[stj]

V wrote:

---

...I've developed my own set of points on "what went wrong with BSG", or "how it went wrong", which for some time I narrowed down to four points:


...a very loose and indulgent writing style...a very loose command style....half the core writing staff left between seasons 2 and 3...network meddling....

What was wrong with the new BattlestarGalactica was that it was a 9/11 series that falsified everything important about 9/11. It only pretended to be about its characters and never even pretended its fictional universe made any sense. What really happened to the series is that 9/11 turned into a losing war in Iraq. That diminished the only interest the series ever had.

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Seems right on the money to me. Moore's "glory days" were with Trek, where he was working for people who knew how to "make the trains run on time". When HE was in charge, he didn't have the manegerial/producers "tools" to handle the job properly.

That and so much of nuG was basically him trying to create the "anti-Trek with everything from "docu-cam" FX to stupid set design decisions like "no viewscreens". Honestly, hasn't the man ever HEARD of webcams or "digital periscopes"? And let's not get started with his overreaction to Trek's "perfect people" which led him to create not realisitcally flawed people, but walking bundles of attitude and emo.

I don't Moore's Klingons are any claim to glory. And his thing in BattleStar Galactica wasn't so much anti-Trek as anti-Voyager. Hence Seven of Nine in John Savage's head is repeated, while he got to mutiny against Janeway/Roslin.

Pilot Ace wrote:

---

I mostly agree with V and Ian. The show just unraveled as it went on and it makes sense why with V's context here.

Sorry, can't agree with any perspective that imagines the new BattleStar Galactica was ever raveled. One good 9/11 episode (33 for those who didn't pay attention) does not make a good series.