Slashdot Mirror
Time Names Battlestar Galactica Show Of The Year
szyzyg writes "Time Magazine's Television Critic James Poniewozik has put Battlestar Galactica at the top of his list of the Best TV Shows from 2005. His summary starts off 'Most of you probably think this entry has got to be a joke. The rest of you have actually watched the show.'"
And yet with all these problems it's still a lot better than 99% of the crap on TV.
Hell you wanna see bad? just watch 24 or Lost...
ROCKS. Man, that show is funny. Every character is fleshed out well, unique, and humorous. Dwight Schrute.... LMFAO. If you are a British-comedy snob and refuse to watch the American version... your loss.
The Office was a good choice, though.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Anything filmed after the 70's is pure shit.
/. people to watch ANYTHING on Turner Classic Movies. I suspect that if any of you would have to sit through a black and white movie you would burst into flames. This is the same crowd that would DIE if they had to ride in a car without an FM radio. I haven't listened to FM radio in 15 years. I listen only to AM radio or nothing at all.
When I go through looking for something to watch, if I find a black and white film that's a good prospect. Very few things in filmed in color pass as watchable. There were some GOOD color movies filmed in the 40's and 50's, they began to drop off steeply in the 70's and by the 80's, it was all over with.
I quit going to movies years ago once they began to pull film reels out of a monkey's ass.
One of the very, very few exceptions has been the LOTR movies. I thought those were well done, the plot was excellent, the actors were excellent, and yes, there was a lot of digital effects but they actually worked.
I am so f*cking sick of all these new movies and tv shows that bombard you with shit blowing up and people flying around and shit zinging all over the place with 37 fireballs per hour. It's all a distraction from the fact that the plot sucks ass, the "actors" suck ass and the entire movie sucks donkey ass in general.
I'm 45. The original Battle Star Galactica came out when I was a teenager in the 70's. Then, at that time, I thought it was cool. Now, when I look back at repeats of the original show, I can see how badly it sucked.
As for the new version of it, it sucks too. And that shakey-cam sucks. Whoever came up with that method of filming MOVIES needs to have their ass kicked and a camera shoved up there too. I can't tolerate that at all.
REAL documentaries do NOT have shakey camera effects. Watch the History Channel or any of the many educational channels on TV and you won't see shakey-cam.
Not even in WWII when bullets were zinging past the photographers head and bombs were raining down on them and blowing up within spitting distance did they pull that BS. They held those cameras steady and got good footage.
The shakey-cam is just a piss-poor method of disguising piss-poor, low budget SFX. Nothing more. If the camera was rock solid you could easily see how crappy the effects are. But with the camera whipping around madly like a drunkards arms on a balance beam it's impossible for you to detect the visual anomalies of cheap and badly done FX that ARE present but obscured by this very annoying methodology.
If you like that crap, fine. I don't. You can keep the sci-fi channel, I find it to be utterly worthless except for when they run old, ORIGINAL Twilight Zone shows. Bad acting? Yeah. Bad effects? Oh yeah. But you know what? It worked then and it still works. People still love those old shows and they are still wildly popular. It's because they were GOOD..
I suspect that you couldn't get 99.9% of the
Beh...
The other side of that is that having a successful show doesn't mean it's a good one either. Battlestar is good if your into people whinning for 45 min and then a quick glimpse of some cgi robots for the last 15. FireFly kicks its butt in every way, shape, and form.