly say we don’t deserve total destruction? That we’ll learn? That we’ll change? Early on, Galactica’s commander wonders: “When we fought the Cylons, we did it to save ourselves from extinction. But we never answered the question Why? Why are we as a people worth saving?” And while Star Trek plotlines frequently boil down to a search for the best solution to a problem, the “best solution” on Battlestar Galactica is likely to raise all sorts of thorny moral questions. Is it acceptable to rig an election, because you know that your opponent’s policies will lead to disaster? Can we assassinate a rival officer whose actions put the fleet at risk? Where is the line between a mob and a society?
I wish I could see the show as a clear sign that we’re ready to own up to the narratives of hate and violence and oppression that comprise our history, but that feels like a stretch. At the very least, I think Battlestar Galactica has been an overwhelming critical and popular success because we’re ready to be challenged. Midway through the final season, the survival of the human race clearly hinges on whether mankind will come to terms with what it has done. And while it’s simplistic to reduce the Cylons to an allegory for racism, or our oil addiction, BSG offers us a rare opportunity to examine our own culpability, and our own power to change.
Sam J. Miller is a writer and community organizer. His work has appeared in numerous zines, anthologies, and print and online journals. He lives in the Bronx with his partner of six years. Visit him at samjmiller.com and/or drop him a line at samjmiller79@yahoo.com.
* * * * *
Shhh…super secret special for blog readers.
Comments (58)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
That was beautiful, man.
posted by SleepyBeastie on 6-12-2008 at 10:13 pm
My biggest problem with Star Trek (especially TNG and later), is the giant rewind button that they hit at the end of almost every episode. Nothing ever changes, everything remains the same.
It’s the same reason I liked B5 so much. People change, even die. People you don’t expect to die, major characters.
ST ends up every earth-shaking episode with something that completely negates the preceding 40 minutes. Holodeck fantasy, parallel universe, time travel, delusional fantasy, etc, etc, etc.
posted by Empty Jay on 6-12-2008 at 10:14 pm
Wonderfully written, Sam. Hope to read more of your stuff on this site.
posted by Marc on 6-12-2008 at 10:20 pm
Interesting. I yet to see a single BG episode, but you make some good points.
Frankly, I always figured we were worth saving because there’s always a chance we’ll improve. Yes, human history is full of unimaginable depravity, but it’s also produced moments of breathtaking nobility and beauty. I think it’s worth risking the former to give the latter a chance.
And, from a purely theological standpoint (and feel free to disagree, that’s what makes this country great), if God thinks enough of us to sacrifice his son, well, who are we to argue?
posted by Joanna on 6-12-2008 at 10:31 pm
Joanna, rent it or buy it or whatever, but go start watching it *immediately*. SERiously. Miniseries first. If the first thing that comes to mind after reading that article involves religion and morality, you’d likely be quite interested in BSG’s portrayal of tensions between monotheists, polytheists and atheists — all of which are deftly represented on the show, often in surprising and insightful ways.
Personally (as an atheist myself), I would’ve expected this aspect of the show to be a total turn-off, and yet it most definitely isn’t. They’ve used the various religious beliefs and angles very engagingly to illustrate and develop some of the major plot points and characterizations; perspectives from each belief system have contributed to the show’s exploration of moral questions and how each character approaches them.
Also, best damned show on teevee. I’ve never seen a series tackle such enormous issues and portray such dire events without being uniformly and unforgivably cheezy, hackneyed, facile, ham-fisted or some combination thereof.
posted by collier on 6-12-2008 at 11:09 pm
Yay for BSG (sorry, not a ST fan)! Awesome article. I love how we’re getting a little more of the SF nerdery involved here at the floss. Keep up the wonderful work and tune in for tonight’s ep!
posted by nutmeag on 6-13-2008 at 7:57 am
Oh, and I agree with collier, Joanna. Definitely start watching BSG–you’ll love it. I just picked up the show a few months ago and have already caught up. It’s addictive. Also check out hulu.com for the classic BSG series–totally campy but utterly enjoyable.
posted by nutmeag on 6-13-2008 at 8:00 am
I have never been too big on sci-fi (love Star Wars (the originals) but never was big on ST). The only reason i got into BSG was because i was listening to “Kevin & Bean” when i lived in California and they kept raving about it. Normally them seemed to have the same type of taste in movies and televisions that i have, but this time i thought they were just crazy. I thought to myself “I’m not gonna watch this stupid, dorky sci-fi show about crazy aliens and alternate universes (I really wasnt sure what the show was about)”
But after i moved back to Chicago last year and got Netflix (which is the greatest thing ever), I needed something to rent, so i thought i would give BSG a try. Ever since watching the miniseries, ive been hooked. I got spoiled being able to watch all of the seasons on DVD. Not that i have to watch it like normal people, i cant wait for fridays to come (wait….is today?….is it?….FRIDAY?….YEAH BOYEEE!!!!)
