[horatio]

She or someone like her will always be with us, spreading fear in the name of righteousness. Vigilance Mr.Word, that is the price we have to continually pay.

Satie, Leyton, Mudd. There will indeed always be those who conduct witch hunts, try to take power or cheat their brothers and sisters. Babel, Maquis. There will always be political conflict.
IMO Trek is good when it shows its audience the fragility of paradise. Beyond that is too far for my opinion. I like BSG but it plays the authoritarian card, follow the man and woman who know best, and cyberpunkish sci-fi is obviously also authoritarian, there are some big bosses in the background who pull the strings and in the foreground we got a Noir-ish story.
No, Trek can be optimistic and at the same time realistic without going that far (Obviously I have nothing against these genres of sci-fi, I merely think that Trek shouldn't go there). And to get back to your point about Cochrane, isn't it refreshing to have a sci-fi franchise in which a guy who is into booze, beer and bucks becomes the prophet of a new age? Cochrane is basically the St.Paul of Trek and the idea is clear, ordinary flawed folks and not people with grand elaborate ideas and designs in mind are the ones who change the future.

[martok2112]

Indeed about Cochrane.

There are a bunch of folks out there who hated when Ron Moore was given the reigns to make the new Battlestar Galactica, and then started looking back and saying: "Yep, here's the guy who took an idealized visionary like Zephram Cochrane and turned him into a booze swilling, womanizing lush. Par for the course, Ron. Par for the course."

I loved what Moore did with Galactica. I liked the bold changes/steps he took in Star Trek....showing a darker side to the Federation, giving flaws to folk like Cochrane....stuff like that.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

I had actually posted that I prefer Where No Man Has Gone Before to The Cage but I deleted it because I wasn't sure if I actually felt that way. I kind of go back and forth on that one. I think I do have a preference for WNMHGB but it might not be strong.

I'm pretty sure I actually feel that way. I've always loved WNMHGB.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by martok2112

I loved what Moore did with Galactica. I liked the bold changes/steps he took in Star Trek....showing a darker side to the Federation, giving flaws to folk like Cochrane....stuff like that.

Same here. Galactica to me felt like very much a follow-up to DS9. Like Moore was making the ST that the studio/network wouldn't make.

[horatio]

BSG is a fine show but as it is basically authoritarian (sure, they pretend to play some democratic games but in the end it becomes pretty obvious that the series views Adama and the cancer-sick president as the rightful leaders) it is hardly related in any way to Trek except for being its antipode in this respect.

So yeah, as I say all the time this is essentially about whether Trek should stick to the Roddenberryian parameters, being progressive, optimistic and so on, or not. Some people are against it and they are not incidentally also in favour of STXI and the folks who are for it usually have problems with STXI.
Let's be honest about these ideological differences in fandom.

[martok2112]

I remember this one jackass over at the forums that were at Startrek.com who tried to lay this heavy: "If you like shows like DS9, you are a freaking right wing fascist!"

Now there was a guy that needed a good pimp slap!

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

BSG is a fine show but as it is basically authoritarian (sure, they pretend to play some democratic games but in the end it becomes pretty obvious that the series views Adama and the cancer-sick president as the rightful leaders) it is hardly related in any way to Trek except for being its antipode in this respect.

So yeah, as I say all the time this is essentially about whether Trek should stick to the Roddenberryian parameters, being progressive, optimistic and so on, or not. Some people are against it and they are not incidentally also in favour of STXI and the folks who are for it usually have problems with STXI.
Let's be honest about these ideological differences in fandom.

I'll grant that BSG was authoritarian, but that was the necessity of the fleet. Yes, they had the Quorum of the Twelve to represent the people, but ultimately, the common person is undisciplined when it comes to the needs of the many, and it takes strong leadership to enforce that sometimes. We're talking about civilians who all of a sudden can't deal with the fact that they can't take a hot shower at leisure anymore...and that's the least of their worries.

The problem was that folks were trying to maintain some semblance of normalcy in their lives after the holocaust....kinda hard to do when resources are limited, as is personal space. Softy civilian thinking has to go out the window, and be replaced by discipline and pragmatism.

The arrangement between Adama and Roslin was that civilian situations would be handled by the civilian government: President Roslin and the Quorum. Military situations would be governed by Adama. But the rub is that the civilian situation, compared to the military situation, is miniscule. They are constantly on the run from an enemy seeking their annihilation. The civilians have to be ready to knuckle down during an attack from an enemy that could come from any direction, any time, any place. We are talking about civilians where very few of them had ever served as Colonial Warriors....so they lack the discipline of soldiers in battle and in survival situations.

[kevin]

Martok is completely correct.

BSG indeed had authoritarian aspects but Roslin and Adama were not being authoritarian to get their jollies. They needed to be authoritarian because of the severity of the situation that the Colonies faced. Virtual elimination, scattered all over the place (in the pilot anyway) and with no idea what to do next.............someone has to take control and maintain government. Guide what's left of the population in some direction that stands a chance of allowing the society to continue to exist.

And yes, you may need the military for that for a while. That's why even Western Democracies have continuity of Government plans and can declare martial law IF something SO extreme happens that order needs to be imposed.

This doesn't make the show one thing or another as we later see attempts to have a functioning elected leadership while the fleet moves on. We see people having to publicly do the opposite to their most fundamental personal beliefs for what's in the best interests of the fleet and the human race. It's not easy and BSG never pretended it would have been easy.

It touches on topics and themes that Star Trek never did and never would because Star Trek wouldn't go there. Even in DS9 it never went where BSG did.

