For those who feel nuGalactica failed...

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I think nBSG failed for people more invested in the mysteries than in the characters.

By the middle of Season 3, it was impossible for me to be invested in any of the characters. By that point, it was clear their decisions in each episode were dictated by a spinning wheel or a dart board.

[jollyreaper]

The funny thing is my recollection of the episode was that the destruction of the Olympic Carrier stopped the cylons and it wasn't until the RDM interview that I found out it wasn't the case.

Some people might prefer a tragedy follows a formula. A bad thing can befall a great man through no fault of his own but to be a Greek hero, the thing that makes him great must carry the seeds of his own destruction. Lacking that doesn't make for bad drama but he wouldn't be a Greek hero.

The protagonist in the Fly causes his own predicament. It's important to the nature of the story. Samsa is a blameless victim which is important to Kafka's story. You can't swap the details without vastly changing the themes.

In isolation, 33 works but in the larger context I believe it is a failure because I think writers need to know what the mystery is if they are going to tell one. And, as I've stated, the lack of planning is what undercut the character-driven drama. They wouldn't have written themselves into holes if they knew what they were doing in the first place.

Based on what they told us, the Cylons were important. Their plan was important. Their motives were mysterious and we should want to know the answers. They were not superfluous to the show.

Of course, there will be violent disagreement on how things should be written. Stephen King hates outlines and free writes. That's a big reason why I think his endings suck after such strong starts. Other writers start with the ending and write the story to get there. The journey and the destination are both important because after all that effort, you want to show its been for something.

[lPeregrine]

How a man became a bug in the Metamorphosis is not important while it does have bearing in the Fly.

Exactly. How Gregor became a bug is irrelevant. All that matters is how the tale shows that xenophobia begets isolation and ultimately discrimination. I feel that way about "33." I think it's irrelevant how the Cylons track because what's important is what happens to those on Galactica while protecting everyone. In this case, the bug is the Cylon tracking every 33 minutes and the isolation and discrimination is the toll taken on the fleet.

Except there are three pretty big differences here:

1) The Metamorphosis is entirely based on symbolism, you're supposed to consider what everything means, not treat it as an accurate recording of events. So of course the transformation (whatever form it takes, whether a literal bug or a man driven insane by society) is unexplained, it happens because it needs to happen. It's weird and makes no sense, but just accept that it has to be a bug for the symbolism to work. BSG, on the other hand, is presented as "these events are really happening", and the audience expects everything to follow a logical sequence and things to happen for plausible reasons.

2) Kafka wrote a short story, not an ongoing series. There's no sequel in which Gregor reappears as a normal human with nothing ever said about his mysterious transformation, no related story in the same universe which would be affected by the shocking discovery that humans can transform into bugs, etc. It doesn't matter if no explanation is ever given because once the story is over that's it. But a TV series is different, it has to be more than just a sequence of separate stories. Events in one story have to fit with the events in others, and if they don't it stops feeling like a coherent overall story and more like a frustrating sequence of arbitrary plot devices strung together to milk the cash cow as efficiently as possible. Leaving '33 minutes' as a complete mystery does exactly that, why does it happen just this once and never again?

3) The details of the transformation aren't a major part of the story. The whole transformation is simply declared in a single sentence and the story moves on to how Gregor is dealing with his new state. It's easily dismissed as "it just happened" because it isn't a recurring theme, the author says it once and forgets it, which tells the reader that they shouldn't care about the precise details or expect to see an answer. '33', on the other hand, references the number over and over again. Why 33 minutes instead of 30? Why the same number every time and not just "about once every half hour"? The repetition suggests that "why 33?" is a central question in the story, and when no answer is ever given all of that attention is wasted and it's just frustrating.



Of course these aren't fatal flaws, an author can get away with having an occasional plot element that just happens because it needs to happen. But that kind of thing has to be kept to a minimum, if every week brings a new plot device to be forgotten by next week, things just happen because they're needed for this week's plot, mysteries are dropped and never answered as soon as the episode is over, etc, it gets annoying very quickly.

