Resistance (204)

[FeloniousMonk]

In "Fragged," the chief was arguing with the lieutenant about the necessity to attack the Cylons. Sort of, he didn't actually have any point to make other than it was dangerous. The lieutenant tells the chief to stay cool. Now, the chief wasn't actually thinking, so trying to think it through coolly was good advice. Yet it was the lieutenant who was written as agitated and the chief who was written as cool. And there's another one of the things I mean when I say characters are written black and white.

I didn't notice this post until just now, but I wanted to address this. How was the chief not actually thinking? Crashdown's plan wasn't very thought out; the guy was an officer simply because he was a pilot. He had no leadership skills beyond what he learned in a classroom. The chief acted in ways that implied he'd seen combat. A good officer (at least one with as little experience in the field as Crashdown) would defer judgement or at least ask the advice of his senior NCO.

Of course Crashdown was written as agitated; I doubt the guy had ever been shot at, outside of a Raptor, in his life before that day. The chief was cool headed and it made perfect sense in the context of the story as well as the individual characters.

I do see your point on how they're written black and white, especially with all the others. But you have to realize that the writers have to appeal to the audiences desires as well as their own creativities. If they were to write these characters as truly flawed as they could be, fewer people would watch the show. They're written with those types of flaws because they're the heroes; no one watches a tv show to see a bunch of people that are just like them and their friends. Even reality shows give horribly inaccurate (and horribly acted in most cases ) examples of flawed characters.

Yes, compared to real life they're very black and white. But compared to any other science fiction show in the US? You never see this kind of thing on Star Trek, even B5 barely scratched the surface of this. Firefly and Farscape were both too focused on the bigger message to spend time on real flaws and Stargate...in terms of character realness it's just Star Trek with less technobabble. BSG may not be the true reflection of reality that the PR team would like reviewers and the audience to believe, but it's a hell of a lot more than we've seen in other sci-fi shows and even beats out many other dramas. I see more character realism in BSG than in any of the CSIs, Law and Orders, etc. To be honest the only show I've ever watched that has truly and honestly flawed lead characters is Rescue Me.

[/two cents]

[Liebestraume]

... but like you pointed out, it's our most basic instincts that drive us. ..

Say what?

It would appear that "abilities such as cognitive thought, reasoning, and higher communication haven't dramatically" improved our (i.e., your and/or my) understanding, either. By "overcoming our baser instinct" I meant (the collective) we managed to rise above qualities such as cruelty, treachery, or greed -- base, as in lacking of higher qualities of mind or spirit; not basic. In fact, I have been, and still am, maintaining we are not entirely driven by our basic instincts.

Not all of us all the time, but some of us some of the time.

To bring this discussion back on topic, I agree with LoneStar that BSG's challenge of gender bias in pupolar culture is one of its many strengths. Though the impromptu anthropology lesson is very much appreciated, please forgive me if I don't share the Neanderthal sentimentality. Perhaps remember where these double-standards came from should also remind us how useless they are in this day and age.

[LoneStar1836]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to ruffle any feathers with a statement that, in my opinion, is an example of a double-standard in our society, but I can't accept some outmoded reason for it's continued existence.

Anyway, to get the thread back on topic……….

All right. You have my parole. When I'm on duty, I'll make no attempt to free her or sow insurrection among the crew…… And when I'm not on duty, I'll report directly back to this cell.

So does anyone feel like Lee violated his parole and thus his word of honor by conspiring to help Roslin escape?

In his podcast, RDM said that he thinks he walked a fine line with Lee in regards to that. If I remember right, RDM said that he didn’t think Lee had broken his word in regards to his parole, but I listened to it several days ago and can’t really say for sure what his answer was, if he even had one.

I don’t know. I find it difficult to say that Lee didn’t go against his word. True he probably never conversed about it or took any direct actions to get the plan in order while on duty, but to me just the act of conspiring to free Roslin, whether on duty or off, breaks the parole pact for me. It’s not like Tigh said “when on duty, don’t even think about helping her, but when off duty, sure go right ahead.” (Course I just have to overlook Tigh leaving those two in adjoining cells. That was another stupid move on his part on his long list of bad decisions.)

I guess technically he didn’t because you could say that like the conversations he had with Dee were while he was being escorted back to the brig so he was off-duty and in transit. He must have been getting Billy and/or Corporal Venner to pass notes or verbally relay messages to people involved in helping them escape.

I find it to be a fine line whether or not Lee, in principle, honored his word. By literal definition of what he promised Tigh, I think he kept his word, but by doing what he did off duty, he broke the spirit of the agreement.

Again, I admire Lee for standing up for what he believes is right, but I disagree with what he did in this episode.

[Easter Lily]

To bring this discussion back on topic, I agree with LoneStar that BSG's challenge of gender bias in pupolar culture is one of its many strengths. Though the impromptu anthropology lesson is very much appreciated, please forgive me if I don't share the Neanderthal sentimentality. Perhaps remember where these double-standards came from should also remind us how useless they are in this day and age.

