By Lisa Fary
Why? In a world that suffers from the pox of the Star Wars prequels, why do the entertainment powers that be insist on producing not one, but two Battlestar Galactica prequels?
We’re already bracing ourselves for the BSG prequel series, Caprica, due later this year. Now, we can expect another prequel, this one in the form of a TV movie directed by Edward James Olmos which will air after the series finale in 2009.
The prequel movie will be more immediate than Caprica – it only reaches back to the destruction of the colonies, rather than fifty years back to a world where Eric Stoltz is a mad scientist. Because of that, I’m less annoyed by the prequel movie than I am by the prequel series.
Although, I’m still pretty annoyed. Another prequel? Is the Sci Fi Channel ever going to pay someone to have a new idea? I mean a good one? Is the BSG buffet ever going to close?
My problem isn’t that BSG is spawning spin off stories. Shows can spawn spin offs that are excellent and successful in their own right. Just look at Stargate. That obscure little movie generated a long running series which in turn generated a long running spin off series.
But, BSG isn’t spinning off in the way that has been successful for Stargate. It’s not forming a new arm of its universe – it’s just pushing backward in its timeline. It’s making an already long story even longer with this prequel series.
When has a prequel actually worked? Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me? Hannibal Rising? The Scorpion King? The constantly reviled, poxerific Star Wars prequels? Some of those may have worked on a financial level, but from a creative standpoint, they failed because going back to the past when we already know the outcome holds no surprises. If there is no tension and no wonder, then there’s no reason to watch.
It is possible, though, for a franchise to go back its past to tell new stories. One franchise did it and did a good job of it: Star Trek.
Technically, Enterprise is a prequel series in that it takes place earlier than the rest of the Star Trek universe. However, being a prequel to later events isn’t its sole purpose – it had its own premise which set it apart from the rest of the franchise. Enterprise maintained the spirit of Star Trek and expanded on the existing universe in a way that didn’t crush the continuity.
Going to the past worked for Enterprise because the whole point of Star Trek is exploration. It’s not one long story about one guy. It’s not about defeating one evil force in the universe. Could you imagine if every single series was all about Captain Kirk and defeating the Klingons? Also, from a fan standpoint, it was fun to see first contact with all of these species I’ve come to know over the course of the franchise. (BTW, I liked the opening credits, including the hokey song – I don’t care what anyone says.)
The prequel problem is why I don’t give a rat’s ass about JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movie. I don’t care that different actors are playing Kirk and the gang. Recasting is a fact of life – sometimes it works (i.e., Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes), sometimes it doesn’t (i.e., George Clooney as Batman), but I’m always open to the new guy or girl.
Aside: I can see how Simon Pegg (I love you, Simon Pegg) can turn into James Doohan forty years and eight million pints later, but it’s going to take a one hell of an event to make the Karl Urban-to-DeForest Kelley bridge possible.
Call the Abrams movie a “reboot” if you want to – it’s Kirk and the gang before they were stars and that says PREQUEL. I already know that Kirk beats the Kobayashi Maru and how he beats it. I already know that he becomes captain of the Enterprise and does his part to spread space syphilis throughout the Delta Quadrant. No amount of rebooting or gloss or additional backstory is going to make that worthwhile to me.
Ditto for any life or death situations the Enterprise crew gets into in the movie. It doesn’t matter how many photon torpedoes Eric Bana’s bad guy fires on them – they’re going to live long enough to retire. Some of them will even live long enough to see the Enterprise D and get shot by Malcolm McDowell.
Tension? What tension? Unless Eric Bana walks around topless, in which case there’s a very different kind of tension. I encourage him to do this as much as possible.
But, back to BSG and the prequels of doom.
BSG has a simple premise: refugees search for a shining planet known as Earth while enemies pursue them. That premise has a definite beginning, a definite end, and little room for expansion. All Caprica does is add a cumbersome prologue that is meaningless to BSG’s basic premise and raises questions about its mythology.
I.e., if Daniel Graystone created the first Cylon, does Kara Thrace still have a destiny? Has all of this really happened before, like Leoben says?
And if it has all happened before, do we really need to see it again?
Never miss an update. Subscribe to Pink Raygun by Email or subscribe via RSS
Lisa Fary’s early exposure to classic Battlestar Galactica in 1979 is largely responsible for her lifelong interest in science fiction and her childhood ambition of being an intergalactic space cowgirl. She thinks diagramming sentences is a fun alternative to Sudoku.
Related Stuff:
Lisa Fary's earliest influences are Princess Leia, Rainbow Bright, Astronaut Barbie, and her 6th grade teacher, Ms. Palmer. She's angry that it's 2011 and she still doesn't have a hovercraft, but will accept a jetpack as consolation. That jetpack had better be pink with a rhinestone monogram. 
