BSG in nothing but name

NamtarLives · November 5th, 2004, 07:34 PM

I've just had the opportunity to view the first three episodes of the new BSG series. I had seen the miniseries soon after it aired and found it somewhat interesting but not enough to warrant buying the DVD release or to keep up with the series developments.

I have to agree with many others that this show really doesn't capture much of the feel or flavor of the original. I would be much happier if they had given it a new name and renamed the characters and simply gave the following credit:

"Based on the television series Battlestar Galactica"

That being said, I have somewhat enjoyed the first few episodes, but I don't think I enjoy them nearly as much as I would if they hadn't chosen to so severely bastardize and ignore the original series.

What Ron Moore has given us is a grittier and more realistic version of what things would have been like for the galactica and the fleet. The one thing that seems to be lacking in this show, so far, is a sense of family, heroicism and most of all HOPE. If you don't have those things, I really don't think you should be using the Galactica name.

To a certain extent I can understand Ron Moores aversion to the original series. TOS contained quite a few embarassing scripts and honestly hasn't aged very well for most people. I get the feeling the only thing he's embraced from TOS is basic premise of humanity invaded and on the run with a ragtag fleet.

I have a feeling I'll keep up with the episodes sporadically, but I don't think I'll ever feel comfortable with the name of the show being "Battlestar Galactica".

Eric Paddon · November 5th, 2004, 07:44 PM

There is also something else missing which for many other Galactica fans is the real nub of the problem with Moore's vision: the total lack of moral clarity in this series which for me was the one thing that gave the original series it's special status. The "Cylons created by humans" dynamic and the contempt for religion is ultimately a bigger deal for me than the fact that Starbuck is a woman.

Gemini1999 · November 5th, 2004, 07:53 PM

I was thinking on this today....

I've been watching the first few episodes as well and it does feel like something is missing. I think what's missing is a sense of scale. We hardly ever see anything of the close to fifty thousand refugees. In "33", we never saw the Doctor that could expose Baltar and we never saw the passengers or crew of the Olympic Carrier. In "Water", we never saw any of the people or their reaction to the imposed water rationing when the Galactica's water supply was dumped into space.

It's great seeing some of the familiar ships of the fleet, but it doesn't feel much like a society to me. I would like to see more of the living conditions of the refugees and how they are coping with their forced journey across the stars with limited fuel, food and water resources. I thought that was one of the things that Ron Moore wanted to focus on.

TNS is interesting to watch, but it feels a bit "small" to me when compared to TOS. We've only got to see such a small handful of people and we really haven't learned that much about the ones we have seen. I'm hoping that this part of the storytelling improves over the remaining 10 episodes, or it's gonna be a dull journey.

Best regards,
Bryan

thomas7g · November 5th, 2004, 08:08 PM

I think what you are describing Bryan is the feel from the dramatic cost saving measures enacted by this show. Like Andromeda, or the early days of Babylon 5, alot of the expensive scenes were talked about instead of seen. I still cringe from the coverage of the Mars War that was really cheaply done. Even Stargate must do a few flashback clip episodes to conserve budget for the big episodes. And the original `bg had to reuse footage.

I do miss the energy I got from the old show.

Namtar, I know exactly how you feel.

Welcome to the Fleet!

Darth Marley · November 5th, 2004, 08:19 PM

Contempt for religion?

Have you been downloading the show? OR just making an assumption?

Eric Paddon · November 5th, 2004, 08:27 PM

The very premise of the series as laid down by the miniseries, which I have watched, is contemptuous of it. And I have seen nothing in the summaries of the episodes to indicate anything different from that approach.

Senmut · November 5th, 2004, 08:33 PM

Well, given RDM's contempt for the fans, his contempt for the faith issue in the original are no surprise. After all, he saw so little of it, how would he even know?

thomas7g · November 5th, 2004, 08:36 PM

I wouldn't say the series makes any commentary on religion itself.... Though Six and the cylons seems to have a wacky religion alltheir own. But that is treated seperately from any comment about any normal religion.

KJ · November 6th, 2004, 03:57 AM

Quote:

What Ron Moore has given us is a grittier and more realistic version of what things would have been like for the galactica and the fleet. The one thing that seems to be lacking in this show, so far, is a sense of family, heroicism and most of all HOPE. If you don't have those things, I really don't think you should be using the Galactica name.

