New BattleStar Galactica

No, I love emotional stuff too.... I got a bit teary when Arnie had to die at the end of Terminator 2. But I was 14

There was a definite snootyness about the new BSG. Olomos made statements about how he wouldn't do it if there were aliens with funny forheads etc. Definitely that BSG was "better" sci-fi than say Star Trek. But then they have robot babies, and baby blood curing cancer and all other absurd things and that's okay?

I think BSG started off well with a very clear vision. But it fell into two traps: it believed its own hype, and it got in this dangerous game of one-upmanship with itself. It had to push the stories and violence to absurd and obscene levels to constantly appear "edgy". It had to include such nauseatingly direct references to "real life" that it losing credibility and was just blatantly trying to appeal to leftist media (and it worked). I have no problems with programs reflecting life, but when they just ape it to appear "edgy" it's crap. And it was more and more relying on the Cylons because, like so many writers, they find writing non-humans easier than humans (Data, Odo, Holodoc as examples).

I gave up after season two. Season one was the dog's bollocks. Season two was just bollocks. I think the three things that finished it off for me were:

• Forgetting show don't tell.. that Starbuck's mind had to be shown to us so we simple viewers understood her pain. Still not sure? Okay, people drink alcohol when they're sad. Let's have Starbuck drink lots of alcohol, that will make her sad.
• The election scenes. Just an absolute carbon copy of the US elections, and the pointed references made within the dialogue. Why is this far away race just a clone of the US. They even have VW Beetles FFS!
• The scene between the Chief and Kali. The actor and actress felt there was a brother/sister thing here, but disregarding that the writers wanted to get obsenee. So he smashed her face in for no reason whatsoever. Out of the blue. But wait there was a reason... they needed someone to be distrubed so they could bring in Dean Stockwell. This was the tail leading the dog.

Tahmoh is hot though.

It had to include such nauseatingly direct references to "real life" that it losing credibility and was just blatantly trying to appeal to leftist media (and it worked).

Click to expand...

*sigh*

The heroes killing and torturing prisoners and behaving in extremely hawkish, violent ways- and having it implicitly defended by the ensuing events- yeah, that's real "leftist."

Well after reading Antony's post it seems I'm not the only one that felt this show and its writers believed in their own hype a little too much. I've felt that for a couple seasons now. I still enjoy watching it, but I really need to filter out that heavy-handed "real life" parallel stuff.

Don't you also think that there's too much swearing in BSG?The F... word is replaced by another one but it still sounds the same way and everybody uses it including the president.I don't want too look like a big moralist but this show is watched by children after all.Torturing the prisoners also questions the democratic and humane principles of Kera and Lee.We can't look at them the same way after that even if they did the right thing.

Truth_Seeker said:

I don't want too look like a big moralist but this show is watched by children after all.

Click to expand...

That's neither here nor there ... the question is whether children SHOULD be watching. Dr Who is a show designed to be watched by whole families, BSG clearly isn't. Therefore, if children are watching it is either the fault of the broadcasters, who put it in a misleading timeslot, or parents who don't feel the need to vet what their children are watching.

Here in the UK, it is broadcast at 9pm (i.e. post-watershed, the time when it is considered reasonable to assume that children won't be watching television). I wouldn't let my children watch it, and they never have, so where's the problem?

It is not the programme makers fault that children end up watching a show not designed for children, it is usually the parents' fault. And I speak as one of them.

It is on @ 10pm here on the East Coast of the U.S.

But with DVRs and the internet, time-slots don't mean anything anymore. Does anyone here actually still watch shows as they are broadcast? On TV, with commercials and everything? Especially BSG- I mean, Friday night and all- I'd rather not be home watching TV.

And who says this show is for children? Just because it's in space?

Of course it is not a show for children but Sci Fi usually attracts them.That's why I was surprised by the use of some rude phrases in BSG.I suppose I live two decades back in the past.Sometimes I forget that children nowadays watch porn when they are 9-10 years old and they can simply download all kinds of disgusting things from the internet.BSG is not something that would surprise them at all.

