Starbuck....

topic posted Mon, September 14, 2009 - 10:33 PM by  Devon
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Okay...random...running thought.

Since Starbuck isn't really Starbuck at the end; she is an "Angel" or whatever, do you think that diminishes her actual death? As a fan of various TV shows over the years, I have always wanted those characters that I know and love to, when they do die, go out with purpose. Or at least in a way that drives the show further. When Kutner dies in House, it was not how I would have done it, but you cannot deny that that death, shaped the rest of the season, and will continue to play a big part in this upcoming season.

I have always loved Starbuck as a character and was excited when they brought her back. She developed further and morphed into something, fascinating. However, if we look back to her original death, when she was kind of going nuts (or was really going nuts) and essentially killed herself because she was seeing Leobin, but now has no retribution because she never truly returned....

I don't really know what question should follow that statement, but it just sort of started running in my head. What are your thoughts?
posted by:
Devon
Washington
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Starbuck....

    Tue, September 15, 2009 - 2:20 AM
    Katee Sackhoff did her damnedest to play the character back from the dead and to make her death mean something-- but the writers failed her. At times, they were still writing great scenes for her, but they had no idea what her return from the dead meant for the over-all story arc in part because they didn't seem to have a grasp of where the story was going when they decided to kill her in the first place.

    Her resurrection simply became a plot thread that they never knew how to resolve so yes, it made her death pointless.

    In comparison, take a look at Babylon 5, where a certain character (won't say which one if you haven't seen it) returns from the dead on a series where plenty of characters do die and stay dead. The difference is that the character comes back significantly changed by having experienced death, and this experience is precisely what allows the character to face the challenges to come, while at the same time having a profound effect on the other characters-- that death/resurrection evoked similar such stories from mythology or could be seen as an allegory for various existentialist theories about mortality.

    Resurrecting Starbuck was just about "this character is too popular with the fans to keep dead."

    Arthur Conan Doyle did the same, though at least when he brought Sherlock Holmes back from the dead, he offered an explanation as to how his detective had cheated death.
    • Re: Starbuck....

      Tue, September 15, 2009 - 11:01 AM
      " he offered an explanation as to how his detective had cheated death."
      What? "God did it" isn't a good enough explanation for you?
      • Re: Starbuck....

        Tue, September 15, 2009 - 11:51 PM
        As someone who has attempted to write Sci Fi, I understand how difficult it is to have such a great twist and climax in the story that would last for a dozen hours of storyline. I've been trying for the last twenty years with my story and haven't convinced my audience yet.
        Having said that I agree that the actors in BSG were very good at their craft. The director down to the go-fer did brilliant work. I was and still am impressed. Where do we all seem to agree that BSG failed to produce? the storyline. If you remember, that's where the original faded out. On the arrival at Earth.
        As far as B5 is concerned, that only failed when the producers tried to axe it before the story was half done. There was one big question that sat heavy in my mind with that show and that was the telepaths who were so desperate to find a homeworld of their own. A whole civilisation died out leaving an intact world. The star gate was destroyed during the war with the shadows. Nobody thought, hey why don't you guys settle there and we can avoid an unnecessary war. We can do this with probably every show that's been done.
        • Re: Starbuck....

          Wed, September 16, 2009 - 12:40 AM
          I thought about the same kind of thing in Heroes. But if you strip a civilization of it's Telepaths, then make a world where the only breeding stock is telepaths, then you're essentially making a world of your own superiors that can re-enter your civilization at any time and muck with you or take you out as they see fit.

          Besides, it HAS been don in SF, that's the whole ending of Space Seed in the original Trek and the resulting movie sequel, Wrath of Khan. the only twist was that the planet suffered some problems that prevented them from flourishing.

          In Andromeda, the Nietzcheans were allowed to monitor their own genetic selections for generations making them essentially a superior race, one that threatened the entire galaxy, were it not for their own in-fighting.

