I found it strange how often I thought of Star Trek: the Next Generation while watching this show. I often made comparisons. Having had some distance from the show, I now realize why I was making these comparisons.
If ST:TNG is utopic--a kind of futuristic paradise--then Battlestar Galactica is realistic. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's dystopic, a horrible world. Sure, humanity has been destroyed and is hurtling through space in the search of a new home; and yet, dystopic texts, I think, don't hold out the prospect for hope BSG does. In BSG, the possibility that the humans will find earth is always there.
Comparing ST:TNG to BGS reveals some very interesting things, I think, about two "flavors" of science space opera, what I want to call "utopic space opera" and "realistic space opera."
For example, let's compare a few characters. In ST:TNG you have Captain Jean Luc Picard and in BSG you have Commander William Adama. Both of these figures share some characteristics: Adama is a scholar (consider his book-filled study), and Picard is a scholar (Picard is always quoting the Western Canon). They both demand respect from their crews. They both make inspirational speeches. And yet, there are some major differences: Adama is willing to execute folks if they get out of line. Picard doesn't believe in corporal punishment. Adama is an alcoholic and curses a lot. Picard drinks earl gray and is very proper. Adama deals with the civil government: the president of the colonies. Picard doesn't deal with the civil government at all. He gets all his orders from the military, the Starfleet.
Now let's consider another pairing of characters: the second in commands, Colonel Saul Tigh and Captain William Thomas Riker. How are they similar? Well, Tigh executes the commands and polices of his superior officer, and so does Riker. Riker appears, in many episodes, as a kind of disciplinary figure; Tigh is completely in charge of disciplining the crew. Other than their rank and military funiction, I can't think of any additional characteristics they share except they both appear to like to play cards. Now let's think about their differences. I can think of a major one: the majority of the grew of the Battlestar Galactica hate or at least fear Saul Tigh. He's a bastard, and for good reason: he courts this sort of image for specific purposes. The majority of the crew on the Enterprise, however, love Ricart. His leadership style is to "get close" to those below him.Now I want to consider the two ships that dominate these two shows: the Battlestar Galactica and the U.S.S. Enterprise. They are both similar in that they're both the flagships of their fleets: the Colonial Fleet and Starfleet. But, they couldn't be more different. The Enterprise is the cutting edge of technology, the best Starfleet has to offer. The Battlestar Galactica is outmoded technology, an old-fashioned throwback, a kind of museum that is literally falling apart. The Enterprise is filled with potted planets, carpeted, and appears--at least to me--to be air-conditioned. Gods, they have orchestra and theater performances inside of it! The Battlestar Galactica is like a submarine. It's spartan: all metal, and screws, and cold, and cramped. Airlocks everywhere and, as the show progresses, more and more dirty. Often you wonder, as you're watching, "I bet it stinks in there."
Another minor comparison: think of the two bars on the ships. Well, Battlestar Galactica starts off with no bar at all until they realize that they are going to be on the ship for so long, they need some sort of place for recreational unwinding. And so they build Joe's bar. The Enterprise has Ten Forward, which is a posh, "wear-your-best" bar.
Another comparison: food and water and real world concerns like toothpaste and fuel come into consideration in BSG. In ST:TNG, none of this is considered. It's "post-scarce." Everyone has everything and anything they need.
There's a lot more here and I have to stop typing. This post is getting long. I think I'm getting at the key differences between these two shows, which point to something more major: two visions of the science fictional future or space opera. We have with BGS an imagined future that's not all polish and beauty. We have something more visceral and real. But there is indeed something comforting and inspiring by the vision of ST:TNG.
I'm not sure which vision I prefer. I think they're both interesting and enduring pieces of art. But we have with these shows demonstrated two flavors of space opera that are crystallizing.
