Entertainment Weekly Slams StarGate praises Galactica

[Sasusc]

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.

I haven't given up BSG, but I'm very confuse watching it. One episode this is happening, next something different and it doesn't explain or anything with what was previous on. It jumps around too much. I keep watching it in hopes of me understanding what is actually going on. But then again, I only watched BSG because it was on after Stargate. I don't know if I'll be making sure I have my VCR set to tape the new episodes while I'm away.

[Stef]

Yeah, I get EW and I was disappointed by that comment. I mean, "Farscape" was praised by the critics, if I recall correctly and "Stargate" has gotten pretty decent reviews (maybe not Atlantis....). So to just completely diss those shows was pretty weak on the writers part. I hate how some people feel like they have to establish the quality/difference of BSG by putting down other shows in the genre. All of the shows have COMPLETELY different approaches to sci-fi. It's like comparing "24" to "Lost" to "Grey's Anatomy"...they're all dramas but I wouldn't say that they have much in common. They all have their own strengths. I would have been fine if the writer hadn't felt the need to add "inferior" or imply that BSG suffers from the poor quality of those shows. And last time I checked, there weren't that many sci-fi shows. If the guy was going to go back all the way to "Farscape" why didn't he just bring up "Lexx" while he was at it.

-Stef

[Freekzilla]

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.

You conveniently extracted those quotes to make the entire article look more anti-stargate as possible. I read the article, and it wasn't nearly as bad as you make it sound. The only real insults to Stargate are the article writers slam on the other science fiction shows, and the negative comment by the Callis, (Baltar) person. It just goes to show that Callis is just like his character, a fraking idiot. You know what, so what if they got one (1) Peabody award. SG-1 has a LOT of Saturn awards and other ones as well. BSG is not a bad show, but it still does not entertain me like the gates do, both of them. You won't find me upset if I miss a BSG episode, but if I miss 1 SG-1 or SGA episode, grab the closest tissue box, I'm gonna need it. I don't tell people not to call me or come to my place while BSG is on. But if SG-1 or SGA is on, leave me the frak alone until it is over.

I am however, a little bit irked by Baltar's comments. You know what, I'm gonna not watch BSG live anymore. If the show tanks on it's own, maybe it'll show that it's success was partly because of it's lead in series, SG-1 and SGA. And if you see Callis (Baltar), kick him in the shins for me and say "Don't Diss Stargate".

The one thing it does confirm however, is that Skiffy is not really interested in scifi anymore. They want dramas. That being the case, they should change their name, because their moving away from being a science fiction channel.

[Blue Banrigh]

The only real insults to Stargate are the article writers slam on the other science fiction shows, and the negative comment by the Callis, (Baltar) person. It just goes to show that Callis is just like his character, a fraking idiot.

Like what Orion's Star said before, I don't think that comment by Callis was meant to be insulting. I read it as an actor he got people who are ignorant of scifi just muddling all the 'star' shows together and thinking he was the star of Atlantis.

I mean how many times as a Stargate fan have you had to explain that Stargate was the one with the giant metal ring and no, it wasn't the with Kirk or Spock and nor was there ever a hairy wookie on the show.

[ShadowMaat]

People are looking for excuses to bash SCIFI and attack any show that isn't their precious Stargate- even if they have to take things out of context and fabricate misinformation. Pointing out the truth to them will only get you ignored. Or possibly added to the attack lists of Stargate's self-appointed defenders.

I read the full article. It was good stuff. The "inferior" comment was, as has been pointed out, a comment from the article writer and Callis's comment about "No, we're not Stargate" is no more an attack against the show than Shanks saying, "No, we're not Star Trek" would be an attack against Trek.

If anything, it speaks for Stargate's popularity because people see that as the model/icon for the current genre. Well, when they're not still thinking of Trek, anyway.

[BC - 303]

let us burn down there cities with our mighty Hataks!
Stargate is the best, before the cancelation it was still snowballing into bigger and bigger things,
As soon as SG-1 stops on Sci-Fi, we need to all boycot it.

[MediaSavant]

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".

Ouroboros, well written and I agree with it 100%. The stigma exists and shows like Stargate contribute to the stigma.

Spoiler:

Look at the last episode with its goofy-looking dragon. Would BSG ever have such a thing? No.

Some of us can enjoy shows like the Stargates for what they are--escapist fun--but I do wish science fiction can be something more and seen as something more. Before there was science fiction TV, there was science fiction literature and science fiction literature is very diverse, ranging from space opera(which doesn't have a good reputation in literary circles) to serious, thoughful literature with nary a spaceship in sight, but that explores the human condition. Why can't science fiction TV have that too? Battlestar Galactica is that "something more" and it's treading new ground. I love it for that.

[Alipeeps]

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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

I'd just like to point out here that "serious actress" Michelle Forbes' first major role, the role which boosted her career and made her a recognisable face, was in a science fiction show - namely Star Trek: The Next Generation.... Ro Laren anyone?