I personally believe Richard Hatch's Second Coming and Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto's Battlestar Galactica 2001 versions would have been "FAR" grittier and violent than the 1978 series with a more realistic tone yet still retaining the mythological/biblical elements the original show had. Without watering down or making the show "PC" by altering too many beloved things about it.

So far as Moore getting all this attention, saying he has done a grittier/darker version marlarkey. Radically different maybe but not darker. I saw enough of the mini to send me into a 'coma' it tore at me. Baby killings, drunk colonel's and body swaps was too much weirdness for me. while we understand, yeah Moore had to make his version different. But. It's so different it ain't our BG?

Quote:

Well, given RDM's contempt for the fans, his contempt for the faith issue in the original are no surprise. After all, he saw so little of it, how would he even know?

Indeed, he may keep claiming to be a fan of the original. Be he isn't. No fan i know would ever do to Battlestar Galactica what he did, even if under orders from Bonnie Hammer. We keep hearing excuses from others defending him saying, wouldn't you do it for a paycheck? Yeah but, my paycheck usually comes with dignity, pride and honor! I wouldn't sell out.

The original was comparable to Star Wars (and it isn't a rip off)

TNS BG i wouldn't compare to Andromeda? let alone any other sci-fi, not even Lexx!

Namtarlives welcome to the CF boards

KJ

gmd3d · November 6th, 2004, 04:22 AM

NamtarLives welcome to THE FLEET.

I completcly argree with you , You have hit the nail on the head all that thing that mad up galactica tos are no longer there only the name remains , RDM pulled the heart out of the show and what we have is the hollow shell.
while I did enjoy the last 2 episodes showing the problems in trying to survive the escape from the cylons.

The TOS galactica was a product of it time in every sense from effect to scripts and style famly entertinment when heroes were heroes,

Lord Kingjason

Quote:

I personally believe Richard Hatch's Second Coming and Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto's Battlestar Galactica 2001 versions would have been "FAR" grittier and violent than the 1978 series with a more realistic tone yet still retaining the mythological/biblical elements the original show had. Without watering down or making the show "PC" by altering too many beloved things about it.

Yes I argee because the fans have grown with it , and expected a far more gritter
but with the same sense of Hope to survive to live to fight another day.

CommanderTaggart · November 6th, 2004, 10:07 AM

Little. Small. Tiny. A pimple on the ass of science fiction.

nextceo · November 6th, 2004, 10:28 AM

Look as hard core fans of TOS, I can understand your feelings. I was also a very big fan of TOS and was originally against TNS (the new series), however I have really warmed to it. I feel it has grown significantly from the mini, and is just now beginning to grow into its own. I mean geez you want it to be everything from the beginning, and anything new takes time for the actors, directors, etc. to grow into the show. Plus add into it the bias of hard core TOS fans (and trust me I understand it, we all have bias in our own ways), you may not like the show. You feel betrayed by sci-fi and Moore and I understand that, but if you put this in context when ST TNG came out there were the same outcries. How could they put the show in the future, how could any Star Trek series not have the original crew, or at least part of it! Hard core fans were livid! I watched TNG when it premeired and had some grudging admiration for it, but I also thought it was kind of stiff, etc., and the effects could be better. Do all of you remember the first few episodes of ST TNG? They were no where close to being as good as seasons 2+. Same with the new Galactica, it will take some time for the show to grow a bit. Also some people are complaining about the special effects and sets, I think they are quite good, what are your specific gripes? Then if there is upset about not enough FX, there is the complaint about not enough character development. Come on guys, in a mini and three eps, you can't have all of both. It takes some time for the characters of such a large cast to develop, and I think they are beginning to do so now with Bastille Day. Plus the final complaint is about all the sex and violence. You know what there were a couple of examples in the mini, that were a little gratuitous, but this has been toned down a lot in the series. There is the scene at the end of Bastille Day, but I do not feel it is gratuitous, I think they did a good job of giving you an understanding without going to over the top. IMHO, it is the BEST sci-fi show I have seen from its beginning, and will only get better as it develops, but you have to give it a little time as well. And there will also be people who just don't like the show. I love the Soprano's, other people don't like it. Some people like the West Wing, it has won a lot of awards, I personally can't stand the show, and a lot of that is my own personal political persuasion. So say we all!

nextceo · November 6th, 2004, 10:50 AM

By the way.... In regards to a lack of moral clarity... Say what????? People act as if TOS was a beacon on a hill... Come on now. Baltar is beheaded in the original movie. Visit to the casino planet where it is an orgy of gambling, drinking and pleasure... Gambling is a constant issue throughout the show. Starbuck is a playboy trying to have both Athena and Cassie. Lies to both of them. Screws around with Cassie in the launch tube. Socialators are legal in the colonies. The council of the twelve are a bunch of passifist dimwits. We just got annihilated lets throw down our arms!!! The constant use of the word Frack! We all know what it means! BTW... Best use of a sci-fi word in history!

