Real World Event Discussions
Politics aboard the Galactica (NOT the one with Muffet!)*spoilers up to 2.10*
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 03:03
VIEWED: 4637
PAGE 4 of 4
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:04 AM
Quote:It’s possible to nitpick anything to death, especially sci-fi programs where the suspension of disbelief has to be much higher. And I think part of the problem, though, is that different people nitpick different things. I’m well aware that the Cylons’ physiology really doesn’t make sense--but it doesn’t bother me. The Cylons are mysterious, so their biology would be, too. And I just let it be at that. Seems like other folks are more than a little ticked off by it. The thing is, every program is a balance of strengths and weaknesses. Good programs are those which either minimize their weaknesses or whose strengths outshine their weaknesses. Programs that you like are those whose strengths interest you and whose weaknesses you can forgive or ignore. Which is a roundabout way of saying some people juggle geese.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
It vexes me
I see Ron Moore as cast in the Whedon mold in the sense that he wants a sense of realism in a way that other sci-fi shows haven’t (the ‘verse has no sound in space, BSG’s ships follow Newtonian physics), but at the same time he has an impulse towards more off-the-wall, fantastic story elements because he’s an imaginative fellow, but not a real scientist. This approach creates a problem because you have enough realism to attract the hard SF crowd, but then the wacky stuff pisses them off while interesting more soft SF audiences. I think Joss was better able to balance things than Moore, but hey, he’s a genius.
Quote:I agree that Moore comes off as a tad arrogant in those statements, especially when he talks about how BSG was the “first” sci-fi show to use the documentary, handheld style (apparently, he never saw “Firefly” and came up with this all on his own, but I still simmer with browncoat rage that he isn’t giving props where they’re due
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The head writer, Ron Moore set himself up by spouting rubbish about "reinventing the genre" in the runup to the show.... If you open your mouth and say you are going to innovate then show me the innovation, so far I see a camera and effects style borrowed from Firefly and a lax regard for storytelling taken from the worse of Trek.
). But I think Moore’s big drive was similar to one of Whedon’s motivations; bringing more of a sense of realism, of “you are there” to sci-fi. The two of them use some similar cinematographic styles, and they are both largely character-driven shows, but they also take different measures to achieve this sense of realism. Which is, after all, just a sense. I’ve heard some people call BSG more “realistic” than “Firefly,” but BSG has FTL drive and wonky Cylon biology. On the other hand, “Firefly” has a barely plausible solar system and psychic powers. The goal in both shows is to make the unbelievable aspects more believable by portraying them with a sense of realism, but some folks find certain things more believable than others. I do feel that “Firefly” and BSG are part of a larger movement in sci-fi, Naturalistic Science Fiction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_science_fiction). And the fact that Joss and Moore apparently came to the same realization independent of each other to me shows that sci-fi really needs this kind of innovation, and it is innovation, away from the traditional Star Trek-esque model. But with “Firefly” already blazing the trail, it’s just not quite as mind-blowing as Moore seems to think. Quote:In the commentary for the Angel episode “RM W/A VU,” writer Jane Espensen notes that they seem to be violating one of their rules for vampires (it’s more of a borderline case, not a blatant violation), but then says that the fans will come up with a better explaination for the inconsistency than anything the writers could. Things always slip past the writers and if they realize it after the fact, they may simply just let the fan
Originally posted by DanFan:
In my "fanboy" persona, I can spin a story for them to explain it. Why don't they care enough to even TRY to spin a story for me?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:11 AM
Quote:What StakeTheLurk said. Another thread like 'Up to the minute spoilers' could be started.
Originally posted by StakeTheLurk:
So, please remember the spoiler limit and mark anything after 2.10 with spoiler tags (and I mean anything). Thanks.
Thank the Lords of Kobol that I'm good at forgetting...um, forg-
What was I talkin' about?
Memory-wiping Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:Quote:
Originally posted by StakeTheLurk:
You need a basic plan, but you also need the flexibility to change the plan as the situation requires.
I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.
- Dwight Eisenhower
Yeah, I take your point. So did Ike. I will say that BSG has been stretching my suspension of disbelief a bit in the new season. I am a fan of what's usually called "hard" science fiction... i.e., the science needs to make sense and be internally consistent. BSG is telling good stories, but it doesn't seem to be spending as much effort with internal consistency. Examples:
1) Galactica survives the Cylon attack on the colonies because she is obsolete and doesn't have any of the new software/firmware with the backdoors that the Cylon infiltrators snuck into the new systems. Hence Galactica and her fighters stayed active when the Cylons could shut every other ship in the fleet down. So, how exactly did the Pegasus survive? How does it remain an effective warfighter when it engages the Cylons? In my "fanboy" persona, I can spin a story for them to explain it. Why don't they care enough to even TRY to spin a story for me? Or did I miss some explanation that they offered when they introduced the Pegasus? Possible...
2) The stealth fighter is so stealthy that Apollo loses sight of it on its maiden flight. It can fly right through the Cylon formation without detection. Yet it jumps back into the middle of a prickly situation between Galactica and Pegasus and suddenly everybody is distracted by the presence of the unidentified bogey... wasn't it undetectable? Again, I can spin an explanation for them... why are they making that my job, though?
So, I'll say again... I have been entertained by the characters and the storylines. I'm still thoroughly entertained enough by them to watch. But they are getting careless with the logic behind their 'verse. They could easily end up Star Trekking themselves to the point where nothing is logical... everything is resolved by deus ex machina.
That said... I'm still watching.
Nobody knew Starbuck was their until she began to broadcast on her radio......
Any steath system needs EM control, once the radio was sending out... no more steath
And that was why Apollo called out to her, hoping events would play out as they did
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME