I would suggest that one argue it like this:
There is a difference between flawed heroes and petty people caught in a drama. There is also a difference between sterling, stalwarth heroes and two dimentional ones.
The original Starbuck had flaws. He was very irresponsible at times. He avoided seriousness like the plague. He didn't want to be responsible. There are other flaws, but that's another long discussion.
Apollo also was flawed in his inability to relax. he was a great charismatic friendly guy, but he really could be anal about responsibility.
They were the kind of heroes we saw on 911. The kind that gave and gave without whining or complaint about their jobs. They hated the guys who did it, but they were very sterling and stalwarth.
The mini characters, if they are anything like the original script and all the info we are hearing about the mini are alot more petty. Ron Moore has thrown in soap opera-ish problems in their lives as a way of creating more interest in the character. Which is really sad. This shows an inability or lack of an understanding WHY the original characters were so compelling, even to girls who didn't like science fiction. (Every monday morning the girls on my bus were screaming how much they liked Starbuck and Apollo)
The drawof Galactica was NOT as much about cylons and pyramids but rather the large extended-family-like group of people who lost everything but the bonds of family and their working together helped them survive anything. It was the way these people were a family that made us able to relate to them. THAT was what made the original Galactica so beloved for so long. The family closeness of the characters.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand Galactica.
And sometimes adding flaws don't make a character more interesting. It just makes a show flawed.
I hope for Edward James Olmo's sake that the writing is better than what we have been lead to believe by scifi channel.
|
Today on the Skiffy Home page for the BBoard
