What's betta: Star Trek TNG or nuBSG?

[Steve Roby]

BSG tells a long story with characters that change all the time.

That's part of my problem with BSG. On TNG, few of the characters really changed or evolved over seven years. On DS9 (and B5), a lot of the characters really changed or evolved over the years, and we could see the process happening. On BSG, there was some of that, but there were also a lot of sudden personality changes, where it just felt like the plot needed a character to be a certain way and who cares if it's consistent with their previous characterization.

 

[Lowdarzz]

TNG: watched it for seven years and didn't want it to end.

NuBSG: watched it for two years then stopped because it was crap.

TNG wins by a landslide.

 

[V]

That's part of my problem with BSG. On TNG, few of the characters really changed or evolved over seven years. On DS9 (and B5), a lot of the characters really changed or evolved over the years, and we could see the process happening. On BSG, there was some of that, but there were also a lot of sudden personality changes, where it just felt like the plot needed a character to be a certain way and who cares if it's consistent with their previous characterization.

Truth!

They'd defend it as "well characters change", but it wasn't "natural change" it was "they did whatever the heck you wanted to serve the plot"

The thing that makes me cry in bitterness at the insanity of it all, is that BOTH Jamie Bamber and Katee Sackhoff complained that by season 3, their characters were utterly directionless. They actually complained, right?

Well, the writers *literally* comfort themselves with "losing" Apollo for 30 episodes (back half of season 2, all of season 3) by saying "well he was utterly directionless and shifting all the time....but then again, doesn't that happen in real life? People have existential crises don't they?" which if you step back and look at it, sounds ridiculous coming from the mouths of writers who used to pride themselves on their characterization skills.

But Sackhoff just bought it hook line and sinker: she complained "I don't know what Starbuck is even DOING in some episodes; there's no reason for her to be doing these things"

And she said, "the writers responded....'work with that! That's what Starbuck IS feeling now! she's lost and directionless!'.....and I realized how brilliant that was!"

UGH

By that logic I could literally say Janeway had schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, to explain why one week she acted like a pastiche of Kirk, and the next week, a pastiche of Picard.

 

[V]

I seriously think, due to the fact that the storylines had proper conclusions and the character arcs made actual sense....that while nuBSG, like Firefly, reinvigorated the scifi genre with some cool stylistic ideas.....on the whole, BSG fell apart in its last 2 seasons, and *Deep Space Nine* is the better show.

 

[Bishbot]

Truth!

They'd defend it as "well characters change", but it wasn't "natural change" it was "they did whatever the heck you wanted to serve the plot"

The thing that makes me cry in bitterness at the insanity of it all, is that BOTH Jamie Bamber and Katee Sackhoff complained that by season 3, their characters were utterly directionless. They actually complained, right?

Well, the writers *literally* comfort themselves with "losing" Apollo for 30 episodes (back half of season 2, all of season 3) by saying "well he was utterly directionless and shifting all the time....but then again, doesn't that happen in real life? People have existential crises don't they?" which if you step back and look at it, sounds ridiculous coming from the mouths of writers who used to pride themselves on their characterization skills.

But Sackhoff just bought it hook line and sinker: she complained "I don't know what Starbuck is even DOING in some episodes; there's no reason for her to be doing these things"

And she said, "the writers responded....'work with that! That's what Starbuck IS feeling now! she's lost and directionless!'.....and I realized how brilliant that was!"

UGH

By that logic I could literally say Janeway had schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, to explain why one week she acted like a pastiche of Kirk, and the next week, a pastiche of Picard.

You so don't get it. Janeway was written like she had bipolar disorder, but it was bad for the character because she was a Starfleet captain - one of Roddenberry's perfect humans - Starbuck is just a messed up bitch who flies a plane - they are poles apart. Starbuck's behaviour is consistent with someone who is pathologically self-destructive. Janeway couldn't be that because she was a perfect person in a perfect ship with a perfect crew - so her schizophrenia comes across as inconsistent writing.

Starbuck, on the other hand, by her very nature is given to wild personality swings. Something that can happen in Galactica's universe but certainly can't in Star Trek. I agree that she gets worse as the series goes on, but it isn't unrealistic in the least, it's just sad (in a good way). She goes through hell and she finds it understandably hard to take.

And I'm sorry, but actors rarely have the best ideas for how their characters should evolve (look at the "Alien 3 Complaints Thread" for good examples). They aren't writers, so while their imput has to be considered, I wouldn't go by them. They need a writer and a director to explain their motivation, so why shouldn't they accept the writer's explanations?

 

[DrEvil]

To answer this question, all one needs to do is look at the respective finales:

Unlike the BSG finale, "All Good Things" did not make me scream "WTF!" at my TV screen, turn away in disgust at characters disappearing in fields and everyone ok with a "just because" answer, and wishing I'd never watched the show to begin with.

Dirk Benedict is my Starbuck.

