THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: ZombieLove on 04 Oct 2006, 02:15

Title: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: ZombieLove on 04 Oct 2006, 02:15
wow so i just watched the first? miniseries for this tv show and it is amazing. the whole "by the gods!" and "frak" thing is a little nerdy but overall this is the perfect sci-fi show. what other awesome sci-fi movies/shows are there?

i especially love the way the fights are shot, as if the camera were a physical presence in the show.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Inlander on 04 Oct 2006, 06:01
Whatever anyone tells you, don't watch Babylon 5.  It's AWFUL.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: HFrankenstein on 04 Oct 2006, 07:24
You should check out Firefly.  There are some who might also argue that Lost is a little Sci-Fi-ish, but I think it's such a huge amalgam of genres to begin with, so you could really fit it into any archetype.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 04 Oct 2006, 09:22
BSG does nothing but get better and more intelligenter. It drags a little in the middle of S1 and the beginning of S2, but holy Jesus, the way the seasons end make God orgasm.

New episode on Friday! WOO!

Babylon 5 is alright. If you can get past the shitty acting and dated CGI, it has a pretty cool story.

Firefly, OTOH, is gorram awesome. The BSG camerawork, especially in space, is inspired by Firefly's (which is interesting because the same CGI company(Zoic) did both shows, but they were actually opposed to that idea when it was first suggested for Firefly).
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Archangel_Lucifer on 10 Oct 2006, 11:54
Ive recently seem episodes 1 and 2 of BSG season 3. Its better and better!
Not guna give away spoilers or such but things get extreme.
Im talking nasty as hell, think about all the worst parts or an occupation/insurrection. Its shit I never expected to see in a sci-fi show.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: HFrankenstein on 10 Oct 2006, 12:15
Its shit I never expected to see in a sci-fi show.

I barely even categorize BSG as sci-fi.  I call it a military drama.

Similarly, Firefly isn't sci-fi, it's a western.  Star Wars is fantasy.  Very little modern sci-fi is traditional Science Fiction.  You don't see stuff like Orwell's 1984 anymore.  Star Trek is probably the last traditional Science Fiction, and even that isn't quite.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 10 Oct 2006, 12:54
I submit that there has never been a true 'sci-fi' TV series. Even Star Trek was pitched as 'Wagon Train...IN SPAAAAACE!' It's all just a futuristic version of accepted genres (fantasy,w estern, mystery, etc.)

I also submit that I do not ****ing care, because TV sci-fi contains the best stories on TV.

There has been some good movie sci-fi, though. Gattaca comes to mind.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: KharBevNor on 10 Oct 2006, 14:10
I submit that there has never been a true 'sci-fi' TV series. Even Star Trek was pitched as 'Wagon Train...IN SPAAAAACE!' It's all just a futuristic version of accepted genres (fantasy,w estern, mystery, etc.)

If this is true, then science fiction itself doesn't really exist. Star Trek is science fiction because it examines the effects of futuristic technologies and alien situations on people and their relationships, and the moral and philosophical questions raised, which is as good a working definition of science fiction as anything.

Try classic (and indeed more recent) British TV sci-fi, until quite recently it was markedly more original cerebral than its American counterparts, though America has since caught up some-what.

You want to watch Blakes Seven, Sapphire and Steel, classic Doctor Who, The Prisoner, Survivors, Doom Watch, Quatermass and the Pit and Children of the Stones. Low budget and somewhat dated, but all of them fantastic.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 10 Oct 2006, 15:22
I think sci-fi should do more than put people in a futuristic setting or with futuristic tehcnology to be called true sci-fi. TNG might be the closest to real sci-fi American TV has ever seen. I wholeheartedly disagree that The Prisoner is sci-fi and am shaky on Doctor Who, having only seen a smattering of old episodes that suggest it isn't in that category. I do want to watch Blake's Seven, though.

But sci-fi should have some sort of basis in the real world's technology as it is today. It should be a natural progression. TOS sure as heck wasn't. Any scientific reality to come out of the original Trek was created after the fact, then used better for the later series.

I don't think TV lends itself to that kind of fantastic reality well. It would be too boring. Which is why I say that even thought I don't consider Firefly or BSG real, hard sci-fi, I don't really give a shit. Good TV is good TV.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: KharBevNor on 13 Oct 2006, 20:04
"Science fiction (often called sci-fi or SF) is a popular genre of fiction in which the narrative world differs from our own present or historical reality in least one significant way.[1] This difference may be technological, physical, historical, sociological, philosophical, metaphysical, etc, but not magical (see Fantasy). Exploring the consequences of such differences (asking "What if...?")[2] is the traditional purpose of science fiction, but there are also many science-fiction works in which an exotically alien setting is superimposed upon what would not otherwise be a science-fiction tale."

That's Wikipedias definition, best I've got as I haven't got access to my library atm. Your definition of sci-fi seems to be basically limited to hard sci-fi and speculative fiction. Science fiction, good science fiction rather, is entirely about the reactions of people to futuristic technology or alien situations, or the philosophical and ethical questions these technologies illuminate, rather than the technologies itself, as well as being a set of aesthetics and what-not. Sci-fi, in the sense that it is used by critics and academics, covers everything from cyberpunk to dying earth stories. If your definition was accepted then, for example, 'The Demolished Man' wouldn't be sci-fi, '2001' wouldn't be sci-fi, 'War of the Worlds' wouldn't be sci-fi, and so on. Remember please that when Star Trek was actually concieved its timeline WAS concieved as future history, its just that its appeal lasted long enough to prove its predictions false (though it does seem that things like the Eugenics Wars have now been largely retconned out, possibly by the time war).

Doctor Who is absolutely 100% tv sci-fi of the best sort. The Prisoner trawls a line between Fantasy, Sci-Fi and sixties spy thriller (which already tended to have a good bit of sci-fi in them anyway. More than a few James Bond films have been soft sci-fi), but it has won a Prometheus award, and is anyway both highly influential and really fucking good.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Kugai on 13 Oct 2006, 20:39
Whatever anyone tells you, don't watch Babylon 5.  It's AWFUL.

 :- :roll: :-P
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: ChaoticEvil on 14 Oct 2006, 09:53
Woo.. the Beeb recently re did Quatermass.. - that is the shit.. =D
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 14 Oct 2006, 10:56
but there are also many science-fiction works in which an exotically alien setting is superimposed upon what would not otherwise be a science-fiction tale.

In which case BSG, Firefly, and Star Wars are sci-fi. I'm just saying, you can't have it both ways. I'm not even sure why I'm arguing with you about this particular subject, because you're not the one who said BSG isn't sci-fi.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Mark7 on 14 Oct 2006, 14:25
Torchwood starts next Sunday  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: practicality on 16 Oct 2006, 21:42
I appreciated B5 because it had a much more realistic story germ than Star Trek- somehow, I doubt that we would be able to be in a peaceful Federation in 300 years if we still can't sort out the crap going on here. B5 actually had tensions between races and human factions. I haven't seen them recently (as in, I was 13-14 when I saw B5 last) so part of this is from a young teen's mind, but it's still much more realistic than "we're happy and at peace with almost everyone yay!" that Star Trek portrays. (Not surprisingly, I like DS9 best of the ST series)
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 17 Oct 2006, 00:27
B5 represented a shift in sci-fi TV to me. It introduced the big story arcs and intelligent ideas into the mainstream sci-fi TV and it has only gotten better since. Without it, there wouldn't be Farscape or BSG or DS9.

However, it still looks like ass and the actors sucked hard, except for G'Kar, Londo, and Delenn.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Fiddler on 17 Oct 2006, 08:10
B5 represented a shift in sci-fi TV to me. It introduced the big story arcs and intelligent ideas into the mainstream sci-fi TV and it has only gotten better since. Without it, there wouldn't be Farscape or BSG or DS9.

However, it still looks like ass and the actors sucked hard, except for G'Kar, Londo, and Delenn.

True story, G'Kar kicked so much ass but it was downright painful to watch some of the other characters speak.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Bearer on 17 Oct 2006, 19:56
Kind of funny how the Sci fi channel has such shit awful origanal movies (with the ecception of SS Doom-trooper, I love that movie, lol), but when they do mini-series and series they are usally amazing (in the case of BSG and Firefly).

But I digress, BSG is by far my favorite show on TV right now.  I can't wait to see where this whole occupation thing is going, definatly an awesome concept.  I know a lot of hardcorce fans of the origanal show were mad because so much was changed, but look at it realisticaly, they are two compleatly different shows now.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Mnementh on 17 Oct 2006, 21:07
It's intentional, they know they can make cheap movies for saturday night because no one but nerds are home.  They save the money for the money makers.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: nihilist on 18 Oct 2006, 08:37
Pissed that SG-1 and SG-A have these monsterous four month gaps in the middle of the season.  What the shitfuck.  But BSG started up, so I am okay.  And Doctor Who is on the way back.

Torchwood?  Interesting.  Wonder if it'll actually work.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Mark7 on 18 Oct 2006, 08:46
Responses from the media have been pretty positive so far.

Here's (http://www.sfx.co.uk/page/sfx?entry=first_reactions_to_torchwood) what SFX had to say.

Quote
“Absolutely bloody loved it. New Who has made sci-fi socially acceptable but I can see this making it positively hip - I’m certain it’s gonna be a hit and I think BBC One will be fighting tooth and claw to get this show off BBC Three.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Archangel_Lucifer on 24 Oct 2006, 10:04
Well I just saw BSG 3x04 and its absolutely freakin awesome! Who knew you could FTL jump inside atmospheres...
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 24 Oct 2006, 12:37
True story, G'Kar kicked so much ass but it was downright painful to watch some of the other characters speak.

Sinclair comes to mind something fierce. Especially when he'd try to be funny and there would always be this awkward, uncomfortable silence afterwards, like just by speaking he sucked the soul out of the room.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Inlander on 24 Oct 2006, 12:59
I've gotta admit, I never watched enough Babylon 5 to get the impression of the over-arching, five-season long storyline.  Mainly because every time I watched it, everything about it from the cringingly awful acting to the cliche-ravaged dialogue to the way below-par C.G.I. made it absolutely excruciating for me to watch.  I mean I applaud whatsisname's effort in pumping the thing out and sticking to his guns and seeing the whole thing through and all - but for all his effort, the end product was just excrement.  I mean, really.

Battlestar Galactica, though, is hot stuff.  We're only mid-way through season 2 here in Australia and it's getting better and better.  Case in point:

MINOR SPOILER ALERT









At the end of the last episode to screen here, Adama and the President (know the actor's name, forget the character's) kissed after she made him admiral.  You could tell it was going to happen, the scene was building that way, and I was really dreading it because I was fully expecting some overblown, Star Trek-style sweeping string on the soundtrack, swooning makeout session - but, to the writer's and director's eternal credit, we didn't get any of that.  We got the tenderest little peck on the lips, like two old friends (which the two are by now) who are realising that there might be a little bit more in it than that - and then a smile.  No emoting, no cheap passion-in-a-can, just two characters behaving like real human beings.  It was beautiful.








END SPOILER ALERT.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Mark7 on 24 Oct 2006, 13:49
You do realise B5 was pretty much THE first show on TV to use CGI to such a large extent, right?  And 90s CGI at that!

Mid 90s computers and rendering engines weren't as hot as they are now.  Not even the pro ones.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 24 Oct 2006, 14:01
I've gotta admit, I never watched enough Babylon 5 to get the impression of the over-arching, five-season long storyline.  Mainly because every time I watched it, everything about it from the cringingly awful acting to the cliche-ravaged dialogue to the way below-par C.G.I. made it absolutely excruciating for me to watch.  I mean I applaud whatsisname's effort in pumping the thing out and sticking to his guns and seeing the whole thing through and all - but for all his effort, the end product was just excrement.  I mean, really.

That was my thought the first time I tried to watch it. I couldn't get halfway through season 1.

Then, I decided to go back and force myself to suffer through at least another season, to see if I was wrong. I ended up watching it through to the end. And, honestly, all of that stuff is still there throughout the rest of the show(though it gets better with each season), but it seems so goddamned irrelevant compared to the story. It could have been a lot better, but TV is also better for it having existed at all. Without B5, Paramount wouldn't have made DS9 and without DS9, Ron Moore would've never gotten the greenlight to make BSG.

And if that's only as far as you've gotten in BSG, I envy you. You get to see what's coming up for the first time and I'm jealous, like when I show friends Firefly for the first time.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Inlander on 24 Oct 2006, 17:08
Mark7, I can't help but compare the C.G.I. to that of the Star Trek of the same era, which (to my eye) was infinitely superior.? I mean, when you look at any external shot of a ship in Babylon 5 the thing that immediately comes to mind is "oh look, C.G.I.".? It's just too obvious.? With, say, Star Trek: Next Gen, I was always able to suspend disbelief at least a little.

Ozymandias: I really can't foresee myself experiencing whatever full glory Babylon 5 may have in store.? The things I ranted about in my above post are absolute deal-breakers for me.? Especially the dialogue. I must confess I haven't ever seen a full-season: I've seen odd episodes from all of the seasons, and found the standard to be universally abysmal.

Okay, sorry, I'll try my hardest not to hi-jack this thread from now on, I just feel as a sci-fi fan that the adulation of Babylon 5 that one frequently experiences sorely needs to be balanced out!
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Mark7 on 24 Oct 2006, 17:18
I'm pretty sure Star Trek:TNG/DS9/Whatever was still using miniatures at that time.  And, besides that, the difference in budgets between the shows was pretty much night and day.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: nihilist on 24 Oct 2006, 19:21
And what did JMS do after B5?  Jeremiah...  Too bad that got shitcanned, was really well done.

BSG is rocking season three something fierce...  Oh man.  Weekends can't come fast enough.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 24 Oct 2006, 20:51
I'm pretty sure Star Trek:TNG/DS9/Whatever was still using miniatures at that time.  And, besides that, the difference in budgets between the shows was pretty much night and day.

Which is exactly why B5 is dated and DS9 isn't. Star Trek didn't start using CGI heavily until Voyager. B5 tried to do it earlier than the rest of TV and it suffers because of it.

Fun fact: Much of B5's SFX team would later go on to be part of Zoic, the company that does CGI for BSG and Firefly!
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: nihilist on 24 Oct 2006, 20:54
And without their B5 experiences, odds are the CGI for BSG and Firefly would have sucked goat nuts.  So, B5 had a use!
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Fiddler on 24 Oct 2006, 21:08
And without their B5 experiences, odds are the CGI for BSG and Firefly would have sucked goat nuts.  So, B5 had a use!

It's like your suggesting that things have not always been how they are now, and that we have actually developed better technology and techniques over time.   You mean to tell me they werent half assing B5 and that was really the best they could do at the time?  That is stunning news...  :wink:
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Spinless on 24 Oct 2006, 22:07
We don't quote the people above us here. Don't do it again.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: KOODustin on 09 Nov 2006, 22:28
In my opinion, BSG is one of the best dramas out there right now.  I mean, I love Lost but...get to SOME fucking point already.  Please.  But Battlestar has had only two episodes I didn't enjoy, one of them being Black Market (it did NOTHING to further the characters or storyline and just randomly threw in some chick Apollo's railing.  Lame.)  and the other being Sacrifice, for spoilerifical reasons.  This season, however, has blown me the hell away.  The "Adama maneuver" was one of the most exciting moments I've seen on TV.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Slick on 15 Nov 2006, 08:08
I just wanted to go and start a thread about this, but I never come to this sub-board. Thanks for, like, reading my mind a month in advance.


Two cents on Babylon 5: Good story arc, crap most of everything everything else. I wouldn't really knock the CGI, though, it's what they had and they tried to do more than TNG did. Sure, it doesn't look as good as today's (Firefly), but it was pretty good and I liked what they tried.
Skip the first and last season, the rest is worth watching.