Look was it tamer than the new show, yes it was, and I'm not trying to say it was the same, but it wasn't perfect morally either. As far as religion goes, the original TOS was not Christian, in fact the colonies beleived in GODS, not a GOD. It also made out the devil (Ibli) and Angels (the ship of lights) to be nothing more than an advanced civilization. In fact in the new BSG, the cylons talk of a GOD, and his purpose for all of us. If anything there is more talk of religion in the new BSG (whether you agree with it or not). If you take SG-1 or Atlantis, both are virtually totally devoid of religion, but I bet a number of people who claim that the moral compass of BSG is off would celebrate those shows. At least BSG TNS has the guts to talk about religion and make it an issue like the old BSG did. Now again, this is not to be a flame but at least in my view, you have to examine all sides of the morality and religious issues, and not just take pot shots at TNS, without putting it in context with what you are implying is superior. Mushies anyone????

Eric Paddon · November 6th, 2004, 12:07 PM

"As far as religion goes, the original TOS was not Christian, in fact the colonies beleived in GODS, not a GOD."

GOIPZ-"Is Ravashol God?"

WOTG-"Not even God?"

I think the monotheism of the prevailing religion in Galactica, certainly as expressed by Adama, ended up being self-evident in the series.

martok2112 · November 25th, 2004, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon

"As far as religion goes, the original TOS was not Christian, in fact the colonies beleived in GODS, not a GOD."

GOIPZ-"Is Ravashol God?"

WOTG-"Not even God?"

I think the monotheism of the prevailing religion in Galactica, certainly as expressed by Adama, ended up being self-evident in the series.

Yes, Adama of TOS did seem to practice a sort of monotheism, but several others seemed to say: "By the gods" or something on the side of pluralistic.

I would justify that as the diversity of beliefs among the other colonies.

Perhaps Capricans believed in one God. Perhaps Gemonese believed in multiple deities.

Perhaps a colony or two was agnostic.

Who knows?

Classic Galactica was written in a different time. Classic Galactica could survive into todays era with the appropriate tonal adjustments without going completely 180. Personally, I do not see the new series as a complete 180. Radically different in many areas...but not a complete 180.

I think that with the continued success of the new series, we will see the rise of heroes, the onset of true hope, and something gradually similar in tone (if not characters) to the original.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

BST · November 25th, 2004, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Yes, Adama of TOS did seem to practice a sort of monotheism, but several others seemed to say: "By the gods" or something on the side of pluralistic.

Folks,

Let's not confuse the terminology, "by the Lords of Kobol", to indicate a reference to multitheism. The "Lords of Kobol" were the human leaders of the planet Kobol. In this case, "Lord" would be synonymous with "Ruler" not deity.

btw, Martok, the other examples that you provided would be entirely plausible. Drawing parallels to present-day Earth, not every Colony would have necessarily practiced the same religious customs (and some may not have practiced any at all.)

BST · November 25th, 2004, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nextceo

You feel betrayed by sci-fi and Moore and I understand that, but if you put this in context when ST TNG came out there were the same outcries. How could they put the show in the future, how could any Star Trek series not have the original crew, or at least part of it! Hard core fans were livid! I watched TNG when it premeired and had some grudging admiration for it, but I also thought it was kind of stiff, etc., and the effects could be better. Do all of you remember the first few episodes of ST TNG? They were no where close to being as good as seasons 2+.

Regardless of Trek fans' attitudes toward ST:TNG, the parallel being drawn here is invalid. BSG-TNS is NOT set in the future. It is NOT continuing the timeline. BSG-TNS is re-writing it. HUGE difference.

kingfish · November 25th, 2004, 12:50 PM

I believe the Colonials to be monotheistic.

Adama: What are you afraid of.

Iblis: I fear no one.

Adama: Not even God.

Iblis: What do you primitives know about God?

Adama: Only that we must follow a set of laws passed down to us.

Iblis: those laws don't apply to me.

Adama: I wonder.

IMHO the laws were the Ten Commandments.

Archangel · November 25th, 2004, 01:17 PM

Every religion has those pesky laws attached too them. To think of the show in Judeo-Christian terms...

