Repetition of the same lame excuse, I'm afraid, does not erase this production's defects. Apparently you still can't understand the concept of mood-setting in a dramatic film.Perinquus wrote: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.Patrick Degan wrote:Let's see... there's the right way, and the wrong way. Reducing Armageddon to a series of status reports...Perinquus wrote: 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.
Are you nuts?! What the fuck did you call the entire opening sequence at Dog Green Sector, Omaha Beach?!?!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.Patrick Degan wrote:No it isn't. It's what marks the difference between a film you remember and two or four hours of wallpaper paste.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.
Again, you reach for invalid comparisons. Sink The Bismarck was a docudrama encompassing every aspect of the hunt for the German warship, both at sea and at Admiralty HQ. As for To Hell And Back, you notice Audie Murphy is avtually on the front linre, in battle, with his life at risk and not merely sitting in the PX reading about the war in Stars and Stripes. Same for the men in Band Of Brothers. The characters are directly involved in the situation they're caught in the middle of. Just what part of this concept eludes your grasp?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 a 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.
I guess Stephen Spielberg, Franklin Schaffner, Darryl Zannuck, WolfgangYour contention that in order to be good a war film must "paint the panorama of war's horror" is pretentious crap.
Petersen, Oliver Stone, Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, Ron Maxwell, and Nick Meyer, among others, are "full of pretentous crap" for not making war movies consisting almost solely of people in rooms talking over status updates and spouting pseudophilosophical blather about man's worthiness to survive. THAT is pretentious crap.
You totally misunderstand the concept —especially in regard to the great films you imagine prove me wrong. The panorama is of the war the men are fighting, be it one skirmish or an invasion. It is not watching a bunch of people who are uninvolved in actions taking place somewhere else which are only mentioned in passing. That's partly where crap like D Day: The Sixth Of June derives from —war treated as mere backdrop for a soap opera.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.
Certainly true through part one and most of part two. The movie's one real action sequence in the last ten minutes of part two certainly does not make up for a very largely missing armageddon on Caprica, or the total absence of the fleet's destruction. The movie more or less followed the same lame-ass pattern characteristic of Ron Moore's TNG and DS9 work —merely using the idea that some action is taking place somewhere as backdrop for a dreary character soap opera.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.Patrick Degan wrote: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.
Yours, actually.Another fine strawman.
Gee —some fireballs visible from orbit and a mushroom cloud in the background of another scene. Yep, that sure makes me feel the full horror of a civilisation's destruction.We did see action. We saw the destruction of Caprica.
Ah yes, the edge-on-your-seat thrills as two robot fighters transmit a "divide-by-zero" command to crash the Windows NT-run computers on the Vipers.We saw the Galactica's first squadron go up against the Cylons and get shut down and destroyed.
A long-distance shot of missile launches which cuts to the closeup of the doomed little girl the president made nice with as the scene whites out —nice bit of emotional button-pushing which of course we never saw coming.We saw the Cylons finish off the ships that were not able to escape via FTL jump.
So... if Star Wars had been made by Ron Moore instead of George Lucas, you would have found satisfaction in a movie which starts with Princess Leia already in custody complaining to Gov. Tarkin about how many of her crew were killed in the boarding of her starship which goes unseen, followed by Leia merely being given a computer printout by Darth Vader describing the unseen destruction of Alderaan, followed by Vader and Tarkin debating politics and the validity of belief in the Force while getting reports about the attempt to break the princess out of the detention block, followed by the Rebel HQ staff and Leia debating the morality of blowing up the Death Star (come to blow them up) and killing its crew, followed by Luke wrestlinhg with his conscience about blowing up the Death Star and killing its crew while the comm traffic of the attacking Red and Gold squadrons is heard in the background, before Luke is told to Use the Force, fires his torpedoes, and blows up the Death Star? That to you would have been a good movie ?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.
Without the destruction of Caprica and the colonies, there IS no story for BSG! That is the context which justifies the whole production. How does leaving the audience uninvolved in the main driver for the whole fucking plot amount to a good storytelling decision?!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.
IT WAS THE FUCKING PRESIDENTIAL FLAGSHIP AND THEIR GOVERNMENT WAS RIDING ON BOARD! That ship's destruction searingly underscores the disaster that is befalling Adama's entire civilisation. Seeing it has far more of an impact than merely hearing about it.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?
No, your tone is that of someone seemingly determined to compose endless apologia for a fundamentally flawed movie no matter how its defects are outlined in detail and determined to ignore those defects at all costs. In other words, you're doing an incredible imitation of an uncritical fanboy.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.Patrick Degan wrote:Appeal to Motive fallacy. Evidently you missed out on this comment I made prefacing my own review: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.
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.
I said no such thing.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.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.
The thing I never said was that the original was superior. That has nothing to do with commentary on the inferiority of the remake.Then if you don't think the scenes we saw are inferior, why the fuck are you bitching about them?
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.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.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.
And you presume to accuse me of erecting strawmen? That's comedy.
Actually, it is your laughable attempt to lecture me about what constitutes good drama which is bullshit. The whole point is not the level of the SFX; it is the placement of the characters in the very heart of the situation the audience is expected to care about. That is what gets the viewer involved. Your alledged point is pointless.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.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?Nice strawman. Never was the action so misdirected from the story by showing anything so irrelevant.
I do have an argument: the destruction of Caprica goes largely unseen. The shutdown of the first wave of Vipers is a cheap plot device to avoid any actual action sequence to involve the viewer. The destruction of the marooned civilian ships goes largely unseen and is merely set-up for a cheap attempt to push the audience's emotional buttons over the Poor Little Lost Girl™. And the movie's one and only true action sequence is all too brief and reached only at the cost of sitting through a dull movie. That you cannot comprehend this is your problem, Mr. Apologist.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.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.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.
I'm not responsible for your fantasies. The whole pseudomoralistic tone of Adama's Neo-Luddite speech questioning humanity's right to survive because of his technology is a palpable drumbeat throughout the movie and is mouthed repeatedly by Adama, N.6, the Cylon duplicate who tries to kill Adama, Laura Rosen and her aide, and Col. Tigh. About as subtle as a jackhammer and as relevant as debates about the Dancing Angel population on pinheads.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.Which takes less than one minute of screen time and doesn't stretch into empty moralising about the species' worthiness to survive.The Romulan commander's speech to the centurion about his disillusionment with his mission was all talk and no action.
Nice little strawman you've put up there. That was not the point and you fucking well know it. You tried putting up that pathetic little dodge to support the false argument likening Neo-BSG 's lack of action to the FX and budgetary limitations of TOS as similar dramatic approaches, when they are no such thing.So? Your point is what? That because they can do it today they must? Says who?Which was clearly beyond the technical or budgetary capacity of the makers of TOS in 1966.You never see the Enterprise and the warbird occupy the screen together.
Robotically repeating "This-is-the-story-of-the-Galactica" over and over and over a over does not a rebuttal make. Without the destruction of their entire civilisation, there IS no story for the Galactica. The issue in that context is not what directly involves the characters at the moment but what convinces the audience to have any involvement in their plight. Placing the Galactica in the ambush of the fleet would have both directly involved the characters in their plight and involved the audience in the movie's main plot-driver at a visceral level.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?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.And there aren't really many exterior shots at all. The battle was almost entirely conveyed by the action of teh characters on screen.
Sorry, but until Freedom of Speech is rescinded, you're just going to have to put up with opinions you don't like, aren't you? And I could just as well ask why you seem so hellbent to spend so much time trying to blunt criticism you consider invalid.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.