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

[sidious618]

Well, it's a matter of expectation. Atlantis is set in a version of the here and now, so you'd expect the characters to wear contemporary clothes and use contemporary items. But it's not quite right to see aliens who lived ten thousand years ago wearing stuff that was on sale at Old Navy in 2008.

It seems to me that your only problem with the show is the costuming and the fact that it's "realistic." See, this is why sci-fi gets a bad name because we have people who blanketly say that you have to meet this, this and this in order to be true sci-fi. That's utter nonsense. BSG was sci-fi and very sci-fi.

 

[Jono]

I also liked Atlantis more then NuBSG, mainly because I positively hated more characters in nuBSG than I did in Atlantis. I disliked most of the cast of Atlantis, but over time they grew on me but with Battlestar the characters I disliked at the beginning I moved on to despise, so I eventually tuned out whereas with Atlantis (for good or bad) I watched just about all the way through.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Well, as I said above, I don't need realism in my imaginative fiction.

I don't need it either, but it is nice to have something like BSG that does provide it. I consider it another welcome flavor of televised/cinematic scifi.

Fair enough. But my complaint is that it's not another flavor; it's the only flavor-- or at least the overwhelmingly omnipresent one. And that anything that's not photorealistic-- or "gritty"-- is considered "cheesy" in current tastes.

It seems to me that your only problem with the show is the costuming and the fact that it's "realistic." See, this is why sci-fi gets a bad name because we have people who blanketly say that you have to meet this, this and this in order to be true sci-fi. That's utter nonsense. BSG was sci-fi and very sci-fi.

No, my main complaint about nuBSG is that it's one of the primary examples of Reagan-Era D&G reaching the level of self parody (although there are a number of more examples now). I also have complaints about its quality, but Gep is mad enough at me as it is, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Jayson]

I don't understand the apples and oranges, scenario people talk about, when they say you can't compare the shows. To me it's like saying we can't say "Back to the Future" is a better movie than "Ishtar" since there in a different genre. "Atlantis" was better at being a lightweight, action-adventure show IMO than "Galatica" was at being a adul drama. "Galatica" was a good show but there was always something lacking in it that kept it from being a elite drama like "Soprano's" "The Shield" or even "Lost"

"Atlantis" was able to do action very well. I would even say the hand/ground conflict was great by tv standards. My eye's usually glaze over when it comes to action scene's in tv shows but I actually liked watching the action stuff on "Atlantis." It was able to do comedy, fairly well and it was pretty decent with continuity and it even was able to do passable drama at times. More important it didn't have one huge flaw about it. It had alot of stuff that could have been done better, but there was nothing that made you want to throw your remote at the tv. "Battlestar Galatica" had alot of that with the seaso n3 love triangle and alot of the stuff with Starbuck. Starbuck is one the most aggressively annoying characters you can find, not named Jar Jar. Were I think Rodney McKay alone, elevates "Atlantis" in my eye's I think Starbuck, actually pulls down "Galatica" in my eye's just as equally.

Jason

 

[Deckerd]

I would agree with you about Starbuck but the character's problems were the dialogue and storylines she was given. BSG could have done with an injection of humour for sure. If wars have taught us anything, it's that humans can find humour in the direst of situations. It's almost a survival tactic, I think, but it was almost completely absent in BSG.

 

[Gepard]

Well, we're definitely in disagreement here. I have no need of realistic SFX at all; I want them to be visually and aesthetically appealing, and creative, but I couldn't care less about realistic.

SGA had some very nice imaginative and realistic visual effects (of course, so did nuBSG), so that's not my complaint. My problem is with everything from set, costume and general productions desgin on a show like SGA and how cheap and silly it all looks. (The flip side would be something like, say, the lumanescent mushroom planet from ROTS, where clone troopers kill some of the Jedi. That was imaginative and cool, but it took a feature film budget to pull it off.)

I'd rather watch Starship Exeter than yet another humdrum "sci fi" show where the spaceships look like factory basements and the characters all dress in bondage gear.

Factory basements? Bondage gear? Did you ever watch nuBSG?

Well, we could digress into a side discussion of how photorealistic special effects have negatively impacted the imagination of the contemporary audience if you want.

I should put in touch with mverta, who, as a visual effects artist, would be happy to tear you a new one about effects not being photrealistic enough these days. I guess it's a mater of perspective.

No, my main complaint about nuBSG is that it's one of the primary examples of Reagan-Era D&G reaching the level of self parody (although there are a number of more examples now).

Part of the problem with this discussion is, I don't even know what ssome of the complaints you're tossing about are even supposed to mean. Perhaps "self-parody" is intended to say that it's gone beyond the point where you can take it seriously, but I'm sure not seeing it that way.

I also have complaints about its quality, but Gep is mad enough at me as it is, so I'll leave it at that.

Quite so. You'd better quit before us Dark & Gloomy crowd puts you on the government depopulation list.

 

[Demiurge]

Well, it's a matter of expectation. Atlantis is set in a version of the here and now, so you'd expect the characters to wear contemporary clothes and use contemporary items. But it's not quite right to see aliens who lived ten thousand years ago wearing stuff that was on sale at Old Navy in 2008.

Yeah, that was definitely distracting.

And it was more like 150,000 years ago.

 

[Deckerd]

It was a change from jumpsuits.

 

[Demiurge]

One of the oddest things I found about nuBSG was that it really didn't dwell on the psychological aspects of the genocide of the colonies all that much. Yes, it was dark and grim, unrelentingly so.

But the broken characters were all broken BEFORE the apocalypse - their personal issues predated it, and I can't think of any major character that really had difficulties in dealing with the death of everyone they knew before the Galactica.

I think they really missed the boat there. It was the seminal event of mankind to that point, and while they dealt with it in how it drove the plot, they rarely went into it in how it drove the characters.

 

[Agent Richard07]

But my complaint is that it's not another flavor; it's the only flavor-- or at least the overwhelmingly omnipresent one.

Interesting, because I think BSG is totally unique in that I've never seen a scifi TV series like it. To me, it is new and not more of the same. Now, if you're including scifi movies and shows outside of scifi, then I'd agree with you, but even then, I see BSG as bringing "the grit" to televised scifi rather than it being just more of the same.

And that anything that's not photorealistic-- or "gritty"-- is considered "cheesy" in current tastes.

What you said earlier about this new trend being part of the current zeitgeist probably is a factor in why people like BSG and complain about "cheesy" scifi, but it's not the only reason. I think fans who feel that way are just happy to see a show that does televised science fiction differently for once (a lot of people have a view similar to what I outlined in my response to the first quote above). I don't hate Stargate Atlantis, but it is a show I see as a prime example of "more of the same". In fact, it literally is more SG-1 in a way.

I am beginning to understand your (and others) opposing view of BSG better by the way even if I don't share it, so what you're saying isn't falling on deaf ears. I just think the show has a lot of great things going for it despite whatever problems it might have. For me, the positives have always stood out more than the negatives.

"Galatica" was a good show but there was always something lacking in it that kept it from being a elite drama like "Soprano's" "The Shield" or even "Lost"

I think it has reached that level, its just that it's about spaceships and killer robots, so you don't hear about it the same way you would The Sopranos for example. In the scifi community though, it has a certain status.

One of the oddest things I found about nuBSG was that it really didn't dwell on the psychological aspects of the genocide of the colonies all that much.

I agree. We didn't see a whole lot about life among the 50,000 survivors or how humanity being wiped out affected what's left of civilization. The show did miss out on that.

But the broken characters were all broken BEFORE the apocalypse...

One thing I like about BSG is that the characters weren't the larger than life best of the best, yet they were charged with the responsibility of shepherding mankind against all odds to a mythical place where they could live on. They were nobodies who became somebodies because of a catastrophy.

 

[Deckerd]

One thing I like about BSG is that the characters weren't the larger than life best of the best, yet they were charged with the responsibility of shepherding mankind against all odds to a mythical place where they could live on. They were nobodies who became somebodies because of a catastrophy.

