Battlestar Galactica Review

[Mechwarrior]

So I'm "wrong on both counts" how exactly?

That the old BSG was a ripoff of Star Wars for one (the Courts proved that one when Lucas tried to sue) and that the new BSG is a ripoff of wing commander (thought the jury may still be out on that one)

Dirk benidict was the actor who potrayed StarBuck in the origional BSG, StarButch was just my way of describing the new starbuck (who seems to have the Physique of a man)

Yes...I know...you missed the tone of my message.

just as you missed the Sarcassism in calling the replacement StarBUTCH

[StarshipTitanic]

So I'm "wrong on both counts" how exactly?

That the old BSG was a ripoff of Star Wars for one (the Courts proved that one when Lucas tried to sue) and that the new BSG is a ripoff of wing commander (thought the jury may still be out on that one)

Dirk benidict was the actor who potrayed StarBuck in the origional BSG, StarButch was just my way of describing the new starbuck (who seems to have the Physique of a man)

Yes...I know...you missed the tone of my message.

just as you missed the Sarcassism in calling the replacement StarBUTCH

Is English your first language, because I don't think my tone was this vague...

[Mechwarrior]

Vauge is not how i would describe it, more like Confused

[StarshipTitanic]

Vauge is not how i would describe it, more like Confused

Says the man(?) who thinks this:

TOUR GUIDE
Originally, Battlestar Galactica was a midly entertaining ripoff of Star Wars, but now...

...it's ripping off Wing Commander, right?

Indicates I'm actually agreeing with something I already said was stupid and this:

It sure seems like a lot of people are having trouble with names around here because I recall seeing a Starbuck smoking a cigar as a reference to the old series Starbuck, not a Benidick or StarButch.

Means that your intricately complex edit of "Starbuck" into "StarButch" was over my head, not that I was lambasting your complaint that the remake Starbuck isn't a good enough carbon copy of the original Starbuck for you.

Please.

[Kuja]

Oh please, the original had horribly campy "battles." Basically they show some Raiders flying, then Vipers, then a few lame fighting scenes from the pilot episode, then that's it. The best exterior shots was when they were just flying or making huge turns.

And new BSG didn't even have that. What did we get? A very brief exchange between Starbuck and a couple other pilots near the Galactica that lasts, what, a minute or two? And then a mediocre battle with some pretty good dogfighting at the end, but not nearly bloodthirsty enough to satisfy. Wheee. And Starbuck's screeching got on my nerves.

The Atlantia was OK. The Pegasus forcing it's way involved single shots of the Gala- I mean Pegasus model, then a shot of a single Basestar, then wimpy exchanges of fire. For at least one of the explosions they reused the Imperious Leader's ship's explosion and then the explosion of Carillon.

And again, new BSG can't even give us that. What does new BSG give us in the way of capship combat? The Galactica shooting down a couple missiles from horrendously deformed Basestars. I wanted to see the BSG plow into that blockade and rip into the nearest Basestars to distract them from the civilians. And why didn't the Cylons use any nukes in that one? When a single Raider is capable of carrying nuclear missiles that can threaten the BSG, why didn't they just launch a massive wave of missiles from both the Basestars and Raiders? I mean, criminey, the BSG was a stationary target! Fill the void with nukes and it can't possibly shoot them all down!

Sheer volume launching? You mean like 5-6 at a time? There were never more than ~14 Raiders on screen at once, and they were in such perfect double lines that I wouldn't be suprised if they just flipped the negative. The Galactica was never shown launching more than three Vipers at a time. Your glasses have some rose-colored crap on them, you should wipe it off.

Come on, for an 80s show with a limited budget, they did a decent job of with their battles. New BSG didn't even try.

Justify showing a battle that the Galactica was not, and should not have been, involved in. Especially when the Cylons are just flipping the off switch.

Simple. Imagine for a moment that the BSG had been stripped of all her new fighters and only had the old ones aboard, then delete the scene where the Cylons switched off the squadron's computers (a pretty good scene, I might add, but it could've been even better). Now imagine this:

TIGH: Commander, we've got a notice from the Atlantia. They've detected a Cylon attack force and the fleet is moving to engage.

ADAMA: Good. Keep me posted.

*CUT TO: a Colonial fleet in phalanx formation. In the foreground is a large, dangerous-looking battlestar that puts the Galactica to shame. Zoom in on the Battlestar until the lettering ATLANTIA can be made out. CUT TO the bridge of the Atlantia, similar to that of the Galactia, but with much more modern equipment*

ADMIRAL: Time to optimum firing range?

*camera begins to pan around the room*

SENSOR OFFICER: Fifty seconds, sir.

WEPS OFFICER: All defensive batteries report armed and ready, sir.

COMM OFFICER: Pegasus and Rycon are in position and are ready for a fight, sir.

ADMIRAL: Good. What's the status on our fighter screen?

FIGHTER OPS OFFICER: All squadrons are deployed, Admiral. Squadron leaders report ready.

ADMIRAL: Time?

SENSOR OFFICER: Thirty seconds, sir.

*CUT TO: the command center of a Cylon Basestar. Lighting is dark, but visibility is not drastically affected. Cylon Centurions sit or stand at their stations, and a Cylon IL-series (like Lucifer from the original) sits on a command throne*

COMMANDER: Report.

CENTURION: Twenty seconds to optimum firing range.

COMMANDER: Excellent. Transmit the code.

CENTURION: By your command.

*CUT TO the Atlania's bridge as lights begin flickering. Crew members look about in confusion*

ADMIRAL: What's going on?

*all crucial stations sputter and go out*

ADMIRAL: Report!

WEPS: Sir, weapon batteries just went offline!

HELMSMAN: Sir, helm refuses to respond!

COMM OFFICER: I've lost communications with the other ships, sir!

ADMIRAL: What the hell is going on? Re-establish our link with the Vipers, now!

XO: Sir, look!

*all eyes turn to the main screen. CUT TO space as the helpless Vipers are annihilated by a swarm of Cylon raiders. CUT BACK*

ADMIRAL: *shaky* Lords of Kobel...

XO: Sir, they're still coming!

SENSORS: Sir, sir! They've got nukes!

ADMIRAL: WHAT?!

SENSORS: Those leading fighters are arming nuclear warheads, sir!

ADMIRAL: HELM, GET US OUT OF HERE! EMERGENCY FTL!

HELMSMAN: I can't program a solution, sir! It's like the Cylons are...

*blood drains from the Admiral's face*

ADMIRAL: That's exactly what they did. They've turned our own networks against us. *he slumps* Now we can't even fire one single bullet.

*CUT TO space as the Raiders launch their missiles and peel off. CUT BACK*

SENSORS: Sir, Raiders are launching nukes! Impact in ten seconds!

