Letters to the Editor
-
It's only sensible to watch the show before you comment.
Hi, I just read the article, haven't watched the show at all and want to make my snap judgement about what the show is about now.
Oh, wait, actually I turned on the show for fifteen minutes one night right in the middle of an episode and now I feel I can dismiss the whole thing as a pile of crap.
In reality I watched the old show from the 70s and feel free to label the current one as a steaming heap of shit based solely on my having seen how cheesy that old series was.
People, the show is not episodic in the sense that Star Trek was or most other shows on tv. It has quite an arc to it. Try watching from the beginning. There are numerous ways to do this. The pilot mini-series would be a good place to start. If you don't like the mini-series then don't keep watching and feel free to come back and tell us all how it never drew you in. Maybe we can take you seriously at that point.
Yes, the show is dark and somewhat depressing. The premise is a bit dark and depressing. How happy can you be on a voyage to (presumably) nowhere running from a race of robots some of which look exactly like you and that happened to destroy most of your entire species.
Those of you looking for funny and lighthearted need to watch some more Two and a Half Men or something.
-
Only an Idiot doesn't know this is the utmost very best show ever of all time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"It's only sensible to watch the show before you comment."
Actually I have watched several episodes. I watched the mini series, and I have watched entire episodes since.
In my humble opinion this show is at best a passable sci fi fantasy akin to SG1 or Dr. Who. It's a fun watch, at best, at worst it’s a pile of dreck, and worse still it is a preachy pile of dreck.
The vindictive against this show from the peanut gallery no doubt derives from the ubiquitous galactica is god camp that exists at Salon.
Really, how about just one article that is actually criticizes the failings of the show. Or better yet, how about one article on television that doesn't even mention the show?
This may shock many of you who haven't left the convention circuit in 20 years, but for people with lives out side of their favorite shows, we don't read reviews to hear about how great the same show is over and over. If we wanted to read the BG convention Blog we would, and I'm sure you all do, but that's not what we're looking for.
Again, it's just a T.V. show. If the writers think it's more than that, I feel sorry for them. If you think it’s more than that, I feel sorry for you.
Really, go out side; date a person of the opposite or same sex.
But please please please please get a life out side of this show.
-
A quibble with the show
The show is great, but a quibble I have with it is that it cheats on the issues by using the life-like cylons.
The real issues of torture, imprisonment, dehumanized enemies and such all involve humans.
The show seems edgy, cutting edge, thoughtful as it 'goes there' on issues by using cylons - but really, it's trying to get the tension by having it both ways: are they 'just machines', or are they the moral equivalent of people? Our answers on the issues vary greatly by our answer to that question.
The confusion for the viewer trying to figure out that question while watching the scenes 'feels' like it's tackling the issues, but it's really not; it's dodging them - the interestign sci-fi issue of human-like machines is fine fodder for this show or 'Data' in Star Trek: Enterprise, but it replaces the real issues.
It takes over the debate - it becomes a sci-fi debate of how a lifelike machine's rights compares to a humans at the expense of asking for answers about simply how to deal with these issues regarding humans. There are exceptions; the collaborater issue, for example, was about humans.
Imagine if 'edgy issues' were raised by a computer game that allowed its largely young adult male players to realistically play in a virtual world with realistic rape an option, complete with the screams and photo-realistic nudity. Imagine it was touted as some sort of educational experience by 'raising ethical issues'.
It would be 'edgy', but would it offer anything constructive? Probably not that much; it's more a corruption for the issue of rape, replacing it with an issue of the ethics of 'virtual worlds' just as BSG replaces the issue of real torture with a debate about the ethics of humanlike machines.
I'd rather they confused the 'real' and the 'robot' issues less.
-
A quick gripe on usage, and a slightly longer gripe on presumption
I'm not sure one can attack a television show "ad hominem."
Certainly, we could be talking about "House" or "CSI: Miami" instead of "Grey's Anatomy." All three fail to meet the criteria of being a "hominem" toward which your "ad hominem" attack can be flung.
Second, I believe Ronald D. Moore has made it clear that his personal views on and current events are not broadcast in the show, nor does the show try to take and pro or con views, and perhaps do this to a greater degree than David Simon and Ed Burns do with the Wire.
But there are certain people who, as mentioned downthread, will look at a paint spot and see the Virgin Mary, and there are some who will see a beast with seven cocks. When Clinton was being hounded by the Star office, many progressives saw Republican conspiracies at every turn. Bill O'Reilly sees a secular plan to destroy America under every log. I see Ronald D. Moore as being very even handed, and I try to keep an open mind to that aim myself.
I do not believe the show has an agenda, however I believe that people who are critical of it much in the same way President Bush says it is "wrong to think" do have an agenda. But if partisanship is now drawn on the line of living an examined life versus blissful, willful ignorance then color me partisan!