Yes they weren't handpicked heroes or a raggle taggle bunch of 'experts' who rub along together magnificently. I would liked to have seen more civilans plunged into important roles, however.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

BSG cannot be honestly praised as good. The mainstream critics who praised it did so because it gave a false appearance of political relevance to the "War on Terror." The series, and thereby the critics praising it, said nothing that wasn't simultaneously completely compatible with conventional prowar liberalism and viciously racist crusaders. The only time the mainstream critics roused from their perfectly correct indifference was to worry, briefly, over a discernible message in the Iraq episodes. They soon realized it was illusory. Since BSG aimed to be a serious drama with political implications, it is a complete artistic failure.

Exceptionally well-put.

Another problem with BSG is that it failed at its own stated goals. In the interviews for that half-hour special "Battlestar Galactica Revealed" (aired just prior to season 4), David Eick said that he and Ronald D. Moore intended to “treat the [science fiction genre] seriously.” And Moore said that “the philosophy that has driven us since the beginning,” was to explore, “what would really happen in this circumstance? What would people really do — not what’s the dramatic thing not what’s the TV thing — What would really happen to these people? How would they really conduct themselves?”

With the glaring lack of humor, of happiness, of optimism, the show demonstrated a real lack of humanity. People don't really act like the BSG characters. Sure, we all have outbursts on occasion. But not to the frequency the BSG characters had them. And even our darker emotions and actions are tempered with times of joy, humor and genuine charity. As such, BSG never explored "what would really happen" or how people would "really conduct themselves."

BSG is, simply, a highly-stylized form of storytelling that focuses so much on "doom and gloom" -- on melodrama -- that its brand of storytelling ends up being more myopic than epic. Without question, Moore & co. went for the "dramatic thing" and the "TV thing." There's nothing wrong with viewers enjoying such stories based on personal taste -- to each their own, of course. But this is why something like DS9 (or Lost, etc.) is a much more "legitimate" drama, because it goes much further in exploring both sides of the equation -- the best and worst of human nature.

SG Atlantis, at the very least, came closer to its own vision of itself.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yes they weren't handpicked heroes or a raggle taggle bunch of 'experts' who rub along together magnificently. I would liked to have seen more civilans plunged into important roles, however.

Exactly.

Hell, more simply put they were something resembling human beings, as opposed to the specimens of homo cardboardensis featured in shows like the Stargates.

 

[stj]

^^^There is no one alive who quells all opposition with The Look. There are no crazy daredevil superace combat pilots in their early twenties when there has been peace for twenty years. Alcoholics in command positions are not lovable curmudgeons who are just super badasses with the surprisingly convenient ability to drop the booze when the going gets tough (except when it makes the star look good.) There are no scientific whizzes who cover all subjects on command, succeed at nothing and hallucinate without it being noticed.

I could go on. But the claim that BSG has decent characterization shows complete ignorance of real humanity. The real claim is that BSG shows what the poster thinks humanity really is, which is just another confession that what the BSG fans like is the way its political views resonate with them. Liking nonrealistic characterizations is one thing. Claiming they're realistic is ideological.

Atlantis' characterization shared some of the same untruthfulness as BSG's. In particular, McKay, a lovable curmudgeon combined with scientist as wizard. Only in Hollywood do people routinely love curmudgeons.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Since I'm on the subject, I think "cinema verité" is a better way to describe the show than saying it tried to be "mainstream".

Except that the camera man always seemed to be going through delirium tremors....

No doubt from all that booze and speed Moore and Eick passed around.

As opposed to 80s Gene Roddenberry's LSD laced coolaid.

 

[Harvey]

There is no one alive who quells all opposition with The Look.

If Adama quelled all opposition with 'The Look,' or anyone alive was in the same situation, you're comparison might have some merit. It doesn't.

There are no crazy daredevil superace combat pilots in their early twenties when there has been peace for twenty years.

Peace with the Cylons, sure. Peace within the colonies? Tenuous at best. But even if that were not the case, when was the last time the US was in an air to air war? The era of Top Gun was a long time ago. Our air force hits ground targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think were fresh out of combat pilots in their early twenties, too?

Alcoholics in command positions are not lovable curmudgeons who are just super badasses with the surprisingly convenient ability to drop the booze when the going gets tough (except when it makes the star look good.)

Tigh as loveable curmudgeon? I'd say that's a new one, but you've tried to make this one stick before. Tigh's a bastard, and a barely functional alcoholic. He's never been able to drop the booze in the series. Sometimes he's made difficult command decisions, because he is still functional. Kara spends half the series hating Tigh, Lee comes to blows more than once, and Helo of all people (the Battlestars optimist!) punches him right in the face--a moment that were supposed to cheer for. Loveable?

There are no scientific whizzes who cover all subjects on command, succeed at nothing and hallucinate without it being noticed.

Baltar was so skilled in the computer science fields, he had to seek out Caprica's help with the defense mainframe. The shows continuous point was that Felix's hero worship was unwarranted. His principal background appears to be medical--considering his work on Roslin's cancer (let's ignore that so we can say he succeeded at nothing), and his work on the Cylon detection device. Does his status as a supergenius stretch credibility? Sure. But I don't think it breaks it.

And that he's visited by hallucinations doesn't go unnoticed--everyone who knows him personally thinks he's nuts!

 

[Deckerd]

^^^There is no one alive who quells all opposition with The Look. There are no crazy daredevil superace combat pilots in their early twenties when there has been peace for twenty years. Alcoholics in command positions are not lovable curmudgeons who are just super badasses with the surprisingly convenient ability to drop the booze when the going gets tough (except when it makes the star look good.) There are no scientific whizzes who cover all subjects on command, succeed at nothing and hallucinate without it being noticed.

I could go on. But the claim that BSG has decent characterization shows complete ignorance of real humanity. The real claim is that BSG shows what the poster thinks humanity really is, which is just another confession that what the BSG fans like is the way its political views resonate with them. Liking nonrealistic characterizations is one thing. Claiming they're realistic is ideological.

Atlantis' characterization shared some of the same untruthfulness as BSG's. In particular, McKay, a lovable curmudgeon combined with scientist as wizard. Only in Hollywood do people routinely love curmudgeons.

I think you're overdoing your argument here. How many viewers would have been held by the average local military barracks plus a chunk of a local city/town? The pilot thing is easily explained since the Galactica was still a commissioned ship at the start of the attack. How many military pilots are not in their twenties?

That said, they should have had more unwilling draftees from relative obscurity. The president's 'men' were far too smooth from the start. There should have been much more uncertainty and paranoia at the start and much more humour after that.

I think the writers did a fair job of exciting and unpredictable storylines but they took it all far too seriously. The military staff especially in that situation would not have been knee deep in gallows humour.

Tigh wasn't a lovable curmudgeon. He was a drunken bastard. That character was the most believable of the lot. They were kind of stuck with Baltar from the original story but I could have done without all the mumbo jumbo to be honest. That was my biggest gripe. Okay let the cylons be religious nuts but don't insult our intelligence by saying they were right all along.

 

[The Comedian]

I like apples AND oranges.

And as far as "fun" and "gritty", it's a given that Firefly was the best of both worlds.

 

[The Comedian]

^^^There is no one alive who quells all opposition with The Look. There are no crazy daredevil superace combat pilots in their early twenties when there has been peace for twenty years. Alcoholics in command positions are not lovable curmudgeons who are just super badasses with the surprisingly convenient ability to drop the booze when the going gets tough (except when it makes the star look good.) There are no scientific whizzes who cover all subjects on command, succeed at nothing and hallucinate without it being noticed.

I could go on. But the claim that BSG has decent characterization shows complete ignorance of real humanity. The real claim is that BSG shows what the poster thinks humanity really is, which is just another confession that what the BSG fans like is the way its political views resonate with them. Liking nonrealistic characterizations is one thing. Claiming they're realistic is ideological.

Atlantis' characterization shared some of the same untruthfulness as BSG's. In particular, McKay, a lovable curmudgeon combined with scientist as wizard. Only in Hollywood do people routinely love curmudgeons.

I think you're overdoing your argument here. How many viewers would have been held by the average local military barracks plus a chunk of a local city/town? The pilot thing is easily explained since the Galactica was still a commissioned ship at the start of the attack. How many military pilots are not in their twenties?

