Comparing The Two Shows

kingfish · January 22nd, 2005, 05:47 PM

It can't be done:

One was made in 1978 and the other 2004/05. What is acceptable in todays TV Market wasn't acceptable back then. In the 70's you couldn't show disfunctionality, all that could be done was allude to it. In the 70's you couldn't show sex on TV but movies had a bit of leeway. If it wasn't for Stephen Boccho we still would be limited in what we see. The ratings system was another plus because if it is labeled then the audience has some idea of what they are getting. I hope this makes sense.

Spike The Cylon · January 22nd, 2005, 07:47 PM

comparing the two shows is like comparing apples to oranges. Yea, they are both fruit, but, they are also so different.
I look both shows as two different ways of telling the same story.

Fragmentary · January 22nd, 2005, 07:56 PM

In those critieria you can't compare the shows, but really it sounds more like you're saying that you can't compare those two styles of programming. Those shows themselves owe more of their differences to what they were trying to accomplish and focus on than to what network censors and social boundaries said. I don't think Larson would ever have made a show like the new Galactica, it just wasn't the kind of writing that he did. All of his shoes, and certainly the successful ones, share a pretty common level of disfunctionality and controversy, which is to say not much. That's not because of the times, that's just Larson's sensiblities. He was always a plot driven writer and not a character driven one.

But I still hold, that if you get past the differences in the approach that the new and old shows take, underneath all of style, the substance is much closer than it seems. The new and the old Galactica are very similiar.

julix · January 24th, 2005, 10:33 AM

Frag........
I think the premise is the same....it is Sci-Fi and some of the same character types are there......As RDM says he took a father/son and a bad guy and an enemy...etc...
Other than some of those things I think it is pretty different but just my opinion.

bsg1fan1975 · January 24th, 2005, 11:43 AM

My two cubits,

The two shows are total polar opposites!

thomas7g · January 24th, 2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

That's not because of the times, that's just Larson's sensiblities. He was always a plot driven writer and not a character driven one.

I think you mean doesnt focus as much on character conflicts. His shows were all about character, and character interplay. Though alot of the character depth was hurt by the speed ABC demanded new episodes be delivered. There was simply no time to work in alot of depth if the script is due for imediate shooting.

I definitely agree that these shows are so completely different. The old show was very much emulating a Star Wars style of fun swashbuckling space adventure. The Ron Moore show looks more like NYPD Blue than anything else in scifi.

Dawg · January 24th, 2005, 12:15 PM

Comparing the two shows:

You cannot.

But you must.

The comparison is forced upon us. It was forced upon us from Day One. And it has divided us, perhaps permanently (although I hope not).

They are two entirely different shows. The perspectives are, indeed, polar opposites. One is told from the standpoint of hope and family and heroism, the other from dysfunction, god-complex and moral ambiguity. One has a rich backstory of carefully crafted myth and history not of this Earth but related to it, the other a background lifted directly from our society today.

There is no comparison.

But there is and always will be comparison. Comparison between the two will be shoved in our faces long after the new is gone from the airwaves.

It's because they share the same name and share certain designs. It's because the new is touted as being superior to the old. It's because the new is adapting certain narrow aspects of the old. It's because the marketing demands that we make the comparison.

It's because they want the new to be the only Battlestar Galactica.

So if you're a fan of the original, support the CFF and write to Universal telling them so. If you're a fan of both, support the CFF and write letters to Universal saying that you want both universes.

I am
Dawg

Fragmentary · January 24th, 2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomas7g

I think you mean doesnt focus as much on character conflicts. His shows were all about character, and character interplay. Though alot of the character depth was hurt by the speed ABC demanded new episodes be delivered. There was simply no time to work in alot of depth if the script is due for imediate shooting.

