BSG Preview: “Ties That Bind” + Moore Signs New Sci-Fi Movie Deal |
jump to navigation

BSG Preview: “Ties That Bind” + Moore Signs New Sci-Fi Movie Deal April 18, 2008

by Staff , Filed under: BSG , trackback

By your command – things are heating up with the centurions of the Cylon fleet in tonight’s episode of Battlestar Galactica, “Ties That Bind”..and you don’t have to wait until tonight to see it. Plus BSG creator (and Trek vet) Ron Moore has inked yet another deal, this time to write some sci-fi movies.

Airing tonight, April 18th at 10 PM (9 Central)

“Ties that Bind” [Season 4 Ep. 3]
Synopsis: Kara Thrace seeks her own path in the search for Earth as the commander of a lone freighter. The Cylons face the threat of the newly sentient Centurions unleashed by Natalie, a copy of Number Six. On the Galactica, a member of the crew learns a dark secret about a loved one.


Episode Streaming all day [Season 4 Ep. 3] are streaming the entire epside online 8 times. Streams of “Ties That Bind” start at the top of the hour, every hour from 9 a.m. (Eastern Time) to 4 p.m. While the episode is streaming live, you will not be able to pause it, rewind it, or fast-forward through it. CLICK TO WATCH

Battlestar News of the week:

New videoblog on ‘the end’
Cast and crew reflect on the final season.

Moore writing 3 sci-fi movies
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Tom Cruise’s United Artists has signed a deal with Ron Moore to write ‘an original sci-fi trilogy for the big screen.’ No details are provided, but apparently UA is looking to develop their own ‘homegrown franchise’ and picked Moore to make it happen. It isn’t clear where these movies fit in with his two new TV projects (Caprica at Sci-Fi and Virtuality at FOX). Moore’s previous feature writing credits include Star Trek Generations, Star Trek First Contact the story for Mission Impossible II (all of which with fellow Trek vet Brannon Braga).

Galactica Concert
BSG composer Bear McCreary held a ‘Music of Battlestar Galactica’ concert in LA last weekend, which was hosted by James Callis (Baltar). A full report with pics and video is available at Galactica Sitrep.


1. fakesteve - April 18, 2008

BSG is getting better and better… I wonder if somebody will ask Jamie Bamber in Bonn tonight if he is the fifth cylon…

2. Sebi - April 18, 2008


I love BSG!

3. BSG is #1 - April 18, 2008

I used to be just a Trek Fan….I even ignored BSG until the 3rd season because I thought nothing could compare to Trek….

Now I am a New BSG fan first and Trek fan second…

4. Allister Gourlay - April 18, 2008

Crap…. as usual we cant get it in the UK even though we are only days behind the USA!

5. ety3 - April 18, 2008

Moore wrote M:I 2?

Gods, I hated that film.

I’ll blame Braga.

6. Sean - April 18, 2008

I have a love/hate relationship with BSG. I loved the first three seasons up until the season finale of season 3. IMO it was awful, destroyed 4 characters, making everything they’d done until then trivial and meaningless. Still, I can’t help but watch season 4. (mostly because there’s nothing else good on TV anymore)

7. Wrath - April 18, 2008

Moore didn’t write MI:2. He and Brannon Braga did work on it but it was re-written later. They retain a story credit.

8. SirMartman - April 18, 2008

Ron Moores next BSG project called “Caprica” sounds kewl,,

It would be interesting to see the Cylons being,,”invented”,,,and the start of the Cylon revolt against man

Ive always been a fan of BSG,, theres soo much more to the story than the last battlestar making a run for it

9. thebiggfrogg - April 18, 2008

Hulu sucks ***. Greedy NBC-Uni sobs. I am living in China and gladly payed the $1.99 iTunes fee until the greedheads demanded more and offered their lousy ad supported service as an “alternative,” which we can’t get in China. BSG is one of my favorites and I’d gladly pony up a few bucks to support the creative efforts of Moore and crew, but since this debacle I’ll find “other means” to get my BSG fix.

10. Sebi - April 18, 2008

No intention to offend but being in China these days must really suck…………because of the BSG issue of course!

When I first saw BSG (TNS) I was really pissed because I really loved the original series but since the new Starbuck’s kinda hot…. Well I think it’s now the best series on TV for a Star Trek fan.

Damn it JJ, work faster!

11. thebiggfrogg - April 18, 2008

Well, it is strange, but I will say it is more complicated than both the American and Chinese media project. I will leave it at that.

12. Vulcan Soul - April 18, 2008

I find it hilarious that someone like Moore who is fundamentally lacking understanding for true science fiction and is rather apt at writing space (soap) operas is being offered “science fiction” deals. It shows what is wrong with the genre these days.

