BSG and SG-1 Show Different Slants

Source: Sci Fi weekly

Friday night's two-hour season premiere of SCI FI's flagship show, Battlestar Galactica, was a thinly veiled comment on the United States' handling of the war in Iraq. In the episode, (SPOILERS FOLLOW) the valiant colonial insurgents waged a guerilla war against the occupying Cylon forces. The Cylons believed in the nobility of their occupation, their purpose being "to bring the love of God" to the humans. It sounded very similar to the Bush administration's claim that the goal of the Iraq occupation is to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. By telling the story of an occupation through the eyes of our heroes, Ron Moore and David Eick presented a story that was thought-provoking, challenging and "politically correct."

Contrast that with Stargate SG-1's pro-U.S. military position and the series' recent storyline in which the galaxy is being invaded by a vastly superior force of religious fanatics whose message is "convert or die." The comparisons to the present "war on terror" are inevitable, [showing] such a war to be purely defensive in nature and that military strength and advanced technology are the means to suppressing this threat. This is the position of the Bush administration, and other conservatives. To those on the political left, those views are considered "politically incorrect."

One show, Battlestar Galactica, is thought of quite highly by SCI FI/NBC, and the other, SG-1, has recently been canceled. Both shows are similar in that they are science fiction, but in terms of tone and worldview, they're on opposite ends of the spectrum. Could these differences be the reason why SG-1 was canceled?


John Miller
jamiller62 AT sbcglobal DOT net