Atheist Ireland Forum

Forgot to answer you on this one, feel free to do so and I'd love if you did

What kind of serie is caprica? What can you compare it with?

As far as I know the "All aliens should be humanoids" directive was a Paramount studio rule, the original series where Roddenberry had more creative control often had aliens that were not only not humanoid but also not able to communicate with humans such as the Horta and the weird flying jelly parasite creatures. Humanoids are "easier" for audiences to relate to. You can have Vulcans falling in love with Klingons; but can anyone see Captain Kirk going for the alien in Predator or District 9?

The Next Generation episode The Chase was written long after Roddenberry had any input in the show. It was trying to explain the slightly suspicious prevalence of very similar humanoid species; and on the whole it's a nice little episode (although biologically completely incorrect). The problem there is that your average Hollywood scriptwriter is as scientifically literate as a hedgehog ª. But even if they did keep up with the science world, they still have write stories that work from a dramatic point of view. The intelligent design idea was fine as it made aliens not the supernatural the ones who did all the fine tuning.

The problem isn't just humanoids, its that since the 60s almost every Sci-Fi show has had intelligent talking aliens, be they the weirdos from the Mos Eisley Cantina to the Daleks to ET to the hammerheads of Independence Day.
But there is a very big difference between believing that there is alien life somewhere out there, and believing that that alien life will include intelligent bipeds in spaceships.

Anyway, back to Joss.
Buffy was his creation back in 1992 when he brought out the movie with Kristy Swanson & Donald Sutherland playing Buffy & Giles. It was a parody of all the clichés of horror movies. The subsequent TV series took itself a bit more seriously for good reason. Parodies are rarely as big a crowd-pleaser as a drama. However, Buffy was always quite tongue-in-cheek and on the whole the religious symbols were in the show not because of any latent Christian message but because they are the mainstay tropes of the vampire genre. I wasn't really a Buffy fan, but if memory serves although crucifixes seem to "work" on vampires; the show was not particularly pro-religion. You would make as strong a case for saying it was pro-wiccan or pro-librarians. There were plenty of fairly anti-religious moments: the psychotic woman-hating preacher Caleb and Buffy's cute little quip: “Note to self: religion freaky”. The show was constantly complained about by the Catholic League.

However, it is true to say that a lot of people think that the show is all about religious symbolism. But I think people see messages that they want to see. Joss put the crucifixes in for the same reason he put stakes in. Other people then interpret that as "Buffy proves Jesus is your saviour". But it ain't necessarily so.

---------
a. In my opinion this is why Voyager managed to suck so much.

It's difficult to say Tulip, there are no scenes in outer space and that is something they outlined from the beginning, it was a risk and it appears that it hasn't paid off. Also, there has only been one episode where scenes (not a whole episode) occurred on a different planet.

It's set on the planet Caprica (obviously) in a culture that is almost identical to Western cultures on Earth, only that they are slightly ahead of us technology wise, for instance they are on the threshold of developing super sophisticated Artificial Intelligence, the main premise of the show.

If a person was a fan of BSG and asked me your question then I would just tell them that it was a prequel to BSG, but for a person that never watched BSG I would say the above.

I agree, there is a problem with humanoid aliens speaking, also, I always think the view from scientists to look for life on other planets in the goldilocks zone (not too hot ,not too cold, just right planets) is kind of flawed. I mean who is to say that life originated on a planet that has no water, oxygen, etc? There could be a planet out there teeming with life that breathes in Carbon Dioxide and drinks some liquid that is totally toxic to us. Their goldilocks zone might be radically different to ours and when looking for a habitable planet that might contain life they might ignore the poisonous planets with water and oxygen! This may sound ridiculous, but it's not impossible, and if it is true, then alien life on these types of planets would be radically different to ours. But I suppose with the resources that are available scientists have to look in the more obvious places first.

One excellent episode (I'm sure you know it, it's a classic) from TNG was when Picard was stranded on a planet and met an alien who could only communicate by reciting tales of his cultures heroic heroes. It made the ever convenient "translator" obsolete and it was ever so clever, who knows there maybe an alien species out there who might communicate similarly!

Going back to Whedon and Buffy, yes, it was the crucifixes I was thinking of that kind of influenced me to believe Whedon as a believer, but I suppose Whedon partially used this prop to stick with the whole vampire genre.

Staying with vampires, the last decade or so has seen a lot of films and TV series using the genre. This is me being my deconstructive self but there has to be some cultural reason for this. I mean when people in the USA were living in fear of a communist take over, Westerns and Alien movies were the order of the day. It is a well established fact that the "indians" and "Aliens" in these films were a metaphor for communists, and usually the Aryan US forces saved the day. I'm just wondering in years to come when analysts are looking back on this genre, what will they establish the vampires to be representing? The same can be said for the reimagined series of "V", already people have criticised it because they believe the aliens in the series represent the Obama Administration. But as you say Grania, it's all about what people want to see...

PS: I changed the title of the thread to "Sci-Fi Thread"

Honestly I don't know how to interpret any cultural signals that would translate into a market for vampire films. There is a reason I can identify why there's a plethora of vampire series & remakes on tv (and at the cinema). But its a crassly commercial reason one. All productions these days are hugely expensive, have massive competition and only a short window of opportunity to become a success. To boost the odds in favour of your show you can either reproduce a formula you know is in fashion or you can remake a hit show / film that will have an instantly recognisable name.