No flames, just saying that I'm undecided on this one.

martok2112 · November 25th, 2004, 01:24 PM

As for me...I am a very spiritual man. Before I jump into a foxhole, I pray to God, Jesus, Allah, Mohammed, Buddah, Vishnu, and Elvis, just to make sure I have all my bases covered.

(paraphrase of R. Lee Ermey in Siege on Firebase Gloria)

Irreverently,
Martok2112

Sept17th · November 25th, 2004, 03:24 PM

Ditto Namtar, ditto.

Gunstar Aries · November 25th, 2004, 05:08 PM

One of the main elements I find missing in the Moore 'retelling' is the larger-than-life aspect of the heroes and the inherent potential of the Colonial people. Here is this spacefaring civilization, fighting a long war. They could be decadent, petty, and immoral, but as a whole, their civilization does not seem to have fallen prey to the more base human instincts.

Adama was a larger than life hero, as was his son, Caine, et al. Baltar was a larger than life villian, the ultimate betrayer, a worthy opponent for Adama in villany if not in honor or power. Colonial civilization seems to value their warriors, honor, the quest for knowledge, etc. In short, the better aspects of humanity. Now Adama is just a guy, not a leader of a people on the brink of extinction. Baltar is just a horny nerd who betrayed his race, not for power which has led man to subjigate man for millenia, but for sex.

Of all the things I have against the Moore version, the most powerful thing the pilot left me feeling was that these 'Colonials' are very, very much like....us. After the fall of the Colonies, Adama's number one priority was to save human lives. "In every vessel that will carry them," to paraphrase. Human life was precious. He put saving lives first and worried about feeding them second.

In the movie/pilot for the new movie, we see that scene when the 'president' is forced to abandon all the sublight vessels to their fate. She sits there, agonized by the decision, boo-hoo, ALONE in a compartement FULL of chairs that each could have held at least one additonal life to be saved. I understand Moore wanting the 'shot' of this 'weighty decision' and the remorse the goes with it, but logically if this character has this much remorse, she should be alone in a crowded compartment thinking about all the people that are being left to their fate.

I prefer my mythology larger than life. I don't want Bellerophon to chase girls, I want him to kill the Chimera. I want to see Hercules' Seven Labors, Jason, Perseus and Ulysses. I want to see a civilization that exist at a higher level than our own. I can turn on the TV anytime to see the current level of civilization. As for 'retelling', I let the DVD player do that, especially with the 'Hand of God.'

My rant/thoughts.

Gunstar Aries

KJ · November 25th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Very well said Gunstar Aries, very well said indeed. I'm sure TNS fans hate it when people rip'em a new one over the faults and flaws this Moore version has. Truth be told, the TOS has been lamblasted by people for over two decades?! While it is a sci-fi classic that is remembered. Unless a series or movie got "Trek" or "Wars" in it. Seems everything else is ripe for tearing down. In that case i'd say to Moore, Eick and Hammer welcome to the club?

The club of everything else that hasn't the mass pulling power of Star Trek or Star Wars in pop culture, but is equally entertaining in it's own right. While they did do the BG remake for egomaniac reasons (who are they kidding right?). If they have found their audience i.e. fans. They now know, the burn of feeling the negativity of bad press, bad critical reviews and hard feeling to their beloved 'Series' as fans of the TOS BG have felt for years. Battlestar Galactica loved by many, but it too has sci-fi fans that wouldn't bat an eye lid to whatever version is playing right now and don't give 'Two craps' about it period.

Quote:

One of the main elements I find missing in the Moore 'retelling' is the larger-than-life aspect of the heroes and the inherent potential of the Colonial people. Here is this spacefaring civilization, fighting a long war. They could be decadent, petty, and immoral, but as a whole, their civilization does not seem to have fallen prey to the more base human instincts.

I feel that too. Many sci-fi shows have fantasy elements to them. With none whatsoever, Galactica is robbed of any great "what if" scenarios in my opinon. As you've stated their are a civilization out in space that came from "Kobol" not Earth! the whole reverse concept of "Life here began out there mankind's origins like a mystery, laidout but one has to put the puzzle together again. What came first the chicken or the egg?

I don't see Moore and co doing that in a series showing, Cylons in a red skirt, a horny human traitor, a drunk colonel with self pity, and cigar smoking pilots who think their tough but aren't? female Starbuck, hah let the groans begin many female fans of the TOS like the original "male" character who is liked by both sexes.