Bab 5 Spoils: I just like the naval battles and the idea of seceding and being all against this evil government. The politics, inter-species, and between humans, was awesome. They messed up Garibaldi, though, and he was the only character I really liked. My favorite moment of the show is when the centauri ship is trying to attack the narn ship that bab 5 gave sanctuary to. That was a great moment, but there weren't a whole lot of those moments.
Anyone else get the feeling that that first telepath who geribaldi had a thing for got written out and replaced by the other teep because she quit or something? And that they had that super powered planet beneath them that the writers totally forgot about until they went 'oh shit, we have to use that some more'?
/Spoils


BSG: Look, can anyone help me? Assume anything here on out will spoil it if you haven't seen it.
I watched the first episode and there was so much promise there, but it seems like they just wasted it all. I really wanted to like this cool new sci-fi show, but I found it kind of horrible. I like the idea of this make-shift fleet, but there was too-much stupid.
"Hey look, it's a cylon that's really good at getting inside your head and screwing you up! Let's send starbuck, the most neurotic, conflicted person in this fleet to go interrogate it!" WTF!?
"These cylons are exactly the same and indistinguishable from normal humans. Except, they're robots, they DIE IN THAT FUNNY CLOUD AROUND THE ARMOURY, THEIR BACKS GLOW RED HOT WHEN THEY'RE 'DOING THE NASTY', and THEY'RE FRACKING ROBOTS!" Seriously, baltar never did the robo-chick from behind, even once? Can't they just run that junk under a geiger-counter or something?
"Oh look, we need to have an election because the president is the minister of education! Let's send two of our best FIGHTER PILOTS to act as security and special ops for the debates!" What, there's no one better to guard the president? Like the secret service, or the fracking commandoes?
They can make infinitely many of the same model of simalacra, but they can't change their hair colour? Or maybe make slightly different models? Brilliant. Just brilliant. "Come on guys, it'll give the monkeys a sporting chance. And it'll be way funny to see the look on their face when..."
"Why look, I've crawled inside this smelly, living-machine of a space ship, and even though I killed it, I can pull on various bits and bobs so as to make it fly!" This really bothered me. A lot. She can just pull on it's aorta and start the heart going? I know it was a headshot and the body should be intact, and maybe I'm forgetting something, but how did she see outside?

To sum it up, I love the premise, and I really really really like sci-fi naval stuff. Which is kind of what I want help with. If anybody can say 'don't worry about all the silly junk that happened last season, this season makes sense', great, if not, does anyone know anything else that will fill my need for space-based sci-fi naval battles/tactics? There were a lot of parts of BSG that I loved, but I couldn't get past a bunch of things I didn't like. I think it would have been much better if there were more characters on the battlestar besides the command staff, starbuck, and apollo. Like, maybe some marines who could have filled in for some of the stuff they made starpollo do so that they could continue to follow these stars.
I just had the episode on where tigh's wife comes back (pressure gradient, you know how it's easy to clean when there's work you really don't want to do, it follows that it's easier to study when there's bad TV on) and the president and the commander and the colonel are all 'I thought you were a cylon, I thought she was a cylon, I thought he was a cylon", and it came across like a poorly written comedy scene, or maybe a bad job of building tension.

To counter all my negativity, I love how they command from a place that doesn't have a big view-screen of the outside space. I love the design of the ship, the ambiance inside, the fighter structure and science. Good sci-fi, in my opinion, has naval battles more like submarine warfare than like surface combat or dogfighting, at least for the capital ships. I loved the fact that there was a fighter crew, this was a full capital ship, a ship of the line, and I love the naval jargon and the various characters. I really wanted someone to use the term 'cluster fuck', but I understand that they couldn't. Cluster frack would be pretty good. There was so much this show promised, but it just kind of ended up with a lot of disappointment for me.
So now that I've ranted at the lot of you, can anyone suggest anything similar to battlestar galactica without the silly drama and contrived scenes? I want to see capital ships without a big TV screen on the bridge fighting big naval battles, and fighter wings duke it out in between. Please, tell me this exists, a place where fictitious technology and space fleets exist?



...I really hope someone bothered to read this far.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 15 Nov 2006, 08:33
So now that I've ranted at the lot of you, can anyone suggest anything similar to battlestar galactica without the silly drama and contrived scenes? I want to see capital ships without a big TV screen on the bridge fighting big naval battles, and fighter wings duke it out in between. Please, tell me this exists, a place where fictitious technology and space fleets exist?

Nope. Sorry, BSG is the best you've got.

And the second season is way better than the first season.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: KOODustin on 15 Nov 2006, 08:37
Really, there's nothing out there that even comes close to BSG in terms of what you're looking for.  Which kinda sucks that you can't get past all those things you mentioned, because really, it's a damn good show if you just kind of sit back and not think too much about it.  And I think Starbuck just volunteers for all of the things she ends up doing, like the interrogation and the protection of Rosalyn.  I know Apollo volunteers to serve Rosalyn.  And there really isn't any secret service for Rosalyn.  She was 47th in line and as such was never given a Secret Service detail.  And when you consider the state of the military there, they are understaffed, and don't exactly have the resources to spare.  And as for the hair color thing, they actually DO have ones with different hair color.  They recently showed a brown haired Number Six.  Regarding the interrogation of Leoben, they didn't know at that point that the cylons were good at getting inside your head.  They didn't really know anything about them.  Hell, they barely know that they look like us.  The cylons are robots, but they aren't metallic or anything.  They just have synthetically grown organs and such.  Now, Starbuck and her Raider are a different story.  That's one of those things that doesn't have an explanation.  You kind of have to put aside the questions.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Inlander on 15 Nov 2006, 08:40
"These cylons are exactly the same and indistinguishable from normal humans. Except, they're robots, they DIE IN THAT FUNNY CLOUD AROUND THE ARMOURY, THEIR BACKS GLOW RED HOT WHEN THEY'RE 'DOING THE NASTY', and THEY'RE FRACKING ROBOTS!" Seriously, baltar never did the robo-chick from behind, even once? Can't they just run that junk under a geiger-counter or something?

These points mainly stem from the miniseries. The miniseries, although it serves as a useful primer on the main series, has a lot of inconsistencies with what came after it. Such as the fact that the human-model cylons are made of silicon (which would be ridiculously easy to detect); such as the fact that several of the human characters refer to "God", singular. As for Baltar's sexual habits . . . well, is it so hard to believe that he never "did her from behind"? Maybe he tried and she said she didn't want to? As we've seen, she can be very forceful and controlling. Also, it must be remembered that after the Cylon attack, Baltar has a vested interest in stalling the Cylon detection process for as long as possible. Therefore, it can be assumed that any peculiarities with regards to the humans not being able to detect the Cylons can be put down to Baltar sabotaging their efforts: the task of Cylon detection is, after all, almost exclusively his domain.

Quote
"Oh look, we need to have an election because the president is the minister of education! Let's send two of our best FIGHTER PILOTS to act as security and special ops for the debates!" What, there's no one better to guard the president? Like the secret service, or the fracking commandoes?

You've got to remember that there are fewer than 50,000 humans in the fleet. They won't necessarily have all the skill sets they need. Roslyn was the Secretary of Education, and her visit to Galactica was purely to oversee the opening of a museum, and in a time of peace at that. Therefore she's unlikely to have had many, if any, secret service personnel with her. Meanwhile, every other member of the government was killed in the Cylon attack, along with almost every member of the military. It's reasonable to assume all or nearly all of the secret service was, too. As for commandoes (marines), Wikipedia suggests that because it was being decommissioned, Galactica had relatively few marines on board. This seems reasonable.

Quote
They can make infinitely many of the same model of simalacra, but they can't change their hair colour? Or maybe make slightly different models? Brilliant. Just brilliant. "Come on guys, it'll give the monkeys a sporting chance. And it'll be way funny to see the look on their face when..."

I see this as psychological warfare: you destroy a human-model Cylon, but it just keeps coming back. Viewed from this perspective, it makes sense the models all look the same. It's more frightening.

Quote
I really wanted someone to use the term 'cluster fuck'

Then you should be watching the Wire, my friend!

Sergeant Landsmann, after one undercover police officer has shot and killed another: "What a cluster-fuck."
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Slick on 15 Nov 2006, 09:14
Regarding the interrogation of Leoben, they didn't know at that point that the cylons were good at getting inside your head.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but doesn't adama state that (paraphrase) 'I've dealt with this model before, it's good at getting your head and turning things around', in reference to the cylon he was stuck with on the armoury?

Also, the doggie-style and hair colour comments were more just hyperbole. In meat life, there is no one with whom to discuss such things for me, and I've been frustrated by the bigger details for about a year now.

I get that baltar had his interest in keeping the cylons undetected, but I got the impression that he couldn't detect them easily, even before the cylon-in-his-head broke him. Fuzzy memory may be to blame for that perception, though.

Limited population accounts for some problems, but I still don't like the fighter ace's being jack-of-all trades; I like a distributed cast better than the hero model. It could happen though. The feeling that it was more an artifact of the writers trying to give apollo and starbuck something new and exciting to do threw me off.
The point about the marines makes perfect sense, and this makes me happy.

You've assuaged some of my fears, so I may pick up the second season when I've got a spare stretch of time. Let me know if they say 'cluster-frak' or if a simulacrum says 'frog blast the vent core', however, because I'll be all over it in that case.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 15 Nov 2006, 21:30
I think the "Why do Apollo and Starbuck do everything?" questions are pretty much the same as "Why does Kirk always go with the away team?"

Because if some nobody did it, you wouldn't care.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: IRBABOON on 16 Nov 2006, 10:59
howdyness, are we talking ORIGINAL battle star, or the crappy re-make? cause the original is pretty fun to watch compared to the new one
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Slick on 16 Nov 2006, 21:40
I believe we're talking re-make. The original is interesting, but you see it being dated. If I recall correctly, it's still the most expensive TV show ever made?

Ozy, I get what you mean about captain Kirk, but whereas he's the captain commissioned with making first contact, and starpollo are just a couple of ace pilots, it irks me that the story has been written in a way so we can follow our heroes. It's like a little reminder that yes, this is a TV show, and yes, it was written by people. I'd like it if they expanded the role of some marines or something (assuming there are any on board), and made them minor, recurring characters. The regulars could interact with them, and that could be cool.
That's just my preference though, and I am obviously not a TV producer.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: dennis on 17 Nov 2006, 05:43
Regarding the interrogation of Leoben, they didn't know at that point that the cylons were good at getting inside your head.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but doesn't adama state that (paraphrase) 'I've dealt with this model before, it's good at getting your head and turning things around', in reference to the cylon he was stuck with on the armoury?

Also, the doggie-style and hair colour comments were more just hyperbole. In meat life, there is no one with whom to discuss such things for me, and I've been frustrated by the bigger details for about a year now.

I get that baltar had his interest in keeping the cylons undetected, but I got the impression that he couldn't detect them easily, even before the cylon-in-his-head broke him. Fuzzy memory may be to blame for that perception, though.

Limited population accounts for some problems, but I still don't like the fighter ace's being jack-of-all trades; I like a distributed cast better than the hero model. It could happen though. The feeling that it was more an artifact of the writers trying to give apollo and starbuck something new and exciting to do threw me off.
The point about the marines makes perfect sense, and this makes me happy.

You've assuaged some of my fears, so I may pick up the second season when I've got a spare stretch of time. Let me know if they say 'cluster-frak' or if a simulacrum says 'frog blast the vent core', however, because I'll be all over it in that case.
I get the impression that you really have no intention of the giving the show a chance.

The fighter ace is not a jack-of-all trades. The reason he leads marines is because he's an officer with tactical experience, and in the first season, there aren't many like him.

These other things you're demanding from the show are unrealistic expectations. BSG isn't a space navy simulation, it's a drama. You're expected to suspend-your-disbelief. It was also in development as the first season progressed, so at times, they had to wing it.

Any drama has to deal with a limited cast because the audience can't be expected to deal with an entire carrier crew. Story arcs take precedence over technicalia. Some of the things you see are metaphors. Metaphors are handy because they communicate a lot of information and subtlety in a small amount of space. Caprica 6's lower back glows while she's fucking Baltar in order to draw significance to that event, not because someone decided that Cylons have a lumbar glow when they copulate. Not all mistakes and inaccuracies are forgivable of course, but not everything is a mistake, either.
Do you like any shows?
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Slick on 17 Nov 2006, 06:25
I get the impression that you really have no intention of the giving the show a chance.
No, the sensible arguments and dialog here have changed my mind, it's on my list of things to watch. Albeit, beneath a few other recommendations, but it's on there now.

Do you like any shows?
Of course! I just had real high hopes that this would finally be the show I wanted, and then the show turned out to be not everything I had dreamed for. Then I was a little dissapointed. If it was still in development for the first season, that makes me feel a bit better about it.
Sorry for ranting, but I was hoping it wouldn't be so much drama. I am not a representative sample of the population, so I'll just have to take what I can get.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 17 Nov 2006, 07:06
It should be noted that the Galactica is severely understaffed and anyone with the experience of Apollo or Starbuck is extremely valuable in any situation. It is not a state-of-the-art warship, it's a relic of an old war that was running a skeleton crew as it was being prepared to be turned into a museum. The people on that ship are not the best of the best of the best. Bill Adama and Tigh hold their command positions, not because they're brilliant, but because they were put out of the way where they weren't going to be on the front lines, let alone the last, best hope of humanity.

As such, it can pretty much be assumed that any marine details on Galactica that were there during the Cylon attack were not exactly 'all that they could be'.

If you watch the second season, that distinction that the Galactica and its crew were not the best in the fleet is made very apparent.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: KOODustin on 17 Nov 2006, 07:16
howdyness, are we talking ORIGINAL battle star, or the crappy re-make? cause the original is pretty fun to watch compared to the new one
  I'm always amazed how there two VERY different camps about this show.  I don't think I've met one person who likes both equally.  They are, in tone, polar opposites.  The original was campy and fun and pretty much fluff.  Which isn't bad.  I've seen episodes, and yeah, for what it was, it was fun.  Except for some of the robots.  And Boxey.   The re-imagined series, is a human drama, that takes a look at how real people would try to survive when on the run battling the extinction of their species.  It really depends on what you want out of the show, because Battlestar Galactica now is NOTHING like the original.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 17 Nov 2006, 09:44
In my experience, the people in the old BSG camp haven't even given the new one any sort of chance.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Slick on 17 Nov 2006, 11:27
I do remember laughing when I read a review of BSG stating something to the effect of it being 'the best new drama' this season. I mean, I know it's all new drama, and it's a different show, but I still chuckled at the line.

If you expect the old in the new you'll be sorely dissapointed, but if you were getting your wish you'd still probably be pretty dissapointed in that it was nothing interesting to you.
I assume it'd be hard for anyone who is familiar with source material to enjoy a remake.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: IRBABOON on 17 Nov 2006, 11:46
In my experience, the people in the old BSG camp haven't even given the new one any sort of chance.

yeah, maybe, iv only seen a few episodes of the new one, so there might be something to that, but personally i usually dont take to re-makes if iv seen the original first.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 17 Nov 2006, 19:52
In the case of Battlestar Galactica, it's not even a remake.

Or it's the best kind of remake. The kind where you take the premise and setting of an older show that didn't do well or wasn't very good, and then change it until it will do well and is good. I guess that's why the old BSG camp doesn't like it: it assumes the old BSG sucks.

Which, if you were born past 1979, it does. Cheesy and campy. Blarg.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: dennis on 18 Nov 2006, 11:51
No, the sensible arguments and dialog here have changed my mind, it's on my list of things to watch. Albeit, beneath a few other recommendations, but it's on there now.
I'm glad. I apologize for being presumptuous.

Quote
Of course! I just had real high hopes that this would finally be the show I wanted, and then the show turned out to be not everything I had dreamed for. Then I was a little dissapointed. If it was still in development for the first season, that makes me feel a bit better about it.
Sorry for ranting, but I was hoping it wouldn't be so much drama. I am not a representative sample of the population, so I'll just have to take what I can get.
I like stuff that is technically accurate, as well, but I donno, I just don't have any real issues with the show. It bothers me a little that the make of the sidearms they're using has changed between shows, but the show is focused less on the guns than it is with the action, if you get my drift. I mean, they had revolvers in the miniseries, I think. Now they've moved to using FN 5-7s with some ornaments on them.