That said, they should have had more unwilling draftees from relative obscurity. The president's 'men' were far too smooth from the start. There should have been much more uncertainty and paranoia at the start and much more humour after that.

I think the writers did a fair job of exciting and unpredictable storylines but they took it all far too seriously. The military staff especially in that situation would not have been knee deep in gallows humour.

Tigh wasn't a lovable curmudgeon. He was a drunken bastard. That character was the most believable of the lot. They were kind of stuck with Baltar from the original story but I could have done without all the mumbo jumbo to be honest. That was my biggest gripe. Okay let the cylons be religious nuts but don't insult our intelligence by saying they were right all along.

We never saw what "God" was in the series, so therefore we don't know if they right or wrong.

Primitive natives on Earth used to think guys with guns were gods. I suspect it was something similar in BSG...superaliens, perhaps, but God? No.

 

[RJDiogenes]

SGA had some very nice imaginative and realistic visual effects (of course, so did nuBSG), so that's not my complaint. My problem is with everything from set, costume and general productions desgin on a show like SGA and how cheap and silly it all looks. (The flip side would be something like, say, the lumanescent mushroom planet from ROTS, where clone troopers kill some of the Jedi. That was imaginative and cool, but it took a feature film budget to pull it off.)

Well, to my eye it doesn't look cheap and silly; I'm just as happy with the cardboard sets of a 1930s movie serial as I am with state-of-the art CGI, as long as it looks cool.

Factory basements? Bondage gear? Did you ever watch nuBSG?

I'm referring to the general trend going back at least as far as Alien-- back to Star Wars, really-- where all the ship interiors look like run-down buildings and everybody dresses in leather or weird macho costumes with belt buckles everywhere or whatever. You know what I mean.

I should put in touch with mverta, who, as a visual effects artist, would be happy to tear you a new one about effects not being photrealistic enough these days. I guess it's a mater of perspective.

Heh. Well, there's aesthetics and then there's perfectionism.

Part of the problem with this discussion is, I don't even know what ssome of the complaints you're tossing about are even supposed to mean. Perhaps "self-parody" is intended to say that it's gone beyond the point where you can take it seriously, but I'm sure not seeing it that way.

You got it. That's pretty much how I do see it.

Quite so. You'd better quit before us Dark & Gloomy crowd puts you on the government depopulation list.

They'll tie me up and make me watch nuBSG until I shrivel up and cry myself to death.

And it was more like 150,000 years ago.

Seriously? Wow, it looked like it was just after the last Ice Age or so. Huh.

Interesting, because I think BSG is totally unique in that I've never seen a scifi TV series like it. To me, it is new and not more of the same. Now, if you're including scifi movies and shows outside of scifi, then I'd agree with you, but even then, I see BSG as bringing "the grit" to televised scifi rather than it being just more of the same.

I definitely include other media, but even on TV we've had Firefly and Farscape and Babylon 5 and so on. Even Star Trek, as time went on, was getting duller and grayer and more violent in an attempt to conform to audience tastes (reaching rock bottom with First Contact).

What you said earlier about this new trend being part of the current zeitgeist probably is a factor in why people like BSG and complain about "cheesy" scifi, but it's not the only reason. I think fans who feel that way are just happy to see a show that does televised science fiction differently for once (a lot of people have a view similar to what I outlined in my response to the first quote above). I don't hate Stargate Atlantis, but it is a show I see as a prime example of "more of the same". In fact, it literally is more SG-1 in a way.

Well, Atlantis should be more of the same to some degree. That's kind of the idea of continuing something that people like. Televised SF done differently would be-- or could be-- great, but I don't see nuBSG as being that; just the same old "dark," "gritty," "edgy," "kickass," and other marketing cliches done to the extreme.

I am beginning to understand your (and others) opposing view of BSG better by the way even if I don't share it, so what you're saying isn't falling on deaf ears. I just think the show has a lot of great things going for it despite whatever problems it might have. For me, the positives have always stood out more than the negatives.

Well, thanks, I'm glad you're seeing my point. It's nice to be able to have an intelligent discussion about it.