I would not let kids near it. And any parent that lets small children watch any post watershed TV without vetting it first needs to try a little harder.

Broadcasters often have a lot to answer for. C4 used to edit down B5 because they felt sci-fi was more suitable for a family audience, then what do parents do when a programme like that comes out on VHS/DVD with a 15 certificate?

I think this is why terrestrial channels don't buy much modern sci-fi... even the mainstream parts of the genre are becoming more and more orientated towards young adult/adult and harder to sell as family shows.

And that's just as well. Personally I'm an adult and don't want to watch only family-oriented fare. It's up to parents to regulate what their kids watch, and just because some parents neglect that duty shouldn't make it impossible for responsible people to have access to more adult fare.

That said, kids are far more aware of how the world really works than most adults give them credit for. Some of the worst language I hear is walking past the nearest school at recess. Kids 8-10 years old use language that you'd expect from a navvy. It's enough to scorch your ears off if you're a sensitive soul.

The Original Battlestar Galactica was nothing more then a badly acted and(by th low standards of the day) poorly written star wars wanna be that laughing stock with the critics, but then again so was most television of that era. I recall a television award show in which the only cast member present was the chimp who played Daggit. The only thing that the show had going for it was its special effects whose costs were a major reason why the show only lasted one season.

Ron Moore took this trainwreck and reconfigured it into something quite impressive. He made the characters much more human then their predessors, and he wonderfully blurred the line between hero and villian. He created good guys you could not completely like and villians that you could not completely hate. Unlike the everything resets to zero crap writing of the original , actions by the characters had consequences in future stories. In many ways it reminds me of B5 of course it is a different show and its not for everyone, the same could be said for B5 as well. BSG is far from perfect, that much is clear but it an enjoyable show from my standpoint.

Garovorkin said:

The Original Battlestar Galactica was nothing more then a badly acted and(by th low standards of the day) poorly written star wars wanna be that laughing stock with the critics, but then again so was most television of that era.

Click to expand...

Yea know what? No. It really wasn't. The one thing I agree with in your post is that it was similar to most television of the era. Back in the last 70s early 80s most hour long prime time shows did sort of fit a forumla.

1) Family oriented
2) Fun
3) A bit cheesy
4) Usually ended with a happy ending and a few laughs

And there are some various other points. The original BSG fell into that catagory despite being science fiction. But it WASN'T badly written, it was fun to watch, and there were good actors and actoresses on it. Just because it was done in the 80s and is a bit cheesy compared to todays standards, thats not a reason to start asssign characteristics to it that don't apply. It wasn't any different than OTHER SHOWS OF THE ERA.

Buck Rogers
Knight Rider
The Fall Guy
The A Team
And other such "Glen A Larson" productions and shows.

They were just ALL FUN TO WATCH and good quality. But to compare it to today's BSG just isn't fair for either show. But each of those shows and others of its kind had plenty of redeeming characteristics. The main of which being they were all WELL LIKED for their time. They were popular and enjoyed enough that they lived on in syndication and in many cases spawned Hollywood to "reinvent" some of them (or all of them). So how bad could they have really been?

Enjoy them for what they were. But they are so different than today's TV that its really not fair to criticize.

Sorry Recoil but from a sci fi and story standpoint the original was a joke and bad one, the only thing I find redeeming about the original was that it became the basis for the vastly superior Ron Moore version. Hey to each his own.

I wouldn't mind seeing Ron Moore tackle Buck rogers iin the 25th century, now there is a series that could use a makeover from the drek that was the original. By the way Admiral Beckham with all due respect to each his own, that is my answer to you are your comments on the new Galactica no disrespect is meant by this.

Ya see, you just plain didn't get my point at all.