My problem with the "Neanderthal" sentimentality is the assumption that our ancestors were more primitive than we were... that somehow we are rather more enlightened now than they ever were. In some areas yes, we may have advanced further than they have but there's a joke that I often throw at my friends and that is, "we are only rediscovering what the Chinese have forgotten."
I have a huge problem with the evolutionary model when explaining history... (in fact I have a huge problem with the evolutionary model period... but that's neither here nor there) Biology can only go so far in explaining certain aspects of human life but biology cannot give us the whole picture and that is where other branches of knowledge such as archaeology and history comes in.

Back on the topic: (Again!)
Actually LS... if you notice my earlier review... I did mention that I was rather disappointed that Lee reneged on his parole... I don't know what RDM meant when he said Lee was treading a fine line because as far as I'm concerned... he crossed the line... He may not have repeated his mutinous act but he did conspire to help free her. After thinking it through, I now think he committed the lesser of two evil acts by escaping rather than destabilizing the ship further by going against Tigh directly. That would have forced the crew on the Galactica to take sides which probably wouldn't have been very productive either.

Okay... I admit to having watched too much Hornblower... but when a parole is given... a man's reputation is on the line and as you say... the spirit of the agreement is as important or more so than just adhering to the letter of it. It's about being trustworthy... despite the circumstances... not because it is an easy thing to do...
The only excuse I can offer up for his actions is I supposed he felt the situation was desperate and warranted some action. It interests me that Dee was trying to hint to him that he should take command of the ship and the bright side is that a lesser man might have tried and wreaked more havoc for the fleet.

[LoneStar1836]

Sorry, I forgot about that. Didn’t think to look. I figured since I indirectly caused the thread to stray OT, then I’d try to get it back on topic.

*sigh* I was going to try to watch Hornblower when I was over in Texas because we have satellite over there and I think the Biography Channel was running the movies while I was there and I don’t get that channel here, but I never did make the effort to say “well I want to watch that, so can we?”. Hopefully A&E will get a whim and air them again sometime soon.…..

After thinking it through, I now think he committed the lesser of two evil acts by escaping rather than destabilizing the ship further by going against Tigh directly. That would have forced the crew on the Galactica to take sides which probably wouldn't have been very productive either.

Good point there, but I still feel that he had a duty to the military and to himself to relieve Col. Tigh from command. Tigh was putting Galactica and the people under his command in danger because he was intoxicated and had impaired judgment. Just like one should feel that it is his/her duty to take the keys from a friend who has been drinking, Lee should have felt the responsibility to take the keys from Tigh, even if by force. Thank goodness Adama is back on his feet. Tigh would have drunk the fleet dry……

I’d like to think that Lee would have had considerable support if he had taken that action, but I don’t know how the crew would have felt about Capt. Kelly assuming command then. People might have liked that guy even less than Tigh. How? I don’t know, but it’s possible. I don’t think Lee would have been in a position to oust Tigh and then put himself in command unless he does out rank Kelly by time in grade.

I can see how Lee putting himself in command might would divide the crew because after all he had just gone against his father’s orders and then put a gun to Tigh’s head, but there are probably plenty of people aboard who have wished they could do that…..but going against the Old Man, even if you are his son, might not have garnered him complete support. I don’t know. I still think Lee ousting Tigh would have been better for everyone, and I think he should have felt obligated to do so. BUT....then we don’t get the big ongoing conflict we have now complete with all the angsty stuff between Lee and his father.

[Easter Lily]

I can see how Lee putting himself in command might would divide the crew because after all he had just gone against his father’s orders and then put a gun to Tigh’s head, but there are probably plenty of people aboard who have wished they could do that…..but going against the Old Man, even if you are his son, might not have garnered him complete support. I don’t know. I still think Lee ousting Tigh would have been better for everyone, and I think he should have felt obligated to do so. BUT....then we don’t get the big ongoing conflict we have now complete with all the angsty stuff between Lee and his father.

That Lee is gained a great deal of respect on the Galactica, I have no doubt. He has had to work for it. But it would probably be from those who work the most closely with him. It was interesting that they showed his pilots clamouring for his return to the card table which indicated to me that some sections of the crew, at least would have taken his side, if he had decided to unseat Tigh. But perhaps, out of respect to his father, Lee made the decision that he did. He did say to Col Tigh in the previous episode that "this is still his ship".
What I'm mostly unhappy about is his throwing his lot with Roslin and his collaborating with Zarek. But that's for another thread...
I'm just wondering... out loud mostly... if they're not trying just a bit too hard in getting Lee to be his "own man". To distinguish him from his father. Do a bit of good o'l fashion rebellion and create some good o'l fashion family drama. I've been quite impressed with how they had been developing the father and son relationship but I should have known that it was too good too last...

[plot mechanic]

Easter Lily, sorry for the delay.

One clarification: I don't think everyone should dislike Starbuck. I just have trouble believing that Tigh would be the only one who dislikes Starbuck, while everyone else loves and admires her. That may be "point of view," but it feels like writer manipulation to me.

Another clarification: The chief/lieutenant scene was definitely written to force the conclusion that the chief was wise and the lieutenant was incompetent. The chief is written as a nice guy in the first place, so the initial impulse is rate his opinion higher. When Baltar shoots the lieutenant, they initiated combat, with one fewer soldier but without the advantage of surprise. They still succeed in destroying the radar dish, while under attack by the Cylons, no less! The rescue by the armed search party was a sound hope from the second they heard the ship. In other words, the facts of the story show that the lieutenant was thinking soundly!