*chaos erupts. People panic. Some try to dash out, but the doors are sealed. The Admiral stands in place, overwhelmed by the enormity of his defeat*

XO: Sir, what about the colonies?

ADMIRAL: There's nothing we can do now, my friend. The Cylons have us. *he looks up* We wanted to create the perfect warriors...and we succeeded.

*CUT TO space as the nukes hit home. Explosions erupt across the Atlania, tearing it apart. In the background, the other ships of the fleet are similarly hit. The Raiders launch a second wave of nukes, ripping the weakened Battlestars apart in a spectacular series of explosions*



Such a battle scene (more fleshed out than that, obviously ) would have been incredbile. But no, all we get is a little blurb about losing 30 battlestars and another blurb about the Atlantia's destruction. Thanks, new BSG.

[Perinquus]

Oh please, the original had horribly campy "battles." Basically they show some Raiders flying, then Vipers, then a few lame fighting scenes from the pilot episode, then that's it. The best exterior shots was when they were just flying or making huge turns.

And new BSG didn't even have that. What did we get? A very brief exchange between Starbuck and a couple other pilots near the Galactica that lasts, what, a minute or two? And then a mediocre battle with some pretty good dogfighting at the end, but not nearly bloodthirsty enough to satisfy. Wheee. And Starbuck's screeching got on my nerves.

By any objective criteria, the battle scenes in the new series are far more effective than in the old. They are more elaborate, they feature more vessels and show a much larger scope of action, the effects are more realistic, there is no re-use of stock footage, and they look more realistic.

I defy you to find anyone who has never before seen either incarnation of BG, who would tell you the scenes from the original BG were in any way superior.

The Atlantia was OK. The Pegasus forcing it's way involved single shots of the Gala- I mean Pegasus model, then a shot of a single Basestar, then wimpy exchanges of fire. For at least one of the explosions they reused the Imperious Leader's ship's explosion and then the explosion of Carillon.

And again, new BSG can't even give us that. What does new BSG give us in the way of capship combat? The Galactica shooting down a couple missiles from horrendously deformed Basestars. I wanted to see the BSG plow into that blockade and rip into the nearest Basestars to distract them from the civilians. And why didn't the Cylons use any nukes in that one? When a single Raider is capable of carrying nuclear missiles that can threaten the BSG, why didn't they just launch a massive wave of missiles from both the Basestars and Raiders? I mean, criminey, the BSG was a stationary target! Fill the void with nukes and it can't possibly shoot them all down!

Again, by any objective criteria, the battle scenes here were more realistic and exciting. The battle scenes in the new don't have any more holes in them than in the old. If the battle stars in the old series had one third the fighter complement and NONE of the megapulsar cannon that Cylon base stars had, how could the Galactica or the Pegasus charge two of them and survive for even a few moments?

Sheer volume launching? You mean like 5-6 at a time? There were never more than ~14 Raiders on screen at once, and they were in such perfect double lines that I wouldn't be suprised if they just flipped the negative. The Galactica was never shown launching more than three Vipers at a time. Your glasses have some rose-colored crap on them, you should wipe it off.

Come on, for an 80s show with a limited budget, they did a decent job of with their battles. New BSG didn't even try.

Bullshit. As the opening of the final battle took place we saw a panoramic shot of a Cylon base star launching dozens of fighters in a single scene, which is far, far more than we ever saw in the old show. There were several shots featuring multiple ships, shots firing, and debris flying all in a single scene - which, again, is far more than we ever saw in the old show. The old show featured, at most, two or three ships in a single frame, a couple of laser torpedo bolts at most, or a single laser turret firing, and no debris. The old BG did a great job for its day, given the limits of TV budgets and then-current FX technology. The new BG has done at least as good a job, for its day, given the limits of TV budgets and now-current FX technology. You are simply one of those people who is not willing to give the series an objective viewing, because you can't get over your resentment that it's not exactly the same show as the old one.

given the limits of TV budgets and then-current FX technology.

Justify showing a battle that the Galactica was not, and should not have been, involved in. Especially when the Cylons are just flipping the off switch.

Simple. Imagine for a moment that the BSG had been stripped of all her new fighters and only had the old ones aboard, then delete the scene where the Cylons switched off the squadron's computers (a pretty good scene, I might add, but it could've been even better). Now imagine this:

...snip...

Such a battle scene (more fleshed out than that, obviously ) would have been incredbile. But no, all we get is a little blurb about losing 30 battlestars and another blurb about the Atlantia's destruction. Thanks, new BSG.

Which would have given the viewer a picture of the battle the characters in the show did not have. And I've already pointed out the fact that the makers of this version were clearly trying to limit the viewers' perspective to that of the characters, and the dramatic reasons for this. And there was also the practical reason. This is a TV show, with a limited budget. Such a scene would have necessitated more actors (and their salaries), plus more expesive FX shots. Why spend the money for that when the dramatic effect the writers are shooting for can actually be better achieved by leaving it out.

Yes, lets emphasize flashy visuals over everything else. Everyone knows that's the best way to tell an effective story.

[Patrick Degan]

Such a battle scene (more fleshed out than that, obviously ) would have been incredbile. But no, all we get is a little blurb about losing 30 battlestars and another blurb about the Atlantia's destruction. Thanks, new BSG.

Which would have given the viewer a picture of the battle the characters in the show did not have. And I've already pointed out the fact that the makers of this version were clearly trying to limit the viewers' perspective to that of the characters, and the dramatic reasons for this. And there was also the practical reason. This is a TV show, with a limited budget. Such a scene would have necessitated more actors (and their salaries), plus more expesive FX shots. Why spend the money for that when the dramatic effect the writers are shooting for can actually be better achieved by leaving it out.

Yes, lets emphasize flashy visuals over everything else. Everyone knows that's the best way to tell an effective story.

They could have shown more of the battle and should have. As I pointed out in one example, the 1983 telemovie The Day After largely told its tale of nuclear war from a subjective POV of the survivors, but also set the mood for that story by actually depicting the nuclear attack on Kansas, in five minutes of devestatingly effective footage which underscored the whole last hour of the movie. Much of that was also out of the characters' POV but that is immaterial. The cardinal rule for writing visual drama is always "don't tell —show."

And the "limited TV budget" argument doesn't obtain. Babylon 5 managed to depict spectacular battle sequences with a far smaller budget than BSG Mk. II had available to it and without using an overly large addition of actors, either. Face it —Ron Moore was more interested in his usual soap-operaish bullshit than giving us a halfway decent depiction of Armageddon, which would have underscored far more effectively the plight of the surviving Colonials than simply watching a bunch of people getting updated status reports for an hour, sitting around in rooms talking about the action we're not seeing.

[Mechwarrior]

Another flaw is the idea that the new Adama had more tactical ability than the Old Adama,
the Old Adama forsaw the idea of a possible attack and defently prepared for it
the New Adama was just a stuborn old warhorse whose refusal to upgrade galactica and network the computers saved the galactica by oure chance. (how the hell could the Galactica run efficently without the Computers being networked anyways?)