Other than space and lasers, the original Battlestar Galactica and even Buck Rogers weren't really sci-fi. They were an early 80s Prime Time series like any other of the time. Like "Knight Rider". Like "The Fall Guy". Like "The A Team". They fit into that specific genre more than today's sci-fi. THATS my point.

They were good for what they were. But to compare original BSG to the new BSG is absolute lunacy. They are two completely different shows.

And no, I don't think Buck Rogers needs to be "reinvented" or "retold" either. If they do, great. But that doesnt change the fact that the original was its own series.

To be honest, the original BSG or Buck Rogers are more like EARLY science fiction serials of the 30s and 40s, or even Star Trek TOS of the 60s. They were about ADVENTURE more than a "gritty and dark" story, and you know what, it worked just fine. But don't waste your words comparing a series about fun and adventure to one trying to be "gritty and real" that draws parallels to modern day events.

I was a fan of the original BSG. I grew up watching it in re-runs as a kid. It was one of the first shows to remember watching, along with Trek TOS. When the new miniseries came out, I was extremely skeptical for the changes that were being made to it. Mind you I'm not a die-hard fan of the original, I just enjoyed it for what it was when I was growing up. But I watched the miniseries, realized that it wasn't even remotely the same type of show, and learned to enjoy the new series for what it was --- and that is something completely different than the original.

Apples and oranges....apples and oranges...

Recoil yes I did get your point. Those series were what they were, fair enough. Truth be told I do own the entire space 1999 series and two of the four seasons of voyage to the bottom of the Sea and those series would not win to many prizes for writing excellance. I have soft spot for some of the old schlock of the past, Scarily enough the old Irwin Allen series were entertaining and still are. I forget how many time the sub Seaview was attacked by rogue sperm whales, or how many times he would reuse the same monster, the most popular monster was old doubleheader, He was practically a reoccuring cast member on that show, I also believe that in one episode re reused large segments of his lost world movie,. This show is also the one where Harlan Ellison first used the Cordwainer Bird pseudoname the episode is called The Price Of Doom,

The only problem I have with original BSG being "just another show" like Knight Rider as that the premise is really pretty heavy. I mean- it starts out with the near annihilation of the human race. And then there's a robot dog. Quite a mind-f*$& of a way to make a show.

I mean think about it- you're a TV exec, I come into your office proposing a new series, and I'm pitching it: "Scary robot aliens wipe out all of humanity across a dozen planets. The remaining few are fleeing and fighting for their lives, with only the vague hope of finding a distant planet known only in their mythology." Your response wouldn't be "great, let's make a light-hearted romp!"

As opposed to the A-Team, where the tone of the show matched the premise: "mercenaries for hire act like 80s cliches" or Knight Rider: "talking car talks and drives!" Ok I'm being silly but you know what I mean.

I generally got the impression that Glen A. Larson started out with the intentino of making BSG a heavier show, but quickly reverted to what he knew best, which was cheesy action. I grew up with those shows, and loved all of them (for my sins). Not to the extent that I consider myself a die-hard fan, but I will still occasionally pitch up and watch a re-run ... in fact I watched an episode of The A-Team last night on Bravo.

They epitomised the 80s version of "TV as light entertainment". That is something you could never accuse the new BSG of.

GaribaldisHair said:

I generally got the impression that Glen A. Larson started out with the intentino of making BSG a heavier show, but quickly reverted to what he knew best, which was cheesy action. I grew up with those shows, and loved all of them (for my sins). Not to the extent that I consider myself a die-hard fan, but I will still occasionally pitch up and watch a re-run ... in fact I watched an episode of The A-Team last night on Bravo.

Click to expand...

I almost hate to say it because I don't have a shred of proof but I've gathered from bits and pieces I've read or heard the actors say over the years that the original idea was to make BSG a serious SF show, at least as serious as it got back then, but fell victim to Powers That Be mandated stunt casting and the ever-popular network/studio notes.

I like both shows and don't apologize for it.

Jan