WizarDru said:
Barkley is the exception that proves the rule. He's the ONLY character with significant flaws and until Voyager, most of them were addressed. Heck, most of his flaws aren't really negative ones, per se. He's highly phobic of certain technologies (an irony for an engineer aboard a starship) and he has serious problems interacting with other people...but his flaws aren't even in the same zip code as a single BSG character. He's an ABC afterschool special, not a documentary on the Killing Fields.
Barkley's flaws were certainly negative in my opinion. He had a crippling difficulty dealing with people--especially women--and an irrational fear of certain things.
Still, that's not the main point. I agree with you that he was the only character with flaws which were that serious and that obvious. I disagree that he was the only character with flaws at all, though. Captain Picard was isolated and friendless. Captain Kirk was a womanizer, reckless, and often short-sighted. Odo was merciless and often unforgiving. Quark was a greedy coward. Rom was an idiot.
IMO the difference is in the tone of the shows themselves, not the quality of the characters' flaws. Star Trek was about optimism and rising above oneself. It was about the triumph of humanity over adversity, etc. etc. As such, the shows touch upon character flaws mostly by showing the characters triumphing over or despite them.
BSG, on the other hand, is emphasizing different themes, and approaching character flaws in a different way. Rather than showing multiple successes, as ST does, it seems to be going for multiple failures, followed up (I'm guessing) by rare monumental successes.
We'll see how it all works out. I like BSG and its take on things, but I think describing ST as a white-washed vanilla world where everyone is perfect and nobody has any problems is selling Star Trek short.
I can still recall the episode of TNG that aired immediately after Picard was made into Locutus of Borg (and subsequently restored). Everything seems all right, then he goes back to his family's home in France, and winds up kneeling in the mud, crying, his body shaking with self loathing. For my buck, that's hardly a perfect man.
RangerREG said:
I disagree. The fact that he has an obvious flaw unlike the rest of the main Trek cast, makes him a good addition to the pristine Trek surrounding, of course it's still not enough to "dirty" up Trek, but the franchise had their moments (e.g., Deep Space Nine).
I'd probably describe Trek as "bright" as opposed to "clean" but I agree that Barkley was not enough to completely alter the tone of the franchise. I mentioned him because he's the most recognizable proof that the ST crews aren't "perfect." Even so, I'm not arguing that they are morbid, depressing, or as gritty as BSG.
. Battlestar Galactica also originally had ray guns. I find this switch to some more 'realistic' weaponry distracting.
