RDM - not the answer

[AlanC9]

Soaps are not about anything other than the characters. They are the purest form of character driven drama. All the storylines aim at putting the characters into melodramatic scenes.

Note that by this definition BSG isn't really a soap.

And of course, the alternative style of melodrama is where episode is about making the characters triumph over some puzzle-box challenge, more or less arbitrary. In effect, you substitute confrontation between the characters and some external element for confrontation between the characters themselves. That's why we see so many police procedurals and medical shows. This was the typical Trek approach.

There's nothing especially wrong with either approach as long as it doesn't harden into formula. And given the situation in BSG there's a logical reason to expect the show to focus on internal rather than external conflicts. You can't have the Cylon Evil Plan of the Week be foiled every time and still have the Cylons feel threatening.

 

[Anwar]

Wouldn't be better just to leave it out?

No. A story is meaningless unless the characters involved in it resonate with the audience in some way - the audience must 'care' at least a bit about them or any jeopardy within the story will fail to capture the audience. In a long running series, this is done by giving the characters lives beyond fighting the villain of the week. Quirks, relationships, interactions with each other.

you have very likable strong persoanlity characters on TOS - with no soap

It worked with TOS because TOS only had three "real" characters while everyone else was background, not enough people to be "soapish". Wouldn't work with today's audiences who want more characterization for all chars involved.

 

[stj]

No. A story is meaningless unless the characters involved in it resonate with the audience in some way - the audience must 'care' at least a bit about them or any jeopardy within the story will fail to capture the audience. In a long running series, this is done by giving the characters lives beyond fighting the villain of the week. Quirks, relationships, interactions with each other.

Why does a story necessarily involve jeopardy? Must every story be the conquering hero fantasy of defeating the villain? Aren't those just guys' daydreams? It is true that continuing series take advantage of the audience's affection for various characters. That's why there is a series with the same characters instead of a repertory theater a la Nero Wolfe on A&E. But the convoluted and incoherent story lines typical of soaps, basically not about anything but the characters, leading to farfetched but reversible character changes (all typical of BSG by the way) are not required to make viewers care about a character.

In a good story, what the character does will tell us who he is. And, for many viewers, a good story that tells us something about real life, even though it is fiction, has resonance. As for BSG, there are not even very many human characters on the show are there? How does it connect to real life? How does it have resonance? Personally I think the show resonated with viewers with vague notions about evil Muslims out to get us post 9/11. These viewers got hooked on the characters in this meller serial that pandered to their ideological tastes, as soaps tend to hook viewers. The only episode of BSG that has a claim to being good is 33, which is a blatant 9/11 story. That story resonated but not because people were enthralled by the intense character development in the second pilot! It resonated because it had a real story and a connection to real life. Only people invested in the serial could care about the religious mumbo jumbo the series purports to be about now.

AlanC9---When a character like Adama in one episode will risk all humanity for one person he loves yet in another episode will bark out that he won't risk anything for two people he loves, you're not talking about character development. That even ignores the real life fact that as a rule people don't change that quickly! In case one, Adama was being the loving father. In case two, Adama was being the stern father. Thus, instead of portraying a real human being by character development, you portray Big Daddy.

Now Big Daddy can meet ugly with President apparent Roslin by threatening to ignore her constitutional office and not be resented for it, because he's Big Daddy. Big Daddy can even arrest her, throw her into jail where she promptly goes into drug withdrawal psyhosis and be forgiven, because when Big Daddy is shot, the world trembles. When the same Big Daddy who overthrew the President then presumes to prevent Roslin---just a few months later!---from stealing the election when the series has presented as fact that the Dumb Fuck People have screwed up yet again, this is acceptable, because, well, shit, Big Daddy Knows Best. And of course when Hillary Bitch Demon Roslin needs forgiveness, she gets it from, inevitably, Big Daddy. So naturally she loves Big Daddy. Personally I think Roslin, with terminal cancer, would be more into religion than romance. You've invested in the series. This all strikes me as completely deranged.

BSG is fundamentally a soap. It is notoriously not about the Cylon plan, despite saying so at the beginning of every episode. By refusing to show the civilians it is not about the genocide. Since most characters are Cylons it's not about humanity. And it's far too foolish to be about AI or something. What's left is Big Daddy Adama, his Son Apollo, Bitch Mommy Roslin, the Queen of Misery Starbuck. Are there any other main characters who are human left? The show may be trying to drop the 9/11-Iraq war themes because the war has become unpopular in favor of some wacked out religious hokum, but that too will take second place to the hijinks of the fan favorites.

The notion that procedurals or medical shows or even Trek are just conquering hero fantasies with an external villain substituted is erroneous I think. The stories in those cases are about the guest stars and the regular cast. Perhaps people of your persuasion are only interested in characters that have enacted some favorite fantasy? The guest characters in a more episodic show have no resonance because they are just people?

 

[Sci]

Wouldn't be better just to leave it out?

Some of us think that the things you claim are "soapish" are things that enhance the quality of a story.

well then Read STJ's explanation for soapish

Technically a soap opera is a daytime serial aimed primarily at women, which means heavy on the romance. Soaps have done serious drama, and can also do mystery, suspense, fantasy, scifi or horror. Anyone heard of Dark Shadows?

Soaps are not about anything other than the characters. They are the purest form of character driven drama. All the storylines aim at putting the characters into melodramatic scenes. The scenes commonly take the form of confrontations between characters where they talk a lot about their feelings but don't actually do anything of significance (because there isn't really a story to advance.)

The favorite characters may also be rammed into melodramatic situations, such as false accusation of murder or life threatening disease/injury. In daytime serials, because there an hour a day to fill, these scenarios might even be repeated! And various character arcs are written---Unresolved Sexual Tension is a favorite, tragic falls and/or redemption arcs are also extremely popular.

In the long run, because all the innumerable changes to the characters give them an unreal plasticity, they tend to become more archetypes than real people, despite the many hours devoted to character development. There are various incarnations of Bitch, Vamp, Patriarch, Mother, Suffering Heroine, etc. The stories are arbitrary, with no thematic unity nor any organic connection to life. They are basically daydreams for the fans, with each fan's favorites enacting vicarious fantasies.

The melodramatic confrontations on BSG often involve people pointing guns at each other but that's not a significant change. The character of Starbuck alone is enough to make BSG a soap. She is a classic Queen of Misery. The bizarre romance between Roslin and Adama is also a classic soap maneuver---beloved characters have to ship in a soap! The repeated reconciliations between Adama and Apollo are also very soapish, relishing the melodrama despite the absurdity of it happening over and over. Adama's five minute nervous breakdown over Tigh's revelation is an example of over the top emoting at the expense of all critical judgment, soap at its purest.

In the passage of daily life, people don't change very much. It is not at all clear why anyone thinks it is more realistic to write silly stories where some melodramatic epiphany somehow changes everything---particularly when even very often even in the series itself, nothing really changes at all. It is also strange to think that stories with actual plots (as opposed to badly linked chains of histrionic scenes,) do not engage the emotions. It is true that engaging the mind interferes with daydreaming.

Read it. I can't speak to Battlestar Galactica, because I've missed most of this season, nor can I speak to actual soap operas, because I don't watch them.

But I thoroughly, thoroughly disagree with the idea that character-driven drama is dramatic or arbitrary by definition. There certainly are some that are as arbitrary as described above -- but, then, there are others, such as The West Wing or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where the characters' evolution is psychologically realistic and believable.

Also, stj is misusing the term "melodrama." In literary terms, a melodrama is a type of drama characterized by dynamic conflict between a protagonist who is identified as "good" and an antagonist identified as "evil," often with a third party (typically a romantic interest for the protagonist) being the object of the conflict. They are characterized by moral simplicity and the use of violence to resolve the conflict, and, typically, by "good" triumpthing over "evil." The form originated in the mid-1800s with the advent of melodramatic theatre, perhaps most famously the play Under the Gaslight.

By that definition, whilst there are elements of melodrama to be found in Battlestar Galactica, it is not a true melodrama in the classic sense. In fact, programs like the original Star Trek are far closer to melodrama than BSG.

 

[Sector 7]

And, RDM's comments aside, I'm still not convinced that this would not happen.

Me neither. The man gets bashed for making BSG "dark and miserable" and "soap opera" but these are really the same as saying "realistic" and character driven". It all depends on whether you like the finished product.

Lets face it Starbuck, Apollo, Dee and Anders spent the third season acting like twats over their love quadrangle, and yes it did border on "soap". There is however a reason why people watch soaps, they offer a compressed sensationalised take on real life, a bit like hearing a years worth of office gossip on one show.

BSG should not be like this but if it is to portray relatinoships AT ALL, then the participants must act like idiots a lot of the time, I've lost count of the number of times I have seen friends in couples in massive row and wanted to knock their heads together, thats just life.

nuBSG is NOT intended to be the same in style as Star Trek, it is completely different in every conceivable way except they both feature a space ship. If RDM were to make a Trek show he would be required to make something completely different - a very good reason why he would never do it.

The entire reason Trek became formulaic was because it was not willing to break from its weekly formula. I'd have kept watching all seven seasons of Enterprise if it had lasted that long but it never broke new storytelling ground, or character ground for that matter.

BSG is the anti-trek, one of its central principles is the Galactica crew are not the best in the fleet like Kirk's crew. They are not exceptional, they have flaws, they frak a lot up - but in exceptional circumstances they do exceptional things. In this respect it has a lot in common with Joss Whedon's shows.

Also anyone who rates the original BSG over the new one really has some explaining to do - it is cheesy mindless twaddle that can be very entertaining but never had it in it to have the impact of the new show. They say the definition of great art is you either love or hate it, and very little in-between. I think at its best nuBSG slots in nicely.

It may be Anti-trek but its Very pro-'Days of our Lives' and I have no interest in watching a guys soap opera -

That's not Scifi - its soap in....

SPACCCCCEEEEeeeeee

Valid points, but I agree that it is a SOAP... IN... SPAAAAACCCEEEE!!!!

Me neither. The man gets bashed for making BSG "dark and miserable" and "soap opera" but these are really the same as saying "realistic" and character driven".

Which are, IMHO, extremely overrated.

Also anyone who rates the original BSG over the new one really has some explaining to do

I don't know about *rating* it, as such, but I *like* the original much more than the new version. I don't think I should have to explain or defend my choice.

Actually that is a fair point - a lot of episodes of Voyager (and all modern trek to be fair) could be described as "Starfleet procedurals".

I have always hated soaps. I also find nuBSG very depressing, too much so to watch. My love for Trek comes from its overall optimistic outlook. With nuBSG depression and hopelessness is the overal outlook, and I don't like that.
I agree with Babaganoosh, I liked the old BSG as a kid and now that I'm older I still like it more than nuBSG.

I'm happy that someone like JJ Abrams is at the reign of the new movie. He has a track record for telling a story AND character development that people will watch. In the end, that is what I want for Star Trek.

 

[cultcross]

Why does a story necessarily involve jeopardy? Must every story be the conquering hero fantasy of defeating the villain? Aren't those just guys' daydreams?

Perilously hanging over the cliff or being 10 seconds from a warp core breach isn't the only type of jeopardy. It refers to the stimuli of a story causing the characters to need to act, or achieve something. We are interested in whether they succeed or in what happens because we are invested in the characters (positively or negatively) and hence care about the story outcome. Without that investment, you're not watching drama. You're watching the Discovery Channel.

In a good story, what the character does will tell us who he is. And, for many viewers, a good story that tells us something about real life, even though it is fiction, has resonance. As for BSG, there are not even very many human characters on the show are there?

Have you actually watched the show? There are a great deal of human characters, some better than others, but they represent quite a selection of personalities and for many of them exhibit depth and nuance. Best characters ever created? course not. But to say BSG is without resonant or interesting characters is just wrong. Plus, remember Data, Odo, Spock? Not human characters either, but some of the most resonant characters in fans' mind because they offer an outside perspective on the human characters.

How does it connect to real life? How does it have resonance? Personally I think the show resonated with viewers with vague notions about evil Muslims out to get us post 9/11. These viewers got hooked on the characters in this meller serial that pandered to their ideological tastes, as soaps tend to hook viewers.

Other than making vague references to 9/11, have you considered the entire show as an allegory to the current events in the War on Terror? The show has tackled prejudice, 'cells in our midst', suicide bombing, terrorist-versus-freedom-fighter, show trials, torture, religious extremism on both sides of a conflict, liberty in extreme circumstances, the list goes on.

The only episode of BSG that has a claim to being good is 33,

In your sweeping opinion, so therefore fact?

which is a blatant 9/11 story. That story resonated but not because people were enthralled by the intense character development in the second pilot! It resonated because it had a real story and a connection to real life. Only people invested in the serial could care about the religious mumbo jumbo the series purports to be about now.

you claim 33 is a '9/11 story' but don't see any allegory or real life connection in the aspects of religious extremism and following religious paths presented in the show? Taken a look at the 'real world' recently?

AlanC9

---When a character like Adama in one episode will risk all humanity for one person he loves yet in another episode will bark out that he won't risk anything for two people he loves, you're not talking about character development. That even ignores the real life fact that as a rule people don't change that quickly! In case one, Adama was being the loving father. In case two, Adama was being the stern father. Thus, instead of portraying a real human being by character development, you portray Big Daddy.

Or you present a character who is human - humans are flawed and inconsistent. Wouldn't it be much worse if archetypal hard-nosed leader Adama always did what was best for the fleet, never let his emotions in, never wavered? bor-ing, seen that before. Adama shows conflict of interest in himself and his people as he grows too close to his people to be an effective commander and yet fears being the separated leader. It's called being human, and having nuance.

Now Big Daddy can meet ugly with President apparent Roslin by threatening to ignore her constitutional office and not be resented for it, because he's Big Daddy. Big Daddy can even arrest her, throw her into jail where she promptly goes into drug withdrawal psyhosis and be forgiven, because when Big Daddy is shot, the world trembles. When the same Big Daddy who overthrew the President then presumes to prevent Roslin---just a few months later!---from stealing the election when the series has presented as fact that the Dumb Fuck People have screwed up yet again, this is acceptable, because, well, shit, Big Daddy Knows Best. And of course when Hillary Bitch Demon Roslin needs forgiveness, she gets it from, inevitably, Big Daddy. So naturally she loves Big Daddy. Personally I think Roslin, with terminal cancer, would be more into religion than romance. You've invested in the series. This all strikes me as completely deranged.

Well, fittingly, this paragraph of the post is so deranged i can't really pull a point out to answer, what exactly are you trying to say? You just say 'Big Daddy' a lot and then call Roslin Hillary for some reason (shes a woman?).

BSG is fundamentally a soap. It is notoriously not about the Cylon plan, despite saying so at the beginning of every episode. By refusing to show the civilians it is not about the genocide.

Refusing to show the civilians? Again, I ask if you've actually watched the show - there are plenty of civilian characters for a show called 'Battlestar Galactica' and set aboard a military vessel.

Since most characters are Cylons it's not about humanity.

'Most' characters are not Cylons.

What's left is Big Daddy Adama, his Son Apollo, Bitch Mommy Roslin, the Queen of Misery Starbuck. Are there any other main characters who are human left? The show may be trying to drop the 9/11-Iraq war themes because the war has become unpopular in favor of some wacked out religious hokum, but that too will take second place to the hijinks of the fan favorites.

It's a shame you dont' see the parallels between the war on terror allegory and the religious content. There's more to foreign affairs today than 9/11. And if you think the show is pro-Iraq-war you clearly haven't watched it much or totally missed the point when you did.

The notion that procedurals or medical shows or even Trek are just conquering hero fantasies with an external villain substituted is erroneous I think.

A straw man, as nobody has claimed that.

The stories in those cases are about the guest stars and the regular cast. Perhaps people of your persuasion are only interested in characters that have enacted some favourite fantasy? The guest characters in a more episodic show have no resonance because they are just people?

What does this even mean? coherence seems to have gone out of the window at this point. No one has said episodic TV is bad, or that guest characters can't connect with an audience just as much as regulars.

 

[KayArr]

BSG is fundamentally a soap. It is notoriously not about the Cylon plan, despite saying so at the beginning of every episode. By refusing to show the civilians it is not about the genocide. Since most characters are Cylons it's not about humanity. And it's far too foolish to be about AI or something. What's left is Big Daddy Adama, his Son Apollo, Bitch Mommy Roslin, the Queen of Misery Starbuck. Are there any other main characters who are human left? The show may be trying to drop the 9/11-Iraq war themes because the war has become unpopular in favor of some wacked out religious hokum, but that too will take second place to the hijinks of the fan favorites.

Oh yeah, baby! Very well put! Haven't watched BSG since the first half of season 3.

 

[AlanC9]

I guess the next question - how do we break this cycle of soapish Sci-fi?

Looks like my reply to this didn't get posted.

There's a simple way to accomplish this. Stop trying to position sci-fi as quality television. The critical establishment likes the elements that you don't. Television that tries to win critical praise won't deliver the kind of experience you want.

Sci-Fi channel will always need occasional quality stuff -- without that, cable providers start wondering why this channel is in the basic tier. But there's room for non-quality sci-fi.

 

[AlanC9]

AlanC9---When a character like Adama in one episode will risk all humanity for one person he loves yet in another episode will bark out that he won't risk anything for two people he loves, you're not talking about character development. That even ignores the real life fact that as a rule people don't change that quickly! In case one, Adama was being the loving father. In case two, Adama was being the stern father. Thus, instead of portraying a real human being by character development, you portray Big Daddy.

I thought this was an example of Adama simply going with different impulses in different situations. I don't know about you, but I've often seen people with conflicting values oscillate between the two when those values conflict. And Adama has always been portrayed as someone who lives by his impulses. As opposed to Lee, who is more likely to pick a principled position and then stick with it regardless of consequences.

And Adama can be forgiven for his coup because he realized that he was wrong. He backed down in "Home."

As for the later election, I saw that as Adama re-evaluating his position following the events of late S1 and S2. In effect, he came around to Lee's position. Surely you're not saying that characters should never change their minds about important things.

Incidentally, you should really avoid rhetoric like "Hillary Bitch Demon Roslin." Although it's interesting to see how real-world politics and attitudes twards TV productions correlate, it's not exactly an effective way to make a point.

You've invested in the series. This all strikes me as completely deranged.

Right. I'm invested because I've found it plausible. You're not because you didn't.

Are there any other main characters who are human left?

Baltar, obviously. Helo if you call him a main character. And I'm not certain that the Cylon/human distinction is tenable. Cylons are manifestly members of the human species, as species are defined.

The notion that procedurals or medical shows or even Trek are just conquering hero fantasies with an external villain substituted is erroneous I think. The stories in those cases are about the guest stars and the regular cast. Perhaps people of your persuasion are only interested in characters that have enacted some favorite fantasy? The guest characters in a more episodic show have no resonance because they are just people?

Who said anything about "conquering hero fantasies"?

 

[AlanC9]

Refusing to show the civilians? Again, I ask if you've actually watched the show - there are plenty of civilian characters for a show called 'Battlestar Galactica' and set aboard a military vessel.

But he's right that the show has never done a good job of representing the ordinary citizens. It's very much a top-down perspective on the society.

Then again, the episodes dealing with the civilian fleet are often regarded as being less successful than average.

 

[cultcross]

Refusing to show the civilians? Again, I ask if you've actually watched the show - there are plenty of civilian characters for a show called 'Battlestar Galactica' and set aboard a military vessel.

But he's right that the show has never done a good job of representing the ordinary citizens. It's very much a top-down perspective on the society.

Then again, the episodes dealing with the civilian fleet are often regarded as being less successful than average.

Having watched the show solely on DVD, I missed the ups and downs of the shows success as it aired, but I could quite believe that the 'civilian heavy' episodes didn't do as well. Which is a shame, I as a rule quite liked them. Especially that one early on when Baltar runs as VP.

 

[AlanC9]

I wasn't thinking so much of the political episodes. I was thinking of the economic ones, like "Black Market." But really, it's just that there are a couple of bad episodes that drag the average for the type down.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Oh goody! All us English majors are out in force!

 

[jimbtnp2]

No. A story is meaningless unless the characters involved in it resonate with the audience in some way - the audience must 'care' at least a bit about them or any jeopardy within the story will fail to capture the audience. In a long running series, this is done by giving the characters lives beyond fighting the villain of the week. Quirks, relationships, interactions with each other.

Why does a story necessarily involve jeopardy? Must every story be the conquering hero fantasy of defeating the villain? Aren't those just guys' daydreams? It is true that continuing series take advantage of the audience's affection for various characters. That's why there is a series with the same characters instead of a repertory theater a la Nero Wolfe on A&E. But the convoluted and incoherent story lines typical of soaps, basically not about anything but the characters, leading to farfetched but reversible character changes (all typical of BSG by the way) are not required to make viewers care about a character.

In a good story, what the character does will tell us who he is. And, for many viewers, a good story that tells us something about real life, even though it is fiction, has resonance. As for BSG, there are not even very many human characters on the show are there? How does it connect to real life? How does it have resonance? Personally I think the show resonated with viewers with vague notions about evil Muslims out to get us post 9/11. These viewers got hooked on the characters in this meller serial that pandered to their ideological tastes, as soaps tend to hook viewers. The only episode of BSG that has a claim to being good is 33, which is a blatant 9/11 story. That story resonated but not because people were enthralled by the intense character development in the second pilot! It resonated because it had a real story and a connection to real life. Only people invested in the serial could care about the religious mumbo jumbo the series purports to be about now.

AlanC9---When a character like Adama in one episode will risk all humanity for one person he loves yet in another episode will bark out that he won't risk anything for two people he loves, you're not talking about character development. That even ignores the real life fact that as a rule people don't change that quickly! In case one, Adama was being the loving father. In case two, Adama was being the stern father. Thus, instead of portraying a real human being by character development, you portray Big Daddy.

Now Big Daddy can meet ugly with President apparent Roslin by threatening to ignore her constitutional office and not be resented for it, because he's Big Daddy. Big Daddy can even arrest her, throw her into jail where she promptly goes into drug withdrawal psyhosis and be forgiven, because when Big Daddy is shot, the world trembles. When the same Big Daddy who overthrew the President then presumes to prevent Roslin---just a few months later!---from stealing the election when the series has presented as fact that the Dumb Fuck People have screwed up yet again, this is acceptable, because, well, shit, Big Daddy Knows Best. And of course when Hillary Bitch Demon Roslin needs forgiveness, she gets it from, inevitably, Big Daddy. So naturally she loves Big Daddy. Personally I think Roslin, with terminal cancer, would be more into religion than romance. You've invested in the series. This all strikes me as completely deranged.

BSG is fundamentally a soap. It is notoriously not about the Cylon plan, despite saying so at the beginning of every episode. By refusing to show the civilians it is not about the genocide. Since most characters are Cylons it's not about humanity. And it's far too foolish to be about AI or something. What's left is Big Daddy Adama, his Son Apollo, Bitch Mommy Roslin, the Queen of Misery Starbuck. Are there any other main characters who are human left? The show may be trying to drop the 9/11-Iraq war themes because the war has become unpopular in favor of some wacked out religious hokum, but that too will take second place to the hijinks of the fan favorites.

The notion that procedurals or medical shows or even Trek are just conquering hero fantasies with an external villain substituted is erroneous I think. The stories in those cases are about the guest stars and the regular cast. Perhaps people of your persuasion are only interested in characters that have enacted some favorite fantasy? The guest characters in a more episodic show have no resonance because they are just people?

Great post - again - i enjoy your insight

Unfortunately 'character driven' drivel is what increasingly passes for TV today - probably one of the reasons TV viewership is down.

When ST returns to entertaining story telling - that are engaging and get inside your head or heart - we'll have the return of great SciFi and Star Trek

The idea that you need to see a character week in and out to relate to them is ridiculous - no movie or book would meet this requirement

Serialized story telling is just an excuse for 'we have no story' but can dramatize the hour with soapish banter

Someone needs to resurrect this lost art

 

[KayArr]

It'll happen, the pendulum will swing back to more normal storytelling eventually.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

He has helped write and co-write some great StarTrek episodes, he's got great writing talent but I think he's very average as a Producer and I thought his conduct after VOY, saying how Voyager was "bullshitting" the fans and his flames against StarTrek actors etc was very unprofessional. I thought Moore's run on tv show Roswell was pathetic

Easy, just have a good enough plot and story that the "soapish" stuff can still be used and tolerated without it taking over the story.

Wouldn't be better just to leave it out?

Some of us think that the things you claim are "soapish" are things that enhance the quality of a story.

Re-imagined BSG might be able to claim its better than the old but it is still very over-rated, and its Nielsens are dreadful

Taken from "Dr Lizardo's Felgercarb

By season's end, the show has lost over two-thirds of its audience.

Original series fans got a laugh out of the ratings for one of Sci Fi's Saturday night schlock movies, Earthstorm, starring original series star Dirk Benedict. The movie posted a rating of 1.9 while that week's episode of "Battlestar Galactica" could only manage a 1.2.

"

 

[Hobs202]

Despite none of this mattering, I'll just ask everyone this question:

Who would you rather have in charge of the next Trek: RDM or Uwe Boll?

 

[Sci]

He has helped write and co-write some great StarTrek episodes, he's got great writing talent but I think he's very average as a Producer and I thought his conduct after VOY, saying how Voyager was "bullshitting" the fans and his flames against StarTrek actors etc was very unprofessional. I thought Moore's run on tv show Roswell was pathetic

Wouldn't be better just to leave it out?

Some of us think that the things you claim are "soapish" are things that enhance the quality of a story.

Re-imagined BSG might be able to claim its better than the old but it is still very over-rated,

In your opinion. Reputable critics, on the other hand, disagree.

and its Nielsens are dreadful

So were Star Trek's.

 

[AlanC9]

It'll happen, the pendulum will swing back to more normal storytelling eventually.

What makes you think that there's a pendulum? This character-driven stuff is normal these days. Sure, what critics like and what mass audiences like are a bit different, but 'twas ever thus.

But like I said before, there's still plenty of room for non-quality TV.

 

[KayArr]

It'll happen, the pendulum will swing back to more normal storytelling eventually.

What makes you think that there's a pendulum? This character-driven stuff is normal these days. Sure, what critics like and what mass audiences like are a bit different, but 'twas ever thus.

But like I said before, there's still plenty of room for non-quality TV.

In most things in life there's a pendulum between extremes (one-offs vs. arcs)--tastes and times change. It's not like arc shows are something new--we've had soap operas for decades. Mini-series were also the beginning of arc-based storytelling at night.

I'm not sure what you mean by the difference between what audieces and critics like--they often coincide. ER and Lost come to mind. Sometimes I agree with critics when the two sides collide, sometimes I agree with the audience. It depends on the show.

Character-driven stuff is hard to do consistently--see Alias, or 24, or nuBSG. Miniseries worked because they only lasted 13 or 26 episodes back in the old days (now they call something that runs 2 nights a miniseries!) Some folks won't like choices being made, and eventually the audience bleeds away, much faster than an audience will desert an episodic show. It's easy to skip episodes you don't like for a more episodic show (like Voy's Tuvix or Fair Haven, or Ent's ANIS, Similtude, or Daedulus). With an arc-based show, you won't watch if the arc doesn't work for you--I'm just not interested in DS9's Israel/Palestine analogy in the beginning or the Dominion War at the end, nor am I interested in what nuBSG became with the start of season 3. To each his own.

There's good arc-based shows and bad ones. There are good episodic shows and bad ones. Sometimes audiences and critics agree and sometimes they don't. But hey, acknowledging that mulitple points of view are valid doesn't make for exciting internet discussions, I guess--everyone's got to choose a side and defend it to the point of tedium. When you don't have to sit down and look someone in the eye and acknowledge their humanity, it's much easier to insult and disregard them.