PDA

View Full Version : Why do I hate the new BattleStar Galatica?


Doppleganger
04-03-2005, 12:07 AM
When I was a kid it was one of my favorite shows. Generally, I'm a huge fan of Sci-Fi I loved Star Trek Voyager, Star Gate SG-1 and now Star Gate Atlantis. Maybe I haven't given the show enough of a chance I sat through the first two episodes and it was all that I could stand. I've since tried bits and pieces of a few more and almost can't make myself watch. However, it seems to be doing great in the ratings and the critics love the show. The acting isn't bad. Let me try to put a finger on some of the things that rub me:

a. That whacked out Baltar guy/evil guy genius drives me nuts. He's like the Jar Jar Binks of the series.

b. Their Vipers don't seem nearly as cool as in the old series. The bullets, or lasers or whatever they are seem impotent.

c. I like the Cylons to look like Cylons. I don't have a problem with a few "stealth" human looking cylons so long as we have plenty of the metal ones too.

d. Man their technology overall seems like something I could find at an abandoned Soviet military base. Its retro, but not in a cool Bladerunner fashion.

e. The old one seemed "lighter" more like Star Wars (the first three). The new one is heavy more like The West Wing or something.

Maybe, I can find my answer if some of you who love the series tell me about the other shows you like and hated. For example my wife loves The 5th Dimension with Bruce Willis, but I didn't care for the show. If you tell me that you loved The 5th Dimension, but hated Blade Runner then maybe I'll understand. I want to understand.

levdrakon
04-03-2005, 12:58 AM
Maybe, I can find my answer if some of you who love the series tell me about the other shows you like and hated. For example my wife loves The 5th Dimension with Bruce Willis, but I didn't care for the show. If you tell me that you loved The 5th Dimension, but hated Blade Runner then maybe I'll understand. I want to understand.

Are you talking about the 5th Element? If so, I loved that movie. Unfortunately, I also loved Bladerunner, so that's not going to help you.

I loved everything about Bladerunner and consider it just about the classic hardcore scifi movie.

5th Element was more of a fun fanwank for people who love scifi I guess. It almost lost me with that drag queen DJ type guy that spent the whole time screaming, and the costume on that blue opera singer was just awful.

Doppleganger
04-03-2005, 01:19 AM
Yea, that's right the Fifth Element. Anyway, I've liked certain things about the Fifth Element it just didn't seem to take itself quite seriously enough for my tastes. In that way it was kind of like the first Star Ship Troopers which I DID like overall, but which suffered from a certain lack of "taking itself seriously." This same flaw could be said of the entire Batman Movie series.

Anyway, getting back to BattleStar Galactica I really want to understand what it is about the series that grates me so much. I feel like I'm missing out and that I'm the only one.

Tangent
04-03-2005, 03:05 AM
I love Battlestar Galactica. It's more of a character-driven drama with long story-arcs than Star Trek or Stargate, which tend to be much more episodic and action-oriented.

There are different types of science fiction. I generally prefer, whether on the screen or on the page, science fiction stories involving weighty issues and complex characters. The science fiction backdrop allows these issues to be explored in new and interesting ways. Bladerunner is an example, as are many of the novels by Clarke, Bradbury, LeGuin, and others who write a lot of social commentary into their stories.

Then there's the Star Wars kind of shoot 'em up space opera. The more laser guns, robots, aliens, and futuristic gadgets, the better. Fast pacing, lots of action, and cool special effects are emphasized. There's usually a big explosion at the end. See pretty much everything on the SciFi channel except Battlestar Galactica for examples. Also movies like The Chronicles of Riddick, any Schwarzenegger sci-fi flick, and any Will Smith sci-fi flick.

In my opinion, Star Trek, Stargate SG1, and Stargate Atlantis all have a very high cheese factor. Especially Stargate Atlantis. They can be fun to watch, and I do watch them, but I always wish they were a little smarter and did less pandering to the audience with the cheap thrills.

Battlestar Galactica has some cheesy moments, but they are not so frequent or as pronounced as in those other shows. I enjoy watching the story unfold slowly. I like learning about what the characters are like and how they will react to different situations. I like that there's not just a bunch of mindless, repetitive fight scenes episode after episode. It doesn't need to use crutches like that, because the writing is solid and the character drama holds my attention much better week after week than a bunch of frickin' lasers. :)

The Fifth Element is pure cheese, but it's tongue-in-cheek. It's one of my favorites.

GuanoLad
04-03-2005, 03:18 AM
What the new Galactica seems to have achieved is what the original Galactica was trying to be, but it didn't have the first clue how to achieve that because there was no precedent. Science Fiction simply wasn't gritty and real and dark, it was still shaking off its history of being camp, bright, clean, and shallow.

People who, unlike myself, can look past the production values of a television show really appreciate 60s and 70s SF because of the great stories and characters. Whereas people like me cannot avoid judging these shows by their wobbly sets and Quantel paintbox dodgy effects. (Don't get me started on Blakes Seven, and then it's come-of-age and amazingly improved pseudo remake Firefly)

What Galactica (and Lost and Carnivale and - I believe - Deadwood) have done is rejuvenated their genre by approaching it from a more rational and realistic angle. But the problem is, the stories are perhaps less elaborate for it. Each episode of Galactica has really just been a very basic idea, sometimes as simple as chasing down a bad guy, or figuring out what the cylons are up to, or whatever, which isn't a very taxing conundrum for the vviewer, but it's couched so brilliantly in a very realistic environment and 'universe' that it works better as television than it has a right to.

Doppleganger
04-03-2005, 03:19 AM
I think SG-1 has some fascinating plotlines. Consider the replicators that started as a little girls toys (this has relevence to current research on nano-technology and the so called "gray glue" issue). Then there was the documentary made at Cheyanne Mountain about SG-1 where they explored some neat issues that seemed faily realisitic. Or consider how ultimately they relied upon the Gaoul to help them beat the replicators which were even to much for the Asgard. I love SG-1 because sometimes it will really get me to thinking about issues for awhile.

In any case this is about BattleStar Galactica. It's not the complex plotlines or pacing that bothers me (I don't think) rather its something else. Something about the actual execution of the scenes especially the technology which seems somehow incongruent (interiors that look like something out of a WWII Battleship combined with Hyperjump technology). For some reason the original didn't suffer from this problem or at least my childhood mind didn't notice.

Tangent
04-03-2005, 03:54 AM
especially the technology which seems somehow incongruent (interiors that look like something out of a WWII Battleship combined with Hyperjump technology).

I think this is a deliberate decision on the part of the creators in order to distance Battlestar Galactica from the Star Trek shows, where everything is bright and clean and sterile. They are going for a grittier look to make it seem more real and familiar to the audience. They want you to feel like you're on a WWII ship. I'm glad they've gone with less technology in this series. The "convenient new technology discovered or invented to resolve a crisis" was used far too often in Star Trek. There was also too much meaningless technobabble about dilithium crystals, tachyon beams, etc. And there's always the old criticisms about how in the Star Trek world they seem to never remember these new technologies in future episodes when it might come in handy. And how, really, they could have solved about half of their conflicts through a little creative use of the transporter.

Battlestar Galactica is not as much about the futuristic trappings of science fiction as it is about the story (whatever the Cylon plan is) and how the people involved are dealing with their plight. If you're looking for laser cannons, transporters, replicators, or knobby-headed aliens, then you are certainly going to be disappointed.

You are looking back on the original Battlestar Galactica series with the golden glow of childhood memories. Go back and watch some of those old episodes again. If you still like it better than the modern version, well, then there's no hope for you. :p

