Entertainment Weekly Slams StarGate praises Galactica

[Lida]

Entertainment Weekly can praise BSG all it likes. First, it's not a "trade" rag....and second, I doubt BSG will fly, so to speak, without it's past history of having SG-1 and SGA as it's lead in. I too find it dark, and boring, despite it's excellent cast. I won't even venture to make any statements about Dr. Who, as they will most likely be misconstrued....I'll wait until I see the newest incarnation of the Doctor in action.

[Madeleine]

wow, quite a conversation.

I still think comments were meant as jabs at Stargate, simply because, earlier this year, didn't one of the producers take a blatant shot at Stargate? How else are we supposed to interpret comments such as this, with that track record?

Every now and again I wonder if I've fallen into a parallel universe with perpendicular logic. A producer of a show once alledgedly said something bad about Stargate, so an actor of the same show who wasn't quoted as criticising Stargate must have intended to criticise Stargate anyway, since, er, he acts on the show that is produced by the other fella. Is that it or is there a time warp I've left out?

but all this over inflated sense of self importance and ego from teh cast and crew is starting to wear thin. I hope they do fall on their faces this fall, if only to knock some egos down a peg or two.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that sort of opinion is one I just don't understand. If someone is an actor or crewmember (or bank clerk, gardener, architect, chef...) don't they generally do their best, out of professional pride and out of desire for career advancement and out of integrity? Most people I know, whatever their job, think they do a good job because they put the effort in and have some sort of talent in the area they work in. The FACT is that some viewers think BSG is just amazing. Is it really unexpected if the people who make it think it's pretty great? I mean, if they didn't, they'd be doing it differently in order to make it great, right? Almost by definition, TPTB of any show will think it's great.

Why the heck do people get criticised for taking joy in the thing they create? If someone makes a lovely painting and has a big big grin on their face cos they're proud and happy with what they'd done, what would you think of someone who, not liking the style of the painting, hopes that the painting doesn't sell so that the artist gets knocked down a peg?

Why do people need knocking down a peg? Who gets joy from seeing other people fail? Where's the fun in seeing other people disappointed?

IMO, if a person *isn't* proud and happy with what they produce/achieve at work, something is very wrong! Being able to be proud of your product - or having other people being truly proud of the product they're trying to flog you - is the ideal state of affairs, it means no one's getting short changed who needn't be. I think it's *nice* when other people are happy. I think "good for them." I can't see where "I hope they screw up and fall on their face," comes from.

[Chricton]

Well said

What we have here are fans venting anger any way they can. I don't blame them, but from other perspectives it can look very childish. I never understood why someone would "want" something to fail. Just because something you like is failing, and not the "competition"? I don't see the logic...

BSG "failing" won't make SG any better...

It's like having a bunch of salesmen show their fine wines. Suddenly one of the men who feels threatened by the competition (who all favor their own of course) goes around throwing the ones he thinks might be "better". He may even do this simply because they feel their product is better than his (The case of a few on this thread! Shame Shame). Is his the best now? It just doesn't make any sense. Maybe to a fool, but not to anyone thinking straight.

It portrays both insecurity and jealousy.

The Stargate cast and producers have been in situations where they have touted their own show, maybe even "against" others. I don't see the point of any of this.

[prion]

Entertainment Weekly can praise BSG all it likes. First, it's not a "trade" rag....and second, I doubt BSG will fly, so to speak, without it's past history of having SG-1 and SGA as it's lead in. I too find it dark, and boring, despite it's excellent cast. I won't even venture to make any statements about Dr. Who, as they will most likely be misconstrued....I'll wait until I see the newest incarnation of the Doctor in action.

A trade magazine, EW? Heavens no! Variety, Hollywood Reporter and Playback are trade magazines. Entertainment Weekly is a tabloid (almost). but definitely an infotainment magazine.

[Lesleyp]

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".

Ok...but still don't like BSG. Watched half of first season...and...well... I was gone. No interest in going back either. I'm glad you like it and appreciate it, but to me it's more Sci Fi cotton candy then SG (ok, so I'm talkin 1 -8).

The film sequences or method (not sure of the terminology) actually, very literally, give me a headache. I just can't seem to physically watch the type of cinematography they use without it starting to hurt my eyes.

It's more realistic for me to have "things" start here, then start on "Caprica" and evolve from there. I can relate to an earth military show that expands to Sci Fi, more then an alien Military show expanding into Sci Fi. But that's just me. Lucky you that your show gets to continue.

Let me just add that when I was a kid I did enjoy the first evolution of BSG. But that's probably cause I thought Dirk Benedict was really hot.

[Ouroboros]

Ok...but still don't like BSG. Watched half of first season...and...well... I was gone. No interest in going back either. I'm glad you like it and appreciate it, but to me it's more Sci Fi cotton candy then SG (ok, so I'm talkin 1 -8).

The film sequences or method (not sure of the terminology) actually, very literally, give me a headache. I just can't seem to physically watch the type of cinematography they use without it starting to hurt my eyes.

It's more realistic for me to have "things" start here, then start on "Caprica" and evolve from there. I can relate to an earth military show that expands to Sci Fi, more then an alien Military show expanding into Sci Fi. But that's just me. Lucky you that your show gets to continue.

You'll still have Atlantis though.

Now about BSG being more cotton candy than SG1.

Ok, the current main SG1 plotline is that 5 people representing Earth (which is engaged in interstellar war with two major alien empires at once I might add, yet miraculously not yet a barren nuclear ashwaste) are pursuing the quest for King Arthur's holy grail, which is actually a necklace created by none other than Merlin himself, to kill "evil" god like beings by means of some sort of magic we can not hope to understand. Oh and the magic necklace is protected by a dragon, a dragon which will speak to them in perfect English if past trends hold true.

The last BSG episode of S2 centered around the idea that sometimes even the sacred cow of democracy could actually be flawed. It showed us that evil and stupid men could win power that they neither deserved nor were capable of weilding properly. It asked the question of what is more important to us. Stopping this sort of thing from happening at any cost, or preserving the integrity of a democratic system and people's right to choose, even if it's badly. They also didn't spoon feed us the "correct" answer by telling us one side of the issue was clearly the evil side, and how all proponants of that side deserved to be wiped from the face of existence by square jawed real American heros.

It's really a night and day difference here.

The observations about the way it's shot are fair enough. I personally like it most of the time but I can understand how it could seem annoying as well. I find it gives the whole thing a sort of "you're really there in the thick of the action" feel like you'd get on something like Cops. There are times when I do wish they'd knock it off though, like in some of the exterior shots when I'd rather see what the hell is going on as opposed to a camera jerking around. It does hide any shortcommings in the FX pretty good though.

[Cheerful Dragon]

I haven't gone through all the backlog, so this is just my two cents.

I've only seen Stargate SG-1 up to season 8, and season 1 of Atlantis. This is because I don't have satellite or cable, so I can only watch those shows when - or if! - they're shown by a 'terrestrial' channel or one that's available on Freeview digital. I've always been an SG-1 fan and I enjoyed the single season of Atlantis that I've seen.

A while ago, Sky 3 started to show BSG. I caught a bit of one episode and gave up straight away. The shaky camerawork almost made me feel ill. (I'm suffering vertigo at the moment. ) For all I care, the stories could be the best ever, the acting could be worthy of awards, the special effects could be mind-blowing, but as long as the picture shakes like that, I'm not watching.

Maybe BSG has moved away from the special effects-driven sci-fi to be more story-driven. It does have one disadvantage, though, which SG-1 and Atlantis don't have - that series back in the '70s. I have to admit that's the first thing that came to mind when I heard they were doing new series of BSG - Cylons, naff fighter-ships, naff special effects. I'm sure a lot of people felt the same way and haven't given the new series a chance, hence poor viewing figures. Sky 3 only gets to show things long after Sky One has given up on them, or when Sky decides the show is in some way not suitable for its prime channels. I don't know whether BSG was ever shown on Sky One. I don't get that channel, so I don't check the listings for it. However, if it wasn't shown on Sky One, that in itself would tell me something about the series.

[Madeleine]

It's been on Sky One, and repeated there at least once.

[TRexx]

On one of the BSG message boards there's a discussion about the origin of Cylon humanoids, something that hasn't been addressed in the series. It's a question that examples some of the flaws in a show that's written to tap our base emotions rather than our intellect.

In real life, an understanding of how something (e.g. a foreign weapon) is created and functions can lead to insight about its particular strengths and weaknesses, and thus to effective methods of defense or attack. Intel can be more vital than ordnance.

If there were only one genius scientist available, he or she would effectively be kept under military house arrest to work for tactical advantages -- for as long as it takes to find a silver bullet. The lone scientist wouldn't be allowed to farce around in civilian conflicts (e.g. politics) or engage in soldier sorties. This is a survival matter of priority, and the protection of a precious resource. Such is the individual and collective inconvenience of wartime. Such is not the case for fruitcake scientist Baltar and his invisible tart (Number Six).

That the cracking of the bio-Cylon physiology codec hasn't been allocated and pursued as a top-priority by the scientific and military intelligence aboard Battlestar Galactica is evidence of how emotionally contrived the BSG story has been, preferring to wallow in a jarhead chaos of stupidity and weakness (versus Gene Roddenberry's play on strength with science and morality, for example).

BSG's relative success may be attributed to the way it resonates with a populace (TV audience) who've been successfully spooked by terrorist tactics. It's well understood by Hollywood that there's a spike of interest in horror and dour sci-fi entertainment during times of war or terrorist activity. BSG is a sign of the times, thus it may become dated as our social psyche heals (post 9/11).

Methinks SG-1 suffered a blow when RDA left, on several levels. Jack O'Neill's style of wise-cracking whimsy is one way that real people deal with stressful scenarios, by venting their nerves as wry levity. RDA's quirky character bluntly confronts harsh realities, ofttimes ignoring "politically correct" things, without wallowing in humorless melodrama as BSG does. O'Neill is a childlike yet competent persona with whom a confused populace can relate to while not catering to their inner demons.

SG-1 has been strongly and smartly character-driven, but, without the O'Neill blade it can feel more like the softcore sci-fi that's too tame or escapist for viewers who prefer a bit of an edge on their entertainment.

IMO.

__________________
SG-1: The Ultimate Visual Guide

[Lesleyp]

You'll still have Atlantis though.

Now about BSG being more cotton candy than SG1.

Ok, the current main SG1 plotline

I did say 1-8. Didn't enjoy 9 so much and you need to put 10 in spoilers. Not starting here in Canada until November (really..a friendly suggestion before the mods grab ya. I personally have already heard about that though and announced my "EEK...oh god, no. Crap!" on another thread.

The observations about the way it's shot are fair enough. I personally like it most of the time but I can understand how it could seem annoying as well. I find it gives the whole thing a sort of "you're really there in the thick of the action" feel like you'd get on something like Cops. There are times when I do wish they'd knock it off though, like in some of the exterior shots when I'd rather see what the hell is going on as opposed to a camera jerking around. It does hide any shortcommings in the FX pretty good though.

Ya, can't watch cops either. At least not for long. The running scenes seriously make me naseus...more than running myself. It's all in the visual which is probably why I can't stay long enough to get into the story. Still Dirk Benedict was really hot- and replacing the character as well, not as hot as Dirk (from my perspective) was a little off putting

For the younger set: Dirk Benedict was the actor that played Starbuck. The character started off as a guy...a rather roguish one at that.

