I think you miss the author's point. 80's Starbuck (and Apollo for much the same reasons) is the kind vapid empty character you end up with in male oriented sci

I think you miss the author's point. 80's Starbuck (and Apollo for much the same reasons) is the kind vapid empty character you end up with in male oriented sci-fi. The character is a fun placeholder for the id and ego of young males. He's a proxy for them in that fictional universe. A universe that just happens to be populated with thinking machines, cool looking star fighters, laser blasters, alien planets and giant flagships the size of a city. Starbuck is the eyes and hands of the juvenile male that desperately wants that kind of kinetic adventure. Being an incomplete and uninteresting character is the important part, it makes the character more accessible and adaptable to the myriad of young male fantasies. In general, any kind of generic archetype is supposed to be available only a virtual "selection of shoes" that the viewer/reader can look at, best identify with, and slip on for the duration of the fantasy. Densely fleshed out character profiles with tangled relationships are not (generally) the kind of sci-fi boys are terribly interested in. Especially when you can have, more or less, the exact same story in any particular setting, sci-fi or not. That's what the turn off of the kind of relationship drama/sci-fi the author is talking about is. The setting (sci-fi) is immaterial to the actual story. That being said, the better sci-fi out there is chock full of relationship drama. But when it's well crafted, it's inseparable from setting because the drama is a result of the setting, not just stage dressing. The recent Battlestar Galactica series is large inseparable from setting and that's what made it so appealing. That, and it struck a decent balance with "OMG That's AWESOME" space battles.