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.'"

13 of 520 comments (clear)

  1. A pleasant suprise by ChowRiit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is definately a pleasant suprise - I personally think that Battlestar Galactica was remade with class, care and just the right ammount of respect. The show neither attempted to please everyone like so many do (then fall on their faces as bland clones), nor did it attempt to remain 100% true to the original and thus dated itself. It was a well deserved award, for a good peice of science fiction.

  2. Lost? by antdude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where's Lost? That's another great show! :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Lost? by drsquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps he saw through the shallow attempt to string people along watching thousands of empty episodes with nothing happening, with each minor plot point stretched out for an hour, and the obligatory bit of 'scary' music at the end of every scene to try and make the viewer think it's exciting. Not to mention endless unjustified hype and a new 'mystery' introduced every episode just to keep people from switching over.

      Lost is what happens when the marketing suits are in charge of writing the script. Cynical TV at its worst.

  3. Re:Could you say that again? by ericdano · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Are we watching the SAME show? Bad acting? What? Bad plots? What??!?!

    Both seasons of Galactica have been great. The second season has been extremely good. Better than the first season. There have been some episodes that are just amazing.

    Absolutely the best show on. House would be my number 2.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
  4. Re:Another Note About The List... by Luscious868 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It seems like the talent has moved elsewhere and the big three are caving in under their own weight.

    It's about risk taking. The major networks simply aren't willing to take risks. They wait for the latest flavor of the month and then rush to copy it. A million versions of CSI, a million versions of Law and Order, a million reality shows. The big three have become a joke. ABC is the only network of the big three that has non-news related shows that I bother to TiVo anymore. Fox, FX, Sci-Fi and HBO are where it's at now. FX has to be my favorite network in terms of original programming. The Shield, Rescue Me and Nip / Tuck are great shows and Thief looks promising. HBO would be next in line with Deadwood, Rome, Curb Your Enthusiam and The Soporanos (which should end after this season ... talk about dragging things out .. but it's still better than 80% of the other shows on TV).

  5. No Arrested Development? by RonnyJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No Arrested Development? It's the funniest and most clever sitcom I've seen for many years, but, sadly, it just doesn't get the public recognition it deserves.

  6. Love the show, no rewatchability by rwhamann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love the show and catch every episode, but many episodes just don't stand up for a second viewing. Not all of them - 33 and Water I must have watched 5 times the first week after I saw them the first time. Others - eehhhh, not so much.

    Someone else mentioned Simpsons. The first season, my roommates and I recorded every episode. As soon as the episode finshed, we would rewind it and watch it again. We must have watched "The Babysitter Bandit" episode 4 times that night.

    No show since has had that level of rewatchability, and I doubt another one will.

    --
    seg fault
  7. THAT by Mad+Ogre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is what they should have said about "Firefly".

    --
    MadOgre.com
  8. Re:And most importantly... by MSG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    aggressive "sex sells" nature of the character makes me resent the makers for attempting to influence me in such a base way

    They're not trying to influence you. The character is manipulating humans, particularly Baltar, and using their human instincts to do it. You should feel like it's manipulation, because it is. It just doesn't happen to be directed at you.

    The whole human-form cylons thing rankles me, too

    You don't "get" the show, then. It's not a cost-saving measure. It's the essence of the show. The cylons are biological. They think and breath and live. They profess a belief in a God that gives them life, and that they are our successors. Are they right? Do they even really believe that? As characters, it's those questions that give them depth in intrigue.

    the camera would zoom in on their face

    That does bother a lot of people, but as far as I can tell, the crew is trying to imitate the way real humans view the world. The camera focuses narrowly when a human watching would feel tense, because that's what a human does. The camera shakes and darts, because that's what our eyes do. You're not accustomed to seeing a camera do it, and it may never catch on as a technique (many will appreciate that), but it's interesting to see it done, when you understand what's happening.

  9. Re:Yeah... yeah... by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That James Poniewozik dude is also responsible for Hitler being the "Time - Man of the Year '39"

    You say that like it's a bad thing. Very few people have had as lasting an impact on the human consciousness as Hitler. As long as the award is for "most notable", and not "most racially tolerant" or "most philanthropic", it was a good choice. You shouldn't just ignore the effect people have on history just because they're evil, genocidal psychopaths - if you ignore them, then you become less equipped to deal with them in the future.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  10. Re:Could you say that again? by Mr_Huber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it is not that the acting pre-seventies was universally piss-poor, but the style of acting was different. Dramatical tastes differ for different periods.

    In the thirties and forties, acting styles seem to have been more heavily influenced by stage acting and being able to project emotions and actions broadly enough for those in the back rows to relate. The epics of the fifties seemed to require a larger than life stance to live up to the broad material. In the sixties and seventies, the cultural revolutions playing out in society as a whole seem to have seeped into both scripts and acting. Scripts ceased to focus on epics and refocused on individual struggles and personal drama ("I *am* big. It's the *pictures* that got small." - a perfect lament for the death of epics.). Such scripts required a more natural acting style. The eighties brought us action heroes, with their odd mix of broad and natural styles capped with one liners. The nineties brought us blue screen acting, trying to combine any of the above styles whilst playing to nothing.

    To return to our topic, Battlestar Galactica is trying very hard to stay with the modern, naturalistic style while incorporating a notion of naturalistic production. The idea for the look of the show is a war documentary. The acting style is as natural as possible and the camera movements are, by and large, an attempt to replicate the feel of a handheld or shoulder mounted camera. Effects shots seek to replicate Gulf War footage and acting tries to replicate human emotional response under massive pressure. For some, this succeeds admirably, feeding the show's atmosphere. For others, it just looks like bad camera work to hide the lack of a budget and mopey, neurotic characters portrayed by actors who run the gamut of emotions from A to B, as Miss Parker would say.

  11. Re:Yeah... yeah... by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That James Poniewozik dude is also responsible for Hitler being the "Time - Man of the Year '39"

    And Hitler wasn't? Did he or did he not influence what was going on in 1939?

    Every single Episode of "Andromeda" wipes the floor with the whole Battlestar Craptica crap.

    You have got to be joking. Andromeda is weak, deriviative stuff starring a second-string hunk as your standard rebel hero in cliche-land. I can hardly finish an episode even when I'm bored. Galactica breaks ground in so many ways it's not funny. the space flight is more realistic than anything else out there. The ensemble acting is superb. The plot arc raises interesting questions...

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  12. Re:And most importantly... by MSG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on...raping the alien? ... After that episode I don't watch BSG.

    That was the best episode yet. The whole show questions the validity of the cylons' claim to humanity, and that episode puts the questions in very certain terms. Are the cylons "human" enough to be entitled to human rights? Was it morally wrong for the soldiers to rape the cylon they'd captured? If not, then would it have been wrong to do the same to Sharon?

    That episode was directed at everyone who did not or does not believe that the cylons are "human" themselves. If they're "toasters", as so many of the human characters believe, then is anything that you do to them wrong? There are definitely characters in the show that think so, and in believing so, they are beginning to see the cylons as a living race.

    Of course the show is an allegory. Rape is torture. The cylons, as a race, are trying to exterminate the human race, although some individual cylons don't support that goal. Are the humans justified in torturing the individuals that they perceive as the enemy? What if they cylons might give up some information that could save human lives by doing so?