Resistance (204)

[plot mechanic]

Jonisa, Easter Lily and kiwigater, among other remarks, don't seem to regard BSG as making claims to realism, in the usual sense of the word at any rate. How much that takes you out of your viewing pleasure is pretty much a matter of taste. No one seems determined to argue that the plotting is perfect. There merely seems to be a disagreement about how much of a flaw lapses in plot logic would be.

This is somewhat disconcerting. I devoted much space in a lengthy analysis to this because much of the buzz (to use the showbiz catchphrase) about this show does in fact make such claims. The impression that BSG honestly reflects the contemporary world, is absurd, with quite unpleasant implications. More than anything else, it's what turns BSG from just another show I don't like (and would just ignore) to something offensive that I feel should be refuted. Yet to read these responses, it seems that the fans are not drawing some of the same conclusions? Am I, to a certain extent, preaching against sin to the choir?

Well, sort of. Though it seems that most fans here do not confuse BSG with a profound commentary on current events, they do most certainly disagree with my contention that the characters are written as black and white. If I liked some of the characters I would rather play fill-in-the-plot-hole. If BSG weren't were so solemn/pompous, Ellen Tigh would be a glorious hoot. And Baltar would be a brilliant updating of Dr. Zachary Smith!

I am well aware that the characters have flaws. Starbuck's flaws are so multitudinous that she can tell whozis on Caprica that, basically, the end of humanity hasn't really changed anything for her! (Think back to that scene...that is what she is saying!) Yet, in addition to her universally acknowledged heroism, she is the worthy object of both Apollo's and Adama's love! Tigh's dislike for her is supposed to be the main indicator that he is a flawed character! I think that someone as neurotic as Starbuck would not be so universally loved. Yet the character is written that way. And that is one of the things I mean when I say characters are written black and white.

A similar example of a white character is the chief. Humanity is supposedly destroyed, the only resort is flight and this guy breaks off with his girfriend because some brass gives him an order? Is he thinking he'll get another girl friend next shore leave? Yet, the chief is written as one of the most empathetic characters. 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.

For a last example, look at Baltar. Skip over the bizarre contradictions in the storyline about whether Six is real or a psychogenic hallucination or a microchip hallucination. According to the mini, he did not intentionally betray humanity to the Cylons. He betrayed industrial secrets to a lover, for sex or money or both. Not the same thing. Since, he is both tantalized and tormented by Six. There is never a shred of pathos written for him in this situation (well, not in the episodes I've seen.) Losing your mind is not a sad thing? Maybe the series is waltzing around with some notion that bad people and crazy people are pretty much the same thing?

That should be enough on that topic.

Liebestraume's posts will require some thought, if you please.

pm

[Liebestraume]

... I devoted much space in a lengthy analysis to this because much of the buzz (to use the showbiz catchphrase) about this show does in fact make such claims. The impression that BSG honestly reflects the contemporary world, is absurd, with quite unpleasant implications. More than anything else, it's what turns BSG from just another show I don't like (and would just ignore) to something offensive that I feel should be refuted. ...

Am I reading it correctly that your "beef" is in fact less with the show itself but more with its reception by the so-called critics? If so, then your ire would appear to be mis-directed.

Notwithstanding hoards of "Reality TV," it is indeed absurd to expect any show accurately reflecting the contemporary world or portraying "positive role models" as some would contend in certain threads -- the primary function of television is (or should be) to entertain. When BSG seeks not to provide answers to the "weighty" issues but leaves its viewers to reach their own conclusion, it entertains on the cerebral level as well as on the visceral.

As for the critics calling BSG "profound commentary on current events," perhaps they are just using it as an excuse to push their own agenda. Or, better yet, they may just need some catch phrases to fill the space of their column. In any case, their opinions are no more (or less) valid than anyone else's; it's puzzling why anyone would ever let them dictate how he/she watches a show.

[Easter Lily]

This is somewhat disconcerting. I devoted much space in a lengthy analysis to this because much of the buzz (to use the showbiz catchphrase) about this show does in fact make such claims. The impression that BSG honestly reflects the contemporary world, is absurd, with quite unpleasant implications. More than anything else, it's what turns BSG from just another show I don't like (and would just ignore) to something offensive that I feel should be refuted. Yet to read these responses, it seems that the fans are not drawing some of the same conclusions? Am I, to a certain extent, preaching against sin to the choir?

Well, I don't live in US and my impetus for watching BSG has nothing to do with the "buzz" or the "hype" or any extraneous media influence... I grew up watching the old series and was initially quite reluctant to watch this one because of the changes that I'd heard about. But people on this forum, whose opinions I know and respect told me how much they liked it so I began to come round to the idea And of course, watching Jamie Bamber in the Hornblower movies was the final push, as it were.
I'm an old scifi fan from when I was 7... so my interest in BSG is largely along those lines. I don't watch much television and when I do I'm very selective. I like a bit of crime and scifi and have been known to stop watching shows when they degenerate into soapfests. But I love scifi because more than any other genre, it stretches the human imagination and demonstrates creativity in storytelling.
As far as I'm concerned there is always an element of television that is a commentary on contemporary events. That can be said of anything from The West Wing to The Simpsons. While that is true, it does not mean that everything about those shows reflect what happens to every single person on the planet. That would be impossible, of course. Our individual experience of life is just that... individual... This is also afterall, television, as Liebestraume has said. The whole point of the medium is to entertain. It is unashamedly escapist and it is a product to be sold and consumed. I don't think anyone who watches BSG avidly would be naive enough to think otherwise.

I have fond memories of our honeymoon... it was probably the best five days we've ever enjoyed together. We were pampered, entertained and extremely well-fed. It was, as the company who organized it was called,... a great escape. Once the five days were up, we had to leave... there was nothing normal about it but it was packaged with certain everyday realities like transportation, meals and a bedroom. It wasn't meant to replace real life... but it gave us a breather from real life and a rare opportunity to enjoy a little bit of luxury.

I am well aware that the characters have flaws. Starbuck's flaws are so multitudinous that she can tell whozis on Caprica that, basically, the end of humanity hasn't really changed anything for her! (Think back to that scene...that is what she is saying!) Yet, in addition to her universally acknowledged heroism, she is the worthy object of both Apollo's and Adama's love! Tigh's dislike for her is supposed to be the main indicator that he is a flawed character! I think that someone as neurotic as Starbuck would not be so universally loved. Yet the character is written that way. And that is one of the things I mean when I say characters are written black and white.

Well, that's purely speculation on your part and finally an opinon... unless of course, you've done a survey on all the neurotic people in the world and their families and can prove for a fact that someone like Starbuck would be so disliked. I'm not even sure I agree with your definition of neurotic either... It is one thing to say that "I dislike Starbuck because she's XYZ" but it's another to assume that 6 billion other people on the planet ought to share your sentiments.

I'm also some what confused by your definition of "black and white". When I use the term "black" and "white"... I mean cut and dried... a clear delineation between what is good and what is bad or "right" or "wrong". What you seem to be talking about are archetypes... but even then, I'm not sure I agree with that either.

I also wonder that perhaps you have a rather rose-coloured view of what heroes are. I think of what one character in Firefly says to another, "Every person who has had a statue of him put up was one kind of a son of a b**** or another". Heroes are people too... they may do heroic acts and save lives but it doesn't mean that their motives are always pure or they always do the right things either.

A similar example of a white character is the chief. Humanity is supposedly destroyed, the only resort is flight and this guy breaks off with his girfriend because some brass gives him an order? Is he thinking he'll get another girl friend next shore leave? Yet, the chief is written as one of the most empathetic characters. 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'm supremely confused by the point that you're trying to make here. Isn't the fact that it was a foolhardy, dangerous attempt to subdue the enemy an important enough point in itself? Tyrol was pointing out the suicidal nature of it... and considering the fact that out of the five of them, only 2 of them were really proficient with firearms. Crash was unrealistic... he didn't account for the level of people's fear and didn't even try to deal with it. He didn't exactly inspire confidence. He was also being illogical by saying that they owed it to those recently dead to strike but didn't explain why. But at the end of the day, Tyrol still supported Crash as the ranking military officer in spite of his misgivings and got everyone else to do the same.
What you're talking about here is not just characterization, but expressing a point of view. From your point of view, you saw something... others see it differently. I don't see Crash any less sympathetically than Tyrol. I am sorry for Crash because he wasn't cut out for command and under pressure, he cracked. He wasn't exactly evil incarnate... but he made the choices that he did based on his experiences. We've seen Tyrol blunder his way in his relationship with Boomer but here we see why his people respect him. I don't think it is that black and white...

For a last example, look at Baltar. Skip over the bizarre contradictions in the storyline about whether Six is real or a psychogenic hallucination or a microchip hallucination. According to the mini, he did not intentionally betray humanity to the Cylons. He betrayed industrial secrets to a lover, for sex or money or both. Not the same thing. Since, he is both tantalized and tormented by Six. There is never a shred of pathos written for him in this situation (well, not in the episodes I've seen.) Losing your mind is not a sad thing? Maybe the series is waltzing around with some notion that bad people and crazy people are pretty much the same thing?

I haven't particularly found Baltar all that interesting until at the end of Fragged where he realises the enormity of what he's done. Six tells him that "I'm so proud of you Gaius"
"Why, because I've taken a life?"
"Because that makes you human"
"Is it? Not conscious thought, poetry, art, music, literature... Murder..."

I thought that that was a moment dripping with pathos...

[plot mechanic]

Liebestraume, please forgive the delay.

The suggestion that Gaeta was less than honest is wonderfully acute. Strictly speaking, Tigh should already know the Galactica's tracking abilities but still...good save!

Adama began the violence, when he sent gunmen to seize Roslin. Bloodshed while resisting this violence therefore could not have started anything fundamentally different. Although Roslin still would have ended up in the brig, the democratic cause would not have been demoralized. Which it would have been, because nothing is as demoralizing as surrendering without a fight. There have been many causes that came back from even a onsided defeat. Offhand, I can't think of any that come back after chickening out. The real political question is, who organized the fleet boycott? Whoever did that is the real leader now, not Roslin. (Zarek, maybe?) Roslin coming out of the closet as the dying leader, if anything, should be portrayed more as an effort to regain the leadership position she had thrown away.