I can think of at least three senses in which the survivors "owed" the dead soldiers. They "owed" them revenge. You could very sensibly argue that this is letting emotions get the better of you. But that is not what the chief said! Really, when the chief said he didn't know how they were relevant, I thought he was being dishonest and insolent. Because, one other sense that the lieutenant "owed" the survivors was to succeed at the mission, so that their deaths could be counted as necessary sacrifices. The lieutenant couldn't talk about this without talking about his failures, real or perceived. The third sense in which they "owed" the survivors, the one that the chief simply ignores, is living up to their example as soldiers doing their duty. Which means, trying to save the search mission from the Cylon missiles! It is true that sitting on his ass is safer for the chief. It's true that the lieutenant simply pulls rank instead of pointing this out, whether objectively or perhaps emotionally accusing the chief of cowardice. The chief's convenient refusal (for him) to look at the big picture really does suggest a reason why he's not officer material.

More on what I mean by black and white in another post in the thread.

pm

PS Everybody sees things differently. When the chief was explaining the lieutenants stupidly literal copying of the order format he learned in command school, I wondered: How does the chief know what they teach in command school. Did he flunk out? Or just check into it?

[plot mechanic]

Sharky, a clarification: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

When, in these times, a television show imagines a world in which 1.)evil religious fanatics aim to exterminate humanity for no explainable reason; 2.)it is necessary to "torture" these fanatics; 3.)said fanatics only appear human, but are truly inhuman 4.)their religion leads to genocide; 5.)"our" leader's religion (so far) leads to genuinely prophetic dreams 5.)the desperate exigencies of the struggle requires autocratic "leadership" from the military; 6.)despite the alleged worldshaking holocaust that changed everything, life actually continues pretty much like before (as supposedly 9/11 changed everything, except, honestly, it didn't.)...I smell a rat.

As near as I can tell, the original BSG was basically Brigham Young leading the Mormons to Utah, which is a very different animal from the new one. I really don't see any effort to recreate the old show (I must admit I don't really care about that, though.) Since it's not designed to capture old fans, I have to wonder if the show wasn't "revived" as it's premises could be tweaked to fit current events. Robots as religious fanatics is a truly preposterous idea. Robots programmed to be religious fanatics might make a serious scifi drama, but BSG simply is not serious. Sky TV from the UK cofinanced BSG. Is that a Rupert Murdoch outfit, or owned by a similar type?

Further, BSG just isn't written very well. This is my judgment, which should go without saying. No doubt my distaste for its underlying messages makes its writing flaws more noticeable. But when I can force myself to watch, which I have for roughly the same kinds of reasons I force myself to listen to government spokesmen talk, I fear that the only real appeal of BSG is jingo fantasy. The moronic reviews that praise BSG as drama (hey, Matt Roush actually works for Murdoch!) reinforce this fear. Look, BSG has women whose spines light up while they're having sex! Women Cylons roam around naked, in packs! People are constantly holding guns to someone's head! Woman torturer! Has it not occurred to people that this sort of thing is usually despised, instead of praised? What's different now? I fear the difference is that BSG fits the government line.

So, it should be obvious why I started posting. Your politics may be different (or may not,) but it's not some ego thing.

But, happily, the posters in this thread don't seem to be seeing BSG this way. At this point, I guess I'm posting to finish what I started. Not a profound reason, to be sure.

pm

[plot mechanic]

Liebestraume, skipping over the science parts to the characterizations, you may see Adama's coup as an overreaction to Starbuck's seduction. Certainly there is no rational explanation given for Adama's refusal to try to find Earth, nor is a coup the only way to handle the situation, even given that Adama believes he was right. These reasons are why I agree that essentially Adama started a civil war because he was jealous. And because he has despised civilians from the beginning. That is decidedly flawed.

But the show has already spent multiple episodes making sure that Tigh takes the blame! I don't know how much more whitewash of a character you could want! Adama will not be walking through the corridors and overhear some joke about him and Starbuck. It would be amazing if anyone, including Apollo, Starbuck or Roslin ever alluded to his true motivations. The show is already written as if his motivation was some sort of rationalism about religious revelation. To repeat, there is no way (shown) that Adama can know that "Earth" is a mythical, instead of historical, part of scripture. And that's a whitewash too. As well as making the whole miserable storyline fake drama to boot.

I was quite literal when I said I didn't see how Baltar could learn anything unless the revelation from Boomer was somehow supposed to be true. If it's not true, Baltar just learns that the Boomereither loves or pretends to love Tyrol (and will lie as part of that pretense.) I don't see how that's useful to him. However, if somehow Boomer's admission is true, Baltar learns that Boomer's love can lead to some actions at least against programming, i.e., is genuine love. Now that might be useful.

I still think the scene is basically gibberish. There's no way Baltar could know Boomer "knows" the number, or know if she's telling the truth. I suggest the plain meaning of the scene is intentional, stupid as that may be. But it's sensational gibberish, thrilling the viewers who like torture and violence, and it's supposed to develop Baltar's ascent to manliness. That notion still strikes me as both silly and nasty.

You don't believe that any of the main characters should actually dramatize the supposed extermination of humanity (which is pretty moot since the last episode undoes that!) Nor do you believe that Cylon "humanity" (nature, extent, lack of, imperfection, perfection, etc.) should be a main theme. I don't quite see the point of BSG's aspirations to real drama, even the scifi type, if it doesn't. But if that's how you feel, it would certainly lead you to rate BSG higher than I do. I don't see any point to belaboring either view, now that they're clarified. These fundamental disagreements are irreconcilable.

Had Roslin "sticked up for herself," whose blood do you think would have been shed? Ty's? Lee's? Or that of some innocent marine, whose worst possible offense was perhaps misguided loyalty to their sworn duty? "Give me Liberty, or give me death" is a fine and noble ambition, so long as the death one dares is one's own.

And, if a cause could be demoralized -- to the point of never being able to make a comeback -- by the apparent failing of a single leader, then perhaps the said cause indeed deserve its fate.

When Roslin initially refused to surrender to men with guns, she was daring her own death. When Apollo held the gun to Tigh's head, she could have simply said, "Do not fire the first shot!" As for that innocent Marine, how could he have been more innocent that the people shot down in "Resistance?" Are you implying that the protestors were not innocent?

My point is not just that Roslin failed. My point is that she surrendered. And I must insist that many movements can recover from defeats or other failures of the leaders. But nothing, nothing is more demoralizing than surrender. The series would have it that someone organized an incomplete boycott. Whoever did that is the true leader, now. I doubt that the writers of the show are sophisticated enough to realized this. But you will see.

pm

[FeloniousMonk]

PS Everybody sees things differently. When the chief was explaining the lieutenants stupidly literal copying of the order format he learned in command school, I wondered: How does the chief know what they teach in command school. Did he flunk out? Or just check into it?

Were it not for the likely requirement that pilots be officers (as it is in our armed forces) it's doubtful Crashdown would have ever made through any kind of officer training. The chief probably knows about it because it's probably a common course of action. Remember, they've been at relative peace for the past few decades and most of them have never seen combat. From the chief's actions in going back for the medkit it's readily obvious that if he hasn't seen combat then at the very least he's learned from his training a lot better than Crashdown.

The plan worked because of luck and had the Raptor not been right there to save them it would've ended badly. The chief could see that the plan was flawed. In the end it worked despite being a man down and losing the element of surprise but sheer stupid luck does not mean it was a sound plan to begin with. Crashdown orders a scared young girl, a mechanic, to draw fire while he plans to hang back and cover...that's not leader material right there. He was written as being agitated because in a real situation that's likely what would've happened. Pilots are used to combat with other pilots, not with ground troops.

[LoneStar1836]

So, it should be obvious why I started posting.

So you see the show as very politically biased?

I highly doubt either Ron Moore or David Eick is a Republican or a conservative in today's politics. Being either of those in Hollywood is like the kiss of death, at least if you announce it publicly. Moore said this is a “re-imaged” version of BSG. He has taken the basic premise of the original BSG and tooled it to tell his story. He even explicitly said it can seem to mirror the current issues we face today because he was taking some liberties and incorporating relevant issues we face. (I do remember him talking about this on one of his podcasts from S1, course I’m paraphrasing the gist of what I remember him saying.)

Honestly, I don’t watch the show to see if it is doing that – mirroring current issues. Yes, I’m not blind to the fact that you can (if you really want to) do some labeling as to whom on the show is representing who/what issues in RL. I did have some reservations about the show because Moore had said such things so I hoped his political views wouldn’t dominate the show. So far I haven’t seen anything overtly on one side of the political spectrum or the other. I find the show to be pretty balanced though I’m not claiming that I’m unbiased in my political views.

Moore stated this on his BSG blog in response to a thread on the Sci-fi boards:

Not only is this a (by and large) intelligent and thoughtful debate on a serious topic [Human Rights abuse], it also brings up a question I'm often asked -- namely what are the politics of the show and what is its political agendat? The quick answer is that the show doesn't really have a political agenda in the sense that it's neither liberal nor conservative in the way those labels are thrown around in the sound-bite era of demagoguery that currently passes for political discourse in this country. One would be hardpressed to say that watching Laura Roslin break her word to a prisoner and then kick him out an airlock would be advancing a progressive, liberal agenda, or that Adama questioning his society's worthiness to be saved is somehow indicative of a conservative bias.

I certainly have my own political views and it would be disingenuous at best to say that there's some kind of firewall between my beliefs and those portrayed on the show. I'm the head writer -- my views and thoughts are on life are on display every week, including my political predilections. However, I don't see the show as a platform to advance my political belief system or my own views on morality. I do see the show as an opportunity to raise questions in the minds of the audience and ask them to think, which is something of a rariety in these days when politics seems to be about stoking emotionalism and finding simple-minded slogans to stand-in for actual answers to complex problems. ("Culture of Life!" "Right to Die!" "Ban Smoking!" "The Ownership Society!")

