The new Battlestar

[LrdApoc]

Apollo does have a sense of family: he blames his father for his brother's death. Not a good sense of family, but it is there.

From that perspective I ceede this point.. Unfortunately I prefer a little more positive in my science dramas.. I guess I am most upset that this is a dark, dreary depressing world with heavily conflicted characters. While that does make them more realistic in a sense I think the drama of the original came as a reaction from these people to the events that occurred on the 12 colonies. Apollo didn't always agree with Adama in the first series either, but I feel like they set up the sub-plot regarding Zac as a pretty big hurdle to reconcilliation. I actually like the actor who plays Apollo and he does a good job of hiding his Brittish accent. Maybe I am being too quick to compare and judge. I will be watching tonight to see how they resolve issues.

I think Adama does have hope, which is why he's figthing, to let his ship, and the remainder of the fleet, survive the holocaust. Just because he questions the humanity's worth doesn't mean he won't try to improve on his nature. His guilt over his sons will drive him to preserve what he can of humanity, and by example, make humans more noble.

I guess my problem here is that after his speech I found myself feeling the humanity I saw was not worth saving.. though with more time to process it there are some good examples of people working through the adversity as the show progressed.

Lord Apoc, I am confused about how you see diversity in BSG. You seem to imply that Adama being Latino and Boomer being Asian are not diverse enough? While I admit that I didn't notice many non-European skin tones aside from the two mentioned, I think that they are trying to be diverse without having a token member of each minority group. And IIRC, weren't Col. Tigh and Boomer the only two minority leads in the OBSG?

You also seem to imply that the new BSG doesn't have strong characters. I ask, how do you define strength (for female characters)? Is it the ability to perform the roles of male characters? Well, what about the new Starbuck? Is it the abillity to do your duty even though you are scared? Look at Boomer, leaving her co-pilot behind. Is it the ability to assert your authority in the face of those who doubt you? The new President did that on several occasions. So I just don't see how you can say this incarnation does not have strong female characters.

I guess the problem I have with the diversity issue is it feels like change for the sake of change.. yes the Colonel and Boomer were the primary minority leads in the original, a sign of the time it was filmed, but I have problems with re-use of the names and characters without a real link to the original.. that is in essence I think my problem with the whole show so far.. they could have easily chosen to recognize the original and move forward with new characters but instead they chose to take the names of the original cast of characters and some of the set pieces and exploit them to tell a much diffrent tale.

In regards to the strong female characters.. my problem is not a lack of them, because they had strong females in the original.. it is more a problem that they didn't use the existing female characters to build these new leads from.. they changed males to fit.. why? They had a number of good characters to use from the original. (I realize this contradicts my point above, but for the sake of accepting the changes they made) Once again it feels like change for the sake of change to me. They can claim it's a reimmagining all they want and that it isn't being made for the fans, then why keep the same names? Product identity is why.. they count on a certain number of the old fans checking it out, though they admittedly set out to put those fans down.

More than anything my negative attitude comes not from the story itself but from the reactions the creative and corporate team have taken in dealing with long time fans.

(I apologize if it seems I am being overly critical, Lord Apoc but of all the criticisms I've read in this thread yours confused me the most, so I wanted to respond to them.)

In general, going into the show with low expectations, I was pleasantly surprised. If they do make a series out of it, I will watch if they give it a convenient timeslot (say, before or after Stargate), and if they don't introduce wierd robot dogs.

Don't worry about the criticisms.. I'm always in it for a good intelligent discussion I appreciate your views, they helped me to consider some positions I had overlooked because of my frustration with the changes. I realize the change was necessary to update the show but I guess I question some of the changes they made being purely for the sake of change. There's also a little Farscape anger pent up in here.. and a growing dislike for reality shows on Sci-Fi television.

Lastly, of all the reworked characters I actually felt they did a pretty good job with Starbuck. That in and of itself surprised me.

LrdApoc

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

My reaction to watching the show was this: "So, they just remade Wing Commander with robot enemies instead of kilrathi? And, as a double bonus, they are going to hit every tired worn out military movie cliche character and situation. Color me unimpressed."

