RE: Battlestar Galactica Fans: Revised BSG, Love It or Hate It?
June 1, 2015 at 4:04 pm
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2015 at 4:11 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(June 1, 2015 at 2:23 am)Alex K Wrote: P
(May 31, 2015 at 11:27 pm)Chuck Wrote: 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.