13. SB - April 18, 2008


“I find it hilarious that someone like Moore who is fundamentally lacking understanding for true science fiction…”

I’m very curious, Vulcan Soul, to know what your standard of comparison is here. What’s your idea of a television and/or film writer and/or producer who isn’t “fundamentally lacking understanding for true science fiction”? And while I’m asking, how do you define “true science fiction”?

I’m sincerely asking. I want to understand your position.

14. fakesteve - April 18, 2008

Maybe we should lay the groundrules first, SB… how do we define “true science fiction” in 2008? Ron Moore may be no Arthur C. Clarke, William Gibson or Isaac Asimov, but he is doing a great job given the restrictions of the medium he is working in…

15. SB - April 18, 2008



If you go back and read my post, you’ll see that is exactly what i was asking.

If Vulcan Soul is going to claim Ron lacks the fundamentals of “true science fiction,” I’d like to know what the definition of that is supposed to be.

16. Rhett Coates - April 18, 2008

You know, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Ron & Co. were inspired by the original BSG concerning Kira’s (Starbuck) strange return: after she was supposedly killed in the explosion, and then comes back this season in a ship without a scratch…….. Who recalls (who saw the original BSG series) that when Apollo, Starbuck and Athena (?) returned on time to the Galactica, they also had not a scratch on their ships, their ships were almost ‘a different color’ — and so were their uniforms? …..They had Devine Help from a very special, extremely lovely (–and SPOOKY–) vessel.

What happened to Kira? Did she REALLY see Earth in person? That sounds a lot like Ron & Co. are about to reveal an “Angel Ship…..” And perhaps we’ll see the introduction, like the original, of a new character: Lucifer: VERY SIMILAR to the original, but with a reimagined twist that I’ll wager no one will see coming until its too late. Anyone care to guestimate that’s where they’re going with the new season? (That still leaves open the question on IF they’ll find Earth, though. Maybe it will take a ‘Motion Picture’ after the series ends to get there.) Hmmm…..

17. Freddie Wise - April 18, 2008

Man, I’ve never seen BSG… I’ve always wanted to watch it, but for some reason I always thought it was on HBO (which I don’t have). I thought SciFi just did the re-runs. Just shows how much I know… Maybe I should buy the DVD’s…

18. Capa DeGama - April 18, 2008

They’ve already stated that they WILL find Earth, we just don’t know what shape it’ll be in. We have to figure it’d be no more than about 10,000 years in the past as North America was recognizable (so they’re not in dinosaur times). Or they could be in the future, or the present.

19. Buckaroohawk - April 18, 2008

Rhett Coates (#16),

I’ve been thinking the same thing. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a new version of “The Ship of Lights” from the original show made an appearance during the 4th season of BSG.

And by the way, it was Apollo, Starbuck, and Sheba (not Athena) who encountered that spectral ship on the original show. The beings aboard that ship also resurrected Apollo, who had been killed by the nefarious Count Iblis. They also gave the Galactica fleet cryptic clues to the location of Earth, so there are some possible parallels with the events we’ve seen on the new show.

Only time will tell how this all plays out. Frankly, the suspense is driving me crazy.

20. Redjac - April 18, 2008

Ron Moore isn’t the creator of Galactica…that’s Glen Larson!

Please give credit where credit is due.

Moore is the Galactica’s “re-imagineer” only!

21. Redjac - April 18, 2008

Forgot to say, saying Ron Moore is the “creator” of BSG is like saying James Cawley is the creator of Star Trek.

22. Sebastian - April 18, 2008

#12 “Space opera” as you call it, IS a category of Science Fiction. And Ron Moore does it very well. It’d be very difficult to adapt “Slaughterhouse Five” for television every week! And Galactica IS sci-fi in the best sense; showing our world up to a dark mirror. Allegory is one of the things the genre does best. And as for #20; Glen Larson has as much to do with the current BSG as Thomas Edison does with your i-pod. An evolutionary step. Yes, Larson did create the skeletal story for BSG, but Ron Moore took the idea and truly made it something quite unique and exciting. As it is now, current BSG bears little resemblance to its parent show (thank the Gods; no Boxey, no daggits!). Can’t wait for tonight’s episode. And if one does not like new BSG, the ON/OFF button is clearly labeled on most remote controls.

23. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator - April 18, 2008

#12 – “I find it hilarious that someone like Moore who is fundamentally lacking understanding for true science fiction and is rather apt at writing space (soap) operas is being offered “science fiction” deals. It shows what is wrong with the genre these days.”

Amen, Vulcan-Soul. I really hate the new BSG (for many, many reasons I won’t reiterate here), and Ron Moore is TOTALLY over-rated. So what, he made some lame, cheesy soap opera, set it in space, and added gratuitous sex and graphic violence. Ooooh, that’s SO intellegent and cutting-edge!

