With each passing year, I’ve noticed an increasing number of science fiction and other genre-themed TV shows. But I’ve also noticed another trend — the “mundaning” of science fiction. Now, don’t get me wrong, I love Lost and Heros, but I also noticed that they are fairly stripped of their SF trimmings. They are science fiction for the mundane.

Is this a bad thing? I don’t rightly know. To some degree it is a good thing, because it introduces SF to a wider audience, some of whom may then go on to explore the real thing.

But then the really good quality SFTV is getting to fewer and farther between. For example, I am a big fan of Babylon 5, and in my opinion it is one of the best SF TV shows ever. It made #5 in Boston.com’s Top 50 Science Fiction TV Shows of All Time. But that show had a struggle because it wasn’t as accessible to the average Joe as a show such as Journey Man has.

Now that I’ve written this all down, I’m not really sure where I’m going with it. But I have this feeling in my gut that as reality catches up to SF, SF needs to keep pushing forward to maintain its edge — the edge that made me fall in love with it when I was 5 years old and has held me for the decades since.

Do any of you have those feelings? I know some people share my angst, for articles such as Mike Treder’s article, “Post-Millennial Malaise in SF?“, are still being written.

In 1977, Star Wars reintroduced the world to the serialized space opera with groundbreaking results both creatively and financially. In the wake of this paradigm shift came a gaggle of embarrassing me-too projects both for film and television. Then there was Battlestar Galactica.

Battlestar Galactica was the brain-child of producer/writer/director Glen Larson. It was both a pastiche of the Star Wars formula, and a bizarre melding of wagon train and Egyptian mythology. The series chronicled the adventures of a “Rag Tag Fleet” running from the Cylons, a mechanized horde of robots lead by a human traitor; their destination is a mythical world called “Earth”. Battlestar Galactica was a success both theatrically and on the television. Despite it’s campy acting and plot lines there was an endearing element in the quest of these characters. Battlestar Galactica never made any apologies for borrowing the character archetypes made so popular in Star Wars. Apollo is a dark haired Luke Skywalker, Sheba the strong female cut from the Princess Leia strand, and Starbuck as the charismatic scoundrel that Han Solo would surely approve of. Despite these obvious pastiches, Battlestar Galactica got away with it.

The death of Battlestar Galactica, however, was written in the stars. ABC has long argued it was declining ratings and cost overruns that killed the series. In reality, many argue, it was the budget which was in turn a function of the time. Motion control cameras and blue screen techniques were still a trial and error process at the time and despite the experienced staff in the Battlestar Galactica effects unit these sequences often ran over schedule and many times had to be re-shot entirely. Clearly, producing big screen effects in the span and budget of a television production was not something the industry was ready for at the time.

After Battlestar Galactica was cancelled, the studio tried to resurrect the series with Glen Larsen, this time they sat certain parameters that doomed the show from the beginning: No new space battles would be filmed, only recycled footage could be used, and the original cast would be replaced by younger crew who had already made it to earth. A land locked Battlestar Galactica proved to have little appeal to fans of the original audience and it quickly died on the vine. Battlestar Galactica continued to hold a very active cult following and after several failed big screen attempts, Producer Bryan Singer decided to take a hand at resurrecting the series with Sci-Fi channel and an international consortium of financiers. Contract obligations caused Singer to back out, but his momentum was enough for the project to continue under the guidance of Star Trek alum Ron Moore.

When the new Battlestar Galactica miniseres premiered many fans were outraged. It was billed as a “reimagining” taking only the best parts of the original series and turning some characters inside out. Several male characters, including the cliché chauvinist Starbuck, were now female. Cyclons would look like regular people, and the series would take a more political stance. Despite the nay-saying of Battlestar Galactica purists, the new min-series was a critical success and a long running series was locked in.

Since debuting in 2004, Battlestar Galactica has continued to gain accolades from the industry, the press, and fans, yet award recognition has been denied.

Much like its predecessor, Battlestar Galactica has managed to avoid the fact that it is merely a blending of several recent, well duplicated motifs in television history and stand alone in a way that brings legitimacy to the sci-fi genre by producing stories that are morally, politically, and creatively challenging.

In it she discusses the varying opinions about the state of the genre. Or, in her words, “Is science fiction thriving amid the pyrotechnics, or is it dying a slow and hideous death, suffocated by publishing-industry group-think and unimaginative movie execs drunk on sequels?”

There are definitely people who hold both opinions, as well as evidence to support both points of view.

Is it thriving?

The recent surge and success of science fiction in television, film and video games supports the health of the genre. There have been quite a few examples lately of very good SF appearing on the tube and the silver screen. Take Battlestar Galactica, Heroes, and Lost, as well as Children of Men.

Is it coughing out its last breath?

I’ve ready many the opinion that science fiction, by its very nature, will have to die as technology catches up. Others point to the drivel that passes for SF in all forms of media.

The fact that both points of view have merit is, in my humble opinion, where much of science fiction’s strength comes from. As Biancolli puts it, “great science fiction can be cosmic or minimalist, outward-looking or inward. It expands or contracts, pushing humanity into the farthest reaches of space or reducing it to cinders.”

To read the full article in the chronicle, visit www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/entertainment/4932037.html.

For more on this topic, read these other articles:

Science Fiction Alive and Well in the Here and Now: Celebrating Battlestar Galactica, Robert Heinlein and Another Golden Age
www.poppolitics.com/archives/2007/07/science-fiction-alive-and-well

The new sci-fi
media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2112467,00.html

Bye-bye to sci fi?
seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/323863_scifi17.html

What do you think? Do you see a utopian or dystopian future for science fiction?