Battlestar Galactica

Besides saying that I really liked the re-imagining of Galactica, I just wanted to point out the madness in one of the recurring complaints I've noticed among fans *and* nay-sayers of BSG2003. I read a lot of people saying "the new one doesn't have the humour of the original" or "it takes itself so seriously, the characters are too serious," or things to that effect.

I'm just wondering... how funny do you expect a nuclear holocaust to be?? I mean, writers of fiction are hoping that you can suspend your disbelief and try for a moment to imagine that what you are seeing is real, or could be real. So imagine for a moment, if you can, that you live in NYC and you just heard on the news that H-bombs have started falling from the sky in LA, and they're coming down in waves, west-to-east, and humanity is being utterly wiped out. Millions of people-- men, women and children, perhaps members of your own family, are dying in terror. Are you *really* going to be cracking jokes? Imagine that the human race is quickly being massacred, only a few hundred are managing to escape-- a tiny fraction of what civilization was, and you aren't sure if you're going to survive into tomorrow. Just how much humour is going to be in the air, mixing with the fallout and all? Even before the bombs start falling, all of the "overly serious" characters seem to me to have pretty good reasons... Adama's ship is being turned into a museum, effectively ending a major chapter in his military career (which is his life), Apollo's having to face his father, whom he blames for his brother's death, Teague is a drunk (they're not often the cheeriest people), Lauren's just been diagnosed with terminal cancer... you expect these people to be making with the ha-ha?

The character I did find funniest was Starbuck. Be it because she was a little 'crazy' or because she had the least on her shoulders (besides her boyfriend dying 2 years ago because of a decision she made... hm, may explain the 'crazy' a little, y'think?) to spoil her mood, and what do people say about Starbuck? "She was too crazy." There really *is* no pleasing some people.

Arguing that the characters in a story that depicts the extermination of said characters' species are "too serious" is... well, it only shows that you either can't do what the writers would like you to do-- and imagine yourself as a part of this world-- or that you can, but you're a suicidal sociopath.

I thought the miniseries was excellent; the re-worked premise made for a more textured story, the characters actually had some depth this time around, and were well-played by actors who obviously tried to 'get' some of the nuances of their characters and could take a serious situation (however imaginary) seriously. And I loved the special effects, too.

So with all due respect, the puritans who prefer the shallow, campy 70's series with its recycled fx footage, its 2-dimensional characters and it's plot that provides little context or background, can stick their complaints in their old pipes and smoke 'em.

I expected very little of this Sci-Fi Channel miniseries, for I adored the original so much, but to my pleasant surprise this production is excellent. It doesn't fall back on genre-typical styles of film-making as we have seen repeatedly in Star Trek or other television dramas. The editing is wonderful, the directing is above par, and the acting is quite convincing. I am especially pleased with the performance of Mary McDonnell as the president of the colonies. Her portrayal is that of an ordinary human being thrust into power by extraordinary circumstances. She doesn't overplay her strength and she doesn't fall back on 'exaggerated feminine emotionality' as so many female leaders seem to do in other shows. The quality of her performance is also seen in the other actors, who are allowed the screen time to show us their personalities, rather than simply deliver trite one-liners.

CG-wise, Battlestar Galactica was beyond excellent. Lighting in space is harsh and I was pleased to see that the producers didn't soften it just to make the ships look more romantic. External scenes were used to tell the story and not gratuitously. I was left wanting more every time.

Excellent show.

Before this re-imagining was even announced I had never before heard about "Battlestar Galactica" except when an overweight comic book geek mentioned it on TV. But when I heard such a show was airing I found myself....well, gitty. Never watching the old series I spent the night that it first aired glued to my TV waiting for it to come on. And after I watched the whole miniseries, I was blown away. A sci-fi show with no lasers? No elaborate, all too clean, spacecrafts? No weird talking animals? A sci-fi show that is actually relevant to today? Can such a show exist? Yes, my friend.

Never before has such a show like this been created, "Naturalistic Science Fiction," is what the producers call it. It was created to shake things up in the sci-fi genre the only problem is that it came too late. Sci-fi is now associated to too extremes, Star Trek and Star Wars, both are great, I prefer Star Wars, but, whatever. And there have been smaller shows in between the two, Farscape, Stargate, the old BSG. But never before has this entered.

The new Battlestar Galactica is simply saying "screw those guys, I am the evolved one." And it shows, it shows. The story of the miniseries starts where the original series starts, the original series started with a movie by the way.

