NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you like Battlestar Galactica? And if so, which version do you prefer, and why?

The new one, only because it's the only one i've ever seen... lol...

I like the original series and the new one. Galactica 1980 sucked balls.

Do you like Battlestar Galactica? And if so, which version do you prefer, and why?
The old one was hoked all up and pretty much sucked.

The new one is a lot better done from the standpoints of human interest, technology, special effects, etc.

The old one was hoked all up and pretty much sucked.

The new one is a lot better done from the standpoints of human interest, technology, special effects, etc.

Yeah, and for some reason I find the president lady to be hot.... for an older woman that is. I just love her for some reason.

The old one was hoked all up and pretty much sucked.

The new one is a lot better done from the standpoints of human interest, technology, special effects, etc.

I agree on the old one. One of the most clappiest sci-fi series i've ever seen. Regarding the new one, i haven't seen it yet. It hasn't been aired yet in the forsaken country in which i live... :rolleyes:

The new version really raises the bar for scifi on television. I really don't see how, now, anyone can put out more of the same campy nonsense without consideration. The new show is fantastic not just for a scifi show, but as a show in general. The characters are complex and the conflicts deeply personal and character driven. The premise only sets the story, the characters drive it.

Honestly, I have not enjoyed scifi on the tv like this ever. It's realy quite a show.

I like the new one much better than the old. A lot more interesting characters.

Why is the movie not in the poll?

I wish they had gotten a better actress for Starbuck, though.

the origina was a cheesy piece of shit, i cant imagine why anyone would remember it fondly. SHORT CAPES WITHOUT COLLARS. nuff said

the new one has an edge. i like it. im glad they made a series of it.

the president played kevin costners love interest in "dances with wolves". i think she has a great screen presence.

I like the new one much better than the old. A lot more interesting characters.

Why is the movie not in the poll?

Because the movie was just the first 3 episodes of the show, editted to under 2 hours to cash in money from people outside of the USA.

I wish they had gotten a better actress for Starbuck, though.
i love her! she is a tough little thing. what more could you want for that role?? just compare it with the original *shudder*

The new one i love, but then again....i havent seen the old version.

I've enjoyed both series. They have their pros and cons, but the new series does a good job.

Never seen it, but I've heard its a great series.

I agree on the old one. One of the most clappiest sci-fi series i've ever seen. Regarding the new one, i haven't seen it yet. It hasn't been aired yet in the forsaken country in which i live... :rolleyes:
oh its worth getting off the net if you have a highspeed connection.

Because the movie was just the first 3 episodes of the show, editted to under 2 hours to cash in money from people outside of the USA.
No, no. I mean the first movie. The 1977 one.

Yeah, and for some reason I find the president lady to be hot.... for an older woman that is. I just love her for some reason.
Heh! Ditto, but then I've always liked her as an actress. Her character elicits lots of sympathy but you quickly discover that she neither needs nor wants it. Calm, seemingly yielding exterior with a backbone of steel. Gotta love dat! :D

I agree on the old one. One of the most clappiest sci-fi series i've ever seen. Regarding the new one, i haven't seen it yet. It hasn't been aired yet in the forsaken country in which i live... :rolleyes:
My condolences ... it's really quite good! :)

No, no. I mean the first movie. The 1977 one.

That's what I'm talking about too.

From IMDB: Re-edited into a 3-part episode for syndication with the rest of the TV series.

So it is now the first 3 episodes of the series. Therefore, I saw no point putting it in.

Heh! Ditto, but then I've always liked her as an actress. Her character elicits lots of sympathy but you quickly discover that she neither needs nor wants it. Calm, seemingly yielding exterior with a backbone of steel. Gotta love dat! :D

Exactly. She was great in Donnie Darko as well.

The new version really raises the bar for scifi on television. I really don't see how, now, anyone can put out more of the same campy nonsense without consideration. The new show is fantastic not just for a scifi show, but as a show in general. The characters are complex and the conflicts deeply personal and character driven. The premise only sets the story, the characters drive it.

Honestly, I have not enjoyed scifi on the tv like this ever. It's realy quite a show.
You know ... I avoided even watching it for a long time, thinking it would be too much like the old one. But I've discovered I was wrong about that.

Surprise you that I actually admit to having been wrong? :D

i love her! she is a tough little thing. what more could you want for that role?? just compare it with the original *shudder*
It's not the character I don't like, it's the actress. It's especially noticable with all the very good actors that surround her. The character herself is very well concieved ("Do your job. And get out of this office while you still can." ooooooooohhhhh man......) and deeply complex.

I wish they had gotten a better actress for Starbuck, though.
Nahh! She's kewl. That woman kicks ass! :D

That's what I'm talking about too.

From IMDB: Re-edited into a 3-part episode for syndication with the rest of the TV series.

So it is now the first 3 episodes of the series. Therefore, I saw no point putting it in.
Oh, ok. I never knew they had done that.

Exactly. She was great in Donnie Darko as well.
Didn't see that one. I've seen her in lots of other stuff though, 'specially when she was younger. She was tasty! Yum! :D

the origina was a cheesy piece of shit, i cant imagine why anyone would remember it fondly. SHORT CAPES WITHOUT COLLARS. nuff said

the new one has an edge. i like it. im glad they made a series of it.

the president played kevin costners love interest in "dances with wolves". i think she has a great screen presence.

She was also the First Lady in Independence Day.

You know ... I avoided even watching it for a long time, thinking it would be too much like the old one. But I've discovered I was wrong about that.

Surprise you that I actually admit to having been wrong? :D
A little ;)

I watched it originally to report to my friends how much it sucked so they wouldn't have to see it. I was hooked after the opening tracking shot through the bridge and had to spend the entire season convincing my friends that I wasn't trying to burn them (scars from trying to trick them into watching the movie Begotten...)

Do you like Battlestar Galactica? And if so, which version do you prefer, and why?

It's like deja vu all over again... :D
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406815

I'm just not onboard for this one...didn't like the old series, it's short-lived sequel, or the new offering either.

Damn I'm hard to please.

It's like deja vu all over again... :D
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406815

I think 2 months is sufficient time to post another thread on it. Plus, mine is a bit different.

I'm hoping that BSG goes into:
* More detail with Helo -- maybe he finds humans? Maybe something on the other 11 planets? (That's be a stretch, given costs...).

* More on the other ships in the fleet. We've barely seen anything of them. What happened to Sire Uri? He was a decent minor character, and it'd be great to have multiple nemesis problems in the show.

* They have the Pegasus episodes (and that it's around for longer!).
My picks to play Caine?
First choice? Jerry Orbach from Law & Order. Would have been **AWESOME**. Unfortunately, Mr. Orbach is no longer with us. RIP.

So...
a) Jurgen Prochnow - Would lend a foreign tint to the cast.
b) Michael Dorn - In this BSG, blacks are an under-represented ethnicity, and he acts well without the Klingon makeup.
c) Dirk Benedict! - He's old enough (same age as Richard Hatch), and it'd be another "old cast member in the new series" thing.