Oh yeah, and they can’t use energy weapons because that’s somehow “unrealistic,” and god forbid they ever have something “unrealistic” in a sci-fi show. But travelling faster than the speed of light is okay, especially if you give it a “realistic” military acronym (“FTL”). Wow, Ron Moore. You are truly a genius.

24. Nathan - April 18, 2008

Whoa…is it just me, or is Ronald Moore really, really hot right now in Hollywood? Of all the post-Trekers (excluding cast members), he seems to really have done the best for himself… bravo!

25. Jeyl - April 18, 2008

I don’t know. I feel like this series is going to end with every character getting into one big “Caligula” like orgy in space.

And #23 for Ron being a genius? Not in my book.

26. Randall - April 18, 2008

Am I the only one who’s not impressed with Moore (that photo of him run on this site all the time makes him look like some egotistical rock star in one of those godawful 70s southern rock bands like Molly Hatchet… blecch…I have no doubt it reflects something unsavory about his personality) nor with his wheezy and confusing Battlestar Galactica? I have tried mightily to watch the show… and my teenage daughter has tried… and we’ve both agreed after several attempts that it’s nothing more than a (sometimes very confusing) soap opera. I’ve seen episodes that were almost utterly devoid of *any* action, with such tedious pacing that it required a tremendous effort of will to continue watching to the end. This has happened again and again, every time I’ve tried to tune in.

It’s no surprise that Moore was involved with the almost-equally tedious Deep Space Nine, which was also insufferably soap-opera-ish at times… and very full of itself.

Why is this show (Battlestar) popular? I’m not *entirely* sure, but I suspect that all along one aspect of it has been that some fans who remembered the original series were overly ecstatic about it being revived and revamped—disliking the *very* cheesy nature of the original show (sometimes it was good-cheesy, but most of the time it was just *bad*) they just wanted to see it done with contemporary quality, and have been too willing to overlook the downside of this. This seems to be a common mistake with sci-fi fans… they have this deep yearning to feel “hip” (since they always seem to be the ones who are kicked around by the mainstream as a bunch of geeks and nerds) and will swallow anything that comes along that seems to be so—even when it really doesn’t work, and doesn’t really deliver anything at all. It’s like trading one brand of superficial for another.

27. SB - April 18, 2008

I give up trying to get any kind of intelligent conversation started, let alone maintained, on this board.

28. Name - April 18, 2008

They killed Cally! How could they?! Did Nicki Clyne quite or did she get fired?

29. Teleportation Girl - April 18, 2008

SB i think fakesteve was furthering a point, that’s all. don’t get all huffy! stick around and join the discussion. it just takes time for people to show up, that’s all.

30. Avindair - April 18, 2008


I nearly completely disagree with your post. I loved DS9, as it was the first “Trek” that I felt was both more adult and lived up to the promise of a serialized universe. Additionally, I’ve enjoyed the gritty nature of Moore’s BSG immensely.

THAT BEING SAID, I contend that nearly half of S4 could have been chucked for exactly the reasons you stated above. The “love triangle” nonsense was both boring, and didn’t offer anything to the show as a whole. (Heck the final resolution for that garbage was essentially a one-line throw-away at the end of the last episode.)

All my opinion of course. YMMV.

31. Randall - April 18, 2008

Avindair #30:

You say you nearly completely disagree with my post, but then go on to spend more than half of *your* post agreeing that *an entire season* of Battlestar was boring nonsense, and was essentially as I said—nothing but soap opera.

You simply don’t go far enough. I have made a concerted effort to watch this plodding monstrosity from the first season to the most recent. It’s unwatchable. I’d challenge you to *honestly* look back and admit to yourself how many times you actually found the show engaging, let alone riveting.

Rather, I’ll bet that you–like a lot of people–have simply watched it by rote, tuning in and zoning out to it—which is not an insult to your or anyone else—that’s how soap operas work… they lull you into a sort of routine lower-consciousness of “oh, I guess I’ll watch to see what’s happening this week”… and you don’t even know that’s the process that’s going on in your mind.

As for DS9 having been more “adult”—please. There’s never been anything adult about lame-ass characters like the Ferengi, nor about this warmed-over, stale religious nonsense that permeated that show, nor is there anything “adult” about soap operas, which is all that DS9 was at times.

Trek can never be really “adult,” anyway—it’s too full of optimism and naive hope, and if it didn’t have that, it wouldn’t be Trek. Where your mistake is, is that DS9 *did* stray farthest from that. But that didn’t make it more “adult,” it simply made it crappy Star Trek, and tedious—because it didn’t substitute (except at times) the optimism with anything interesting or engaging. It’s final, desperate ploy to do this was to introduce a war. Which can work—and it did—but it’s a shallow and superficial way to manage an alternative to the Trek “vision.”

I’ve frankly always thought that DS9 was a piss-poor idea from the get-go… but I gave it a chance, and it proved to only be a disappointment… and at the worst of times a thumping boor.

