Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Entertainment Weekly Slams StarGate praises Galactica

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Entertainment Weekly Slams StarGate praises Galactica

    I just read an online aticle that's coming out in entertainment Weekly.
    (Here some people are trying to get positive media about Stargate because of the Cancelation and this is coming out)
    Here is a Few Quotes from the article you can find online here
    http://galactica-station.blogspot.co...-coasters.html

    Quote
    "Blame the complicated plots and the genre's fringy rep, a stigma that's only exacerbated by a glut of similar-sounding (and inferior) shows like Stargate Atlantis, Farscape, and Andromeda. Says Callis: (an actor on Galactica)
    'It's strange to exist in the popular consciousness, but so few people actually watch the show. I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell people, 'No, we're not Stargate. Really.''
    And another Quote
    "Moving to fall isn't going to hurt,' insists Sci Fi president Bonnie Hammer. 'With the right product, we can go toe-to-toe during network season. And we truly believe Battlestar Galactica can do it.'"
    End quotes
    How nice Sci-fi thinks Galactica is so great. There cancelling Sg1 and forcing both StarGates on a 6 month hiatus in the middle of the Season to promote Galactica.
    I remember when StarGate Put Sci-fi on the map.
    And I just think it depressing that one Sci-fi show is slaming another.
    they are 2 totally different shows.

    #2
    I have never got in to BSG , and most likly never will . But for Sci-Fi to slam STARGATE like that , MGM Really needs to look at this and find a new home for both SG-1 and SG-A right away ... Forget Sci-Fi and there cheap channel ...

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by -PITBULL-
      I have never got in to BSG , and most likly never will . But for Sci-Fi to slam STARGATE like that , MGM Really needs to look at this and find a new home for both SG-1 and SG-A right away ... Forget Sci-Fi and there cheap channel ...
      Problem is contracts with SCI-FI (I believe this was discussed in another thread)
      sigpic

      Comment


        #4
        Thats it, send the Ori, and Replicators into the BSG universe!

        The humans will worship the Ori and the Replicators can have the Cylons for lunch. :evil:
        http://www.myspace.com/peoples_general
        http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/ga...PeoplesGeneral

        Comment


          #5
          Never liked BSG anyway.
          I'm sure this is right but once a show is cancelled, the contract between the 2 runs out at the end of the show. Hence MGM should be able to move it straight to another network, then we have a "buffy/angel" situation going on. Where the 1st show is on a different network to the spinoff.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Peoples_General
            Thats it, send the Ori, and Replicators into the BSG universe!

            The humans will worship the Ori and the Replicators can have the Cylons for lunch. :evil:
            Problem is if those lizard people are in the new BSG there will be unknown factors to the ori invasion (ilibis SP) though the cylons will be a snack
            sigpic

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Davidtourniquet
              Never liked BSG anyway.
              I'm sure this is right but once a show is cancelled, the contract between the 2 runs out at the end of the show. Hence MGM should be able to move it straight to another network, then we have a "buffy/angel" situation going on. Where the 1st show is on a different network to the spinoff.
              Interesting, but look at what happend to Angel (didn't last long)
              sigpic

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by wolfax
                Problem is if those lizard people are in the new BSG there will be unknown factors to the ori invasion (ilibis SP) though the cylons will be a snack
                In that case toss either the Wraith and/or Goa'uld in. If Goa'uld can inhabit those reptilian Unas... then the same can be done with with BSG's "V" snake-people clones.
                http://www.myspace.com/peoples_general
                http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/ga...PeoplesGeneral

                Comment


                  #9
                  Wow that Callis guy is stupid. I don't even watch BSG, but I can imagine people who watch both (or all three) shows will be mightily pissed at him.



                  Comment


                    #10
                    Blame the complicated plots
                    That's the exact same reason I gave up on BSG after Season 1. Entire episodes being reserved for minor characters that were only seen for tens of seconds for the rest of the season, ridiculously vague and mysterious characters (Number Six, anyone?), and rather borish plot driven elements... I had enough.

                    I honestly think the writers made up the story the night they wrote the scripts. It's the only explaination.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I didn't read that whole article after running into a few S3 spoilers but I think I get the general thrust of it.

                      BSG is a fantastic show that's being held down somewhat by the stigma that it's "sci-fi". This is not surprising to me. I've read interviews with some of the serious actors and acresses that appeared on the show like Michelle Forbes and of course Olmos and they all seem to have similar sentiments.

                      Forbes initially rejected the role as Admiral Cain because after hearing that it was for a sci-fi show called "battlestar galactica" she thought she was going to get roped into some sort of "hissing aliens and laser blasters" bull****. In other words she thought they were going to put her on something like Stargate. When she actually watched the DVDs they sent her though her mind changed on the spot.

                      Olmos as well has openly stated that if the show ever takes the direction of "little green men dripping goo" he's walking out the door. In this article he again reinterates that he never thought he would be doing science fiction on TV.

                      Now why do serious actors like Forbes and Olmos shy away from science fiction on TV?