[gatebee]

Ladies and Gents .... PTB of BSG paid EW to do a positive spin on BSG. It is what you call advertising.

[The Ori]

I like BSG, but Stargate is the best by a mile!! I hate Sci-Fi, and if it is true that in the contract it said that MGM can not sell the rights to another network in the US, then that is unfortunate, but I so hope to god that maybe another network in maybe another country buys the right e.g. in Canada or even Sky, so it can go on!!

[Major Gambit]

galactica is an ok show, but the plots are no where near as deep as Stargate plots. The characters arnt as interesting and neither are their relationships. Main characters have sex with each other for no reason (odd eh?). And it isnt built around as good of a plot.

[Gategal36]

"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.''

Well, isn't he a bit cranky and verbose. I actually think James Callis is a talented actor, as is the rest of the BG cast, but it wasn't long ago that he was best known as one of Bridget Jones' best friends, and for a minor role in the truly astounding teleflick "Jason and the Argonauts." (insert sarcasm here)

While I would agree that the scifi genre has suffered from some poorly conceived and/or executed shows, I don't think Farscape and Stargate belong in this category. Overall, the writing, acting, and production values were/are surprisingly high given time and budget constraints, etc.

Lastly, Callis should know that fame is fleeting; one minute you have the luxury of bashing another show in Entertainment Weekly, the next you're desperate to sell superlative convection ovens on QVC with former cast members of The Love Boat.

[jazz!]

LOL; that quote was taken a little out-of-context and spun! (which has already been said)

Yep, it does seem to be the opinion of the writer; however what Callis says does seem a little distasteful - within the context of the article.

Tho I probably misinterpreted since, I doubt an actor playing a leading role
(I think its a leading role? (only just started watching BSG - as theres zilcho on TV atm. I'm enjoying it sofar...))
would want to come out and say something that is vulgar and rude about such an established TV show, especially it being on the same network.

...
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".

...

Interesting analogy; however it almost seems to show good a degree of negativity towards Stargate.
And, for me, a little ambiguity (like that ET article ).

You've depicted 2 quite obvious models/ways in which a TV programme, Dramas, can be portrayed. Both of which are have their benefits.

At the time Stargate came out the serious, BSG-type, very un-cotton candy-like sci-fi already existed, which I seldom watched eg: Babylon 5, Earth Final Conflict, Star Trek (there were tons, but those are few that I can vaguely recollect being of that type).
Stargate broke the mold - it was inginuitive then; and still is now.

And also, Stargate does leave me full.... but I'm always wanting seconds!
We're lucky that different flavous of Sci-fi exist to satifiy all our tastes.

While I would agree that the scifi genre has suffered from some poorly conceived and/or executed shows, I don't think Farscape and Stargate belong in this category. Overall, the writing, acting, and production values were/are surprisingly high given time and budget constraints, etc.
.

Ditto!

Ladies and Gents .... PTB of BSG paid EW to do a positive spin on BSG. It is what you call advertising.

Yeah, ET did seem to positvely spin BSG for tptb, at the expense of tainting Stargate with a crusty, dry, mouldy brush.

[SGAFan]

I find Olmos' comments very interesting. Its true "well known" actors stay away from scifi as a general rule, but Stargate has had its fair share of "good/well known/serious" actors (whatever qualifies that, I really have no clue...) too, not the least of which is Beau Bridges.

So much for the inferior show. I've never liked BSG anyway, I think its rediculously over dramatic; you watch a show and see they're trying to add a "shock" value, or trying to be dramatic (or over dramatic) instead of letting the storyline evolve to that naturally. Personally, I think its all over the top and frankly they're not as good as they think they are, but that's just my opinion.

But, regardless of my opinions of the show, I think it shows extrodinarily bad taste for the producers and actors of BSG to turn around and trash Stargate (or any other show) really, for no reason other than to take a pock shot. It shows a disappointing lack of personal integrity and character, and I really don't think will help them the way they think it will.

When BSG has been around for 10 years, has a successful spin off series, and a large and very lucrative franchise, then they might have the right to lob cheap shots at Stargate... maybe.

Until then, they need to shut up.

I really REALLY hope they fall on their collective, ego driven faces this fall. They deserve to.

[SoulReaver]

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:

The Ori will pass themselves off as the Lords sof Kobol so they won't have much trouble there I guess

The replicators will deem the battlestars & basestars too primitive to be worth assimilating, they'll just leave :|

(and if they really do wanna have the cylons for lunch that's fine by me as long as they spare #6, I'll take this one for lunch, and breakfast & dinner & midnight snack -)



Anyhow both are great shows, and although I do prefer SG (better tech, FX, alien variety, plus I've have "known" the cast for much longer) I eagerly await both every week