Doppleganger
04-03-2005, 04:28 AM
It's not that I have to have the glitzy tech. Rather, its that my mind gets focused on the whole incongruity of the whole thing. That is to say that a race capable of faster than light travel and creating "The Cylons" would have better ancillary technology. Also, while I don't "have to have lasers" those bullet looking things that the raptors use are just pathetic. Also, the way that the Cylons were able to "black out" their electronics in the first few episodes that I watched drove me insane. I mean it was bad enough that they were facing 100 to 1 numerical matchups against a technologically superior opponent, but to compound that with some sort of funky technology that renders their already hapless, Raptors with 50 caliber machine guns useless... well that's just over the damm line! And then there's Baltar. If your going to be an evil genius then be one for heaven's sake. The guy doesn't come off as particular bright or evil. Give me the fat guy in the chair with the "Christmas Head" robot saying "By your command." And while this isn't one of my major gripes Adamus in the original series had the gravitas of the Pope in comparison to the current actor (and he is one of my favorite actors in the new series). You know in thinking about it a little bit the new Battlestar Galactica gives me some of the same creepy vibes (especially in the silent space scenes) that the old 1970's show Space 1999 did. Now, I liked Space 1999 as a kid, but it did give me the big time creeps (note that space 1999 had a retro feel on the technology without seeming incongruent).

Look, I'm not trying to tell you why a show you like sucks. Clearly, its good Sci-Fi. Rather, I'm trying to figure out what it is about the current Battlestar Galactica that makes it so hard for ME to swallow.

HPL
04-03-2005, 05:14 AM
And then there's Baltar. If your going to be an evil genius then be one for heaven's sake. The guy doesn't come off as particular bright or evil. Give me the fat guy in the chair with the "Christmas Head" robot saying "By your command." .

I guess that's one of the problems. In the new series, he's not supposed to be an evil genius. Some of us have debated about if he's even a "genius" or just a gifted programmer with a great PR machine. He's merely a very selfish indiviual who may be the most intellgent person in the fleet as far as science stuff goes(in a cut scene for Water, he seemed to know his physics pretty well, from what I could tell). I think that's what makes him interesting. He's not evil, he's very human(and we know what a rotten bunch they can be).

As I've already mentioned a number of times in the BSG threads, the only thing that really bugs me regarding Dr. Balter is that he's showing numerous signs of mental/emtional decay(either due to his fear of getting caught and/or his guilt over helping (inadvertently) destory 99% of humanity) and nobody as yet(other then the audience) has seemed to notice.

Cervaise
04-03-2005, 05:36 AM
I just watched the commentary on the miniseries DVD, so I can relay some of the creators' rationale on certain points.And then there's Baltar. If your going to be an evil genius then be one for heaven's sake. The guy doesn't come off as particular bright or evil.They're not making him overtly evil on purpose. Really, he is kind of a schmuck. He was a self-promoting, self-absorbed media figure back on Caprica, more famous for his reputation than for his accomplishments. Six, the blonde Cylon babe, played him effortlessly. She appealed to his vanity and to his egotistic incuriosity about women, and trapped him into helping the Cylons destroy his entire people. He never wanted that. But now he's complicit, and he is choosing to remain complicit rather than confess his terrible role, out of a combination of extreme guilt and shame plus a certain urge toward the power the Cylons clearly represent and are sharing with him. That makes him a villain: But he's a human villain, weak, self-centered, short-sighted, instead of a larger-than-life supervillain of some kind.

This impulse toward the human informs all the characters. The least flawed guy on the show so far is Gaeta, and maybe we just don't know him very well yet. :)

Seriously, in the commentary, the creators talk about how the actors are inclined away from shallow heroism and toward exploring their characters' flaws. For example, they talk about being impressed that Jamie Bamber, the guy who plays Apollo, is willing to present the ostensible hero with an unlikable edge. And he is, certainly: erratic, touchy, occasionally irrational, not well grounded: not the way this type of character is typically portrayed, and risky for the actor if viewers are alienated and misplace their dislike of the character on the performer, but very worthwhile if the balance is right and you pay it off later.

But this creates an ambiguity in the drama. You can never trust that the heroes are doing the right thing, or are correct in their perceptions and assessments. You cannot release yourself to live through the heroes and become vicariously heroic yourself; you have to maintain a certain amount of distance so you can evaluate the character's moral choices, even while you're being drawn into their humanity. It's harder work than watching escapism like Trek.