Quote:

In the movie/pilot for the new movie, we see that scene when the 'president' is forced to abandon all the sublight vessels to their fate. She sits there, agonized by the decision, boo-hoo, ALONE in a compartement FULL of chairs that each could have held at least one additonal life to be saved. I understand Moore wanting the 'shot' of this 'weighty decision' and the remorse the goes with it, but logically if this character has this much remorse, she should be alone in a crowded compartment thinking about all the people that are being left to their fate.

Excellent review of those scenes Gunstar Aries. If an average "joe" can notice that, then professionals in the business should know better and thought the scene out better.

Realism has its place. unfortunately Ron Moore doesn't know how to do it. Making 99.9999...etc of the series characters flawed just for the sake of drama purposes is very weak. I've seen lighter shows with tons of dramatic depth than the mini i was disgusted at let alone any glimpses of the TNS show that pretends it doing what the original series did.

If Moore Eick and Hammer's TNS BG show was original, they wouldn't have lifted some episode ideas and titles for several TNS episodes. Thats what i find worse about the situation, if this thing is meant to be better than the preivous version, why lift from it. if its a do over, then do something that wasn't used or done before. And don't take the titles of past episodes either, for any reason.

I'd love to bring up the religion thing that everybody else is thinking and debating, but i wouldn't associate it with this show. Why bother? Do you actually want to see Ron Moore's version of Count Iblis and Seraph John in a possible season 2?

I 'shudder' at the thought!

KJ

Gunstar Aries · November 26th, 2004, 06:48 AM

I specifically avoided the 'religion' debate in my post, LKJ. There are those of us with a spiritual and religious background and there are those of us without. I didn't want to to drag that difference into the comparison of the old and the new. Adama was a military/political/religious leader of his people. Yet there were characters that were less-than-holy, if you were, such as Starbuck. Cain I think would be another good example, not as religious as Adama. Sire Uri another. Yet that difference in belief system is never the source of conflict between these characters. Power, yes. Differences is what they think is the right course, yes.

That said, I think whether we're religious or not, we can all agree that there was a 'biblical' aspect to the original series. 12 colonies, 12 tribes, "Adama" as a play on "Adam", etc. I consider the original series very mytholigical in nature, as in classic mythology. Heroes fighting overwhelming odds, a spiritual background to the conflict. To reiterate, I didn't get that feel from the Moore version.

Two side notes on the Moore version. First, I don't have a problem with them making Starbuck or Boomer a woman because they wanted to 'have a strong female character.' I DO have a problem with 'having a strong female character' at the expense of strong female characters like Athena and Cassiopia. Moore wipes his feet on two strong female leads in the original series, than holds up a sex change as a evidence of how 'progressive' he is. As the D&D-ers used to say, I roll to disbelieve.

Second, as I've said in past discussions, what pained me most about the Moore version was what he did to the Galactica herself. In the Original, here's this type of warship that is so powerful, only a handful have ever existed. The entire Cyclon Empire is willing to devote every resource they can spare to hunt her down. The fate of the human race depends on one of their greatest creations, and the men and women who fight in her. In the Moore series, the fate of the human race depends on a second line ship, one that really should have been decommissioned years ago, has no business in a conflict situation and really should've been scrapped anyway. Make Adama a liar, make men women, make humans base animals, whatever. Why did the Galactica have to be torn down too?

Martok,

How are you or any other fan of the new series being relegated to second class citizenship by my criticism of the new series? I hold nothing against fans of TNS; my issues are with Moore. If you're enterained by him, you're entertained by him. I'm entertained by Bugs Bunny and Starblazers and Quark. While we may certainly not have those things in common, how does that create any animosity between us? Let me ask you this: If the new series weren't called Battlestar Galactica, would have watched it?

Regards,

Gunstar Aries

julix · November 26th, 2004, 07:24 AM

Gunstar ...
I think you made some very good points there, I especially agree with your point about "strong" female characters. In Moore's version it was not My and I say My version of what a strong woman should be. I know everyone has different views on this. But to me the women in TOS were much closer to the ideal I have.... especially Athena and most certainly Sheba(that is why she is my avi) You also make a great point about the Galactica itself, one which I hadn't thought of so thanks for pointing it out.

Martok,
I think there is a difference between what people think of the show and what people think of the fans. I know you have been subjected to much harshness and that is part of why you feel this way. But I do know we are all trying to get past it and hopefully we will. I know where your heart lies as do most people who know you.