OK then. Both of my links are pointing to a Heroes post and that’s not what I meant to do.
The first link, about sci-fi, human drama, and chicks:
http://www.pinkraygun.com/2008/02/08/the-sci-fi-channel-needs-women/
Wolfie’s Stargate column can be read here:
http://www.pinkraygun.com/2008/08/05/stargate-atlantis-the-daedalus-variations/
I don’t think that fans of SGA are brain-dead, but I do think that genre fans can be apologists, allowing sloppy and dishonest characterization (to the point of caricature) to fly by unnoticed as long as the visual effects are compelling. In fact, I think that Battlestar has been attacked by fans for lowering its action quotient, while at the same time becoming more critically acclaimed for the same reason. SGA and Enterprise use the exact formulas that were successful in their predecessors, with only the names and 3D models changed.
Do you want to see the same thing happen with Galactica? That’s an honest question – fans would prefer to recreate the same setup, a ship or fleet of ships searching for a new home, rather than try something new? There’s always been a vocal minority calling for a “civvie” Trek spinoff, and that’s exactly what Caprica is. What is planet-bound civilian life like for a space-faring civilization? There are sci-fi elements, just not the same elements employed in the original.
I’d call what happened to S4 Starbuck and Cally Tyrol “sloppy and dishonest characterization (to the point of caricature)”.
@ Alphagirl: Thank you!
@ Rob: I’d say the difference between Trek and Stargate is that Trek is sooooooooooo self-important and self-righteous that it kind of stopped being fun around 1984 (Exactly halfway through ST3:TSFS if you want to be specific). Stargate, while doing *essentially* the same ‘planet of the week’ shenanegins as Trek, has managed to keep a sense of swashbuckling fun in the show all the way through. While it takes itself seriously, it has a very strong sense of humor, and (most) of the characters strike me as people rather than job-defined ciphers (“The First Officer”, “The Science Officer,” “The Moralistic Doctor,” “The Token Alien,” etc.) And occasionally it’s thought provoking. The only problem I have w/ the shows is that humanity is subsisting entirely on the abandoned tech of a long-lost race. We haven’t really *invented* anything, have we? And therefore how are we different from the Goa’uld? But the shows are fun, and lack the sloppy self-strangling continuity and self-righteousness of Trek, so I still likes’ ‘em.
@ Wolfenmoondaughter: It took me a long time to warm up to the whole “They’re people just like us but with starships” school of SF that we see in the new BSG, SG, and Firefly (To a lesser extent) but now that I have, I’m glad I did becasue (For me) it exposes a lot of the cliches of the genre that I hadn’t even noticed before. You *can* do a space show w/out Aliens, for instance, or without some sanctimonious futureworld Kalifornia-Uber-Alles utopia. You *Can* do fairly compelling shows about ‘normal life’ in the future, be it dealing with economic shortfalls (Thank you, B5), or the difficulties of fitting back into life or whatever. I think that’s kind of remarkable, but as I say, I found it disconcerting at first.
And to bring things back full circle: I don’t think they should do the Caprica Prequel. It looks boring, and since we know how it ends (everyone except little Billy Adama dies), there’s a heavy “Who gives a crap?” quotient to it. If they want to spin off Galactica, then spin it off – do a show set *after* this storyline is resolved, either immediately or set 10 or a hundred years later. If the are absolutely bleeding from the ‘nads to do a prequel, it *SHOULD NOT* be “Caprica” it should be…I dunno…”Picon” or “Gemenon” or “Sagitaria” or something we know nothing about, just to fill out the backstory of the colonies, about which, frankly, we know next to nothing still (And what we do know is entirely about Caprica already!)
Or better still, RDM and Eick should go and do a re-imagined “Buck Rogers.” With Edward James Olmos as Dr. Heuer. And Christian Bale a “Twiki.”
Rob said …
Do you want to see the same thing happen with Galactica?
Yes, actually — I prefer Stargate by an extremely wide margin. And while I occasionally get annoyed when Rodney’s illnesses are made light of, I think the characterisation is excellent for the most part. BSG has it’s own share of charactyerisation issues — all shows have them now & again. Believe me, though. I’m quick to nitpick, and it takes more than special effects to impress me, so it’s not me being apologetic, it’s me actively enjoying it, whereas Baltar is the *ONLY* character I actively/continuosly enjoy on BSG. Well, to each their own, I guess. For me, while I lovethe alienness, in the end, it’s the bonds between the characters that are my priority in Stargate. Buit the more “polictial” episiodes of the franchise — the BSG-like ones — bore the snot out of me. DFore all the lack of flash and dazzle, my real problem with those is the lack of tenderness between the char5acters in such scenarios. I don’t care much for flash & dazzle batttle episodes either, if all it is is people running around shooting eachother. Stargate’s characters compel me most of the time, BSG’s *rarely* do — or rather, they didn’t until the end of season 3.
Hoobajoobah said …
It took me a long time to warm up to the whole “They’re people just like us but with starships” school of SF that we see in the new BSG, SG, and Firefly (To a lesser extent) but now that I have, I’m glad I did becasue (For me) it exposes a lot of the cliches of the genre that I hadn’t even noticed before. You *can* do a space show w/out Aliens, for instance, or without some sanctimonious futureworld Kalifornia-Uber-Alles utopia. You *Can* do fairly compelling shows about ‘normal life’ in the future, be it dealing with economic shortfalls (Thank you, B5), or the difficulties of fitting back into life or whatever. I think that’s kind of remarkable, but as I say, I found it disconcerting at first.
Oh, I do agree that a si fi show doesn’t have to be all flash and dazzle — I don;t even mind so much the whole “They’re human” thing, althoygh I wish they did dhow the Tjn Cans more, I *liked* them. I was more upsate at the fact that it was a revamp instead of a continuation – they could have had the current opeople de decencedts of the previous, for example. And it’s too dark for my tastes. But to go back to your point, there’s a difference between a drama that just happens to be set in a mildy futuristic setting and SCIENCE fiction, you know?
DS9 dealt with the political/socio/economic issues too, but it was a far more futuristic setting. Well, truth be told, I think that show didn;t freally get *GOOD* until 4th season, when the Next Gen writers came on board. And to be honest, I never cared much at *all* for B5, despite liking Strazynski’s (sp?) *other* work.
What finally drove me away from a childhood wasted in Trekerbation is that (A) I found I couldn’t give less of a damn about any of the new characters. (Troi’s lovelife? Riker’s failure for promoiton? Kira’s shrill anger? Sisko’s brooding? Harry Kim’s aggressive innocence? Feh! Feh I say unto you!) and (B) their utter lack of science on the show.
Say what you will about the original Trek – it was poorly acted, kinda’ stupid, mysogynistic, and goofy as hell – and all of that is true, but it was at root a Science Fiction show who’s mandate was to get across relatively new ideas which hadn’t been done to death on TV as of 1967. And it had an undeniable certain “Dash” to it, too, which shows like Time Tunnel and Lost in Space and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and UFO really didn’t. The New Trek always struck me as a merchandising scheme that, frankly, would be just as happy to do away with all that irritating ‘intriguing idea’ aspect of SF. Just a prime-time soap, and a bad one. Also, the portrayal of alien cultures as monolithic entities (“We’re a race of poets!” “We’re a race of warriors!” “We’re a race of short-order fry-cooks!”) is really the kind of thing that gets tedious once you’re older than 12.
I do wish there were more toasters in BSG, and I would have prefered a continuation of the original story, too, but I’m glad it wasn’t the crappy DeSanto/Singer one, or some hideous “Galactica 1980: The Next Generation.” I figure there’s so damn many ways it could be done wrong, then I have to be happy for them doing it in a way that didn’t suck out loud, and leave it at that.
Being an old ‘un, I can remember when the term “prequel” was first coined (yes, it’s a made-up word that didn’t even exist a few decades ago!) It was minted especially for the movie “Butch and Sundance: The Early Days”.
The studio were, of course, unable to make a sequel to “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” since they’d actually killed off both characters in the first movie. In what was seen as an innovative move at the time, they therefore went back in time and, no doubt flushed with what they saw as their own brilliance, they coined the new word to go with it.
The movie, of course, stank – setting the trend for 99% of all “prequels” to come!
Yeah, it’s a neologism, but at least it’s one that follows standard gramatical rules, and is immediately understandable. There are far worse ones. “Scarifying” makes me cringe whenever I hear it. And not in a good way!
Maybe I’m going off topic a bit, but Rob said that the SG franchise is bad because it does the same things the Trek franchise drove into the ground 7 or 8 years ago (Actually, I’d say like 15 or 20, Rob!). That’s not really germane to wether or not prequels are a good thing or a bad thing (Generally they’re a bad thing), but there are undeniably cliches of SF that we’ve all seen too damn many times by half, that just instantly make us groan or change channels.
Can any of you suggest any SF cliches that have outstayed their welcome and can or should be retired?
Damn. I’ve killed another thread.