Battlestar Galactica is what Voyager should have been
- Thread starter Clym
- Start date
Comparing BSG to Voyager is like comparing Boston Legal to Matlock -- Not on TV at the same time, not written or conceived by the same person, really nothing alike except genre and a few superficial things.
Basically this is a true case of Apples and Oranges. While apples and oranges are both fruit and both edible, the comparison stops there.
Basically this is a true case of Apples and Oranges. While apples and oranges are both fruit and both edible, the comparison stops there.
But BSG viewers started to decline around the same season as Voyagers did. If Voy. lasted on network TV where ratings matter and BSG couldn't last on one where it didn't, how is it better?Clym said:
exodus said:
I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic.
not at all. BSG is the best show currently on TV. well, that and The Shield
I dunno. Sure, Battlestar Galactica has its charms - wholesome if slightly campy crypto-Mormon theogony wrapped in the conventions of Star Wars. A slapdash blend of Joseph Smith Jr., George Lucas and van Daaniken. But I'm not sure how much that would have helped Voyager. Anyway, the series did broach similar themes at times - as with "Distant Origins", about descendants of dinosaurs who came from Earth - but this was used as a critique of religion, rather than a sci-fi twist on its themes.
Oh, you mean the 'new' Battlestar Galactica. Ah, I see. Can't comment there, didn't watch beyond the first part of the miniseries. As I recall, a good deal of cliched 'updating' went on- run-of-the-mill estranged father-son claptrap, female Starbuck. Turned the brightest and silliest of space operas into a grim, gritty ride - which is the equivalent of making a Care Bear movie like it was Schindler's List. Some cable sexplotation, and some robot woman breaking neck of kid to show how EEEEE-VIL she is. Yawn. Still, it looked like it held some promise, and I've heard good things about the show. Care to elaborate?
Oh, you mean the 'new' Battlestar Galactica. Ah, I see. Can't comment there, didn't watch beyond the first part of the miniseries. As I recall, a good deal of cliched 'updating' went on- run-of-the-mill estranged father-son claptrap, female Starbuck. Turned the brightest and silliest of space operas into a grim, gritty ride - which is the equivalent of making a Care Bear movie like it was Schindler's List. Some cable sexplotation, and some robot woman breaking neck of kid to show how EEEEE-VIL she is. Yawn. Still, it looked like it held some promise, and I've heard good things about the show. Care to elaborate?
because Voyager was on UPN, and was therefore the highest rated show that network had ever aired.
the apples and oranges argument doesn't quite wash with the V'ger/BSG comparison. they are both sci-fi shows, both spaceship based, and both with the premise of Our Heroes (either as a ship or a fleet) being alone and trying desperately to reach the planet Earth. the major differences are that BSG has a Rag-Tag Fleet, which is negligable, and that there is internal strife between the military and civilian aspects of the fleet, which is a fairly substancial thematic point. but the concept of internal strife on Voyager (between Starfleet and Maquis) was a major point to the original concept of Voyager, albeit one that was forgotten by the third episode! which just goes to support the OP's suggestion that BSG is what Yoyager should have been. not just in terms of quality (subjective) or ratings (quatifiable but still open to analysis), but in terms that BSG suceeds in delivering on themes that Voyager promised with its first episode and then promptly neglicted save for the odd episode (which just served to highlight their lack the rest of the time).
oh, and Voyager sucked, too.
^Voy., StarFleet, the Federation & Trek in general was about tolerance & peace. Trek isn't about conflict, no matter how much people wish it too be.
Anybody in the Navy knows you can't run a ship without total compliance. Everybody has to be working together to survive. The Maquis were Federation citizens at one point, it's in their nature as people living in the 24th century to make peace, not war. The Maquis even fought the Cardassians for peace. The Maquis war wasn't with the Federation, so they had no reason to hate them. There was never going to be conflict between these two crews.
Knowing that, Voy. could never ever be anything like BSG. The problem is Trek fans got spoiled on DS9 but Voy. is actual what Trek really is. It's about peace & technology making a better future.
Anybody in the Navy knows you can't run a ship without total compliance. Everybody has to be working together to survive. The Maquis were Federation citizens at one point, it's in their nature as people living in the 24th century to make peace, not war. The Maquis even fought the Cardassians for peace. The Maquis war wasn't with the Federation, so they had no reason to hate them. There was never going to be conflict between these two crews.
Knowing that, Voy. could never ever be anything like BSG. The problem is Trek fans got spoiled on DS9 but Voy. is actual what Trek really is. It's about peace & technology making a better future.
Star Trek is about the human condition, and about striving for peace and understanding. somewhere along the way Star Trek got lost in the inherient drama of that concept, of humans: half-savages who have realized what they are and dare to try to improve themselves, and started saying: humanity is all sugar-coated goodness and we'll all get along no matter what(and if we don't then it's some bumpy foreheaded alien's fault). Star Trek is supposed to be about dealing with what it means to be human, and what effect technology has on it, in a world that isn't perfect, but has taken one (just one) major step forward from where we are today. Voyager is just about living in a perfect world and playing games on the holodeck (which, despite lips service about rationing int he early seasons, always seems to be on)
this just boils down to why i hardly ever think about Voyager or come by this forum: Voyager is just banal.
this just boils down to why i hardly ever think about Voyager or come by this forum: Voyager is just banal.