There was vitually no character depth to any character on the original show. Don't get me wrong, I love those characters, they were fun and I would have hung out with them. But they weren't very real, or honestly very interesting. After the first episode, you knew everything you needed to know about everyone. No one ever did anything unexpected. Apollo always did the right thing, always. And he was always concerned about everyone's feelings and making his father proud of him. A great guy, but a shallow character. Starbuck, who was on the outside, a rogue and a playboy, also always did the right thing. You never doubted for a second that he woudn't make every choice that Apollo would make. When he's charged with murder and gets into his viper to flee, did you for even a second doubt that he wouldn't? Of course not, no character good or bad ever did anything to surprise the viewer. Those aren't deep characters. That is a show about archetypes

As for their interaction. Well they were in the same place most of the time, but that's it. One character rarely effected another character. The Apollo we had before his wife died, was pretty much the same as the one we had after. Starbuck juggled multiple women but we never saw him break anyone's heart, or ever suffer from his own guilt. Now, obviously you can find lines here and there to argue any of these points. But if its just a question of interpretation, that's not subtle writing, that the viewer filling in their own blanks.

My opinion. No need to lock me in the launch tube and pour on the steam

Eric Paddon · January 24th, 2005, 06:42 PM

"There was vitually no character depth to any character on the original show. Don't get me wrong, I love those characters, they were fun and I would have hung out with them. But they weren't very real, or honestly very interesting."

Just out of curiosity, do you say the same thing about the classic characters of Star Trek? I'm bringing that in for a reason because Star Trek never had to see it's classic characters "reimagined" to satisfy anyone, and I think that is important when judging the characters of TOS in the context of what we typically saw on sci-fi TV in that era. These were characters who had to learn and deal with the consequences of what went on before in ways that no other sci-fi characters ever had to, coming as they did from self-contained formula shows where on Star Trek.

"After the first episode, you knew everything you needed to know about everyone. No one ever did anything unexpected."

Really? We saw Apollo get married in the second episode, and then saw the rug pulled out from under him. We saw Starbuck change from the "space Casanova" who would juggle women to a virtual monogamist with Cassiopeia by season's end. We saw Apollo in "Hand Of God" finally break out of a shell with women the result of losing his wife, with Sheba. We saw new details about Boomer and his expertise in other areas, we saw Starbuck's past explored regarding his orphan history that let us probe his psyche more and understand his nature. That's a pretty good effort for just 17 original episodes!

"Apollo always did the right thing, always."

He did the WRONG thing in "The Lost Warrior" by not acting quickly enough against the Cylon and the end result was the death of Bootes.

"And he was always concerned about everyone's feelings and making his father proud of him. A great guy, but a shallow character. "

What is "shallow" about what you've just described?

"Starbuck, who was on the outside, a rogue and a playboy, also always did the right thing."

Got himself taken prisoner in LPOTG; fouled up in "Long Patrol" by letting himself get knocked out and his viper stolen; got tricked into becoming constable in "The Magnificent Warriors"; certainly didn't handle himself correctly in getting set up for a murder charge; made unjust accusations against his friends when they did a simple background check on Chameleon. Not exactly a case of "always doing the right thing".

"Those aren't deep characters. That is a show about archetypes"

You seem to be equating "depth" with characters who are mental screw-ups about something and have to have some amount of dysfunctionality in their lives, and I just don't accept that premise.

"As for their interaction. Well they were in the same place most of the time, but that's it. One character rarely effected another character."

Apollo affected Starbuck; Apollo and Sheba affected each other; Cassiopeia affected Starbuck......

"The Apollo we had before his wife died, was pretty much the same as the one we had after."

See above comments regarding Apollo and women, and how "Hand Of God" gave us a dramatic turning point with his potential new relationship with Sheba.

"Starbuck juggled multiple women but we never saw him break anyone's heart, or ever suffer from his own guilt."

So much for Athena and Aurora. And by season's end he was no longer juggling multiple women, he had moved closer to Cassiopeia. That's my definition of an evolving character who's learning and that was what made Galactica a refreshing departure from before.

"Now, obviously you can find lines here and there to argue any of these points. But if its just a question of interpretation, that's not subtle writing, that the viewer filling in their own blanks."

No, I would submit in this instance it's more a case of not willing to look at Galactica in its proper context of what kind of show it was, and what it was doing new and different from before. The above examples I've noted are not examples of subtle writing that someone has to think twice about but examples that were important to many plot points of the stories and are fairly evident when one watches the series as a whole. Now I'm not saying the execution was done perfectly, but the results were there and it's just not accurate IMO to call Galactica a show of shallow characters, especially when I don't hear similar descriptions applied to the famous sci-fi characters of other contemporaneous sci-fi properties.

Fragmentary · January 25th, 2005, 02:44 AM

“Just out of curiosity, do you say the same thing about the classic characters of Star Trek? I'm bringing that in for a reason because Star Trek never had to see it's classic characters "reimagined" to satisfy anyone, and I think that is important when judging the characters of TOS in the context of what we typically saw on sci-fi TV in that era. These were characters who had to learn and deal with the consequences of what went on before in ways that no other sci-fi characters ever had to, coming as they did from self-contained formula shows where on Star Trek.”

Actually I would say that’s a pretty fair argument for the characters in the original series of Trek. I suppose it might be less obvious since each episode was self contained and you never saw story points carry over into the next show or season. But, yeah, it wasn’t until the movies that Kirk and crew started changing or becoming deeply textured. In II we saw the flip side of Kirk’s philandering ways with his estrangement from his son, and in VI we see his true feelings for Klingons come out. Due to the events set in motion in the movies, not the series I might add. So, I’d consider the original crew, at least on the show, to have been pretty shallow. Still lovable and great to watch, just not very deep.

”Really? We saw Apollo get married in the second episode, and then saw the rug pulled out from under him. We saw Starbuck change from the "space Casanova" who would juggle women to a virtual monogamist with Cassiopeia by season's end. We saw Apollo in "Hand Of God" finally break out of a shell with women the result of losing his wife, with Sheba. We saw new details about Boomer and his expertise in other areas, we saw Starbuck's past explored regarding his orphan history that let us probe his psyche more and understand his nature. That's a pretty good effort for just 17 original episodes!”

Most of what you list is just character background. I’m not saying that they didn’t have stories and histories. I’m just saying that you always knew how each character was going to behave. There were no surprises, no learning about themselves from their experiences.

”(Apollo) did the WRONG thing in "The Lost Warrior" by not acting quickly enough against the Cylon and the end result was the death of Bootes.

That is an interesting take, but Bootes didn’t die because Apollo did something unexpected or out of the ordinary. In fact, he died BECAUSE Apollo followed his established parameters so rigidly. Apollo would never do anything rash, or anything morally dubious, no matter what the consequences, even if it meant a character dying because of it. And that’s exactly what did happen. What if Apollo hadn’t waited until he was completely positive that no greater fury would befall the community? What if he had just acted on passion and strapped on his laser and gunned down the Cylon? That would have been intriguing stuff. Instead, he did just as we knew he would. And following on that, someone died because of it, but did Apollo learn something from that? Did we see him learn from that and take action sooner in a situation later on because of that? Did we even see him mention in passing that he might have made a mistake?

"And he was always concerned about everyone's feelings and making his father proud of him. A great guy, but a shallow character. "
”What is "shallow" about what you've just described?”

Those traits aren’t shallow, it’s the fact that they are never called into question, never challenged. Apollo is never put in a situation where doing what must be done would force him to break out of that established mold. His true mettle is never tested. He is allowed to always do the right thing and everything works out for him because of it.

”(Starbuck) got himself taken prisoner in LPOTG; fouled up in "Long Patrol" by letting himself get knocked out and his viper stolen; got tricked into becoming constable in "The Magnificent Warriors"; certainly didn't handle himself correctly in getting set up for a murder charge; made unjust accusations against his friends when they did a simple background check on Chameleon. Not exactly a case of "always doing the right thing".

I didn’t mean that he never made mistakes. He did. I just meant that his character of the lovable rogue is exactly what he was all of the time. A lovable rogue. Sure, he was charged with murder, but there was no doubt that he wasn’t capable of such a thing. There was never any instance when he actually broke the rules. In “The Magnificent Warriors” he’s duped into becoming the constable and what does he do? Fulfills his obligation… all the way to the point of finding a new constable so that he can get out of the job. Look at him compared to a contemporary, Han Solo. Granted, he’s not much deeper I don’t hold him as a paragon for character depth, but in the original version of the first movie, he guns down Greedo in the cantina. That’s important because through out the rest of the trilogy, he always does the right thing, always. But at the end of Star Wars, you really think that he’s leaving since he has got his reward, and the reason is because he shot Greedo. He actually did something against type, and that made his character richer, there was an arc of sorts, if you squinted. There was no arc in Starbucks character. No shade of gray.

