katharinabruns

What was that? As a huge fan of Battlestar Galactica, I went into Caprica hoping for more of the complex, adult storytelling that made its predecessor a modern sci-fi classic. Instead, I got a prequel that felt like a confusing genre shift-with teen drama at the center, retro-futuristic visuals that didn't quite click, and a tone that seemed completely at odds with what came before.

Battlestar Galactica tackled war, identity, religion, politics, and trauma. It was raw, often dark, and incredibly relevant. So it's baffling that Caprica, set decades earlier, decided to focus so heavily on high school dynamics, moody teenagers, and virtual reality clubs. I get the idea of exploring the origin of the Cylons, but did we really need to do that through the lens of angsty adolescents and digital avatars? It felt like a sci-fi Gossip Girl at times.

And the aesthetics.. Caprica City looked like someone mashed together the 1950s with early 2000s tech-art deco buildings with flip phones and touchscreen tablets. I can appreciate a stylized setting, but it never felt coherent. Was it supposed to be nostalgic? Alien? It just felt like a mismatch.

Let's not forget the decision to make young William Adama-a character defined in BSG by his gravitas and leadership-a child here. It was a risky move, and frankly, it didn't pay off. It gave me flashbacks to young Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace-a case study in how turning a beloved adult character into a kid rarely ends well.

And the first Cylon being... a teenage girl? In a virtual world? I mean, really? The concept might've worked in another show, but here it felt painfully disconnected from the gritty, existential dread of BSG. What happened to the themes of artificial intelligence, autonomy, and fear of technology? They're there in Caprica, but buried beneath family melodrama and digital hallucinations.

Ultimately, Caprica was a huge gamble-and in my opinion, it failed. It didn't understand its core audience, I think. I can respect the creators for trying something different, but this wasn't the way to do it, which is so bad. I really wanted it to work and it had so much potential!

It started off interesting, but midway through, I began to dislike it because the main character, Elsa Dutton, felt overwhelming. She was so emotionally intense (even for a teenager) and constantly in love, which became frustrating. I really wanted to learn more about the other characters on the trail instead.

That being said, the showrunners clearly did something right because I kept watching-and by the last two episodes, I was crying like a baby for Elsa. Looking back, I understand why they developed her character that way, and it was actually quite effective. The series also makes you truly grasp why the ranch is so important to the Duttons.

The show started off fantastic. A patriarch (Kevin Costner) and his four kids live on a sprawling ranch in Montana, fighting to protect their land and way of life. Of course, there's plenty of personal drama as well. The first season was pure gold-gripping, intense, and well-written.

However, like many shows, it declined over time. I was especially disappointed by the lack of character growth. Some characters became so over-the-top that it was almost comical. Beth was always angry, Monica was always crying, and Kayce was the golden boy, while Jamie made all the wrong choices and was universally hated.

That said, it was still a great show, with stunning cinematography and plenty of gripping moments. I truly enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone.