Jamie "Apollo" Bamber Talks Neo-BSG

[Admiral Valdemar]

Be careful, Eddie is watching the dailies and making sure they keep their shit together.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Be careful, Eddie is watching the dailies and making sure they keep their shit together.

I love how he claims that nBSG is different from Trek, B5 and other "traditional" scifi since it has religious and philosophical aspects. Oh yeah, none of that stuff in any older SF series, just space ships and laser guns. It's true that nBSG foregoes many, albeit not all of the traditional trappings in space travel/opera scifi, but that does not mean that its thematically so much different.

The main difference between nBSG and most earlier space scifi is the mood of the show, which is mostly created by visuals and directorial decisions. I agree that they did a pretty good job in creating a distinctive pseudo-realistic mood, but it's still about presentation and does not magically turn the themes of the series into something unique.

[Skylon]

I love how he claims that nBSG is different from Trek, B5 and other "traditional" scifi since it has religious and philosophical aspects. Oh yeah, none of that stuff in any older SF series, just space ships and laser guns. It's true that nBSG foregoes many, albeit not all of the traditional trappings in space travel/opera scifi, but that does not mean that its thematically so much different.

The main difference between nBSG and most earlier space scifi is the mood of the show, which is mostly created by visuals and directorial decisions. I agree that they did a pretty good job in creating a distinctive pseudo-realistic mood, but it's still about presentation and does not magically turn the themes of the series into something unique.

This is something that has annoyed the piss out of me since the show premiered. Especially in the case of B5, which was the first US sci-fi show to make a real effort at a sci-fi show with tight continuity/overall story. Roddenberry felt Star Trek, for all it's camp, was an effort at "serious" sci-fi, and compared to it's only contemporary, Lost in Space, yeah...it was.

I'm convinced at this point it's just a line used to get people who typically don't watch sci-fi shows, to watch BSG.

[Jade Falcon]

Religious and philosophical aspects?

Hell, B5 was full of them. If it wasn't the Minbari with their religion, it was the Narn or the Centauri or whatever.

Thinking that sci-fi is just 'ray guns and spaceships' is simplistic. I remember reading a book about B5 called "The Babylon Files", and in the foreword JMS mentions that when the weekly series for V was in the process of being made, the attitude of the producers was "It's got ray guns and spaceships, that'll draw in the sci-fi crowd". Not to mention that it totally screwed with the feel of the previous V miniseries.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Religious and philosophical aspects?

Hell, B5 was full of them. If it wasn't the Minbari with their religion, it was the Narn or the Centauri or whatever.

Thinking that sci-fi is just 'ray guns and spaceships' is simplistic. I remember reading a book about B5 called "The Babylon Files", and in the foreword JMS mentions that when the weekly series for V was in the process of being made, the attitude of the producers was "It's got ray guns and spaceships, that'll draw in the sci-fi crowd".

The fact is that scifi was already shedding the "ray guns and spaceships" stigma in the 1970s, but then came certain hugely popular movie trilogy... Let's face it: Star Wars is good entertainment, but it changed the public perception of scifi right back to where it had been before Star Trek and 2001. After the original SW trilogy it took about a decade before you could do serious scifi for the big screen again (barring the ST movies) and even on the little screen TNG was pretty much the only exception thanks to its popularity, which predated the SW trilogy.

[Jade Falcon]

Oh I'll agree, let's face it, Buck Rogers for instance was a prime example of that. It was basically a lot of ray guns, spaceships and moustache twirling bad guys. However, it is a bit pretentious to say that nBSG is the first grittier sci-fi around much as I like the series and really enjoy it.

[Shroom Man 777]

The fact is that scifi was already shedding the "ray guns and spaceships" stigma in the 1970s, but then came certain hugely popular movie trilogy... Let's face it: Star Wars is good entertainment, but it changed the public perception of scifi right back to where it had been before Star Trek and 2001. After the original SW trilogy it took about a decade before you could do serious scifi for the big screen again (barring the ST movies) and even on the little screen TNG was pretty much the only exception thanks to its popularity, which predated the SW trilogy.

Please. Star Wars was more than just "ray guns and spaceships". I'd take sock-puppet Yoda's ramblings on the Force over any pseudo-philosophical grim and gritty Space Mormon pretensions any day. Star Wars had more than just style, it also had substance - but it didn't beat you over the head with it in "deep" ways that would appeal to artsy fartsy SRS BSNSS types.

Serious sci-fi? Star Trek? Man, Captain Kirk seducing green-skinned alien babes and throwing rocks at rubber suit lizard people is totally intense, right mang?

I'd take this hardcore stuff over campy kiddie-shit like Empire Strikes Back, am i rite?

[Bounty]

You're missing his point, I think; he's not saying Star wars is more mature than Star Trek, but that it reverted the public's perception of SF back to the Flash Gordon mold of rocketships and rayguns, and away from speculative fiction. It's not a slant on Star Wars' writing, just an observation.

[tim31]

Hey guys, don't fall getting off your high horses!

Fifteen years ago Jonathan Brandis did an interview regarding seaQuest DSV that was what this would have sounded like if related by a teenager. People get excited about the product they're selling.

[Shroom Man 777]

You're missing his point, I think; he's not saying Star wars is more mature than Star Trek, but that it reverted the public's perception of SF back to the Flash Gordon mold of rocketships and rayguns, and away from speculative fiction. It's not a slant on Star Wars' writing, just an observation.

Oh, like that stuff where people say Star Wars and other stuff don't qualify as real sci-fi because instead of exploring the consequences of science and technology, their stories instead focus on other (maybe more interesting?) things and leave the science and technology in the background?

Bleh, I dislike those pretentious snogs who go about saying that stuff. Ooooh, Real Ultimate Sci Fi!

But I also understand how all the "whiz-bang!" and "pew-pew!" can be annoying for people who want brainier thinggies.

I can totally dig speculative fiction too. Like... Demolition Man! And The Running Man! Now those are thought-provoking and contemplative works regarding humanity and the future!

[charlemagne]

I can totally dig speculative fiction too. Like... Demolition Man! And The Running Man! Now those are thought-provoking and contemplative works regarding humanity and the future!

Well, exactly. Or Total Recall! It's all thought-provoking but with a BANG.

[Bounty]

Oh, like that stuff where people say Star Wars and other stuff don't qualify as real sci-fi because instead of exploring the consequences of science and technology, their stories instead focus on other (maybe more interesting?) things and leave the science and technology in the background?

No, you dumbshit. I know you're on a roll here bashing the Trekkie for being pretentious, but you can thank your lack of reading comprehension for that, not me.

Star Wars was fun. It took its well-written story and packaged it in an outrageously cool wrapper that dragged SF adventures into cinema. Good thing? Yes. Changed the public's perception of SF away from being dull and ponderous (note that neither of these are synonymous with "intelligent")? Yes, and how. It became the benchmark of what a science fiction movie should look like for the next decade and beyond. Any Warsie inferiority complex you want to hitch onto that is your own imagination at work.

[Shroom Man 777]

No, you dumbshit. I know you're on a roll here bashing the Trekkie for being pretentious, but you can thank your lack of reading comprehension for that, not me.

Sorry (for reacting like a retarded dick).

But I have heard those arguments in this forum, made by some people (not you) who I forgot, some time ago. So, yeah, it automatically came out.


charlemagne:

Now, Total Recall, that was a deep movie!

Consider that a divorce.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Star Wars is sci-fi now? Whatever happened to science fantasy?

[Jade Falcon]

Star Wars is sci-fi now? Whatever happened to science fantasy?

I thought the popular term for stuff like Star Wars was Space Opera, it certainly seemed to replace 'pulp' as the designation for no nonsense good clean fun type sci-fi.

[Shroom Man 777]

Star Wars is sci-fi now? Whatever happened to science fantasy?

What's the difference? Fiction is fantasy, and isn't sci-fi a very broad genre that encompasses science fantasy, space opera, stuff like cyberpunk, shitty B-movies, and your speculative "real" sci-fi?

Arguing over the definition of "real" sci-fi, what is sci-fi and what isn't, is really pointless since everyone has their own definition and there isn't a set classification system - like some sort of taxonomy for speculative fiction works.

Even real sci-fi authors don't bother with it.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Star Wars is sci-fi now? Whatever happened to science fantasy?

What's the difference? Fiction is fantasy, and isn't sci-fi a very broad genre that encompasses science fantasy, space opera, stuff like cyberpunk, shitty B-movies, and your speculative "real" sci-fi?
Even real sci-fi authors don't bother with it.

Well, arguing about the differences may be pointless, but yet most people would agree that there is SOME difference between "pure" fantasy like Tolkien and science fiction. Even this board reflects that distinction by separating "technology based" scifi and fantasy. Anyways I agree that Star Wars is really more scifi than fantasy, even if it has clear fantasy elements.

About Star Wars: I agree that it's good and occasionally great entertainment, but there is little that one could call "thought provoking". Perhaps some of the Jedi philosophy for someone who has absolutely no knowledge about philosophy and different religious beliefs (other than their own). That pretty much means either a child or a person who has no innate interest in such things; in the latter case even that little philosophy is of course wasted and irrelevant to the person in question.

[Shroom Man 777]

Er, I was talking about "fiction" and "fantasy" in terms of science-fiction and science-fantasy. Tolkien and Uruk-hai (and furry-footed halflings) have nothing to do with it.

About Star Wars: I agree that it's good and occasionally great entertainment, but there is little that one could call "thought provoking". Perhaps some of the Jedi philosophy for someone who has absolutely no knowledge about philosophy and different religious beliefs (other than their own). That pretty much means either a child or a person who has no innate interest in such things; in the latter case even that little philosophy is of course wasted and irrelevant to the person in question.

A lot of Star Trek and other sci-fi works aren't really all that thought provoking either (except when Picard starts talking about stuff, but I blame Patrick Stewart for that). Hell, Demolition Man isn't thought provoking, yet it would fit the "real" science-fiction bill quite well thanks to its depiction of the effects of technology on society, namely how it's turned the world into a "whipped Brady Bunch version of itself."

If we start really getting into "thought provoking", we might end up into artsy-fartsy pretentious snob territory.



I think Empire Strikes Back was pretty compelling.

[RedImperator]

What's the difference? Fiction is fantasy,

That's probably the most fatuous thing I've read all week, and I follow politics. Valdemar was obviously referring to the speculative fiction genre. Going "hurf hurf, all fiction is somebody's fantasy" is broadening the definition of the word to the point of uselessness just to score a rhetorical point. If I walk into a Barnes and Noble and ask where the fantasy section is, I wouldn't be satisfied if an employee waved vaguely at the entire fiction side of the store and said, "Well, it's all fantasy."

And I think a case can be made that Star Wars is science-fantasy, a hybrid of the two genres. The setting is hypertechnological, but the themes are firmly rooted in fantasy and mysticism. In fact, in Star Wars, the mystical and magical repeatedly triumph over the technological--Luke turns off his targeting computer and relies on the Force, the "sorcerer" Darth Vader survives while the technocrat Tarkin is destroyed by his own "technological terror" creation, Darth Vader's redemption is symbolized by the removal of his technological life support helmet. There are clearly very strong fantasy elements within Star Wars which place it at least partly in that genre.