Galactica is both mirror and prism through which to view our world. It attempts to mirror the complexities of our lives and our society in turbulent times, while at the same time reflecting and bending that view in order to allow us to extrapolate on notions present in contemporary society but which have not yet come to pass, i.e. a true artificial intelligence becoming self-aware and the existential questions it raises. Our goal is to examine contemporary culture and society, to challenge (and sometimes provoke) our audience, but not to provide easy answers to complex problems.

I firmly believe that what Kara Thrace did to Leoben in "Flesh and Bone" was wrong. I believe that a society which employs torture on the defenseless captives in its custody has crossed a bright shining line that civilized people should not cross. Likewise, I think that Laura Roslin promising a man freedom only to kill him in the end is abhorrent to the ways in which I want my president to behave. However, I also understand why each of them did what they did. I understand the emotional, psychological and moral quandries which can lead two moral, good people to take such ghastly actions. And, in the end, I also believe that it was true to who characters really are, and that trumps everything else.

Would I personally behave the same way in similar circumstances? I hope not, but neither am I so confident of my own immunity to the pressures felt by an interrogator charged with finding a nuclear weapon or to the enormous weight sitting on a chief executive trying to protect her citizenry that I can say I would absolutely have made the more "moral" choice.

Was it wrong for Adama to dissolve a legally constituted judicial tribunal in "Litmus" simply because he sensed it becoming a witch-hunt or was he actually protecting the larger concepts of justice? Was it right for Lee to shoot down a civilian ship knowing full well that it was probably filled with innocent human beings or was he making a pragmatic choice to protect the greater number in the fleet? Is Tyrol a fool for protecting Sharon or is he honoring the most fundamental human emotion of all -- true love?

These are the debates that I hope you have among yourselves, your families, your friends. I want the show to provoke you into thinking about the times you live in and the choices that are being made all around you every day. In a time when the President of the United States actually asserts that he has the power to arrest without warrant and detain indefinitely without charge or appeal, any citizen (indeed any person on the face of the Earth) simply by designating them as an "illegal combatant," we should all be engaged in a vigorous and energetic debate about who we are as a people and as human beings and exactly how we do intend to respond to the very real threat posed to this nation and to the foundations of liberal democracy posed by people capable of, and willing to, fly airplanes into buildings.

I hope this show makes you think. I hope this show makes you question the moral choices that are being made in your name and by your representatives. I hope this show angers you at times and makes you outraged at the actions that good people like Kara and Laura sometimes take. But the show is not a polemic; our aim is not to screech and demagogue these issues in search of facile answers. Good people can make bad, even horrific decisions, just as bad people can make noble, even righteous ones. Balancing civil liberties with security is a complicated, difficult gymnastic act which defies the easy, pat answers typically served up by an hour of episodic television.

If the show does have a single, consistent point of view, it is probably best summed up by something Lincoln said during his second inaugural address:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all..."

Think about that. Debate the meaning of that simple idea. For that, more than anything else, expresses this show and the politics behind it.

On a different note………

plot mechanic, just to try to see where you are coming from, what shows on television (past or present), if any, do you consider to be excellent examples of drama and whose characters break the mold of your criteria “of black and white” characters? Specifically, are there any in the sci-fi genre? Just a friendly question. I’m not trying to belittle your view of BSG, I'm just wondering what shows do you consider to be quality drama that BSG is not measuring up to. I’m really curious to find out what you really like, if anything. Obviously it’s not BSG.

[epiphany]

I find it to be a fine line whether or not Lee, in principle, honored his word. By literal definition of what he promised Tigh, I think he kept his word, but by doing what he did off duty, he broke the spirit of the agreement.

Again, I admire Lee for standing up for what he believes is right, but I disagree with what he did in this episode.

BUT...if Lee considers what was done with the attempted "coup" and Roslin's imprisonment "illegal" and thus his own imprisonment illegal then in point of fact, much like a prisoner of war of a foreign country, he'd have a duty to attempt to escape when outside the hours of his parole. Anytime Apollo wasn't on duty, there was nothing technically wrong with his planning and carrying out an escape attempt, at least in terms of his parole. Saying he'd report to his cell doesn't mean he'd either stay there. The transport back to the cell is the grey area that allowed the wiggle room.

Also you have to take into consideration when he gave his parole AND Tigh's actions AFTERWARDS. When Lee gave his parole Tigh had not declared Martial Law. When Tigh did that, that basically made Lee's parole null and void. He gave his parole as an officer in a military under a government that operated under the Articles he'd sworn allegiance too--when Tigh unilaterally declared Martial Law he broke the Articles and so Lee was no longer really under an obligation to listen to him. Whereas by the Articles, he did have an obligation to free the rightful President of the Colonies from under the imprisonment of an illegal Martial government.

Remember what Lee said in Bastille Day -- that if they were going to throw out the Articles then she wasn't the President(by those terms), Adama wasn't the Commander(by those terms) and he didn't need to listen to either of them. When Tigh declared Martial Law he basically invalidated any promise Lee made to him previously.

[plot mechanic]

Lonestar, your last post was lengthy, so it took a little more thought.

About tyllium, and dilithium, too: Can't help it, gibberish like that gives me heartburn. Perhaps the chemistry teacher perspective highlights the problem?