Old adama saves Galactica by Forsight and planing for it while New Adama saves galactica by stuborness and just dumb luck.

[Stofsk]

I don't get the whole 'computer network' thing which allows the 'computer bug that shuts down the network' thing. Haven't these people heard of redundancy? Don't they have a backup computer? And the Vipers - how come they're affected by the bug? None of this makes sense.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't get the whole 'computer network' thing which allows the 'computer bug that shuts down the network' thing. Haven't these people heard of redundancy? Don't they have a backup computer? And the Vipers - how come they're affected by the bug? None of this makes sense.

Sadly, this isn't as unrealistic as you might think:

You'd think the U.S. Navy would have learned its lesson about Windows after an incident in September, 1997, when one of the Navy's so-called "Smart Ships," the Aegis class guided missile cruiser Yorktown ( CG 48 ), lost control of its propulsion system during maneuvers off the coast of Cape Charles, Virginia, because its Pentium computers running brain-dead Windows NT were unable to divide by the number zero. According to a civilian engineer on the scene, the 567 foot, 9,600 ton warship had to be towed back into port, and not for the first time. Yorktown's Standard Monitoring Control System administrator entered zero into the data field for the Remote Data Base Manager program, causing the database to overflow and crash all of the ship's LAN consoles and miniature remote terminal units. It took two days of pierside maintenance to fix the problem.

Yorktown was using dual "ruggedized" 200-MHz Pentium Pros from Intergraph Corp. of Huntsville, Ala. The PCs and server were running Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0 in 256M of RAM from 4G hard drives over a high-speed, fiber- optic Windows NT 4.0 LAN. Yorktown complies with the Navy's IT 21 specifications. A separate, administrative LAN connected more than 80 PCs running Windows 3.1 and Microsoft Office for functions such as e-mail.

According to reports quoting Anthony DiGiorgio, a civilian engineer with the Atlantic Fleet Technical Support Center in Norfolk who has serviced automated control systems on Navy ships for more than a quarter-century, the NT operating system was the source of Yorktown's computer problems. NT applications aboard the Yorktown run damage control, the ship's bridge control center, monitor the engines, and navigate the ship when under way. Besides the Integrated Bridge System, the Pentium Pros ran the Integrated Condition Assessment System, Standard Machinery Control System, Voyage Management System and Damage Control System. Sailors using the Voyage Management System voyage system can steer the ship by trackball.

"If you understand computers, you know that a computer normally is immune to the character of the data it processes," DiGiorgio wrote in the U.S. Naval Institute's "Proceedings" Magazine. "Your $2.95 calculator, for example, gives you a zero when you try to divide a number by zero, and does not stop executing the next set of instructions. It seems that the computers on the Yorktown were not designed to tolerate such a simple failure." Duh. Of course it's Windows we're talking about here.

In a letter to Congresswoman The Honorable Deborah Pryce, Ohio, dated 11 Dec 98, D.E. Porter, Chief Information Officer for the Navy at the Pentagon in Washington, argues that "Our interviews and studies have shown that the Yorktown failure was not an NT issue, but a case of a not-fully-tested control system's software update being placed aboard ship." Maybe, but I and many others remain highly skeptical of this sort of spin-doctoring. However I'd be happy to review and report on the evidence if the Navy wants to send me copies.

"Using Windows NT, which is known to have some failure modes, on a warship is similar to hoping that luck will be in our favor," Anthony DiGiorgio is quoted saying. "There is very little segregation of error when software shares bad data. Instead of one computer knocking off on the Yorktown, they all did, one after the other. What if this happened in actual combat?" Indeed.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/9318/navy.html

Could it be that Gailus Baltar was actually the division head of Microsoft Caprica...?

[StarshipTitanic]

Perinquus expressed my feelings yet again, Kuja. You're whining about a scene that was also "missing" from the first according to your standards.

As for a Lucifer: putting a goofy, neon-brained robot from the original is not a good idea for a remake that completely changed the image of BSG. Having that thing strut along in it's full-length gown won't work, especially if it sits on that moronic throne. How the hell do they get up there, anyway? Even Baltar abandoned that for a simple chair in the command center.

Another flaw is the idea that the new Adama had more tactical ability than the Old Adama,
the Old Adama forsaw the idea of a possible attack and defently prepared for it
the New Adama was just a stuborn old warhorse whose refusal to upgrade galactica and network the computers saved the galactica by oure chance. (how the hell could the Galactica run efficently without the Computers being networked anyways?)

Old adama saves Galactica by Forsight and planing for it while New Adama saves galactica by stuborness and just dumb luck.

Were you paying attention? Adama cited how the Cylons could infiltrate Colonial computer systems during the first part of the war. He didn't tie everything together because that's a potential weakness which is easy to compensate for. He probably just had a bigger bridge staff because of it, big deal.

I don't get the whole 'computer network' thing which allows the 'computer bug that shuts down the network' thing. Haven't these people heard of redundancy? Don't they have a backup computer? And the Vipers - how come they're affected by the bug? None of this makes sense.

Baltar's navigational software was loaded with nasty Cylon backdoors thanks to No. 6. Since this software was loaded onto systems linked with every system on a Battlestar, or Viper, it could infiltrate all these systems. It's not a bug, it's an on/off switch for Cylons.

[Perinquus]

Such a battle scene (more fleshed out than that, obviously ) would have been incredbile. But no, all we get is a little blurb about losing 30 battlestars and another blurb about the Atlantia's destruction. Thanks, new BSG.

Which would have given the viewer a picture of the battle the characters in the show did not have. And I've already pointed out the fact that the makers of this version were clearly trying to limit the viewers' perspective to that of the characters, and the dramatic reasons for this. And there was also the practical reason. This is a TV show, with a limited budget. Such a scene would have necessitated more actors (and their salaries), plus more expesive FX shots. Why spend the money for that when the dramatic effect the writers are shooting for can actually be better achieved by leaving it out.

Yes, lets emphasize flashy visuals over everything else. Everyone knows that's the best way to tell an effective story.

They could have shown more of the battle and should have. As I pointed out in one example, the 1983 telemovie The Day After largely told its tale of nuclear war from a subjective POV of the survivors, but also set the mood for that story by actually depicting the nuclear attack on Kansas, in five minutes of devestatingly effective footage which underscored the whole last hour of the movie. Much of that was also out of the characters' POV but that is immaterial. The cardinal rule for writing visual drama is always "don't tell —show."

You mean it was comparable to the destruction of Caprica (which we saw by the way, and which was certainly vastly better done than the old show did it)? Frankly, I have no problem with the way they handled it. You find out about the Atlantia just the way the characters find out. Dramatically, having Adama read out that line, and having all the characters fall silent in shock and disbelief works. It was not necessary to show something that would have been out of step with how they were telling the story. And in any case, this is just not a major flaw in the story. It was a minor omission at worst. That cardinal rule you mentioned is simply not as cardinal as you think it is. Many very, very effective dramas have successfully disregarded it. Don't believe me? Rent "Twelve Angry Men" sometime. Virtually every moment of it takes place in a jury deliberation room, and is just a bunch of people talking, yet it's very dramatic. Sure they could have shown the scenes reenacted in flashbacks. But that would have taken away the sense of claustrophobic confinement the viewer was intended to get, which made him feel almost as if he were locked in there with the jurors. In other words, they told, they didn't show, and for the the same sort of reasons the BG 2003 did - they wanted to confine your viewpoint to that of the characters onscreen. And that movie si rightly considered a gripping drama. If you are telling a good story, you can tell and not show, and it still works.

And the "limited TV budget" argument doesn't obtain. Babylon 5 managed to depict spectacular battle sequences with a far smaller budget than BSG Mk. II had available to it and without using an overly large addition of actors, either. Face it —Ron Moore was more interested in his usual soap-operaish bullshit than giving us a halfway decent depiction of Armageddon, which would have underscored far more effectively the plight of the surviving Colonials than simply watching a bunch of people getting updated status reports for an hour, sitting around in rooms talking about the action we're not seeing.

Waaaah. Sorry, but this is looking more and more like whining. I thought the battle scenes were pretty well done. They didn't come off to me as conspicuously inferior to Babylon 5 or any other recent TV sci fi. I suppose you dislike classic Star Trek episodes like "Journey to Babel" to and "Balance of Terror", which barely showed any action at all. It was mostly characters onscreen acting - and it was very effective drama.

[Mad]

I don't get the whole 'computer network' thing which allows the 'computer bug that shuts down the network' thing. Haven't these people heard of redundancy? Don't they have a backup computer? And the Vipers - how come they're affected by the bug? None of this makes sense.

The exploits for Windows 2k/XP in the past years, spyware that automatically installs on Internet Explorer, root exploits for UNIX boxes, and buffer overflow vulnerabilities in various network utilities and applications (for all OSes) should make it pretty obvious that network security isn't a simple matter even when competently done.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

The budget arguments for the first series doesn't really work, because Battlestar Galactica had a very high budget for a 1979 television series...

[Mechwarrior]

The budget arguments for the first series doesn't really work, because Battlestar Galactica had a very high budget for a 1979 television series...

There was also the fact that production was rushed to satify the networks who didnt givh the producers to make it as good as it should have been. and that led to episodes based on popular movies at the time (like Towering Inferno was the basis of the episode when the Galactica was on fire)

[Uraniun235]

The budget arguments for the first series doesn't really work, because Battlestar Galactica had a very high budget for a 1979 television series...

There's a limit to how much you can do with a given set of technology, and as you approach that limit the costs don't increase linearly.

Yes, lets emphasize flashy visuals over everything else. Everyone knows that's the best way to tell an effective story.

Flashy visuals can coexist with good storytelling.

[StarshipTitanic]

Flashy visuals can coexist with good storytelling.

Which a battle that has nothing to do with Galactica isn't.

I point again to the unfilmed portion of the peace conference ambush, which did not detract from the story.

[Typhonis 1]

Cylons reimagined hm Traveller had a novel idea the computers went crazy when a silicon lifeform that hacks others of its kind to write its own circuitry on the chips.

Cylons are created for heavy amnual labor yadda yadda yadda

Enter Baltar a military scientisat that is working on these chips and yes lo and behold they can infect colonial computer systems and the military loves them finally a weapon that can diable a foe..... they order it to be developed .

Luddites attack the lab and accidentally realesase the virus....the rest wriets itself the cylons are not killing humans because they are evil and hate humanity they are doing it because we both occupy the same niche as far as electronic systems are concerned.

[Patrick Degan]

Which would have given the viewer a picture of the battle the characters in the show did not have. And I've already pointed out the fact that the makers of this version were clearly trying to limit the viewers' perspective to that of the characters, and the dramatic reasons for this. And there was also the practical reason. This is a TV show, with a limited budget. Such a scene would have necessitated more actors (and their salaries), plus more expesive FX shots. Why spend the money for that when the dramatic effect the writers are shooting for can actually be better achieved by leaving it out.

Yes, lets emphasize flashy visuals over everything else. Everyone knows that's the best way to tell an effective story.

They could have shown more of the battle and should have. As I pointed out in one example, the 1983 telemovie The Day After largely told its tale of nuclear war from a subjective POV of the survivors, but also set the mood for that story by actually depicting the nuclear attack on Kansas, in five minutes of devestatingly effective footage which underscored the whole last hour of the movie. Much of that was also out of the characters' POV but that is immaterial. The cardinal rule for writing visual drama is always "don't tell —show."

You mean it was comparable to the destruction of Caprica (which we saw by the way, and which was certainly vastly better done than the old show did it)? Frankly, I have no problem with the way they handled it. You find out about the Atlantia just the way the characters find out. Dramatically, having Adama read out that line, and having all the characters fall silent in shock and disbelief works. It was not necessary to show something that would have been out of step with how they were telling the story.

Evidently, you don't understand that this is a visual medium we're talking about here.

And in any case, this is just not a major flaw in the story. It was a minor omission at worst. That cardinal rule you mentioned is simply not as cardinal as you think it is. Many very, very effective dramas have successfully disregarded it. Don't believe me? Rent "Twelve Angry Men" sometime. Virtually every moment of it takes place in a jury deliberation room, and is just a bunch of people talking, yet it's very dramatic. Sure they could have shown the scenes reenacted in flashbacks. But that would have taken away the sense of claustrophobic confinement the viewer was intended to get, which made him feel almost as if he were locked in there with the jurors. In other words, they told, they didn't show, and for the the same sort of reasons the BG 2003 did - they wanted to confine your viewpoint to that of the characters onscreen. And that movie is rightly considered a gripping drama. If you are telling a good story, you can tell and not show, and it still works.

I've got Twelve Angry Men in my collection, and your attempt at a comparison is laughable. Never once was that production even intended to go beyond the scope of the character conflict in the jury room. That was the drama. By contrast, a war movie —which is essentially what BSG was— must paint the panorama of the war's horror and any character drama must take place within its context and nested within the surrounding events.

And the "limited TV budget" argument doesn't obtain. Babylon 5 managed to depict spectacular battle sequences with a far smaller budget than BSG Mk. II had available to it and without using an overly large addition of actors, either. Face it —Ron Moore was more interested in his usual soap-operaish bullshit than giving us a halfway decent depiction of Armageddon, which would have underscored far more effectively the plight of the surviving Colonials than simply watching a bunch of people getting updated status reports for an hour, sitting around in rooms talking about the action we're not seeing.

