Battlestar Galactica series

[Mysteryinfoman]

Any updates on this show, like when it's premiering, wasn't is suppose to air around this time of 2004? Don't kow if I'm the only one bit I'm anticipating thsi TV show.

[Lord Dalek]

Acording to SJJ, it's on in the UK already.

[Matt-a-Tastic]

Yeah thats true, I watch it at 8pm on Sky One, its really good. I think of it as a cross between Star Wars (because it has loads of action) and StarGate (because it has drama)

The action/Drama mix is played perfectlly, in other series there tends to be either not enough drama or not enough action

[raykremer]

The miniseries/pilot ran a while back, the series proper is slated to start on the SciFi channel in January, I think. They're certainly promoing the heck out of it during the Friday airings of the StarGate shows.

[AnimatedSnow47]

Ron Moore, a co-creator and writer of this show, is touting it as being the "anti-Trek," meaning the antithesis of the Star Trek legacy. This is exactly my problem with it.

First off...I despise the documentary-style direction. It is simply grating and screams, "Hey! We don't have any imagination, so let's just try realism!"

Second, it is just to pessimistic and dark. Where's the spark of life? Where's the hope and optimism?

Thirdly, Moore also states that there will not "really" be any aliens, and that he doesn't want to adventure-of-the-week shows. Lovely. Why not just take out the science fiction element altogether?

I'm sorry, but the pilot for this show epitomizes bad science fiction, especially with "Star Trek: Enterprise" shining brighter than ever.

[DarkAngel]

Ron Moore, a co-creator and writer of this show, is touting it as being the "anti-Trek," meaning the antithesis of the Star Trek legacy. This is exactly my problem with it.I'll give Moore a chance on anything he does because of the excellence displayed on DS9. And when I hear "anti-Trek", I think "anti-Voyager" or "anti-Enterprise" (seasons 1 or 2). Star Trek has fallen into a rut (at least until recently) with uninspired, been-done-before episodes and Moore clearly wants something different from that.



Second, it is just to pessimistic and dark. Where's the spark of life? Where's the hope and optimism?
Not everything has to be bright and happy. One thing I loved about DS9 was that it was a little darker, a little grimmer. That was a great change from TNG and Voyager. There's nothing wrong with going that route. There has been a lot of optimistic SF from Star Trek for so many years. It's not a bad thing to go in another direction.



Thirdly, Moore also states that there will not "really" be any aliens, and that he doesn't want to adventure-of-the-week shows. Lovely. It certainly is. Star Trek has shoved the adventure-of-the-week aspect down our throats for too long. Finally moving to something different on Enterprise with a year-long arc last year and mini-arcs this year was long overdue. On DS9, Moore had wanted to go further with the serialized aspects, but Paramount wouldn't go for that. I think it's great that he has a chance to do that now with BSG.



I'm sorry, but the pilot for this show epitomizes bad science fiction, especially with "Star Trek: Enterprise" shining brighter than ever.I haven't seen the new Battlestar, so I can't comment on it, but Enterprise is doing better now because its moved beyond stand-alone episodes to something bigger and with greater continuity. And even then, its still not on the level of DS9 or Babylon 5. Being serialized will be one of Battlestar Galactica's strong points. And having a darker tone should also make it more compelling. I definitely plan on checking it out when its starts.

[James]

Ron Moore, a co-creator and writer of this show, is touting it as being the "anti-Trek," meaning the antithesis of the Star Trek legacy. This is exactly my problem with it. That it's not Star Trek? ;) Look, I love Star Trek (TOS and the movies), but I think most would agree by Enterprise it's in a rutt. Don't close your mind because it doesn't want to be like the show you like.


First off...I despise the documentary-style direction. It is simply grating and screams, "Hey! We don't have any imagination, so let's just try realism!" Actually, having watched the first 6 or so episodes, it has lots of imagination. The use of characters is far more imaginative that Star Trek. It does in fact take more imagination to offer realism than it does to make simplistic conceptuals like often occurs in Star Trek.

Furthermore, some of the plot twists are far more imaginative than Trek has been in a long time.



Second, it is just to pessimistic and dark. Where's the spark of life? Where's the hope and optimism?
You've answered your own question. The spark of life comes in the the hope and tenacity of it's characters facing the odds. The bonding of these characters and their conflicts shows the hope and courage. The last episode reflected this specifically in the tests of ones character in the face of personal survival or love. It's not pessimistic at all. It's saying in the darkest hour, humans will fight bravely and protect their own with their lives.



Thirdly, Moore also states that there will not "really" be any aliens, and that he doesn't want to adventure-of-the-week shows. Lovely. Why not just take out the science fiction element altogether?
If science fiction is merely silly alien cantinas and creatures demanding to understand this human emotion called "love", then I'm enjoying the wrong genre. What scifi does essentially, is reflect human problems and conditions. Often it just adds a shade of green to one set of people.

What Galactica is doing is reflecting similar issues, in fantasy situations, but minimalising the lazy "alien of the week" scripts which are there just to draw people in to "scifi" by offering lazy visual tags.

This is still VERY scifi. It's not all realistic - no matter what they say. It is rivetting. Even the weaker episodes hold up well compared to other sci fi (and no, like any programme, it's not perfect).



I'm sorry, but the pilot for this show epitomizes bad science fiction, especially with "Star Trek: Enterprise" shining brighter than ever. Well we obviously disagree in what is good science fiction. To me, Enterprise epitomises "Exec Sci Fi". Easy and lazy scifi concepts regurgitated without real repercussion. It's mainstream sci fi. Maybe it's changing a little now, but it's all too late for me. I gave it and Voyager a big chance. Well, that's my opinion, clearly we won't agree as yours differs. That's cool, but if you are a sci fi fan as you suggest, you should give this a chance, if nothing else, to support the genre rather than becoming tribal over the shows themselves. We all love the same thing here.

And yes, it's different sci fi to what you were illustrating - which my comparison (and far better to Enterprise IMO) would be Farscape. Pulp sci fi done very well. This is reality sci fi done very well. You can have both.

So far as Galactica goes - it's been great. Last weeks episode was slightly weaker than the rest, having some of the weaker characters in it, but there was some fine moments in their nevertheless.

Support this new reality sci fi. It's well done, thought out and gone out there to challenge rather than copy.

Afterall fellow Trek fans, wouldn't you rather another show tried to do something different to Star Trek (and thereby not compete with it) than just carbon copy it?