Every one of the points about Starbuck is true some of the time, or maybe even most of the time. But in my opinion, not all of the time. The only character who dislikes Starbuck is Tigh. And this is supposed to be so unreasonable that it shows what a jerk Tigh is! Lots of people will like and/or admire Starbuck. Just not everyone. Aggressive characters like her are much more polarizing. Some people will agree with Tigh.

And the sheer perversity of people will ensure that some people will dislike or fear Adama. The fear part strikes me first because Adama has a death glare as good or maybe even better than Janeway's. Your explanation of why (some) people would still respect, admire and love him is quite correct. But much of that would not apply to newbies. Incidentally, the behavior of the military characters suggests that there is a continuous stream of combat veterans from "small" wars leavening a larger number of rear echelon troops. This blatantly contradicts the alleged backstory in which the last war was forty years ago. Starbuck is no more a combat veteran than the least of her "nuggets."

Backstory, as far as I know it, is why I can't accept Adama's interest as "paternal," though I might believe he has deceived himself...except that Adama is written as the wisest. Zack and Starbuck fall in love at basic flight school, where she's an instructor. She passes him, he goes on to the advanced program he can't handle and he is killed. We're talking about a couple of years so far. Adama is on Galactica, while Starbuck and Zack are at some school. (If Zack was directlyunder Adama's eye at a ship-based program, Apollo was right to blame Adama!) I think Starbuck and Adama meet at the funeral! Starbuck was never in the role of daughter-in-law. This makes it hard to believe Adama ever truly saw her as just daughter.

There is the "official" version, in which Starbuck's daughter persona results as a desperate effort to connect Adama to the lost Zack, or to the difficult son, Apollo. This was jammed into some preposterous dialogue between Tigh and Roslin in that crazy episode where Starbuck survives a Columbia crash (sic!) then instantly learns to tame the Cylon raider (sic! again!) Though honestly I would think that Tigh's out-of-the-blue display of emotional sensitivity and perception was so extraordinary that it should be burned into viewers' memories. As it is, I just read it as an announcement almost direct from the writers: Adama's love for Starbuck is paternal. I think they had to resort to this clumsy (and unbelievable, for me) scene because they vaguely realized they were actually writing something else. Or maybe Edward James Olmos was bugging them.

If Zack had been the difficult son, the need for even a flimsy posthumous connection to the (female) surrogate would feel right. But, Zack was supposed to be the daddy's boy. If anything, making Starbuck the daughter is like replacing Zack. This makes no emotional sense to me. It just doesn't feel right, doesn't feel like the way real people might behave.

As far as Starbuck being something in common between Adama and Apollo, the link between Apollo and Starbuck is sexual. Unless I missed some back story? Fellow combat veterans would work if the last war wasn't forty years ago. But officially, it wasn't. That sort of contradiction is just another example of how writing contemporary people in space is not just an esthetic choice, but genuinely stupid, if inexpensive. Anyhow, since Starbuck is in a sense Zack's widow, a sexual relationship between Apollo and Starbuck I think would be felt as a slight against Zack's memory. Again, Zack is supposed to have been the good son. Again, this just doesn't feel right.

These considerations lead me to perceive Adama's feelings for Starbuck as primarily sexual. If they are also paternal, then they are also incestuous. I suppose in principle we could be seeing tragic Greek myth enacted. But not in a show written primarily for cheap thrills.

Suppose the Apollo/Starbuck/Adama triangle were in fact supposed to be father, surrogate daughter and son. They all know Starbuck isn't really the daughter, so she and Apollo can easily deny any incestuous implications. So far as Zack's memory goes, well, screwing the brother is really less insulting than taking his place. But, there's an emotional obstacle between Apollo and Adama regarding Starbuck. Might I suggest abandoning Greek myth (which the writers probably don't know anyhow,) to compare Adama/Starbuck/Zack to King David/Bathsheba/Uriah the Hittite? This would explain Apollo's resentment against the father, no?

But enough. I think I've clarified my position pretty much, which is about all discussions like this can do. Easter Lily's position that a lot of what I complain about is just point of view I suppose is technically correct. I just resent having it forced on me.

Finally done, I think?

pm

[FeloniousMonk]

I like this guy, he puts a lot of thought into his analysis.


Just one thing to point out, the whole insulting Zak's memory through the suggested sexual connection with Apollo and Starbuck isn't rare. It's not uncommon for that sort of triangle to happen in families across the nation. I've seen it happen once and there have been a multitude of shows that feature such a premise. Besides, it may also be a throwback to the biblical stories in which god supposedly decrees that a man should marry and protect his brother's widow.

[LoneStar1836]

Thank you for the reply plot mechanic.

Heh. There is another board that I read where it seems many of the posters dislike and even hate Starbuck. They think she is too much of a Mary Sue.