”You seem to be equating "depth" with characters who are mental screw-ups about something and have to have some amount of dysfunctionality in their lives, and I just don't accept that premise.”

Real people aren’t all mental screw ups, but you can’t always predict what each person will do in every situation because each person is constantly growing and learning and adapting. Because of that, sometimes people do the wrong things and sometimes they surprise you by being unexpectedly understanding or generous. They’ll see a weakness or flaw in their personality and try to change it and that’s where an individual’s character arc comes from. If Starbuck had seen that he was hurting Athena and so decided to get into a monogamous relationship with Cassie, then that would have been a character development. But we never see how any of the changes to the structure of the show come from the characters learning something about themselves or each other.

”See above comments regarding Apollo and women, and how "Hand Of God" gave us a dramatic turning point with his potential new relationship with Sheba.”

It wasn’t a dramatic turning point at all. Apollo is seemingly clueless about how he might feel about Sheba until she lets her guard down and forces him to see the forest for the trees. BUT, and this is important, nothing comes of it in the episode. We don’t see Apollo and Sheba at the end, taking the first steps in developing a new relationship. We see Apollo and Starbuck, just like always. Apollo being serious and trying to catch another transmission and Starbuck goading him on about the awards they’re supposed to get. Now maybe Apollo did learn something about himself, and about how he’s pushed women away since his wife died. But it’s not in the episode. It’s not articulated by him, or spoken of by the other characters. Fans might “see” it as being there, but that’s still just an interpretation. Nothing on screen explicitly lays out that Apollo has grown.

”So much for Athena and Aurora. And by season's end he was no longer juggling multiple women, he had moved closer to Cassiopeia. That's my definition of an evolving character who's learning and that was what made Galactica a refreshing departure from before.”

But again, you are supposing that something has happened off screen to explain this. You are reading into the story that Starbuck realized that he really loved Cassie or that he was hurting Athena. In reality, Athena was written out of the show. We never see Starbuck deal with the repercussions of his actions. We never see him say to someone that he’s realized something. The closest we get to that, is Starbuck’s vague announcement to Boomer in the beginning of the TYL. And again, whatever realization Starbuck had, goes unspoken. But it certainly never changed his behavior. He was always going to do the right and sensible thing when push finally came to shove.

more...

Fragmentary · January 25th, 2005, 02:45 AM

the rest...

”No, I would submit in this instance it's more a case of not willing to look at Galactica in its proper context of what kind of show it was, and what it was doing new and different from before. The above examples I've noted are not examples of subtle writing that someone has to think twice about but examples that were important to many plot points of the stories and are fairly evident when one watches the series as a whole. Now I'm not saying the execution was done perfectly, but the results were there and it's just not accurate IMO to call Galactica a show of shallow characters, especially when I don't hear similar descriptions applied to the famous sci-fi characters of other contemporaneous sci-fi properties.”

I don’t think that you have to look at a show within a certain context to decide if the characters are deep or not. I would argue that most of the supposed, depth you presented is just an interpretation based not on what is actually on screen, but more on how you’ve decided to read into things a certain sophistication. Again the story is very detailed, I completely agree with that. The greater human backstory, and even the backstories of individual characters have a lot of thought in them. But the people we meet in the beginning remain unchanged through out the show. Cassie becomes a med-tech, but we don’t know why. We don’t see her character significantly changed because of it either. She behaves and responds the same ways still. In fact, in one episode they loop the word “med-tech” over her referring to herself as a socialator, but she’s still climbing into bed with Starbuck as she says it. (or laying down on a couch, but the implications are clear enough)

As for other shows, Science Fiction in general has a long and proud history of shallow characters. Writers have always chosen the fantastic setting over the complex characters. That’s just how it is. And Galactica was on at a certain time when that was the focus. Larson was writing an adventure show, not a character drama. I’m not tearing the show down, just being honest as I see it. Interesting points you brought up. I enjoyed reading what you had to say. Clearly we see things differently, but we both still love the show and that’s the important denominator. Thanks for reading my ramble.

bsg1fan1975 · January 25th, 2005, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon

"There was vitually no character depth to any character on the original show. Don't get me wrong, I love those characters, they were fun and I would have hung out with them. But they weren't very real, or honestly very interesting."