Let's get to the source of the problem. The actual issue here has absolutely nothing to do with Voyager or any of the latest incarnations of Trek. The problem is that the entire Trek franchise is all about happy-happy-joy-joy everybody getting along, or learning to get along, and paradise, and diversity, and high moral standards. And people claim to like that, but all I ever hear about is how Voyager failed to be somehow a lot darker (which was never its intention). The Maquis didn't have conflict with Starfleet, The Borg were "defanged", 8472 was "defanged", the Borg didn't have their civil war, the Vidiians were cured and therefore "defanged", The Kazon were a joke villain (and therefore never had "fangs"), the Hirogen (apparently the only ones left with "fangs") didn't appear enough. For all of DS9's purported "darkness" it too has its defectors claiming "not dark enough", not like B5, I've even seen it compared to new BSG and being inadequate, seen complaints about the fact that the war just kinda ended on such a happy note, instead of some kind of mass annihilation. TNG I've heard "hasn't aged well" it's almost like a "cartoon". Enterprise gets bashed for the Xindi not being good enough villains, the Temporal Cold War not having more to do with things. It also seems a great many people want A LOT more Mirror Universe episodes, Voyager and TNG get hit for not having any at all, Enterprise is often said that it's Mirror ep. was of the best episodes it had.
Then when Trek does finally do something "dark" it's first limited to what fits into the Trek universe therefore the darkness has to have an upbeat "fighting for what's right" theme. And when that's done it's considered either not enough, or too watered down because the heroes didn't get "dirty."
This is exactly why Trek on TV has come to a temporary end. This is why people aren't tuning in anymore. We're in a day and age where people want pain, death, and destruction in their TV shows. (Which is shocking, considering we're in a recently post-9/11 world.) Shows like Lost, BSG, Prison Break, 24, and Heroes are the uber-highly rated shows all containing very dark themes and very VERY flawed characters. Even shows like Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, and House have lots of flawed characters and a fair amount of death and betrayal. Pretty much every other show (on TV that's even remotely popular) that doesn't have this, is a comedy.
None of that fits into Star Trek, and shoehorning them into Trek ruins Trek (or more specifically ruins what Trek is and changes it to a point where it isn't Trek anymore it's something else). So let's allow Trek to take it's break from TV and stop bitching about past Trek shows being true to what Trek is, simply because they were made in a time that didn't want what they offered.
That's your opinion, while I don't agree with it I do respect it. I love DS9 more than any Trek but I rarely go into that forum because I honestly just don't find the subjects of any interest. However because fans do have such a strong opinion of Voy., is why I find this forum for Trek the most interesting.
I like Voy. but I like the passion of Voy, & it's fans have for the show & the issues with it. We don't always agree but that what makes Voy. and the forum so great. Too me it's the only forum besides TNZ that has posters with a passion for something.
The majority of stories in Star Trek are about conflict, and in most cases without some type of conflict (inner conflict, physical, spiritual) there isn't a story to tell. What Trek does is instead of addressing conflict when it comes up, they shove it under the carpet and cough it up to an enlightened society. Yet, the characters act like modern day humans in every respect. nuBSG at least has the guts to tell a story about real desperate people; I don't care if they're all military, once you've been separated from home for over a year and it doesn't look like you are getting back anytime soon I'm sure you'd get really mad at the people you were chasing that lead to you getting stranded in a distant part of the galaxy. Not addressing this is just ignoring human nature.
Bsg started great I'll give you but these days it's gone to hell, everyones a freaking cylon, why nuke the planets when they had the majority population it seems.
Voyager season four and five are for me at least far better than anything bsg has done to date, IMO Voyager should not have been like bsg as I prefer it to bsg many times over, Episodes like Living witness stand head and shoulders above anything bsg imo has done.
Voyager season four and five are for me at least far better than anything bsg has done to date, IMO Voyager should not have been like bsg as I prefer it to bsg many times over, Episodes like Living witness stand head and shoulders above anything bsg imo has done.
Not on a Starship over ten years more advanced than the Enterprise.
Besides, getting mad at the captain is going to do you what good? You still ain't getting home any faster. If Chakotay ran Voy., they be dead in a week. His solution was to shoot up everything first.
You should care they're military, that plays into a big factor on how and why they acted the way they did or had too. Submarines are left out to sea for months on end, sometimes never knowing when they'll get home. Look at the soldiers in Iraq, they have no idea when they're coming home, if they're coming home. Do you see any of them starting a mutiny? This is what these people in Starfleet are trained for. Starfleet isn't some soft job, it's the life of a soldier. Ruffing it is part of the job, what they are trained for. Also Janeway gettin them stranded may have just saved their lives. If the Caretaker killed half of both crews getting them the Delta Q., they ALL would have been dead going back the same way they came.
I don't see why the Fleet and Maquis would have to be adversaries for the entire show. If they couldn't learn to work together after S1 (S2 at most) then they'd never get home and would've all been dead within a year.
In VOY's situation the people involved couldn't afford to be adversaries, they needed each other to survive.
If anything, it's nuBSG that doesn't make sense in how these people don't realize that unless they work together they're all going to die awfully quickly. THey even have an external enemy to focus all their anger on (The Cylons) yet continue to infight and ultimately make the Cylons job easier.
In VOY's situation the people involved couldn't afford to be adversaries, they needed each other to survive.
If anything, it's nuBSG that doesn't make sense in how these people don't realize that unless they work together they're all going to die awfully quickly. THey even have an external enemy to focus all their anger on (The Cylons) yet continue to infight and ultimately make the Cylons job easier.
Ever shook your head at the constant conflict between Israelies and Palestines? same deal.
^
Uh... the Israelis and the Palestinians don't have a common enemy to rally against. Actually, their main enemy at this point is each other.
There's certainly been cases of groups putting their issues aside to fight a common enemy. The Commmunist and Nationalist Chinese, bitter enemies in the thirties, put their civil war on hold to fight the Japanese, and then reignitied it when the Japanese were off the continent. And so on.
I guess the issue here is scale. An alliance of convenience is still just that - convenient. Starfleet and Maquis don't have to be having pitched battles right across Voyager, but neither do they have to be all that chummy. But it makes sense that they were, for an issue I'll mention now.
A lot of people have been saying that Voyager's premise was undermined by bringing the Maquis into the fold. In part, it was. But the thing that divided the Maquis and the Federation - the rights of settlers along the Cardassian border - was wholly academic in the DQ: No settlers, no Cardassians, no Federation. All they are left with is any personal bitterness they might have.
It doesn't help that there is basically no ideological difference with the Maquis. They're just Federation people who were a little unorthodox and disagreed about the colonial thing and started a movement thereto. As such, in the DQ all that remains is they're a little rough around the edges. It's no surprise that, by 'Learning Curve', the distinctive thing about the Maquis is that they bend or - gasp! - even break the rules.
To be interesting, the Maquis needed broader concerns than those that were irrelevant to the shows setting. They needed a coherent ideology that was in some sense opposed to the Federation view, not just a disagreement with one policy. The closest the show ever got to this was connecting the Maquis to Native American spiritualists like Chakotay, people who didn't want to homogenize... but that applied only to Chakotay and it was handled very, very poorly.
In the end, forgetting the whole misbegotten plot thread was probably the best move for the show.
Uh... the Israelis and the Palestinians don't have a common enemy to rally against. Actually, their main enemy at this point is each other.
There's certainly been cases of groups putting their issues aside to fight a common enemy. The Commmunist and Nationalist Chinese, bitter enemies in the thirties, put their civil war on hold to fight the Japanese, and then reignitied it when the Japanese were off the continent. And so on.
I guess the issue here is scale. An alliance of convenience is still just that - convenient. Starfleet and Maquis don't have to be having pitched battles right across Voyager, but neither do they have to be all that chummy. But it makes sense that they were, for an issue I'll mention now.
A lot of people have been saying that Voyager's premise was undermined by bringing the Maquis into the fold. In part, it was. But the thing that divided the Maquis and the Federation - the rights of settlers along the Cardassian border - was wholly academic in the DQ: No settlers, no Cardassians, no Federation. All they are left with is any personal bitterness they might have.
It doesn't help that there is basically no ideological difference with the Maquis. They're just Federation people who were a little unorthodox and disagreed about the colonial thing and started a movement thereto. As such, in the DQ all that remains is they're a little rough around the edges. It's no surprise that, by 'Learning Curve', the distinctive thing about the Maquis is that they bend or - gasp! - even break the rules.
To be interesting, the Maquis needed broader concerns than those that were irrelevant to the shows setting. They needed a coherent ideology that was in some sense opposed to the Federation view, not just a disagreement with one policy. The closest the show ever got to this was connecting the Maquis to Native American spiritualists like Chakotay, people who didn't want to homogenize... but that applied only to Chakotay and it was handled very, very poorly.
In the end, forgetting the whole misbegotten plot thread was probably the best move for the show.
I don't know I'd say terrorism at large is something that they and everyone else need to deal with. The enemy without a face, which is pretty similar to the cylon situation.
Someone mentioned "Living Witness" which yes is quite a good episode. That said I think anything in the New Caprica arc, particularly "Collaborators" is light years ahead of that episode particularly in regards to analysing the role of propogander in war, who's to blame etc etc. There is a lot of layers there that are still filtering through the series as it goes on.
Like others have said though the two shows are products of two different times, two different sets of expectations etc. The premises share some simililarity and so do some of the characters; Seven- Athena, Laura- Kathryn, that said it is hard to compare, people like different things for different reasons.
I do put BSG ahead because it simply has more layers to it and there is a level of acting there that can't even be compared to any other scifi show I've seen. That and I have had so many good experiences with the fan base that I do feel like I am part of the ride, where as with trek it just seemed like I was being shown the story instead of being taken on the journey itself.
Similar threads