 

[Ryan]

TNG. When it was canceled I was left wanting more. I unfortunately can't say the same for BSG.

Same here - but I still like BSG more. TNG has an almost endlessly mutable premise with static characters in an episodic format. BSG tells a long story with characters that change all the time. Therefore BSG has a more logical end point than TNG.

Very true. The end point - and most the last act - for BSG just wasn't that good, though. In Battlestar's defense TNG was starting to go downhill at the end too. If there had been another season the poll might well have been a much tougher choice.

 

[PlainSimpleJoel]

Another vote for TNG. But DS9 would beat both.

 

[Greg Cox]

Dirk Benedict is my Starbuck.

To each their own, but Kara Thrace was never less than compelling.

 

[GalaxyX]

To each their own, but Kara Thrace was never less than compelling.

She was at her best when her vulnerabilities showed up. Other than that, they never really explained why she was so bitchy other that "it's her character"

 

[Bishbot]

To each their own, but Kara Thrace was never less than compelling.

She was at her best when her vulnerabilities showed up. Other than that, they never really explained why she was so bitchy other that "it's her character"

While she was undoubtedly always a volatile personality, I think they did explain it pretty well:

Before the series
She was abused as a child
She made a fatal mistake that caused her fiance to die
That was coupled with the fact that she really loved his brother

During the series
She was captured and experimented on by Simon - her ovary was removed - a very horrible and personal experience.
She accidently shoots her best friend.
She gets captured and tortured by Leoben who also leads her to believe she has a daughter - this is a lie.

Those are a few of the awful things that happen to her over the course of the series, and of course, it doesn't take into account the highly stressful situation she, and the other pilots, are constantly in.

 

[Hitman]

I like them both. They have good stories, characters, and were executed with great care.

 

[RandyS]

TNG has aged very, very badly.

I'm always surprised when people say TNG has aged badly. If I had to name just one TV show that has stood the test of time, Star Trek: The Next Generation would be it.

So would I, but I think the reason people say that it's aged is because it doesn't carry any of the angst-ridden bullshit that has a stranglehold on TV now. Practically every show on TV now is unwatchable.

My vote also goes to TNG.

 

[Warp Coil]

I'd say BSG. As much as I love TNG, I was never so riveted by what I saw that I couldn't wait for the next episode. In TNG, the main characters were a little too perfect, a little too preechy, and by the end of the episode, things were almost always back to the status-quo. And that gets boring.

 

[Greg Cox]

[

Practically every show on TV now is unwatchable.

Except for CHUCK, LOST, DEXTER, CSI, MONK, DOCTOR WHO, SARAH CONNOR, and REAPER to name just a few . . . .

IMHO, of course.

 

[sidious618]

nuBSG is my personal favorite show so that clearly wins. However, I never much cared for TNG so it's not much of a matchup.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Unable to choose.

 

[Bishbot]

TNG has aged very, very badly.

I'm always surprised when people say TNG has aged badly. If I had to name just one TV show that has stood the test of time, Star Trek: The Next Generation would be it.

So would I, but I think the reason people say that it's aged is because it doesn't carry any of the angst-ridden bullshit that has a stranglehold on TV now. Practically every show on TV now is unwatchable.

My vote also goes to TNG.

I also don't think that TNG has aged badly. The first two seasons, maybe, but beyond that, it's a remarkably solid series - although being shot on video makes it fuzzier than I'd like.

Unfortunately, I think that too many series' with main characters as superhumanly balanced as the ones on TNG would be very very boring. It works on TNG because it's Star Trek and the actors and format work very well together, but, rather than "angst-ridden bullshit" have a "stranglehold on TV" what you're being made to watch these days are actual human emotions and reactions, which, good as it is, you rarely get on TNG. This is pretty much the first decade where actions on TV actually have emotional fallout, and some people seem to have had some trouble adjusting.

 

[RandyS]

[

Practically every show on TV now is unwatchable.

Except for CHUCK, LOST, DEXTER, CSI, MONK, DOCTOR WHO, SARAH CONNOR, and REAPER to name just a few . . . .

IMHO, of course.

Oops. forgot about bout Sarah Conner. I've only seen the DVD's so far. But I like what I've seen. I don't watch the others.

I stand corrected.

That doesn't change my opinion that New Galactica is nothing but nilistic, angst-ridden bullshit though.

 

[Bishbot]

[

Practically every show on TV now is unwatchable.

Except for CHUCK, LOST, DEXTER, CSI, MONK, DOCTOR WHO, SARAH CONNOR, and REAPER to name just a few . . . .

IMHO, of course.

Oops. forgot about bout Sarah Conner. I've only seen the DVD's so far. But I like what I've seen. I don't watch the others.

I stand corrected.

That doesn't change my opinion that New Galactica is nothing but nilistic, angst-ridden bullshit though.

So you don't think that T:tSSC is angsty?