I have been trying to get my friends into the show, but they still just see it as a dorky sci-fi star treky show (sorry ST fans). I try to explain to them what its all about, but they dont want to listen. I guess they’ll just have to find it out on their own.
P.S. Good article
posted by Andy on 6-13-2008 at 9:13 am
I am coming to find that very few people really understand the pursuit of virtue. Be a “basically decent” person, but any attempt to strive for heroic virtue and do serious moral inquiry is seen as motivated by self righteousness. Morality is seen as what you can get away with instead of what a person ought to do. I know that certain people of all ages have worried about the virtue of their society- and history, I find, validates that worry.
posted by Zach on 6-13-2008 at 10:05 am
hmmmm…interesting article, but do you really think the ’60’s, when the first Star Trek was produced, was some kind of simpler time? I was alive then and let me tell you, it was not.
posted by Karen on 6-13-2008 at 10:16 am
well said!
posted by tim on 6-13-2008 at 10:21 am
I am quite sure Adama’s quote was something like
“It isn’t enough to survive. You have to have something to live for.” He said it at the end of the Mini Series to Roslin.
The part being worthy of survival was in his decommissioning speech.
posted by DJ Doena on 6-13-2008 at 10:53 am
Hi Karen – no, you’re totally right… while i wasn’t alive for the 60s (and was only alive for ten months of the 1970’s!), as a radical activist i am very aware/respectful of all the amazing (and not so amazing) work and upheaval that happened in that period (anti-war movement, civil rights, feminism, etc). So maybe i should have focused more on contextualizing “Star Trek” within its time period – it is born out of that same spirit of hope and optimism that informed a lot of the activism and social change that people were making happen. Whereas BSG comes out of a deeper cynicism, perhaps, or at least a sense that we don’t have the same power to effect change that we once did.
Thanks to everybody else who left such nice comments! I’m sure we’ll all be weeping together tonight when the episode airs and the show goes on hiatus for six months or more!!
–Sam J M
posted by Sam J. Miller on 6-13-2008 at 12:03 pm
Well, I have to say that I’ve grown up a Trekkie, and though I fully acknowledge its geekiness and ignoring of how people really act, on the other hand, I enjoy its optimism and even its corniness. I got introduced to BSG back over Christmas break, and have yet to catch up on the previous seasons by DVD–aagh!–but I’ve definitely enjoyed what I’ve seen. It’s really well-made, but yeah, it has realistic people and situations (insofar as it *is* still sci-fi). Speaking of sci-fi which has realistically human characters, I also love Firefly and Serenity for the same reason. They fight with each other and make mistakes and sometimes betray each other. The ship breaks down. People die. And yeah, stuff generally turns out alright in the end, but it’s not like none of the bad stuff ever happened, either. So for those of you who are BSG fans because of the realism and haven’t tried Firefly and Serenity–do it!! It’s not just another geeky Trekkie type of show. :)
posted by Windy on 6-13-2008 at 3:03 pm
Sam- truly an amazing post, thank you so much. I have been a BSG fan for a long while now, but have not (until now) really wondered why I love it so much. Your post made me realize that it is the believability of the show, the genuinely human characters (flaws and all), and the sometimes thinly veiled but almost always cynical commentary on our own society that draws me to it. I will be right there with you tonight, quietly sobbing to myself that I have to wait Gods-know-how-long to see the next episode! Thank you again, and keep up the great work.
posted by Erin on 6-13-2008 at 6:06 pm
It’s funny. I was a rabid, know-everything-down-to-Riker’s birthplace Trekkie until BSG came around. Now, I rarely, if ever, watch any of them other than DS9, which is probably the closest to the naturalistic style of BSG. Granted, things tend to bog down from time to time on the ol’ battlestar, but the only real complaint I have about the show is the 6 month (or more) hiatuses SciFi keeps insisting on.