In better perspective: Wing Commander was a Battlestar Galactica rip with kitties instead of robots (kitties stolen from Larry Niven), and both stole their military cliches from standard military movies -- BSG itself being a fairly clear Star Wars spin.

Face it, folks, nothing's truly original these days.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

From that perspective I ceede this point.. Unfortunately I prefer a little more positive in my science dramas.. I guess I am most upset that this is a dark, dreary depressing world with heavily conflicted characters. While that does make them more realistic in a sense I think the drama of the original came as a reaction from these people to the events that occurred on the 12 colonies.

The other perspective is that conflicted characters are more interesting than flat unchanging ones who represent moral absolutes.

However, I agree that, from the first half, this BG is a lot grimmer than the old one, which had a strong thread of space opera-ish levity running through it. But it also lacks the camp elements and (so far) the dire continuity problems that marred the original.

I think that was intentional - I think hope will materialize in the second half.

I guess my problem here is that after his speech I found myself feeling the humanity I saw was not worth saving.. though with more time to process it there are some good examples of people working through the adversity as the show progressed.

Why do you say that? Do you feel that humanity now isn't worth saving, either? I couldn't detect much difference between the human society of the miniseries and our own.

 

[Storm Raven]

Some examples please?

Every single "military" character on the show was a stock cliche character, with almost nothing to distinguish them from the bland cliche that spawned them.

The maverick pilot who is too good to discipline for long.
The war-weary retiring captain called back by necessity.
The son of a senior officer with a chip on his shoulder.
The disillusioned drunk officer who rallies in the crunch.
The tough chief mechanic with a heart of gold.
The self-sacrificing officer who dies for the greater good.

How about the multiple situations that amounted to little more than a military cliche?

The "must sacrifice some of the crew to save the ship" routine.
The "newfangled gear just screws up good soldiers" routine.
The "soldiers forced to shoot at panicked civlians" routine.
The "wrong headed politician meddling with military affairs" routine.

The list goes on.

 

[Psion]

Wing Commander was a Battlestar Galactica rip with kitties instead of robots (kitties stolen from Larry Niven), and both stole their military cliches from standard military movies -- BSG itself being a fairly clear Star Wars spin.

Plot-wise, about all they have in common is the space war thing. BSG has a big undertone /inspiration in the exodus. So yeah, nothing's new.

But that is not to say that nothing is ever trite or overdone. I felt that they hewed this version in plot elements a bit too close too the 80s and 90s wave of SF survival dramas (like Independance Day and Deep Impact) and Holocaust dramas, instead of going with the less well worn path of the original.

 

[Storm Raven]

In better perspective: Wing Commander was a Battlestar Galactica rip with kitties instead of robots (kitties stolen from Larry Niven), and both stole their military cliches from standard military movies -- BSG itself being a fairly clear Star Wars spin.

Sure. But why bother to remak BSG if all you are going to do is make Wing Commander with robots? They could have at least come up with something new, instead, they just went back to the same well and trumpeted their innovation.

Face it, folks, nothing's truly original these days.

Certainly not. But there are degrees of originality. The remake of BSG was just more of the same with almost nothing added that hadn't been done a dozen times before (and in several cases, done much better). They could have done hundreds of things that would have shown a spark of creativity and avoided the stock, canned characters and situations that have littered military and science fiction scripts for decades. Instead, they just seemed to take the script off the rack, drop in some stock characters, tinker toy the cliched scenes together, and pat themselves on the back for being creative.

 

[KenM]

One big question, should'nt the nuke that Starbuck failed to get and hit the Galactica have totally vaporized the ship? It just had a little damage. It was a nuke.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

One big question, should'nt the nuke that Starbuck failed to get and hit the Galactica have totally vaporized the ship? It just had a little damage. It was a nuke.

Well, it's a big ship. Did they state the yield on that one?

 

[KenM]

Well, it's a big ship. Did they state the yield on that one?

I don't think they did. But the Galactica was at GROUND ZERO of a nuke blast, should have been done.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

I don't think they did. But the Galactica was at GROUND ZERO of a nuke blast, should have been done.

It depends on the yield. Was it a tactical nuke? If so, there's no way it'd have completely destroyed a target of that size.

There are nukes and there are NUKES, after all.