(note: it *has* to be a "non-A list" actor. Let's face it, the show couldn't afford Kiefer Sutherland or somebody like that.)

I mean, I like the new Battlestar Galactica a lot, but it really isn't a sci-fi show. The technology is functionally irrelevant to the way the story develops. For example, take this sort of rephrasing:
After their country was wiped out in a sneak attack, the crew of the battleship Galactica has been leading a ragtag band of civilian boats on a voyage to find the fabled continent of Earth. Under constant attack by enemy ships, they came to realize that the enemy may look like their people now.
The show is really about the characters rather than any important focus on science and technology that makes more classic or typical sci-fi, like (Star)Wars,Trek,Gate etc.

.. the president played kevin costners love interest in "dances with wolves". i think she has a great screen presence.
I totally agree. Her character in Dances was very similar to her character in Galactica ... very feminine exterior, but with that steel backbone. Of course it helps that I am deeply attracted to just that sort of woman. :D

I think 2 months is sufficient time to post another thread on it. Plus, mine is a bit different.

Just commenting on the similarity of the voting questions... :)

I'm hoping that BSG goes into:
* More detail with Helo -- maybe he finds humans? Maybe something on the other 11 planets? (That's be a stretch, given costs...).

* More on the other ships in the fleet. We've barely seen anything of them. What happened to Sire Uri? He was a decent minor character, and it'd be great to have multiple nemesis problems in the show.

* They have the Pegasus episodes (and that it's around for longer!).
My picks to play Caine?
First choice? Jerry Orbach from Law & Order. Would have been **AWESOME**. Unfortunately, Mr. Orbach is no longer with us. RIP.

So...
a) Jurgen Prochnow - Would lend a foreign tint to the cast.
b) Michael Dorn - In this BSG, blacks are an under-represented ethnicity, and he acts well without the Klingon makeup.
c) Dirk Benedict! - He's old enough (same age as Richard Hatch), and it'd be another "old cast member in the new series" thing.

(note: it *has* to be a "non-A list" actor. Let's face it, the show couldn't afford Kiefer Sutherland or somebody like that.)

Actually, I think Richard Dean Andersen would make a great Caine. And given how long he worked for SciFi on Stargate, maybe they could get him to guest-star for a few episodes. I mean, they got Ben Browder and Claudia Black to go to Stargate.

Actually, I think Richard Dean Andersen would make a great Caine. And given how long he worked for SciFi on Stargate, maybe they could get him to guest-star for a few episodes. I mean, they got Ben Browder and Claudia Black to go to Stargate.

Ben & Claudia didn't have much else to do, either. ;)

Andersen? I dunno. Even when I watch Stargate, I still expect him to pull out the Swiss Army knife now and again...

I totally agree. Her character in Dances was very similar to her character in Galactica ... very feminine exterior, but with that steel backbone. Of course it helps that I am deeply attracted to just that sort of woman. :D
I've actually found that the President really pisses me off, as she gets in the way basically EVERY episode.

I mean, I like the new Battlestar Galactica a lot, but it really isn't a sci-fi show. The technology is functionally irrelevant to the way the story develops. For example, take this sort of rephrasing:

Actually this is more sci-fi than the shows you mention. The science in this case being sociology and psichology. Technology also plays a crucial role: finding fuel, having a limit on jumps, a dwindling supply of fighters, etc.

Star Wars is space opera, as are Stargate and Star Trek to a less extent. They aren't really hard sci-fi.

Ben & Claudia didn't have much else to do, either. ;)

Andersen? I dunno. Even when I watch Stargate, I still expect him to pull out the Swiss Army knife now and again...
True :D, but RDA just sort of retired to spend time with his daughter. He isn't working and could probably take a few days to film a two-parter.

I've watched A LOT more Stargate than McGyver, so I'll always think of him as Jack, which helps me see him as a military command figure, particularly one who likes to buck his superior officers ;)

I mean, I like the new Battlestar Galactica a lot, but it really isn't a sci-fi show. The technology is functionally irrelevant to the way the story develops. For example, take this sort of rephrasing:

The show is really about the characters rather than any important focus on science and technology that makes more classic or typical sci-fi, like (Star)Wars,Trek,Gate etc.
But Star Trek was little more than a redressed Wagon Trail, Star Wars a samuari/western. This is real classic scifi as it uses the science to pose a compelling question about the humans in the story-which makes it the only kind of scifi I enjoy. Fake gadgets are cool and all, but they can't drive a story...

I've actually found that the President really pisses me off, as she gets in the way basically EVERY episode.
If someone can actually make me mad at them in a movie, I view that as great acting/great scriptwriting. There was a short movie called "The Incident" quite a few years ago, about a couple of friends who took the subway in NYC. Two "hoods" got on the same car and proceded to terrorize the passengers. One of the "hoods" was so mean and evil that I actually came to hate him ( the character that is ). That's the first time I remember realizing that was truly great acting. :)

Actually this is more sci-fi than the shows you mention. The science in this case being sociology and psichology. Technology also plays a crucial role: finding fuel, having a limit on jumps, a dwindling supply of fighters, etc.

Star Wars is space opera, as are Stargate and Star Trek to a less extent. They aren't really hard sci-fi.
Psychology and sociology-centered shows aren't considered to be science fiction. The entire internet agrees it's centered around technology and aliens:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition+science+fiction&btnG=Google+Search

That could just as easily be replaced by low food, lack of medical supplies, running out of cannon balls/bullets/arrows, etc.

My point is that the parts that make the new BSG science fiction really aren't all that important to the show.

Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction. I doubt anyone will seriously contest that those three movies/shows are science fiction.

But Star Trek was little more than a redressed Wagon Trail, Star Wars a samuari/western. This is real classic scifi as it uses the science to pose a compelling question about the humans in the story-which makes it the only kind of scifi I enjoy. Fake gadgets are cool and all, but they can't drive a story...
That's an interesting take, about the Cylons and such, and in that sense it's a more traditional type of sci-fi than I give it credit for, but they could also be replaced in the way these things function.

On the contrary, in terms of Trek and Wars, there's a lot of questioning of the appropriate use of technology and how it affects human society. The Death Star, time travel, etc.

I'll still fall back on Stargate as something that fits both your and my criteria.

Psychology and sociology-centered shows aren't considered to be science fiction. The entire internet agrees it's centered around technology and aliens:

Wrong. There are a few types of sci-fi. There's soft sci-fi and hard sci-fi.

Soft sci-fi focuses on personal relationships, the psychology and sociology of the future, etc.

Hard focuses on technology and such.

Cyberpunk focuses on internet takeover and anarchism.

There are other catagories as well.

Well, I was eight or nine when the original series came out. I remember begging my parents to let me stay up and watch it. I also remember that the playground at my elementary school was perfect to run around with my two best friends at the time, arms outstretched at an angle for a Viper or straight out for a Cylon Raider. We were, of course, instantly pariahs, but were having fun, so who cared!

Looking back on it, of course the original series was cheese-tastic. It had to be.

Now the new series borrowed a bit from Babylon 5 and Farscape in the CGI and sci-fi-as-backdrop character development areas. The new Galactica looks a hell of a lot more like a military vessel, and her crew reflects that as well. The complete integration of male and female soldiers/pilots is really well done because they don't ignore the fact that hormones are still hormones. Hot Asian woman as Boomer is a lovely touch, and though I was a bit rankled to see a female Starbuck, she's hot and could probably kick my ass.

Cylons as human infiltrators is brilliant. The way (I've lost her name) the blonde Cylon is scrambling Baltar's mind is outstanding, and gives Baltar a base humanity and weakness that is completely understandable. The actor playing Baltar is terrific, too -- completely paranoid and bemused, but still brilliant and quick on his feet, carrying his sin just millimeters below the surface.

There's a shitload more sex and sexual tension, and I think that serves to up the dramatic ante quite a bit. These are humans, after all, and for the Cylons to have found and exploited that weakness is brilliant writing.

Finally, the switch to mass drivers from "lasers" (that used "laser fluid"?!?) as weapons, and the far more physically realistic movement of the fighter ships is inspired. To hear the pilots talk about how fast the Viper can flip through 180 degrees and see them moving as things with inertia makes piloting skills seem even more impressive than those who have air to bank against.

All in all, it's not as well done as Farscape but better than B5 in my opinion, and that still puts in in the top five TV shows of my recent experience, regardless of genre.

If someone can actually make me mad at them in a movie, I view that as great acting/great scriptwriting. There was a short movie called "The Incident" quite a few years ago, about a couple of friends who took the subway in NYC. Two "hoods" got on the same car and proceded to terrorize the passengers. One of the "hoods" was so mean and evil that I actually came to hate him ( the character that is ). That's the first time I remember realizing that was truly great acting. :)
Oh, that's definately true. Unless the role isn't supposed to be annoying. I'm not sure if the viewer is supposed to like the President or not. I certainly don't. I do think the actress is quite good, however.

Well, I was eight or nine when the original series came out. I remember begging my parents to let me stay up and watch it. I also remember that the playground at my elementary school was perfect to run around with my two best friends at the time, arms outstretched at an angle for a Viper or straight out for a Cylon Raider. We were, of course, instantly pariahs, but were having fun, so who cared!

Looking back on it, of course the original series was cheese-tastic. It had to be.

Now the new series borrowed a bit from Babylon 5 and Farscape in the CGI and sci-fi-as-backdrop character development areas. The new Galactica looks a hell of a lot more like a military vessel, and her crew reflects that as well. The complete integration of male and female soldiers/pilots is really well done because they don't ignore the fact that hormones are still hormones. Hot Asian woman as Boomer is a lovely touch, and though I was a bit rankled to see a female Starbuck, she's hot and could probably kick my ass.

Cylons as human infiltrators is brilliant. The way (I've lost her name) the blonde Cylon is scrambling Baltar's mind is outstanding, and gives Baltar a base humanity and weakness that is completely understandable. The actor playing Baltar is terrific, too -- completely paranoid and bemused, but still brilliant and quick on his feet, carrying his sin just millimeters below the surface.

There's a shitload more sex and sexual tension, and I think that serves to up the dramatic ante quite a bit. These are humans, after all, and for the Cylons to have found and exploited that weakness is brilliant writing.

Finally, the switch to mass drivers from "lasers" (that used "laser fluid"?!?) as weapons, and the far more physically realistic movement of the fighter ships is inspired. To hear the pilots talk about how fast the Viper can flip through 180 degrees and see them moving as things with inertia makes piloting skills seem even more impressive than those who have air to bank against.

All in all, it's not as well done as Farscape but better than B5 in my opinion, and that still puts in in the top five TV shows of my recent experience, regardless of genre.
Frankly, I thought Farscape sucked bit time! But you're right about the new Galactica ... they don't even do that dumb thing about having sound in a vacume! God, I hate that! Heh!

EDIT: And yes, "Starbuck" could kick your ass. Hell, she could probably kick MINE! LOL!

Soft sci-fi focuses on personal relationships, the psychology and sociology of the future, etc.
Source?

Psychology and sociology-centered shows aren't considered to be science fiction. The entire internet agrees it's centered around technology and aliens:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition+science+fiction&btnG=Google+Search

Ooooh... the entire internet... now I'm shaking.

What about some Asimov? "Science fiction must involve itself with science and technology at least tangentially. It must deal with a society noticeably different from the real one of its time, and this difference must involve some change in the level of science and technology"

Technology, as I said, plays a central role in BG. But the most important aspects are the change in society. Technology is just an after thought in, say, Star Wars, where you can replace the blaster with six-shooters and the jedi with samurai and nothing is changed. Stargate does not involve itself with societal changes. Star Trek is more sci-fi-ish.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction

Oh, that's definately true. Unless the role isn't supposed to be annoying. I'm not sure if the viewer is supposed to like the President or not. I certainly don't. I do think the actress is quite good, however.
I suspect that's just another indication of good scriptwriting and good acting ... the fact that her character impacts different people differently. :)

Wrong. There are a few types of sci-fi. There's soft sci-fi and hard sci-fi.

Soft sci-fi focuses on personal relationships, the psychology and sociology of the future, etc.

Hard focuses on technology and such.

Cyberpunk focuses on internet takeover and anarchism.

There are other catagories as well.

I could have sworn the difference between soft and hard sci-fi was how realistic the science was.

ie.

Soft sci-fi would be where considerations for modern science were not really taken into account and technology is just dumped in (ie. Star Wars and Star Trek)

Hard sci-fi would be where the author actually researched technologies and went about making sure the science is correct (ie. Most parts of 3001: Final Oddessy)

I could have sworn the difference between soft and hard sci-fi was how realistic the science was.

There are a few factors. Look at my source link in my above post.

There are a few factors. Look at my source link in my above post.

Give me a better source than wikipedia (I really have nothing against wiki as long as it's backed up by something that isn't so easily changable) and I'll digress. Until then, my point stands.

Ooooh... the entire internet... now I'm shaking.
It's called humor/exaggeration for effect.

What about some Asimov? "Science fiction must involve itself with science and technology at least tangentially. It must deal with a society noticeably different from the real one of its time, and this difference must involve some change in the level of science and technology"
That quote just says sci-fi should deal with different cultures, not that psychology is the focus of sci-fi. It also doesn't support your original position: that any show that studies societies is sci-fi, because you said that BSG focuses on social interactions and is thus sci-fi. Asimov probably concludes my way: that there must be an integral aspect of technological change for the show to be sci-fi. I've explained why BSG doesn't make sense in light of this definition as being entirely-science fiction.

Technology, as I said, plays a central role in BG. But the most important aspects are the change in society. Technology is just an after thought in, say, Star Wars, where you can replace the blaster with six-shooters and the jedi with samurai and nothing is changed. Stargate does not involve itself with societal changes. Star Trek is more sci-fi-ish.
You didn't really explain it. Everything on that show is replaceable by an ancient or modern equivalent. "We captured the _____, and raised them from birth to be our slaves. Then they rebelled and disappeared."

Star Wars is your best example, but the Force is essential in plot development. That may not be strictly science fiction, but you can't eliminate that element and still keep the movie coherent. At worst, it becomes sci-fi/fantasy.

You clearly have not watched enough Stargate. See episodes "2010," "The First Ones," "The Nox," "Children of the Gods," "Stargate the Movie," "The Tok'ra," (parts one and two), "Thor's Hammer," and there are a hell of a lot more.

I'll agree with you on Trek.

Give me a better source than wikipedia (I really have nothing against wiki as long as it's backed up by something that isn't so easily changable) and I'll digress. Until then, my point stands.

Here ya go. http://www.free-definition.com/Science-fiction.html#Soft_science_fiction

If that's not good enough, there's this. http://www.whatis.tv/Soft_science_fiction.html

Here ya go. http://www.free-definition.com/Science-fiction.html#Soft_science_fiction

That's just a direct copy an dpaste from wikipedia, even the site itself lists wikipedia as the source.

That's just a direct copy an dpaste from wikipedia, even the site itself lists wikipedia as the source.

Oh. didnt' see that. I put a new source on there.

Here ya go. http://www.free-definition.com/Science-fiction.html#Soft_science_fiction
The thing about the wiki was, when I looked up the definition of just "science fiction," the definition I had been using came up.

This definition also assumes that technology is an integral part of the story, like the Gate in Stargate. The show could not exist otherwise. Battlestar Galactica could be functionally identical set in a modern or ancient society, particularly an ancient one.

[EDIT] I also think that Chaos' definition is much closer to the one you posted from wiki, because that definition really says the difference is the level of explanation of the technology, particularly in the example of Asimov's stories.

Oh. didnt' see that. I put a new source on there.

I'm serious here. I don't want to sound antagonistic or anything, I just want to see a source that doesn't have text identical to the wikipedia article.

Another source.....

"Soft science fiction or soft SF is science fiction whose plots and themes tend to focus on human feelings, while de-emphasizing the details of technological hardware and physical laws. In addition, 'science' in soft science fiction often falls into the realm of things which current scientists consider impossible or at least highly unlikely. It is called soft science fiction by analogy to hard science fiction and because soft science fiction is often based around the 'softer' sciences (philosophy, psychology, politics and sociology).

Soft SF is much less a defined subgenre than its counterpart, hard science fiction. It is sometimes used in a pejorative fashion when it is implied a given science fiction story is not rigorous enough in its application of science or is not 'proper' science fiction. Soft science fiction is also used as a synonym for New Wave science fiction. "

From http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Soft_science_fiction

I'm serious here. I don't want to sound antagonistic or anything, I just want to see a source that doesn't have text identical to the wikipedia article.

Listen, I made sure that that one wasn't one that used Wikipedia. I think you just won't accept any definition but the one you want it to be.

Another source.....

"Soft science fiction or soft SF is science fiction whose plots and themes tend to focus on human feelings, while de-emphasizing the details of technological hardware and physical laws. In addition, 'science' in soft science fiction often falls into the realm of things which current scientists consider impossible or at least highly unlikely. It is called soft science fiction by analogy to hard science fiction and because soft science fiction is often based around the 'softer' sciences (philosophy, psychology, politics and sociology).

Soft SF is much less a defined subgenre than its counterpart, hard science fiction. It is sometimes used in a pejorative fashion when it is implied a given science fiction story is not rigorous enough in its application of science or is not 'proper' science fiction. Soft science fiction is also used as a synonym for New Wave science fiction. "

From http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Soft_science_fiction


This also seems to support Chaos' definition more than the one we were arguing about initially.

This also seems to support Chaos' definition more than the one we were arguing about initially.

Look back. I said that it was a mixture of issues that determined if something was "sof scifi". Most of which was if it dealt with psychology and human relationships, AKA the "Soft Sciences". Hence the name soft sci-fi.

Listen, I made sure that that one wasn't one that used Wikipedia. I think you just won't accept any definition but the one you want it to be.

No, that's not it, I'm just saying that every link you've given has had identical, word for word copies of every other one. I'm just asking for something that is different fromt he wikipedia article.

That quote just says sci-fi should deal with different cultures, not that psychology is the focus of sci-fi.

A pure psychology show wouldn't be sci-fi. Sci-fi is "what if" and that "if" can be a change in psychology. What if, for example, companies learned to manipulate your fears directly to sell you products.

It also doesn't support your original position: that any show that studies societies is sci-fi, because you said that BSG focuses on social interactions and is thus sci-fi.

No, I didn't say any show. The society has to be very different and that difference must come from a change in technology or understanding of science.

Asimov probably concludes my way: that there must be an integral aspect of technological change for the show to be sci-fi. I've explained why BSG doesn't make sense in light of this definition as being entirely-science fiction.

In BSG you have the Cylons. What's more technological than that? And what's more central than that?

Everything in every story is replaceable, because they are all metaphores. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to make sense of them and would not work. However, in BSG, the Cylons are a human creation, not a slaved people. You can't tell the BSG story without the fact that Cylons were created by humans; and humans still have contempt for them.

In Star Wars you can replace the Force with magic or chi. And it still would work.

And, it's true that I haven't watched enough Stargate.

No, that's not it, I'm just saying that every link you've given has had identical, word for word copies of every other one. I'm just asking for something that is different fromt he wikipedia article.

The last 2 I gave you were different. Do I have to copy and paste em on here to satisfy you?

Oh, and don't get me wrong here, I agree that BSG is science fiction, mostly because my definition of scifi is definitely less strict than others around here.

Look back. I said that it was a mixture of issues that determined if something was "sof scifi". Most of which was if it dealt with psychology and human relationships, AKA the "Soft Sciences". Hence the name soft sci-fi.
You're probably right. I was thinking of it in terms of the original argument about whether the new BSG was really true sci-fi, in whichcase I guess it would be incredibly, incredibly soft sci-fi, considering that technology plays no essential, irreplaceable role in the story at all.

You're probably right. I was thinking of it in terms of the original argument about whether the new BSG was really true sci-fi, in whichcase I guess it would be incredibly, incredibly soft sci-fi, considering that technology plays no essential, irreplaceable role in the story at all.
What would the Foundation series be, then?

You're probably right. I was thinking of it in terms of the original argument about whether the new BSG was really true sci-fi, in whichcase I guess it would be incredibly, incredibly soft sci-fi, considering that technology plays no essential, irreplaceable role in the story at all.

Agreed. I never said it wasn't. I joined the arguement halfway in when someone misinterpreted soft sci-fi. I forgot who it was. I'm more of a fan of soft sci-fi like Heinlein and Bradbury myself, so I knew what it was.

What would the Foundation series be, then?

It's like right between soft and hard. It's.... um... semi-hard. (Now why does this make me think of erections?)

The last 2 I gave you were different. Do I have to copy and paste em on here to satisfy you?

I'll do it for you.

Soft science fiction or soft SF is science fiction whose plots and themes tend to focus on human feelings, while de-emphasizing the details of technological hardware and physical laws. In addition, 'science' in soft science fiction often falls into the realm of things which current scientists consider impossible or at least highly unlikely. It is called soft science fiction by analogy to hard science fiction and because soft science fiction is often based around the 'softer' sciences (philosophy, psychology, politics and sociology). "Soft SF" is also used as a synonym for the "New Wave", a movement which emerged in the 1970s.

Soft SF is much less a defined subgenre than its counterpart, Hard science fiction. The term is sometimes used in a pejorative fashion when it is implied a given science fiction story is not rigorous enough in its application of science or is not "proper" science fiction. Contrariwise, patrons of Soft SF may claim that their preferred works have stronger portrayals of societies, more deft characterization and better-developed plots.

One could make an argument, for example, classifying Isaac Asimov's Foundation series as part of the "soft" subgenre, since the series focuses on the vast sociological movements of the dying Galactic Empire. Asimov, so this argument goes, places little emphasis on the specifics of his fictional technologies. It is enough that the Foundation is technologically superior to the "barbarian" planets around it: the details of nuclear power plants don't matter, as long as the Foundation is the only one to possess them. On the other hand, one of the most frequent comments made about Asimov's work is that his stories lack description, and that there are few sharply memorable characters scattered throughout the whole Foundation epic; this would seem to go against the grain of the argument that Soft SF necessarily has deeper characterization. Furthermore, Asimov treats his "soft sciences" in a remarkably "hard" way: his fictional science of psychohistory is a mathematical way of encapsulating the "human texture" of his sociological story.

One classic example of a Soft SF writer is Ray Bradbury. (Asimov himself used Bradbury to typify the "emotional" style of writing he seldom employed; for examples of this usage, see the correspondence collection Yours, Isaac Asimov.) In Bradbury's short stories, such as those collected in R is for Rocket and The Martian Chronicles he takes common themes in Hard SF, like rocket travel or Mars colonies, but focuses on the feelings and human responses those themes evoke. In 1955, the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges pinpointed this function of Bradbury's Chronicles, observing that

In this outwardly fantastic book, Bradbury has set out the long empty Sundays, the American tedium, and his own solitude, as Sinclair Lewis did in Main Street.

Perhaps "The Third Expedition" is the most alarming story in this volume. Its horror (I suspect) is metaphysical; the uncertain identity of Captain John Black's guests disturbingly insinuates that we too do not know who we are, nor what we look like in the eyes of God. I would also like to note the episode entitled "The Martian," which includes a moving variation on the myth of Proteus.

Frank Herbert's Dune arguably falls into this category, though of course its fans are quick to deny any pejorative implications of the usage.

Soft science fiction or soft SF is science fiction whose plots and themes tend to focus on human feelings, while de-emphasizing the details of technological hardware and physical laws. It is called soft science fiction by analogy to hard science fiction and because soft science fiction is often based around the 'softer' sciences (philosophy, psychology, politics and sociology).

Soft SF is much less a defined subgenre than its counterpart, hard science fiction. It is sometimes used in a pejorative fashion when it is implied a given science fiction story is not rigerous enough in its application of science or is not 'proper' science fiction. Soft science fiction is also used as a synonym for New Wave science fiction.

Ray Bradbury is a good example of a Soft SF writer. In his short stories collected in R is for Rocket and The Martian Chronicles he takes common themes in Hard SF, like rocket travel or Mars colonies but focuses on the feelings evoked by these themes.

Soft science fiction or soft SF is science fiction whose plots and themes tend to focus on human feelings, while de-emphasizing the details of technological hardware and physical laws. In addition, 'science' in soft science fiction often falls into the realm of things which current scientists consider impossible or at least highly unlikely. It is called soft science fiction by analogy to hard science fiction and because soft science fiction is often based around the 'softer' sciences (philosophy, psychology, politics and sociology).

Soft SF is much less a defined subgenre than its counterpart, hard science fiction. It is sometimes used in a pejorative fashion when it is implied a given science fiction story is not rigorous enough in its application of science or is not 'proper' science fiction. Soft science fiction is also used as a synonym for New Wave science fiction.

Ray Bradbury is a good example of a Soft SF writer. In his short stories collected in R is for Rocket and The Martian Chronicles he takes common themes in Hard SF, like rocket travel or Mars colonies but focuses on the feelings evoked by these themes.

Soft science fiction or soft SF is science fiction whose plots and themes tend to focus on human feelings, while de-emphasizing the details of technological hardware and physical laws. In addition, 'science' in soft science fiction often falls into the realm of things which current scientists consider impossible or at least highly unlikely. It is called soft science fiction by analogy to hard science fiction and because soft science fiction is often based around the 'softer' sciences (philosophy, psychology, politics and sociology).

Soft SF is much less a defined subgenre than its counterpart, hard science fiction. It is sometimes used in a pejorative fashion when it is implied a given science fiction story is not rigorous enough in its application of science or is not 'proper' science fiction. Soft science fiction is also used as a synonym for New Wave science fiction.

Ray Bradbury is a good example of a Soft SF writer. In his short stories collected in R is for Rocket and The Martian Chronicles he takes common themes in Hard SF, like rocket travel or Mars colonies but focuses on the feelings evoked by these themes.

They are all functionally identical. The only one that contains anything the other ones do not have is the wikipedia article.

A pure psychology show wouldn't be sci-fi. Sci-fi is "what if" and that "if" can be a change in psychology. What if, for example, companies learned to manipulate your fears directly to sell you products.
We agree.

No, I didn't say any show. The society has to be very different and that difference must come from a change in technology or understanding of science.
That didn't really come out very explicitly in the original post (not until the Asimov quote was it really mentioned). But now that you propose this modification, that makes a lot of sense.

In BSG you have the Cylons. What's more technological than that? And what's more central than that?
I answered this in the last post.

Everything in every story is replaceable, because they are all metaphores. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to make sense of them and would not work. However, in BSG, the Cylons are a human creation, not a slaved people. You can't tell the BSG story without the fact that Cylons were created by humans; and humans still have contempt for them.
For someone who thinks of everything as a metaphor, you miss the obvious slave/robot one. People created robots; people "build" the personalities of slaves to their liking. Humans have contempt for robots; a group of people have contempt for another group of people they considered to be inferior for years.

In Star Wars you can replace the Force with magic or chi. And it still would work.
Again, I already answered this. True Westerns and samurai movies do not have magic in them. That would make an adapted Star Wars at worst sci-fi fantasy.

And, it's true that I haven't watched enough Stargate.
Great show. Worth the time.

Battlestar Galactica is Science Fiction - it involves "greater then present day" technology, and it is fiction.

Nuff said about that.

I liked the first because things got blown up - remember, when it came out, there wasn't much sci-fi on at all, and dramas don't tend to blow anything up.

The second is much more cerebral, but better effects in blowing things up, and the dogfights are much better. So both have their points.

I'd still rather more shooting and less blather.

What would the Foundation series be, then?
Haven't read it. Uginin can answer for me.

Fine. Here's some more sources that are different. But I know you still won't accept it. http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/1672

Battlestar Galactica is Science Fiction - it involves "greater then present day" technology, and it is fiction.

Nuff said about that.

I liked the first because things got blown up - remember, when it came out, there wasn't much sci-fi on at all, and dramas don't tend to blow anything up.

The second is much more cerebral, but better effects in blowing things up, and the dogfights are much better. So both have their points.

I'd still rather more shooting and less blather.

This guy I agree with.

They are all functionally identical. The only one that contains anything the other ones do not have is the wikipedia article.
That just means there's a consensus of agreeing opinion. If you look up "purple" in every dictionary and get "the color that results when red and blue are mixed" it's not because something's wrong with all the dictionaries having the same definition; it's just that that's what the word means.

Battlestar Galactica is Science Fiction - it involves "greater then present day" technology, and it is fiction.

Nuff said about that.

I liked the first because things got blown up - remember, when it came out, there wasn't much sci-fi on at all, and dramas don't tend to blow anything up.

The second is much more cerebral, but better effects in blowing things up, and the dogfights are much better. So both have their points.

I'd still rather more shooting and less blather.
You missed the nuances of the earlier discussion. It's a lot more complicated than having advanced tech.

Haven't read it. Uginin can answer for me.

It's a series of books by Asimov, wherein a new sort of math has come up, and someone who uses it forsees the fall of the Galactic Empire. (The Milky Way gov.) He makes a place on the planet of Terminus to get away from this catastrophe and to reform society faster.

It's generally considered soft sci-fi, but it's borderline.

Fine. Here's some more sources that are different. But I know you still won't accept it. http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/1672

There we go, that's all I asked.

That definition does seem to be more in line with what I was saying. Soft scifi isn't necessarily scifi that concentrates on psychology and that like, it's just scifi where the actual inner functionings of the science isn't as important as it is in hard scifi.

EDIT: And again, do not get me wrong, I do believe that psychological science fiction is a subset of soft scifi, just not the definiton of it.

That just means there's a consensus of agreeing opinion. If you look up "purple" in every dictionary and get "the color that results when red and blue are mixed" it's not because something's wrong with all the dictionaries having the same definition; it's just that that's what the word means.

Most dictionaries, however, are not word for word copies of each other (otherwise, why sell more than one dictionary?). My problem was that I generally do not take wikipedia as a valid source unless it either cites its own sources (which it does not in this case) or the person who is posting it backs it up with a non-wiki source.

There we go, that's all I asked.

That definition does seem to be more in line with what I was saying. Soft scifi isn't necessarily scifi that concentrates on psychology and that like, it's just scifi where the actual inner functionings of the science isn't as important as it is in hard scifi.

"Soft science fiction, probably a back-formation from Hard Science Fiction, and used sometimes to refer to science fiction based in the so-called soft sciences (anthropology, sociology, etc.), and sometimes to refer to science fiction in which there is little science or little awareness of science at all."


In other words, we were both half right. Me on the soft science side, you on the technology side.

Most dictionaries, however, are not word for word copies of each other (otherwise, why sell more than one dictionary?). My problem was that I generally do not take wikipedia as a valid source unless it either cites its own sources (which it does not in this case) or the person who is posting it backs it up with a non-wiki source.
Reading them closely, there are several differences in wording that would imply different authors with the same ideas.

And, there are some words that can only be defined in one way.

"Soft science fiction, probably a back-formation from Hard Science Fiction, and used sometimes to refer to science fiction based in the so-called soft sciences (anthropology, sociology, etc.), and sometimes to refer to science fiction in which there is little science or little awareness of science at all."


In other words, we were both half right. Me on the soft science side, you on the technology side.

Actually, it looks we were both right and both wrong. Apparently, there is more than one type of soft scifi.

Actually, it looks we were both right and both wrong. Apparently, there is more than one type of soft scifi.

Perhaps Soft Sci-fi is broken down into those 2 subcatagories, and we both didn't know of the existance of the other subcatagory.

Perhaps Soft Sci-fi is broken down into those 2 subcatagories, and we both didn't know of the existance of the other subcatagory.
It seems to me that they are both prerequisites to something being a soft sci-fi work that generally come together.

Do you like Battlestar Galactica? And if so, which version do you prefer, and why?
The new one because it is soo well acted by president roslin and commander adama. I also thought it was interesting having Starbuck as a woman! Played brilliantly by Katie Sackhoff (sp?)

You missed the nuances of the earlier discussion. It's a lot more complicated than having advanced tech.

Nope, I disagree. If it looks into any form of technology or scientific understanding, and in some way that technology or understanding affects the story, it is essentially science fiction.

If you write about Babbages Difference Engine working - and computer technology of a sort arriving nearly a century before - it's science fiction. If you write about a caveman who discovers gunpowder, it's science fiction.

If you write about a society which decides to remove individuality and increase groupism, it's science fiction. If you write about relationships and use an injection which makes STDs a thing of the past, it's science fiction.

Simple - use of science in fiction makes it science fiction.

Though truly, Battlestar Galactica is "Space Opera", and all Space Opera is Science Fiction, though not all Science Fiction is Space Opera.

It seems to me that they are both prerequisites to something being a soft sci-fi work that generally come together.

Well, I just found out that there is something called Firm Sci-fi and Medium Sci-fi, which are between Soft and Hard.

Hard Sci Fi is Science Fiction in which the science and tech remains plausible, and the universe is explained in a consistent rationally. It may not always be realistic, and indeed it can sometimes be very speculative and even include unrealistic or impossible plot devices, but the overall approach is one of careful research, scientific, technological, and sociological consistency, and real science rather than meaningless technobabble.

Hard Sci Fi ranges from the most realistic stories limited only to current knowledge and set in the present day or very near future, to science fiction that is only "medium" in realism, but, being more speculative, can be set much further in the future or explore more themes.

Note that some would claim that only the nearest future categories included here can be considered "Hard", the others being too specualtive. However I am following the "John W Campbell" definition of what constitutes "Hard SF" or Hard Sci Fi, and that is that while some speculative ideas are allowed, the story as a whole must be based on scientific reserach, avoid technobabble or cliches like Bug Eyed Monsters stealing Earth women.

FIRM : Deals with known technologies, sciences and theories, but often incorporates new theories or ideas with plausible explanations. Breaks some physical laws, but provides a solid rationale for it. Differs from Hard only in the inclusion of some form of FTL Plott-DeVice Drive * :-) or equivalent. Apart from these non-hard elements, everything is described in technical terms, using real and authentic science and engineering, and apart from teh aforementioned plot devices, and the story is never allowed to make the science look silly.

MEDIUM : Breaks physical laws but attempts a rationale which sounds reasonable in context with the work, regardless whether or not it makes sense within the current scientific paradigm. Also describes things in a scientific manner. So while concepts like FTL appear, which are unproven and indeed contradictory to the laws of physics, the story is still arranged in a logical manner. This material is generally considered "hard science SF", but is not as rigorous as the above category, and often (unlike Firm science fiction) the writer will deliberately fudge or even ignore the science for the sake of a more entertaining story.

Soft Science Fiction

SOFT: Breaks physical laws but still attempts a rationale which may sound reasonable in context with the work, although in all other respects it is very implausible. Moreover it shows pretty much complete ignorance of how real science and the real universe works. These tropes are found in almost all television and much cinema-based SF. Nevertheless, occasionally a classic SF tale will involve one or more of these tropes.
* Note that the term Soft SF is often also used to refer to SF that explores sociological and psychological themes; here we are using it instead specifically in the context of works that do not attempt to be scientifically rigorous, even if they are still logically consistent.

Source... http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html

Well, I just found out that there is something called Firm Sci-fi and Medium Sci-fi, which are between Soft and Hard.

<snip>

Source... http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html

However, they all fit under the aegis of "science fiction", right?

However, they all fit under the aegis of "science fiction", right?

Correct. It just depends on how much elements of Fantasy are put into the story.

Correct. It just depends on how much elements of Fantasy are put into the story.

So therefore, "Battlestar Galactica = Science Fiction". Simple enough for me. All the "nuance" is in subcategorical definition, not global definition.

Nope, I disagree. If it looks into any form of technology or scientific understanding, and in some way that technology or understanding affects the story, it is essentially science fiction.

If you write about Babbages Difference Engine working - and computer technology of a sort arriving nearly a century before - it's science fiction. If you write about a caveman who discovers gunpowder, it's science fiction.
That's technically historical fiction that uses science as a plot device. Given all of the vast amount of sources on this thread defining science fiction, point to one line that would indicate historical fiction=science fiction. You can't.

I don't know what Babbage's Difference Engine is, so I can't answer that part with any surety.

If you write about a society which decides to remove individuality and increase groupism, it's science fiction. If you write about relationships and use an injection which makes STDs a thing of the past, it's science fiction.
Here, advanced technology is a prerequisite to the funtioning of the story; thus science fiction. BSG is much "softer" science fiction than those two examples.

Simple - use of science in fiction makes it science fiction.
So a novel about naval warfare that talks about cannonball physics is science fiction?

Though truly, Battlestar Galactica is "Space Opera", and all Space Opera is Science Fiction, though not all Science Fiction is Space Opera.
I probably agree.

So therefore, "Battlestar Galactica = Science Fiction". Simple enough for me. All the "nuance" is in subcategorical definition, not global definition.
But a much more interesting discussion than blindly accepting totalizing categories without questioning the thought that went into them. Which is really what this whole thing was about for me.

Perhaps Soft Sci-fi is broken down into those 2 subcatagories, and we both didn't know of the existance of the other subcatagory.

That looks to be the way it turned out.

I apologize for not considering this in the beginning and dismissing your definition.

But a much more interesting discussion than blindly accepting totalizing categories without questioning the thought that went into them. Which is really what this whole thing was about for me.

Yeah, it's like saying all gays are effiminates, but not all effiminates are gay. hahahaha

That looks to be the way it turned out.

I apologize for not considering this in the beginning and dismissing your definition.

I apologize for snapping. I'm not in a real good mood today. People keep trying to take shots at me and it's gotten me highstrung. I'm glad we've figured it out.

Yeah, it's like saying all gays are effiminates, but not all effiminates are gay. hahahaha
Umm...sure...if you want to think of it that way...

never saw the origional, love the new one.

So a novel about naval warfare that talks about cannonball physics is science fiction?

Most likely not - though I'd be interested in how you involved it in the story. One of the early "mech" stories involved the difference between using steam power and nuclear power in moving these fighting vehicles (they were ships that walked). Science Fiction - certainly.

But a much more interesting discussion than blindly accepting totalizing categories without questioning the thought that went into them. Which is really what this whole thing was about for me.

*gets out large bucket*

Everything which is "Science Fiction" fits in this.

*gets out many smaller buckets*

These are subcategories.

Original Question - Is "Battlestar Galactica" science fiction? Answer: Yes, because it fits in the big bucket.

Which small bucket it fits into is another discussion, which you may engage in at your leisure - but we should note, it fits into many of them equally well.

Battlestar Galactica --- category: Science Fiction
Subcategory: Space Opera Sub Categorys: Gritty realistic (emotionally anyway), Television

it fits very well with a lot of the military Science Fiction novels and series of novels that are in print or used to be

my opinion anyway... personally, I can't wait until it hits DVD as its definitely a keeper and my reception of that cable channel sucks bad

bring on Season 2!!!!

I remember only a few episodes of the old series, but I do remember that the Cylons could have destroyed the humans at one stage with Lord Baltar campaigning for it, but they said no. At least in the new series we are given hints as to why the Cylons don't want to destroy the humans.

Battlestar Galactica --- category: Science Fiction
Subcategory: Space Opera Sub Categorys: Gritty realistic (emotionally anyway), Television

it fits very well with a lot of the military Science Fiction novels and series of novels that are in print or used to be

my opinion anyway... personally, I can't wait until it hits DVD as its definitely a keeper and my reception of that cable channel sucks bad

bring on Season 2!!!!
Well, I don't have cable and didn't want to wait for the dvd so.... I'll leave it to your imagination as to how I watched it and continue to watch it.

And yes--bring on Season 2!

I remember only a few episodes of the old series, but I do remember that the Cylons could have destroyed the humans at one stage with Lord Baltar campaigning for it, but they said no. At least in the new series we are given hints as to why the Cylons don't want to destroy the humans.

Humans make good oil. :p

Space Opera by the way is a very old and established sub genre of Sci Fi, it goes all the way back to the pulps and writers like EE "Doc" Smith

so yes, all of the versions of Battlestar Galactica should be considered Science Fiction

lol... sounds like somebody in an above post is watching it on the net though, which when I was a kid back in High School (when th original series came out) that would have been an idea out of science fiction too.

I still like the old pilot for the old series... I had a big crush on Serina and the special effects were pretty good back for that era of television.. a lot better than the old reruns of Star Trek that we had on then and it was more fun than the rather dry Space 1999 we had for a couple of seasons

Space Opera by the way is a very old and established sub genre of Sci Fi, it goes all the way back to the pulps and writers like EE "Doc" Smith

so yes, all of the versions of Battlestar Galactica should be considered Science Fiction

lol... sounds like somebody in an above post is watching it on the net though, which when I was a kid back in High School (when th original series came out) that would have been an idea out of science fiction too.

I still like the old pilot for the old series... I had a big crush on Serina and the special effects were pretty good back for that era of television.. a lot better than the old reruns of Star Trek that we had on then and it was more fun than the rather dry Space 1999 we had for a couple of seasons
Yeah, for its time, it wasn't half bad. It just hasn't aged well. Neither has Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, which was a bit more fun in my opinion. And Erin Gray was hotttttttttt!

The original was much better, to make a huge understatement, the old show had much more interesting characters, better storys and better action scenes.
I gave the new one, one full episode and was right in being duly disappointed.
Hoping the new show would be a departure from the current two dimensional and predictable sci-fi format, it was sadly, just like them, Stargate, B5, and all the new Star treks.
It was of course PC, therefore the inevitable boring bland characters, predictable uninteresting storyline, silly girl powely politics, unrealistic scenes, and of course it was dull, dull, dull as.

The original was good (although i wasn't around to see it when it aired, i have the dvds) but for shear special effects goodness, i do slightly prefer the newer one. Granted it doesn't have the same storyline power, but the ship fighting scenes are amazing.

The original was much better, to make a huge understatement, the old show had much more interesting characters, better storys and better action scenes.
I gave the new one, one full episode and was right in being duly disappointed.
Hoping the new show would be a departure from the current two dimensional and predictable sci-fi format, it was sadly, just like them, Stargate, B5, and all the new Star treks.
It was of course PC, therefore the inevitable boring bland characters, predictable uninteresting storyline, silly girl powely politics, unrealistic scenes, and of course it was dull, dull, dull as.

Between what you've said and how you said it, I can only conclude you're off your nut. "More interesting characters"? Fer cryin' out loud, they were practically cardboard cut-outs who never changed no matter what happened to them! And the women -- please! Mindless eye candy whose roles were so stale and under-written that they could have been phoned in...and were, largely. And "better storys (sic)"? I'd type this faster if I weren't laughing so hard. For what and when it was, it was a good show, but hardly great.

The clincher was when you called both all the new Treks and B5 (I've never watched Stargate -- my dislike of the movie helped there, plus the fact that the Sci-Fi Channel chose to nurture SG-1 over funding Farscape, and that pissed me off) "two-dimensional" and "predictable" -- clearly you never watched either of THEM more than one episode, either.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but man, are you off-base. Maybe if you could cite some examples, I'd hear you out and try to see how you came to your absurd conclusions, but I doubt you can.

Massive thread hijack by Uginin, Chaos Experiment, Iztateopopotla, and Deleuze -- but it was so laughably entertaining that it didn't matter. You four managed to display the one thing more hilariously ludicrous than two opposing economists arguing about the economy: sci-geeks arguing about sci-fi genres and their definitions. I damn near wet myself. Thanks, fellas. :D

wo wo wo, did i miss something? did someone call stargate one track? Ok i know this is hijacking, but stargate is one hell of a show. You need to watch more than one episode before you judge something. I mean yes, every series has some predictable elements, but even so, you need to look around that.

For me watching the original bsg was painful, i'm more of a visual effects kinda guy than plotline, so it didn't have the same appeal, but i still took the time to watch it, and in the end it shows up, its still a good storyline (i think that was the best backtrack of all time :D)

I personally can't wait to discover how the humans killed the Gods.

That, and whenever they meet up with Cain.

Massive thread hijack by Uginin, Chaos Experiment, Iztateopopotla, and Deleuze -- but it was so laughably entertaining that it didn't matter. You four managed to display the one thing more hilariously ludicrous than two opposing economists arguing about the economy: sci-geeks arguing about sci-fi genres and their definitions. I damn near wet myself. Thanks, fellas. :D
No prob. Too bad I had to leave half way and now I'm too lazy to go back. Just stay tuned for our next topic of conversation: are MMORPG's real RPG's? :D

Ben & Claudia didn't have much else to do, either. ;)

Andersen? I dunno. Even when I watch Stargate, I still expect him to pull out the Swiss Army knife now and again...

Dont forget the duct tape.

Yeah, for its time, it wasn't half bad. It just hasn't aged well. Neither has Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, which was a bit more fun in my opinion. And Erin Gray was hotttttttttt!

oh yes, Buck Rodgers... silly beyond words most of the time, but Erin Gray running around in those incredibly tight spandex looking outfits with the zippers up the front ..... oh man... the stuff of fantasy!

and Princess Ardella... she was even more fun

next season of BSG starts July 15.... not soon enough

plus this fall "Serenity" comes out... which makes up for th cancellation a bit of "Firefly" (which I loved).... good summer for Sci Fi if "War of the Worlds" pans out well too

You didn't really explain it. Everything on that show is replaceable by an ancient or modern equivalent. "We captured the _____, and raised them from birth to be our slaves. Then they rebelled and disappeared."

Wait, no. That's not the point or even theme of the Cylons. Maybe you're missing all the religous undertones. They are created, not enslaved. They are machines that are trying to become us to save us. They are twelve versions-something that is very important to their arc and interaction in the story-something that is not possible with an enslaved people.

There is one that finds humanity in sexuality, one he finds it in relationships and 'the bad guy one' (they have only used him as menace and haven't developed him other that to use him as a threat) How those versions of the Cylon interact with the story is important and could not be done as former slaves that are just from another 'tribe,' they are created and trying to replace their creators becuase-well, they haven't really got there yet, but they think it's for the best.

If you think that you can replace Cylons with just an enslaved tribe, then you can't possibly have understood most of what they have been doing this season.

The new one because the old ones were all terribly corny.

The original was much better, to make a huge understatement, the old show had much more interesting characters, better storys and better action scenes.
I gave the new one, one full episode and was right in being duly disappointed.
Hoping the new show would be a departure from the current two dimensional and predictable sci-fi format, it was sadly, just like them, Stargate, B5, and all the new Star treks.
It was of course PC, therefore the inevitable boring bland characters, predictable uninteresting storyline, silly girl powely politics, unrealistic scenes, and of course it was dull, dull, dull as.
Wait, I see the problem here. The old one is the one with Lorne Greene--the one with Edward James Olmos is the new one. That must be what the confusion is...

Psychology and sociology-centered shows aren't considered to be science fiction. The entire internet agrees it's centered around technology and aliens:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=definition+science+fiction&btnG=Google+Search

Uh huh. I never thought I'd see the 'entire internet agrees' written about anything In fact, one of the first sites your search pulls up is:

History and Definition of Science Fiction (http://alcor.concordia.ca/~talfred/sf-def.htm )

Which states:

"There is really no good reason to expect that a workable definition of sf will ever be established. None has been, so far. In practice, there is much consensus about what sf looks like in its centre; it is only at the fringes that most of the fights take place. And it is still not possible to describe sf as a homogeneous form of writing. Sf is arguably not a genre in the strict sense at all -- and why should it be? Historically, it grew from the merging of many distinct genres, from utopias to space adventures. Instinctively, however, we may feel that, if sf ever loses its sense of the fluidity of the future and the excitement of our scientific attempts to understand our Universe -- in short, as more conservative fans would put it with enthusiasm though conceptual vagueness, its SENSE OF WONDER -- then it may no longer be worth fighting over. If things fall apart and the centre cannot hold, mere structural fabulation may be loosed upon the world!"

Please keep the generalizations to a minimum. My personal opinion is that all of these shows fit into the broad umbrella that is Science Fiction. Anyone who thinks they have the only definition, may simply have an over-inflated sense of their own opinion.