[Alkaloid]

33 wasn't really a theme for the episode though, I think it was just part of the mystery. It ties into the how are the cylons tracking the fleet, and why does it take 33 minutes. There is enough information that I could have a guess at some reasonable answers, but to actually know the answer would solve the mystery, so we will never know it, and that robs us of what I'll call the melancholy of the episode, that the people responsible will never truly know if the killed 300 perfectly innocent people for no reason at all. That was what made the episode work, all the information we have makes as much sense to the viewer as it does to the characters, so we know they can never come to a different conclusion than we did without being wildly different people, and it gives you a personal insight into their character.

I think that adequately describes most of the characters in the show. We find out they were scum even before the attacks, so they haven't changed much at all. Are they worth saving?

Were they scum, though? They weren't perfect people, they were just people. Some where better than others, some worse, some tried to be decent and failed, some succeeded. I'd say there was a failed attempt to contrast the flaws of the human characters against the purity of the cylons and that ultimately neither was perfect. Human society could be awful and exploitative and discriminatory, but even after everything it was built on was destroyed it staggered on, while the cylons were sou bound by ideology theirs flew apart the instant ti encountered change, despite being much more harmonious. I'm also probably giving too much credit to the writing and a last minute attempt to make it all mean something.

I almost prefer it when there are no real answers and you have to extrapolate shit for yourself. That's why I liked Starbucks ending so much. Meanwhile I thought the Final Five info-dump was kind of lame.

See, I find that works when there is enough sense for you to put pieces of a puzzle together to draw conclusions, but there are never enough pieces to be sure of what the answer really is. A sort of, If A+B+C then X means Y but if A+B=D then X means Z and theres not quite enough to know. The thing with Starbuck just made no fucking sense at all, it was like someone grabbed half a dozen rocks of different beaches and called it a puzzle, theres no way it will fit together to make something that is a picture that you haven't made up yourself and event then you are probably reaching.

[FaxModem1]

I started out not liking the first part of the pilot miniseries that much, as it seemed a bit boring and bland. The second half, which was shown the next night, made up for a lot of it. We had characters facing tough choices. The big one for me, which I discussed with my family the night of airing, was what options Roslin had when she abandoned the non-FTL ships and we see standing by that decision but it tearing her up inside while at the same time watching the little girl playing with her doll before being nuked. Roslin saved humanity, but at a severe cost. Could she have saved more lives by evactuating the non-FTL ships immediately? Etc.

I got into the series regular when it was in repeats for its first season and I was living on my own. I rather enjoyed the characters, the plots, the allegories, and of course the spacebattles and scifi action. But what they took away from the show's first season that I think made me hate the show as the seasons went on was the hope and occasional bit of lightness. The episode 'Tigh Me Up, Tigh me Down', which is essentially BSG's comedy episode, was an accident, as they were trying for a Crimson Tide, everyone mutinying against each other episode, and instead it turned into a comedy. I think that was one of the season's greatest strengths, as we saw the characters interacting with each other, we could laugh at them, and laugh with them.

Then, as the series went on, they decided to lose all traces of comedy or happiness. In a later episode, they have a party at the beginning of an episode, as the Scifi channel asked them to include more happy or light moments. So they included a party, and have it end with the party all miserably dying due to an explosion. In my opinion, the creators of the show messed up in that regard. Joy, hope, happiness, that could no longer happen on Battlestar Galactica. You had to be miserable at all times, because the situation was serious.

Now, keep in mind, I'm not asking for there to be a kegger after the nuclear apocalypse, but the occasional moment of sweetness, of hope or love would have made the show a bit easier to swallow. Keep in mind the ending of the original miniseries, where after all they've been through, there still seems to be hope, to be love, that things might be all right. Now contrast this with the series after season 2. If there seems to be any form of light or joy, the writers want to squash it. I can take tragedy, but even tragedies have their moments of comedy. And that's why I lost interest in the show.

[ray245]

I wonder if the exclusion of light hearted moment was a direct response towards the direction of the oBSG show. For all we know, the producers and writers decide that writing more light hearted moments will make the show too much like the original series and deliberately make the show more and more depressing.

