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

[Greylock Crescent]

I honestly don't remember Moore and Eick talking down the dramatic elements before the show aired, granted I didn't pay that much attention to anything but the final product, so i don't know what to tell you there. Sorry you feel ripped off.

It has nothing to do about being ripped off and everything to do with their intellectual and creative honesty and integrity. When I consider which shows are "better" than others, one thing I take into account is how well they achieve their intended purpose. As a case in point, I'm quite fond of the Star Wars prequels, but I readily concede that they are filled with errors -- put simply, they don't work as Lucas intended them to work. So just as I'm not going to praise Lucas for delivering a "legitimate" space opera when he so clearly missed the target, I'm not going to praise Moore, either.

TNG makes perfect sense. I think it gives an honest enough portrayal of humanity in that if we had the technology where everyone had a comfortable life, a home, food, and the ability to pursue whatever interests made them happy, then by and large you will have people who are nice to each other. On the other hand the people in the Galactica fleet didn't have all those things to begin with it. The people of the colonies before the fall didn't even have all that to begin with, and after the Cylon attack pretty much everything they had was gone.

The crew of Serenity were nowhere near as desperate as the people in BSG. I don't see how their cheery good humor is relevant at all.

What's relevant is the portrayal of human nature itself. I'm not expecting the characters of nuBSG to be as "happy" as those of TNG or Firefly, but what I do expect is to see a more honest portrayal of how people handle conflict.

The people who populated nuBSG had plenty of opportunities to demonstrate their humor, their rationality, their compassion, their forgiveness. But more often than not, they were shown demonstrating the worst vices of humanity. And while some of that is to be expected, the level of it far exceeds any balanced representation of what people really do during adversity. They're more caricatures than characters.

What's most interesting about nuBSG is that the series did manage that balance much better early on, when the pain and trauma of the genocide of the Twelve Colonies, as well as the imminent threat of attack from the Cylons, was much more acute. Early on in the series, Adama and Boomer have a conversation about whether or not humanity is worthy of survival. And, for a time, it seemed that the characters were really attempting a kind of atonement for their vices. But from the end of season two onward, their actions were hardly demonstrative of salvation.

You made sure to watch every episode of a show you hate 'at least twice'?

Better watch it a third time, just to be sure! And when you still don't like it make sure to come back and complain about it some more.

Yes, I watched every episode twice ... I was a *huge* fan of nuBSG at the beginning and, even when it "jumped the shark" on New Caprica, I kept hoping it'd find its footing and pull itself out of its addiction to cheap melodrama. Put simply, I wanted to like the show, was invested in it, and decided to give it the benefit of the doubt right up to the very end.

Plus, reviewing television shows and films is a hobby and as someone who was committed to reviewing every episode of the series, I watched each installment more than once to make sure my reviews were as thorough as possible. So no, this isn't complaining, this is criticism. In my opinion, it's criticism that BSG has well-earned. And no matter how dismissive the tone of your comments might be, the fact remains that there are valid, legitimate criticisms of the series.

 

[David cgc]

I'm not sure Firefly would be the best example of a different way of handling conflict than BSG, considering that at the beginning of the movie, Mal was pissy enough to threaten to sell Simon out to the government, and later threatened to murder members of his crew in cold blood for daring to question his orders to mutilate corpses and then shack up with space-cannibals. Now, maybe that seems like a more laudable human reaction to stress than, say, being snippy with your husband after being locked in a dollhouse and acting out Leoban's domestic rape fantasies for four months, but I'd tend to disagree.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

^ Definitely a good point ... but I was referring to the series more than the film which, IMO (and as you point out), skewed the characterizations a bit too far toward the melodramatic. The Firefly series itself isn't exactly a perfect representation of humanity either, but I'd say it's more "balanced" than BSG.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Firefly was terrific, Serenity was severely compromised by many of the self-parody elements I've talked about earlier. Although I do think that a lot of Firefly fans like it more for the D&G elements than its Humanistic elements.

I'd just like to thank Jason at this point for starting a very interesting thread.

Doesn't he always?

First Contact....turned Star Trek from its original premise as an optimistic vision of the future into low-grade John Grisham rip off with zombies.

John Grisham? And, wouldn't it be vampires instead of zombies? The Borg Queen as Countess Dracula, mistress of the undead? I would say First Contact is at least watchable, unlike Final Frontier, Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis. That's not much competition, which may concede your point.

I think they're all watchable (and I really like Generations), even First Contact-- at least the last thirty minutes or so. As for the vampire comparison, that's a good point. But, behaviorally, the Borg reminded me more of Romero Zombies-- shambling in hordes, slow, implacable, reaching out and always getting you eventually.

And I think I mean John Grisham. I'm thinking of dark, grim movies set on dark, grim submarines....

 

[Gepard]

I think they're all watchable (and I really like Generations), even First Contact-- at least the last thirty minutes or so. As for the vampire comparison, that's a good point. But, behaviorally, the Borg reminded me more of Romero Zombies-- shambling in hordes, slow, implacable, reaching out and always getting you eventually.

One thing that does confuse me is, since you're such a fan of horror--and H.P. Lovecraft especially--how you have such loathing for D&G in the first place. Hell, nuBSG alone has nothing on the gloom and nihilism of Lovecraft, yet old H.P. works for you while Moore does not. Why?

 

[DWF]

I liked Atlantis more than Galactica too, one of the keys to science ficton on televison is variety and I thought that Atlantis had a far wider variety of stories and a wider range of visual effects as well.

 

[Deckerd]

Was BSG science fiction? Was Stargate Atlantis?

One of the things that almost prevented me from even beginning to watch Stargate Atlantis was its name. At least with the Indiana Jones movies we knew we were getting fantasy from the start without ever pretending to be anything else. So I viewed SA as pure fantasy without any skiffy bias and as that it was entertaining, for a while anyway.

 

[David cgc]

And I think I mean John Grisham. I'm thinking of dark, grim movies set on dark, grim submarines....

I think you're thinking of Tom Clancy. John Grisham is the lawyer guy.

 

[DWF]

Was BSG science fiction? Was Stargate Atlantis?

One of the things that almost prevented me from even beginning to watch Stargate Atlantis was its name. At least with the Indiana Jones movies we knew we were getting fantasy from the start without ever pretending to be anything else. So I viewed SA as pure fantasy without any skiffy bias and as that it was entertaining, for a while anyway.

I don't know how the Stargate shows can be called a fantasy since the stargates are devices not magic.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I think they're all watchable (and I really like Generations), even First Contact-- at least the last thirty minutes or so. As for the vampire comparison, that's a good point. But, behaviorally, the Borg reminded me more of Romero Zombies-- shambling in hordes, slow, implacable, reaching out and always getting you eventually.

One thing that does confuse me is, since you're such a fan of horror--and H.P. Lovecraft especially--how you have such loathing for D&G in the first place. Hell, nuBSG alone has nothing on the gloom and nihilism of Lovecraft, yet old H.P. works for you while Moore does not. Why?

You're right, I like a great variety of things, including Horror. And, in fact, D&G can work for me, too. I loved Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, as well as other related works. Firefly and Lost, and even Babylon 5, have aspects of D&G that mostly work. What bugs me are several things. First is that shows like nuBSG and events like "Dark Reign" and so on are inspired, based on the impressions of the stories themselves, as well as comments by creators and hard core fans, more by politics than artistry. In other words, it's more about what it means to be a fan than it is about the actual content of the story. What I get from things like this-- and, again, there are people I respect who like these things-- is that they are designed solely to make insecure twelve-year-olds feel tough and worldly. My second big problem is conformity; everything has to be freakin' "dark," "edgy," "kickass," and so on, ad infinitum. Star Trek, as I mentioned before, continued to get darker and duller and more violent to keep up with this trend; and now we have nuTrek, which is nothing but violence and mass death-- the complete opposite of what Trek was created to be. Everybody is so determined to appear kewl and cynical that any sense of artistic integrity has been lost.

And I think I mean John Grisham. I'm thinking of dark, grim movies set on dark, grim submarines....

I think you're thinking of Tom Clancy. John Grisham is the lawyer guy.

Yes, Tom Clancy, that's exactly who I was thinking of. Thank you.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

You should know that every time you say "kewl," it sounds like you're talking about teenagers from 1996.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Stargate Atlantis is a lot more fun and a lot more rewatchable. I used to love Battlestar Galactica during its 1st season or 2. But now, I greatly despise the show and the only thing that kept me watching was I wanted to see if Baltar would get away with it. I'm genuinely pissed off that they got me so hooked on this now-terrible show that I have buy the DVD set to see how it ends.

I don't know how the Stargate shows can be called a fantasy since the stargates are devices not magic.

Shol'va! The Chappa'ai IS magic created by the gods themselves! Repent, or my god, Apophis, will smite you!


...Any time now...


...Apophis?...Helloooo?...

 

[Gepard]

My second big problem is conformity; everything has to be freakin' "dark," "edgy," "kickass," and so on, ad infinitum. Star Trek, as I mentioned before, continued to get darker and duller and more violent to keep up with this trend; and now we have nuTrek, which is nothing but violence and mass death-- the complete opposite of what Trek was created to be. Everybody is so determined to appear kewl and cynical that any sense of artistic integrity has been lost.

Huh. Well, Trek XI was pretty bright, sunny and glib for almost all of the film. Yeah, there was a lot of off-screen death, but frankly the story downplayed it rather sharply (which annoyed me--the tone and style compared with the content of the film was pretty mismatched). I definitely would not class Trek XI as being any kind of Dark & Gritty.

You should know that every time you say "kewl," it sounds like you're talking about teenagers from 1996.

Be sure to CC that memo to a certain Cary L. Brown.

 

[sidious618]

My second big problem is conformity; everything has to be freakin' "dark," "edgy," "kickass," and so on, ad infinitum. Star Trek, as I mentioned before, continued to get darker and duller and more violent to keep up with this trend; and now we have nuTrek, which is nothing but violence and mass death-- the complete opposite of what Trek was created to be. Everybody is so determined to appear kewl and cynical that any sense of artistic integrity has been lost.

Huh. Well, Trek XI was pretty bright, sunny and glib for almost all of the film. Yeah, there was a lot of off-screen death, but frankly the story downplayed it rather sharply (which annoyed me--the tone and style compared with the content of the film was pretty mismatched). I definitely would not class Trek XI as being any kind of Dark & Gritty.

No way in hell would I call Trek dark or gritty. It ain't close to either of those things.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

You should know that every time you say "kewl," it sounds like you're talking about teenagers from 1996.

Be sure to CC that memo to a certain Cary L. Brown.

It's weirdly embarrassing when it pops up, like when something is referred to as "da bomb."

 

[RJDiogenes]

You should know that every time you say "kewl," it sounds like you're talking about teenagers from 1996.

It should sound like I'm mocking people who have been teenagers since 1996. Everybody should be hep, like me.

Huh. Well, Trek XI was pretty bright, sunny and glib for almost all of the film. Yeah, there was a lot of off-screen death, but frankly the story downplayed it rather sharply (which annoyed me--the tone and style compared with the content of the film was pretty mismatched). I definitely would not class Trek XI as being any kind of Dark & Gritty.

Yeah, the look had me optimistic for a while, but the content is definitely in the D&G category. The "shocking" and pointless deaths of important characters and the pyrotechnic immolation of two entire planets (or was it three?) as a throwaway plot device is very D&G. And juvenile-delinquent Kirk and homophobe-friendly Spock definitely emphasize that it was aimed at twelve-year-olds. I agree about the tone and content mismatch, but it's the story that's most important.

No way in hell would I call Trek dark or gritty. It ain't close to either of those things.

As I said, Real Trek was getting (visually) duller and grayer as time went on to keep up with the fad. In terms of story content, it remained pretty good, even when they did war stories on DS9 and ENT, although they were definitely ramping up the violent content and throwing in the Borg at every possible opportunity in hopes of hanging on to the grimmer audience.

 

[Gepard]

Yeah, the look had me optimistic for a while, but the content is definitely in the D&G category. The "shocking" and pointless deaths of important characters and the pyrotechnic immolation of two entire planets (or was it three?) as a throwaway plot device is very D&G. And juvenile-delinquent Kirk and homophobe-friendly Spock definitely emphasize that it was aimed at twelve-year-olds. I agree about the tone and content mismatch, but it's the story that's most important.

The original series had planetary-scale deaths (Operation: Annihilate, The Doomsday Machine) and mass murders (The Conscience of the King, The Immunity Syndrome), so unless your Regan-Era D&G traveled backwards in time, there's more to dark and gritty than just subject matter. Darker and Edgier may be a trope, but my understanding of it--both from example and your arguments against it--is that it's more of a mindset, and as such requires a particular approach to a story, aside from just what that story contains. I don't agree that "story is more important" in this case.

Though I do agree that it was juvenile, just not for the elements you site.

Except for juvenile delinquent Kirk. Man he was jerk, and he didn't change at al lover the course of the story. Which is less some kind of dark and gritty appeal to kids and more lousy writing.

No way in hell would I call Trek dark or gritty. It ain't close to either of those things.

I agree. I can see RJ's point that trek was trying to get edgier stylistically over time, but it was pure amateur hour about it. Darker and edgier with training wheels, maybe, and no real conviction about it. When I need reliable comfort-food TV, I turn on some old epsiodes of TNG, Voyager or DS9. It's prettty much all the same, in the grand scheme of things.

As I said, Real Trek...

"Real" Trek? Dude, it's all equally fake.

 

[Demiurge]

My second big problem is conformity; everything has to be freakin' "dark," "edgy," "kickass," and so on, ad infinitum. Star Trek, as I mentioned before, continued to get darker and duller and more violent to keep up with this trend; and now we have nuTrek, which is nothing but violence and mass death-- the complete opposite of what Trek was created to be. Everybody is so determined to appear kewl and cynical that any sense of artistic integrity has been lost.

Huh. Well, Trek XI was pretty bright, sunny and glib for almost all of the film. Yeah, there was a lot of off-screen death, but frankly the story downplayed it rather sharply (which annoyed me--the tone and style compared with the content of the film was pretty mismatched). I definitely would not class Trek XI as being any kind of Dark & Gritty.

No way in hell would I call Trek dark or gritty. It ain't close to either of those things.

Watch DS9.

 

[Gepard]

Watch DS9.

DS9 only pretends to dark and gritty. nuBSG is the real deal.

 

[Agent Richard07]

^ Yeah, I wouldn't call DS9 dark and gritty. It wasn't like BSG or The Shield or anything like that.