<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Battlestar Galactica vs. Star Trek</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736</link>
	<description>Feel Smart Again</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:01:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous_BSG_ST</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-406382</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous_BSG_ST</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Oct 2010 21:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-406382</guid>
		<description>Since this discussion has gone on for more than a year now I would like to add my humble views on ST VOY/TNG vs BSG debate.

I like all 3 of them. But I think BSG has serious short comings as a real sci-fi show (as does VOY/TNG). 

BSG is a great show and refreshing change from Star Trek. It raises some very important moral questions. What does it mean to be human or conscious? etc. But I think it delves into them so deep that it forgets that there is an actual real survival story going on here.

It is a good drama, has great acting and direction. Characters are very complex. But the characters on BSG also do not act consistently. As The Gentleman Jocard has pointed out the characters seem to go out of their way to create misery. Characters of Kara Thrace, Baltar Gaius and of many cylons seem to be largely random walks (their current action is a random step from their previous action). This makes story complex but also bewildering. RDM seems to have adopted this to create a more complex drama but this is not real human behavior. 

To keep Sci-fi real RDM kept time travel, laser weapons, enterprise kind of ships out of show. It gets some things very correct, real technical problems are not easy to solve (and sometimes impossible to solve e.g. episodes about food shortage, water drilling etc) avoiding the VOY college homework paradigm (all problems can be solved by re-aligning EPS relays and some computer commands). But I think the science shown is still not real, not for the setting at least. For example if you are fighting a machine enemy you will not keep projectile weapons as your main arsenal. The machine could just build a thicker armor. Fighting Centurions with bullets seems very stupid. Why are effects of EM pulses or radiations from that planet in miniseries never explored? How is that no one is able to distinguish humans from cylons? They have superior strength, ability to send their consciousness millions of kms away. This is simply not possible by human anatomy. Maybe check their bone density or muscle strength or brain scan. There are no apparent (or very few) sensor systems on Galactica (not possible for a space ship). It seems that shows science is not an applied one but accepted one.

It seems humans have just given up on their one main strength, ability to adapt and survive and have resigned to fighting each over who will be the president or what will be the next moral ambiguity etc. This is not normal. Humans are flawed but they have shown great courage, unity and innovation (not to mention cruelty) when faced against astronomical odds. I doubt that the fatalist theme is real. Humans will rather kill than be killed. And here at times it seems they dont even try. 

And as to many of the more intriguing things in the show like the Six and Baltar consciousness, Leoben&#039;s ability to see future are never explained. It almost felt that RDM put them there because they looked cool but never thought about how he will bind them in the plot.

In my opinion, BSG should be remembered for acting, action sequences, direction etc not as great sci-fi.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since this discussion has gone on for more than a year now I would like to add my humble views on ST VOY/TNG vs BSG debate.</p>
<p>I like all 3 of them. But I think BSG has serious short comings as a real sci-fi show (as does VOY/TNG). </p>
<p>BSG is a great show and refreshing change from Star Trek. It raises some very important moral questions. What does it mean to be human or conscious? etc. But I think it delves into them so deep that it forgets that there is an actual real survival story going on here.</p>
<p>It is a good drama, has great acting and direction. Characters are very complex. But the characters on BSG also do not act consistently. As The Gentleman Jocard has pointed out the characters seem to go out of their way to create misery. Characters of Kara Thrace, Baltar Gaius and of many cylons seem to be largely random walks (their current action is a random step from their previous action). This makes story complex but also bewildering. RDM seems to have adopted this to create a more complex drama but this is not real human behavior. </p>
<p>To keep Sci-fi real RDM kept time travel, laser weapons, enterprise kind of ships out of show. It gets some things very correct, real technical problems are not easy to solve (and sometimes impossible to solve e.g. episodes about food shortage, water drilling etc) avoiding the VOY college homework paradigm (all problems can be solved by re-aligning EPS relays and some computer commands). But I think the science shown is still not real, not for the setting at least. For example if you are fighting a machine enemy you will not keep projectile weapons as your main arsenal. The machine could just build a thicker armor. Fighting Centurions with bullets seems very stupid. Why are effects of EM pulses or radiations from that planet in miniseries never explored? How is that no one is able to distinguish humans from cylons? They have superior strength, ability to send their consciousness millions of kms away. This is simply not possible by human anatomy. Maybe check their bone density or muscle strength or brain scan. There are no apparent (or very few) sensor systems on Galactica (not possible for a space ship). It seems that shows science is not an applied one but accepted one.</p>
<p>It seems humans have just given up on their one main strength, ability to adapt and survive and have resigned to fighting each over who will be the president or what will be the next moral ambiguity etc. This is not normal. Humans are flawed but they have shown great courage, unity and innovation (not to mention cruelty) when faced against astronomical odds. I doubt that the fatalist theme is real. Humans will rather kill than be killed. And here at times it seems they dont even try. </p>
<p>And as to many of the more intriguing things in the show like the Six and Baltar consciousness, Leoben&#8217;s ability to see future are never explained. It almost felt that RDM put them there because they looked cool but never thought about how he will bind them in the plot.</p>
<p>In my opinion, BSG should be remembered for acting, action sequences, direction etc not as great sci-fi.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duck</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-383975</link>
		<dc:creator>Duck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:32:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-383975</guid>
		<description>I am not defending the actions of American soldiers in Abu Ghraib.  However, the public humiliation and abuse of a few prisoners does not compare with the brutal genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocent men woman and children.  Those are two of the most evil acts mankind has committed in the past hundred years.  In comparison Abu Ghraib is hardly a blip on that scale of evil.   

Otherwise, your argument about whether humankind deserves total destruction is sadly accurate.  I am more of a Star trek style optimist.  I believe humans as a race are evolving.  For example, the mere fact that we now recognize racism as an evil is an evolution from even 100 years ago.  As with solving any problem the first step is accepting that the problem exists.  We are a long way from ending racism, but we have taken the first couple of steps.  

I do not think we will evolve in only a couple hundred years (the time the Star Trek takes place), but I do think that if we manage not to kill ourselves we will eventually reach a time where we have evolved beyond our current evil natures.  Until we do, shows like BG are much more realistic than anything in the ST universe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not defending the actions of American soldiers in Abu Ghraib.  However, the public humiliation and abuse of a few prisoners does not compare with the brutal genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocent men woman and children.  Those are two of the most evil acts mankind has committed in the past hundred years.  In comparison Abu Ghraib is hardly a blip on that scale of evil.   </p>
<p>Otherwise, your argument about whether humankind deserves total destruction is sadly accurate.  I am more of a Star trek style optimist.  I believe humans as a race are evolving.  For example, the mere fact that we now recognize racism as an evil is an evolution from even 100 years ago.  As with solving any problem the first step is accepting that the problem exists.  We are a long way from ending racism, but we have taken the first couple of steps.  </p>
<p>I do not think we will evolve in only a couple hundred years (the time the Star Trek takes place), but I do think that if we manage not to kill ourselves we will eventually reach a time where we have evolved beyond our current evil natures.  Until we do, shows like BG are much more realistic than anything in the ST universe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RMD</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-295076</link>
		<dc:creator>RMD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-295076</guid>
		<description>I like to call it &quot;Conversation-Star Galactica&quot; because every time I tried to watch the first few episodes, it was just people standing around and talking !!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like to call it &#8220;Conversation-Star Galactica&#8221; because every time I tried to watch the first few episodes, it was just people standing around and talking !!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Gentleman Jocard</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-290034</link>
		<dc:creator>The Gentleman Jocard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:11:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-290034</guid>
		<description>Since this discussionâ€™s gone on straight through to 2010, Iâ€™ll put in my personal two cents. I agree that BSG is more realistic than Idealistic in itâ€™s depictions of human in relating with one another, all well and good. The debate on what is sci fi and what is not I feel is foolish, since the world â€œfictionâ€ is implied by the word â€œFiâ€ and in such things are not to be taken seriously or as testimony of any historic or factual significance. Meaning that science fiction, in essence, is anything with a scientifically driven plotline (from space ships to genetically engineered dinosaurs on Figeroa Blvd) that basically DID NOT happen. 

But back to BSG. A recent trend  from the youthful bright eyed rock star producers in Hollywood-land has been to craft  â€œaccessible Sci Fiâ€, this effort is to make big sweeping epic episodic space stories palatable by the average person and not â€œsome Geekâ€ (usually envisioned as sans-romantic-relationship while ensconced in his mommies basement watching torrent downloads of captain video by the season). Even the sci fi channel changed their logo to syfy in an (imho, very sad) attempt to redirect their direction and save themselves from sliding ratings.

My problem is that the current slippery gurus of this new attitude believe that relentlessly gritty drama is whatâ€™s require to make a story about people in ship easier to swallow as a whole. And they would seem to have almost been right about this, for a little while they were calling BSG the greatest show on television. But that while did not last long. Drama for the sake of drama, with very little actual character development is a spiritual dead end for any story. Eventually even brilliant acting cannot sustain the weight of self perpetuating factory made misery and in-fighting. And apparently it doesnâ€™t safe guard against giant plot holes either. (Thatâ€™s another discussion, thought.) After not too long at all, BSG became the television equivalent of that friend we all have that always bitching about how bad life is with a new item of melodrama one week after the next. (If you donâ€™t have a friend like this in your life then check the mirror, youâ€™re probably the one Iâ€™m talking about.) The misery aspect was such a driving force that BSG characters were compelled to step completely out of consistent behavior to make sure that the grimness was sustained for yet another story arch, the aforementioned â€œstupid decisionsâ€ is indicative of this. 

It was always my opinion that a show about the few people that survived a malicious attack and subsequent genocide, would continue to survive by pulling together and proving themselves worthy of survival. This was clearly not the prevailing attitude of the creators and writers because no one ever seemed to rise to any occasion or learn from any mistakes (With the exception, perhaps, of Apollo.). So yeah, it might have been an attempt at a more realistic look at humanity, but I think it was the point of view of some very cynical people whom couldnâ€™t quite seem to say anything good about Man/Woman, but found themselves obligated to try and maintain even storylines for the duration of four solid years. Eventually that inner loathing just came to the forefront and would not let go of the steering wheel. Star Trek may have been a little more naÃ¯ve, or idealistic in itâ€™s depiction of future man, but at least It had ideas given to me and people to root for on days and nights that I didnâ€™t feel particularly good and needed a boost or to cheer for heroes. There was none of that in BSG after the first year. I donâ€™t like being annoyed at my protagonists and wondering why they are allowed to survive. I like liking those Iâ€™m supposed to like and hating those Iâ€™m supposed to hate and having that be that. Mine will have to be Star Trek (any denomination) over the New Battlestar Galactica.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since this discussionâ€™s gone on straight through to 2010, Iâ€™ll put in my personal two cents. I agree that BSG is more realistic than Idealistic in itâ€™s depictions of human in relating with one another, all well and good. The debate on what is sci fi and what is not I feel is foolish, since the world â€œfictionâ€ is implied by the word â€œFiâ€ and in such things are not to be taken seriously or as testimony of any historic or factual significance. Meaning that science fiction, in essence, is anything with a scientifically driven plotline (from space ships to genetically engineered dinosaurs on Figeroa Blvd) that basically DID NOT happen. </p>
<p>But back to BSG. A recent trend  from the youthful bright eyed rock star producers in Hollywood-land has been to craft  â€œaccessible Sci Fiâ€, this effort is to make big sweeping epic episodic space stories palatable by the average person and not â€œsome Geekâ€ (usually envisioned as sans-romantic-relationship while ensconced in his mommies basement watching torrent downloads of captain video by the season). Even the sci fi channel changed their logo to syfy in an (imho, very sad) attempt to redirect their direction and save themselves from sliding ratings.</p>
<p>My problem is that the current slippery gurus of this new attitude believe that relentlessly gritty drama is whatâ€™s require to make a story about people in ship easier to swallow as a whole. And they would seem to have almost been right about this, for a little while they were calling BSG the greatest show on television. But that while did not last long. Drama for the sake of drama, with very little actual character development is a spiritual dead end for any story. Eventually even brilliant acting cannot sustain the weight of self perpetuating factory made misery and in-fighting. And apparently it doesnâ€™t safe guard against giant plot holes either. (Thatâ€™s another discussion, thought.) After not too long at all, BSG became the television equivalent of that friend we all have that always bitching about how bad life is with a new item of melodrama one week after the next. (If you donâ€™t have a friend like this in your life then check the mirror, youâ€™re probably the one Iâ€™m talking about.) The misery aspect was such a driving force that BSG characters were compelled to step completely out of consistent behavior to make sure that the grimness was sustained for yet another story arch, the aforementioned â€œstupid decisionsâ€ is indicative of this. </p>
<p>It was always my opinion that a show about the few people that survived a malicious attack and subsequent genocide, would continue to survive by pulling together and proving themselves worthy of survival. This was clearly not the prevailing attitude of the creators and writers because no one ever seemed to rise to any occasion or learn from any mistakes (With the exception, perhaps, of Apollo.). So yeah, it might have been an attempt at a more realistic look at humanity, but I think it was the point of view of some very cynical people whom couldnâ€™t quite seem to say anything good about Man/Woman, but found themselves obligated to try and maintain even storylines for the duration of four solid years. Eventually that inner loathing just came to the forefront and would not let go of the steering wheel. Star Trek may have been a little more naÃ¯ve, or idealistic in itâ€™s depiction of future man, but at least It had ideas given to me and people to root for on days and nights that I didnâ€™t feel particularly good and needed a boost or to cheer for heroes. There was none of that in BSG after the first year. I donâ€™t like being annoyed at my protagonists and wondering why they are allowed to survive. I like liking those Iâ€™m supposed to like and hating those Iâ€™m supposed to hate and having that be that. Mine will have to be Star Trek (any denomination) over the New Battlestar Galactica.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-263058</link>
		<dc:creator>kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-263058</guid>
		<description>BSG = best show ever!  I hate that it had to end, but there had to be a conclusion at some point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BSG = best show ever!  I hate that it had to end, but there had to be a conclusion at some point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ozymandias</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-253757</link>
		<dc:creator>Ozymandias</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:08:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-253757</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not a big Star Trek fan though I absolutely love BSG. But somehow, someway, this article made me want to whip out my Firefly dvds. Is that odd?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not a big Star Trek fan though I absolutely love BSG. But somehow, someway, this article made me want to whip out my Firefly dvds. Is that odd?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: adam smith</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-162831</link>
		<dc:creator>adam smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:45:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-162831</guid>
		<description>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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;t make any excuses for it either, though.

I&#039;ll tell you one thing: do a little research and see how much of today&#039;s technology you enjoy because of STAR TREK. Yeah, the vast majority of the ideas they created were made into reality. That&#039;s why shows like that get naval ships and NASA shuttles named after them. There won&#039;t be any shuttle Galactica, I guarantee you that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;s like saying Voyager is better than the original Star Trek. I have to call b.s. on statements like that.</p>
<p>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&#8217;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&#8217;t make any excuses for it either, though.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll tell you one thing: do a little research and see how much of today&#8217;s technology you enjoy because of STAR TREK. Yeah, the vast majority of the ideas they created were made into reality. That&#8217;s why shows like that get naval ships and NASA shuttles named after them. There won&#8217;t be any shuttle Galactica, I guarantee you that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SciFi-Rich</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-146049</link>
		<dc:creator>SciFi-Rich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-146049</guid>
		<description>Newport,
Thank you for bringing up BSG &#039;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 &quot;Touch by the Angel&quot; 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Newport,<br />
Thank you for bringing up BSG &#8216;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 &#8220;Touch by the Angel&#8221; 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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: newport</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-145843</link>
		<dc:creator>newport</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-145843</guid>
		<description>As the finale of BSG and the pilot of Caprica showed, the downfall of man was the desired plan of &quot;the One True God.&quot;  The Cylon&#039;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).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the finale of BSG and the pilot of Caprica showed, the downfall of man was the desired plan of &#8220;the One True God.&#8221;  The Cylon&#8217;s god was the god of the monotheistic humans.  One of whom, as we learned is reincarnated in a Cylon body.</p>
<p>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).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iggles</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736/comment-page-2#comment-145735</link>
		<dc:creator>Iggles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15736#comment-145735</guid>
		<description>&quot;Star Trek is about who we want to be, and Battlestar Galactica is about who we are.&quot;

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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;s how I see it. If it would have been a rehash of &quot;Star Trek: The Motion Picture&quot; it would not have done so well at the box office. (V&#039;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&#039;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&#039;Lenna Torres and her husband. I even loved 7 of 9 once she came into her own, although I didn&#039;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&#039;Pol and Trip :D

Anyway, I just love sci fi in general, because the idea &quot;what if&quot; 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Star Trek is about who we want to be, and Battlestar Galactica is about who we are.&#8221;</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;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.</p>
<p>Understandably, I&#8217;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&#8217;s orgin story; Romance &#8211; 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.</p>
<p>Now I know some Trekkies will take offense to this, but that&#8217;s how I see it. If it would have been a rehash of &#8220;Star Trek: The Motion Picture&#8221; it would not have done so well at the box office. (V&#8217;Ger was the *worse* antagonist of all time..)</p>
<p>I never really watched TOS and I hate TNG. However, I really liked the last 3 trek tv franchises &#8211; DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise.</p>
<p>I think Ron Moore&#8217;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&#8217;Lenna Torres and her husband. I even loved 7 of 9 once she came into her own, although I didn&#8217;t care for her last minute romance with Chakotay (felt forced).</p>
<p>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&#8217;Pol and Trip :D</p>
<p>Anyway, I just love sci fi in general, because the idea &#8220;what if&#8221; 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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