Yeah, I know my specific cited example of “Band of Brothers” was under a war battle setting and none of these people had ever been to war with Adama, not even Tigh, but I was trying to get at more of the point that Adama has a connection with his people. Much like how Captain Winters had with his. Winters had already garnered the respect and admiration of his men during basic and later training in England before they were ever dropped behind enemy lines on D-Day. Behind the death stare, Adama can also be a people person to a degree. He is as tough as nails when he needs to be, but he’s not a complete SOB like Capt. Sobel, the company’s first CO, who was not leadership material. The men of Easy Company were relieved that they would not have to be going in to battle with Soble. Adama is not standoffish like Sobel was. I’m sure the newbies are scared as hell of him, but I wouldn’t say the people who have come to know him and have served under his command for a period of time are. When he gets in your face, you ought to be scared no matter who you are, but I don’t think people are afraid of his leadership qualities and his ability to command effectively. (which I guess is what I initially though you were getting at – that people should be afraid of his ability to command rather than the man’s personality)

Eh, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the rest of your post, but thanks for explaining your position.

Finally done, I think?

No. You have got to answer this for me before you go. Please! I am dying to know just what shows on tv do/did you like, if any? Just one will suffice……even if you just say Jeopardy.

[Liebestraume]

So, it should be obvious why I started posting.

Color me confused, plot mechanic. Upthread you said

The point of these in depth discussions ... is to enrich the understanding.

A worthwhile goal, indeed, and something I wholehearted agree. Your recent reply to sharky seems to indicate that your commentating of BSG almost solely stemmed from political creed. Not that I have anything against political activism ... but if your perception is so steeped in a particular brand of politics, how do you plan to enrich your own understanding (of diverse perspectives)? Surely, genuine understanding is predicated upon a certain degree of open-mindedness, a willingness to challenge one's own perception?

Or perhaps you are here solely for the purpose of enriching our understanding? Well, no matter. Some of your political assessment indeed confuses me; before getting to the bottoms of them, I now realize any further discussion of characterization is an exercise in futility.

So, let's commence without further ado.

When Roslin initially refused to surrender to men with guns, she was daring her own death. When Apollo held the gun to Tigh's head, she could have simply said, "Do not fire the first shot!" As for that innocent Marine, how could he have been more innocent that the people shot down in "Resistance?" Are you implying that the protestors were not innocent?

The leap of logic here is truly astounding! What I said was an "innocent marine, whose worst possible offense was perhaps misguided loyalty to their sworn duty" -- how does that lead to the implication that the protestors were not innocent? Because they were on the opposing sides, only one of them got to be innocent? Was it not possible that they were all good but flawed people with different opinions, but each side believed they were doing the right thing? And, since this part of our discussion was specific to the incident on Colonial One, I fear your lumping in the Resistance incident was grasping straws.

Here is how I read the situation abroad Colonial One: either Roslin goes with Tigh willingly, or she makes a political grandstand and is forced to go with Tigh at gun-point. When Roslin initially refused to stand down, she was risking her own life and that of her guards/aides/groupies. When Lee pulled his gun on Tigh and the marines pulled theirs on Lee, the ones most at risks are the lives of Tigh and Lee. "Do not fire the first shot!" may be politically correct to say, but what would it accomplish? Absolutely nothing. It certain would not have absolved her from the possible bloodshed. She would have still come across as a hypocrite whose grandstand cost other people's lives.

My point is not just that Roslin failed. My point is that she surrendered. And I must insist that many movements can recover from defeats or other failures of the leaders. But nothing, nothing is more demoralizing than surrender.

Ah, but I did get your point. That's why my previous post used the phrase "failing of a single leader" -- failing, as in defect in character, conduct, or ability -- instead of failure. And I still say any movement that cannot recover -- for whatever reason -- deserves its demise.

[plot mechanic]

Lonestar, I'm sorry I forgot to check the last page for further points.

Also sorry I forgot to respond to two specific points. I've sort of seen new BSG episodes. The TV set is on while I'm reading, since I'm waiting for the SG-1 repeat. So, I see some parts that attract my attention. But I miss other parts while concentrating on the book.

I'm not going to post extensively on "The Farm" or "Home" as I haven't really seen all of them. I got the impression that BSG has reinvented mad robot rapists, which in my opinion was a dumb idea in Thirties pulp magazines. The women with their legs spread struck me as a really cheap and sleazy thrill. And I noticed that this is the episode where we get a Black Cylon! The scene where Starbuck and whozis point guns at each other in a Mexican standoff was pretty funny. Ditto the scene where Apollo and Helo are holding guns to someone's head in last night's episode. Yes, I know they were supposed to be dramatic scenes. But I think you could have a BSG drinking game, where everyone downs a shot each time one character points a gun at another. And stops drinking when they actually shoot. The statistics on that game would be interesting. By far the funniest scene was the press conference! The notion that there would be a bunch of newspapers/networks in that situation is so dumb it's comical in itself. The scenes where a reporter actually points out Adama didn't answer a question and the reporter actually asks a cutting question about Adama's lies are so insanely unlike reality it's hilarious.

As to TV shows that I consider well written, currently I watch Scrubs, CSI (but not spinoffs, which I think emphasize every weakness in the original!), ER, Numbers, The Closer. I only gave up on Everybody Loves Raymond and Frasier because they quit on me.

In genre, I watch SG-1 (though I've always viewed it as a good comedy/adventure hybrid, and no, I don't know about this serious turn,) SGA and since I accidentally caught a single good episode (at last!) The 4400. I thought Enterprise was interesting but marred by forced POV on the characters but watched until the hideous last season. I can't really insist that SGA is good. I just happen to get enough kick out of the poor man's Richard Dean Anderson that it suits my taste. And, let's face it, lots of The 4400 is just crap. But I really liked the episode that put in the new "wife."