And note that Trek and SF like it is presented in a high style, with a theatrical tone that emphasizes the fantasy. It's safe to be carried away by that kind of storytelling. That's not the case with highly naturalistic material like Galactica, where you have to take a more active role as a viewer, thinking about what's going on, considering the moral quandaries, asking yourself what you'd do.

(This stylistic choice is connected to the physical design choice, by the way. Another reason for the stylized acting is to sell the fussy faux-future design they're surrounded by. In the commentary, the creators joke about the audience pointing and looking at "the sci-fi chair!" It would be disharmonic, obviously, if the actors were standing in front of the weird furniture and sparkly walls and not acknowledging the strangeness somehow. So, conversely, because in this series they wanted a naturalistic acting style, they had to combine it with a naturalistic world so it wouldn't look odd.)

Final word on the acting style: You're right to compare it to The West Wing. That's exactly what they're doing: a human drama that happens to take place in this other world with this other technology. That's what science fiction does best, reflect our humanity back to us, rather than our love of gadgets.

Which brings me to my final point: These "please help me not hate something" discussions rarely help the requester to do so, I think. No knock on you as the OP, because often, it's simply a matter of taste. And taste, of course, is entirely subjective. Just because other people like something doesn't mean you're obligated to like it. For comparison, I'm almost entirely alone in my circle of acquaintainces for finding Will and Grace basically unwatchable. People are surprised to learn that I feel that way, and they ask me if I've seen such-and-such an episode because "that one was really good," and, y'know, it isn't that. It's just, I don't like it. I don't like the tone, I don't like the jokes, I don't like the stories. It just doesn't appeal to me. And I don't let it bother me, because I reject the notion that I'm "supposed" to like it.

Maybe that's happening for you. Maybe the combination of the low-key style (see, for example, the scene in the miniseries where Adama gets the call with the first news of the Cylon attack; Gaeta quietly reads a note, Adama acknowledges it, and hangs up: no melodrama at all), the real-world physical design, and the morose, mourning emotional tone just isn't to your taste. Maybe it's something else. Maybe something rubs you the wrong way for vague reasons at the moment, but if you were to come back to it in five years you'd suddenly see something different about it. Or maybe not; maybe it'll never appeal to you.

Nothing wrong with that, y'know. :)

Maybe it would be worthwhile for you to get a hold of the DVD, watch the miniseries, then watch it again with the commentary. Hearing the creators explain why they did what they did, and what they were going for, may help you. Or maybe you won't buy into it, and the stuff that bugs you will still bug you. Me, I wouldn't stress too much about it.

WhyNot
04-03-2005, 09:25 AM
What they said. Life is too short to force yourself to watch stuff you don't enjoy. If you have to think this hard about it, you're wasting valuable time you could be using to get Farscape on DVD and watch that. I think you'd like it much better, and it's still an awesome show. But it has a layer of irony, irreverence and fun that isn't a part of BG's outlook. And a character that farts helium when he's nervous. Doesn't make one "better" than the other, IMHO, they're just different. I love both. You may not. Life will go on.

msmith537
04-03-2005, 11:14 AM
As I've already mentioned a number of times in the BSG threads, the only thing that really bugs me regarding Dr. Balter is that he's showing numerous signs of mental/emtional decay(either due to his fear of getting caught and/or his guilt over helping (inadvertently) destory 99% of humanity) and nobody as yet(other then the audience) has seemed to notice.


Well it's pretty obvious that they didn't manage to save the best and the brightest of humanity. Adama is fairly heavy handed as the commander of an aging warship on it's decomissioning voyage. His XO is a drunk. The CAG is kind of a douchebag. The ace pilot is a screw up and not the likable kind like Dirk Benedict. Really the only Cylon detector that they need is to look to see who is actually competant at their job.

I think if your SciFi thing is the typical swarthy captain/space pirate, his warrior alien partner, and an assorted manajarie of comic AIs, sexy aliens and geeky sidekicks, this show might not be your thing.

Rashak Mani
04-03-2005, 11:22 AM
WHY DID THEY NOT USE THAT GREAT THEME FROM THE OLD SERIES !!??

Baltar is boring too... stale series

RikWriter
04-03-2005, 11:36 AM
Well it's pretty obvious that they didn't manage to save the best and the brightest of humanity.