posted by Mike on 6-13-2008 at 6:59 pm
The quote Dj Doena was “It’s not enough to survive, one has to be worthy of surviving” But amazing post very thought provoking. I personally have a huge love of BSG. I’m very sad that tonight’s episode will be the last episode of 2008. The rest of the season is going to be broadcast in 2009. :-(
posted by Wodarski on 6-13-2008 at 7:23 pm
Wonderful post. I guess I knew why I like BSG so much — basically all the reasons that you mention here, plus the fact that it is just beautifully written — but I hadn’t thought about why I find ST basically unwatchable now. Thanks for a great post.
posted by Jim on 6-13-2008 at 7:30 pm
I got bored with BSG as the characters just kept doing really stupid things… really really stupid. It also has a lot more plot holes like how can they not tell a cyclon from a human? And their technology seems little better than ours except with FTL. On the other hand, ST (at least NG and DS9) was a lot better written. Characters seem to act much more like real people. They got into problems, did their freakin jobs without fighting or whining, and went home.
posted by Someguy on 6-13-2008 at 7:48 pm
very good
posted by goodman on 6-13-2008 at 8:07 pm
Well, each to their own, someguy, but I don’t see it the same way. I think the ’stupid’ actions of the characters makes them seem far more human than ones that don’t make mistakes, and the technological aspect of BSG is pretty interesting in that there isn’t a solution for every problem. Just like the article’s author pointed out.
As for writing, I think we’ll obviously have to differ here as well, because I’d say that BSG has a tremendous writing staff who outdo themselves nearly every week.
posted by Nicole on 6-13-2008 at 8:13 pm
Can’t agree with this post/blog more. One of the fundamental things to BSG has been a discovery and acceptance of the badness that we’re willing to go in order to do the things that we think are right, regardless of whether or not they are right nevermind whether or not they are socially acceptable. BSG gives us a chance to explore our inner darkness, to look inside the ‘what am I really willing to do’ and we explore and applaud out closest ideologies within the context of an ever changing (and somewhat confusing) plot line. To be honest at this point, the plot of BSG almost doesn’t matter because just like the first season of lost and like many good (note I said GOOD) Japanese Anime – we really just want to see how the characters will adjust to their situations and how it will all come to an end. There is a sense of accomplishment, loss, and closure within BSG that StarTrek never really accomplished until it moved into the movies.
The one piece of disagreement that I will give the author is that BSG may not be about who we are. I think the more disturbing part is that it illustrates who we want to be – who we REALLY want to be and what the consequences of that are. This is why I have always been in love with BSG, it is almost like a simulation of who we REALLY are and what happens when the abyss stares back.
posted by Gregory Pierce on 6-13-2008 at 8:55 pm
The only problem with BSG is that they give away too much in the fracking previews!
posted by PartiallyDeflected on 6-13-2008 at 8:55 pm
Dude, only thing that beats Star Trek is StarWars. Nothing else can touch it.
JJ
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.net
posted by John thomas on 6-13-2008 at 9:00 pm
Heh, looks like some people haven’t seen Janeway on her bad days.
Black coffee anyone? :D
Anyway…
Star Trek is an adaptation of what we aspire to be in the context of what we are — human. The explorations the crews face in outerspace allow them to explore our humanity by interaction with other species. It isn’t saying we are perfect, but that certain traits of humanity allow us to get by more successfully.
I have to admit, some of the storyline is a bit dry at times and even appears incorrect. But the inconsistencies are possibly accounted for by a lack of money for the crew of the show, plus–if you want to allow for this–the ability of other crew-members aboard the ship to produce/fix what is necessary.
I do agree with the above poster, though. BSG looks at humanity with a more fatalist viewpoint, while Star Trek looks at it more positively. Both shows look at humanity in the way we are TODAY, and what will happen if we follow either path TOMORROW.
posted by Ryan on 6-13-2008 at 10:20 pm
A fantastically written analysis of my two favourite shows and the reason they are my favourite. The differences make them new and exciting!
posted by MIke on 6-13-2008 at 11:07 pm
Sam,
Get out of my head! You’ve somehow read my mind about ST vs BSG and made it into a blog post … except your version is eloquent, logical, and well thought out.
I, too, have been a long time Trekkie (not the costume-wearing kind), and have just recently been able to admit to myself that I like BSG better.
Great post!
posted by Bill J on 6-13-2008 at 11:15 pm
I just have to say there’s only two Star Trek series that matter. TOS and TNG. The others are opportunistic and trite.
posted by Johnny Cat on 6-14-2008 at 12:05 am
Definitely BSG – intelligent and intriguing – less ‘cowboys and indians’ – on which most SF is unfortunately modelled. I mean, let’s get over the idea that “aliens” have arms and legs and sit in the pilot’s seat of a spaceship. Spaceship is such an OLD paradigm.
posted by noozillander on 6-14-2008 at 2:02 am
BSG is also a cautionary tale about technology. The Cylons were an experiment in technology gone wrong and came back to haunt humanity to the point of near-extinction of the human race.
Star Trek is full of planet killers, genetically engineered killer diseases, super beam weapons, and huge fleets of ships yet nobody gets wiped out for some reason. Technology is a friend no matter how wierd or morally ambigious.
posted by Rick Cain on 6-14-2008 at 6:19 am
“technology and progress will bring us to the brink of total annihilation”
I think you are missing the point of BSG. It is not the tech or progress that is the danger, but rather how humans (and Cylons for that matter) create our own disasters, and those problems remain the same in spaceships or in a cave.
You could argue that nuclear weapons change the equation by making decisions more critical, but human decisions were the cause of the “black plague” and the Holocaust and the rise of every tyrant that ever lived, and all those dwarfed the death toll of nukes.
Star Trek is maddening and ironic in that the whole point of exploration is to learn, and then they ignore everything they could learn to continue exploring.
In a way both shows are about coping with the same challenges over and over again.
A wise Hybrid once said “All this has happened before, and will happen again.”
posted by Michael on 6-14-2008 at 9:59 am
I was a Star Trek fan as a child, and could never appreciate the grittiness or complexity in Battlestar… until this article. Thank you for explaining in plain English why Battlestar would never match my expectations for idealism and hope–it’s not trying to. You’ve helped a non-watcher approach the Battlestar Galactica story in a whole new light!
posted by Nick Rosencrans on 6-14-2008 at 10:32 am
One bit of the article kind of stuck in my craw – how can the author seriously compare the incidents (basically tantamount to Fraternity hazings) at Abu Gharib to Auchwitz and 9-11?
To paraphrase Jules Winfield, it’s not in the same ballpark – it’s not even the same sport.
That being said, BSG rocks wayyy more than crappy ass Voyager could ever hope to.
posted by Joseph on 6-14-2008 at 11:02 am
A friend of mine forward the link to this article. Nice job!
I wrote to my friend, “That said, I was a huge ST:TNG fan, and I suddenly realize when I loved it most was when things were FALLING APART. I’m thinking mostly of Picard dealing with death or aging or having things in his head from Borg that Federation resources couldn’t get rid of. The show was very human then. And given the scope of the tech and star-spanning peace loving government, it only made the limitations of humanity even more poignant.”
Something that I want to point out is that the show hangs on themes and ideas that one can find all over the place in OLDER stories.
You want stories like BATTLESTAR GALACTICA? Check out THE TROJAN WOMEN, read the ILIAD, pick up the stories of Nathanial Hawthorne.
It’s not that all stories of the past look at the underbelly of human behavior. It’s that TV — for a lot of reasons — for decades pushed a rather rosy view of humanity. (Even CSI, which seems to hang on at least one eviscerated woman every episode, ends with the team successfully putting order back into the world — just like the crew of the Enterprise!)
Cable TV has offered the chance for shows to cater to more tastes since a cable station is assuming it’s going to nab a huge chunk of the public on a given night. So, now my kind of TV can be on the air: BSG, The Shield, The Wire, Deadwood and more — again, all of them reaching back to a tradition of storytelling that predates TV.
Americans are an optimistic and sometimes naive group — which is great in many ways, and not so great in others. TV in decades past catered to the ways we flattered ourselves and could ignore the problems we created — for ourselves and around the world. As Miller notes, the time of that innocence is probably over.
