![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I really have little right criticizing Battlestar Galactica, because I only watched a few episodes and was bored out of my skull. But this headline caught my eye and it bugged me enough that I'm going to talk about it a bit anyway.
'Battlestar Galactica' focus on story, not science fiction from the St. Petersburg Times.
Of course the story and the characters are important, but you can't have a good science fiction show by essentially ignoring the science fiction and writing it off as just the "setting" and "bells and whistles". Outer space is a setting. The future is a setting. Science fiction is a theme and a genre, it should pervade everything. Yes, even the characters and the acting of them.
As writers and editors are always telling you, if you can take the science fiction element out of the story without affecting it much, then it's not a science fiction story.
And I imagine there are many writers and producers of science fiction shows that would be a little surprised to learn that they hadn't been concentrating on story! Babylon 5, anyone?
Before I just leave this, let me go back and quote the first paragraph of the article. Eric Deggans' words here, not Katte Sackhoff's.
I don't think I'm any sort of pop culture purist. (Though I can be snarky.) But I will guarantee you that Battlestar Galactica is not the best science fiction show on the small screen. Not for all time, for certain, and not even for right now.
That would be Doctor Who.
'Battlestar Galactica' focus on story, not science fiction from the St. Petersburg Times.
----------
Nobody at the new Galactica treats the show like science fiction.
"We never relied on the science fiction of the show," said Sackhoff[...]
"Most science fiction shows rely way too much on the bells and whistles," she added, speaking to journalists last week on a conference call. "It kind of opened doors in science fiction to realize . . . it's just a setting. . . . It's not, (and) it should never have been what the show is."
Of course the story and the characters are important, but you can't have a good science fiction show by essentially ignoring the science fiction and writing it off as just the "setting" and "bells and whistles". Outer space is a setting. The future is a setting. Science fiction is a theme and a genre, it should pervade everything. Yes, even the characters and the acting of them.
As writers and editors are always telling you, if you can take the science fiction element out of the story without affecting it much, then it's not a science fiction story.
And I imagine there are many writers and producers of science fiction shows that would be a little surprised to learn that they hadn't been concentrating on story! Babylon 5, anyone?
Before I just leave this, let me go back and quote the first paragraph of the article. Eric Deggans' words here, not Katte Sackhoff's.
Some snarkier pop culture purists still refuse to believe this TV truth: the new Battlestar Galactica remake is the best science fiction show on the small screen.
I don't think I'm any sort of pop culture purist. (Though I can be snarky.) But I will guarantee you that Battlestar Galactica is not the best science fiction show on the small screen. Not for all time, for certain, and not even for right now.
That would be Doctor Who.
