October 15, 2006
space age mood piece
Battlestar Galactica (Sci Fi, Fridays at 9 p.m. ET), now entering its third season, is not science fiction—or "speculative fiction" or "SF," or whatever you're supposed to call it these days. Ignore the fact that the series is a remake of a late-'70s Star Wars knockoff. Forget that its action variously unfolds on starships and on a colonized planet called New Caprica. And never mind its stunning special effects, which outclass the endearingly schlocky stuff found elsewhere on its network. Sullen, complex, and eager to obsess over grand conspiracies and intimate betrayals alike, it is TV noir. Listen to Adm. William Adama (Edward James Olmos) gruffly rumble along as a weary soldier in a crooked universe. Check out the way that Hitchcock kisses lead seamlessly to knives in the gut. Just look at the Venetian blinds.
more from Slate here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 09:05 AM | Permalink
Comments
Why are critics always trying to say that things which are obviously science fiction aren't really science fiction? There are two types of people who say that: (1) Science fiction fans, who dismiss stuff they don't like as "not really science fiction", and (2) People who hate science fiction, who try to praise something they do like as "not really science fiction".
If Battlestar Galactica is not science fiction, then what is an actual example of science fiction?
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | Oct 15, 2006 11:19:10 AM
BSG is without question the best show on TV.
Having said that, I also agree with Daryl that it is science fiction, and that there's nothing wrong with that. It is both science fiction *and* the best show on TV.
Posted by: Jonathan | Oct 15, 2006 1:55:56 PM
I agree with both of the above comments & would add that Slate publishing such a piece of fluff from someone who obviously hasn't seen the earlier episodes is just plaing lazy editorial work. The problem with this review (or whatever it is) is that it doesn't really say anything, though it implies that the author is really above such silliness. Editorial laziness & intellectual dishonesty. Typical of Slate, though this is a particularly poor piece of cultural reporting, even for Slate.
Posted by: jd | Oct 15, 2006 5:30:57 PM
Post a comment