I liked 'Stargate:Atlantis" better than "Battlestar Galatica"!

[Jayson]

Didn't seem fair to post this in one of the forums for those shows, were one show would have a unfair advantage in trying to get people's views on this opinion.

I did like "Battlestar Galatica." Unlike most people I even felt the last two season's was the show at it's best, thought season 1 gives them a close run. Part me though still thinks the show never really topped the mini-series. I also accept that show was more high brow than Atlantis. It wanted to be seen as a serious drama.

With that said I still think "Atlantis was the better show. It might have just been this fun little action show, that didn't try to aim high in terms of drama but I thought it did a great job of being the type of show it wanted to be. Rodney McKay is possbily the greatest character ever and the show had some really fun action scene's. No show on tv, did action better than Atlantis when it comes to things like hand to hand conflict and land battles. "Galatica" I do think was better at space battles but I much prefer the ground based action, myself. It helps that show also felt like the last link to 90's era sci-fi tv. Which seem wierd since the show wasn't around in the 90's but it feels like a 90's show. It's a show that wasn't embassed by being a Sci-Fi show. I miss that in modern shows.

Jason

 

[sidious618]

No.

 

[Leroy]

The reason Atlantis seems like a better show is because it never set the bar that high to begin with so when we got that craptacular ending for both series it wasn't as much of a letdown with Atlantis.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Atlantis was a decent, well-written Space Opera with a good cast and good storylines. nuBSG was an unmitigated disaster whose only function was to demonstrate that the D&G fad of the 80s has become self parody and that nobody gets the joke.

So, yeah, Atlantis was better.

 

[Gepard]

Atlantis was a decent, well-written Space Opera with a good cast and good storylines.

No, and:

nuBSG was an unmitigated disaster whose only function was to demonstrate that the D&G fad of the 80s has become self parody and that nobody gets the joke.

Also no.

So, yeah, Atlantis was better.

And in conclusion...no. No, no no no, no no. No. No. No, and wrong. So impossibly wrong that it boggles my mind that we're the same species.

Oh wait. You're a grape. Nevermind.

 

[Brent]

They were both unique shows, and really they are an apples to oranges comparison. BSG was great for what it was, Atlantis was good for what it was (but SG-1 was better than Atlantis), Atlantis, unfortunately, did not live up to its full potential, while BSG mostly did.

 

[Harvey]

Atlantis fell apart after a promising first season, and that promise was not anything near what Battlestar Galactica aimed for or achieved. So, I have to disagree. Atlantis failed because far too often, it was just boring. And you can't have that from a show that rarely reaches beyond being a light action-adventure with some jokes.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Atlantis was a decent, well-written Space Opera with a good cast and good storylines.

Actually, no. Acceptable cast, dumb stories and below-par even for space opera.

nuBSG, OTOH, has been lauded as superior and thoughtful sf television for all of the right reasons. It certainly had its problems, but it never really stumbled so low as to be mistaken for a Stargate show (not even the good one, SG-1).

Which is, of course, why nuBSG has been the focus of public attention from critics and the media since its beginnings, despite a limited number of viewers, and why the Stargate shows could run for thirteen or fourteen years without anyone ever noticing they were on the air except for their limited number of viewers.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It's a show that wasn't embassed by being a Sci-Fi show.

BSG wasn't "embarrassed" at being sci fi, but if that bothers you, watch Caprica which is so far from being embarrassed at sci fi that it's a rare attempt at a true sci fi series on TV, namely a story that has a sci fi concept at its core and could not be told in any other genre.

SG:A is an adventure story and BSG is a moody drama; you could transport them to a non-sci-fi context and tell the stories just as well. SG:A is a rather pathetic adventure story and BSG is an interesting, ambitious and somewhat flawed moody drama, but quality isn't really what determines sci-fi-ness anyway.

Spaceships and aliens aren't what sci fi is about. Those can very easily be used as mere window dressing elements in a story that is not sci fi at all at its core. Most sci fi on TV and movies is not actually sci fi at all. Star Wars is the classic example of that, a fantasy story with sci fi window dressing.

You just haven't been exposed to real sci fi, which exists a bit in movies, rarely on TV, but mostly in novels and short stories. So I think what you mean to say is that you like that SG:A is brainless adventure, and there's nothing wrong with you liking that, but it has nothing to do with sci fi.

 

[Trubinator]

Both shows sucked in my opinion. If you want storytelling and moral conflict, watch Babylon 5. If you want sci-fi adventure, watch Farscape.

 

[Starbreaker]

NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS THAN ME!!!

 

[Manticore]

NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS THAN ME!!!

I disagree.

