Battlestar Galactica

Most reboots are terrible and this is a brilliant exception. They took what was good about the original series, which I grew up watching and loving, threw away the camp, and built up a beautiful use of new technology and sensibilities around it. Most of the cast are top notch and the storyline is smart and generally compelling. There are stumbles along the way but this is a solid series from beginning to end that bears rewatching.

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.

Yeah, I know: a superlative. Curses to you both Ron Moore and David Eich- you have made it impossible for me to watch "Star Trek" again. Not since the first "Matrix" film in '99 have I sat at a screen and gaped in awe at the push my brain was given.

In three hours, we are introduced to a world, and a cast of characters, that are unrivaled in depth and seriousness. The story is compelling beyond belief. We are really there. We really care.

Topical, directed with talent and passion, and acted by people who deeply care about what they are creating, Battlestar Galactica sets the standard by which any filmed drama must be measured.

Nothing else will satisfy again. May BSG reign for years to come.

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.

I've read a lot of your comments, and it amazes me how some people seem to think that the function of this mini-series (and hopefully series) is to cater to the whims of the fans of the original series. Sorry, that's not it.

The die-hard types -- the "fans" (and I am one, of BSG, BSG2003, Trek, B5, etc.) -- are never going to be more than a small fraction of the viewership of any television program. It must appeal to a broader audience, or it is DOOMED.

Ronald D. Moore -- in my opinion, one of the better writer-producers in sci-fi today -- took a concept that pleased just about nobody but the fans and reproduced it in a manner that made it interesting and watchable to a modern audience. And if you step outside of your "I want Lorne Greene, Richard Hatch, and Dirk Benedict" temper tantrums, you will find it interesting and watchable as well.

As for some of the main cast members -- like the Adamas pere et fils -- being stiff and inhuman...my friends, welcome to career military officer types. I would bet you're the same people who complained about Commander Jeffrey Sinclair in the first season of Babylon 5 as well. These are TRUE TO LIFE heroes, not the Saturday morning cartoon comic book heroes.

As for remolding Starbuck (does she drink a lot of coffee? ;-) and Boomer into women... well, I had my doubts at first, but I thought they did a magnificent job. As for the Cylons looking like humans now... well, only some of them do. And, to be perfectly honest, it makes a lot of sense for them to be able to blend in with their enemies. Anyone who has knowledge of terrorists in the Middle East knows that the reason they can get in to major civilian population centers and cause hideously evil damage and destruction is because THEY BLEND IN. Use some logic, people!

Much like when going to see a movie based on one of Tom Clancy's novels, I didn't go into this expecting to see the original. I went into it expecting to see something new and interesting with some similarities at the plot level. And I was not disappointed.

Since ENTERPRISE seems to be killing the Trek franchise -- and I admit, I enjoy ENTERPRISE a lot of the time, but a lot of people don't, and I can see why -- I am in high hopes a series based on BSG2003 can revitalize hope for on-going TV science fiction. I don't see why it shouldn't as long as people stop thinking they're going to get Lorne Greene. They're getting Edward James Olmos, one of the most brilliant actors in Hollywood, coming BACK to TV after a successful movie career... and how often does THAT happen?!?