That doesn’t mean I think all tales need to be like BSG. We need our naive tales too! I’m just thrilled we’ve got a wider option of kinds of stories to choose from these days.
posted by Christopher Kubasik on 6-14-2008 at 10:42 pm
Absolutely dead on right – kudos for putting your finger on what I had wondered about for a while but could never put in words. I grew up watching Star Trek, and I agree that it was escapist fun – yeah, it was a rough day at school, work, etc., but there’s something comforting about coming home and knowing that no matter what the problem is, smart people can solve it in 45 minutes, plus commercials. BSG, though, is not afraid to challenge you, to be not just unconventional, but pointedly and unashamedly so. All the “WHAT?!?!?” moments that me and my friends have shared when characters die or stories take unexpected twists – it’s like the series is daring you to stop watching, because the producers know you won’t. But what does it for me are the characters. They’re so *real* – Adm. Adama reminds me so much of my grandfather – a strong leader, emotional in private, but tough as nails in public.
It’s the gritty, far-from-perfect realism that keeps me coming back. Because at the end of the day, I don’t want to escape. I want to have that reminder of my depravity in front of me all the time, challenging me to improve my little corner of the world.
posted by tmountjr on 6-16-2008 at 8:59 am
BSG is the best thing going on television.
posted by James Clark on 6-16-2008 at 11:58 am
Excellent, thoughtful article about the best show on television now. I always thought “Voyager” had the most potential of any ST premise — far away from home and the Federation, which rules would stick and which wouldn’t? And I was hoping (as part of the premise was trading technology with alien planets to keep the ship flying) that Voyager would be looking more retro-fitted and bizarre as the the show wore on. The “year of hell” episode was one of the best — it was an alternate reality more interesting than anything that was actually going on in the series. But no, reset, 7 of 9 in a catsuit, and we’re done.
One of the deep-down reasons I like BSG is that it’s the first space-based SF series I know of where there are NO ALIENS. They’re all humans from the same origin (Earth or Kobol or whatever), and so we don’t have to have the trope of aliens putting people in danger because of their weird cultural beliefs (a frequent theme in ST). Human culture is weird enough. And thie ending of this half-season was haunting, depressing, and beautiful at the same time. Don’t know how they can top it next year!
posted by tragic christian on 6-17-2008 at 12:33 pm
“Darker and more complex times demand darker and more complex science fiction.”
Star Trek premiered during the Vietnam war, created by a WW2 vet. I love both shows, but to just presume we live in ‘darker and more complex times’ really reeks of arrogance.
posted by Destructor on 6-17-2008 at 7:20 pm
Beautiful commentary, Sam. I’ll always remember September 8, 1966 (I was 12), seeing Kirk, Spock and McCoy begin their human adventures; remember the sheer joy in 1979 of the premiere of The Motion Picture, the sacrifice of Spock, Kirk’s ‘feeling young,’ the stare into the abyss of ‘the undiscovered country.’ There were moments and tales of both optimism and despair in TNG and DS9 as well.
But…after my step-son gave me the Galactica miniseries DVD, I was transfixed, and though I rarely watch television any longer, it takes a calamity to keep me away on Friday evenings (and I ensure several backups). Adama, Roslin, Starbuck and the rest of humanity and its offspring are also involved in exploring, but here the most profound aspects of the human condition. It may be marketed as science fiction, but BSG is drama of the highest order and stands as a singular achievement in the medium’s history.
We don’t really know if science and the intellect may prevail. I offer the world two children who will do more than their share to ‘make it so.’ They may indeed only be members of a rag-tag fleet, doomed to repeat the failures of the past, but we can and should hope and work for the best. Who knows? The Colonials and their tormentors may yet get it right this time.
posted by steve meyer on 6-17-2008 at 8:34 pm
Nice article. They are definately apples and organges. Being a die hard Star Trek fan, I have to say it is still my fave, but BSG is right there. I love the filmography and the storylines are pretty good. The only downside, excluding everything post TNG, is that BSG can get a little to soap operaish for me.
posted by Vrian Sinth on 6-17-2008 at 9:17 pm
Nice article, well done! I’ve got two comments:
1) I’m surprised you didn’t mention a very inherent, fundamental difference between the two series: There are no aliens. Humanity is alone in the universe. This prevents the show from distracting us with “Warrior aliens” and pointy-eared computers on legs and such tripe. In my opinion, aliens are a dramatic cheat, and a cliche besides.