 

[Deckerd]

I actually started watching Atlantis because it was on terrestrial TV to begin with. It was a bit cheesy but quite enjoyable because they had a really interesting adversary. However, like the Borg, they were easily outdone by the cunning humans at which point I switched off.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Oh wait. You're a grape. Nevermind.

Yeah, but a Grape who's been reading real SF for over 40 years and also knows how to write-- and is not a dedicated follower of fashion. nuBSG was not written to be a story; it was written to be kewl.

Which is, of course, why nuBSG has been the focus of public attention from critics and the media since its beginnings, despite a limited number of viewers, and why the Stargate shows could run for thirteen or fourteen years without anyone ever noticing they were on the air except for their limited number of viewers.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the common people. The standards you use generally mean the opposite of what you hope they mean. nuBSG may be in fashion-- and may make twelve year olds feel like tough guys for watching-- but it's nothing more than bad burlesque.

BSG wasn't "embarrassed" at being sci fi,

That's one thing it didn't need to be embarassed about, since it was barely Space Opera let alone sci fi. They went out of their way to purge any imaginative ambiance from the show and made no secret of it. They used contemporary props, slang and settings because they were afraid to look like sci fi, which the current audience likes to think of as "cheesy."

Spaceships and aliens aren't what sci fi is about.

No, it's about bad camerawork, dull sets, gray costuming, repulsive characters, trite storylines, doctors who blow cigarette smoke in the faces of pregnant women and starship commanders who puke all over themselves. It's about not being your daddy's "Star Track."

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS THAN ME!!!

That's pretty much what it usually boils down to.

 

[Gepard]

Yeah, but a Grape who's been reading real SF for over 40 years and also knows how to write-- and is not a dedicated follower of fashion. nuBSG was not written to be a story; it was written to be kewl.

A few possible responses to this come to mind. The one that overrides the others, though, is that if you think Stargate: Atlantis was well-written then we have very different tastes in terms of what constituents acceptable levels of quality. Or, less charitably, that you feel SGA was a decent show gives me a reason to dismiss your opinion on what it means to be a good writer, appeals to precedent and authority notwithstanding.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the common people. The standards you use generally mean the opposite of what you hope they mean. nuBSG may be in fashion-- and may make twelve year olds feel like tough guys for watching-- but it's nothing more than bad burlesque.

I would hardly say it's "in fasion" amongst anyone but a small slice of dedicated Sci-fi fans. The show's continuously declining ratings over its four seasons should show that. So if nobody was watching, by your standards, doesn't that make it good? If we're going to apply such a rigorous formula, of course, and not argue the merits of the story or its presentation.

Oh, and good job insulting us fans of the show by implying we're wimpy, pre-adolescent macho weaklings who need a TV show to prop us up. I'm sure the 50-some-odd-year old Dennis and the female I'm-not-sure-how-old Temis and my 25-year-old self are glad to be so accurately represented.

That's one thing it didn't need to be embarassed about, since it was barely Space Opera let alone sci fi. They went out of their way to purge any imaginative ambiance from the show and made no secret of it. They used contemporary props, slang and settings because they were afraid to look like sci fi, which the current audience likes to think of as "cheesy."

And? The original BSG went out of its way to use custom props, slang, settings, etc, and that didn't stop it from being a pile of shit. Theres no corrolation between lack of contemporality and quality.

No, it's about bad camerawork, dull sets, gray costuming, repulsive characters, trite storylines, doctors who blow cigarette smoke in the faces of pregnant women and starship commanders who puke all over themselves. It's about not being your daddy's "Star Track."

If that doesn't work for you, fair enough. There is, however, a sight difference between "dark and gritty" for the sake of dark and gritty and dark and gritty in the service of a premise that demands it. The series is about the genocide and subsequent hunting of the human race, stuck in tiny, rotting tin cans for what might be the remainder of everyone's lives. I would argue that, trendiness aside, if there was ever a premise that demanded a style like nuBSGs, it's that one. It's dishonest to compare it to Star Trek as if the two franchises are otherwise comparable; they are not, and to imply that the "dark and gritty" has been applied to the show for the simple purpose of looking "kewl" is to have missed the point entirely.

 

[Spiderpope]

RJDiogenes, i find your ideas intriguing and would like to hand out your literature at the airport.

 

[DarKush]

I think that Atlantis, for the most part, never truly aimed to be more than a fun, sci-fi adventure series, and for the most part it hit its mark. I think the first season was pretty good, and it was so-so after that, but I never watched SG: A expecting great TV.

I had higher expectations for BSG, partly encouraged by the show's creators, actors, and Sci-Fi channel, and after two very good seasons I think the show lost its way, the people got a little too full of themselves, and the story quality, and even some of the acting, started to decline in the third season and they never really recovered (though I did like Razor). There did seem to be an anti-sci-fi attitude among some BSG'ers, like they didn't want to be labeled a sci-fi show, and EJO declaring he would quit if they introduced aliens to the show. Now, you don't need aliens on a show for it to be sci-fi, but the original show did have aliens, so there is a precedent there, and if done 'realistically' enough (black oil from the X-Files), who knows how it would've been received. I think the 'anti' stance was done to try to attract new viewers who might be turned off by 'sci-fi' shows, and perhaps to differentiate itself from Star Trek, but I don't know if that strategy was successful or not. It came off as a little snobbish to me.

So, I can understand why someone might like Atlantis better. It depends on the person. I still think BSG was a better show overall, it ultimately failed creatively, but it strove mightily and at its best really was a mirror for our times, similar to the original TOS and I would argue DS9.

Atlantis dealt occasionally with darker subject matter but maintained a lightness, and BSG got caught up in being almost relentlessly dreary and dark because that's supposed to make for gripping TV.

 

[RJDiogenes]

A few possible responses to this come to mind. The one that overrides the others, though, is that if you think Stargate: Atlantis was well-written then we have very different tastes in terms of what constituents acceptable levels of quality. Or, less charitably, that you feel SGA was a decent show gives me a reason to dismiss your opinion on what it means to be a good writer, appeals to precedent and authority notwithstanding.

That's up to you, certainly; we could have a discussion of the relative merits of Atlantis, but it would probably come down to it being a matter of taste. Atlantis is a straightforward Space Opera, not something created to be a political statement.

I would hardly say it's "in fasion" amongst anyone but a small slice of dedicated Sci-fi fans. The show's continuously declining ratings over its four seasons should show that. So if nobody was watching, by your standards, doesn't that make it good? If we're going to apply such a rigorous formula, of course, and not argue the merits of the story or its presentation.

It's in fashion everywhere, from nuBSG to The Shield to "Dark Reign" to Frank Miller's Batman And Robin to nu Trek. It's the Zeitgeist. There are exceptions, of course, and they might be becoming more prevalent-- which hopefully means this tiresome fad is finally petering out.

Oh, and good job insulting us fans of the show by implying we're wimpy, pre-adolescent macho weaklings who need a TV show to prop us up. I'm sure the 50-some-odd-year old Dennis and the female I'm-not-sure-how-old Temis and my 25-year-old self are glad to be so accurately represented.

I have no desire to insult anyone, and I wasn't speaking about anybody in particular; I do know several people whose opinions I respect who found something worthwhile about nuBSG. However, from the interviews I've seen with Ron Moore, I can't see him as anything more than someone who lives in desperate fear that his sister's jock boyfriend will make fun of him for watching "Star Track"-- and from what I've seen of many of the remarks of hard core nuBSG fandom, he has struck a nerve.

And? The original BSG went out of its way to use custom props, slang, settings, etc, and that didn't stop it from being a pile of shit. Theres no corrolation between lack of contemporality and quality.

True, the original was almost as bad as the remake (although it's looking better in retrospect). But the use of contemporality as a political statement in a sci fi show set on another planet in another epoch is laughable to say the least.

If that doesn't work for you, fair enough. There is, however, a sight difference between "dark and gritty" for the sake of dark and gritty and dark and gritty in the service of a premise that demands it. The series is about the genocide and subsequent hunting of the human race, stuck in tiny, rotting tin cans for what might be the remainder of everyone's lives. I would argue that, trendiness aside, if there was ever a premise that demanded a style like nuBSGs, it's that one. It's dishonest to compare it to Star Trek as if the two franchises are otherwise comparable; they are not, and to imply that the "dark and gritty" has been applied to the show for the simple purpose of looking "kewl" is to have missed the point entirely.

I don't compare them; the comparison is made, usually as a justification for the show's existence. As for demanding the 'darker and grittier' style-- well, it seems that a lot of shows and movies are demanding it nowadays-- including nu Trek. And I would say that the very existence of nuBSG is 'dark and gritty' gratia 'dark and gritty,' in an age when 'edgy' is the fashion.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hey now, nobody actually likes Frank Miller's All-Star Batman & Robin. Most people I know who still read it (if it's still being published--who can tell with its erratic schedule?) do so for the train wreck effect.

And while I haven't really read any of the Dark Reign storyline, it's my impression that no one's supposed to actually like the characters. It's just a storyline where the villains are masquerading as the heroes. I have a hard time believing anyone's expecting people to like Norman Osborn more than Tony Stark, etc. It's just a "what if the bad guys were the ones with the law on their side?" story.

Though someone can correct me if that's not the case.