          Heck, you could say that BSG is about the same thing. They left the cylons alone after the first war where Humlons were developed and used to take out the society from the inside.
        • Re: Starbuck....

          Wed, September 16, 2009 - 5:50 AM
          Gerard, I think your memory of B5 is pretty inaccurate. What you described definitely did not happen in the final two seasons.

          That said, the comparison with Babylon 5 is useful since both were long stories told in episodic television. There were plot twists in B5 a well, but if one were to go back and view previous episodes, one realizes that these twists were planned well in advance; the ground work was set before hand: when Character A betrays Character B in season 5, the motives have clearly established in previous seasons. When the People of C turn out not to be as kind as once thought in Season 4, one realizes that it was hinted at practically the very beginning. When the planet of D falls into civil war, the tensions in that society were shown the first time we visit.

          With BSG 2.0, Moore created a strong first two seasons, but by the last season had lost sight of the story he had begun in 2003.

          The basic rules of storytelling are the same whether one is writing science-fiction or a family drama: The ending needs to make sense in the context of what came before; story elements that feature bear upon the ending need to be firmly established. Science-fiction isn't a license for the story not to make sense.

          > If you remember, that's where the original faded out. On the arrival at Earth.

          No, they never got to Earth in the original series. They got to Earth in the first episode of the deservedly-maligned spinoff, "Galactica 1980."
          • Re: Starbuck....

            Wed, September 16, 2009 - 1:15 PM
            Me INACCURATE!!!!

            Wouldn't be the first time.
            My memory of B5 in production is that the producers were saying that it was to be canned at the end of season three or four, so the writers wisely compressed their storyline to fit. When it didn't happen, the storyline had to be stretched to fit. The plot remained the same throughout and so the pieces fit.
            As far as my memory of the empty planet is concerned, the telepaths not being offered it and lets not forget the White star jumping to hyperdrive in the stargate, blowing it up with the shadow vessel along with it. So which part of my statement was so inaccurate that it had to be pointed out?
            • Re: Starbuck....

              Wed, September 16, 2009 - 1:41 PM
              Well, according to the director's commentary, they had planned 5 seasons, and were told 5 seasons until mid way through season 4. then it looked like S4 would be their last, they wrote the final episode as an add-on to bundle up the rest of the saga enough to answer questions but not enough to give away plot lines for potential sequel series. Then, during the filiming of the last actual episode (second to last aired) they got the news that S5 was on. So the celebrations were genuine. But they aired the final ep of S4 anyway and took a slightly different tack with s5 than originally intended (new commander of B5, etc).
              • Re: Starbuck....

                Thu, September 17, 2009 - 1:14 AM
                Yep, that sounds pretty much right
                • Re: Starbuck....

                  Thu, September 17, 2009 - 1:32 AM
                  Functionally the same thing. both opened doors to hyperspace. Buck rodgers just never showed what happened between stargates.

                  Oh, wait, yeah then there's the big spinny things..... :P
            • Re: Starbuck....

              Sun, September 20, 2009 - 6:20 PM
              I'm referring to your memory of how Season 5 of B5 resolved. The story was pretty much complete, some plot lines were left for potential spin-offs or just to give characters their own exits.
          • Re: Starbuck....

            Wed, September 16, 2009 - 10:44 PM
            "With BSG 2.0, Moore created a strong first two seasons, but by the last season had lost sight of the story he had begun in 2003. "

            The strength of the storytelling in each episode was strong enough and fun enough that no one NOTICED until Season 3 that none of it was holding together very well.

            I posit there never WAS a plan, actually.

            But then, I repeat myself...

Recent topics in "Battlestar Galactica"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Borglons Tedward 1 November 19, 2009
Centurians with the Gift of Reason Devon 5 November 16, 2009
R&D TV Logos Devon 2 November 16, 2009
"All of this has happened before.... Devon 5 November 15, 2009