Just out of curiosity, do you say the same thing about the classic characters of Star Trek? I'm bringing that in for a reason because Star Trek never had to see it's classic characters "reimagined" to satisfy anyone, and I think that is important when judging the characters of TOS in the context of what we typically saw on sci-fi TV in that era. These were characters who had to learn and deal with the consequences of what went on before in ways that no other sci-fi characters ever had to, coming as they did from self-contained formula shows where on Star Trek.

"After the first episode, you knew everything you needed to know about everyone. No one ever did anything unexpected."

Really? We saw Apollo get married in the second episode, and then saw the rug pulled out from under him. We saw Starbuck change from the "space Casanova" who would juggle women to a virtual monogamist with Cassiopeia by season's end. We saw Apollo in "Hand Of God" finally break out of a shell with women the result of losing his wife, with Sheba. We saw new details about Boomer and his expertise in other areas, we saw Starbuck's past explored regarding his orphan history that let us probe his psyche more and understand his nature. That's a pretty good effort for just 17 original episodes!

"Apollo always did the right thing, always."

He did the WRONG thing in "The Lost Warrior" by not acting quickly enough against the Cylon and the end result was the death of Bootes.

"And he was always concerned about everyone's feelings and making his father proud of him. A great guy, but a shallow character. "

What is "shallow" about what you've just described?

"Starbuck, who was on the outside, a rogue and a playboy, also always did the right thing."

Got himself taken prisoner in LPOTG; fouled up in "Long Patrol" by letting himself get knocked out and his viper stolen; got tricked into becoming constable in "The Magnificent Warriors"; certainly didn't handle himself correctly in getting set up for a murder charge; made unjust accusations against his friends when they did a simple background check on Chameleon. Not exactly a case of "always doing the right thing".

"Those aren't deep characters. That is a show about archetypes"

You seem to be equating "depth" with characters who are mental screw-ups about something and have to have some amount of dysfunctionality in their lives, and I just don't accept that premise.

"As for their interaction. Well they were in the same place most of the time, but that's it. One character rarely effected another character."

Apollo affected Starbuck; Apollo and Sheba affected each other; Cassiopeia affected Starbuck......

"The Apollo we had before his wife died, was pretty much the same as the one we had after."

See above comments regarding Apollo and women, and how "Hand Of God" gave us a dramatic turning point with his potential new relationship with Sheba.

"Starbuck juggled multiple women but we never saw him break anyone's heart, or ever suffer from his own guilt."

So much for Athena and Aurora. And by season's end he was no longer juggling multiple women, he had moved closer to Cassiopeia. That's my definition of an evolving character who's learning and that was what made Galactica a refreshing departure from before.

"Now, obviously you can find lines here and there to argue any of these points. But if its just a question of interpretation, that's not subtle writing, that the viewer filling in their own blanks."

No, I would submit in this instance it's more a case of not willing to look at Galactica in its proper context of what kind of show it was, and what it was doing new and different from before. The above examples I've noted are not examples of subtle writing that someone has to think twice about but examples that were important to many plot points of the stories and are fairly evident when one watches the series as a whole. Now I'm not saying the execution was done perfectly, but the results were there and it's just not accurate IMO to call Galactica a show of shallow characters, especially when I don't hear similar descriptions applied to the famous sci-fi characters of other contemporaneous sci-fi properties.

Thanks Eric. You have again proven that there is no way to compare the two shows! You said everything that needed to be said!

Eric Paddon · January 25th, 2005, 07:42 AM

Thank you, bsg1fan!

I'm pressed for time but I had to respond to a couple points that stick out most for me. First off, regarding Apollo-Sheba.

"It wasn’t a dramatic turning point at all. Apollo is seemingly clueless about how he might feel about Sheba until she lets her guard down and forces him to see the forest for the trees."

Not so. We already know from previous episodes that Apollo clearly has some interest in Sheba that he's not letting himself be open about. The matter of his jealousy regarding Sheba and Iblis in WOTG being an obvious point and how sensitive he gets when Starbuck tries to raise that subject openly. But finally, in HOG this gets opened up and we are in fact seeing something mean to be a new direction for them. In a sequence filmed but not used in the broadcast (and visible in the DVD supplements) Apollo is seen musing aloud just before he and Starbuck leave on the mission (before their conversation with Baltar) that he'd like to have seen Sheba again before they left. That only drives home with finality something that was fairly easy to discern as it was in the broadcast.

If these matters were not written with some sledgehammer specificity to the way that we might prefer if writing the stories today, well all I can say to that again is, judge these characters and the fact that we saw such forward steps in developing them that was never true of Galactica's predecessors. It's the stubborn refusal to do that and hold TOS to a standard that I regard as inconsistent with other sci-fi properties that IMO infuriates me most when I keep hearing about this justification for creating the dysfunctional screw-ups of TNS.

"Cassie becomes a med-tech, but we don’t know why."

Telemovie scene, LPOTG. She and Apollo are talking in the Life Station and they talk about how the Destruction was a "cleansing fire" for everyone. That spelled it out rather plainly to me: Cassiopeia changed professions because of a new sense of responsibility.

Darrell Lawrence · January 25th, 2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

BUT, and this is important, nothing comes of it in the episode. We don’t see Apollo and Sheba at the end, taking the first steps in developing a new relationship.

That's because the series got cut prematurily and this is something never resolved.

kingfish · January 25th, 2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior

That's because the series got cut prematurily and this is something never resolved.

I have a question, were they? According to the second series synopsis Sheba was going to be killed in the opener which STUNK big time IMHO.

Eric Paddon · January 25th, 2005, 09:55 AM

We have to hope that Glen Larson really wasn't planning on going in that direction because it was simply untrue to everything we were being set up with.

Considering how Anne Lockhart always seemed to find a place in many of Glen's shows, I think that mitigates against the possibility that Larson would have done that to her. I know Anne has never expressed any awareness of this potential and has talked about how she had been preparing to get word of the show's renewal when she heard about the cancellation.

Darrell Lawrence · January 25th, 2005, 11:17 AM

Doesn't matter if she was killed or not, Paul.

If so, it'd have been resolved.

If not, then whatever story they came up with for her and Apollo would be resolved.

Either way, there was *NO* resolution to osBG.

bsg1fan1975 · January 25th, 2005, 11:28 AM

Let me just chime in again and say to try and compare the two shows would be like trying to compare ice cream and horse droppings! TOS is always going to be the better of the two shows!

kingfish · January 25th, 2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsg1fan1975

Let me just chime in again and say to try and compare the two shows would be like trying to compare ice cream and horse droppings! TOS is always going to be the better of the two shows!

Sci-Fi · January 26th, 2005, 09:03 PM

Just FYI:

DVD Talk, just wrote an article about Battlestar vs Battlestar:

Brawlin' Battlestars

DVD Talk columnist G. Noel Gross risks his geek-in-good-standing status by daring to compare 1978's beloved Battlestar Galactica with the Sci Fi Channel's "reimagined" miniseries. Have they lost their fracking minds or can a Victoria's Secret model really annihilate the human race?

Senmut · January 26th, 2005, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fragmentary

“
”(Apollo) did the WRONG thing in "The Lost Warrior" by not acting quickly enough against the Cylon and the end result was the death of Bootes.

That is an interesting take, but Bootes didn’t die because Apollo did something unexpected or out of the ordinary. In fact, he died BECAUSE Apollo followed his established parameters so rigidly. Apollo would never do anything rash, or anything morally dubious, no matter what the consequences, even if it meant a character dying because of it. ...

Which turned out to be the WRONG thing ultimately. Apollo fracked up big time, because he was trying so hard, after leaving Zac behind, and losing Serina, to do the "right" thing. He learned his lesson the hard way, and after a fashion, so did Bootes.

justjackrandom · January 27th, 2005, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fragmentary

There was vitually no character depth to any character on the original show.

Frag, Eric answered the specifics well on this, but I want to chime in on the subject from a different perspective.