So basically Battlestar Galactica is the Ark Number Three? Middlemen, insurance salesman, telephone sanitizers? :D

Balduran
04-03-2005, 12:06 PM
As I've already mentioned a number of times in the BSG threads, the only thing that really bugs me regarding Dr. Balter is that he's showing numerous signs of mental/emtional decay(either due to his fear of getting caught and/or his guilt over helping (inadvertently) destory 99% of humanity) and nobody as yet(other then the audience) has seemed to notice.

My opinion is they are pretending not to notice because they feel they need him. They believe he is the only one able to make a cylon detector, as well, he has made a couple of smart/lucky guesses that have saved their hash. They are trying to humor him as much as possible so he doesn't completely go over the edge. A half-crazy genius is better than no genius.

Recall from colonial day When Rosalyn was asked why she was supporting Balthar as VP she replied "Better the devil you know." Plus from that episode it sounds like he is a bit of a hero to the fleet. It would be bad politics to commit him to the crazy ship.

cstamets
04-03-2005, 12:25 PM
d. Man their technology overall seems like something I could find at an abandoned Soviet military base. Its retro, but not in a cool Bladerunner fashion.


Since the level of technology is one of the hangups, I'll point out that they did have better technology. The Galactica was on its way to be mothballed and turned into a museum. It was the older technology of the Galactica that saved it when the Cylons attacked. The Cylons had a way of interfering with the new technology that didn't affect the Galactica.

The Mark VII Vipers were way cooler than the Mark IIs, but they were susceptable to the Cylon interference. Check out http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/ships/ for details.

Weird_AL_Einstein
04-04-2005, 07:56 AM
The shaky, out-of-focus, psuedo-documentary hand-held camera cinematography. I hate that with a fiery passion. It's rendered the show utterly unwatchable to me.

Balle_M
04-04-2005, 10:34 AM
In my case, it's less hatred than diappointment. The series has promise but so far has failed to deliver.

1) Story lines that could add greatly to the series are wrapped up way too quickly IMHO. In the episode "Water" for example I was thinking, "Now this could be interesting. There will have to be rationing, but who'll be in charge? Adama, as the military commander or Roslin as head of the civilian government? Will it be shared equally or will Galactica get priority as the fleet's sole defence? If Galactica, will there be water riots and if so which side would Roslin support? Will it affect future strategy? (We know X is Cylon-free but there might be water at Y)"

I was very disappointed with the "Hey!!! We found water!" at the end of the episode. It did come as a complete surprise though since the water wasn't discovered by...

2) Starbuck. After all, she IS the best pilot/trainer/marksman/Cylon Raider re-wirer/lay in the whole fleet. I would assume she would be the best dowser, too. Seriously, this is getting a bit old...

3) The whole "#Six-in-Baltar's-head" thing. It just seems like a cheap contrivance to introduce plot elements that they couldn't do with normal dialog.

4) Finally, if Edward James Olmos' acting was any more wooden, he would be standing in front of a cigar store.

This is just my opinion and is not designed in any way to disparage anyone else's enjoyment of the series.

Hammer
04-04-2005, 12:27 PM
I watched and loved TOS. I still do and I'm enjoying this new show. Basically, I decided to stop comparing the two and watch this for what it is. A drama set in space, not a space drama. This is actually a pretty good first season as first seasons tend to be the worst. It takes the actors and writers time to get things working smoothly. I think Ron has the Gritty down, but still needs to work some on the realizm. There's a lot to nit pick but hell that's have the fun of watching a show. I do wish he had decided to stick with the lasers, but I'm guessing they plan to use the bullets as a plot device at some point in the future. They should be a limited resource for the fleet just like water. Anyway, for me it was a matter of some BSG is better than no BSG. I was glad to see Richard Hatch go ahead join up as well. He worked for years to get the original revived and I would hate to see him not profit in someway from that labor.

El_Kabong
04-04-2005, 04:01 PM
I certainly don't hate the new BSG, but the show does have its problems, IMO.