And that’s all that the revamped Battlestar is.

32. Redjac - April 18, 2008

#22 — While we can agree on the issue of Boxey and Daggits, it doesn’t change the fact that Moore simply reinvented Larson’s original show.

It’s arguable how successful he was with that.

I, for one, would have made SOME of the changes Moore did — but in my opinion — he changed it a bit TOO much.

33. British Naval Dude - April 18, 2008

that picture of Mr. Roboto at tha’ top reminds me of “The Scream”…

oh, sorry…

If I had me own show, we could cutely abbreviate it to “BND”


34. Sebastian - April 18, 2008

#26. BSG fans (old and new) did not trade one “superficial for another.” You may not like the new show, and that’s your business. But don’t assume that the sci-fi fans who DO like it are trying to look “hip” or “cool.” Why I like the new show has NOTHING to do with the old show. Most of my friends who watch now NEVER watched the old show. So, please don’t condescend or try ‘amateur psychiatry’ here. You’ll embarrass yourself. BSG is loved by some fans because it is enjoyable; with good characters. And the reasons behind the lack of ‘energy weapons’ and other high tech Trek stuff is explained clearly enough in the pilot episode. And I doubt that Time magazine (which loves BSG) and the Peabody committee are trying to “look hip or cool.” And #32. Redjac, thank you for a civil reply. Much appreciated.

35. Lojik Supreme - April 18, 2008

Good Episode for tonight. BSG is a “reimagining” of the original. Did I watch it when i was younger? Yes. Do I remember it now? No. Watched a rerun recently and it was totally campy/soft. I appreciate what Mr. Moore and company have done with the story and the direction it’s headed.

36. Trek or Treat - April 18, 2008


I can think of several times right off the bat when I thought the show was riveting.

1. The pilot and the (IMO) extremely realistic portrayal of a civilation being wiped out and the its last remnants desperately trying to escape.

2. The first hour-long episode: “33” which started off the series with a white knuckle crisis. 33 minutes between Cylon attacks, Pilots and Crew operating on no sleep for 5 days, civilians huddling in terror inside their ships…

3. “Pegasus:” a ruthless admiral squaring off against Adama. Two ship commanders launching squadrons of fighters at each other. Each crossing the line in the name of doing what they thought was right.

4. “Resurrection Ship” The aforementioned admiral plotting to kill Adama to get him out of the way. In turn Adama, our good guy, plots the assassination of Cain, on the advice of the PRESIDENT, who knows if Cain is unleashed on the fleet unchecked, Most of humanity could be destroyed.

5. The season 2 ender, “Lay Down Your Burdens:” Baltar, the man who unwittingly helped destroy humanity is about to become President. A desperate President Roslin, knowing she’s on the losing end, tries to steal the election. The wrong course of action for the right reason. Flash forward a year, and New Caprica is occupied by Cylons.

During each of these times, and many more, I remember sitting in front of the television saying to myself, “This show is amazingly good. I can’t believe they’ve made a show this good.”

These examples are just from the first 2 seasons. Need I go on?

I have been a die hard Trek fan for 30 years. I love Trek, and guess what? There were maybe 3 times in all of the Trek series where I was literally blown away. With BSG I am blown away on a consistent basis. The stories and characters are complex, it goes outside the box, and it is not afraid to take chances.

I honestly don’t understand the venom directed at this show and at Ron Moore on this board. Yes, Glen Larson created the original BSG. It was, and still is an amazing concept. But by the end of his pilot we took a trip to the Casino planet. Yeah, great stuff there. In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, the rest of the original BSG series was garbage with the exception of “Living Legend.” Ron Moore, David Eick, and their cast & writers have turned the saga into a masterpiece.

So to Randall I say, You are entitled to your opinion sir, but I am also entitled to mine, and my opinion is the new BSG is the best show I have ever seen on television. PERIOD.

There! I feel better.

37. Sebastian - April 18, 2008

#36. Perfectly stated, Trek or Treat. And because of your great post, I feel better, too! Well done.

38. Randall - April 18, 2008


I NEVER “embarrass” myself, pal. I can’t help it if you’re not willing to demand more from your television viewing than typical, stale soap opera malaise.

As for you saying you didn’t like the old show and/or never watched it… you made my point for me (partly). As I said, people who DID watch the old show, but didn’t like it’s cheesiness, were overly ecstatic about having a “hip” version done in contemporary style. To the point where they don’t notice that what they’re being fed is another version of superficiality.

I was trying to figure out WHY people would like this mess of a show. Fine, call it amateur psychology if you want… but then why don’t you tell ME why you like it? What do you see in it? What can be interesting about a show with no energy, no pacing, and a lot of lame-ass camera-jumping which is just showy with no substance behind it?

I’ll grant the characters are far less cardboard than those of the original series. But that’s not saying much. It wouldn’t be hard to improve things in that regard.