2) Your interpretation is probably valid, but there’s another possibility to explain the BSG fascination, particularly amongst Trek folk: What if BSG simply represents a little bit of growing up? Trek is basically kid stuff, after all, and after 45 years of it, maybe we’ve just matured to the point where we want something inherently a bit more challenging? So perhaps the reason we like BSG is the same reason we don’t like Romper Room anymore?
posted by Blinky McDeskjet on 6-18-2008 at 7:04 am
Great article written by the author Sam.Thanks for writing such a post.
posted by Startrek Quiz on 6-18-2008 at 1:01 pm
That was wonderfully written and very profound. I am a Libertarian that leans a little to the right and I have no home this election, but even with your somewhat left-leaning slant, I have to say that the way you articulated man’s need to examine his moral code or suffer the consequences was fantastic. I was a fan of the original Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica…I tolerated the new stuff, but the new BSG is exactly what you said. If non-scifi fans could get past the “spacey” stuff and watch it, it would have broken record after record.
posted by ScotteeeRock on 6-20-2008 at 11:41 am
I liked how you mentioned our current obsession with an apocalypse. I’ve been thinking about its relevance in pop culture a lot, and it always reminds me of one of my first art history classes and Etruscan civilization. A people that celebrated life, but in the last years of their culture their art radically changed to scenes of death and destruction. It may just be fear for us, but in that culture it was a sense, a foresight into the destination their culture was marching towards.
posted by switchback on 6-20-2008 at 12:33 pm
Star Trek is superior for only one reason: It represents hope. The future hasn’t been written yet, and it can be anything that people want it to be. If people believe it will be bleak then it will be. If people believe that it will be better, that people can change, then it will and they will. People HAVE improved, despite the negativity and pessimism so prevelant in todays world. A hundred years ago blacks couldn’t vote, women couldn’t vote. Now we have a (1/2) black President-elect; if the election had gone the other way we’d have a female VP. A hundred years ago wife beating, child beating and animal cruelty were common and legal. Of course it still happens but it’s not acceptable OR legal. In Europe, where burning people alive was considered perfectly Ok 400 years ago, the death penalty has been outlawed. I could go on and on but the point is this: None of these changes happened because people believed we will always stay the same old murderous, narrow minded bigots we’ve always been. They happened because people believed in the ability of humanity to improve. Star Trek inspires us to keep believing and in that belief lies the hope for the future of humanity.
posted by ScooterGirl on 11-27-2008 at 8:17 pm
You had me until you put Abu Ghraib in the same sentence as Auschwitz.
Good God, man, think about what you’re saying. They are not even remotely close to the same thing. In WWII, the Nazis/Germans murdered 6 million innocent people – in and out of death camps. Children. Families. The elderly. Non-combatants. They systematically tried to wipe out an entire race of people.
Abu Ghraib, while deplorable, was very limited and resulted in 0 deaths as far as I know. The men imprisoned there had a right to be treated humanely, but they were there as a result of being soldiers/militants/fighters.
Slavery would have been a better choice if you were looking for flaws in America’s history.
posted by OneAmerican on 12-12-2008 at 3:54 am
“Good God, man, think about what you’re saying. They are not even remotely close to the same thing. In WWII, the Nazis/Germans murdered 6 million innocent people – in and out of death camps.”
No, they murdered about 30 million people. 11 million in the camps. 26 million in the soviet union. The Japanese also killed about 20 million Chinese civilians.
posted by Chris on 3-2-2009 at 2:26 am
The problem with Trek is this… In the 60’s the advent of computers, PDA’s (or PADD’s in Trek lore), Communications ear piece (Bluetooth head set), Flash Drives, Space Stations, and Warp Drives kept us coming back for more. This stuff that was science fiction in the 60’s and to an extent into the 80’s is now mostly a reality. Yes I do know that we had computers in the 60’s but not home personal computers… My point is that people are just bored with Trek. I really hope the new JJ Abrams Trek film will address this and give us new things to look forward to. As far as the storyline goes I like both shows but it is comparing apples to oranges. BS is who we are while ST is who we want to be. While there are the Cylons to deal with as tech gone wrong let’s not forget the Borg. Who can’t say that they would not be freaked out by the Borg, and yet here is another example of how Trek predicted the future… They just implanted a person with an artificial eye so they could see. I don’t know man, BS might have a better story line but if Trek were to get its act together again it could still be relevant.
posted by Shawn on 3-7-2009 at 10:42 pm
I have to say that I believe BSG & ST to be about who we are and what we will become depending on which path we take. I can’t say that I like BSG more than I like ST. I’m a Trekkie and just because another show comes out I’m not going to stop watching a show that I like because of its storyline or the way it portrays humanity. Each show should be taken within its own context.
