sholio | My 2 cents on stuff

My 2 cents on stuff

New Lost on Wednesday! SQUEE!

Also ... sorry, I can't help it, but LOL at the foofferaw about the Entertainment Weekly article on Battlestar Galactica dissing SGA (calling it an "inferior" show to BSG).

Look, I love SGA to pieces. I adore the characters, the writing, the world ... pretty much everything about it. But it's total brain candy. It's space opera. Honestly, I don't think I would love it so much if it wasn't. As SF TV goes -- hell, as TV goes, it really IS a quality show. The subtlety and continuity impresses me, not to mention its great strength, the characters. But ... it's brain candy. That's what it IS.

I've never seen BSG, but from all I've heard about it, it's very serious political SF, a la Arthur Clarke. And if that's your cup of tea, the more heady, intellectual stuff ... then yes, SGA *is* an inferior show. Sorry. It's true.

Just to pull another example out of the air -- my favorite book series of all time, bar none, is the fantasy series "Death Gate" by Margaret Weiss and Tracy Hickman. It's pure, utter brain candy. There are characters whose names inexplicably change spellings halfway through the series and subplots that simply vanish because the writers got overwhelmed and gave up on them. It's not dreck, but if you compare it to a master of genre fiction like, oh, Ursula Le Guin? It's inferior. Definitely inferior. And yet I love it to death, I've taken books from the series with me on trips as a security blanket and stayed up late re-reading my favorite parts for the umpteenth gazillion time. If I had to choose one book series to have on a desert island, it would be these books. I *know* that they aren't that great, and I don't care. I just love them anyway.

SGA is not the greatest thing ever written. It's not groundbreaking, it's not original, it's not especially profound. It's just FUN. My husband calls it "crack" because it's so addictive. But, if you're comparing it to SF that strives to break free of the monster-of-the-week genre ... I'm sorry. SGA *is* one of those monster-of-the-week shows. And yes, I can see why writers of a show that's trying to do serious SF would be annoyed by getting grouped in with the space-opera shows.

EDIT: I cut my editorializing (probably a bit late, but better late than never) for people who don't want to get caught up in opinion-izing on the subject.

And now ... back to pining for new SGA! LOL!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I haven't read that article but since I am a avid fan of both shows I can tell you that they are completely different animals.

Other than both of then being a 'science fiction' show (& both air on the SciFi channel) they have nothing in common at all and to compare one to the other is ludicrous.

It's apples & oranges. Nidgets!

Apples & oranges, indeed.

I think the gist of the BSG complaint is that the comparison is already being made and it's hurting BSG because it's getting grouped in with shows that are very unlike it -- that a lot of people pass by BSG because they see the spaceships and mentally group the show with "all those other shows about spaceships" that they don't like. Kind of like how I don't like romantic comedies and so I've passed up certain movies for YEARS before watching them and discovering that they're not really romantic comedies, or at least don't have the romantic trappings that I find objectionable.

And since I've neither seen BSG nor read the article, my opinions should of course be taken with a grain of salt. ;)

As a fan of both series, I have no qualms about stating that BSG is "superior" to SGA, if only because the aim is higher. BSG is trying to be a lot more than SGA is trying to be, and it is taken very seriously by those involved in creating it.

That said, I love them both - each for what it is.

Yes, exactly! SGA is a fantastic show ... for what it is. And, IMHO, some of the weakest episodes of SGA were those where it tried for serious drama rather than embracing its strengths -- the goofball cast and action and humor. It's incredibly fun, but it's not highbrow, probably never will be. And I don't think it's at all insulting to call SGA "inferior" to a show that strives to make a serious statement about the world, because SGA isn't really about that sort of thing.

I have to agree with both of the above comments. One, that it is like comparing apples and oranges, and two, that BSG is striving to be more. I don't think SGA is brain candy, however, because it addresses social and political issues as well. All the time. It just doesn't dwell on them as BSG does, there isn't an ongoing moral battle. Now SG1 nearly had that with the Ori, but they've messed it up.

My qualm about the whole thing is that the comment just wasn't called for. I will never understand the need to bring something down in order to boost something else higher. Just advertise it on it's own merits.

Talk about politics!

Kam :D

I will never understand the need to bring something down in order to boost something else higher. Just advertise it on it's own merits.

Yeah, this is certainly true.

