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.'"
6 out of 10 shows on the list are cable/satellite only and of those, 2 are on pay channels only. Can the big networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC compete anymore? It seems like the talent has moved elsewhere and the big three are caving in under their own weight.
http://religiousfreaks.com/I love this show. Battlestar is the only show in the last 10 years I have watched every episode of. It was disappointing to see mini-series + 13 episodes being season 1 then only getting 10 more for season 2.0. I really hope they get some budgeting to do more episodes now.
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
I thought it would stink when I read about the changes they had made to the original such as making Starbuck a woman, but it has turned out to be pretty good overall. There are a few things I wish they hadn't changed. There was something I like about those polished chrome Cylons, and the old fighters. (Both Cylon and Colonia)
And after watching the original series again for the first time in over 20 years, it wasn't nearly as good as I remember - even the first season before it started going south. (I won't even mention Galactica 1980) I was only 12 or so at the time the originals came out, so my standards in entertainment were probably lower. On a negative note, I would swear both original and new series must have been sponsored by a tobacco company.
I hope next season will be still showing on weekends in HD.
I wonder when the six million dollar man remake comes out?
My rights don't need management.
Andromeda was: Not released in 2005. (In my view) poorly acted. Attempted to be what so many science fiction shows try, which is appealing to "the common American", who doesn't tend to watch science fiction anyway, rather than being a decent, realistic show. Not released in 2005! Don't get me wrong, I liked Andromeda, but I'm under no illusions - it was a formulaic science fiction, watched for a bit of fun, with no real merit to it. I can name off the top of my head at least 5 better mainstream science fiction series (in the same sub-genre of space/futuristic), and as there aren't many science fiction shows of that type... It doesn't bode well for Andromeda.
C'mon. Prison Break?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Shouldn't all 10 entries be "reality TV". With the way all the networks push this type of show, you'd expect them to be absolute chart-toppers. Shouldn't a show like "Who Wants To Eat A Bug" (aka "Fear Factor") be at #1?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Number Six is one of the biggest reasons I can't stand the show. I don't find her particularly attractive, for one thing, and the aggressive "sex sells" nature of the character makes me resent the makers for attempting to influence me in such a base way. The whole human-form cylons thing rankles me, too. I can't help but compare them to Star Trek's forehead aliens, i.e. it's purely a cost-saving measure. The storyline thus naturally leans toward tired how-do-I-know-you're-not-one-of-them bodysnatchers crap.
The acting is annoying, too, but I don't blame it all on the cast. It seems the director has it in his head that whispering + closeups = drama and tension. That's the worst part, I think. Every time I tried to watch this show, someone would drop their voice to a whisper, the camera would zoom in on their face, and I'd change the channel.
Battlestar Galactica was darn good with first season. After that I think much of what happens feels awfully repeative, slow and farfetched. I'm really disappointed with 2:nd season, too much petty infighting while whole humanity is dying and I got the feeling they're stalling the story. Like they would be streching the shorter story to longer one.
But I think Lost instead has been pretty intresting last few episodes, before that I got the feeling they were just talking amids woods towards the end of first Season.
My vote however goes to Rome. Not because it's best and most intresting serie, but because it's actually few that actually tries to portray each minicule detail of some place that isn't right now and here. It's not just a serie written one place, and imitated poorly in another. It feels like story that happens in a real place. The characters also quite beliavable, and not too dramatic or shallow. Actors are quite good too, better than in prementioned two in my opionion. Story is bit short however, and maybe lacks some depth.
Rome is more portray than a play in my opionion.
Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows has the trouble seen me, even I sometimes wonder why I write these line
Plenty of soaps, yes, but only one show that has high-quality characters who actually display some depth, as opposed to the one-dimensional "characters" on most other shows...
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
The first possibility is that this show is really, truly deserving of the number one spot of 2005's best television.
The second possibility is that the man behind the article had the self-discipline and fervent determination as a die-hard fan of Battlestar Galactica (and probably any of its sci-fi cousins) to give reasonable, detailed and accountable reviews up until that point to earn the credibility he needed to be in the position to be the reviewer of 2005's best television shows. And then, at the last moment he pulled out his hardcore sci-fi passion and placed it at the top of a list that usually never gets a sci-fi show just to have snuck in the passion of his life into the mainstream.
Sneaky or not, the rest of the list is reasonable (which still allows for the second possibility to actually be true).
My page.
Where's Lost? That's another great show!
Umm, yeah, whatever.
I watched every episode in the first season, where they built up mystery upon mystery upon mystery. That's fine, but at some point, you have to solve the mystery. I figured they'd answer most of the questions in the season finale, but no, they just made up more questions. At this point, we still don't have any clue what's going on - whether the doctor is dreaming the whole thing, or they're subjects of an experiment, or they're actually lost on a tropical island.
Personally, I think the writers don't have a clue, either. They probably only wrote enough for the first season and they didn't expect the show to become popular. When it was very popular, they got caught off-guard and now they're scrambling to keep up.
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
I agree, House is my favourite show on TV.
At one point last year the plots started to feel a little formulaic (person nearly dies, repeat until 5 minutes before the end of show, then House figures it out and saves the day) but they have been getting better about that this season. The thing that really makes it a great show is the acting and the snappy dialogue. Also, unlike LOST and 24, the other 2 shows I watch, each epsiode actually has a satisfying resolution instead of unending cliffhangers. (A cliffhanger once in a while is fun, but when it's every week it gets annoying!)
Personally, Stargate beats BSG anyday.
Not the last season, that's for sure. I don't know what they're trying to do, introducing another "invincible enemy", at this point.
Come on, Stargate writers, it's time to reveal the stargate to the public. All the social, political, and economic fallout would give you at least another two seasons' worth of material. Then, re-visit a bunch of the planets we've been to before and let's see if SG-1 made things better. (What happened to O'Neil's child, for instance?)
Anyway, I'm afraid this might be the last season for SG-1, and that would be disappointing.
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
It isn't just that the scripts that are sloppy, it's like the concept behind the show was only an afterthought. Military dudes shooting at aliens is all we're meant to be interested in. Never mind that I don't even have to be paying attention to notice gaping plot-holes where writers have thrown science out the window. It's fiction, so that means they can stretch things a little and invent magic gizmos that can bend time or materialize fresh pretzels out of thin air, but there's still a point where things get a little too nutty. There's limits to how far you can stretch creative licence.
Shows like BSG, Firefly and even Farscape have shown that you can have outlandish plots without having to abandon all logic, so there's really no excuse.
% mkdir
% ls -dF
... until I watched Firefly. After watching Firefly, I realised that I didn't really care about any of the characters in BSG. I'm not all that excited about the new episodes of BSG, but if new Firefly episodes were being made I would be counting down the days in anticipation.
I'll still watch BSG, but it's not as good as other sci fi shows in recent history.
-- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!