“Reins Of A Waterfall” showed a little improvement and story potential, but we’re still waiting for the show to elevate to the next level. This week, listeners weigh in with early reviews of the series so far, mostly negative. We ask what’s missing–is it the lack of sci-fi? And how do you define sci-fi?
We also question what the producers were thinking when they first conceived the show’s tone being “ironic.” They acknowledge that they’ve made some changes…what would you change?
Be sure to listen to our new podcast, covering all things sci-fi: The Geek Quorum.
The Quorum consisted of Brian, Jason, and Dimitry.
Listen using the player below, or visit our Feedburnerpage or subscribe using iTunes.
Comments 6
It is a rare occasion when I take to the internet to tell somebody how off base they are, but here I go.
After listening to your podcasts regarding “Caprica,” it is clear that the show is simply beyond (most of) you. It is not “Battlestar Galactica.” It is a different show with a different purpose. Best I can tell, you are displeased it is not what you think it should be, which is a poor basis for any critique.
The issue appears to be boiled down to your discussion about what constitutes “sci-fi.” From listening to the previous iteration of this podcast I would have suspected you had some idea. I was wrong.
Sci fi is not about spaceships, lasers, transporters, time travel, alternate realities, wormholes, robots or Tardii (which I assume is the plural of Tardis). Rather, it is nothing more than a vehicle by which sociological issues of the day can be explored in a non-threatening manner and to explore the great “what if” questions that have caused many hole to be bored into many a ceiling during many a sleepless night.
The best sci-fi uses those plot devices very sparingly, and then only to provide a context or more a plot point forward. I direct your attention to the Foundation series, The Martian Chronicles, Farenheit 451, Logan’s Run, Planet of the Apes, or Terminator. Every one of those stories is, at its core, an exploration of the human condition (often in the form of self-indulgent navel gazing).
Terminator is not about killer robots. It’s about what happens when people fail to consider the ramifications of their actions, and specifically the ethics of unchecked science.
Logan’s Run is about the value of life and was a response to a generation that questioned whether life past 30 was worth living.
Planet of the Apes was a warning about nuclear war.
Farenheit 451 was about censorship.
The Martian Chronicles was covered-wagon, wild-west story that replayed happens when people are separated from “civilization” and must form a new one – what of the old is kept, what of the old is discarded.
The Foundation Series was about the role of knowledge as a threat or a foundation of a civilization.
Likewise, Caprica is a variation of Terminator. Indeed, it’s the same story without the time-travel. The difference is this time we see what went on at Cyberdyne Systems and are given insight into the motivations of those who would ultimately destroy us – albeit accidentally. It is fascinating and morally challenging television.
In Caprica, a father is using his daughter’s spirit (for lack of a better description) to create a weapon. His focus is on the ends without consideration of the means. The path that will lead his daughter (or technology spawned from her) to desire the annihilation of mankind will be fascinating and, likely, heart-breaking.
I am also disheartened in your inability to grasp and appreciate the greek-tragedy shaping up in not only the Graystone story, but specifically the Adama arc. If indeed Adama’s daughter becomes the “evil” in the Cylon code, then the metaphysical singularity of the death and rebirth of two species will be uber-powerful. Mankind is the source of its own destruction, while its creation (the Cylons) is the source of its ultimate salvation. It’s not just brilliant – it’s epic storytelling. It may also serve to explain why, somewhere in the Cylon mindset, there’s a competing desire to save mankind.
Now, would I like to see other colonial worlds? Absolutely. I’d like some answers to some fundamental questions that have plaqued the series since BSG.
For starters, Caprica is set 58 years before the fall, which itself was 40 years after the end of the First Cylon War. I believe that war lasted about 12 years. That means it starts six years from now (in Caprica time).
Because we know that Galactica fought in that war, and it is unlikely that Battlestars were first built after it started, I want to know why the Colonies had giant FTL battleships/carriers that never strayed too far from home? You asked why they needed Cylons. That’s easy – every society needs an army or at least police to deal with civil unrest and insurrection, which it appears was an issue on some of the colonies. But why do you need multiple Battlestars?
Caprica does not need more robots (although those are necessarily on the horizon), more spaceships, lasers, light sabers, or whatever. None of that is integral to the story beyond providing a vehicle for the moral discussion that is at the show’s heart.
I strongly suggest that you all consider a reboot of your expectations and, moreso, your understanding of what sci-fi in general, and Caprica specifically, are all about.
Hi-
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Martin <wordpress@galacticaquorum.com> wrote:
It’s your nickel.
Best I can tell, you’re displeased our impression of Caprica is not what you think it should be, and a lengthy screed thus follows.
OK, I’m your huckleberry. Go on…
To re-iterate, my definition was that sci-fi contains elements that are either unrealistic for our current technology, or will always be unrealistic. I further stated that the best sci-fi allows us to use that element of fantasy to examine our own society. Lacking some deeper meaning, it is still sci-fi, but is only consumed for pure entertainment, i.e. pulp. I stand by this definition.
If I understand your definition–those two sentences above–if sociological issues are not explored, it is not sci-fi.
By that standard, Transformers is not sci-fi. (I dare you to come up with any societal statement from Michael Bay’s opus.)
I am sorry, but if you do not think that a movie about huge sentient robots is sci-fi, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Again–disagree. The best sci-fi is not constrained in any manner by the amount of futuristic plot devices in use. It can be judicious, or thoroughly integrated. The Matrix was excellent sci-fi, and it certainly had layers of subtext and meanings, but the technology of the world was all-encompassing.
Back to your definition, that sci-fi is not about spaceships, etc. It’s not ABOUT it, of course not. But it’s the key ingredient. Take away those elements, and you have a different genre. You may still have a great story, but it is a different genre. Which again was my point about BSG being a sci-fi tale that easily could be transplanted to another context. Make them colonists fleeing a plague from Roanoke Island in North Carolina, and you would be able to make it historical fiction. The refugees would face starvation and moral decisions. Many of the same themes would be addressed.
Could all the themes be addressed in such a transplanted tale? Possibly not. Which is why sci-fi, with its infinite possibilities, often allows a unique approach. But you do need fantastic elements (devices, settings) to fulfill the definition.
I can’t believe I have to substantiate this but…
And it has a killer robot in it.
And is in a post-apocalyptic society.
And has talking apes.
And takes place in a future, dystopian society.
And takes place on Mars.
And spans light years across the galaxy.
Oh I grasped it all right. And it’s still bullshit. Just wrapping something in Greek tragedy does not make it brilliant. Exhibit A: the Star Wars prequels.
Let me give you some advice. Trying to figure out timelines is a fool’s errand. Trust me, we tried that with BSG around season three, and that way lies madness.
I’d suggest to you that if you want people to take your arguments seriously, you take a less pedantic tone.
I’ve never said this before, but I don’t think this is the podcast you’re looking for. Sorry.
Hi guys. And Michelle, looking forward to your returning soon.
I have a few thoughts about what’s been happening thus far and wanted to see what you might think.
First of all, I think we’ve all found out who the real Daniel is the cylon geneaolgy. I’m still calling shennanigans on RDM for his bullshit, “I don’t know why everyone thinks Starbuck’s father is THE Daniel…” I think this was a personal retcon after he started developing Caprica and wanted Pappa Daniel to be Greystone. I’m also certain there was a huge amount of rewriting done on that BSG episode to take Starbuck’s dad Daniel out of the final 5/6 equation.
I’m finding the idea of the first generation of cylons, which even the skinjobs kind of dismiss as barely sentient, almost retarded cousins, having more human-like qualities very intriquing. It does a good job of explaining why the first models revolted so quickly after their invention. I had always assumed that cylons had been part of the 12 colonies’ way of life for generations rather than just a few years.
I think Zoe’s refusal to let her father know that she’s inside the cylon is as much to blame for the revolt as Daniel is for creating the cylons. We have already been privvy to Zoe’s sense of betrayal, and I think that betrayal is one of the overarching themes the show is developing. For the most part, everyone has betrayed someone else in the both the most profound and little ways immagineable.
The coincidental relationship between the Adamas and the Greystones is plain bad storytelling, especially in light of who Willy becomes. They should have just let the 2 stories be parallel rather than intertwining them. As it stands it feels like a clumsy way to get Tamorah into the VR world. It would have been more believeable if Tamorah had just been another one of Zoe’s cadre who got caught up in Ben’s plan. Putting the two families together as grieving parents trying to understand their children would be a lot more believable than what we have now.
I really want to know more about Tauren culture. With what little we know right now, I think Taurens are a hella more interesting than Capricans.
Lacy Rand is useless.
Last thought: Polly Walker looks a lot like Lucy Lawless and I think her character exhibits many of the same sort of mannerisms as D’anna. My crazy guess on this is that Sister Clarice is a different model of Three that was upgraded to D’anna.
The basis of this notion is the old “this has happened before” saw from BSG. Perhaps we’re seeing this being played out literally – a cylon (or cylons) from another time has been placed and is trying to prevent the catastrophes of this time’s 12 colonies from happening. Clarice is becoming too entrenched with her human life and is boxed, then refitted to remove the defects in the original model and voila – you get D’anna. Ultimately model 3.1 has some of the same problems as 3.0 which leads her to being boxed again some 60 years later. I’m too lazy to go back and fix all the tense mismatches, but you get my meaning.
“I don’t know why everyone thinks Starbuck’s father is THE Daniel”Â
I keep hearing references to him saying this over and over again, but I can’t find the direct quote- what I DO find is him saying that he didn’t expect it, its his fault for not foreseeing it, and he apologized for the misconception in his podcast. I’m not entirely sure he had anything to apologize for, but that’s beside the point. I can’t find any place where he arrogantly sniffed that it was silly to think Daniel was Starbuck’s father.
Hi Martin. Clearly you are passionate about your definitions and passionate about the show. I understand this, I’m the same way in defending SGU against people who say it’s not sci-fi. I think your apparent anger comes out of hearing part of a conversation and espousing that as an end-all opinion. I’ve been listening to the show long enough to know that these are people looking at the show with interest and are open to alternate opinions. Clearly everyone has their own expectations of what they want to see/read when it comes to sci-fi.
I don’t agree with you definition:
“it is nothing more than a vehicle by which sociological issues of the day can be explored in a non-threatening manner and to explore the great ‘what if’Â questions that have caused many hole to be bored into many a ceiling during many a sleepless night.”
I think sci-fi is the “vehicle” but what writers use it for is entirely up to them.
You can use a jeep to explore the amazon rainforest but you can also use it to drive to a strip club, that doesn’t change that it’s a jeep. I agree that most of the really good sci-fi does what your definitions says but it’s not required. It’s the fantastic technology and speculation of ideas based in cutting edge science that makes it sci-fi. Caprica is clearly sci-fi because:
-these are technologically advanced humans that lived on other planets while humans were still hunting with spears.
-they have fully immersive VR which doesn’t exist today even though we thought it would by now.
-they have software that is either sentient or successfully mimics sentience.
-they have technology that allows faster than light travel
You could have the same story but have Zoe Zoe’s soul trapped in a magic box and placed into a golem in a medieval city and it becomes Fantasy.
It’s always a fun debate. I don’t know who said: ‘Science fiction is what I am pointing at when I say it,’Â but I’m starting to understand where he’s coming from.
I only realized that not everyone defined it the same when I was reading a Guy Gavriel Kay book with wizards and magic and a guy on the bus was asking me about it and after I described the story he said: ‘I don’t read science fiction.’Â I said: ‘Oh no, this is fantasy,’Â but I guess to him there was no difference.
Skiznot,
Who thinks SGUs isn’t sci-fi? I think if I encountered that person I would blow a gasket.
The definition I gave isn’t mine. It is the working definition applied to sci-fi as a literary genre. Simply put, it is what it is. As with any genre, there are works that operate outside the recognized parameters – Transformers was a great example. Big robots, stuff go boom, but no meaningful story. It’s less sci-fi and more like a western, but instead of cowboys and indians or white hats v. black hats, it big robots v. other big robots engaging in a battle that has no meaning. It gets labeled “sci-fi” because of the robots. Replace the robots with gangsters and it’s just another mobster movie.
Obviously sci-fi requires an element of its name – fictional science. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s merely a vehicle for telling a story – it should never BE the story. A great example is Dune. Dune is not about space-ships driven by worms, spice, larger sand-eating, spice-crapping worms, or whatever. It’s Hamlet. In space. The story is 400 years old. Adding space ships merely allows you to retell the story with a fresh perspective. Conversely, taking away the space ships doesn’t lessen the story.
And that’s the big problem I have with how they have reviewed Caprica so far (which is odd, because generally they were on the mark with their critiques of BSG). But suddenly the absence of George Jetson’s flying car and the presence of just one Cylon makes it not sci-fi? Huh? Your observations about what makes Caprica sci-fi are precisely the same as mine, but apparently are lost on everybody in this particular episode of the podcast. I don’t get that.
One of the distinctions I probably should have made is between sci-fi as literature (for lack of a better term) and sci-fi as pulp (basically empty calories – you enjoyed it, but gained nothing by the experience). In short, good v. not-good.
I understand your issue with the book. That drives me nuts too. If they branded “Lost” as “sci-fi,” it would not have lasted past the first season. It’s actually “fantasy,” but people who label things have labeled it “sci-fi.” I agree that many people don’t get the difference and probably would call LOTR “sci-fi.” Ugh.