The only Trek storyline that would have come close would have been if the Borg had over-run the Federation and it was reduced to remnants. But obviously it would NEVER do that. Rightly, because that isn't really what would work in that setting. One wonders how Starfleet would react when Earth is a dug up hole and no replicators work. I doubt it would be pretty. But because it would never go there storywise it can just instead settle for avoidance.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by kevin

Martok is completely correct.

Thanks for the kind word, Kevin.

Originally Posted by Kevin

BSG indeed had authoritarian aspects but Roslin and Adama were not being authoritarian to get their jollies. They needed to be authoritarian because of the severity of the situation that the Colonies faced. Virtual elimination, scattered all over the place (in the pilot anyway) and with no idea what to do next.............someone has to take control and maintain government. Guide what's left of the population in some direction that stands a chance of allowing the society to continue to exist.

And yes, you may need the military for that for a while. That's why even Western Democracies have continuity of Government plans and can declare martial law IF something SO extreme happens that order needs to be imposed.

Indeed the fleet lived on just about the verge of martial law, and at one point, when command of the fleet fell to Col. Tigh because of the assassination attempt on Cdr. Adama, Tigh didn't have much choice during the rising civilian unrest but to declare martial law...a decision he later admitted was a mistake. Even the Colonial Warriors did not like the idea of having to impose martial law on the civilians (although a few of the Colonial Marines were itching for a good scrap, and I think there was one fatality out of it)....no good solider ever covets the idea of martial law...and indeed as (IIRC) one real life General, MacArthur, said at one point: "It is the soldier who first prays for peace."

Originally Posted by Kevin

This doesn't make the show one thing or another as we later see attempts to have a functioning elected leadership while the fleet moves on. We see people having to publicly do the opposite to their most fundamental personal beliefs for what's in the best interests of the fleet and the human race. It's not easy and BSG never pretended it would have been easy.

It touches on topics and themes that Star Trek never did and never would because Star Trek wouldn't go there. Even in DS9 it never went where BSG did.

The only Trek storyline that would have come close would have been if the Borg had over-run the Federation and it was reduced to remnants. But obviously it would NEVER do that. Rightly, because that isn't really what would work in that setting. One wonders how Starfleet would react when Earth is a dug up hole and no replicators work. I doubt it would be pretty. But because it would never go there storywise it can just instead settle for avoidance.

Lots of my friends at other forums that are classic Galactica oriented hated the new show because of the gender changes to certain popular characters (Starbuck, Boomer, and Cain), because of the constant dysfunction among some of the characters in the show, especially the more stand off-ish nature of Apollo and Adama, and that there was a seeming lack of hope and family in the show. They're big ***** was that the new show was not the "family friendly" show that the original series was....and often relied on titilation with its (not as constant as they would lead on about) sex scenes, (one fan even went so far as to call the new Galactica "porn".) For all intents and purposes, the new show was in many ways a complete 180 of the original show, but it still maintained the powerful premise of humanity on the run from its would be exterminators, and their exodus, and the search for the mythic planet Earth.

A lot of those folks did not like how Ron Moore spoke of the original series....but I certainly did not see any insult in anything Moore said about the original. Moore said: "Here we have Battlestar Galactica, which if nothing else, was one of the glossiest, campiest, most over the top productions of the 70's. But at its core is a very powerful premise, and that's what I wanted to focus on." He also said: (paraphrased) "If you're looking for bug-eyed aliens and space battles every week, your popcorn is in another aisle." How the fans mistook those words for insults, I'll never know. But then again, I don't label myself a fan of anything, when I really get down to analyzing "fanatic" (a term I associate with Jihadis and terrorists). I loved the original series, and did not take any umbrage whatsoever with anything Ron Moore said about the original. I had trepidations about how the new series would play out based on leaked reports before the pilot miniseries ever aired....but once the mini did air, all my doubts were erased, and I had Battlestar Galactica again. My hopes for the show going to series were answered, and the new series ran for four seasons.

Classic Galactica actually had two premises, depending on your point of view:

Premise One: Life here, began out there. That the 13th colony that was Earth was formed by people from the Cyrannus Colonies who built the great pyramids, or the lost cities of Atlantis and Lemuria. Those humans seeded Earth with the people whom the other twelve colonies would later come to hopefully rely on in their war against the Cylons.

Premise Two: Humanity on the verge of extinction, and in a mass exodus with its last few survivors to seek out the mythical planet of Earth.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by martok2112

I remember this one jackass over at the forums that were at Startrek.com who tried to lay this heavy: "If you like shows like DS9, you are a freaking right wing fascist!"

Now there was a guy that needed a good pimp slap!

I don't have a problem with the authoritarian elements of BSG. As you pointed out it is basically necessary.
The only thing I didn't like was that the show wasn't truthful about this as there were these pretentious "oohh, look how we still maintain democracy in these dire times" stories of the show. Take a story like "Dirty Hands", it frankly admits that the Capricans are the upper class but then the subtext of the show always says "Adama is the rightful leader".
I prefer a movie like 300 over this as it is brutally honest about what it is, a fascist movie (BSG obviously isn't, it is merely authoritarian) and that's precisely why I like it. OK, it is of course more complex, I am a left-winger and thus of course an anti-fascist but I like the notions of sacrifice, discipline, resistance towards a decadent empire (hey, that would be ourselves, we are the equivalent of the Persians) and so on. The pus*y liberal in me doesn't like that stuff but the Jacobin in me does.

Anyway, back to the topic, all I wanted to point out is that BSG and Trek are very different in this respect which is fine. I prefer clear differences among sci-fi franchises to this stupid postmodern notion that everything should be totally flexible, open to change and so on. Trek should be this optimistic progressive sci-fi franchise and BSG should be this survivalist post-holocaust drama.