Other than that—as I’ve said—I’ve tried mighty hard to enjoy the new Battlestar—and see nothing in it worth getting excited about. If you do, then enlighten me.

39. Randall - April 18, 2008

Trek or Treat:

The fact that you would say “Battlestar” is the best series on TV “ever” says it all right there. Your opinion is too skewed and out of whack to be worth anything in a discussion of this nature.

You gave a list of episodes and moments—but why are you and I seeing entirely different shows then? Answer–because you focus on little moments here and there. Me, when I’m watching, I’m watching the entire thrust of the thing… and I have yet to see an episode in this series that was NOT dull, badly paced, needlessly confusing, and filled with showy but annoying camera tricks that are poor substitutes for decent storytelling.

I’ve been “blown away” by more episodes of the original Star Trek—or for that matter the X-Files—then this confused wreck (Battlestar).

If you ask me, people like you are too willing to accept tricks and soap opera banalities, and mistake them for “riveting television.”

But yes, we’re all entitled to our opinions. We’ll see, once this show is off the air, how often it’s still on TV a few years from now, in syndication. My bet it is, after a short burst, it’ll disappear completely…. because the snazzy aspect of it will wear off, and people will see it for the colossal boor that it is.

40. Trek or Treat - April 18, 2008

#39 Randall,

As we both agree, we’re each entitled to our own opinions. But please don’t tell me my opinion is too “skewed and out of whack” to be worth anything in this discussion. No-one’s opinion is worth more than anyone else’s on this board.

It’s obvious we view the show in different ways, and let’s leave it at that. I don’t want to bore everyone else with a back and forth when other people would like to give their opinions as well.

By the way, I loved X-files too.

41. kmart - April 18, 2008

I’m of two minds on nuBSG. First, I think it is kickass good television, with storytelling and ethical dilemmas that are worth tuning in for. But second, I wish it had some actual SF content, instead of switching between ‘ww2 in space’ and the religious/fantasy aspect. There’s precious little that I personally would consider to be sci-fi (which was my only objection to FIREFLY, a show I absolutely adore) in nuBSG, but considering what the masses think of when they think SF, this is probably as close as we’re likely to get. Somebody like Andrew Niccol (GATTACA, also wrote the first tougher version of TRUMAN SHOW) could probably do a REAL SF show, but it’d probably bomb out fast too.

I’m of two minds on Moore as well. I met him once during a pitch session at TNG and found him to be a very nice guy, in tune to my thinking, too (sadly, the only one in the room that was, or history might have been forever changed.) And a number of his DS9 and TNG shows were good to very good (which is saying a lot for the latter, as I never thought much of TNG, much more original series.) But I’ve also thought that the show that got him an offer to go on staff at TNG, the romulan defector one from season 3, borrowed an INSANE amount of stuff from the pocket novel MY ENEMY MY ALLY, and so there’s the little bit of ‘plagiarism’ thing that goes off on in my head now and then. But by and large, the guy has the goods in spades.

Maybe he’ll involve Echevaria in the future, that writer is good as well.

42. kmart - April 18, 2008

Oh yeah, the other thing about nubsg … the thing I friggin’ HATE … the look. I think that when folks rewatch this show, they’re going to see scenes like the ‘aboard cylon baseship’ stuff in s3 and think, WTF this looks like the 6million dollar man BIGFOOT episode!

There’s a mushiness to a lot of this show that is really hard on the eyes and mind. Mixed with the really harsh look, and it is very unappetizing visually. And yet still I watch (kind of like the first MATRIX … I absolutely HATE seeing green, and yet the whole damn movie is tinted that way. Guess really good storytelling overcomes everything.

43. John_Pemble - April 18, 2008

This is quite an interesting move for TV. The iTunes distrubution / pay method was one I used for BSG, then of course I bought the DVDs later. Hulu is what I’m doing now for season . If I get a chance to sit down for one hour I will see this new episode on the live SciFi stream. I think this is worth note in the whole social media, video via the Internet, and last but not least what is this doing for or against regular old cable television? This is a very interesting business model. It certainly is one of many testing grounds for future television and that may or may not include what comes our way with future Star Trek projects.

44. fakesteve - April 18, 2008

hey, SB, Post 15: I am sorry, I was in Transit the whole day. I was on your page with this issue. I garbled it up with my german part of the brain I guess ;))

45. Lore - April 18, 2008

I caught the BSG mini-series back in 2003. When the series started I was hooked, until they moved back to Sunday night. They got me back with season 4 on Friday nights. I guess Sci-Fi geeks have nothing better to do on Friday night than watch BSG. #42 Don’t “friggin’ hate anything. You should “frakken” hate something.

