PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek (TNG) vs. Battlestar Galactica


SFFWorld.com
Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum


Pages : [1] 2 3

Bengoshi-San
July 18th, 2008, 02:44 PM
Which do you like better and why?

I am not very impressed with Battlestar Galactica, nor have any of the characters really engaged me yet at all. They all sort of feel like third-rate Sci-Fi channel actors.

The answer for me is quite simple: Star Trek The Next Generation is the mother of Space Opera TV shows and shall always be and I pity anyone who hasn't or isn't willing to watch it. Each and every single character is deep, well characterized and the show itself is far beyond science fiction, it's philosophical and ideological. The human race, as depicted in TNG is one that does not discriminate, does not abuse power and is always willing to lend a hand.

I'm still only four episodes into BattleStar Galactica, so maybe the show will improve, but I dare say it will ever be better than TNG.

manephelien
July 18th, 2008, 03:31 PM
I don't really think you can compare the two shows. BSG is rough, gritty and doesn't hesitate to show the seamy side of humanity, even though it often is through the distorting mirror of the cylons. Trek is great fun, great adventure and it's safe. You always know the heroes will come home at the end of the day (unless it's a nameless ensign along only to be killed or an actor wants out - Tasha Yar). That said, I love TNG too, and I far prefer the Trek vision of the future of humanity.

James Carmack
July 18th, 2008, 07:40 PM
Which BSG are you talking about, the new one or the original? (I'm guessing the new one since you mention third-rate Sci Fi Channel actors.)

And if you love TNG so much, why do you envy those who haven't/won't see it?

And is it really fair for someone who is quite obviously head over heels for TNG to judge another show after a mere four eps?

I don't really ave a dog in the fight, having only seen a smattering of episodes for either one without any objection to either. However, as far as the no discrimination in Trek goes, some witty commentator made the fine point that the vast majority of the "good" races are all attractive and hardly removed from humans in their appearance, but the uglier and less humanoid a species is, the more likely it is to be one of the bad guys. Some message to the kids. "We don't just like people with blond hair and blue eyes. We also like people with blond hair and green eyes, hazel too. We can even find it in our hearts to tolerate people with blond hair and brown eyes. That is how open-minded and progressive we are." :P

And, seriously, how can you not go nuts for Edward James Olmos? He's not only going to save humanity, but also teach you calculus. You may be able to multiply by threes, twos and ones, but he can multiple by nines. What's nine times six? One, two, three, four, five, six... Fifty-four. ^o^

Dawnstorm
July 19th, 2008, 05:25 AM
The answer is simple:

Farscape

What? Not an option?

Never mind me... :cool:

Holbrook
July 19th, 2008, 06:58 AM
. They all sort of feel like third-rate Sci-Fi channel actors.



If you are referring to the first series from the 1970's I would say yes, but not the re-imagined series. I would not say that Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos, who both have received Oscar, Emmy and Golden Globe nominations are third -rate actors. Most of the cast I have seen in other series, Jamie Bamber was in Band of Brothers and Horatio Hornblower.

As for STNG cast, besides Patrick Stewart, I have not seen them in anything that is not Star Trek related.

To be honest I have always found the Star Trek future to be too shallow and squeaky clean. I love the twists and turns of the current Battlestar series, nothing is what it seems to be, the scripts are well written and acted, character driven rather than special effects and the use of the techo babble get out of jail card that Star Trek always has. I am looking forward to the final series once I can get the DVD.

Battlestar is in my opinion equal to B5 for story and plot.

Farscape was ok, but was a bit full of itself, it kept ramming home the point that it was different than other series, but in the end it turned out to re-hash the same old plot lines.

Bengoshi-San
July 19th, 2008, 08:45 AM
I don't really think you can compare the two shows. BSG is rough, gritty and doesn't hesitate to show the seamy side of humanity, even though it often is through the distorting mirror of the cylons. Trek is great fun, great adventure and it's safe. You always know the heroes will come home at the end of the day (unless it's a nameless ensign along only to be killed or an actor wants out - Tasha Yar). That said, I love TNG too, and I far prefer the Trek vision of the future of humanity.

You are right, the vision of humanity's future is different in each by a long shot. But looking at just the acting, TNG's actors all had a unique personalities and you were invested in them and wanted to be. In BSG, you almost feel as if you HAVE to like some characters, the ones in leadership roles, because everyone else is kind "poo" anyway.

There is a huge difference in acting. In my opinion.

Bengoshi-San
July 19th, 2008, 08:52 AM
Which BSG are you talking about, the new one or the original? (I'm guessing the new one since you mention third-rate Sci Fi Channel actors.)

And if you love TNG so much, why do you envy those who haven't/won't see it?

And is it really fair for someone who is quite obviously head over heels for TNG to judge another show after a mere four eps?

I don't really ave a dog in the fight, having only seen a smattering of episodes for either one without any objection to either. However, as far as the no discrimination in Trek goes, some witty commentator made the fine point that the vast majority of the "good" races are all attractive and hardly removed from humans in their appearance, but the uglier and less humanoid a species is, the more likely it is to be one of the bad guys. Some message to the kids. "We don't just like people with blond hair and blue eyes. We also like people with blond hair and green eyes, hazel too. We can even find it in our hearts to tolerate people with blond hair and brown eyes. That is how open-minded and progressive we are." :P

And, seriously, how can you not go nuts for Edward James Olmos? He's not only going to save humanity, but also teach you calculus. You may be able to multiply by threes, twos and ones, but he can multiple by nines. What's nine times six? One, two, three, four, five, six... Fifty-four. ^o^

Sorry for the confusion.
A - I meant PITY, not ENVY. Typo.
B - I mean the new BSG, not the old-school one, which I have heard was pretty good.
C - You are right with the whole "ugly appearance = ugly deeds". That definitely resonates with TNG.

The grounds for comparing the two isn't made of bedrock, but I think it's naive of the new generation of sci-fi fans to watch BSG and not even consider TNG as anything. If not for the social importance it had or being a big part of culture.

After all... BSG itself has taken many ideas from TNG and many of the writers are huge Trek fans.


And continuing on the acting part of things. I am not saying that all the BSG actors are horrible, but just not able to portray a character that you can get attached to in any way. At times, it's almost as if you are watching them do their job, however they get it done and that's all there is to it.


Sorry for the rant. I'm hoping that things become more clear to me as I go through the first season of BSG.

Bond
July 19th, 2008, 10:01 AM
The two series I think are too different to compare too closely. TNG is more a collection of short stories while BG is one story arc. TNG can therefore explore a greater variety of ideas while BG explores a certain number of ideas in greater depth. I am impressed with how BG hit the ground running with episodes that started at an already high level of quality. In my view it took TNG a couple of years to really hit its stride, the first two seasons had pretty wooden acting. Still, personally I have to give the nod to TNG. I may be biased. I think I've seen nearly all the episodes while with BG I've only seen the majority of the first season.

In the later seasons of TNG, one can feel the comraderie and familiarity among the cast and the viewer already knows these characters very intimately and I felt that gave an added dimension to the storytelling. Seasons 4 to 7 I think sustain a high level of quality and the diversity of storylines serve as fantastic entry points and overviews of many common ideas covered in science fiction.

Dawnstorm
July 20th, 2008, 01:44 AM
If you are referring to the first series from the 1970's I would say yes, but not the re-imagined series. I would not say that Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos, who both have received Oscar, Emmy and Golden Globe nominations are third -rate actors. Most of the cast I have seen in other series, Jamie Bamber was in Band of Brothers and Horatio Hornblower.

As for STNG cast, besides Patrick Stewart, I have not seen them in anything that is not Star Trek related.

To be honest I have always found the Star Trek future to be too shallow and squeaky clean. I love the twists and turns of the current Battlestar series, nothing is what it seems to be, the scripts are well written and acted, character driven rather than special effects and the use of the techo babble get out of jail card that Star Trek always has. I am looking forward to the final series once I can get the DVD.

Battlestar is in my opinion equal to B5 for story and plot.

Farscape was ok, but was a bit full of itself, it kept ramming home the point that it was different than other series, but in the end it turned out to re-hash the same old plot lines.

BSG has some of the best acting on SF-TV, I'd argue, but I feel their characters don't allow for much of a range (I haven't seen that many episodes, but I've seen considerably more than 4, and they're spaced out across two seasons.) The impression I get is that they're very good with suspense, which is mostly due to the actors and the brilliant dramaturgy/cutting. The thing is, though, that I feel too little variation in atmosphere; it's mostly various shades of bleak. A bit like ramming home the situation. I keep wondering why they're not just heading for the next sun. The grim hope gets old.

How many seasons are there of BSG? It's perhaps fair to point out that it took STNG a couple of seasons to get off (season 4 to 7, as Bond said, sounds about right, though I didn't count). Some of the later episodes are quite good. That said, like Hol, I'm not much fond of the glory-glory federation routine. My fave Star Trek will always be DS9; they made a mistake introducing the Defiant, and had a really lame streak, but I like the way the premise of the entire show subverts the federation's glory; and unlike Voyager, which had potential to do the same, they actually went through with it to the end (except for the Defian-debacle). I didn't much care for the "Founders", though.

I never got into Babylon 5 at all. It simply bored me to tears: I didn't like a single character, and the mysticism got on my nerves. The best thing about the show, I found, was the ship design for the Shadows and Vorlons (names?); those were splendid. (I'm almost certainly unfair to B5, here; I even wanted to like it, for Harlan Ellison's involvement. I just couldn't get into it.)

Farscape is my personal favourite, but I can see that it's a matter of taste. "Full of itself for being different" turns into lovable silliness if you're me. Actually, it's not that different; it's more like "let's have fun with the tropes". If you want different, you'd better go for Lexx. I loved the four original films (Dark Zone), but didn't get into the series itself. It had a kind of surreal/absurd but consistent aesthetic. Both Farscape and Lexx thrive on style, though, above anything else. They're shows for dandies, primarily, though of different tastes. (It's not a coincidence that both series have organic space ships, I think.)

I think a great part of Farscape's appeal to me lies in the Henson creature shop. The show has more than a bit of the Henson touch. I wouldn't argue the show's the best; it's just a favourite.

fluffy bunny
July 20th, 2008, 12:43 PM
It's difficult to compare TNG and Battlestar as they're very different shows. In terms of shows with an ongoing arc, it'd be easier to compare Battlestar to Star Trek DS9, Farscape and Babylon 5 (and possibly Firefly).

Out of all of them, Battlestar is probably the coldest, echoing a post 9/11 feel. The characters aren't as easy to like as is the case with other shows. There are memorable moments, but you could argue that it's the characters that make you want to stick with a show. At the beginning of season 3, I wasn't impressed with the direction that the writers decided to take with many of the characters.


I absolutely loved Babylon 5 when it was dealing with its main plotline (rather than the occasional filler non-funny comedy episode). You could watch it for G'Kar and Londo alone. True it was very low budget but it did bring a grand scoping plot to the small screen. Babylon 5 was a breath of fresh air in a climate where every other show pressed the reset button every episode. Character development was without parallel. It was that great that DS9 borrowed a lot of ideas from it.

DS9 - great ensemble with recurring great guest cast.

Farscape is great for those who grew up on Star Trek. Just when you think you've figured out where the episode is going, the writers turn the plot on its head and take you to areas that you've not seen before.

As for TNG, I still watch the odd episode every so often. However on doing so, you can't help but realise how far these shows have come. The problem with a lot of the Star Treks is that not every character is written or acted very well (compare that to firefly's ensemble). I'd rather watch the Twilight Zone rather than TNG.