In my view, serialized shows are an intrinsically inferior form, used solely for commercial purposes (hooking an audience.) Even the best examples, like St. Elsewhere and Homicide: Life on the Streets and Wiseguy end up destroying themselves. In some, like X-File, the serialized story was a disaster while the stand alones are excellent. So, my favorite genre offerings have really been anthology series like Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, especially the first, or the standalone Treks. The original series was my favorite, but I found Voyager, and the first two seasons of Enterprise watchable.

Data drove me away from TNG. I think Roddenberry too mechanically carried over a character from The Questor Tapes. As a serious character, Data suffered from the unmotivated desire to be "human." There was nothing else for the robot in the other series to be. But there were more options in the Trek universe, so I couldn't buy into this. The show insisted on it, I think. And that seems like an excellent example of a forced POV turning me off. A similar character, the EMH in Voyager, was essentially a comic character, so it wasn't as alienating. Even there, practically every EMH episode that took him seriously failed. In my opinion, naturally.

As to the Moore post you cite, if this was a politically motivated group, I could and would rip it to shreds. For just one tiny example of the many, many problematic things in that blog, let me remind you that Adama, at the conclusion of "Litmus," talks to the chief. Essentially, he says that he knows there's something fishy about the chief's story but, he needs his ships to fly, so the chief stays. (By the way, the notion that all those people would lie is really hard to swallow!) And of course, the outcome ensures that Boomer escapes detection! Moore's claims Adama's attempt to ensure justice against a witch hunt is flatly contradicted by the episode on screen! I really think the blog is just a bunch of BS.

Farewell,

pm

[dosed150]

is it just me or is boomer becoming like fifth before carter betrayed him shes a lot more human than the other cylons do you think in the future some of the boomers will switch their loyalty because they seem to have more in common with humans than the other cylons if anyone finds out about baltar he is so screwed he has two big secrets that make him look like a traitor him letting a cylon into fleet data and not declaring boomer as a cylon callie is really becoming quite a major character but doesnt she realise by killing boomer the chief will never want her or not even talk to her ever again i really think kobol had an effect on the people who went down there like no. 6 said there is something evil about kobol

[Ariadne]

Damn. Best episode of the season so far I think. Gah. It’s almost too hard to pick a favorite episode in this series. Though it could have done without the little Starbuck/hunky model boy pick-up Pyramid game.

*bows down* Truer words were never spoken. MY GODS, it was awesome!!! I gotta tell ya though, I like Anders. He's tough. Not the cutsie type like Apollo is, even when he tries to be totally tough and punch out Starbuck. Best type for Kara cuz he knows how to survive and he doesn't get up in Kara's face about everything because frankly he could care less.

Apollo has so many complicated traits, so much history. While they've had some great moments, e.g. the garden hose fight on Colonial Day and her calling out his name when with Baltar (I nearly died when I saw that. My eyes were 2mm from the screen).

[LoneStar1836]

BUT...if Lee considers what was done with the attempted "coup" and Roslin's imprisonment "illegal" and thus his own imprisonment illegal then in point of fact, much like a prisoner of war of a foreign country, he'd have a duty to attempt to escape when outside the hours of his parole.

True. But to me he had given his word of honor to not attempt to free Roslin in return for his release. Period. At least that is how I interpret the agreement.

Parole- a promise made with or confirmed by a pledge of one's honor; especially: the promise of a prisoner of war to fulfill stated conditions in consideration of his release

Lee should have never agreed to report for any kind of official duty then if he were truly upholding his principles. As protest, he should have refused to continue his duties as CAG, especially after martial law was officially declared in “Fragged”. I’m sure he initially carried on out of loyalty to his pilots, but once Tigh had officially declared martial law, Lee should have refused to continue to report for duty and thus give up his freedom of movement.

Also you have to take into consideration when he gave his parole AND Tigh's actions AFTERWARDS. When Lee gave his parole Tigh had not declared Martial Law. When Tigh did that, that basically made Lee's parole null and void. He gave his parole as an officer in a military under a government that operated under the Articles he'd sworn allegiance too--when Tigh unilaterally declared Martial Law he broke the Articles and so Lee was no longer really under an obligation to listen to him. Whereas by the Articles, he did have an obligation to free the rightful President of the Colonies from under the imprisonment of an illegal Martial government.

During the American Civil War there did exist a system for exchange of prisoners early on. One side or the other might have an excess of prisoners that prevented an even exchange of prisoners, but all captured prisoners were released in the exchanges, but the excess prisoners were released on parole. They agreed in principle on their word of honor to not take up arms until they had been fairly exchanged for an enemy soldier. Now these soldiers had no obligation to uphold anything the other side said because neither side recognized the legitimacy of the other one’s government in that the Union was guided by the Constitution of the United States while the Confederacy adopted the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, but apparently efforts were made to honor such parole agreements because they had given their word. (article about prisoners in the Civil War)

So in essence, I can’t let Lee off the hook that easy in regards to what it means when you agree to terms of a parole.

Course all that’s just my personal opinion. I’m not saying yours is wrong. Just trying to defend mine.