Shut up, Spock! – how Battlestar Galactica beat Trek babble

Dark Lord Skippy said:
But I have to say that I never had any problem whatsoever with the technology elements. The supernatural elements, when described to me since I left the show long before that stage, seemed a bit silly (had I liked the show and stuck with it this would have killed it for me anyway) and far worse than technobabble for my money.

I found that I could appreciate the character arcs, some of the main plot arcs and the stand-alone story episodes and just ignore those plot arcs that relied on supernatural stuff. Maybe that's one good thing to be said in favour of the story arc structure. It allowed me to largely compartmentalise those elements that I enjoyed and those I was indifferent to. Clearly that's going to work better for me than it would for someone who found them more egregious.

Still, there were whole sequences of episodes with no (or very little, peripheral) supernatural stuff at all. And in fact pretty much the whole first series contained either no supernatural stuff, or stuff that might plausibly have had non supernatural explanations and many people still disliked it, so I'm not getting the whole picture as to what made it appeal to some people and not others.

Simon Hibbs
 
simonh said:
Still, there were whole sequences of episodes with no (or very little, peripheral) supernatural stuff at all. And in fact pretty much the whole first series contained either no supernatural stuff, or stuff that might plausibly have had non supernatural explanations and many people still disliked it, so I'm not getting the whole picture as to what made it appeal to some people and not others.

As I said, it wasnt the dealbreaker for me. I quit watching during the first season because, as I said, it was "dull", "dark", and "monotonous" to me. By the time it had delved into all the supernatural etheral crap, I was long gone.

My experience was the supernatural parts where the things described to me by friends who had either enjoyed or soldiered on through the first season... and then were amused and/or mystified that a 1960s Bob Dylan song would be permeating their conscious, for instance.
 
Dark Lord Skippy said:
My experience was the supernatural parts where the things described to me by friends who had either enjoyed or soldiered on through the first season... and then were amused and/or mystified that a 1960s Bob Dylan song would be permeating their conscious, for instance.

I put that under the 'How come they all speak English in the first place?' category. By rights they've got no reason to share any cultural heritage with us whatsoever, yet their culture appears to be extraordinarily similar to ours. However that's not what the series is about and attempting to be 'realistic' in that way would just be a huge distraction and waste of resources better expended elsewhere.

Simon Hibbs
 
Gee4orce said:
I think they got the balance just right. I'm watching the series on DVD at the moment, and although it's pretty dark and claustrophobic - a few more visits to planets would break the monotony - I'm really enjoying it.
If you think it's dark now, wait until you get to Season 4. Or try watching The Plan. Pitch black.

There's clearly a few places where they erred on the side of drama rather than realism. Why do Vipers need to 'come in hot' ? They are in space - they can adjust their relative velocity to zero if need be…
The Vipers come in at combat speeds because they usually want to get them onboard as quick as possible so they can jump out and avoid the rest of a Cylon attack.
In a non-combat landing they could indeed just slow to a stop and park, but the nuggets get trained to do the combat landings.

Also, the fleet seems to spend most of it's time running it's engines. Why ? They aren't actually travelling anywhere in-system, just waiting for the next jump, so why burn off fuel ?
Usually the fleet is shown from the side or front, so it's hard to tell if they are really burning their engines all the time. And perhaps they are staying on the move in-system. How exactly the jump drive works is never explained - it might need some stating velocity to work.
 
alex_greene said:
But that would have made BSG unwatchable and caused it to get cancelled.

Oh. It was unwatchable and it did get cancelled, and they didn't need any help from anyone to make it so.

You know, for something so unwatchable that got cancelled, it sure did last for four seasons with three movies and a spin-off series with another in the works.
 
Colin said:
What Jeff said. It didn't get cancelled, it ended.

Though the ending did suck.

Actually the way it works in Hollywood is, you run a show until it gets cancelled (unless it goes for ~ a decade ad the cast it leaving) and you get the notice and write the "ending". The people making $ on the show don't just "end it"...
 
I had heard that when the series was comissioned after the miniseries it was always written as a 4 season show, and the overaching plot was laid down, in broad strokes, from day 1.

G.
 
The show was ended rather than cancelled - not everyone wants their show to go as long as it can (Babylon 5?).
But it's also obvious that the creators didn't have it all planned out from the start.
 
As noted, broad strokes they did, details they didn't.

The final five, for example, were decided on during the writing of the latter half of that season.


No, I'm not a fan of the random religious bits either, but then I figured what the hell. The original BSG had it as well - from the Ship of Lights to Count Iblis - so I can't really complain when they decided to put it in a remake as well.
 
The very best TV series all end, rather than get cancelled. US TV series are way too long as it is - 5 series of 25 episodes is just tooooooo long (I think this is what LOST ran for, and BSG was only a dozen episodes or so short of this). Look at the mess that B5 ended is as the whole 5 series arc had to be pulled forward when it got cancelled - it felt totally rushed.

In the UK we seem to make far shorter series - 8 is about the average number of episodes. This is probably due to budgetary reasons, but it does have the effect of creating more focussed and concentrated serials. The very best series are deliberately ended by their creators - the best examples of this are Fawlty Towers and The Office: both of these were ended in their prime, long before they got baggy or ran out of ideas, and as a results are near flawless classics. However, the US version of the Office is still running, I think…

As for the supernatural side to BSG - I think it needed it. Without it the plot would have been way too 1 dimensional, and wouldn't have been anything like as interesting. It certainly wouldn't have had much broad appeal outside SF fans, and therefore probably would have got canned much earlier.
 
In the UK we seem to make far shorter series - 8 is about the average number of episodes. This is probably due to budgetary reasons, but it does have the effect of creating more focussed and concentrated serials.

Almost definitely. Especially when you get into any show with a notable effects budget - on the other hand, that means that even the BBC manages to put together some pretty decent shows (most of the time) for things like Dr Who.

The downside, of course, is that we spend the other thirty-to-forty-odd weeks of the year having to put up with the I'm Strictly X Celebrity Factor Got Talent On Ice, Get Me Out Of Here.
 
I for one enjoyed the religious and mystical aspects of the show.

The primary problem I have with it is that it by the fourth season it was a little too dark. I can't enjoy watching my DVDs with my wife because of that.
 
Gee4orce said:
The very best series are deliberately ended by their creators - the best examples of this are Fawlty Towers and The Office: both of these were ended in their prime, long before they got baggy or ran out of ideas, and as a results are near flawless classics.

Yep. BTW, see what you can do to get the BBC to restart running Little Britain here in the states on BBC America.

Thanks in advance. :D
 
Gee4orce said:
In the UK we seem to make far shorter series - 8 is about the average number of episodes. This is probably due to budgetary reasons, but it does have the effect of creating more focussed and concentrated serials. The very best series are deliberately ended by their creators - the best examples of this are Fawlty Towers and The Office: both of these were ended in their prime, long before they got baggy or ran out of ideas, and as a results are near flawless classics. However, the US version of the Office is still running, I think…

So refresh my memory, how long has Doctor Who been on the air?

:lol:
 
Jeff Hopper said:
So refresh my memory, how long has Doctor Who been on the air?

:lol:

Well.....The Burgess shale from the precambrian era did include several soft bodied fossils wearing a variety of long scarves, frizz wigs, Top hats and replica sonic screwdrivers, as well as a flyer for PrimorialSteWhocon XX featuring Harnell as guest of honor........
 
Jeff Hopper said:
So refresh my memory, how long has Doctor Who been on the air?

:lol:

Yeah, that was on my mind what I wrote that - it's the exception that proves the rule !

But seriously, Dr Who isn't really comparable to something like BSG or LOST - it's more like the Star Trek franchise. Arguably the new Dr Who isn't a direct continuation of the old series - it's more like Dr Who 'The Next Generation' :P
 
You can almost consider every Doctor to be a seperate show, though the revival seems more consistent between the three it has had.
 
Jeff Hopper said:
So refresh my memory, how long has Doctor Who been on the air?

It's the exception that proves the rule. It did get baggy and run out of ideas in the Sylvester McCoy years, arguably much earlier.

Nu Who was more like a re-imagining. It only had superficial continuity with the old serieses. They even threw in a massive but un-shown space-time continuum devastating event between themselves and Old Who (The Time War) to create as much narrative distance for themselves as possible from it.

Simon Hibbs
 
Back
Top