BSG is about humans who created a monster to do their bidding and now have to run from that monster who is now sentient. They believe in a God and believe that they are the better of the two species and should survive instead of humanity. What comes to mind to me is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
ST is about humans who’ve fought horrific wars and came out the better and want more for themselves and others. They explore for knowledge and yes to add to the Federation of Planets – think of it as ensuring democracy and freedom around the world – except its throughout space. They have rules that sometimes they have to decide what is better for themselves and the other species involved.
But comparing two shows that are about complete opposite states of humanity is a bit harsh.
ST is not BSG and BSG is not ST and I wouldn’t want it to be any other way. BSG is a very real road humanity could easily take right now. ST is humanity having taken that road and rose above it and helping others to rise above it.
As I tell my friends all the time…I live reality, every so often I want a break – that’s what teevee is for – which is why I don’t watch ANY reality teevee.
I watch both BSG and ST and I like them for their separate views of humanity.
posted by Val on 3-11-2009 at 6:41 am
I know nothing about Battlestar Galactica but a hell of a lot about Star Trek. And I must say – this widely-held view that Star Trek depicts a perfect, idealised future is false. The universe it presents us with is rife with conflict. Humans may not be killing each other on Earth anymore, but there’s certainly a lot of killing going on outside our little solar system. Just watch Deep Space Nine and tell me the Trek universe is the future you want your descendants to live in, with its massive wars and unfathomable death tolls. Even TNG alludes to several serious conflicts that have taken place in the years immediately preceding the series. A lot of people hear Picard’s excessively benovolent view of his own era and take this at face value. The truth is the future as depicted in Star Trek is still a very messed-up and a very dangerous place. It’s just that the scale of the problems has changed. Rather than there being conflicts between different races, there are conflicts between different species. And instead of territorial conflicts between rival nation-states, you have territorial conflicts between rival planetary alliances. A perfect future? I think not.
posted by Con on 3-23-2009 at 7:32 pm
Again, having seen the complete series, I gotta say this series had a vision. It knew where it was going, and even though we were subjected to a lot of downtime science-fictionwise for a while, the final episode cleared it all up nicely. The revelations at the end were quite thought-provoking. The speeches by Baltar and Kara were worth the wait and weirdness of Bob Dylan references and what I like to refer to as Colonel Tighe Goes To The Dentist strip bar scenes. Overall, Commander Adama always kept his credo expressed in this blog entry. “Do we deserve to survive?” Yeah, I think we really do.
posted by Johnny Cat on 3-28-2009 at 10:06 pm
As a ST and BSG fan, I really enjoyed this article and I think you are 100% right. ST is all about what we can become and is fairly optimistic while BSG takes on a more realistic stance and deals with some of the most difficult issues we are faced with currently. I love them both equally and separately. ST holds a special place in my heart since I was raised on it, but BSG really resonates with me personally on several different levels. I particularly enjoyed the emphasis on the cyclical nature of humanity. We see time and time again that humanity has a hard time learning from history and previous mistakes. I wonder what sort of lessons we will take with us as we embark into a new era of globalization, climate crisis, and terrorism?
“All of this has happened before…”
“But the question remains, does it have to happen again?”
posted by Erika on 4-3-2009 at 5:34 pm
There’s some prejudice left in Star Trek. Only this time it’s directed towards Data (Measure of A Man, TNG) and The Doctor (Season 1 and Author, Author, VOY).
posted by Jen Pen on 5-12-2009 at 5:05 am
I will take the opportunity to disagree with most comments.
The article limits itself to comparing the “cultures” in which actions take place. However, whilst ST TOS and TNG do what Sci-Fi does best, namely modify a fundamental premise of the world and analyze the consequences, BSG appears to be basically focused on interpersonal relationship stuff that could be achieved in any other setting. In fact, I am forced to deal with some of that sort of stuff every day…
This is probably also the reason why the DS9 was a real disappointment as far as Sci Fi content was concerned, and caused me to quit watching the other ST shows. If you all like real Sci Fi, “the outer limits” and “Red Dwarf” aren’t bad amongst others.
posted by Alex Y on 5-21-2009 at 2:53 am
“Star Trek is about who we want to be, and Battlestar Galactica is about who we are.”