                      The reason is that sci-fi TV has a reputation for being the acting and storytelling equivalent of cotton candy. It tastes good on a Friday night but it entirely lacks the substance to keep someone with a healthy appetite satisfied, or a skilled chef entertained while making it.

                      Now you can debate the accuracy or fairness of this assessment if you want, I personally think there are a few shows like Farscape and firefly that do deserve to be counted as better than that, but it's hard to deny that the stigma is real.

                      While there are some shows that defy the stigma and strive to bring back some semblence of legitimacy in terms of acting/maturity/storytelling to the genere there are a great deal many more, like latemodel Stargate of both flavours, which do the exact opposite, feeding and reenforcing the negative stigma against TV sci-fi as "mearly cotton candy entertainment".

                      Galactica is counted among the former. It does things no other sci-fi show has done since the original StarTrek, taking on real moral and ethical issues of our time by removing them from the modern world and placing them in an alternate setting for detailed disection. It's rich 3 dimensional and genuine characters force viewers to think about these issues and perhaps take away something that will influence their outlook on the world in a meaningful way. It's a show with the sort of genuine intellectual substance that's rarely found on TV anymore, not just sci-fi TV. That's why the serious actors don't run away after it's made clear to them that Galactica is not just "that kind of sci-fi show".

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Peoples_General
                        In that case toss either the Wraith and/or Goa'uld in. If Goa'uld can inhabit those reptilian Unas... then the same can be done with with BSG's "V" snake-people clones.
                        The lizard people becoming Goa'uld "thralls" I like it.

                        For the record I watch BSG, but it is good to have fun sometimes with both shows.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Ouroboros
                          I didn't read that whole article after running into a few S3 spoilers but I think I get the general thrust of it.

                          BSG is a fantastic show that's being held down somewhat by the stigma that it's "sci-fi". This is not surprising to me. I've read interviews with some of the serious actors and acresses that appeared on the show like Michelle Forbes and of course Olmos and they all seem to have similar sentiments.

                          Forbes initially rejected the role as Admiral Cain because after hearing that it was for a sci-fi show called "battlestar galactica" she thought she was going to get roped into some sort of "hissing aliens and laser blasters" bull****. In other words she thought they were going to put her on something like Stargate. When she actually watched the DVDs they sent her though her mind changed on the spot.

                          Olmos as well has openly stated that if the show ever takes the direction of "little green men dripping goo" he's walking out the door. In this article he again reinterates that he never thought he would be doing science fiction on TV.

                          Now why do serious actors like Forbes and Olmos shy away from science fiction on TV?

                          The reason is that sci-fi TV has a reputation for being the acting and storytelling equivalent of cotton candy. It tastes good on a Friday night but it entirely lacks the substance to keep someone with a healthy appetite satisfied, or a skilled chef entertained while making it.

                          Now you can debate the accuracy or fairness of this assessment if you want, I personally think there are a few shows like Farscape and firefly that do deserve to be counted as better than that, but it's hard to deny that the stigma is real.

                          While there are some shows that defy the stigma and strive to bring back some semblence of legitimacy in terms of acting/maturity/storytelling to the genere there are a great deal many more, like latemodel Stargate of both flavours, which do the exact opposite, feeding and reenforcing the negative stigma against TV sci-fi as "mearly cotton candy entertainment".

                          Galactica is counted among the former. It does things no other sci-fi show has done since the original StarTrek, taking on real moral and ethical issues of our time by removing them from the modern world and placing them in an alternate setting for detailed disection. It's rich 3 dimensional and genuine characters force viewers to think about these issues and perhaps take away something that will influence their outlook on the world in a meaningful way. It's a show with the sort of genuine intellectual substance that's rarely found on TV anymore, not just sci-fi TV. That's why the serious actors don't run away after it's made clear to them that Galactica is not just "that kind of sci-fi show".
                          The thing is that Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis aren't centered around special effects and battle scenes. I personally dislike such shows. I prefer plot driven shows with deep storylines.

                          In the first few seasons of "Stargate SG-1", we had hardly any special effects, very rarely saw spaceships and very often, we didn't even get to see the kawoosh forming (or the puddle effect). It's only in later years that they've been able to afford expensive special effects.

                          The show has always been story-driven and character-driven and not about cool special effects. The point is that these actors and actresses have no idea what they're dissing.

                          It's like people walking around saying Satanists are evil and bad when they actually mean Devil Worshippers because Satanists don't even think the Devil exists as a being.

                          Educated critism >>>>>>>> Uneducated critism (because it makes you look like an idiot)



                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by themeangel
                            End quotes
                            How nice Sci-fi thinks Galactica is so great. There cancelling Sg1 and forcing both StarGates on a 6 month hiatus in the middle of the Season to promote Galactica.
                            I remember when StarGate Put Sci-fi on the map.
                            And I just think it depressing that one Sci-fi show is slaming another.
                            they are 2 totally different shows.
                            Geeeez, you guys are so Chicken Little-ing everything. Not to mention taking things out of context. So we're going to blame BSG now for Stargate being cancelled?

