Then and Now

BST · December 9th, 2003, 06:51 PM

The following is an excerpt from a post to the Sci-Fi board from months ago. The feelings expressed then, are still with me today:

THEN:

"...I was there when BSG premiered; I lived in that era (as a young adult); I had a very good idea of what was going on in the world around me; I knew what could and could not be shown on TV, especially at 8:00 PM, which was and still is Prime-time, i.e., family time.

Without getting into a political debate, suffice it to say that we were 4 years removed from having our President resign in disgrace, 3 years removed from escaping Vietnam having lost the only war in which the USA ever fought. We suffered from double digit interest rates, double digit inflation, high unemployment rates. Needless to say, we weren't doing very well, collectively. Then, along comes a sci-fi show that tells of a human holocaust at the hands of machines. It's a wonder that we sat through the entire 3 hours! It was only because there was a glimmer of hope given, that the humans portrayed in the show would live to see another day, possibly to avenge the destruction that had been wrought on them. We needed an escape from reality and for those of us that enjoy the science-fiction genre, this show did that.

We were somewhat forgiving, at that time, of the screenwriting, the special effects, the limits that the network sensors set on what could and could not be shown/said on TV during the prime-time hours. We had many reasons for watching the show, maybe Patrick Macnee's prologue especially appealed to us, maybe it was the theme song, maybe it was the physical appearance of the actors/actresses or their interaction that appealed to us, maybe it was the design of the Galactica, maybe just maybe, it was the storyline. The list could go on and on."

NOW:

The show, that aired last night and will conclude tonight, shares the same name as the one which aired 25 years ago and has several other similarities - some names, some ship types, the "name" of the adversary, as well as other secondary references to the "colonies", Kobol, etc. But, that's where the similarity ends. Gone is the most essential item, in my humble opinion, for a story with a premise as dark as that of Battlestar Galactica, and that item is Hope.

This mini-series changes so many of the 'primary' elements that it hardly qualifies as a "re-make". The original premise that the humans were being systematically hunted down and exterminated by an enemy, constructed by an alien culture, is replaced by the premise that "we" created our own means of destruction. Add to that items like "We tried to play God" and "We are the flawed creation" and the show becomes a debate as to whethere "we" are worthy of survival, whether "we" deserve to exist, at all.

Additionally, the theme, of the show, is no longer the never ending battle between Good and Evil but, is one which is designed to show shades of gray. There seems to be no distinction between that which is truly good or truly evil, just the impression that "as long as I'm not as bad as you, I'm ok". In a way, like the "lesser of 2 evils". This may be true to a great extent, for those who reside on the planet Earth but, since when are we the template upon which the other inhabitants of the cosmos are based. The original show portrayed the humans as people whose ideals we could aspire to. That is not evident with this show which would have people viewing the humans as people resigning themselves that they can do no better, that they cannot aspire to a better way of living their life, that they are what they are and just have to "deal with it".

For these reasons, I stated much earlier this year, that I would not view this mini-series. To this particular point in time, I have not seen a single frame of the mini-series, nor do I intend to. It portrays a vision of humankind that I do not share.

BST

(this was also post to the Sci-Fi board)

amberstar · December 9th, 2003, 08:16 PM

You nailed it BST!

Darth Marley · December 10th, 2003, 12:12 AM

The hope is the same,that humanity will survive.

Since you did not view the show,you missed Adama's speech that summed up human failings.

I understand that perhaps you want heroes in the more traditional sense.

The times call for a different type of heroes.

The notion that our heroes must be perfect may be an (unattainable) ideal to aspire to,but I find value in the darker,flawed hero depiction.It gives hope of redemption that even those who are basically good that have misstepped can be redeemed.

Any of humanity's brighter goals must be attained by conquering our darker nature.By learning from our mistakes and the mistakes of others.
By realizing that evil exists and must be confronted and fought whenever it can be fought.And by running to fight another day when appropriate.

In the original series, Casseopia was a professional prostitute,and Starbuck was a slut.Some would argue that these qualities are not so honorable for clear cut for heroes.Unfortunately, the standards and practices of the late seventies kept these allusions from being explored in depth.

In todays more blatantly worldly environment, the mini can depict manipulation via sex,and old age and drunkenness,and the bitterness of personal loss in a way that '70 sensibilities could not.

That the heroes are more seamy and smutty,in my view, does not make them less heroic or hopeful.Rather it extends a message of hope to a generation lost in vice and self-absobsion.The "new" Baltar is a great example of this.

The shades of gray argument I have a few words about.You mention the notion of heroes to emulate without the weakness of "it's as good as I can do" and I find this a laudable sentiment.If you understand that in our earthbound world,these human weaknesses are a trial,then why would you oppose a vehicle for those caught in the maze to see the light of heroic redemption in a way they can relate to? I find these kinds of interpretations of heroism,and struggle against evil to have a sort of missionary quality. Is that such a bad thing? To give us flawed humans hope to overcome our own failings?

I have said elsewhere that I enjoyed the original series as a child. I am no longer a child,and the old show seems a bit trite. The grit of life has left marks on me that a pure fantasy cannot lift (though LOTR still works its magic). Alan Moore's preface to Dark Knight Returns sums up this line of thinking well. Bond,Tarzan, and Quartermain served thier genration well enough, but would not stand up to modern sensibilities.

The remake is a show that I could actually get others of my age group to watch today with a measure of enjoyment. If I were to compel others of my age group to watch the original series laughter and derision would abound. If others mock and laugh at a supposedly more pure model of moral behavior then how does that help them with their stuggle?

Darth Marley · December 10th, 2003, 01:14 AM

Forgive a newbie,having some troble with forum.

thomas7g · December 10th, 2003, 02:06 AM

Don't worry.

about your arguement I disagree in one major point.

The heros of the old show are similiar in portrayal to the heroes of 911. They are seen in that light. In dealing with great tragedy we didn't feel the need for the Firemen who died in the World trade Center to be flawed. Why should we see their flaws? That doesn't make them more real to me. They inspire me because they are so incredibly heroic and performed extraordinarily brave acts.

That is what the old show created. I agree the tragedy itself could be viewed darker today. But the heroes of the old bg are what we want today. Just with a haircut.

Vonstadt · December 10th, 2003, 02:34 AM

I agree with the above post...TOS pilot had a scene that still stays with me to this day...<I was ten when i saw it too>

The scene as the camera pans through the command deck as the bridge crew watchs the destruction of the colonies with the shock and grief that they can not get there in time...

It kinda reminds me of some of the shock and grief I saw that day on the faces of my fellow New Yorkers just following the collapse of the second tower..

I did not get that same feeling from the new crew...or the sense that these were the same type of heroes that went into the towers that day or the brave souls that went in after the towers fell.

Sorry to get so serious on one of my first posts but there was no real sense of loss here as there was in TOS <Athena in the Hallway with Starbuck, telling him as he is angry about being left behind in the chaos of the battle too>

thomas7g · December 10th, 2003, 02:45 AM

Welcome Vonstadt

I feel the same too.

malachi42 · December 10th, 2003, 10:24 AM

I like the idea that heros are not perfect people. that they have character traits that other people don't have. I'd wager that if one delved into the lives of any of the heroic firefighters of 9 11, you'd find all sorts of people. Happily married parents, divorced parents. alcoholics, people with dysfunctional relationships, as well as very well adjusted people.
It means that anyone is capable of heroic acts regardles of their personalshortcomings, which to my mind makes it much more accesible.

Darth Marley · December 10th, 2003, 03:26 PM

When heroes in legends are perfect the take on aspects of godhood.
Even the most saintly among us have moments of weakness and failure.
I know many who,in discussion of religion and mysticism,abandon all hope of attaining a higher goal simply because the human condition is SO corrupt.Kind of an "I can't beat my nature,so I might as well revel in it" attitude.
The Star Wars mythos handle this well in the corruption of Vader.Still,all ends well,and the human heart can triumph.

Proximo · December 11th, 2003, 07:55 AM

Well, there's a difference between having weaknesses and being lame. Apollo, for all his greatness, was a little bit weird. Starbuck was a rat, though a noble rat. Adama had his head in the clouds... None of them were perfect, but they beleived they were right. The current versions don't have that faith in themselves or their cause, which removes any chance of being heroes.

malachi42 · December 11th, 2003, 10:57 AM

What would you call the heroic acts done by the charactrs in the mini on night 2?

Proximo · December 11th, 2003, 03:27 PM

If they truly believe they aren't worth saving then the acts are futile desperation, not heroism. If, on the other hand, they belive they're right, then they are heroic. From what's been said though, they don't believe they're right, and are merely acting out of a desperate instinct that flows contrary to their own beliefs. That isn't heroism.

malachi42 · December 11th, 2003, 04:53 PM

Where do you get the idea that no one believes that the entire race is not worth saving. From one speech by one character meant to question the assumptions of the culture. I'm not sure I would translate that into a belief system held by everyone on the show.

Proximo · December 12th, 2003, 03:51 AM

It's the general thrust of the argument made by the show. Several times it's said that humans probably deserve what they're getting. You see, when you're judging television you have to work off what you've been given. So yes, perhaps a lot of the 'people' in the show's universe don't believe that, but they don't actually exist. What we're given is what the theme of the show is about, and what we're given keeps pointing at the idea that humans are just as bad as the cylons.