Wow, this sentence pretty much sums it up. BSG is classic dysutopian sci fi. When sci fi explores the darker side of humanity it resonates in the gut, which is why Star Wars and Blade Runner live on as dark sci fi classics.
I can’t say one style is better than the other. For me, what appeals to me is not the special effects. The sci fi that hits me the hardest is when it examines human nature.
Understandably, I’m a huge BSG fan. I really like the Star Trek reboot. The bold moves taken in the plot really impressed me. I can see some aspects of Star Wars and BSG in the movie (elements of Kirk’s orgin story; Romance – which was AWESOME; and Genocide). While it had a upbeat ending some things could not be fixed (such as massive tragedy), which gave it more grit.
Now I know some Trekkies will take offense to this, but that’s how I see it. If it would have been a rehash of “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” it would not have done so well at the box office. (V’Ger was the *worse* antagonist of all time..)
I never really watched TOS and I hate TNG. However, I really liked the last 3 trek tv franchises – DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.
I think Ron Moore’s criticism of Voyager was valid. They could have pushed things farther. However, I *loved* the characters. Janeway was an awesome captian. Loved Chakotay, B’Lenna Torres and her husband. I even loved 7 of 9 once she came into her own, although I didn’t care for her last minute romance with Chakotay (felt forced).
Enterprise was my favorite one. I know it gets trashed, but I started watching season 3 when they had a full season arc in the Delta Expanse. That was a bit darker Trek season, which is why it stood out. Plus I loved T’Pol and Trip :D
Anyway, I just love sci fi in general, because the idea “what if” is so intriguing. But I like sci fi with a plot. Character development is also necessary for any sci fi series. I think both Star Trek (TOS) and BSG did this well.
posted by Iggles on 6-12-2009 at 1:07 pm
As the finale of BSG and the pilot of Caprica showed, the downfall of man was the desired plan of “the One True God.” The Cylon’s god was the god of the monotheistic humans. One of whom, as we learned is reincarnated in a Cylon body.
In short, BSG just became another example of the Old Testament God on one of His homicidal/genocidal rages against wayward humans (see the Great Flood for an example).
posted by newport on 6-12-2009 at 9:44 pm
Newport,
Thank you for bringing up BSG ’s already much appropriated and increasingly bizarre Judeo-Christian overtones. As a fan of the show, I understood the place of the heavy employment of Greek mythological themes in the series. But as the storyline progressed, Old/New Testament religious themes rose to the forefront, especially in the last season. This change in mythological influences, culminated in a weird series finale where science and logic seemed to be thrown out the window. In there place was a “Touch by the Angel” aesthetic in which religious mysticism was used to explain fundamental plot points. So before we continue this praise of all things BSG over the Star Trek series, lets consider the inappropriate use of religion/magic in a supposed realistic sci-fi series.
posted by SciFi-Rich on 6-14-2009 at 10:17 pm
I hate the new one compared to the old one. The old one was science fiction. The new one was science drama. Seriously, I kept hoping the pres would die already, enough with all the stupid dreams, oh and I guess we live on earth 2 since you see some of the original people still alive 500,000 years later at the very end. I thought that was quite a stretch. The original just had character. It’s like saying Voyager is better than the original Star Trek. I have to call b.s. on statements like that.
As for realism, why would you call it science FICTION if you expected them to be able to have a realistic setting? Yes, shuttle craft do disappear and somehow get replaced on shows like Voyager, but did Voyager have people who dies and were instantly reborn on another ship, consciousness intact? Did Voyager have people colonize a planet then skip ahead 500,000 years later and show that some of them were still alive? Did Voyager have ZERO explanation for why they had the technology to travel faster than the speed of light but used BULLETS in their guns? Did Voyager focus entire seasons to one rambling idiot on a radio preaching how he was the chosen one of God? Did Voyager do any of that? No. Don’t get me wrong, Voyager, Stargate, hell, even Star Wars all took liberties with fact and fiction, but then they kind of had to. They didn’t make any excuses for it either, though.
I’ll tell you one thing: do a little research and see how much of today’s technology you enjoy because of STAR TREK. Yeah, the vast majority of the ideas they created were made into reality. That’s why shows like that get naval ships and NASA shuttles named after them. There won’t be any shuttle Galactica, I guarantee you that.
posted by adam smith on 7-28-2009 at 1:45 am