                            "Blame the complicated plots and the genre's fringy rep, a stigma that's only exacerbated by a glut of similar-sounding (and inferior) shows like Stargate Atlantis, Farscape, and Andromeda.
                            This is obviously the writer of the article giving an opinion. Not anybody related to BSG or Sci-Fi. Why the author would bring up shows like Farscape or Andromeda, which have not been on the air for a few years, is odd, but whatever.

                            Says Callis: (an actor on Galactica)
                            'It's strange to exist in the popular consciousness, but so few people actually watch the show. I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell people, 'No, we're not Stargate. Really.''
                            Somebody explain to me how this is bad again? He is talking about BSG, and joking about how not enough people watch the show. It is partly tongue-in-cheek and also related to BSG's desire to be looked at as a sci-fi drama. The search for a certain kind of non exclusive sci-fi watching audience is a well documented phenomenon with BSG.

                            If anything, it seems to me that he is acknowledging that Stargate is the more popular of the two shows and that is why he is having to tell people that BSG is not Stargate, because they mistake BSG for the show they think it is most likely to be.

                            "Moving to fall isn't going to hurt,' insists Sci Fi president Bonnie Hammer. 'With the right product, we can go toe-to-toe during network season. And we truly believe Battlestar Galactica can do it.'"
                            Again, I know it is en vogue to demonize Sci-Fi's TPTB, but this quote is simply an example of Bonnie Hammer expressing her support for BSG and hoping that it can continue to pull in the high ratings that it has achieved now that it will be competing against network television. Sci-Fi obviously believes it can, and they are hoping that with all the critical acclaim it has garnered, and with the extra production time they gave RDM, it will give the show enough momentum to carry it through the gauntlet.

                            Saying that they are cancelling SG1 because of BSG or that they pushed both shows back because they wanted to give all their attention to BSG is ludicrous. And nowhere did I see any insult to Stargate in your quotes.
                            "May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places where you must walk." - Susan Ivanova

                            "The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements. Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest. " - Citizen G'Kar

                            "I will see you again, in the place where no shadows fall." - Delenn

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Ouroboros
                              I didn't read that whole article after running into a few S3 spoilers but I think I get the general thrust of it.

                              BSG is a fantastic show that's being held down somewhat by the stigma that it's "sci-fi". This is not surprising to me. I've read interviews with some of the serious actors and acresses that appeared on the show like Michelle Forbes and of course Olmos and they all seem to have similar sentiments.

                              Forbes initially rejected the role as Admiral Cain because after hearing that it was for a sci-fi show called "battlestar galactica" she thought she was going to get roped into some sort of "hissing aliens and laser blasters" bull****. In other words she thought they were going to put her on something like Stargate. When she actually watched the DVDs they sent her though her mind changed on the spot.

                              Olmos as well has openly stated that if the show ever takes the direction of "little green men dripping goo" he's walking out the door. In this article he again reinterates that he never thought he would be doing science fiction on TV.

                              Now why do serious actors like Forbes and Olmos shy away from science fiction on TV?

                              The reason is that sci-fi TV has a reputation for being the acting and storytelling equivalent of cotton candy. It tastes good on a Friday night but it entirely lacks the substance to keep someone with a healthy appetite satisfied, or a skilled chef entertained while making it.

                              Now you can debate the accuracy or fairness of this assessment if you want, I personally think there are a few shows like Farscape and firefly that do deserve to be counted as better than that, but it's hard to deny that the stigma is real.

                              While there are some shows that defy the stigma and strive to bring back some semblence of legitimacy in terms of acting/maturity/storytelling to the genere there are a great deal many more, like latemodel Stargate of both flavours, which do the exact opposite, feeding and reenforcing the negative stigma against TV sci-fi as "mearly cotton candy entertainment".

                              Galactica is counted among the former. It does things no other sci-fi show has done since the original StarTrek, taking on real moral and ethical issues of our time by removing them from the modern world and placing them in an alternate setting for detailed disection. It's rich 3 dimensional and genuine characters force viewers to think about these issues and perhaps take away something that will influence their outlook on the world in a meaningful way. It's a show with the sort of genuine intellectual substance that's rarely found on TV anymore, not just sci-fi TV. That's why the serious actors don't run away after it's made clear to them that Galactica is not just "that kind of sci-fi show".
                              Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect yours.
                              However, after the last season of BSG I will not be watching the show anymore. There is just too much gratuitous violence, far too much cursing- however they try to cutsie it up- the plot has become too convoluted, dark, and twisted for my taste... it simply turns me off in every way. I watch TV to be entertained, and BSG does not entertain me. It has gone the route of SciFi's ridiculous horror movies and is offensive to my sensibilities.

                              If Stargate SG1 and SGA is cotton candy, then that's what I crave. A little sweetness and delight; a candy treat to brighten and uplift my day, not a bitter swallow of cod liver oil that I will rift up for hours after it's gone down. BSG leaves me shell-shocked, depressed, and shivering with disgust. But, again, to each it's own.

                              When BSG has thrived for 10 seasons with its fandom clamoring for more, then it can compare itself- favorable or not- to SG1... which is something I highly doubt will happen, especially under SciFi's dubious control.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X