Waaaah. Sorry, but this is looking more and more like whining.

Your own, perhaps, because people refuse to fall all over themselves heaping praise on this dull, plodding mess of a movie.

I thought the battle scenes were pretty well done. They didn't come off to me as conspicuously inferior to Babylon 5 or any other recent TV sci fi.

For some reason, I prefer battle scenes where I can actually see the scope of the fight unfolding on the screen. Jerky gun-camera footage doesn't fit the bill by a longshot.

I suppose you dislike classic Star Trek episodes like "Journey to Babel" to and "Balance of Terror", which barely showed any action at all. It was mostly characters onscreen acting - and it was very effective drama.

Another laughable comparison. "Balance Of Terror" was a destroyer v. submarine drama and, instead of a string of briefing room scenes, took place during an actual battle going on around the crews who were on the spot. And the battle sequence during "Journey To Babel" took up only the last five minutes and again involved the crew of the Enterprise[ who were on the spot in the middle of the fighting —not reading about it while safely orbiting Wrigley's Pleasure Planet lightyears away.

[Perinquus]

Evidently, you don't understand that this is a visual medium we're talking about here.

I undestand completely. However, unlike you, I don't happen to believe there is one way, and only one way to tell a good story.

I've got Twelve Angry Men in my collection, and your attempt at a comparison is laughable. Never once was that production even intended to go beyond the scope of the character conflict in the jury room. That was the drama. By contrast, a war movie —which is essentially what BSG was— must paint the panorama of the war's horror and any character drama must take place within its context and nested within the surrounding events.

And never once was BG 2003 intended to take you beyond the scope of the onscreen characters' point of view. And this nonsense about how a war film "must paint the panorama of wars' horror" is a bunch of pretentious crap. One of the best war movies of all time, Das Boot, never once took you away from the point of view of the U boat crew, never once gave you another battle scene that showed other U boats or German ships being destroyed (even though according to your philosophy of movie making, this would have given us a much better idea of how badly the war was going against the German navy), never once showed you a scene on British or American naval vessel, never once gave you a larger picture of the war. It confined you strictly to events aboard and around the U boat itself. It's a pity Wolfgang Peterson failed so miserably to "paint the panorama of wars' horror". and so unimaginatively confined himself to such a limited point of view. You're right. Das Boot would have been so much better a film had Peterson made it the "right" way.

Waaaah. Sorry, but this is looking more and more like whining.

Your own, perhaps, because people refuse to fall all over themselves heaping praise on this dull, plodding mess of a movie.

In case you haven't noticed, I have criticized the miniseries where I though it was weak. I am not unqualified in my praise for it. What I object to is unfair criticism by people who wouldn't give it an even break if it had been writted by the resurrected William Shakespeare, just because you had your heart set on an exact recreation of the original, and you can't get over your resentment at having your balloon popped.

I thought the battle scenes were pretty well done. They didn't come off to me as conspicuously inferior to Babylon 5 or any other recent TV sci fi.

For some reason, I prefer battle scenes where I can actually see the scope of the fight unfolding on the screen. Jerky gun-camera footage doesn't fit the bill by a longshot.

Perfect example of unfair criticism. Maybe you don't prefer the somewhat chaotic appearance of footage that appears to have been filmed by an on site gun camera. But to assert that the original was actually superior is simply laughable. There are several panoramic shots in BG 2003, such as the final battle scene when Galactica takes up her position screening the civilian fleet. You see the Galactica, the base stars, and many of the civilian ships, all in one shot. Then there is the shot of the base stars launching dozens of fighters at once - something we never saw the like of in the original. And the vipers speeding away from the Galactica, again with dozens of them in each frame. Then the battle opens and fighters and flying tracers fill the sky. Contrast this with the original where, at most, we would see a whopping three fighters per frame, and a couple of laser torpedo blasts animated in; and where each ship, when hit, was overlayed with an optical mat of an explosion, with nary a hint of debris; and where reuse of stuck footage was abundant. Oh yes, the original was so much better and more realistic.

I suppose you dislike classic Star Trek episodes like "Journey to Babel" to and "Balance of Terror", which barely showed any action at all. It was mostly characters onscreen acting - and it was very effective drama.

Another laughable comparison. "Balance Of Terror" was a destroyer v. submarine drama and, instead of a string of briefing room scenes, took place during an actual battle going on around the crews who were on the spot. And the battle sequence during "Journey To Babel" took up only the last five minutes and again involved the crew of the Enterprise[ who were on the spot in the middle of the fighting —not reading about it while safely orbiting Wrigley's Pleasure Planet lightyears away.[/quote


Nice strawman. Never was the action so misdirected from the story by showing anything so irrelevant.

Another entirely missed point. The action was not seen. In "Balance of Terror" there are numerous scenes where people are just sitting on the bridge of the two ships waiting for the enemy's next move. The Romulan commander's speech to the centurion about his disillusionment with his mission was all talk and no action. You never see the Enterprise and the warbird occupy the screen together. And there aren't really many exterior shots at all. The battle was almost entirely conveyed by the action of teh characters on screen. Elaborate visuals were simply not necessary to tell the story. In "Journey to Babel" most of what we now of the battle comes from a light appearing on screen and the Enterprise bridge crew calling out distances and speeds. It still worked, despite being short on visual effects. In fact, we saw a lot more, and a lot more realistic depictions of space combat in BG 2003, but as I said, it's not the original, so you are not about to be satisfied no matter what they do.

[Typhonis 1]

OK what did the courts site that Galactica ripped off from Star Wars?

[Uraniun235]

Another entirely missed point. The action was not seen. In "Balance of Terror" there are numerous scenes where people are just sitting on the bridge of the two ships waiting for the enemy's next move. The Romulan commander's speech to the centurion about his disillusionment with his mission was all talk and no action. You never see the Enterprise and the warbird occupy the screen together. And there aren't really many exterior shots at all. The battle was almost entirely conveyed by the action of teh characters on screen. Elaborate visuals were simply not necessary to tell the story. In "Journey to Babel" most of what we now of the battle comes from a light appearing on screen and the Enterprise bridge crew calling out distances and speeds. It still worked, despite being short on visual effects. In fact, we saw a lot more, and a lot more realistic depictions of space combat in BG 2003, but as I said, it's not the original, so you are not about to be satisfied no matter what they do.

You're missing the difference between "no action" and "hearing about the action but not experiencing it." No, there wasn't constant action (even action movies don't have constant action) but when there was, we saw it all, whether in the interiors of the ships or in external shots.

We weren't hearing about it from another person, we were there in the thick of the battle. There's a difference. Or did you not notice the crews getting tossed about and shaken by hits on their ships?

Degan's not attacking the final battle between Galactica and the Basestars (well, except for the gun camera bullshittery, which I agree with), he's attacking the third-hand reports of the destruction of the Battlestar fleet. We weren't there with the people who died at the hands of the Cylons. We were there when Kirk faced the Romulan threat, and we were there when the Romulans were getting the shit pasted out of them.

You're right. Das Boot would have been so much better a film had Peterson made it the "right" way.

Degan's talking about scope. The scope of Das Boot was about a submarine and it's U-boat crew. That's it. But the original Battlestar Galactica movie was not purely about the men and women aboard Galactica. It was about the events that took place on that day, about the Cylons' treachery, the annihilation of the 12 Colonies, and the destruction of the Battlestar fleet. New BSG, on the other hand, seems more concerned with the people who were there that day.

This isn't necessarily a bad way of telling stories (although I much prefer a focus on the events, a la Star Wars or the original Star Trek) but it's not what Battlestar Galactica was; Battlestar Galactica wasn't about exploring 'inner space' or the human condition or how Adama and Apollo have some fucking grudge, it was a series of adventures that the Galactica crew shared. Adventures.

Admittedly, I haven't seen much of the old series. But from what I've read, fans thought that towards the end BSG was starting to really "find itself" and get good, so it's only natural that they'd want to go back to that point and pick up from there.

I'm not willing to come out and say that, objectively, BG 2003 is inferior. I am willing to say, however, that I subjectively do not like the approach that BG2K3 has taken. I think that they've departed so far from the old Battlestar Galactica in terms of storytelling, scope, and objectives, that the series is a slap in the face to fans of the old, and damn near a deliberate one too. If their concepts of storytelling are so great, they could have made a whole new universe to exercise those concepts in. A universe where they would not have been bound at all by the events of a predecessor, nor by the fans of said predecessor. Instead, they chose to "remake" BSG, presumably simply to cash in on the Battlestar Galactica name.

The Battlestar Galactica concept of a group of humans fleeing the Cylons is a good concept. It presents a lot of good opportunities for space opera storytelling. It is unfortunate that the network executives of the 70's forced BSG into the role of weekly TV series when it had originally been intended for the occasional miniseries or TV movie.

Frankly, when Ron Moore and his gang decided to remake Battlestar Galactica, they invited a shitstorm from pissed off old-series fans. Of course they're going to compare it to the original and lambast it for every way in which it was inferior at all to the original, because it took the name of the original. If they didn't want to be compared to the original Battlestar Galactica, they should either have picked a different franchise or made their own. Instead, they decided to remake BSG in a fashion they knew would not sit well with the old fans at all.

So no, of course New BSG isn't going to live up to the expectations of the fans. I think a lot of fans wanted to see more of the old space opera, only presented properly using modern special effects. Instead, we got artsy sci-fi that says "What you liked before was garbage. This is how sci-fi should be."

Yeah. Some people just wanted more of the same stuff they had come to expect from the name "Battlestar Galactica". The horror of it all.

[Patrick Degan]

Evidently, you don't understand that this is a visual medium we're talking about here.

I undestand completely. However, unlike you, I don't happen to believe there is one way, and only one way to tell a good story.

Let's see... there's the right way, and the wrong way. Reducing Armageddon to a series of status reports...

I've got Twelve Angry Men in my collection, and your attempt at a comparison is laughable. Never once was that production even intended to go beyond the scope of the character conflict in the jury room. That was the drama. By contrast, a war movie —which is essentially what BSG was— must paint the panorama of the war's horror and any character drama must take place within its context and nested within the surrounding events.

And never once was BG 2003 intended to take you beyond the scope of the onscreen characters' point of view. And this nonsense about how a war film "must paint the panorama of wars' horror" is a bunch of pretentious crap.

No it isn't. It's what marks the difference between a film you remember and two or four hours of wallpaper paste.

One of the best war movies of all time, Das Boot, never once took you away from the point of view of the U boat crew, never once gave you another battle scene that showed other U boats or German ships being destroyed (even though according to your philosophy of movie making, this would have given us a much better idea of how badly the war was going against the German navy), never once showed you a scene on British or American naval vessel, never once gave you a larger picture of the war. It confined you strictly to events aboard and around the U boat itself. It's a pity Wolfgang Peterson failed so miserably to "paint the panorama of wars' horror". and so unimaginatively confined himself to such a limited point of view. You're right. Das Boot would have been so much better a film had Peterson made it the "right" way.

I've got that movie in my collection as well, and again you make an utterly ludicrous comparison. Petersen did indeed paint a panorama of the war's horror through the very grueling ordeal of the crew of U91. He didn't have them sitting at dock reading about how the U-boat war was going and merely talking about it for four hours.

Waaaah. Sorry, but this is looking more and more like whining.

Your own, perhaps, because people refuse to fall all over themselves heaping praise on this dull, plodding mess of a movie.

In case you haven't noticed, I have criticized the miniseries where I though it was weak. I am not unqualified in my praise for it. What I object to is unfair criticism by people who wouldn't give it an even break if it had been writted by the resurrected William Shakespeare, just because you had your heart set on an exact recreation of the original, and you can't get over your resentment at having your balloon popped.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. Evidently you missed out on this comment I made prefacing my own review:

Granted, the original certainly was not great by any stretch of the imagination. Point of fact, most of it was stupid. At least it was a fun stupid, an adventurous (at times) stupid. It had an ambitious idea behind it —even if that idea was stupid at its base.

And


There was rampant stupidity in the original BSG to be certain; such as Baltar not really figuring out the sort of retirement plan the Cylons had in mind for him once his usefullness was ended.

And

Where the original BSG was a weird mix of Mormonism and the pseudo cosmology/history of the VonDaniken School of Crackpots, the new BSG is an exercise in tedious antitechnological sermonising and moralistic handwringing over man daring to Tamper in God's Domain

Those are hardly the sentiments of somebody who "had his heart set on a remake of the original" as if it was the most spectacular TV show ever, or was disappointed by "having his balloon popped", now is it? Still sounds like you're the one doing any whining here.

For some reason, I prefer battle scenes where I can actually see the scope of the fight unfolding on the screen. Jerky gun-camera footage doesn't fit the bill by a longshot.

Perfect example of unfair criticism. Maybe you don't prefer the somewhat chaotic appearance of footage that appears to have been filmed by an on site gun camera. But to assert that the original was actually superior is simply laughable.

I said no such thing.

There are several panoramic shots in BG 2003, such as the final battle scene when Galactica takes up her position screening the civilian fleet. You see the Galactica, the base stars, and many of the civilian ships, all in one shot. Then there is the shot of the base stars launching dozens of fighters at once - something we never saw the like of in the original. And the vipers speeding away from the Galactica, again with dozens of them in each frame. Then the battle opens and fighters and flying tracers fill the sky. Contrast this with the original where, at most, we would see a whopping three fighters per frame, and a couple of laser torpedo blasts animated in; and where each ship, when hit, was overlayed with an optical mat of an explosion, with nary a hint of debris; and where reuse of stuck footage was abundant. Oh yes, the original was so much better and more realistic.

Except everything in that spew of yours about comparisons with the original is not the source of my complaints with this movie or its alledged action scenes. Try actually dealing with the substance of an argument instead of making a blatant and pathetic Appeal to Motive attack.

I suppose you dislike classic Star Trek episodes like "Journey to Babel" to and "Balance of Terror", which barely showed any action at all. It was mostly characters onscreen acting - and it was very effective drama.

Another laughable comparison. "Balance Of Terror" was a destroyer v. submarine drama and, instead of a string of briefing room scenes, took place during an actual battle going on around the crews who were on the spot. And the battle sequence during "Journey To Babel" took up only the last five minutes and again involved the crew of the Enterprise[ who were on the spot in the middle of the fighting —not reading about it while safely orbiting Wrigley's Pleasure Planet lightyears away.

Nice strawman. Never was the action so misdirected from the story by showing anything so irrelevant.

What strawman? It is you who attempted likening the two cited TOS episodes to the new BSG. Are you even sure you saw the episodes in question?

Another entirely missed point. The action was not seen. In "Balance of Terror" there are numerous scenes where people are just sitting on the bridge of the two ships waiting for the enemy's next move.

Gee... I guess if you disregard the Destruction of Outpost 4 scene, the scenes where the Romulan ship is getting hammered, the whole scene where the Enterprise is fleeing the Romulan plasma bolt, the nuke detonation scene, the phaser room scene, and the scene where the Romulan ship takes two direct hits, you just might have an argument there.

The Romulan commander's speech to the centurion about his disillusionment with his mission was all talk and no action.

Which takes less than one minute of screen time and doesn't stretch into empty moralising about the species' worthiness to survive.

You never see the Enterprise and the warbird occupy the screen together.

Which was clearly beyond the technical or budgetary capacity of the makers of TOS in 1966.

And there aren't really many exterior shots at all. The battle was almost entirely conveyed by the action of teh characters on screen.

Except for the ships getting hammered and the fact that both crews were actually in the middle of the battle and not off someplace merely reading status updates on events they have no direct involvement in.

In "Journey to Babel" most of what we now of the battle comes from a light appearing on screen and the Enterprise bridge crew calling out distances and speeds.

And the ship again getting hammered in a battle the Enterprise crew are definitely in the middle of.

but as I said, it's not the original, so you are not about to be satisfied no matter what they do.

There's that Appeal to Motive fallacy again. And no, I was not satisfied. That tends to be my usual reaction to dull, portentuous, actionless crap.

Sorry if that doesn't suit you.

[NecronLord]

As for a Lucifer: putting a goofy, neon-brained robot from the original is not a good idea for a remake that completely changed the image of BSG.

Indeed. Doesn't mean there ought not to be a new IL series somewhere.

Having that thing strut along in it's full-length gown won't work, especially if it sits on that moronic throne. How the hell do they get up there, anyway? Even Baltar abandoned that for a simple chair in the command center.

Lifts most likely, possibly they just turn off the gravity in the room.

I want to know why they don't fall out myself.

[Perinquus]

Evidently, you don't understand that this is a visual medium we're talking about here.

I undestand completely. However, unlike you, I don't happen to believe there is one way, and only one way to tell a good story.

Let's see... there's the right way, and the wrong way. Reducing Armageddon to a series of status reports...

Battlestar Galactica is not telling a story about armageddon. It's not telling the story of the destruction of all twelve colnies (except in a kind of secondary way - as the setting for the exodus), it's telling the story of the Battlestar Galactica and it's escape from this cataclysm. Duh! So it focuses on the Battlestar Galactica.

I've got Twelve Angry Men in my collection, and your attempt at a comparison is laughable. Never once was that production even intended to go beyond the scope of the character conflict in the jury room. That was the drama. By contrast, a war movie —which is essentially what BSG was— must paint the panorama of the war's horror and any character drama must take place within its context and nested within the surrounding events.

And never once was BG 2003 intended to take you beyond the scope of the onscreen characters' point of view. And this nonsense about how a war film "must paint the panorama of wars' horror" is a bunch of pretentious crap.

No it isn't. It's what marks the difference between a film you remember and two or four hours of wallpaper paste.

Bullshit. Das Boot is only one example. Saving Private Ryan never gave you a big picture of the war - "panorama of war's horror" - it never even gave you a big picture of the D-Day invasion. It focused on one single squad. Band of Brothers never gave you a "panorama of war's horror", but confined you strictly to the events the 507th regiment of the 101st airborne was in. To Hell and Back never gave you a "panorama of war's horror", it told the story of one man: Audie Murphy. Sink the Bismark didn't give you the "panorama of war's horror", it told about one aspect of the battle of the Atlantic: the hunt for s single German battleship. And while there were a couple of battle scenes, most of the "action" consisted of men humnching over maps in the Admiralty war room in a London bunker getting status reports and making plans.

Your contention that in order to be good a war film must "paint the panorama of war's horror" is pretentious crap. Many war films eschew that approach, and choose instead to tell a detailed story about a relatively small corner of the war. Not every war movie has to be The Longest Day. You can tell a story by telling a big story on a sweeping scale, like the Longest Day, A Bridge Too Far, or Tora! Tora! Tora! (great films all). Or you can focus narrowly on a small group of men or a single ship and tell their story in detail. Both approaches are equally valid, and both can produce landmark war films. Your contention that only the epic, panoramic approach is the right one is simply ridiculous. All of the great films I named above prove how wrong you are.

I've got that movie in my collection as well, and again you make an utterly ludicrous comparison. Petersen did indeed paint a panorama of the war's horror through the very grueling ordeal of the crew of U91. He didn't have them sitting at dock reading about how the U-boat war was going and merely talking about it for four hours.

Which is nothing like what happened in BG 2003 either. Yes, the Galactica participated in no action for the entire show. They committed not a single ship to teh fight, and fired not a shot in anger. They sat around at Ragnar anchorage for the entire show receiving reports and did nothing.

Another fine strawman. We did see action. We saw the destruction of Caprica. We saw the Galactica's first squadron go up against the Cylons and get shut down and destroyed. We saw the Cylons finish off the ships that were not able to escape via FTL jump. We saw the final battle where Galactica screened the escape of the civilian vessels. We saw everything we needed to see. We saw everything that was necessary to tell the story - and the story is about Galactica and her escape, not about the colonial fleet and its destruction.

You are unfairly criticizing them for not telling a story that the show was never supposed to be about in the first place. Gimme a break. The only reason you saw the Atlantia destroyed in the first movie is that it had been flying right beside Galactica at the start of the pilot. They didn't show extraneous battles depicting the rest of the fleet getting waxed either. Where's your criticism for them?