Someone farther down in the comments called SGA "light SF" and that's probably a much better way to put it than my "brain candy" phrase. (Though I will probably still continue to think of it as brain candy. But I love candy. I'm eating some right now.)

OH heck yeah. Candy is awesome. :D

I think I am more on the side of the two shows being very different types of shows even though they are both called science fiction. I don't think you can say one is better then the other.

I don't always think of BSG as sci-fi/science fiction. It is drama. I also think that is the sort of thing a lot of critics like...all dark and moody and terrible things happening all the time. It often "pushes the envelope" as the saying goes.

I don't think that Stargate Atlantis is "brain candy" It is not the dark, brooding world that BSG but it does deal with issues such as the Micheal/retro-virus arc. They just do it a different way then BSG.

As much as I love BSG I really prefer SGA. I like the use of humor that you never see on BSG. (the story doesn't really allow for it so it really work)

The problem I have with the comments and the debates is the idea if a show is "lighter" then it somehow not as good as a "darker" show. I think I will be posting more latter on my own LJ.

The article's making its rounds, I see. Thanks for posting,

friendshipper. I'd already written more of my thoughts in my LJ so won't go on at length here. Just want to add that I'm with

parisntripfan on this matter. As one who watches and loves both shows, what troubled me most were:

1) The seeming oneupmanship between two perfectly good though different SF shows. This causes unnecessary division among sponsors (SF network and media publicity), players (cast and crew) and viewers across the board when we should all be working together to celebrate and promote great SF!

2) The fact that grittier entertainment is more "superior" in our world. For me, great storytelling addresses both the "dark" and "light"-ness of real life. Why not just appreciate both BSG and Stargate for their different yet complementary takes? It might even surprise us if the shows occassionally mix up their angst vs. humour leanings yet still offer the good stories and relevant messages that they do so well.

Actually, in this case, I don't think it's just the fact that SGA isn't as dark as BSG. The difference in quality can be clearly seen in the fact that SGA's examination of issues and themes is usually quite superficial, with little or no emotional fallout from events and decisions carrying over to inform the characterizations, and enough shaky logic and explanations that plenty of hand-waving is necessary on the part of the viewer. By their own admission, the producers and writers of SGA don't take the show too seriously.

By contrast, BSG is intricately plotted, with richly rendered characters who go through credible emotional progressions based on events that transpire. The producers and writers of this show DO take it seriously, and that commitment is visible on the screen.

Don't get me wrong - I love SGA a lot. I wouldn't write and read fanfic if I didn't. But I'm also aware of its considerable deficiencies with respect to continuity and characterization, and capable of acknowledging that this lowers the "quality" of the show in an objective sense.

Actually, in this case, I don't think it's just the fact that SGA isn't as dark as BSG. The difference in quality can be clearly seen in the fact that SGA's examination of issues and themes is usually quite superficial, with little or no emotional fallout from events and decisions carrying over to inform the characterizations, and enough shaky logic and explanations that plenty of hand-waving is necessary on the part of the viewer. By their own admission, the producers and writers of SGA don't take the show too seriously.

You've gotten right to the heart of what I wanted to say, but said it much better than I could've. I agree wholeheartedly.

IMHO, the episodes of SGA that try to do "serious drama" are much less effective than the lighter, more action-oriented episodes, and I think that a large part of that is because they shine a spotlight on the show's deficiencies. The hand-waving is a lot more obvious when it's not being swept along by so much fun and action that you don't really care. To do justice to the Michael storyline, for example, you'd probably need a whole season, and it would be really freakin' dark. It would probably be brilliant television and probably about a light-year better than the actual Michael episodes, but it wouldn't be the SGA we love.

bladegirl, what you wrote reminded me of why I loved BSG in the first place. I agree that BSG does better than Stargate in terms of character continuity and story arcs but it does have its own share of forgiveable bad plot devices (cancer-curing human-cylon hybrid?) and over-the-top drama (Lee's homicidal relationship angst?). When we start labelling a show as "superior," we risk turning a blind eye towards its weaknesses or end up more disappointed than we should when they inevitably show up. Sorry to jump back in again - I'll go now!

Oh, no argument about that - BSG is great, but it isn't perfect. (One of the big problems I have with it currently is the apparent waffling over whether or not Lee should have a love interest and who it should be. I mean... Dee?? Can we say "left field?") I guess the reason I have no problems with labelling it objectively superior is that it requires a whole lot less rationalizing and hand-waving overall, plus what it does well it does incredibly well.