One of the most noticeable differences is the camera, what i mean is that you are aware that there is in fact a camera recording the action, from shaking to zooming in and out this is to give the impression that this is all really happening and that you are viewing war footage. Another thing is that everything feels authentic, from the towns to the corridors of the ships, everything is alive and is used in the scene, you actually feel that theses ships are real. Speaking of ships the new look of the Cylon ships is eerie to say the least.

The characters are also unique, for the first time you can have a tough WOMEN soldier without her being regarded as a lesbian. All the characters change, meaning they don't simply stay, the tough one, the scared one, the dumb one, they all switch to different roles.

The technology of the show is similar to that of our own and of Blade Runner. They also make do with what they have, there isn't a piece of technology that is presented to the characters at the beginning that will vanquish the enemy that will be introduced in ten minutes.

All in all if you are looking for something different to watch than the new Battlestar Galactica is one to see. In fact everyone should at least give it a try. Do not listen to those who say that it is bad they are the ones who would rather see the women as background characters, and who want the kid to be smarter than everyone else.

Give the miniseries a try.

I give it 9 "Screw you were more evolved" statements out of 10

Those who are used to SciFi's standard fare are likely to be a bit bored by the realism, character development, intelligent dialog, and lack of explosions, mutant organisms and/or poor special effects. This is REAL science fiction, not cheap shock effects strung together with a mediocre plot. Hand-held photography- pioneered in groundbreaking series like ER and Firefly - has started to become cliché. Nevertheless, it works in this film partly because it is not overdone. The shots alternate between a hand-held documentary feel and a more standard dramatic presentation.

I was never a big fan of the original Battlestar Galactica TV show, and I have only seen a few SciFi originals which did not embarrass me on behalf of the entire genre of science fiction (Farscape and both Dune Mini-series being the exceptions). SciFi hypes their productions heavily, and they are almost always disappointingly silly. So, I was not inclined to go into this with an open mind. If anything convinced me to give it a shot, it was the fact that E J Olmos was hired to play Adama and that Mary MacDonnell was on-board. To say the least, I was very pleasantly surprised by the production quality, intelligent script, and the cast. This is more than a reinvention of BSG, it is a vast improvement over the silly cowboy histrionics the first series devolved into.

The story begins just before an invasion of 12 planets colonized by humans. The invading force has infiltrated all of the defense networks by positioning key agents in positions where they can easily exploit vulnerabilities, and has basically disabled all planetary defenses, leaving everybody and everything vulnerable. There is no battle. The few vestiges left of the once thriving human population are those who were fortunate enough to have been in space at the time of the attack. From this dire premise, Battlestar Galactica proceeds.

All considered, this is a film about the human will to survive, redemption and the spirit of hope. Though dark, moody, and as fragmented as life often is, BSG is also driven, suspenseful, and very well written. The cast is as talented as it is visually striking - mixing weird beauty, youthful energy, and hard-edged agedness. None of the actors misstep, and each seems to know their character particularly well. This is an unusual quality for SciFi originals, and shows that the network invested in quality directing talent and worked with reasonable production deadlines (as opposed to rush-jobs).

I strongly recommend this film for serious science fiction fans.

After Firefly was aborted in 2003, I lost interest in investing in "fringe" TV... At any time, loved characters could be axed and heartfelt universes unwritten...

So when BSG was released, I didn't even bother to watch and assumed that it would be canned after a couple of episodes.

When a third year was confirmed, however, I changed my mind and decided to start to watch it.

It was 2005 when I first saw Adama walk down the corridor and decry all networked computers. And I loved it.

Now, 13 years later I am rewatching it...

13 years.

Imagine that. That is the difference between 1987 and 2000...

That is the difference between: Superman IV The Quest For Peace, Inner Space, Masters of the the Universe, Predator and The Running Man

VS

The Matrix (Japan Release) Existenz and the X-Men.

13 years is a LONG TIME in terms of Sci Fi...

And yet, 13 years later, I'm rewatching Battlestar Galactica.

When I first watched it back in the day, I was unmarried, did not own a home and had no children... Now, I'm married, have two beautiful children and own an apartment.

Yet watching it today, it's as fresh and vibrant as it was all the way back then.

Moreover, I still view this as one of the finest pieces of "hard" science fiction ever aired. The science, the characterisations, the situations, the politics, the religious commentary, the ramifications of hubris and the sheer edge of seat drama is absolutely spot on.

13 years later and in an age where science fiction and fantasy are mainstream now, and are as acceptable as a crime and comedy, but still this story takes no prisoners.

Recently, The 100, Killjoys, Altered Carbon, Star Trek Discovery and the closest yet, of course, The Expanse, have all shown their mettle and revealed appealing dystopias or post apocalyptic charms, but at the end of the day, only one show has really covered all bases so satisfactorily...

Battlestar Galactica.