As to the relevance of her gender, that is just a suggestion. But, suppose Roslin had acted like Adama, demanded his resignation, then upon Adama's refusal sent two of those previously detached Marines to arrest him. Adama, fearing bloodshed that threatens the fleet, surrenders and is transported to a makeshift brig on Colonial One. Do you think it would be so easily assumed that Adama was correct to do this? Incidentally, the easy way people enter or leave spaceships implies that doors don't have locks. Yeah, right.

There "is" a reference to tyllium refining in the episode. Despite this, the fact is that there is no tyllium. This is a simple deduction from elementary chemistry. Accepting that premise means willfully overlooking nonsense. On the other hand, there is antimatter. Trek never quite explains (in all those years!) where the antimatter comes from. While accepting that there's some handwaving "explanation" of how it's economically produced may be generous, it's not deliberately ignoring outright impossibility. Your rationale about stocks of food is good. And don't forget that they supposedly loaded up at the crazy whirlpool place too. Nonetheless, they can't recycle food, unlike air or water. They can't grow new food. They surely can't have an indefinite supply of food. They don't have the equipment, like seed, to start a new colony. Which means, there is a time limit on the fleet's existence. After that, they die.

The hope that "Earth" is one of the times when scripture is history, instead of myth, may be a feeble straw. But it's their only hope. Not only does Adama have no plan, he doesn't act like he understands the situation! Yet, he is written as the wise Old Man, smarter and deeper than everyone. (Another example of black and white characterization. If he wasn't written that way, his coup would perceived as a dramatic overreaction to the seduction of his great love, Starbuck.) The Adama/Starbuck/Apollo triangle is intact. Tigh has Ellen. (I must admit that in a comedy or soap Ellen would be a delightful villain.)The chief threw away his girlfriend, but that was his choice. And Roslin's dying anyhow, so whatever she's lost was going anyhow. I don't know if Helo is really a main character, but certainly he wasn't heading for home to see if by some miracle someone he loved survived. Other military personnel sleep their regular bunks, and get up to do their regular jobs. The reality of the holocaust of humanity is simply not present. It's simply talked about, as a justification for some of the meanness (an unfortunate parallel with reality that does hold up, I'm afraid.) The civilian population is just not shown!

The characters are supposed to motivated by a dire situation threatening not just personal survival, but the very existence of humanity. Yet that "reality" according to the show's own premises just isn't on screeen. What's up? I hope at least people can see how that perception rather puts one off BSG. As I see it, generally, the show is not staying true to its premises.

As to the survivors on Caprica, that weird harsh yellow light is supposed to show the radiation! It makes no sense, but, still. BSG's wacky radiation meds bother me not just because they're hard to swallow. Their existence contradicts the inability to prevent or treat cancer. That's a very specific example of not staying true to the premises.

As a medical man, Cottle's endorsement of Roslin says she's mentally competent. But the withdrawal scenes contradicted this. I still say this is thickheaded. I thought Dualla alternated between barking at Billy, as in the mini, and jumping him. Seemed erratic to me. Actually, an erratic character is no problem. There are some flighty people about. The thing about Billy is that he didn't wait until the point of no return! Roslin's escape was the point of no return. Hanging around to be interrogated about Roslin's whereabouts and plans is just stupid. It is now official: Billy is a pinhead.

I don't think the whole interrogation sequence should be taken at its face value, simply because doing so makes absolutely no sense.... He wanted to know if cylons experiencing genuine emotions, how deep those emotions could run, and –- most importantly –- how to use it to his own advantage. I saw the whole scene as mostly about Baltar and how far along he'd come along since Kobol. And I thought it was well done.

Our biggest difference here is that I really, truly believe that BSG is so badly written that the scene is in fact senseless. I'm afraid you're grasping for straws trying to find a different motive for him. Since Boomer only had to spout a number, he found out nothing about the intensity of Cylon emotions. And I have no clue how any of this could be to his advantage, except if the information is somehow true. The scene is supposed to show the new, manly Baltar finding out this valuable piece of informationby any means necessary. And he does so to refurbish his reputation. Personally, I find the idea that shooting a man in the back will suddenly turn Baltar into a man both silly and nasty. Obviously other people feel differently. I find the idea that he got valid information absurd for the reasons I already listed. Your objection that Baltar is properly confident that he can sidestep any problems from his admission to the chief that the test worked may be right.

The Mr. Rogers impression had no intended implications about viewers. I'm not sure how I can explain the visual references. They are visual, after all. Believe me: Separate shots of guns firing and people falling in the relatively close quarters makes no visual sense, except to whitewash the soldiers. I must say that here is a real question of outright dishonesty, not just incompetence, on the part of the producers.

Similarly, believe me: The Boomer shooting scene itself was a blatant reference to Oswald/Ruby. Reading it as a hint that Cowardly may be a Cylon relies on equating Boomer with Oswald-as-patsy-silenced-by-conspirator and Cowardly with Ruby-as-hired-hitman-taking-a-fall. There's no doubt about Boomer's guilt. And the episode shows Cowardly's motives, which are pretty explicable.

The pretense at real emotion relies on stealing a famous scene. The vague presentiment of signifance is pretentious. (And "pretention" is not a word splitting the difference between pretense and pretentious! The cat walked over the keyboard! Really! )

As for the bookending drops of blood:

It merely made me think about them -- but that's enough for me.

The thing is that some of these characters should notice that the human form Cylons look and act like people, and therefore may be people of a sort. The one or two occasions that this happens, a star shuts them up. In what should be an infamous scene, Starbuck corrects Helo about his stupid misunderstanding of the experience of weeks of contact in what, three minutes of dialogue? This question in my opinion is not just one for ironic hints, but one to actually dramatize.

I remember a quote from David Eick that the series was supposed to make you wonder whether you're rooting for the right side. I suppose he's thinking about Adama/Roslin. And I fear he's thinking people would be wrong to root for Roslin/democracy. But there's nothing to suggest the Cylons have any right to their side.

There are a few vague references to human failings. I'm sorry, but without any content this is just some angsty tripe. At most it's some sort of presumption of original sin. This may be sound conservative ideology but conveniently leaves everything unchanged. The idea sheds no light, despite the high honor in which it's held. Now, if the series said that the Cylons were actually programmed by humans to exterminate one of the Colonies, then the Cylons simply extended it to all humans for the simple reason that there is no difference...now, that would carry some impact. Of course, that's just one example.

As is, I don't feel that BSG honestly confronts anything dark. It's just mean. And I don't care for it.

Thanks for the careful and courteous consideration. I don't know if I'll watch the revolution continued. Political ideas expressed in commercial TV are a personal interest, but BSG is a hard slog. May you all enjoy.

pm

[sharky277]

Honestly, who do you think you are? Some mesiah here to deliver us from the evil that is BSG? If you don't like it don't watch it and don't post here about how much you don't like it and that there's nothing good about it at all. If your trying to impress us with your impression knowledge of plots and so on, please don't. And if we wanted it to mirror reality exactly, we would watch reality TV. We watch the show to enjoy it and think about its characters and what makes it so good compared to other shows. And other people who do say bad things about the show, usually find enough good things to keep watching and enjoy it. You however just berate everthing in the show. We like the show, and nothing you will say will ever divert us from that fact. Period.

[LoneStar1836]

There "is" a reference to tyllium refining in the episode. Despite this, the fact is that there is no tyllium. This is a simple deduction from elementary chemistry. Accepting that premise means willfully overlooking nonsense.

Boy, now that is a nitpick. Man oh man. That is some difficult “nonsense” to overlook. You just totally ruined my enjoyment of the show. Hmmm…..I can’t seem to recall the episode in which Baltar gave us the lowdown on the exact chemistry behind tillium ore so I guess it can’t exist then. Thanks for pointing that out.

Plot mechanic, why torture yourself by watching the show? Save yourself the frustration and turn the channel when BSG comes on. Though I think you have finally talked yourself into doing just that.


Sharky, calm down. If plot mechanic of anyone else wants to watch the show and rip it apart, I don’t have any problem with that. They are the ones having to suffer through the show, not me. Let’s don’t start telling people that they can only post certain opinions, and if they don’t match yours or mine, then they should leave and not post. If plot mechanic or anyone else wants to harshly criticize BSG, just ignore his/her posts if they upset you.

[Liebestraume]

As I see it, generally, the show is not staying true to its premises.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but, again, I strongly disagree.

I'll grant you the civilian population has not got much screen time -- a point I've already made in a different context in a prior post. However, this show is not called Apocalypse Now or some such -- it is called Battlestar Galactica for a reason. Making a sweeping generalization of it not staying true to its premises simply based on the lack of civilian presence is indeed grasping for straws. And, on a lighter side, I am not so sure I want to see more civilian presence on screen, if the general appearence of the 12 Quroum members is anything to go by .

Your objection to "tyllium" -- in connection with the Trek reference -- seems inconsistent. For at least two reasons. First of all, do you know that petroleum actually exists in crystalline form even on this very earth? The only reason we don't hear much about it is because the refining technology is prohibitively expensive in comparison to that of the liquid form. So, something akin to "tyllium" does exist; it's just known by a different name in our universe. And, secondly, since you are into details, I'd like to point out that srtickly speaking antimatter is not fuel even in the Trek universe. Trek actually uses something called dilithium (and trilithium) as fuel; now, does that exist?

As for "weird harsh yellow light is supposed to show the radiation" -- again, "supposed to" according to whom? The radioactive ray that a nuclear fission process releases is, according to physics, beyond visual range. A logical explanation for the "weird harsh yellow light" would have been light refraction by the unusal amount of dust and debris, and perhaps the general lack of greenery, brought on by the aerial and/or ground assult. The color has nothing to do with radiation.

Now that we have (most of) the petty details out of the way, let's look at the characterization. First up, Adama.

(Another example of black and white characterization. If he wasn't written that way, his coup would perceived as a dramatic overreaction to the seduction of his great love, Starbuck.)

Funny you said that, for I've been saying -- ever since KLG aired here in the states -- that his paternal love for Kara is what impaired his better judgment, and that it could be traced all the way back to YCGHA. When emotions are not involved, he has been shown to be a very rationale thinker. So, not so black-and-white, eh?

And I have no clue how any of this could be to [Baltar's] advantage, except if the information is somehow true.

The part of my post you didn't quote said the verity of that information was IMHO irrelevant. You and I agree that Baltar is a self-serving man; the fleet might want to know how many cylon agents were out there, but not Baltar. He was just looking for an angle to give himself an upper hand against cylons, who had appeared pretty invincible up till this point. Seems pretty in-character there.

I'll skip over discussion of minor characters in favor of low word-count . Now on to the weightier stuff. Here we believe we have a genuine difference in opinion.

Take, for example, the "what makes us human" issue. I actually like how the show only alludes to, or gently touches upon, it every once in a while. Heavy-handed dramatization would surely turn me off, because -- generally speaking -- I detest shows that espousing a certain POV or pushing an agenda. Open-minded I may be, but not so much so as to not being able to make up my own mind. If, after much delibration, a view still comes to the conclusion that we are "us" and they are "them," it should be ok.

And the same thing goes for the Adama/Roslin conflict. Personally I don't believe there is a "right" side so my understanding of David Eick's comment emphasizes on the word "wonder" -- the process of coming to my own conclcusions is a reward in itself. I suppose "political ideas expressed in commercial TV" are just not my cup of tea. Even in the hay days of West Wing, I had a higher appreciation for its sharp wit than for any of the political babble.

That being said, I disgree with your assessment of political situation aboard Colonial One.

Adama began the violence, when he sent gunmen to seize Roslin. Bloodshed while resisting this violence therefore could not have started anything fundamentally different. Although Roslin still would have ended up in the brig, the democratic cause would not have been demoralized. Which it would have been, because nothing is as demoralizing as surrendering without a fight. There have been many causes that came back from even a onsided defeat. Offhand, I can't think of any that come back after chickening out.

I highlight the part about bloodshed because I strongly believe it could have. 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.

[plot mechanic]

Having difficulty posting.

[plot mechanic]

Having difficulty posting.

Reviewing the thread, I see I missed Keshou's post. My apologies.

It's a character-driven show and I find the characters wonderfully complex. The heroes have flaws, the villains have layers.

Nor am I going to change your mind. The point of these in depth discussions are not to change people's minds, at least not for the people posting. (The ego gets invested, after all.) The point is to enrich the understanding. If you say you find the characters complex in response to my observation that they are black-and-white, then I try to see if if there's a misunderstanding or where the error is.

I allege heroes are written white, you counter they are written with flaws. Well, I never meant to imply that the heroes are written like Dudley Do-right. But in BSG the heroes are written so that any "flaws" are 1.)not actually flaws or 2.)carefully balanced with virtues and/or good intentions or 3.)flaws without genuine consequences, making them merely occasions for cheap thrills or 4.)only certain kinds of flaws, which are almost never genuinely offensive and 5.)the way the scenes are written just makes them seem nicer.

Examples of #1: Adama's willingness to sacrifice fuel reserves for his great love; Tigh's contempt for civilians (I'm afraid I'm quite certain than most BSG fans like this, as they were meant, too, but I am well aware that some don't); Starbuck's promiscuity; Apollo's resentment against his father.

Examples of #2: Tigh is a competent XO instead of a useless sycophant who's only there because he's not threat to the boss; Adama's love for Starbuck is paternal. This is such a stupid idea I think people would laugh at it if it was in a contemporary or recent setting! But it's in scifi, a genre in which things don't have to make sense, supposedly;
Apollo has no thought of taking command himself; the chief only lies to protect someone else (ditto!); Roslin only wants to save the people, not save her soul/gain immortal fame/earn a miracle by doing the will of the gods; Apollo's foolish good opinion of Zarek is instantly cured, to be replaced by the proper awareness of his irredeemable villainy.

Examples of #3: Adama lies to the fleet about knowing where Earth is, but only Starbuck ever asks him, even though information is vitally needed by many people so they can make plans; Roslin doesn't expose Adama as a liar; Starbuck gets away with her bad temper; Starbuck doesn't have any dumped lovers who hate her guts; Both Apollo and Adama forgive her for falsifying the brother's flight test, getting him into a program he couldn't handle and killed; Everyone believes everything Starbuck says to them, despite her being hotheaded and badtempered and pretty obviously screwed up; nobody's afraid of Adama because he's a mean, autocratic SOB, but loves him; Adama overthrows the government but gets shot so he doesn't have to do any of the nasty stuff that automatically ensues as a consequence; the chief might have fragged the lieutenant, but it was actually Baltar.

Examples of #4: No white character displays Baltar's cringing kind of fear, only fear that they valiantly try to suppress; no white character stutters or stammers or hems or haws like Baltar; No white character is greedy; No white character is lazy; No white character is personally ambitious; No white character lies for his personal benefit.

Examples of #5: Adama is nicer than Hadrian, who is obviously mean, and motivated by malice; the chief is nicer than the lieutenant who gets fragged; despite the holocaust of humanity, only Baltar is twitchy; Apollo never seems condescending, not even to the convicts; Starbuck's promiscuity is not written like Ellen's sluttiness. Incidentally, in my opinion that last is plain as day, but hard to explain in words. But it might be the simplest example of what I mean by saying black and white.

The human villains on BSG are Sgt. Hadrian, Ellen Tigh, Tom Zarek and Gaius Baltar. I don't anyone would argue that they have many layers. Only Baltar gives even an impression of complexity.

But Baltar is a notable example of being written black, in the crudest ways, precisely to avoid any genuine complexity. He's twitchy, shifty, stammers, shows undignified fear. His sexuality is depicted as cool, but comic or even gross. Visually he doesn't even get to have sex with Starbuck (who's screwing Apollo in her mind)! As far as I know he has no other relation to any one. He doesn't react to Gaeta's friendliness. He never calls Six by the name he must have know her by for years on Caprica! No one else notices his obvious distress! Amazingly enough, he's the only one with an accent! That last is an incredibly crude marker, but again, I don't think you can legitimately accuse BSG of sophisticated writing.

The amazing thing is, whether Six is a chip, or an hallucination, or some sort of demonic infestation, Baltar is the least culpable BSG character, since he is not a genuinely free moral agent. In truth, he is a pathetic character. His struggle against his chip or demon or madness could have been tragic. Instead, we just get a Villain, marked as such by crude and arbitrary writing.
The role and performance is a "gritty" updating of Jonathan Harris' Dr. Zachary Smith! Baltar could be a villain because he thinks he could reprogram the Cylons to serve his own goals. This might be crude but makes sense. Or he might be a genuine convert, since the series insists on this bizarre religious angle. Making Baltar a cypher means there is no character with a different perspective on the Cylons. This lessens the real drama, something which BSG avoids like the plague.

It is not a bit obvious what Baltar wants. Nor is there any discernible logic in his actions. How could he achieve his goals, whatever they may be? In a genuinely character-driven drama, in my opinion, either the drama is about the character's struggle to achieve his or her goals, or its about how they choose goals. Neither applies to Baltar. The dispiriting thing is this is actually true of most of the main characters!

Starbuck presumably is to choose between Adama and Apollo, but despite her intense self absorption, she has so little sel funderstanding that she does not see this. She is fundamentally passive. It appears instead that fake "development" about how she's special will be substituted. In my opinion, that decidedly limits the drama. Adama wants both Starbuck and his son's love. Yet, he takes no action towards his goals! That definitely limits the drama. Roslin is the closest to a genuine character, who wants something and acts in some fashion to get it, or at least actually chooses not to do certain things.

But in my opinion one character is not enough to hail as a landmark in drama.

pm

[LoneStar1836]

Enjoyed reading your post, pm. I still disagree with you on some points in this one (but not nearly as much as that crazy nitpick about the tillium ) but you do raise good points to think about regarding the characters so thanks for taking the time to explain them (with examples) because before I just wasn’t clear about your characterization of “black and white”. “Black and white” to me means really simplistic and cut and dry as to where they stand, especially in regards to morality and doing the right thing.

Example of #2: Adama's love for Starbuck is paternal. This is such a stupid idea I think people would laugh at it if it was in a contemporary or recent setting! But it's in scifi, a genre in which things don't have to make sense, supposedly

Honestly I’m quite confused by what you are saying there. It’s stupid to think that an older man (obviously at least her father's age) can’t love someone not of his own blood as if she were his own daughter? You’re going to have to clarify what you meant there by that second sentence. I think the idea is plausible rather than laughable even in our own society (excluding all those old men who run around marring women half their age )

Example of #3: Starbuck gets away with her bad temper

Yeah her temper is overlooked but it’s because they need her skills as a pilot. Tigh did toss her in the brig in the mini for slugging him. Are you getting at that her temper does not result in bad choices that lead to a costly mistake for the fleet or are you just saying that she is never called on the carpet for her temper? So what consequences would you like to see involving her bad temper?

Example of #3: Starbuck doesn't have any dumped lovers who hate her guts

Probably because they are all dead so how do we know if they didn't hate her or not. Well except for pretty boy down on Caprica, but his days are numbered. I wouldn’t exactly call Baltar a “dumped lover”. That was a one night stand.

Example of #3: Both Apollo and Adama forgive her for falsifying the brother's flight test, getting him into a program he couldn't handle and killed

While I think the revelation to Adama made for a good episode, they did kind of move on rather easily afterwards, especially Adama. Though Lee did learn about it during the mini and had a longer time to come to terms with it even though this episode was only something like 15 days since the events of the mini. While I’d imagine that would be a difficult thing to overcome in both their relationships with Kara, people have been forgiven for worse deeds in RL and it wasn’t like she was a complete stranger that had done this. Both men cared for her and weren’t willing yet to just throw that away because of what she had done and then lying to them about it. The Farm

Spoiler:

If Adama can contemplate whether or not he still cares for Boomer, a Cylon, whom he knew for two years and then one day shoots him,

I think its safe to assume that he is capable of forgiving (maybe not completely) Kara for “killing” his son. I think the three of them will always have that between them, and references/conflict revolving around that will probably pop up once in a while in the show so the event won’t totally be forgotten or I’m guessing it won’t since it is a major tragedy shared by all three.

Example of #3: Everyone believes everything Starbuck says to them, despite her being hotheaded and badtempered and pretty obviously screwed up

Are you saying that people shouldn’t believe her because she could be lying? Or they shouldn't believe her because she doesn’t know what the hell she is doing so they shouldn’t blindly follow her because she is an angry person?

Example of #3: nobody's afraid of Adama because he's a mean, autocratic SOB, but loves him

While I wouldn’t characterize the man that way, I think he has done plenty in the past to earn the respect and admiration of his crew. Why should his crew be afraid of him? I think they realize the man is not perfect, he is human after all, but he is not devoid of love for his own crew. He doesn’t run and hide in his quarters when off duty and he doesn’t run for the nearest foxhole that is farthest from the frontlines when the going gets tuff. (I’m thinking of Lt. Dike who replaced Captain Winters in the mini-series "Band of Brothers" when they were entrenched in the forest during the Battle of the Bulge. The guy would hide in his foxhole well off the front line rather than lead his men and make decisions and thus it was left up to Sgt. Lipton to do the actual seeing to the men, making decisions, etc. Then when it came to lead the assualt on the town, he froze and was totally inept. Winters, who was watching all this from the tree line because he had been promoted to Captain, wanted to run down to his men and take control because it tore him up that his people were being cut to shreds. So he called upon Lt. Speirs of another company to run down and relieve that Lt. Sorry, I just love that mini....but I don't have a thing for details since I had to go back and look up everyones' rank.....) I think Adama is like Captain Winters. The men of Easy Company respected and admired the man to the highest degree because he had earned their respect.

Example of #5: Starbuck's promiscuity is not written like Ellen's sluttiness. Incidentally, in my opinion that last is plain as day, but hard to explain in words. But it might be the simplest example of what I mean by saying black and white.

Good example. BUT I think it has to do with Ellen is married, Starbuck is not. Plus, Ellen is written like the b*tch that she is so cheating on her husband is, in my opinion, more frowned upon than being single and promiscuous. While I don’t condone either behavior, I do view someone who sleeps around while they are married as more of a scumbag/tramp than someone who is single. So personally, I don’t quite equate the activities of both women as equally vilifiable. One is committing a lesser crime. So yes Starbuck’s sleeping around is not seen as a really despicable character trait in comparison with Ellen, it may also have to do with how people view that. RDM did say that he was taking Starbuck and doing kind of gender reversal thing with her by giving her a lot of traits that are characteristically given to the male heroes of a show. When single men sleep around, it’s generally viewed as a conquest for them and people generally don’t see anything wrong with that. “Oh he’s the stud of the show, who wouldn’t want to sleep with him?” When it’s a woman doing the same thing…. “oh, she’s a slut”.

He never calls Six by the name he must have know her by for years on Caprica!

Excellent point. I never thought about that.

No one else notices his obvious distress!

I think they notice but they just chalk it up to him being eccentric and a little crazy so he gets a pass and never gets questioned for it. Who knows what people say behind his back…..

Amazingly enough, he's the only one with an accent! That last is an incredibly crude marker, but again, I don't think you can legitimately accuse BSG of sophisticated writing.

We don’t know exactly which colony he came from I don’t think, so maybe people on one of the colonies we rarely hear about have an accent or he’s from a different part of Caprica. It’s not that much of a stretch of the imagination. Just look at the U.S. Get some one from Boston with an authentic Boston accent and stand them next to some one from the southern Louisiana area known as Acadiana – the heart of Cajun country and then stand them next to Edward James Olmos. There will be a marked difference, yet they are all Americans. I know supposedly all these people originated from Kobol, but language and dialects do change over time.

ETA: Ah, now I think I see what you are saying about the accent and how it makes him stick out. Hmm….well I wouldn’t think that is an intentional thing. The actor whom they picked for the part just happened to be British so they let him keep the accent. I don’t think they intentionally went around looking for someone with a different accent for Baltar, but then again I have no idea if they did or didn’t but I’m thinking no. They just liked the actor so they let him keep the accent. I can see why they had JB change his accent in order to match up with EJO since he was supposed to be playing his son.

Interesting stuff there about Baltar in the rest of your post, but at the moment I don’t feel like really responding to much more of it.

Starbuck presumably is to choose between Adama and Apollo, but despite her intense self absorption, she has so little self-understanding that she does not see this. She is fundamentally passive. It appears instead that fake "development" about how she's special will be substituted. In my opinion, that decidedly limits the drama.

Interesting. But why should she have been forced to make a decision before or even think about choosing between the two? I can see now why in next week’s episode that she will be forced to make a decision regarding the two men, but why before then?

Adama wants both Starbuck and his son's love. Yet, he takes no action towards his goals!

The man is not very forceful when it comes to the personal relationships. It’s more subtle. He has taken action to gain Lee’s affection. It’s moreso in what he says though than what he does. He supports Lee and gives him little reassurance now and then. He reminds him that he is his son and that he will always love him for that. “Hand of God” provides great examples of him showing that he loves Lee – he tells Lee that he couldn’t think of a better pilot to lead the mission when Lee tells him that it seems like everyone else believes that Starbuck should be lead pilot. In the episode in which they are searching for Starbuck when her Viper crashed, he tells Lee that if that were him out there, he would never stop looking. He’s willing to spend time with Lee – boxing. He even points out a character flaw that comes back to bite him in the butt. Sometime words do speak louder than actions.

As far as showing his love towards Kara. I don’t think you have to look much past his forgiveness of her for her involvement in Zak’s death.

He can’t make these people love him. He can only show them that he cares deeply for them and hope they reciprocate the feeling.

Again thanks for your post. Hey, everyone has an opinion, that’s what makes the world interesting as well as this board.

BTW did you watch this week’s episode cause even I had a lot of little nitpicks about the plot in that one, so I know you must have if you did watch it.

[FeloniousMonk]

When single men sleep around, it’s generally viewed as a conquest for them and people generally don’t see anything wrong with that. “Oh he’s the stud of the show, who wouldn’t want to sleep with him?” When it’s a woman doing the same thing…. “oh, she’s a slut”.

Well that little social construct is a result of sheer biology. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that double standards are in any way right or justified, but this is one of the few that weren't simply created by boys so we could have more fun or get paid better. The idea of a promiscuous woman being frowned upon while a promiscuous man being applauded stems from how our reproductive systems work.

Let's say you have a group of a particular species which requires 9 months to gestate and the result is usually one offspring, occassionally two, very rarely more. A single female can only be impregnanted so many times in the course of a decade while a single male can impregnante a massive number of females over the same time period. In the end, the sexually active female won't contribute to the species (in terms of population growth) as much as the sexually active male.


I realize there are a lot of girls on this forum so I hope this doesn't offend anyone And again, I'm not saying these double standards are right to keep around this day and age, my point is just that they're not unbased. There's a reason for this double standard and we must all remember that instinct will win out over society every time.

[Liebestraume]

... There's a reason for this double standard and we must all remember that instinct will win out over society every time.

What do you mean by ..."instinct will win out over society every time"? Isn't the advancement of human civilization proof positive that at least some of us are able to overcome our baser instincts?

[M82SoCalif]

Your objection to "tyllium" -- in connection with the Trek reference -- seems inconsistent. For at least two reasons. First of all, do you know that petroleum actually exists in crystalline form even on this very earth? The only reason we don't hear much about it is because the refining technology is prohibitively expensive in comparison to that of the liquid form. So, something akin to "tyllium" does exist; it's just known by a different name in our universe. And, secondly, since you are into details, I'd like to point out that srtickly speaking antimatter is not fuel even in the Trek universe. Trek actually uses something called dilithium (and trilithium) as fuel; now, does that exist?

Just an itty bitty FYI - Strickly speaking anti-matter is the fuel used by the Federation (and most other Star Trek races) to operate their starships. Dilithium is a fictional crystal used to efficiently absorb the matter/anti-matter reaction. This of course doesn't take away from your arguement at all - the fuel source of Star Trek is just as fictional as the fuel used in BSG.

[Liebestraume]

Just an itty bitty FYI - Strickly speaking anti-matter is the fuel used by the Federation (and most other Star Trek races) to operate their starships. Dilithium is a fictional crystal used to efficiently absorb the matter/anti-matter reaction. This of course doesn't take away from your arguement at all - the fuel source of Star Trek is just as fictional as the fuel used in BSG.

First of all, welcome to the forum! Stay long and prosper . And, secondly, thanks for the info -- I stand corrected.

[FeloniousMonk]

What do you mean by ..."instinct will win out over society every time"? Isn't the advancement of human civilization proof positive that at least some of us are able to overcome our baser instincts?

Overcome? Advancement of human civilization has come about because of our instincts, not in spite of them. It all started when one guy way back in the day decided to stand up and walk upright. That allowed for better hunting, use of two limbs for tools as well as carrying food back home, which allowed for better hunts. Better hunts meant animals higher up on the food chain which meant more protein which in time contributed to larger brains and thus, moon landing.


I should rephrase my comment, though. I don't mean to say that in every situation primal instinct will direct someone's actions more than social constructs but in the grand scheme of things we're acting basically exactly as we would without our advanced society. Wars are fought over territory and to ensure the survival and growth of a specific pack/tribe, just as wolves do. Murder and rape still occur frequently and while it would make sense that punishments would deter such actions, since those two are very basic parts of nature, primal instinct wins out.

Then again I'm an armchair anthropologist so I could very well be talking out of my ass