BSG has made me believe in it with its scope and vision, excellent writing, and a realistic sense of place that is rare in television science fiction. Stargate (both series) have made me believe in them through a cool concept, quirky humor, and generally excellent casting that manages to transcend missteps of written characterization. There's certainly a place for both, but I think we'd be remiss to not acknowledge that one accomplishment requires more effort.

I don't always think of BSG as sci-fi/science fiction. It is drama.

And I think this is really the gist of the "inferior" comment -- the basic complaint is that people who enjoy drama and deep thinking and heavy/angsty material are passing up BSG because they don't like SF in general and think that BSG has nothing to offer them.

I don't think SGA is particularly taxing on the brain. It's a very enjoyable show, but literate, it ain't. Profound, it ain't. I love it to death, but I don't think of it as high drama and I'm actually rather glad that it's not. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun if it was -- in fact (IMHO) the episodes of the show that tried to do serious drama were much less effective than the ones that just relaxed and had fun.

Entertainment Weekly is "inferior" to National Geographic. See what I'm saying?

I watch BSG when I want to consider suicide as a lifestyle choice. I watch SGA when I want to have fun and be entertained. Where BSG is full of extreme intensity and darkness and hopelessness and stress and gorgeous writing, SGA is full of light and humor and grey areas and its own quirky writing.

They really *are* apples and oranges. They fulfill different audience needs. That doesn't make one better or worse.

Well, let me put it this way. Trying to explain why I like SGA to my non-SF friends in real life is really, really difficult. They watch a few episodes of the show and get hung up on the plot holes and the scientific hand-waving, and I can't adequately explain how I've fallen so thoroughly in love with the characters and the city that I don't *care* if a lot of the plots don't entirely make sense. I love the show despite its flaws. But those flaws do exist. SGA is funny and quirky and fast-moving and probably the most fun I've had with television in years. It also suffers from logical problems, scientific problems and enough loose ends to knit a sweater. My sister's a geneticist, and while she loves the show as much as I do, its dodgy attempts at biology make her want to curl up in a fetal position and whimper.

So I don't mind acknowledging that a show without those problems would be a better show than SGA. On the other hand, I can't really imagine enjoying a show more than I enjoy SGA -- and in fact, from all I've heard about BSG, even though I would like to see it I'm not sure if it would ultimately be my cup of tea.

I agree with your opinions about SG1 and SGA being "light" sci-fi and a very different animal than BSG. But what bugged me about the word "inferior" in the story was exactly due to that fact. If these things are so very different, you really can't (shouldn't?!) compare them. That's where the whole "apples and oranges" metaphor comes into play, after all.

Calling one "superior" and one "inferior" implies that one type of sci-fi is inherently better than another. And that is what I disagree with. As you mentioned, there are times when we prefer one to the other, based on our mood, how much we wish to think about what we're watching or reading, and so on. If I'm looking for something to make me smile or make me "squee," BSG is going to be decidedly "inferior" at it. But that doesn't make BSG itself inferior to SGA at that moment - it just makes it the wrong show for meeting my need.

The article could have worked just as well by saying that SGA and SG1 (and other shows) were "lighter" or "less literate" or any other word/phrase that more accurately pointed out the differences in the shows' approaches, without denegrating one over the other.

But that's just my opinion. :D

I think

blade_girl did a better job of answering this one than I've been able to so far, actually, so I'm just going to borrow a few thoughts from her post upstream in the comments.

It's not just the light vs dark, it's the fact that SGA *does* tend to fall down on little matters of logic and continuity and aftermath. It could be a much better show than it is. On the other hand, if it *were* to deal seriously with a lot of the issues it's raised, it would be hella depressing, and I don't think any of us watch it for that. Once again inserting my disclaimer that I haven't *watched* BSG .... but from all I've heard, BSG is much more true-to-life and probably gives a considerably more accurate picture of life and space exploration and war than SGA's more cheerful, happy-go-lucky approach.

But it's precisely for those reasons that I still haven't started watching BSG whereas I fan and squee over SGA.

I can see what you're saying about different shows for different needs. I still think that objectively, BSG is probably the "better" show. But SGA is my show of choice.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

My 2 cents on stuff

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject