<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Battlestar Galactica may have called my bluff</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.girldetective.net/?feed=rss2&#038;p=66" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66</link>
	<description>Reading, Writing, Movies and Mothering in Minneapolis, Mostly</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 06:21:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: nyc bette</title>
		<link>http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66&cpage=1#comment-231</link>
		<dc:creator>nyc bette</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:57:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66#comment-231</guid>
		<description>the BF liked it.  i found myself being irritated by Starbuck (maybe i was just too much in love with Dirk Benedict?) and Apollo's hissy fits.  thus, i fell asleep mid-episode. 

however, i did manage to stay awake last night for the entirety of "Point Pleasant," much to my dismay.   it's The O.C. -- with occasional references to the Prince of Darkness.  so disappointing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the BF liked it.  i found myself being irritated by Starbuck (maybe i was just too much in love with Dirk Benedict?) and Apollo&#8217;s hissy fits.  thus, i fell asleep mid-episode. </p>
<p>however, i did manage to stay awake last night for the entirety of &#8220;Point Pleasant,&#8221; much to my dismay.   it&#8217;s The O.C. &#8212; with occasional references to the Prince of Darkness.  so disappointing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Girl Detective</title>
		<link>http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66&cpage=1#comment-223</link>
		<dc:creator>Girl Detective</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:15:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66#comment-223</guid>
		<description>I can't comment on Ellis' comments because I haven't watched the mini-series, just the first two eps of the new series, both of which I liked. But I will be watching for some of the things he commented on, because he has some great insights from the sci-fi creator POV. I've noticed that a lot of the reviews that are middling are for the mini-series, not for the new series.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t comment on Ellis&#8217; comments because I haven&#8217;t watched the mini-series, just the first two eps of the new series, both of which I liked. But I will be watching for some of the things he commented on, because he has some great insights from the sci-fi creator POV. I&#8217;ve noticed that a lot of the reviews that are middling are for the mini-series, not for the new series.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blogenheimer</title>
		<link>http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66&cpage=1#comment-213</link>
		<dc:creator>Blogenheimer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:14:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66#comment-213</guid>
		<description>Since you mentioned Warren Ellis, I thought you might like to see his review of the Battlestar Gallactica miniseries.  As you can see below, he gives it a mixed review.  I enjoyed the show more than he did and plan to keep watching.   

"I was given the opportunity to watch the recent BATTLESTAR GALACTICA TV 
miniseries the other day.  Its inaugural screening on America's Sci-Fi 
Channel was very successful, the third most-watched programme they've ever 
broadcast.  Which is still only, you know, four and a half million people, 
but I'm given to understand that for a niche cable channel that's pretty 
damned good.  

It doesn't quite have the courage of its convictions.  

I watched it because I did a Bad Signal some months ago about the response 
to the writer/producer Ronald Moore from hardcore fans of the original TV 
series.  Fifty-odd ageing fanatic followers of a bad 70s sci-fi TV show 
with heavy Mormon overtones, given the opportunity to submit questions to 
Moore for a website interview, subjected him to a bizarre inquisition 
reminiscent of HUAC interrogations.  These people purely radiated hatred 
for him, based upon a smattering of earlier comments he made about his 
intended approach to the work.

His intent was to jettison everything that made the original stupid -- 
which was quite a bit, as the original was barely passable as children's 
television -- and build a realistic adult sf drama around what was left.  
Lose the dumb names, remove idiocies like sound in space, get rid of the 
Erich Von Daniken-via-Salt Lake City messianism, maintain a dramatic tone.

He didn't lose nearly enough to make it a serious piece of work.

The first obvious failure of courage is, in the opening scenes, the 
presence of, guess what, sound in space.  Which is oddly jarring since the 
special effects are excellent.  Taking their cue from things like the 
effects work of FIREFLY, the camera zooms and shakes to capture vessels in 
flight from unusual POVs, the result of Moore's conviction that the 
spaceborne "camerawork" should reflect not an omniscent floating POV, but 
actual thinking about where the "cameras" might be located.  At the 
conclusion of the opening scene, in fact, the "camera" is struck by flying 
debris, and our POV spins off into space before fading into black.  This is 
what's going to be lifted by the copycats -- a return to long- and 
middle-distance focus in visual sf to communicate scale.  (The AUTHORITY 
trick, if you like, borrowed from sf manga)

These very realistic images, occasionally inspired by such things as the 
cameras mounted on Apollo spacecraft, rub hard against the goofiness of 
Cylon fighters sounding like racing cars as they zoom past our field of 
vision.

The original show starred some frankly awful actors.  Lorne Greene, 
heartdead from years of TV Westerns, had a good voice and little else, and 
was surrounded by pleasant yet giftless presences like Dirk Benedict, 
Richard Hatch, and The Crying Girl Whose Job Was To Tell The Crew That 
Everyone Was Dead. If I wanted to be cruel, I'd note that in the new 
version The Crying Girl is now black and gets to smack the tonsils clean 
out of a wimpy political aide with her tongue.  

Edward James Olmos, in Lorne Greene's role, is twice the actor Greene was.  
Katee Sackhoff, as Kara Thrace (callsign "Starbuck"), plays against her 
looks -- in repose, she is strikingly pretty, but she spends most of the 
piece grinning and gurning -- with wild abandon, entirely prepared to make 
her character an unpleasant living shitbomb blasting everyone around her 
with shrapnel.  Mary McDonnell, whom I haven't seen onscreen since 
SNEAKERS, wears an emotional quirkiness close to the surface as the dying 
education secretary promoted to President in the wake of human society 
being destroyed by the bad old Cylon robot things.  She, in particular, 
suffers from frame-fucking -- hard cutting and dialogue overlapping shots, 
denying her complete in-frame performances.

What Moore can't leave alone are the elements that made GALACTICA fantasy.  
In the new version, everyone has English (or, at least, Terran) names -- 
but they all pray (a lot) to The Lords Of Kobol, and at the end they revive 
the whole thing about Earth being a mythic "lost colony".  So the 
commander's name is William, but Earth was colonised at the same time as 
their twelve worlds?  I call bullshit on you.  It's a logical hiccup, an 
element of out-and-out fantasy in something that had been otherwise 
rigorously imagined with strong internal logic.  How hard would it have 
been to have Earth as the original source of the twelve colonies, thereby 
closing that loop?  That gives you the Lords Of Kobol (dumb name) as the 
leaders of the original colonies, perhaps in the mode of Roger Zelazny's 
LORD OF LIGHT.  I don't mean to rewrite the guy -- my point is that he 
works hard to persuade a viewer to sit down and commit to the piece, and 
then leaves a leg off the chair.

I think maybe as a writer working in a visual medium I watch these things 
differently to someone looking to be entertained.  I was bugged by every 
officer on the ship having a different salute, for instance.  One service, 
one style of salute.  Internal consistency is important in sf , because it 
asks the viewer to process so much new information.  (This is part of why 
Star Trek is considered to be worthy of continual renewal -- the audience 
is already educated in its world.)  We need things to recognise, and we 
need to be taken in.  Show me eight different forms of salute in ten 
minutes and I'll show you a bunch of bloody actors.  And a writer-producer 
that's thought hard, but sometimes not hard enough.

There's a lot of sound acting, some intelligent (and callous) setpieces, 
and in general it's a lot better than it has any right to be.  You find 
yourself allowing for some occasional tacky and cheap-looking bits, because 
it's trying very very hard.  You just about forgive it for Boxey -- the 
orphan kid from the original, cloned here, and, somehow, with the same 
Seventies haircut.  

It's worth watching.  It puts most, if not all, recent sf tv in the shade.  
It's not as charming as FIREFLY (too late) became, but it shows ENTERPRISE 
up as the plain, thin thing it is.  And if it's Trek alumnus Ron Moore who 
illustrates, even with a revamp, that sf tv needs to grow up a bit, then 
that seems kind of just to me."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since you mentioned Warren Ellis, I thought you might like to see his review of the Battlestar Gallactica miniseries.  As you can see below, he gives it a mixed review.  I enjoyed the show more than he did and plan to keep watching.   </p>
<p>&#8220;I was given the opportunity to watch the recent BATTLESTAR GALACTICA TV<br />
miniseries the other day.  Its inaugural screening on America&#8217;s Sci-Fi<br />
Channel was very successful, the third most-watched programme they&#8217;ve ever<br />
broadcast.  Which is still only, you know, four and a half million people,<br />
but I&#8217;m given to understand that for a niche cable channel that&#8217;s pretty<br />
damned good.  </p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t quite have the courage of its convictions.  </p>
<p>I watched it because I did a Bad Signal some months ago about the response<br />
to the writer/producer Ronald Moore from hardcore fans of the original TV<br />
series.  Fifty-odd ageing fanatic followers of a bad 70s sci-fi TV show<br />
with heavy Mormon overtones, given the opportunity to submit questions to<br />
Moore for a website interview, subjected him to a bizarre inquisition<br />
reminiscent of HUAC interrogations.  These people purely radiated hatred<br />
for him, based upon a smattering of earlier comments he made about his<br />
intended approach to the work.</p>
<p>His intent was to jettison everything that made the original stupid &#8212;<br />
which was quite a bit, as the original was barely passable as children&#8217;s<br />
television &#8212; and build a realistic adult sf drama around what was left.<br />
Lose the dumb names, remove idiocies like sound in space, get rid of the<br />
Erich Von Daniken-via-Salt Lake City messianism, maintain a dramatic tone.</p>
<p>He didn&#8217;t lose nearly enough to make it a serious piece of work.</p>
<p>The first obvious failure of courage is, in the opening scenes, the<br />
presence of, guess what, sound in space.  Which is oddly jarring since the<br />
special effects are excellent.  Taking their cue from things like the<br />
effects work of FIREFLY, the camera zooms and shakes to capture vessels in<br />
flight from unusual POVs, the result of Moore&#8217;s conviction that the<br />
spaceborne &#8220;camerawork&#8221; should reflect not an omniscent floating POV, but<br />
actual thinking about where the &#8220;cameras&#8221; might be located.  At the<br />
conclusion of the opening scene, in fact, the &#8220;camera&#8221; is struck by flying<br />
debris, and our POV spins off into space before fading into black.  This is<br />
what&#8217;s going to be lifted by the copycats &#8212; a return to long- and<br />
middle-distance focus in visual sf to communicate scale.  (The AUTHORITY<br />
trick, if you like, borrowed from sf manga)</p>
<p>These very realistic images, occasionally inspired by such things as the<br />
cameras mounted on Apollo spacecraft, rub hard against the goofiness of<br />
Cylon fighters sounding like racing cars as they zoom past our field of<br />
vision.</p>
<p>The original show starred some frankly awful actors.  Lorne Greene,<br />
heartdead from years of TV Westerns, had a good voice and little else, and<br />
was surrounded by pleasant yet giftless presences like Dirk Benedict,<br />
Richard Hatch, and The Crying Girl Whose Job Was To Tell The Crew That<br />
Everyone Was Dead. If I wanted to be cruel, I&#8217;d note that in the new<br />
version The Crying Girl is now black and gets to smack the tonsils clean<br />
out of a wimpy political aide with her tongue.  </p>
<p>Edward James Olmos, in Lorne Greene&#8217;s role, is twice the actor Greene was.<br />
Katee Sackhoff, as Kara Thrace (callsign &#8220;Starbuck&#8221;), plays against her<br />
looks &#8212; in repose, she is strikingly pretty, but she spends most of the<br />
piece grinning and gurning &#8212; with wild abandon, entirely prepared to make<br />
her character an unpleasant living shitbomb blasting everyone around her<br />
with shrapnel.  Mary McDonnell, whom I haven&#8217;t seen onscreen since<br />
SNEAKERS, wears an emotional quirkiness close to the surface as the dying<br />
education secretary promoted to President in the wake of human society<br />
being destroyed by the bad old Cylon robot things.  She, in particular,<br />
suffers from frame-fucking &#8212; hard cutting and dialogue overlapping shots,<br />
denying her complete in-frame performances.</p>
<p>What Moore can&#8217;t leave alone are the elements that made GALACTICA fantasy.<br />
In the new version, everyone has English (or, at least, Terran) names &#8212;<br />
but they all pray (a lot) to The Lords Of Kobol, and at the end they revive<br />
the whole thing about Earth being a mythic &#8220;lost colony&#8221;.  So the<br />
commander&#8217;s name is William, but Earth was colonised at the same time as<br />
their twelve worlds?  I call bullshit on you.  It&#8217;s a logical hiccup, an<br />
element of out-and-out fantasy in something that had been otherwise<br />
rigorously imagined with strong internal logic.  How hard would it have<br />
been to have Earth as the original source of the twelve colonies, thereby<br />
closing that loop?  That gives you the Lords Of Kobol (dumb name) as the<br />
leaders of the original colonies, perhaps in the mode of Roger Zelazny&#8217;s<br />
LORD OF LIGHT.  I don&#8217;t mean to rewrite the guy &#8212; my point is that he<br />
works hard to persuade a viewer to sit down and commit to the piece, and<br />
then leaves a leg off the chair.</p>
<p>I think maybe as a writer working in a visual medium I watch these things<br />
differently to someone looking to be entertained.  I was bugged by every<br />
officer on the ship having a different salute, for instance.  One service,<br />
one style of salute.  Internal consistency is important in sf , because it<br />
asks the viewer to process so much new information.  (This is part of why<br />
Star Trek is considered to be worthy of continual renewal &#8212; the audience<br />
is already educated in its world.)  We need things to recognise, and we<br />
need to be taken in.  Show me eight different forms of salute in ten<br />
minutes and I&#8217;ll show you a bunch of bloody actors.  And a writer-producer<br />
that&#8217;s thought hard, but sometimes not hard enough.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a lot of sound acting, some intelligent (and callous) setpieces,<br />
and in general it&#8217;s a lot better than it has any right to be.  You find<br />
yourself allowing for some occasional tacky and cheap-looking bits, because<br />
it&#8217;s trying very very hard.  You just about forgive it for Boxey &#8212; the<br />
orphan kid from the original, cloned here, and, somehow, with the same<br />
Seventies haircut.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s worth watching.  It puts most, if not all, recent sf tv in the shade.<br />
It&#8217;s not as charming as FIREFLY (too late) became, but it shows ENTERPRISE<br />
up as the plain, thin thing it is.  And if it&#8217;s Trek alumnus Ron Moore who<br />
illustrates, even with a revamp, that sf tv needs to grow up a bit, then<br />
that seems kind of just to me.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vince Tuss</title>
		<link>http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66&cpage=1#comment-212</link>
		<dc:creator>Vince Tuss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66#comment-212</guid>
		<description>Grod, this is my own impression and not freshed my watching the miniseries again, but I remember have the feeling that the miniseries was going to turn on who the Cylon in the ranks was. But once it was revealed, the show just ended, which seemed odd for a one-story arc. But now after watching the first two episodes, I'll be watching again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grod, this is my own impression and not freshed my watching the miniseries again, but I remember have the feeling that the miniseries was going to turn on who the Cylon in the ranks was. But once it was revealed, the show just ended, which seemed odd for a one-story arc. But now after watching the first two episodes, I&#8217;ll be watching again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: G. Grod</title>
		<link>http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66&cpage=1#comment-211</link>
		<dc:creator>G. Grod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66#comment-211</guid>
		<description>I'm impressed by Olmos and McDonnell.  They do a really good job, which sets up the rest of the cast (unknown to me) to have some leeway for overdoing it a bit (I'm looking at you, Sackoff and Callis).  I don't think the Boomer secret did much for the miniseries one way or the other, since we were wondering about who it was and they didn't tell us until the end.  I'm glad they got right back to it immediately in the new episodes, because there's no point in trying to drag it out.
Oh, and despite the sound effects in space (which Firefly got right) I'm really impressed with the f/x.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m impressed by Olmos and McDonnell.  They do a really good job, which sets up the rest of the cast (unknown to me) to have some leeway for overdoing it a bit (I&#8217;m looking at you, Sackoff and Callis).  I don&#8217;t think the Boomer secret did much for the miniseries one way or the other, since we were wondering about who it was and they didn&#8217;t tell us until the end.  I&#8217;m glad they got right back to it immediately in the new episodes, because there&#8217;s no point in trying to drag it out.<br />
Oh, and despite the sound effects in space (which Firefly got right) I&#8217;m really impressed with the f/x.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66&cpage=1#comment-210</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66#comment-210</guid>
		<description>I have to admit that a lot of the appeal for me thus far is the "look" of the series. I too enjoy gritty darkness, and it was there in abundance, from the raggedness of the crew in "33" to the tension in "Water". I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to admit that a lot of the appeal for me thus far is the &#8220;look&#8221; of the series. I too enjoy gritty darkness, and it was there in abundance, from the raggedness of the crew in &#8220;33&#8243; to the tension in &#8220;Water&#8221;. I&#8217;m keeping my fingers crossed on this one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vince Tuss</title>
		<link>http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66&cpage=1#comment-209</link>
		<dc:creator>Vince Tuss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girldetective.net/?p=66#comment-209</guid>
		<description>Sat down and watched the first two episodes myself today, and I enjoyed it much more than the miniseries. I think Boomer's secret was a negative in the miniseries and hurt the ending, but it will turn out to be a positive for drama in the series.

Also, got your comment on my blog. Am I to read your mention of cooler GWU friends as saying that you went to GW? (I'm sorry to pose it this way, but I didn't see an e-mail address here, and the one on the old site was bounced back.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sat down and watched the first two episodes myself today, and I enjoyed it much more than the miniseries. I think Boomer&#8217;s secret was a negative in the miniseries and hurt the ending, but it will turn out to be a positive for drama in the series.</p>
<p>Also, got your comment on my blog. Am I to read your mention of cooler GWU friends as saying that you went to GW? (I&#8217;m sorry to pose it this way, but I didn&#8217;t see an e-mail address here, and the one on the old site was bounced back.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