Unlike some others here, I'm not bugged by the changes to the roles of various cast members, nor retro aspects of the technology, and anachronisms such as the vaguely '80s costuming of the human characters and identifiable objects (such as Hummers and bottles of Jack Daniels) appearing in the background of shots. This is mainly because the new cast is richer in character, and because the prouction design fits reasonably within with the show's clear intent as allegorical comment on current, earthbound political and religious attitudes. In fact, I think the show's greatest strength is the way it has examined the mechanics of the social and political structure of its mythical human civilization and the strains placed on that structure by its poorly-understood foe.

That the foe is still so poorly-understood after close to twenty hours of televised programming, however, is the most important thing that brings the show down for me. I can only call it the result of sloppy writing that what the Cylons are trying to accomplish is still so undefined, that their behavior and capabilities seem so inconsistent. They seem to conveniently find the fleet whenever a particular plot point requires that they do so, but disappear for long stretches for no apparent reason; sometimes they seem to have the ability to instantly propagate information amongst all their various entities, sometimes to have almost no long-distance communications at all, and while mostly it seems that their primary end is simply the instant and total extermination of humanity, they have at various points seemed to have actually invited extravagant losses of their own assets without having any clear strategic reason for doing so. Lastly, AFAIK it has never yet been made clear whether or what might be the central control authority for their actions, or to what degree they are autonomous. I realize a lot of this may simply have to do with the producers wanting to leave their story options open, but right now the Cylons seem to be a pure deus ex machina, and I find the lack of coherence as to their objectives and how their 'society' is structured very frustrating.

Lesser problems have to do with the basic constraints within which the show is working; firstly the audacious attempt to 're-imagine' the much-loved but frankly silly original in a much harsher, grittier universe without completely discarding the signature elements that make it identifiably BSG; secondly, trying to manage what has become a really remarkably large regular cast in an hour per week. I think the show has been largely successful at the first, highly uneven at the second.

The cost of the particular approach the series has taken is that there seems little scope for humor or lightness of tone; the closest to comedy so far has been the eisode where Tigh's wife first appears. As regards the cast, the best episodes (IMO) have either contrasted the behaviors of the various cast members to a single event or threat ('33'), or fixed more or less on a single story line for the whole episode (Starbuck's interrogation and torture of the Cylon operative, for me the strongest ep of the entire season). OTOH, some episodes have simply tried to juggle too many balls at once; the more I think about the two-part season-ender, the more it looks a mess, and the storyline involving Helo on Caprica was simply unworkable with only about three minutes per week available to advance the plot thread.

I think if BSG ultimately fails, it'll be from the same disease that has pretty much killed ER; burying its characters under an unbearable weight of personal flaws and tragedies until they implode like collapsing neutron stars, all heat and density, and no light.

Well, sorry for the brain dump, but you've prbably guessed I do think there's lots worthy of discussion in this series. Pretty good overall, as I've said before, but it remains to be seen whether the good outweighs the bad in the second go-round. And sorry, but no matter how good the new BSG has been so far, Firefly remains the high-water mark for great televised SF.

Debaser
04-06-2005, 08:20 AM
I can only call it the result of sloppy writing that what the Cylons are trying to accomplish is still so undefined, that their behavior and capabilities seem so inconsistent.

You really nailed it here. A viewer has to make lots of completely unsupported assumptions to even begin to explain the randomness of the cylons. This is true of their technical capabilities, the "in the head" stuff, the philosopy of the cylons, the Helo on Caprica plotline, etc, etc.

I kept thinking that things would start to get tied together towards the end of the season. At some point, one would think that these unexplained things would start to make some sort of sense. Instead, the show got even worse. More and more of these inconsistencies kept popping up and the show ended without explaining any of them.

flight
04-06-2005, 11:11 AM
Funny, the inability to nail down the motivations of the Cylons is one of the things I really like about the series. There seems to have been a great deal of effort placed on creating the ideas behind the series, so I am assuming that the creators KNOW why the Cylons do what they do and that there is consistency in their actions. If you take the premise that the Cylons are not a Deus Ex Machina, but rather acting according to some over-arching plan, a view which is supported rather than refuted by the sheer oddity of some of their behavior as well as several hints in the series, then you are left, like the humans, on hte edge of your seat guessing at what will come next.

In fact, that is one of the problems I have with the series. The humans should recognize that certain things do not add up to Cylons just wanting to exterminate them. There should be more guessing at their real motives, though the pressure and internal conflicts the humans are under makes this a little more understandable.

Hammer
04-06-2005, 11:48 AM
I fear the main reason we don't know more about the cylons is it will lock the writers in and expose some earlier problems. It's much easier to keep their abilities a mystery. It's like they can't decide if they are a borg collective or just independant entities with a strong single purpose. A lot of there abilities are boarding on magic which hurts the whole gritty/realism of the show.

Debaser
04-06-2005, 12:19 PM
There seems to have been a great deal of effort placed on creating the ideas behind the series, so I am assuming that the creators KNOW why the Cylons do what they do and that there is consistency in their actions.

I thought this too, until towards the end of the season. I can actually tell you right where they lost me:

Helo and Boomer are on Caprica and constantly running from the Cylons. However, we the viewers know that Boomer is actually a Cylon, and she knows it. Further, the Cylons are actually just toying with them. They aren't trying to capture them, they just want Helo to fall in love with Boomer. OK. I don't know the reasoning, but I trust that it will eventually be explained to us.

Then, Boomer betrays her Cylon buddies and starts running away from them for real with Helo. As a result, we viewers are shown the Cylons being angry about this. They are no longer toying with them. They actually do want to capture them now and are really trying to.

Then the scene: Boomer and Helo are running in a long tube just a few feet under the ground. Meanwhile up above the tunnel the entire Cylon army is searching the city for them. My bullshit detector just couldn't handle this. A simple heat detecting search device available with current technology here in the US would immediately find them. One lone cylon guard in the tunnel would have stopped them.

It seems as if the Cylons can be either omnipotent or dumb, indestructively powerful or weak, all depending on the needs of the plot in the short term. They just don't make any sense.

Cervaise
04-06-2005, 12:51 PM
There seems to have been a great deal of effort placed on creating the ideas behind the series, so I am assuming that the creators KNOW why the Cylons do what they do and that there is consistency in their actions.As I said above, I recently watched the miniseries DVD's commentary, and the creators mentioned a couple of things that might be hints along these lines. For example, they said that in thinking about the Cylons' motivation, they looked to religious extremists like al-Qaida, who manage to do monstrously evil things in the delusional belief that they're serving a greater good or greater power. They didn't give any specific information about what the Cylons might be up to, but the way they talked about it, it's clear that they've given it a whole lot of thought.

Although Debaser's point about the sewer scene is a good one (I thought it was implausible as well, a storytelling fudge that's hard to rationalize in retrospect), I for one am willing to wait a while for further hints as to the Cylons' grand plan before making a decision about its believability and/or narrative and thematic interest.no matter how good the new BSG has been so far, Firefly remains the high-water mark for great televised SF.I'm definitely a defender of the new BSG, but I'll strongly agree with you on that. BSG is very good; Firefly is a classic, pure and simple. BSG has a long way to go before it deserves to be compared.

HPL
04-06-2005, 01:10 PM
Recall from colonial day When Rosalyn was asked why she was supporting Balthar as VP she replied "Better the devil you know." Plus from that episode it sounds like he is a bit of a hero to the fleet. It would be bad politics to commit him to the crazy ship.

They have a crazy ship? :)

"Change Places!"

HPL
04-06-2005, 01:15 PM
2) Starbuck. After all, she IS the best pilot/trainer/marksman/Cylon Raider re-wirer/lay in the whole fleet. I would assume she would be the best dowser, too. Seriously, this is getting a bit old...
.

As much as I agree that her wonder-kind thing is getting old, she is not the best lay in the fleet.

At least, Baltar didn't think so.

Balle_M
04-06-2005, 01:54 PM
As much as I agree that her wonder-kind thing is getting old, she is not the best lay in the fleet.

At least, Baltar didn't think so.

True, but remember - He's nuttier than a fruitcake.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.