I voted for Farscape, Firefly, and BSG, though I should have added Doctor Who and Other: Torchwood as well.
Best Space Opera TV of This Decade?
- Thread starter Kegg
- Start date
I don't think BSG is a "space opera," but since it's included in the list I voted for it.
Eliminating it, I'd have voted for Farscape.
Eliminating it, I'd have voted for Farscape.
How is (nu)BSG not a space opera? I'd love to see a definition of that term which does not cover (nu)BSG.
It seems to fit most common definition aspects of space opera:
- melodramatic adventure (check!)
- set in space (check!)
- large scale conflict with the fate of worlds at stake (check!)
- conflict between advanced/powerful forces (check!)
What is missing?
It seems to fit most common definition aspects of space opera:
- melodramatic adventure (check!)
- set in space (check!)
- large scale conflict with the fate of worlds at stake (check!)
- conflict between advanced/powerful forces (check!)
What is missing?
I've been thinking about that, actually. It'd be interesting, though a few of the contenders here would appear again (Voyager, Stargate SG:1, Lexx, Farscape).
I included it because it has the basic framework of space opera - to me, pretty much any series that takes place out in space and has FTL is space opera (though with the space battles and fighting killer robots BSG is more overtly space opera than just that.)
True, BSG doesn't have aliens or weird sci-fi happenings (but neither does Firefly, the other most popular space opera in this poll), and it's not as unashamedly a space opera as Farscape - but yeah, I'd call it a space opera in the final analysis.
I voted for BSG and Dr Who since those are the shows on the list I love the most, even though I'm not sure if Dr Who is exactly a space opera.
I saw a bit of Firefly, but didn't really get into it. But then again, I've never been a huge Whedon fan.
I guess I really need to start watching Farscape.
I saw a bit of it on TV, and I admit, I was one of those people who got turned off by the muppets and never gave it a try. I've decided to reconsider it after so many recommendation, and watched the pilot recently, so I might start watching it when I find time (that is, after I finish those 5 or 6 shows I already have lined up...)
I saw a bit of Firefly, but didn't really get into it. But then again, I've never been a huge Whedon fan.
I guess I really need to start watching Farscape.
I saw a bit of it on TV, and I admit, I was one of those people who got turned off by the muppets and never gave it a try. I've decided to reconsider it after so many recommendation, and watched the pilot recently, so I might start watching it when I find time (that is, after I finish those 5 or 6 shows I already have lined up...)
I think a lot of people feel its a soap opera that just happens to be set in space, over the years it moved away from the science fiction element and more in the direction of political commentary or "your god did it"
"Best" space opera would also depend on people's taste, its ratings certainly were not much better than Farscapes
and at least Farscape's numbers were pretty consistent
And that would make it less of a space opera, how?
Calling new Battlestar science fiction would be like calling
ElmerFudd and BugsBunny a horror movie or calling Wallace and Gromit a horror.
There are small elements of scifi in battlestar but the new version is predominately a soap not scifi, sometimes they try to do some 'science' like throw in an FTL drive or do planets but it is mostly bad science certainly not hard scifi like elemts of Arthur C Clark's 2001, JMS's babylon 5, Tarkovsky's Solaris or Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang, hard scifi is basically supposed to follow the rules of physics and science, which is to say, take place in what could be the real world or a plausible futuristic world.
The science in battlestar makes absolutely no sense, Starbuck coming back from the dead made no sense, the final five made no sense, for anyone who studied math and science having a dozen or so planets Canceron, Caprica, Tauron, Leonis, Picon, Scorpia, Aerelon,
Hera, Gemenon, Libris, Sagittaron, Aquaria & Virgon
ALL HABITABLE AROUND A SINGLE STAR!? well that and many other 'science' things in BSG never made any sense. As crap and cheesy as the old Larson show was at least they made an effort to make the series high-tech.
It also made no sense how the new BSG civilization with no basic medicines, antiqued speakers would go to the stars, it made no sense how a civilisation with no ability to recycle water and antique phones ever became a space faring civilization.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the science in Trek is 100 times better because Star Trek is a great offender on the pseudo science category and many episodes would deus ex machina a solution to a story arc by throwing out some technobabble and a good 50% of the time technobabble was just gibberish, but Trek at least attempted to get the science right some of the time.
Battlestar could have become something but the writers spent to much time ripping apart a great show. There were barefaced conclusive mistakes such as jumping a year ahead like a typical soap opera or turning Baltar into a cartoon, and stripping Starbuck & Apollo of all that made them great and turning them into 90210 cheaters.
IMO
The new BSG = SOAP OPERA
not SPACE OPERA
ElmerFudd and BugsBunny a horror movie or calling Wallace and Gromit a horror.
There are small elements of scifi in battlestar but the new version is predominately a soap not scifi, sometimes they try to do some 'science' like throw in an FTL drive or do planets but it is mostly bad science certainly not hard scifi like elemts of Arthur C Clark's 2001, JMS's babylon 5, Tarkovsky's Solaris or Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang, hard scifi is basically supposed to follow the rules of physics and science, which is to say, take place in what could be the real world or a plausible futuristic world.
The science in battlestar makes absolutely no sense, Starbuck coming back from the dead made no sense, the final five made no sense, for anyone who studied math and science having a dozen or so planets Canceron, Caprica, Tauron, Leonis, Picon, Scorpia, Aerelon,
Hera, Gemenon, Libris, Sagittaron, Aquaria & Virgon
ALL HABITABLE AROUND A SINGLE STAR!? well that and many other 'science' things in BSG never made any sense. As crap and cheesy as the old Larson show was at least they made an effort to make the series high-tech.
It also made no sense how the new BSG civilization with no basic medicines, antiqued speakers would go to the stars, it made no sense how a civilisation with no ability to recycle water and antique phones ever became a space faring civilization.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the science in Trek is 100 times better because Star Trek is a great offender on the pseudo science category and many episodes would deus ex machina a solution to a story arc by throwing out some technobabble and a good 50% of the time technobabble was just gibberish, but Trek at least attempted to get the science right some of the time.
Battlestar could have become something but the writers spent to much time ripping apart a great show. There were barefaced conclusive mistakes such as jumping a year ahead like a typical soap opera or turning Baltar into a cartoon, and stripping Starbuck & Apollo of all that made them great and turning them into 90210 cheaters.
IMO
The new BSG = SOAP OPERA
not SPACE OPERA
^^^
A lot of space opera isn't hard sci-fi. In fact some space opera is outright space fantasy rather than science fiction. So a lack of hard sci-fi doesn't preclude a series from being space opera.
A lot of space opera isn't hard sci-fi. In fact some space opera is outright space fantasy rather than science fiction. So a lack of hard sci-fi doesn't preclude a series from being space opera.
If space opera is supposed to be hard scifi, that precludes any Trek show from qualifying as a space opera.
So I guess Trek writers were just too clueless about the science to get it right.
I guess I really need to start watching Farscape.
If this thread just gets one person watching Farscape, mission frelling accomplished.* Stick until "Nerve", the beginning of the S1 finale arc, as I always irritatingly tell people to do so, wooo. Ahem.
Actually, something like Duck Dodgers is sci-fi, and for that matter I'd consider the sci-fi comedy cartoon Futurama as one of the best science fiction shows of this decade. It doesn't come up here since I've restricted the conversation to live-action shows... because! Yet I disgress.
I do find the criticism of nuBSG being a soap opera amusing, because I'm old enough to remember people saying the same thing about TNG. "Family", with the weepy nancy boy Picard and a whole episode devoted to character building. Pure soap opera, m'boy!
Even if it is a soap opera, that doesn't mean it isn't also a space opera.
Babylon 5 is not hard scifi (nor is most any space opera, and certainly none in media).
The thing about sci-fi is the tech or the premise need not be the main focus for something to be considered sci-fi, it just needs to be there. BSG gives us the expected trappings - spaceships, robots and all - and the fact the show then decides to focus most entirely on its characters or that it has dodgy science in places doesn't make it any less of a space opera than the rest discussed here.
Not that this should be considered important to you, MasterofOrion - what label one puts on BSG is not a mark of quality or the reverse, nor is it a requirement for fans to like it (you can be a fan of space opera and hate BSG, or the reverse - it's all good). If you want to say the series sucks, there are less easily contestable grounds for you to choose.
Also, yes, this is not a poll based on ratings. If I wanted to compare ratings I'd compare ratings and call it a day -I'm more interested where the rankings end up in this dedicated little community of people who like a particulairly huge space opera franchise.
*WATCH FARSCAPE
My experiment in supraliminal advertising.
There's no hard sci fi on TV and I'm having a hard time thinking of hard sci fi movies either. That whole argument is a dead end unless the threads is solely focused on print.
This poll is more interesting for not having the 800 lb gorillas - B5 and DS9 - on it.
I'd be really interested in seeing a poll for the previous decade to see how TNG, DS9, B5 and Farscape compare.
Since you're the second person to ask...
I'll wait a couple of days first. This time I'm going to compose a list and double-check it until I'm confident I hopefully got everything, or at least close as I can manage. If anyone now wants to pipe up with Obscure Scientifictional Adventure Cam-West that I absolutely must include, it'd be most appreciated.
Last edited:
Using a broad definition of space opera, some of the more obscure 90s shows are:
Deepwater Black
Mercy Point (space opera meets medical drama)
Space Precinct (space opera meets police procedural)
Space Rangers
Total Recall 2070
Deepwater Black
Mercy Point (space opera meets medical drama)
Space Precinct (space opera meets police procedural)
Space Rangers
Total Recall 2070
Oh, I intend to. Had half a mind to have Back to Earth here but it didn't strictly qualify.
I'm not sure if Total Recall would fit (the film would be borderline and then just because of
the alien technology
Similar threads