TOS was created on an old model of what a television show is. Most 60’s and 70’s television shows were story-driven, not character-driven. This doesn’t mean the characters didn’t develop, in some cases richly. But this development usually occurred inside of the story – it generally wasn’t the story itself. Look at almost any successful series from the period, and you will find this true. In this model, it generally takes time to see the real depth of the characters, and in some ways is a more challenging task for the actors, because the onus in on them to maintain their character’s development momentum, with just a little help per episode from the writers. TOS is surprising in that we see rich development in the span of just a few episodes, and more so in a single season.

Enter Dallas, Dynasty, etc…the nighttime soaps. This changes the way television is thought of for evening viewers. So in the 80’s we start to see an attempt to merge the two models: Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, etc, which will eventually give way to such shows as ER, NYPD Blue, and even such shows as Buffy and Bab5.

Modern audiences for the most part have come to expect shows like Desperate Housewives or Boston Legal in their television. Even Farscape was built more on this model that not. This is not necessarily a BETTER model, as some would have us believe, just the most common today. Interestingly enough, however, there are still a few popular shows that work on the old model, specifically SG-1.

my tuppence -

JJR

Titon · January 27th, 2005, 07:21 AM

If you cannot make a reason to compare the two shows then the only option you have is to call it something else.

That's what's driven the new show into existence. Not comparing them is a mistake since they both carry the same name, overall design elements and character names.

But that's where everyone says you cannot compare them which is a crock. It's Battlestar Galactica in name only. With the newest incarnation it's a bastardation of the franchise name.

kingfish · January 27th, 2005, 09:41 AM

Puppis: Your a coward.

Puppis storms out of the bar.

Apollo has a wtf look on his face.

Next we see Apollo talking to the girl who works in the bar who confirms that there is one Cylon on the planet, who believes LaCerta is the IL. Apollo knows if he acts now no one will be hurt. Up until then Apollo believes there could be many Cylons on the planet.

Apollo: Where there is one Cylon, there are many.

LaCerta: Young man Marcos would like a word with you.

Marcos: I am going to take a Numo to this boy..

Apollo steps out from behind the horse wearing a Colonial Blaster and Marcos decides to head for higher ground like they say in Deadwood.

LaCerta decides to get Red-Eye and Apollo makes quick work of him.

No os Apollo didn't frack up. He looked at the situation from a military standpoint. He doesn't want to throw lives away unecessarily.

Darrell Lawrence · January 27th, 2005, 10:12 AM

Yes, Apollo did screw up- He didn't eliminate the "scout" he thought Red Eye was.

No Red Eye to notify other Cylons is a good thing.

Military operations- Always eliminate a suspected scout as soon as possible.

That town of people were humans. Cylons are bent on destroying humans. If there were other Cylons around, they'd have been eliminating the humans or subjigating them. In otehr words, more would have been seen, since they never roam around without a companion or two *unless* they are in a situation like Red Eye.

So yeah... Apollo messed up

peter noble · January 27th, 2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

TOS was created on an old model of what a television show is. Most 60’s and 70’s television shows were story-driven, not character-driven. This doesn’t mean the characters didn’t develop, in some cases richly. But this development usually occurred inside of the story – it generally wasn’t the story itself. Look at almost any successful series from the period, and you will find this true. In this model, it generally takes time to see the real depth of the characters, and in some ways is a more challenging task for the actors, because the onus in on them to maintain their character’s development momentum, with just a little help per episode from the writers. TOS is surprising in that we see rich development in the span of just a few episodes, and more so in a single season.

Great response JJR. I actually prefer this mode of storytelling, that's probably why I like SG1 and that set of characters.

Best,

Peter

Fragmentary · January 27th, 2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

Frag, Eric answered the specifics well on this, but I want to chime in on the subject from a different perspective.

TOS was created on an old model of what a television show is. Most 60’s and 70’s television shows were story-driven, not character-driven. This doesn’t mean the characters didn’t develop, in some cases richly. But this development usually occurred inside of the story – it generally wasn’t the story itself. Look at almost any successful series from the period, and you will find this true. In this model, it generally takes time to see the real depth of the characters, and in some ways is a more challenging task for the actors, because the onus in on them to maintain their character’s development momentum, with just a little help per episode from the writers. TOS is surprising in that we see rich development in the span of just a few episodes, and more so in a single season.