46. Relentless - April 18, 2008

#5. You’ll have to see MI III. IMO I didn’t think it was that good, and unfortunately our friend J.J. Abrams wrote it. :(

47. Irishtrekkie - April 18, 2008

@26 Randall ( i read the rest of your post too just in case your wondering )

Just thought i would say your not the only one who shared that opinion of moore , i myself can just about watch galatica but i would not put it anyway near real sci fi shows .

I also agree that shows is trying to aim from some new hip geek viewers ( which i thought was easy to see after with nothing else on t.v. i watch Battlestar Galactica The Phenomenon on sky the other week . where they interview celebrites to talk about the shows impact on pop culture. All i can say was if you think galactica is hard to watch , watch those interviews , highlights include , how the show is the best thing/ most mature thing to happen to sci fi ever, how normal people can relate to it cause its all about characters and drama ! (lol) and how sci fiction is a setting not a story .

48. British Naval Dude - April 18, 2008

I’d be soooo very lost if I started watchin’ again…
did tha’ Cylons sue Knight Rider yet???

49. Sebastian - April 18, 2008

#39. Randall; you asked for examples of why we BSG fans like the show; Trek or Treat listed a handful, but you cite their view as too “skewed”….uh, because we like the show our viewpoint is NOT valid? You don’t like it; we get it. We DO like it, accept it and move on. Why do we like it? Why do people like certain colors? Or certain music? Personal taste. If you’d simply said you did not like it, I could respect that. But the fact that you take your stance as a soapbox to impugn those who DO enjoy it shows that you just can’t accept a differing viewpoint. So you find it boring soap opera; bully for you. Many of other fans out there (including myself and Trek or Treat) DO like it. Even when we list moments and reasons why, you’re just not satisfied. You call us, ‘skewed.’ No need to berate those who commit the sin of not sharing your taste.

50. Scott - April 18, 2008

For what it’s worth, the episode at is actually the *second* episode after the season premiere, but it is numbered differently because of the Razor movie.

Thanks for the BSG coverage! Trek and BSG together is always a good thing.

51. KMKProd - April 18, 2008

In the episode, they were meeting in weapons locker 1701D. Pretty funny.

52. Matt - April 18, 2008

I don’t feel like going deep here, but as far as – the history of televised science fiction series – BSG is one of the top three – with TOS and Twilight Zone.

So, let’s just say IN OUR LIFETIME BSG is the best SF series,

53. Colonel Kevin - April 18, 2008

I just don’t understand where all these people and their deep BSG bashing is coming from. A Sci-Fi show that is critically acclaimed is a good thing for sci-fi… it makes TV executives more willing to try on other sci-fi shows, perhaps even ones more daring or hardcore or whatever. You don’t have to like it, but you certainly don’t have to go out of your way to give such detailed hatred.

I think that’s one of the biggest reasons sci-fi remains such a niche franchise is that, for whatever reason, fans of it really just like to divide each other and spread hate against one another, and often times just for even petty or silly reasons (And sorry guys, but a lot of your opinionated arguments qualify as such). I may not like Stargate tv shows, but did I go out of my way to spread detailed reasons across the internet why I disliked it and how flawed it was and throw a little hatorade party for myself when it got cancelled after 10 seasons (10 seasons too many LOLZ). Of course not.

All I’m saying, is that if you’ve given it an *honest* shake and it’s not your thing, that’s fine. Not all shows are for everyone. No need to harp on it longer. There are other things to move on to and better uses of your time.

54. Irishtrekkie - April 18, 2008


?? what BSG bashing , people are giving thier opinions , some people liek the show , some dont ( i have not seen any real detailied hatred on this site ). people need to lighten up and relax . Also stargate was great at times richard dean anderson is 2nd only to william shatner in coolnes.

55. KennyB - April 18, 2008

nuBSG and Lost are the ONLY 2 shows I watch anymore. By the way tonights episode rocks…..must watch again just to soak up everything thrown at me this week…….already counting down till next week!

56. Jeyl - April 18, 2008

If Lucifer comes back to the new series in robot form, I’ll watch it.


57. New Horizon - April 18, 2008

#36 –
I honestly don’t understand the venom directed at this show and at Ron Moore on this board. Yes, Glen Larson created the original BSG. It was, and still is an amazing concept. But by the end of his pilot we took a trip to the Casino planet. Yeah, great stuff there. In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, the rest of the original BSG series was garbage with the exception of “Living Legend.” Ron Moore, David Eick, and their cast & writers have turned the saga into a masterpiece.

Someone wise once said, that people can be very frightened of change.

58. Stanky McFibberich - April 18, 2008

re:23. [The] TOS Purist aka The Purolator – April 18, 2008


59. OneBuckFilms - April 18, 2008

I notice that there are lot of people here that seem down on BSG.

Fine, but I for one really love that show.

It has great acting, interesting characters, great visuals, and incredibly innovative and unique score, and some very good writing.

I for one believe it to be a masterpiece of television, regardless of genre.

It is not meant to be the kind of science-fiction that concentrates on alien cultures. It is meant to speak to human survival under extremely dire circumstances.

It is grim, but with some hope.

It also provides a commentary on contemporary issues, with a lot of twists in the tale.

Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica or VERY different, and can not be compared.

I for one love them both for different reasons.

60. VOODOO - April 18, 2008


I know that sounds silly and a little dramatic, but I really think it is the truth. Can you name a better program in any genre?

I guess it does come down to personal taste, but I think this is a transcendent show that up’s the ante and redefines the genre.

It’s too bad that BSG is buried on the SCI-FI network and so few people get to see it. It’s also too bad that BSG does not have the ratings (it is still the #1 program on SCI-FI but is expensive to produce) to support a 5th season.

I predict over time people will re-discover BSG much like they did TOS and it will get the recognition it deserves.

61. VOODOO - April 18, 2008

BSG makes shows like DS9 and Enterprise look like cartoons.

62. Dr. Wh-at now?! - April 18, 2008

So, the Galactica skin jobs hold their secret meetings in Weapons Locker 1701D?

As in NCC-1701D?

Is Data the 12th Cylon model?

63. Tim - April 18, 2008


I tried to get on here as fast as I could and ask if anyone else noticed that it was Weapons Locker 1701D. RDM, even though Braga screwed him, still represents. Have to respect that!

64. Mike T. - April 18, 2008

Now that would be funny if Brent Spiner/Data was the 12 Cylon and he comes out of Weapon’s locker 1701E

By the way, whatever happened to the TOS Enterprise that was around in the mini-series? Did the Cylons destroy her?

65. Sebastian - April 18, 2008

#62. Caught the 1701D reference. There was also a ship called the Gemenon Traveler 1701 in the pilot miniseries. Tonight’s episode (w/o giving any spoilers) had a lot of fireworks (more emotional than pyrotechnic). Good stuff.

66. StarTrekRockerGirl - April 18, 2008

Thanks for that spoiler, #28 Name Just ruined it for me. Thanks a whole bunch.

67. Seamus - April 18, 2008

Re: # 28

Bet she’s a “skin job.” Just a theory, but the episode was so Cally-centric. Starbuck is obviously out of the fifth spot. Besides it would be so ironic. MEGA IRONIC! The great cylon hater is one. Besides she totally broke Galactica when she was in that quasi-jefferies tube thing.

68. Seamus - April 18, 2008

Oh and the 1701 D thing blew my mind. Last episode there was a very Kirk moment with the whole “to absent friends” thing. Possible tie in with Star Trek XI? Adama? Kirk? Best movie ever? Must be.

69. cellojammer - April 18, 2008


Not cool. If you absolutely just HAD to spill it, a little spoiler warning would have been appreciated.

Nu BSG is simply a great show. Very nuanced, very sophisticated, very topical. Some don’t like it? Fine. But the content is there. Many dismissals of it have been for very shallow reasons.

70. sean - April 18, 2008

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me…

The main issue I have with the criticisms of BSG in this thread (and a few others) is that it is insinuated – or in some cases, plainly stated – by some that people who enjoy the show are either mentally checked out or otherwise unaware that they’ve been ‘tricked’ into enjoying it. Don’t you know? We BSG fans are a simple-minded lot, better served watching The Hills than 2001.

You don’t like it? Fine. You don’t understand why I like it? Fine. Tastes are subjective. No one is forcing you to watch it, nor are they forcing you to read posts about it. However, please don’t imply that by enjoying the show that I’m a vapid, empty-headed fool looking for the newest ‘hip’ trend to attach myself to. I don’t make assumptions about individuals who don’t like the program, so I don’t need those same individuals tossing their preconceptions my way.

I’m fairly certain we can all share our opinions here without the unpleasant odor of elitism or condescension stinking the place up. Or at least I hope we can.

71. NTH - April 19, 2008

# Rhett Coates: I enjoyed the original series,cheesiness and all.The characters were fun and the concept original.The storyline was somewhat reflective of the biblical story of Moses and the jewish peoples search for the promised land.This appears to be quite evident in the new series as it was in the original with the aspects you mentioned including the light ship ,count Iblis and Lucifer.The irony of the story is that it is the humans that believe in multiple Gods and the Cylons that believe in one God.I agree with you that Starbucks mysterious return suggests the introduction of a new element into the new series,a guiding influence.

72. Simon - April 19, 2008

My only problem with the new BSG is that after most episodes (and tonight was a GREAT example) I want to slit my wrists. The writers seem to want to make the show so relentlessly depressing.

Want another example? “Pegasus”. In the series Cain was a crazy maverick, but he wasn’t homicidal, he didn’t want to murder Adama, he wasn’t party to massacres of civilians or rape.

I realize life doesn’t always have happy endings, but sometimes they do.