I do really like the space battles. It's good to break from the star trek mold of space battle. It reminds me of the Homeworld series, actually.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: HFrankenstein on 28 Nov 2006, 22:02
...it assumes the old BSG sucks.

Which, if you were born past 1979, it does. Cheesy and campy. Blarg.

It did have going for it the fact that the protagonists were on the losing side throughout the series, just like the current series.  Mind you, it was nothing new that the good guys were the underdogs, but most times, the story revolves around the underdogs fighting back and eventually winning, whereas even the original series revolved around them running and just trying to stay alive.  So, at the very least, it bucked a trend, for which one should definitely give it some credit.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Gutter Monkey on 29 Nov 2006, 01:10
I've seen a couple episodes of the original Battlestar, and its main problem always seemed to be that it was trying to be too many different things. A warship- even a space warship- is an inherently dark concept: it is a very complex machine that was meticulously designed to kill people. It is operated by people who get paid to be good at killing other people through various methods. That doesn't make warships evil and the people who crew them bad, but it does mean that if you're going to try and make a show about a warship into light escapism, but not in an intentional comedy kind of way, you're going to be working against your own premise. This same principle is why family-oriented/kid-friendly military dramas just suck out of general principle. *cough*JAG!*cough*

Also, what the fuck was up with those uniforms? And calling their pilots "warriors"? And calling years yarhen? And keeping a stupid kid and his robot dog around very dangerous equipment? And the disco haircuts in space? And those stupid TURBO buttons on the Viper control sticks?
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: HFrankenstein on 29 Nov 2006, 03:31
And those stupid TURBO buttons on the Viper control sticks?

Well, let us keep in mind that turbo is just an awesome word, especially in all caps.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Gutter Monkey on 29 Nov 2006, 04:02
Yeah, but can the cool-factor of turbo overcome the fact that in this context the turbo button is linked to an afterburner that makes the Viper look like it is suffering from a severe bout of flatulence?

"Starbuck, I need backup!"

"I'm on my way, Apollo. Just let me press my turbo button!" *PPPTPPTPBHBHBHBHBHBHBTT!!*
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: IRBABOON on 29 Nov 2006, 10:28
and remember that anything with abutton labled turbo, it is instantly cool!!
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ulmassir on 29 Nov 2006, 11:59
Is it okay if, even though the new Battlestar Galactica is my favorite show, I still get all warm and nostalgic when I watch old Battlestar Galactica?

Especially when I hear the theme music...
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: HFrankenstein on 29 Nov 2006, 20:10
Perfectly okay.  The old Battlestar had a really good theme song.  As a piece of music, I almost like it better than the new one's theme song, though the new one fits much better.  Ooh, and Bear McCreary's arrangement of the old Battlestar theme on the Season 2 soundtrack?  Delicious.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Gutter Monkey on 30 Nov 2006, 13:46
The original BSG theme was by John Williams, back before he laid his gray ass firmly on his laurels, so yeah, it's pretty good.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: dennis on 30 Nov 2006, 17:22
Oh my gods. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhLye1uk-4)
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Mnementh on 01 Dec 2006, 15:32
I still maintain that John Williams is a hack who doesn't have an original score in his body.

Dennis, that was pretty damn good (and about 3:15 too long).  I think that song was originally done by Rod Stewart a long time before the star trek series it was used on.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Gutter Monkey on 03 Dec 2006, 13:51
That clip was fucking blasphemy. Somebody should be shot for that.

And John Williams used to be great: the Jaws theme, the Imperial March, they're classics. His recent stuff is just boring.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 04 Dec 2006, 01:27
I concur with Daniel amd maintain that the Imperial March is a stripped down version of Sergei Prokofiev's Dance of the Knights.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: dennis on 17 Dec 2006, 20:26
I still maintain that John Williams is a hack who doesn't have an original score in his body.

Dennis, that was pretty damn good (and about 3:15 too long).  I think that song was originally done by Rod Stewart a long time before the star trek series it was used on.
Regardless of who sings it, that song has some of the worst lyrics I've ever heard. They're even worse than the lyrics to 311's first single.

Seriously, "faith of the heart" doesn't even mean anything! it's like saying "I've got spirit of the liver".
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Inlander on 18 Dec 2006, 06:32
Guys, you're all missing the point of that song. That song wasn't ever to be taken seriously. That song was all about playing the air drums, and busting air microphone moves, and air emoting, and shouting at the top of your lungs "CAN YOU SMELL THE PASSION?!?!?!"
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Mnementh on 18 Dec 2006, 08:43
It's an 80s-esque thing!
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Inlander on 18 Dec 2006, 18:04
But then in the later seasons of Enterprise they changed to a different version of the theme tune, and robbed us of even that simple pleasure.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 19 Dec 2006, 01:08
That was the price we pay for the last season of Enterprise being pure awesome.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Inlander on 19 Dec 2006, 06:23
Generally I don't mind Enterprise, but the last episodes I saw were the incredibly cheesy alternative univers "Evil Empire" episodes. I almost had to open all the windows and doors in my house, they stank the place up so bad!
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 19 Dec 2006, 10:24
Oh, hell no!

In a Mirror, Darkly is one of the best two-parters ever!
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Inlander on 19 Dec 2006, 13:02
Correction: one of the best ideas for a two-parter ever. But the execution was one big ol' cheese & ham sandwich.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Mnementh on 19 Dec 2006, 13:46
Brennan and Berman should be shot before they have anything to do with a Star Trek Franchise ever again.  The reason that last season was better than the prior seasons is because they were forced to step away from the show.  It should have been such a better show, with the crew going off and having first contact with the romulans and all that.  Instead those fuckers decided to break with canon and get the borg involved, or right stories about that stupid time war.