You’re right about there being a slow transition in story telling styles from the seventies to today. The older style was a hold over coming from a much stricter time in Hollywood. It took a long time for television to slowly move out from that.

And yes audiences have come to expect a different style of story telling today than what was common in the past. But my point isn’t so much on the difference in styles. As I’ve said before; you can’t compare the styles of the shows, they are completely different. It would be unfair to do that. So I have no misunderstanding there.

I’m looking at the original show on its own and by what is actually shown on screen in each episode. I don’t want to color the show unfairly by comparing it to other shows from other times in television. Nor do I want to look at it with rose-colored glasses and overlook its short comings by filling in gaps or making things deeper and more textured than they actually are. I have no problem with people doing that, that’s part of the fun of having a favorite show and people do it all the time with things that are currently airing. But it’s more pronounced with older shows that have marinated in years and years of nostaligia and imaginative revisionism.

I was comparing the old Galactica to television of its time. There were shows like CHIPs and Dukes of Hazzard and then there were shows like MASH and All in the Family. Galactica fell somewhere in between. It lacked the complex characters of a show like MASH but also had a much more intelligent mythology than say Hazzard. But somewhere in the intervening 28 years Battlestar fans have taken every little thing from the show and examined, expanded, and extrapolated it into something more than it really is.

There’s something to be said for taking things are they are. Take a random season of a long running show out of context and you can infer a whole lot of stuff, but when you plug it back into the series you may learn that a whole bunch of what you deduced was just stuff you read into it.

Eric Paddon · January 27th, 2005, 06:30 PM

"It lacked the complex characters of a show like MASH"

MASH complex?

All I ever saw was one set of stereotypes after another:
1-The Korean War was an unjust incursion of American power disrupting the lives of Americans and Koreans needlessly. So determined was this effort to draw a parallel with the disenchantment of the Vietnam experience that you never once in 11 years of MASH saw the true face of North Korea and their brutality.
2-All American regular Army soldiers are bloodthirsty monsters anxious to put their lives of their young boy draftees at risk to serve their own vain interests.
3-Reserve doctors who implausibly disregard all Army regulations on dress and hairstyles are know-it-alls who are never wrong about any moral issue.

MASH presented things through a simplistic lens the same way Galactica presented its vision ultimately. And my preference for Galactica is that I like the particular message it espoused and the people behind it embodied in the show, whereas on MASH the simplicity was one of a blatant liberal orthodoxy of the time. That orthodoxy is no doubt more suitable to others' tastes, but I have yet to see the case made for how MASH ultimately rises to a higher level with its characters (not to mention the infinite number of internal inconsistencies in the show).

dec5 · January 27th, 2005, 08:09 PM

This is easy for me, the Original BG promised big things but messed it up by diluting important characters like Athena, and stuffing the show with cartoony episodes. (Like Guns on Ice Planet zero...and that eppy with the singing robots..)

The 1st and 2nd episodes were the best....and then it went down hill for me.....

It just frustrated me to no end.......even when I bought the DVDs,
I mainly just watch the first two stories and skim thought the rest.

The new series is just everything I wanted the original it to be......Military realism, Anime influenced designs and dramatic feeling....... and looks like a expensive film.
.

Strong females like Sharon and Kara,and Cally who get beat up and actually get the spotlight . The Trekkies mocked the original BG because they thought the original series did not even match the high brow Star Trek storylines.........Today with TNS they are speechless and running scared. They know this BG means business,....and in my opinion it surpasses Star Trek in realism and drama.........from year one......and is a worthy successor to 2001 a space odyssey and Aliens....in Scifi.

Glen Larson dissapointed me with the changes in the orignal series.....RM continues to exceed my expectations......

I have read about Larsons plans for a movie.........Even if he gets it done.....the
way it is written now still continues to dissapoints this fan...... But RM's work continues to keep me wanting more..

This BG fan of both shows has no problem in liking the new series better.

Eric Paddon · January 27th, 2005, 08:25 PM

"The 1st and 2nd episodes were the best....and then it went down hill for me....."

I'd like to know what your objection to episodes like "Living Legend", "War Of The Gods" and "Hand Of God" are. And the "strong females" distinction for TNS is an argument that has to disregard the importance given women in TOS, especially Sheba.