Gunstar Aries · November 26th, 2004, 08:26 AM

Thanks for the kind words, Julix. I agree with you too; the female Starbuck isn't my idea of a strong woman, either. Sheba's is a great example, too. Probably the best example along with Athena, as you said. I could add Serina the list of good female characters as well.

Turning the Galactica from the greatest of warships to a vessel of suspect military value really stick in my craw. Here's a question on different Galacticas: Which fleet would you rather be in, the one shepherded by the preeminent military vessel of its time, or one guarded by a vessel so obsolete it was retired a few short hours ago? I know which one I'd pick...

Really like the avitar....

Regards,

GA

martok2112 · November 26th, 2004, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunstar Aries

Martok,

How are you or any other fan of the new series being relegated to second class citizenship by my criticism of the new series? I hold nothing against fans of TNS; my issues are with Moore. If you're enterained by him, you're entertained by him. I'm entertained by Bugs Bunny and Starblazers and Quark. While we may certainly not have those things in common, how does that create any animosity between us? Let me ask you this: If the new series weren't called Battlestar Galactica, would have watched it?

Regards,

Gunstar Aries

Aries,

It wasn't you, amigo.

After reading my response to someone else's comments, I just decided to withdraw it...but you were not the one to whom I was referring.

I do not desire animosity between the fandoms at all. And indeed, I welcome you to the Fleets.

As for whether I have watched it if it were titled something other than "Battlestar Galactica", the answer would still be yes. But it is titled "Battlestar Galactica", and in many TNS fans' humble opinions, it is rightfully named because it shares the premise, and other things with the original show.

All of us see different things in the values/merits of the new Galactica, and we also recognize its flaws. But for someone to state that TNS fans hate it when we get "ripped a new one" when the flaws of the new show are pointed out, suggests that blind animosity still exists toward supporters of the new show.

I can understand it if it were directed toward someone who constantly praised the new show at the expense of the original series. But I would say that a majority of the TNS fans do NOT feel that way. It has been repeatedly said that many TNS fans are ones who also have a rather healthy interest in the original show....but they still get blasted because they support something different.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

Archangel · November 26th, 2004, 08:31 AM

No wonder I couldn't find it...

BST · November 26th, 2004, 09:23 AM

Martok,

I understand your point and, yes, unfortunately the blade of the sword does cut both ways. The sentence that followed that remark illustrated the treatment of those preferring only TOS. In neither case, is it proper for folks to lambaste fans of either show.

I state this once, to ensure that there is NO misunderstanding of my remarks:

I am not pointing fingers. What I'm saying is in regards to people, in general.

It is absolutely wrong to condemn folks for their preference in a particular show. If there is any condemnation, it should be directed toward those who produced it. Unfortunately, sometimes the line is crossed where folks interpret criticism of a particular show as a criticism of their preference. For example, I can find much agreement with GA's opinion that the new show 'rips the heart and soul' out of what I feel is a very worthwhile, existing, story. I can also understand that there are folks who think that the new show 'does some things right, too'. In either circumstance, I don't have to harbor any conflict that somehow preferring one point of view is not harmonious with having another point of view.

I think the shorthand phrase for that would be "to each his own".

The only trouble that I foresee is how to critique the show(s) without criticizing the fans. It can be done, though.

BST

repcisg · November 26th, 2004, 09:30 AM

Just my 2 cents;

The New series debases the basic premise of the original, in several ways. One being all the sex, the Cylons are machines, machines don’t need to have sex to reproduce, they need a factory. Sex was introduced simply to add a salacious value to the production, to make it an adult show. This reflects a low opinion of the viewing public by the management, to be an adult you must not only enjoy but crave erotic content.

The original show stood to a higher standard, no overt sex. Yes suggestions of it were there but behind closed doors.

In TOS the Galactica is a competent warship, occupying a slot in the main battle line, in TNS she is an obsolete relic heading for the scrap yard.

At the beginning of the Second World War the British sent their entire fleet after the Bismarck, the most advanced Battleship of its day. Would the British have done this if the Germans had sent a Pre-World War I relic into the North Atlantic?

In TOS the crew stood for a higher code of ethics, with respect for authority and honor. Even Starbuck knew where the line was. In TNS there is no line, authority is acknowledged only when confronted by it, and honor is not spoken of.

I find it ironic that TOS was produced at a time when the military of this country was held in low esteem and now TNS comes out with the military debased and yet the country views the military as filled with heroes.