w00t w00t booyah

Dynasty in Spaaaaaaaaace!

Seriously. Stuff like this just makes me miss bad '80's nighttime soap operas all the more.

It looks slick - it sounds slick - it has some really good people turning in great performances on it.

Writing-wise? C+

From:

machineplay.livejournal.com

The first season had so much potential, but it feels like they just lost it halfway through. It's just pretty now. :p I found it over-angsty, too dense, and generally sensationalist. I don't like a show that feels manipulative. I know all shows are, all books are, but I don't want to feel it.

From:

Starbuck is the last Cylon of the final five. And it's as obvious as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face.

Yeah, she almost certainly is. But proclaiming that like you're somehow bringing an unknown truth to the great unwashed masses is just silly - there've been strong hints to that effect for at least the past 10 episodes. (Or much further back, if you look at what Leoben said to her in Season 1.)

If you don't like the show, fine. But you're not saying anything that wasn't clear to most fans of the show the second Lee picked up an unknown dradis contact, if not well before. At this point it feels like you're trashing the show just because you don't like them reusing the old BSG concept, and that's not cool. Please, declare your dislike for the show once and be done with it, and leave the rest of us to enjoy the show in peace.

From:

bigbigtruck.livejournal.com

I'm still thinking the President is the last one, and Starbuck was just a hallucination.

But yeah, I was kinda disappointed in the last episode - it lost all the subtlety that I liked about the show. "We're Cylons" AFTER he said "a switch was flipped"? WOW WAY TO STATE THE OBVIOUS, GUYS.

From:

kusoyaro.livejournal.com

>I'm still thinking the President is the last one

Sweet, I'm not the only one who thinks that.

>Starbuck was just a hallucination

I dunno...it takes Lost-like faux-cojones to make such a big event that much bullshit.

From:

unclemilo.livejournal.com

Except we don't really know what the final five are...

I mean... the cylons don't know who they are...

I actually think the final five might be a third party, but that might not matter. I was actually more geekin' out of the sudden appearance of Bob Dyllan's "All Along the Watchtower"... and I'm very excited to see how Ron Moore is going to re-invent the Crystal Ships. I'm sorry you don't like the show, because I think it's one of the few quality shows on TV right now...

From:

unclemilo.livejournal.com

Wait! The Chief has been worried about being a cylon and he's the only one who said "We're cylons"... but none of them suddenly started changing personality... none of them suddenly went on the cylon mission.

I think the final five aren't cylons at all. I think there's a lot more to the final five then the show is letting on... and I think there's plenty of surprises coming up...

Oh... and anyone who thought Starbuck was a) leaving the series... and b) not going to be caught up in the final five thing by this point in the series has really not been paying attention to anything.

From:

Frankly, I think you missed the entire point of what she was saying, because you just reinforced her argument. She was saying that she doesn't like the show because it's too predictable, gave an example, and you came back with "yeah, everybody knew that". That's the point! If everybody knows what an upcoming dramatic plot twist/conclusion is going to be, then pretty much by definition it's too predictable.

It also seems a bit insulting to me to imply that just because somebody doesn't agree with the re-use of the name/concept, they're automatically incapable of any rational criticism of any other aspect of the show just because of that fact. (And it's a bit hypocritical, after the huge amount of "OMG this show is so awesome! everybody should watch it! Have you watched it yet?" put out by all the fans of the show before, to try to say "leave us to enjoy it in peace" in response to a dissenting voice. Like fans of BSG have ever been "peaceful" about it...)

(For the record, I don't watch the show. While I would have preferred they didn't re-use the names for a series which really has no resemblance at all to the original, that's not why I don't watch it. I don't watch it because from what I have seen of it, it's an overly-dramatic soap-opera in space, and I don't go in for soap-operas (that's just a personal preference thing). It's also rather predictable in some ways (frankly, most dramas are). Lots of people like it. That's fine. You're free to like and watch whatever you like. People I respect have said it's very good in some ways, and I'm sure it is in some ways. But don't try to pretend it's perfect and beyond criticism of any kind, because everything has its flaws.)

From:

mactavish.livejournal.com

She responded to the music, without making it's clear that's what she heard, exactly as Tori did, bar the vomiting.

From:

Thanks, but no, I didn't miss the point of what Kyburg was saying. Kyburg was trashing the show for the fact that Starbuck's reveal was something of an open secret... but it was just that, a purposefully open secret. It's like coming out of Return of the Jedi and saying "well, I knew going in that Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father!" Yeah, you knew because they told you so in the previous installment! And so it is with BSG.

Furthermore, her argument that the show is too predictable would fly only if Starbuck's status was the only - or even the main - reveal of the finale, which it wasn't. Far more interesting and unexpected was the reveal of the other four cylons, the identity of whom has far more dramatic and narrative potential than Starbuck's return. Now, if she were somehow able to demonstrate that it was predictable that those guys would be Cylons (or that the Great Leap Forward in Season 2 was obvious, or Adama's shooting in Season 1), that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

And I stand by my remarks - I certainly don't believe that anybody who disagrees with the revamp idea is incapable of rational criticism, but I believe the comment thread I linked to shows a pretty strong animus towards the show on Kyburg's part for just that reason. And I think it's fair to suggest that these current remarks be seen in that context.

Now, all that said, I will go ahead and point out that you, personally, seem to be bending over backwards to demonstrate that your own opinion should be disregarded when it comes to BSG. For instance, it's complete nonsense that the new show has "no resemblance at all to the original" - see my posts in the earlier comment thread. Is the show soapy? To some extent, sure, but that's far from it's defining characteristic - you might as well call Farscape an S&M harem show in space. I honestly don't much care whether you watch BSG or not, but to the extent you need proof that the show isn't a soap opera, watch the New Caprica arc from the beginning of Season 3 and get back to me.

And lastly, it's dishonest of you to paint me with the brush of a wild-eyed Galactica fan forcing the show on people, and then acting all offended when they don't like it. I never pushed the show on anybody on my friends list, and I certainly don't think the show's perfect. But when somebody trashes it for what I think are unfair reasons, I'm gonna speak up about it, and I won't apologize for that.

From:

I'm sorry, but it is not complete nonsense to say that the show has no resemblance to the original. Making the ships look the vaguely similar is a trivial and superficial issue. The only way you can say the plot is the same is if you consider "there are robots attacking humans" to be a "plot", and I don't. Even the premise has been substantially changed. I'm not saying that makes it a bad show, but I am saying you cannot claim that it really has any resemblance to the other one except the names (and the superficial ship similarities). And as far as I can see, that's all you offered in the other thread as arguments, so.. (but lots of people have already had this argument over and over again, and I doubt either of us is going to convince the other to change their mind, so let's move on)

Regarding the brush-painting, you're the one who lumped yourself in with all the other BSG fans with your "leave the rest of us in peace" comment. I was simply pointing out that most of "the rest of you" weren't peaceful at all not too long ago. If you're not like that, then fine, but don't paint yourself in with that crowd and then complain about the association later.

As for what is or isn't a significant plot element of the finale, I'll leave that to other people to discuss, as I haven't seen it and was simply going on what both she and you were talking about, and pointing out that, based on what you both said, your response really did not seem to refute her point at all. The only refutation you did offer seemed to be "you don't like the show because of the name, so your opinions on other aspects should be dismissed, regardless of whether they have any merit otherwise", and that's what I was objecting to. If you have demonstrable reasons why her conclusion that the show is predictable is incorrect, then perhaps that would have been a more legitimate basis for a response...

From:

moropus.livejournal.com

I'm going to stick my neck way out and say Starbuck has been to the ships of light where all those people in white clothes live and will turn out to be some kind of off-the-wall prophet that still gets in bar figths and defies logic, good manners and people that know better.

From:

Wow. W/r/t the show not being like the original, all that's pretty much completely untrue. You're almost certainly right that neither of us will change the others' mind, but I did specifically want to call BS on your assertion that "all I offered" was that names and ship designs were the same. Those were Kyburg's arguments, I specifically said that wasn't the case. For example:

"...it's absolutely true that some of the characters are very different - some started out a long way away from the original versions (Baltar), while some started out relatively close to the original version, but have since been taken in very different directions (Boomer, and lately Starbuck). But at the same time, there are also characters who still remain pretty close to the original concepts (Adama, Apollo), and I think a big part of what's interesting about the new series is how those characters struggle to remain true to their original concepts (strong, honorable, straightforward men) while at the same time facing situations and complications the original characters never did."

"I think there's a substantive argument to be made that the ideas of BSG are integral to the new show. It is a very different show in outlook, in what it's willing to show and where it's willing to take us. That's what makes it good. But at the same time, it's still a show about the survivors of a genocide drifting through space trying to find Earth, it's still a show about space battles and evil Cylons, it's still got the military camaraderie of a bunch of hotshot pilots saving the day, and it's still a show about the paternal relationship between the commander and his actual and figurative children (even more so now, actually)."

I don't expect to get one, but considering how grossly you misrepresented my remarks, I think I'm due an apology.

If you have demonstrable reasons why her conclusion that the show is predictable is incorrect, then perhaps that would have been a more legitimate basis for a response...

Funny, I've now done so twice. But one more time, making it as simple as I can: Kyburg made a big deal out of how obvious Starbuck's Cylon status was, and used that as a reason to dismiss the entire show. I'm saying that her critique is meaningless because said surprise was never that much of a surprise in the first place, and there are other, far better examples of how the show can be shocking and unpredictable. And yes, I do think this needs to be seen in the context of her (and you) incorretly dismissing the show as an unrelated concept that just stole "names and shop designs" from the original.

I'll also take a moment to point out the fundamental silliness of you making remarks about a show that you freely admit you don't really watch. You don't have to agree with me, but I'll point out that I've backed up my assertions pretty well. You, on the other hand, make broad statements like " Even the premise has been substantially changed" without anything to back it up. Don't watch the show if you don't want to, but don't try to press factually incorrect statements on someone who does watch the show.

From:

O_O

Guys, I was able to make my argument in 25 words or less. And if you disagree with it?

Won't change the quality of the work one way or the other. And has nothing to do with you as a person.

I spent six years of college studying this. My degree is in television, and if this is considered "quality" - and it is - I can only hang my head and go off to do something else.

Because it's not - and because so many people have never seen anything better? - don't know it's not.

It's better than American Idol. Maybe. Personally, what I've seen of SG-1 was more entertaining. That's not saying much - SG-1 knew it was camp and enjoyed doing it.

It's pretty. There's a ton of talent working on it. That does not equal the Great all that money and talent could produce.

And frankly, the TADA! of the season ender just hit ME as a complete insult.

If I'm wrong, I'd be delighted.

From:

And one of them is going to be played by Scott Bakula.

From:

Ok, first of all, I do apologise for saying that those were the only arguments you gave, because apparently that was untrue. I was not, however, deliberately misrepresenting anything. I simply did not see you say those things in the other thread. I would like to point out that this was not entirely my fault, as saying "go read my comments over there" and pointing to a thread that has fifteen billion comments in tons of threads doesn't make it as easy as it might be for me to actually find which particular post you're talking about. I did a quick scan of the comments I saw under your name, and what I found was a rather terse one saying "The names aren't all that came over - the fundamental plot and some core characters are still intact, as are a lot of the ship designs", which is what I was going off of. I apparently missed the other.

Yes, you've backed up your arguments, and I have (deliberately) not. The reason for this is because I really do not want to get into a huge, drawn out discussion of all of the details of these things when I know neither of us is going to change the other's opinions. It's pointless, and ultimately irrelevant to the point I was originally trying to make which was not really about the content of the show anyway. Frankly, I've already gotten into this more than I'd really wanted or intended to, and I'm done.

And for what it's worth, I acknowledge that you have, provided reasonable counter-arguments to her point. I have also already acknowledged that I'm not qualified to debate those issues, and I'm not going to. What I was trying to point out in my last post was that if you'd actually said those things in your first post instead of just dismissing her, I wouldn't have been jumping on you as hard, because it would have been a much more legitimate comment.

From:

I certainly acknowledge that I can be wordier than I need to be sometimes, but nevertheless I do have to say:

I think the position that any argument can be adequately represented in 25 words or less is crap.

If you don't know why it's crap, then I've just demonstrated my point.

From:

You can present *any* argument in 25 words or less. If you have to pad it with oh, 20 more, on a bad day? Granted, even entirely possible.

If you feel you can't do that without having to also present 500 words of "support" - what are you really trying to do?

The only time you need a larger word count is with term papers, master's theses and other scholarly works, where you are expected to present and support your argument in one neat package, for permanent storage.

To simply present your argument out there for discussion? 25 words or less.

(And when someone can take your hundreds of words, distills them down for you into ten words or less? Maybe people even walk away while you're still talking? You'll learn economy - and that ain't crap.)

From:

That's not an argument, that's a position. There's a substantial difference.

An argument requires reasoned discussion, which requires support and logical reasoning. Without that, all you've got is childish "is not!" "is too!" back and forth, which is stupid.

You can represent all your arguments in 25 words or less only if you argue on the level of a four-year-old.

(And I should point out that if you're using yourself as an example, some of your posts are so terse and random that, personally, I have no idea what you're trying to say half the time, anyway. When you're so "economical" nobody knows what you're talking about, that's crap.)

From:

Donna-

- No, your remarks, my remarks, whosever remarks don't change the show, and no, this has nothing to do with being a bad or a good person. But that said, I believe factual and rhetorical correctness is important in and of itself, and worth spending some time on. Hence the length of my replies to foogod.

- Case in point, I can't help but read this last comment of yours as a lot of bold assertions about the show, and the show's audience, that aren't backed up by anything but your RTF degree. And I find that a logically weak argument. I could just point that out and be done with it, but I think it's only fair that if I'm gonna do so, I offer up a few counter-arguments of my own:

- You have an RTF degree and don't like it, fine. There are a ton of other people who have equally good or better credentials who strongly disagree, and more importantly, have argued why that's not the case at some length. As a quick Google search (and a longer read-through of the articles in question) will attest, many different Salon critics have done a pretty good job of defending the show, as has Time magazine, the NY Times, the SF Chronicle, etc. And BSG's Peabody award speaks for itself.

- I have seen better TV than BSG, and, I suspect, so has a good portion of the show's audience. However, I've also seen enough TV to know that what we have seen is several cuts above the rest. Is it particularly fun? No, and you're probably right that SG-1 is more entertaining for many different values of "entertaining". But, for many people, BSG is far more engrossing than SG-1, and in the age of the Terror War, infinitely more relevant. That counts for a lot, and I can't help but note that BSG-as-metaphor is an angle that almost all of the show's detractors have completely ignored.

- Finally, if you're gonna decry the show as not being "quality", it would probably help a lot if you'd point to what you think "quality" actually is. I'm gonna assume that you don't think the other two shows you mention, American Idol and SG-1, are quality, but what else are you talking about? The Wire? The original Trek series? Playhouse 90? Until we have some real world baseline comparison, comparing the actual BSG to some theoretical "Great" that you think they should be able to achieve isn't fair.

- As for the TADA! of the season ender, I'd say the reason it struck you as a complete insult is because you haven't been watching the show. For those of us who have been watching, Starbuck's return was very much a dropped shoe we'd been anticipating for some time - it wasn't a TADA! so much as a "Ah, that's how they're doing it." You're seeing the event as something it's not, and using that incorrect representation as a stand-in for the quality of the whole show, which doesn't do anybody any good.

From:

FWIW, Foogod, while we've certainly had our disagreements up until now, I'm 100% behind you here.

From:

Ok, you're right, I had forgotten that I'd ever said the bit about ship designs. Mea culpa. Thank you for recognizing the rest of what I was saying.

And as for my original comment, you're also probably right that I could have laid out my argument more thoroughly. However, I didn't want to write a huge post in response to a relatively short missive from Kyburg, and I thought her original tone ("WHO NEEDS 2008 NOW", etc.) was somewhat antagonistic, and that made me more curt than I should have otherwise been. You're right that this could have been avoided if I'd been calmer at the beginning, and I will try to keep a cooler head in the future.

From:

stormdragon.livejournal.com

Al: Sam! Ziggy says that you have to shag Starbuck to leap.
Sam: But isn't she a robot?
Al: That wouldn't have stopped Kirk!
Sam: Damnit, never bring up anything Star Trek to me! You said we wouldn't talk about it!

From:

Make your argument. Not have one.

Good grief. Are you using so many words you're not READING them all?!

Terse and random? DUDE. I do this between phone calls, job duties and a LIFE. I'd say that was a very likely end result. Guilty as charged.

From:

TADA and see you in 2008! MWAH!

I'm just really tired of the preening.

And some days? A cigar is just a cigar. Jim likes this show - otherwise, I wouldn't have a thing to do with it - not know a thing, and likely not care.

I missed the whole Buffy thing, wholesale. Firefly and Serenity sit on my shelf, unwatched. Does my opinion have a thing to do with either of those properties? It doesn't. Are the people who really love these shows lessened in my estimation by their association? Absolutely not.

My ire is entirely directed towards the people who made the shows. Now, in the past and in the future, should it exist.

As they say, your mileage may vary. (Also, I might add I've already SAID I'm tired, cranky, sick and a number of things not consistent with being sparkling company. You get it all here, unvarnished.)

From:

..

You stay.

From:

I'm reading them just fine. You, however, are apparently not paying any attention to the words you're using, or at least what they mean.

We're talking about (using your own words) "presenting an argument".

Since you apparently didn't pay any attention before (too busy being derisive?), I'll repeat myself: Presenting an argument is not the same as presenting a position. If you don't understand the difference between the two words, go look it up.

(in case you can't figure it out, we're talking about definition 2 in this case)

From:

dracowayfarer.livejournal.com

"WHO NEEDS 2008 NOW."

I do.

So there. :P

From:

Trying out this short-and-pithy thing for a moment: it's been my experience that throughly making an argument (i.e. setting out your points and suppositions) is the best way to avoid having an argument.

But that said, if you really are, as you've said on this thread, sick, tired, irritable, and doing this in fits and starts, then your remarks are a lot more understandable. You just might want to be a lot more clear where you're coming from, headspace-wise, is all.

From:

And some presents come wrapped in pretty paper.

I recall we had a similar "discussion" in our department about the usage of the words "next weekend" - did it mean the Saturday closest to us, or a week from that Saturday? Seriously. The boss has a close friend who edits the Oxford Dictionary, and we had to contact him for The Answer.

It turned out it depended on the etiology. Native English speaker - the closest Saturday. Native French speaker? Week from that Saturday.

Guess who was having the argument.

I'll stand by my usage of "making" an argument in 25 words or less. That does not mean that one should assume you are going to SUPPORT that argument entirely with only those words. And by making your argument, it's understood that you will be able to support it adequately, or look like a total putz.

When they define pwned, it'll likely include both our usages. Yours is clearly more in use in more scholarly circles - and has its place - but I prefer the 'tip of the iceberg' approach. Your mileage may vary.

From:

"Lost-like faux-cojones"

EXACTLY.

From: