Battlestar Galactica Fans: Revised BSG, Love It or Hate It?

[Anomalocaris]

Christians would hard say satan is another side of God. 

It is another side of the supernatural forces that they [traditionally] believe control the universe.

Nothing in Star Wars description of the force would mark it as more "supernatural" than any menipulatable "energy field" of any other science fiction.    Star Trek is replete with beings and energy field more transcendentally powerful than "the force". No one said Star Trek proposed anything supernatural.

[Silver]

Never saw the show.

[Alex K]

It is another side of the supernatural forces that they [traditionally] believe control the universe.

Nothing in Star Wars description of the force would mark it as more "supernatural" than any menipulatable "energy field" of any other science fiction.    Star Trek is replete with beings and energy field more transcendentally powerful than "the force".   No one said Star Trek proposed anything supernatural.

That's right. It's just the attitude towards it that is different. If Obiwan had said "what's the force? oh that is just a fancy name for modulating the tachyonic frequencies of the subspace matrix, and usually it's done by diverting positronic energy to the main deflector shield, but some people who have reached the next evolutionary level can do it just by concentrating real hard", it would be Star Trek.

[Cyberman]

That way lies midichlorians; and we none of us want that.

[Fake Messiah]

I think nuBSG was kind of phenomenon, meaning that for lots of people it was their 1st experience to talk about TV show on the internet, guess what's gonna happen especially for those outside US.

I really liked and enjoyed nuBSG at first but then I really started to dislike and hate it because it was repetitive, cheese, boring, nonsense and I didn't think it was much realistic. Like early stated switch bullets for lasers because I don't think you can have much of a space battle *in space* with bullets, since the distances are to big and bullets are too slow.
I guess I could really go into depths why I disliked it but for the main part I just think creators didn't have any imagination to think up new stories and not to mention explanations for some of those that could made the show more interesting and long lasting. For instance Earth could of been more fun.
And the smugness of creators was so abrasive, I mean they constantly kept talking how they need to end this show now because they need to close their precious story arc only to say in the end that "It's all about characters, stupid." which was not the case so you just got this one giant mess for everyone too choose what they like and want.

TOS BSG seemed to be more daring in that that it was keen to bringing some new stuff like "Neanderthals", big guns on ice planets, signals fom Earth... I mean you really could expect anything in it, like a real TV show and although it had embarrassing science at times and weak female characters it really doesn't make much effort to top that aspects and I take that show any day before one where creators just don't know what to do anymore because they're afraid it's gonna be cheese and think God and magic are more realistic then *tech* and science.

[Anomalocaris]

P

Nothing in Star Wars description of the force would mark it as more "supernatural" than any menipulatable "energy field" of any other science fiction.    Star Trek is replete with beings and energy field more transcendentally powerful than "the force".   No one said Star Trek proposed anything supernatural.

That's right. It's just the attitude towards it that is different. If Obiwan had said "what's the force? oh that is just a fancy name for modulating the tachyonic frequencies of the subspace matrix, and usually it's done by diverting positronic energy to the main deflector shield, but some people who have reached the next evolutionary level can do it just by concentrating real hard", it would be Star Trek.

That's because Star Wars is science fiction by one who has flunked the only introductory science class he ever took in kindergarten,     where as Star Trek is science fiction by those who think real science is pretty much just a linear extrapolation of they were shown in Summer science camp for elementary school students.

Battlestar galactica is science fiction by those who otherwise might have written Star Wars, except for the fact that they lacked all wit and irreverence. 

So Star Wars is redeemed by the fact that it knew itself to be a farce.   Battlestar Galactica is damned by the fact that it didn't.     

[KUSA]

Anyone that doesn't like BSG is a frakking idiot that eats felgercarb.

[Cyberman]

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's space opera - the fantasy equivalent of the western's horse opera. What scientific principles it employs don't have to make sense scientifically; they only have to make sense and be consistent within the framework of the story. How a lightsaber functions, for example, is far less important than what it does

[Jenny A]

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's space opera - the fantasy equivalent of the western's horse opera. What scientific principles it employs don't have to make sense scientifically; they only have to make sense and be consistent within the framework of the story. How a lightsaber functions, for example, is far less important than what it does

BSG is no different.  Science isn't the point.  Most science fiction isn't about science.  It's about how humans might behave in different environments.  It's thought experiment about people.   Star Trek and the original BSG were just sappy maudlin thought experiments.   Star Wars hardly had any thought at all, just western in space.  It just happened to be a good western. The new BSG is rather more real in human terms than the old.  It's like the difference between Star Trek The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.   In one there are real human conflicts and politics, the other not so much.

[Anomalocaris]

You perhaps confuse farce taking itself seriously with thought experiment.   Do farces have some experimental value? Perhaps.   Were they so constructed as to be thought experiments?    It seems hardly credible to me.    It seems to me they were meant, at most, to preach some, usually childishly simplistic, view of human morality or behavior through some contrived circumstance.     More likely they were formed the way ithey were because the writer didn't even mean to preach, but thought preaching something about behavior and morality in what they conceive to be insightful ways was the ticket to being taken seriously.