The current vampire fetish is largely due to the massive success of Buffy, but probably helped along by Anne Rice's homoerotic Lestat series, both of them were a 90s phenomenon that spilled over into the new millennium. You should take a look at this review of Star Trek 2009 - the reviewer really knows his stuff when it comes to media and explains the whole remake / reboot / sequel industry much better than I can. Also, he's freaking hilarious. http://www.redlettermedia.com/star_trek_09.html

Vampires, let's be honest, are a fairly silly concept, but it feeds off a very primal fear that humans all share: fear of the dark, fear of slaughter, fear of being prey or food. All these were very real problems for our ancestors; so the idea resonates with us. Hollywood has sexed it up a fair bit. If you compare the European vampire legends that predate Bram Stoker's Dracula, vampires were not romantic figures. They were parasites or predators, they carried diseases, they were hated. Hollywood realised that while the fear element was good, fear + sex was better.

As a concept vampires & horror movies go in and out of fashion all the time. They are almost never taken seriously as "real" cinema - which is why Joss Whedon got the balance right when he decided to be satirical of the genre with Buffy. At the moment the current wave of popularity is as high as its going to go. The next phase is when everyone begins to recognise the silliness. Then it will go right out of fashion again, especially as the current popular shows have little sense of humour or self-deprecation to save them.

It didn't suck that bad. I mean it wasn't Enterprise bad.

But that leads me to my theory about Caprica and Enterprise and those other 3 things that shall never be mentioned. Prequels don't work! Personally sci-fi is all about future cool gadgets and if you go back in time to do a prequel then the gadgets are never as cool so therefore the series sucks. Q. E. D. or something.

Anyway seeing as this is now the 'sci-fi' thread and I don't have to pretend I liked Firefly (yes, yes, heretic etc) can we talk about Blakes 7!!

It did too.

I liked the actors a lot and I am enough of a shameless Trekkie to have watched every episode.
But stories like Sacred Ground and Threshold were just appalling. The first was the most blatant anti-science sermon I have ever seen - on a show that is meant to be all about science and reason. The second was written by someone who seems to have gotten their understanding of evolution from what's written on the walls of the public toilets in their local pub.

Firstly, I agree with Ygern, Voyager sucked the big one! My favourite Star Trek show has to be Deep Space Nine, even though they did reportedly rob the idea off Babylon 5

I take on board everything you say about the vampire genre, about Anne Rice's Lestat and Buffy being the main cause of the influx of the vampire genre, our deepest darkest fears etc. But I think there is probably another underlying factor as to why they are being made, what it is, I don't know and can only speculate (not here as it's not a conspiracy thread). For instance, when people were watching the western and UFO genre movies they had no idea of the communism metaphors. It's easier to analyse these things looking back on them, so maybe in a few decades some smart Alec expert might know just why there was an influx of the vampire genre in the early 21st century! I must take a look at that link as well.

I would have to disagree with you on the vampire genre being silly though, I enjoy it, well most of it, I hated Buffy, but liked Blade, Stephen King's Salem's Lot, John Carpenter's Vampires, Angel (was darker than Buffy) and now True Blood. I know the vampire genre is not Sci-Fi, rather supernatural, but heck, it's my vice! I always loved horror movies and shows, when I was a believer they used really frighten the bejesus out of me (I'm still human), and still do, but not to the same extent, it takes a serious horror movie now to creep me out. I was a believer when I first watched the Exorcist and I was totally freaked out over it. Year later when I was more logical about things (i.e. atheist) I watched it again and actually laughed at how ridiculous the whole concept was!

On another note, is there anyone watching Stargate Universe, it's very good I think.

Another Sci-Fi show I must get around to watching is Farscape, it's supposed to be excellent...

But it still didn't suck Enterprise bad, did it?

Anyway as much of a Trekkie that I am unfortunately I never remember episodes by their name, you'll have to describe them in future as "The one where the doctor was inside 7's body (oo-er missus)" or such. Only in future though as I looked those 2 you mentioned up...

Sacred Ground - It basically revolves around Kes and anything with Kes involved sucks.
Threshold - This for me is a bit like a combination of two TNG episodes Genesis and Unnatural Selection (I looked up the names especially for you) and you aren't going to rag on TNG now, are you?

Still at the end of the day it's just a TV show and it's done way more good sciency things than bad. Except for the clamshell phone, those suck!

thanks, munsterdevil for trying to explain.

I still have no idea what it is like!!

So you all think it is worth watching? I might download an episode to see what it is. It sounds good.

No, she is unconscious for the entire episode bar the first 2 minutes. The plot of the episode is to teach Janeway a lesson: science is just a religion too. You need to have faith in higher powers that you can't ever explain with your stupid religious scientism. And the worst bit is that by the end of the episode the script has Janeway believing this and using the word "scientific" as a veiled insult.

It would be dire enough to see this on an episode of Lost, but you would kind of expect no better.

Speaking of religiously themed Star trek episodes surely the one "Bread and Circuses" must take the prize !
Where Kirk et al are forced to fight in gladiatorial games on a planet resembling the Roman Empire and the sixties !

which contain these beauties !!




and in relation of the rise of Christianity on this planet they say with a look of awe and beatification ...


Puuuukeee !!

TOS definitely had a bit of an identity crisis from time to time. Roddenberry frequently put in overtly atheist plots or dialogue only to have to bow to studio pressures in other episodes. So characters sometimes contradicted themselves on the subject of beliefs.

Religion in Trek
Star Trek made me an atheist
From Iconoclasm to Tolerance

But you don't know the full story about Shepard Book, turns out the actor is a Buddhist, but from the show we knew there was more to him:

Here's the story:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrial_Book
Yes far too much time on my hands