That series had such potential, such horrible writing and story ideas.  BSG is pretty much everything that show should have been.  Master and Commander in space.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 19 Dec 2006, 14:22
Correction: one of the best ideas for a two-parter ever. But the execution was one big ol' cheese & ham sandwich.

I blame Scott Bakula.

Actually, I usually blame Scott Bakula. Bastard.

Berman was the problem with Voyager and Enterprise. I actually often step up and defend Braga because he's actually a really good writer who just should have never been put in the position of head of a show. As evidence:

Ode to Spot

Felis Cattus, is your taxonomic nomenclature,
an endothermic quadruped carnivorous by nature?
Your visual, olfactory and auditory senses
contribute to your hunting skills, and natural defenses.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations,
a singular development of cat communications
that obviates your basic hedonistic predilection
for a rhythmic stroking of your fur, to demonstrate affection.

A tail is quite essential for your acrobatic talents;
you would not be so agile if you lacked its counterbalance.
And when not being utilized to aide in locomotion,
it often serves to illustrate the state of your emotion.

O Spot, the complex levels of behaviour you display
connote a fairly well-developed cognitive array.
And though you are not sentient, Spot, and do not comprehend,
I nonetheless consider you a true and valued friend.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Inlander on 19 Dec 2006, 18:10
BSG is pretty much everything [Enterprise] should have been.

Hmm - Two actors, both stars of Quantum Leap . . . Enterprise has Scott Bakula being generally pretty crap . . . while B.S.G. has Dean Stockwell being five-star awesome . . .

By god, I think you're onto something!!
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Gutter Monkey on 13 Jan 2007, 05:04
Meh, I always thought BSG is what Voyager should have been. They both have a very similar premise: a stranded crew trying to get home. If Voyager had featured a larger cast of supporting characters, and had focused on character instead of technobable, it could have been great. They could have even had a fleet, with fleet politics, as Voyager runs across other ships from the Alpha and Beta Quads that had been stranded by the Caretaker, and they form a little convoy heading back into charted space. They could have had the long, interesting story arcs of DS9, only now the main characters get to move around more. Basically, more DS9 would have been better.

Enterprise...well, Enterprise shouldn't have been, period.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 13 Jan 2007, 10:49
The fourth season of Enterprise says you are wrong about that last sentence, sir! Enterprise should have continued.

Also, Ronald D. Moore complained a lot about Voyager and was part of the staff early in the show. He wrote about it in length and most of the stuff he wrote about being wrong with Voyager were things he specifically corrected in BSG.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Hat on 14 Jan 2007, 17:36
If I had known Enterprise had mirror universe episodes, I probably would have bothered to get into it sooner. As it is, I didn't see much I liked, so I didn't really give a crap. I should really find someone with all the DVDs or something.

In related news, I am borrowing season 1 of BSG tomorrow, so I can actually have an opinion on this show that everyone seems to be talking so much about!
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Ozymandias on 14 Jan 2007, 23:32
Don't bother with seasons 1 and 2 of Enterprise, if you ever do watch it. There's not much there worth watching. Just a few episodes.

Season 3 is okay, though. Season 4 is phenominal.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: BillAdama on 22 Jan 2007, 01:00
Guess how I feel about Battlestar Galactica.

I'm going to be a nerd heretic here and say I didn't really like Firefly that much.  It had a lot of clever one liners, and it was cool how they did the whole anti-hero thing, but I don't feel the writing and non-Malcolm acting is that strong.  Plus the whole Inara character seemed like one big attempt to draw ratings, especially when she entertained the woman.

There isn't really a whole lot of scifi on TV I like right now other than BSG.  I guess you could call Heroes scifi, and it's got a lot of potential.  Plus, if you consider Lost scifi (Though I consider it alone in a genre with Twin Peaks), it's great.
Title: Re: Battlestar Galactica and others
Post by: Hat on 04 Feb 2007, 02:32
Ok, so holy crap.

Holy fucking crap guys

I have not punched the air and yelled "YES!!" at the top of my lungs while watching a TV show since I first saw firefly, and I do that every second episode watching BSG.

I love how even when theres characters that I fucking hate for whatever reason (And mostly I'm just talking about Tighs wife here) they don't go out of their way to make them maliciously unlikable, but simply give them real human flaws. I mean, the woman is a whore, but it still comes across that she loves Tigh, even though, as I said, she is a filthy whore

Man, I could go on and on. I'm up to episode 6 of Season 3 now and am really jonesing for some plot development on a few things.

- The Imaginary number 6 in Baltars head/The whole "God" thing. What the heck is going on here?
- Earth: but I am kind of worried when they actually find Earth, that'll more or less be the end of the show, so I'm happy to have them put this off for a while
- Goddamn I really want to know who the other 5 Cylon models are. I have a couple of theories I won't speculate on here for spoiler reasons, but there is a pretty good chance they are deliberate red herrings. I get the feeling we haven't met most of, if any of the other models yet, but I'm thinking theres probably going to be at least big surprise "Oh shit I didn't know he/she was a cylon" moment.



Also, my one complaint about the show. At the end of S2 and the beginning of S3, everyone was growing facial hair. It rocked. Adama's moustache, Tighs surly sailors beard, and Chiefs full face sasquatch look was fucking awesome. Then everyone gets off the planet and BAM, they shave themselves clean.

POOR EFFORT, GALACTICA CREW.