[JLTucker]

I was thinking about the religious aspect of the show and how it upset many, namely the alleged cop out of "god did it." I wonder if you've all looked at the religious angle from the scope of the entire series and the "life began out there" portion. Anyone who has taken a world civilization class knows that humanity has always created some form of God to deal with problems and explain phenomena. In BSG, there's a battle between the numerous Gods and the one true God. Our own history shows that the numerous Gods were eventually abandoned for a single God. We also know that God is seen as the answer to everything that can't be explained. Perhaps the writers did this on purpose to show that this mentality will likely never dissipate and will always be a part of our cultrue? Perhaps the reason the writers chose the divisive "God did it" as a way to demonstrate that? Maybe they believe that God is the answer to what can't be explained? Maybe Kara disappearing, and the existence of head Baltar and head Six, are seen as instruments of God to some of the characters because it can't be explained yet in a rational manner?

When I watched the series last year for the nth time, I thought about this. I'm not sure where I stand on it.

[Themightytom]

I was thinking you are incredibly disingenuous and have been trolling us all in this thread as you have no intention of participating in the topical discussion. Have you considered the possibility that we're not idiots and we can see you trying to turn shit into gold?

[JLTucker]

I was thinking you are incredibly disingenuous and have been trolling us all in this thread as you have no intention of participating in the topical discussion. Have you considered the possibility that we're not idiots and we can see you trying to turn shit into gold?

My post is on topic. People felt the show cemented its place in the realm of shit with the "god did it" portion of the series finale. I simply wanted to see if others looked at the writing the way I did.

Do go on showing how worthless you are when it comes to discussing anything of interest. Hell, I answered your pressing question about the flashbacks in the series finale and you have yet to respond. I guess you'd rather claim TROLL than to any put any thought into your criticisms. Hooray for being the poster child of SDN and its view on art?

[JLTucker]

I was thinking you are incredibly disingenuous and have been trolling us all in this thread as you have no intention of participating in the topical discussion. Have you considered the possibility that we're not idiots and we can see you trying to turn shit into gold?

Has it ever occurred to you that I actually enjoy looking deeper into art than paying mind to plot holes, logical explanations for technological problems, ships, weaponry, etc? I don't care about any of that. Such discussions bore the hell out of me. What I look for I feel whether what the artists intended to do worked. I think what Moore and company set out to do worked most of the time, even though there are substantial problems. I think the ultimate objection here is that I love the show (and even admit its faults) and a lot of you don't. Therefore, I am a troll. At least that's what you seem to be saying, anyway. I haven't been called a troll by anyone else.

It has already been established that jollyreaper didn't want any sort of discussion with this thread. What he wanted was pats on the back and agreement. Do you want that too or do you want to discuss a divisive series with someone who holds the opposite views you do?

[Crazedwraith]

I was thinking about the religious aspect of the show and how it upset many, namely the alleged cop out of "god did it." I wonder if you've all looked at the religious angle from the scope of the entire series and the "life began out there" portion. Anyone who has taken a world civilization class knows that humanity has always created some form of God to deal with problems and explain phenomena. In BSG, there's a battle between the numerous Gods and the one true God. Our own history shows that the numerous Gods were eventually abandoned for a single God. We also know that God is seen as the answer to everything that can't be explained. Perhaps the writers did this on purpose to show that this mentality will likely never dissipate and will always be a part of our cultrue? Perhaps the reason the writers chose the divisive "God did it" as a way to demonstrate that?

I think there's very little probability of this being intentional compared to the likelihood that they made up as they went along, wrote themselves in the corner and this was the only way they could think to get themselves out of it.

Of course if we're going to be philosophical about it; 'is it what the teacher teaches, or what the learner learns?'

Just because the author's did not intend greater meaning doesn't mean you're wrong to get something from it. If that's what you get out of the episode. More power to you.

[JLTucker]

I was thinking you are incredibly disingenuous and have been trolling us all in this thread as you have no intention of participating in the topical discussion. Have you considered the possibility that we're not idiots and we can see you trying to turn shit into gold?

Do go on showing how worthless you are when it comes to discussing anything of interest. Hell, I answered your pressing question about the flashbacks in the series finale and you have yet to respond. I guess you'd rather claim TROLL than to any put any thought into your criticisms. Hooray for being the poster child of SDN and its view on art?

Crazedwraith asked about the flashbacks, not you. Sorry about that. I'm juggling a lot of poster. My point still stands, though.

[Crazedwraith]

Well, my first thought are the following line from Adama in the miniseries: "You know, when we fought the Cylons, we did it to save ourselves from extinction. But we never answered the question, why? Why are we as a people worth saving? We still commit murder because of greed, spite, jealousy. And we still visit all of our sins upon our children. We refuse to accept the responsibility for anything that we've done."

I think that adequately describes most of the characters in the show. We find out they were scum even before the attacks, so they haven't changed much at all. Are they worth saving?

On the other hand, maybe it's supposed to answer that question by showing all of their basic humanity. They all deal with mundane, grinding, banal issues - Roslin's romantic issues, Adama's superiors and dead-end career, Lee's... Pigeon... But they all reach a kind of grace at the end in those last shots, of Adam looking up at the stars, Roslin serene in the fountain, and Lee letting go. That is worth saving.

Tucker, that's interesting thought but I'm not sure why a show would want to highlight a complete lack of character development over the course of the show. Unless of course the point is as NUA they were worth saving then and they're worth saving now. But since they're the protagonists I would have taken it as read anyway.

Really the only flashback I comprehend the point of was Boomer's and that seemed an utterly hamfisted but of foreshadowing for her final swapping of sides.

Though it sort of makes sense to me if they were trying to make Daybreak stand on its own artistically as a distinct film, seperate from the rest of the series. The before/after bits. The foreshadowing of stuff we already know. That kind of thing.

[JLTucker]

Tucker, that's interesting thought but I'm not sure why a show would want to highlight a complete lack of character development over the course of the show. Unless of course the point is as NUA they were worth saving then and they're worth saving now. But since they're the protagonists I would have taken it as read anyway.

Yeah, I was just offering one possible interpretation. NUA made another one that prompted me to see how the past mirrored the present day in Daybreak, something i never considered every time I watched the finale.

[Spoonist]

This is rich, you specifically run away from my post due to time constraints yet find the time to discuss what you consider art while still ctitizising other posters view on what is art for them? Real classy.

[JLTucker]

This is rich, you specifically run away from my post due to time constraints yet find the time to discuss what you consider art while still ctitizising other posters view on what is art for them? Real classy.

You missed the point. Themightytom decided I was a troll because I disagreed with him and others in this thread. He obviously feels that looking deeper into art instead things like plot holes, technological strengths, ships, and firepower, is bad. I pondered deeper meaning into something that is widely detested about the finale and he dismisses it as trollish behavior.

And you are correct: it was wrong for me to continue the discussion without responding to your post. I skipped it for the time being because my response would take a while. You''l be surprised with the results.

This has me intrigued. Would you mind listing which unresolved plots remained after the time skip?

There was a couple of time skips in nBSG and each one had unresolved plot lines. The final one was just amazingly WTFesque. For actual lists, google it,there are hundreds of people with more time than me that put a lot of effort into writing huge WTF lists, especially for the final time skip.
Why? and But..? and Nooooooooooo! is in frequent use.

You seem to be well versed in plot lines from the first time skip that were never resolved, so I figured you'd have some on your mind. Instead, you want me to put up the evidence I asked for. Does asking for evidence really work that way? It shouldn't be my duty to prove your point for you. If you decide to post some of the plots, I would be grateful if you listed them instead of pointing to a long blog post. You can use that as a reference, but I'd like to see some of them in the post so others don't have to click away.

OK, let me try to explain it to you from a different angle. The episode is called 33, the number is onscreen plenty of times, the number is used in dialog, etc. Its a key part of the episode as given to the viewer from the scenes. This creates an investment regardless of other factors.

We know from the episode that it is "known" that it is the Olympic Carrier that is the key, since 33 minutes after its delayed arrival of jump 237 the cylons appear. So the episode itself tells the viewer repeatedly that the number 33 is of significance. To never use that again or even to have never had a "why" is crappy attitude versus the investment they have created for the viewer. Its like introducing a new character with a lot of good story hooks and then never show that character again. It creates badwill and a loss of suspension. Hence, bad writing.

See, this is what I have been looking for. You put it very succinctly why the method of tracking could be needed for some viewers. I will concede that others shouldn't find the lack of explanation daunting. It now makes sense why they feel this way. The complaint isn't bogus and thank you for your clarification on the matter.

How you could get that from what I wrote is very strange to me.

Your own words:

Instead, what nBSG did was start out with minis+s1 giving everyone a perconcieved notion of what this universe and series would deliver. Which wasn't vague nor mysterious. Its not until the production started losing it due to too short writing sessions, not having time for backtracking and checking for inconsistencies in characters and plots. Then you see them add woo woo to the mix, that was not what they had sold the series on, nor was it where the audience wanted the series to go.

The next response to your post is what made me think you wanted the writers to do what the fans asked.

Nope, I didn't say that they should write what the fans expected. Instead I said that if you give a premise and then change that premise you are going to lose viewers. This since the audience you have at the moment are the ones you got by the original premise, and since the other audience who might like the new premise wasn't interested in the original one you have lost them to. Successful series have shown that you can build on the original premise, and unsuccessful series have shown that you can't change the orginal premise without hinting to it from the start.

Its about being consistent and true to your creation.

Actually, this is not about being true to your creation. What I just read is that you think the writers should bend to the will of the audience because they lost them. If they lost them because of the direction they took, why would they sacrifice their artistic integrity to placate those who left? It's their show, not the audiences'. They do what they want to get their various points across in the medium medium. You want fan service. Your words illustrate this.

Why do you think that other people should have to defend their view? Especially when its shared with the majority of posters, viewers, reviewers, etc?
If I said that "pornos usually have sucky acting" would you insist that I defend opinions like "most porn actresses suck"?

If they don't defend their views, then the discussion becomes boring. You learn from defending your opinions and sometimes the opposing view can cause you to think about yours. You just did that with "33." I conceded.

I also hope that you realize ratings and viewpoints held by a majority of people doesn't mean that the viewpoint is accurate and doesn't need defending. I could say that The Sopranos is the best television series ever made because it is critically acclaimed (I think it approaches that honor but not because of ratings, critic reviews, and love from viewers). Yet, I wouldn't say Thanas' views on the show being quite bad is wrong. Popularity doesn't denote quality.

I have always seen the show as a character study, from its very beginning, and I think that remained in a satisfying manner until the end.

Most would agree that the characters was a big part of what made the series good in the beginning. Most would disagree that the characters or their arcs remained satisfying or even adequate as the series continued, its usually rather along the lines of, why the fracking fuck did that character make that completely out of character choice?

Can you give some examples of character choices that were out of character? I will not Google it.

[jollyreaper]

Tucker, opinions are subjective. We've already had a lot of debates about whether or not Galactica was good. I know people like it. I wanted to hear from those who lost interest and why. If I'm talking to lapsed Catholics about why they lost their faith, it doesn't really help to have the faithful coming in saying things are fine, what's your problem? Likewise if I asked how Catholics maintained their faith in modern times, lapsed Catholics screaming about pedophilia would not be helpful.

What I'd hoped to avoid is the usual descent into name calling and pig fighting that usually accompanies these debates. Naturally, this makes me a sissy and a fucking moron but let's be very careful to only use insults that are not misogynistic, racist or homophobic. Because that would lower the intellectual level of the debate.

[jollyreaper]

I think there's very little probability of this being intentional compared to the likelihood that they made up as they went along, wrote themselves in the corner and this was the only way they could think to get themselves out of it.

Of course if we're going to be philosophical about it; 'is it what the teacher teaches, or what the learner learns?'

Art works on the level the artist intended and on the level the viewer receives it. It can be impossible to convey the subjective experience of one viewer to another. The whole Vader story in Star Wars resonated with me because my dad changed from the man my mom married. He went from looking like a part of normal society to riding with a Harley club, long hair, long beard, tats, getting into trouble with the law. Violent, alcoholic, hard to reconcile the man I knew with his old pictures, the stories I heard. The idea that there could be good in Vader and a possibility for redemption was a powerful thing. Lucas made the template I projected on and there's no way to really convey that significance to anyone else.

Just because the author's did not intend greater meaning doesn't mean you're wrong to get something from it. If that's what you get out of the episode. More power to you.

That's why I'm not trying to convince anyone they didn't enjoy the material. The writers have to convince the audience with what they're seeing, that the emotions are genuine, the situations are compelling and feel real. It's impossible to have character drama in a vacuum and the situation informs the events. Without a firm grasp on what's going on, without a big picture, that's how they got themselves written into a corner. Drama first without context means meandering, directionless, empty development.

It's good food for thought.

[Themightytom]

Tucker, opinions are subjective. We've already had a lot of debates about whether or not Galactica was good. I know people like it. I wanted to hear from those who lost interest and why. If I'm talking to lapsed Catholics about why they lost their faith, it doesn't really help to have the faithful coming in saying things are fine, what's your problem? Likewise if I asked how Catholics maintained their faith in modern times, lapsed Catholics screaming about pedophilia would not be helpful.

What I'd hoped to avoid is the usual descent into name calling and pig fighting that usually accompanies these debates.

EHRRRRMAGERD I will name call Jolly Reaper, you're being naive, and Tucker is in an I AM SPECIAL protective bubble, he's convinced himself he's pulling this off and he's just setting himself up to be a punching bag.

My post is on topic. People felt the show cemented its place in the realm of shit with the "god did it" portion of the series finale. I simply wanted to see if others looked at the writing the way I did.

Tucker, you're a dishonest fuck, you've been intentionally framing every discussion you've had in order to promote BSG as a show that didn't fail in a thread that specifically presupposes that it did.

Perhaps the writers did this on purpose to show that this mentality will likely never dissipate and will always be a part of our cultrue? Perhaps the reason the writers chose the divisive "God did it" as a way to demonstrate that? Maybe they believe that God is the answer to what can't be explained? Maybe Kara disappearing, and the existence of head Baltar and head Six, are seen as instruments of God to some of the characters because it can't be explained yet in a rational manner?

Do go on masturbating to bsg and telling us didn't have a preconceived notion antithetical to this thread. Maybe the writers had no clue what they were doing and you're trying to turn shit into gold asshole. Don't shit on SDN at large for it's views on art, there are some incredibly artistic people here. You're a moron because you equate art with the abstract, and disregard craftsmanship. RDM's job is to oversee a quality piece of entertainment, not crap off diarreah of the mind and have you tell us it's chili.

Has it ever occurred to you that I actually enjoy looking deeper into art than paying mind to plot holes, logical explanations for technological problems, ships, weaponry, etc? I don't care about any of that.

Has it ever occurred to you, you're not as good as you think you are? Carry that nugget with you because you're ridiculously transparent about your intellectual laziness. the posted topic was

1. When did the show lose you?
2. From what you've read from behind the scenes commentary, when do you think they lost it? Did it take you long to notice?

idiot, you haven't been following the topic, you have been debating everyone who described where the show lost them, obviously such things DO bother you. You have consistently defended any criticisms of the show in a thread devoted to them, because you completely disregarded the warning

Obviously if you think the entire thing was a brilliant success this topic is not for you.

It's not that you disagree with me, your rebuttals have been laughable, I mean by all means, fumble around like a moron making me seem credible by comparison but don't delude yourself into thinking I'm taking you seriously, you're a classic pseudo intellectual.

Such discussions bore the hell out of me. What I look for I feel whether what the artists intended to do worked. I think what Moore and company set out to do worked most of the time, even though there are substantial problems. I think the ultimate objection here is that I love the show (and even admit its faults) and a lot of you don't. Therefore, I am a troll. At least that's what you seem to be saying, anyway. I haven't been called a troll by anyone else.

Yeah idiot because you're a square peg in a round hole, you just admitted to it. Are you stupid? There's a thread topic, you are not contributing to it, you are a troll. Who cares if anyone else calls you out on it, what are you the naked emperor?

It has already been established that jollyreaper didn't want any sort of discussion with this thread. What he wanted was pats on the back and agreement. Do you want that too or do you want to discuss a divisive series with someone who holds the opposite views you do?

You DON'T hold the opposite views from me, and honestly, I don't feel you're capable of discussion, you lack sophisticated critical reasoning, so what are we going to talk about, your feelings? Your emotions? Rainbows? Stickers? Ponies? Cut the crap and get your shit together, you're not interested in discussion either, you're interested in debate because you can't stand people who aren't in love with BSG and you need affirmation that your emotional impression is valid. No thanks man, I'm not your therapist, if you can't handle a thread you voluntarily participate in, I see no reason to hold your hand through it, go to the friendly one, or get your head in the right place to be meaningful in this one

[jollyreaper]

Out of character: a Measure of Salvation. There's a viral weapon that can destroy all Cylons and Helo decides no, genocide is wrong? Ok, I could buy one person being that stupid out of principle. So what are the consequences? Does he face execution as a traitor? No. Adama goes along with it. Nobody else is calling for blood? These are the guys who wiped out 99.9999% of humanity. It completely rings false and out of character.

Gandhi made a similarly ridiculous comment concerning the Holocaust.

If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy [...] the calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror.[23]

Passive resistance only works against an enemy who has to answer to his own public. What worked against the British in India would not have worked against the Nazis. In fact there was a scifi story that explored the very idea in an alternate timeline where the Nazis won WWII and replaced the British on the subcontinent. Passive resistance ended in mass slaughter. The Nazis were dissuaded not one bit.

[Grumman]

Actually, this is not about being true to your creation. What I just read is that you think the writers should bend to the will of the audience because they lost them. If they lost them because of the direction they took, why would they sacrifice their artistic integrity to placate those who left? It's their show, not the audiences'. They do what they want to get their various points across in the medium medium. You want fan service. Your words illustrate this.

We wanted a coherent story. The premise of the series is only interesting if we assume the characters actually want to live - having them all commit Luddite suicide turns the entire thing into a shaggy dog story. That's not artistic integrity, that's either trolling or incompetence.

Passive resistance only works against an enemy who has to answer to his own public. What worked against the British in India would not have worked against the Nazis. In fact there was a scifi story that explored the very idea in an alternate timeline where the Nazis won WWII and replaced the British on the subcontinent. Passive resistance ended in mass slaughter. The Nazis were dissuaded not one bit.

The Last Article, by Harry Turtledove.

[Scrib]

I was thinking about the religious aspect of the show and how it upset many, namely the alleged cop out of "god did it." I wonder if you've all looked at the religious angle from the scope of the entire series and the "life began out there" portion. Anyone who has taken a world civilization class knows that humanity has always created some form of God to deal with problems and explain phenomena. In BSG, there's a battle between the numerous Gods and the one true God. Our own history shows that the numerous Gods were eventually abandoned for a single God. We also know that God is seen as the answer to everything that can't be explained. Perhaps the writers did this on purpose to show that this mentality will likely never dissipate and will always be a part of our cultrue? Perhaps the reason the writers chose the divisive "God did it" as a way to demonstrate that?

I think there's very little probability of this being intentional compared to the likelihood that they made up as they went along, wrote themselves in the corner and this was the only way they could think to get themselves out of it.

Of course if we're going to be philosophical about it; 'is it what the teacher teaches, or what the learner learns?'

Just because the author's did not intend greater meaning doesn't mean you're wrong to get something from it. If that's what you get out of the episode. More power to you.

Except that there's no indication in the series that the greater perspective of everyone is flawed, which it'd have to be for this to work and it'd have to be blatantly so. For example,this might work if the story was being told by Hera's grandchild or something.

Also, I don't see why the writers needed to do this. The series had religious themes in the first season, there was never an indication that religion would fade off and die. That was a much subtler form of the message and it worked. In harsh times, people turn to religion. There's no need for the silly deus ex machinas which are the real problem.

[Batman]

I'm sorry, are we still talking about a TV series? Because if we are, yes, giving the audience what it wants is what this is all about.
And the general consensus so far seems to be nBSG didn't. Even the people who liked it initially agree that it seriously went downhill towards the end.
I don't carewhat your artistic intention is. You either make it fun or you failed. Looks like the makers of nBSG failed in the majority's opinion.

[Gandalf]

You either make it fun or you failed.

Is this nBSG specific? Because based on this and other posts you've made in this thread, I don't think you understand television very much.

[Stark]

Even putting aside the role of drama, sometimes when things don't work (aren't 'fun') its because of something intrinsic to the work, and other times because of something those viewing the work bring with them.

And frankly using majority opinion to decide the merit of drama is ludicrous, and I notice this comes up with things where people agree with ratings/internet buzz/etc, and not when people disagree with it. I wonder why this could be?