In case you haven't noticed, I have criticized the miniseries where I though it was weak. I am not unqualified in my praise for it. What I object to is unfair criticism by people who wouldn't give it an even break if it had been writted by the resurrected William Shakespeare, just because you had your heart set on an exact recreation of the original, and you can't get over your resentment at having your balloon popped.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. Evidently you missed out on this comment I made prefacing my own review:

Granted, the original certainly was not great by any stretch of the imagination. Point of fact, most of it was stupid. At least it was a fun stupid, an adventurous (at times) stupid. It had an ambitious idea behind it —even if that idea was stupid at its base.

And


There was rampant stupidity in the original BSG to be certain; such as Baltar not really figuring out the sort of retirement plan the Cylons had in mind for him once his usefullness was ended.

And

Where the original BSG was a weird mix of Mormonism and the pseudo cosmology/history of the VonDaniken School of Crackpots, the new BSG is an exercise in tedious antitechnological sermonising and moralistic handwringing over man daring to Tamper in God's Domain

Those are hardly the sentiments of somebody who "had his heart set on a remake of the original" as if it was the most spectacular TV show ever, or was disappointed by "having his balloon popped", now is it? Still sounds like you're the one doing any whining here.

Hardly. I'm not the one whose tone is unreservedly critical. I'm not the one whining about how awful this was, and about not getting to see the battle scenes he wanted to see.

For some reason, I prefer battle scenes where I can actually see the scope of the fight unfolding on the screen. Jerky gun-camera footage doesn't fit the bill by a longshot.

Perfect example of unfair criticism. Maybe you don't prefer the somewhat chaotic appearance of footage that appears to have been filmed by an on site gun camera. But to assert that the original was actually superior is simply laughable.

I said no such thing.

Then if you don't think the scenes we saw are inferior, why the fuck are you bitching about them?

There are several panoramic shots in BG 2003, such as the final battle scene when Galactica takes up her position screening the civilian fleet. You see the Galactica, the base stars, and many of the civilian ships, all in one shot. Then there is the shot of the base stars launching dozens of fighters at once - something we never saw the like of in the original. And the vipers speeding away from the Galactica, again with dozens of them in each frame. Then the battle opens and fighters and flying tracers fill the sky. Contrast this with the original where, at most, we would see a whopping three fighters per frame, and a couple of laser torpedo blasts animated in; and where each ship, when hit, was overlayed with an optical mat of an explosion, with nary a hint of debris; and where reuse of stuck footage was abundant. Oh yes, the original was so much better and more realistic.

Except everything in that spew of yours about comparisons with the original is not the source of my complaints with this movie or its alledged action scenes. Try actually dealing with the substance of an argument instead of making a blatant and pathetic Appeal to Motive attack.

Then what is the source of your complaints? The major point of discussion on this thread has been a comparison of the new version to the original. If you don't have a problem with the new versus the old, why the fuck are you complaining? If you don't like the new version, and you didn't like the old version, they why the hell would you spend so much time posting about it? I tend to ignore shows don't like, not argue about them.

Another laughable comparison. "Balance Of Terror" was a destroyer v. submarine drama and, instead of a string of briefing room scenes, took place during an actual battle going on around the crews who were on the spot. And the battle sequence during "Journey To Babel" took up only the last five minutes and again involved the crew of the Enterprise[ who were on the spot in the middle of the fighting —not reading about it while safely orbiting Wrigley's Pleasure Planet lightyears away.

Nice strawman. Never was the action so misdirected from the story by showing anything so irrelevant.

What strawman? It is you who attempted likening the two cited TOS episodes to the new BSG. Are you even sure you saw the episodes in question?

Many times. I am pointing out - rightly I might add - that in order to be a good, dramatic TV depiction of a space battle, there need not be lots of action and effects on camera (which seems to be your major criticism of BG 2003: that we didn't get enough of these things). If the story is good, it can be character driven, and the action of the characters can convey the sense of drama and tension even in the absence of effects. That is my point. And that is as far as I am taking the comparison. Since you seem unable to grasp this point, let me say it again in very plain language: My point, my entire point here, is that a good story can be well told on tv without needing to depict a lot of effects laden battles. It can be done through character actions and dialog. That is all. I am not making any point beyond that. Your gripe that because those ST eps were a different story the comparison doesn't apply at all. Bullshit. You are taking the comparison too far, and moving it into the realm of nitpickery. Not to mention distorting things with snide comments about "Wrigley's pleasure planet" which are deliberate gross exaggerations, and we never see anything like that in BG 2003.

Another entirely missed point. The action was not seen. In "Balance of Terror" there are numerous scenes where people are just sitting on the bridge of the two ships waiting for the enemy's next move.

Gee... I guess if you disregard the Destruction of Outpost 4 scene, the scenes where the Romulan ship is getting hammered, the whole scene where the Enterprise is fleeing the Romulan plasma bolt, the nuke detonation scene, the phaser room scene, and the scene where the Romulan ship takes two direct hits, you just might have an argument there.

And I guess if you disregard the destruction of the diplomatic station, the destruction of Caprica, the annihilation of Galactica's Mk VII Vipers, the destruction of the sublight civilian ships, and the final battle scene where Galactica and the fleet fought their way clear of the Cylons, I guess you might have an argument as well.

The Romulan commander's speech to the centurion about his disillusionment with his mission was all talk and no action.

Which takes less than one minute of screen time and doesn't stretch into empty moralising about the species' worthiness to survive.

Adama's speech at the ceremony and his conversation with the Cylon infiltrator aboard the Ragnar station constitute the entirety of said "empty moralizing", and took no more than about two minutes of screen time. You are making my point for me.

You never see the Enterprise and the warbird occupy the screen together.

Which was clearly beyond the technical or budgetary capacity of the makers of TOS in 1966.

So? Your point is what? That because they can do it today they must? Says who?

And there aren't really many exterior shots at all. The battle was almost entirely conveyed by the action of teh characters on screen.

Except for the ships getting hammered and the fact that both crews were actually in the middle of the battle and not off someplace merely reading status updates on events they have no direct involvement in.

Key point "that they have no direct involvement in". This is the story of the Galactica, not the story of the colonial fleet or the Atlantia. Why should they break away from the story they are telling to put in extraneous scenes?

In "Journey to Babel" most of what we now of the battle comes from a light appearing on screen and the Enterprise bridge crew calling out distances and speeds.

And the ship again getting hammered in a battle the Enterprise crew are definitely in the middle of.

but as I said, it's not the original, so you are not about to be satisfied no matter what they do.

There's that Appeal to Motive fallacy again. And no, I was not satisfied. That tends to be my usual reaction to dull, portentuous, actionless crap.

Sorry if that doesn't suit you.

You are free not to like the show. I can't understand why you'd be bothered to spend so much time posting about a show you don't like though.