[Lesleyp]

BSG's relative success may be attributed to the way it resonates with a populace (TV audience) who've been successfully spooked by terrorist tactics. It's well understood by Hollywood that there's a spike of interest in horror and dour sci-fi entertainment during times of war or terrorist activity. BSG is a sign of the times, thus it may become dated as our social psyche heals (post 9/11).

Methinks SG-1 suffered a blow when RDA left, on several levels. Jack O'Neill's style of wise-cracking whimsy is one way that real people deal with stressful scenarios, by venting their nerves as wry levity. RDA's quirky character bluntly confronted harsh realities, ofttimes ignoring "politically correct" things, without wallowing in humorless melodrama as BSG does. O'Neill is a childlike yet competent persona with whom a confused populace can relate to while not catering to their inner demons.

SG-1 has been strongly and smartly character-driven, but, without the O'Neill blade it can feel more like the softcore sci-fi that's too tame or escapist for viewers who prefer a bit of an edge on their entertainment.

IMO.

Awesome post in my opinion. On oh so many levels. Gotta green ya for that.
Couldn't agree with you more on the Sg1 suffering. The Jack O'Neill character is who I could relate to, despite being a SWF. Your take "childlike yet competent persona with whom a confused populace can relate to while not catering to their inner demons." hits it right on the head.

Ok, gotta go skipping now....

[Ancient 1]

Personally I don't think BSG will do all that well without its lead-in shows, aka SG-1 & Atlantis as I was never a big fan of the show, but kept giving it a chance because there wasn't much to choose from at 10 PM on the east coast. And when I was away on Fridays I was sure to record the 2 "prior" shows (no pun intended) but BSG I could take or leave; usually left.

[Freekzilla]

That is a good post. A very good analysis of the SG-1 world. And I agree that the darker aspect of BSG helps it. Long ago, SG-1 was darker and not so light. That is also one of my complaints about SGA. But don't get me wrong, I love both gate shows a LOT. And I like BSG too, just no where near as much as the gates. BSG does tend to be a little too dark and melodramatic most of the time. I still think the aritcle in Entertainment Weekly was in poor taste and clearly a biased article. Someone said that BSG people payed for the aritcle, and if that's true, then I am even more disgusted. [mod snip]

[Chricton]

LOL, "BSG people payed for the article"....

riiiight....

[Giantevilhead]

BSG is a good show. It's actually keeping true to the shades of grey morality. In many cases when writers boast that their books/movies/tv shows have no morale absolutes, it's an excuse for the "good guys" to do bad things. There still are moral absolutes; the "good guys" are simply excluded from it while the bad guys are still pure evil. With BSG, there actually are shades of grey for both the humans and the Cylons.

However, BSG is not as dark as the fans and writers like to suggest. It's simply the power of the situation and how visceral the show is. Look at suicide bombers, people get mixed feelings about suicide bombers. Some think that they’re fanatical and insane. Others think that they’re very brave and courageous. In reality, a suicide bomber is not that different than a soldier who fires Tomahawk missiles at the enemy from 20 miles away. Suicide bombers don’t want to be suicide bombers; they’re simply using what tools they have. If suicide bombers had long range rockets, aircraft carriers, and artillery, they would be using those instead of blowing themselves up. A suicide bombing looks more horrific because you’re up close and there’s an element of sacrifice and fanaticism. However, the missile strike is likely to have killed a lot more people but we’re not upset because we’re looking at it from 10 miles away, we don’t actually see the eviscerated bodies and the grief stricken mourners. That’s what sets BSG apart from other sci-fi shows. They blew up entire planets in Star Wars and Stargate. Star Trek: DS9 had a war that killed billions people. Way more people died in SW, SG, and ST than BSG. Yet, SW, SG, and ST aren’t as “dark” as BSG. That’s because watching SW, SG, and ST is like looking at missile strikes from the battle cruiser and watching BSG is like looking at a suicide bombing.