And put me down as someone who can’t stand McCreery’s drum heavy noise.

73. Jeyl - April 19, 2008

#72 “Want another example? “Pegasus”. In the series Cain was a crazy maverick, but he wasn’t homicidal, he didn’t want to murder Adama, he wasn’t party to massacres of civilians or rape.”

They turned a well liked “Patton” character into a full blooded Nazi. Quite the opposite way on how things turned out, eh?

74. Sebastian - April 19, 2008

#72-3. Some interesting points. But what the new show says is that we no longer live in an age of Patton anymore (Gen. Patton would HATE this age). War is not thought of so much as ‘glorious campaigns’ (the Rhine, North Africa) as it is ‘ethnic cleansing’ or ‘genocide’ (Darfur and Bosnia come to mind). And the US (where I post from) is, sadly, a country engaged in war (and not a popular war, either). New BSG illustrates that war is a dark, ugly thing. One nation’s hero is another’s criminal. And BSG also deals with the ultimate in dehumanizing an enemy; making them (literally) machines. Then asks the question (right out of Philip K. Dick) ‘What if the machine DOES have a soul?’ And I fully understand how the new show’s darker interpretation could put some off. But BSG (old AND new) is a show whose pilot episode dealt with the near total destruction of the human race. Not an uplifting premise! What many new BSG fans enjoy are the characters, the reflections of modern issues in a dark mirror and (to me at least) the distant possibility of hope. Much needed in these ‘interesting’ times.

75. Sebastian - April 19, 2008

#73. And while the original BSG “Living Legend” was essentially (by Glen Larson’s admission) “Patton in Space.” I don’t think Ron Moore’s show really had any aim to remake THAT story. They used the Cain and Pegasus names, but nothing else. No Sheba or Bojay, either. Cain, in some ways, is more an analogy of misguided leadership (something we in the US understand all too well). How a premise borne of righteous anger and tragedy (9-11, for example) can lead one down a misguided and equally tragic path. Now, I used to watch the old show as a kid, and it was fine. But I accept that despite the name use, they are NOT telling the same story as the old series did.

76. VOODOO - April 19, 2008

Simon #72

The show is about the destruction of the entire human race. It shouldn’t be all pizza and fairy tales or space cowboys playing poker like in the original BSG only hours after their planet was destroyed.

BSG is hard hitting and things rarely have a happy ending. It reflects real life.

77. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

The BSG is not without its flaws and Peabody award not with standing, I don’t think its the best scif show ever, B5 has that particular distinction but is is easily one of the best scif shows on television and it should be in the top Top of all time of scif programs. What Ron Moore did was take a cheezy not very good Star Wars wanna be and made it in to a terrific show, far superior to its predesesor in both writing and and production. The original Galactica was a joke and its simple as that , During the original series run there was a awards show and every show sent a cast member to represent their show ,well the sole cast member from Galactica on hand was the chimp who played Daggit, which kind of gives you an idea of how little respect the original show had.

78. MrRegular - April 19, 2008

Man there’s more fireworks going on here than last night’s BG episode!
It was one of the most chilling hours of television I had ever seen. The plight of Cally is beyond belief. Without revealing any spoilers here, at least this viewer is left with an immense sympathy towards this young mother and wife.

79. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

Great episode, lots of dire consequence to go around.

80. CW - April 19, 2008

“BSG is hard hitting and things rarely have a happy ending. It reflects real life.”

Maybe in the leftist / liberal mentality, and that might explain why it is that most of what we see from so-called “progressives” out of Hollywood is so corrupt, and has to show every relationship as either a lie or dysfunctional. Maybe they just have had bad childhoods. Who knows?


As for the episode itself- man, that was just messed up.

81. sir num nums - April 19, 2008

Moore is a better producer than writer for films.

EXP: Generations was poorly written, MI:II was awful.

82. Sebastian - April 19, 2008

#80. What is your basis for this? Aside from your own personal views. BSG does not promote a “leftist/liberal” mentality. If anything, it holds both the left and the right up to some harsh scrutiny. You have a hero president who is following scriptures to lead her people; not very leftist, I think. You have the media in the fleet often portrayed as vultures; the same with lawyers and peace fanatics. A universe where abortion has been outlawed by the aforementioned president. The show is largely seen through the eyes of the military! I’m just at a loss to understand how ANY of this promotes a “progressive, leftist/ liberal” agenda. Is it possible you’re viewing this material through your OWN filter and speaking on what you THINK you see, and not what is? And as for the dysfunctional relationship point you bring up, well, the show has people under extreme pressure. And considering that 50 % of marriages end in divorce in THIS world, you can only imagine the divorce rate in BSG’s fictional pressure cooker of a universe. And if BSG represents an inaccurate, “corrupt”, “so-called progressive” agenda…..why are you watching it?

83. CW - April 19, 2008

Oh, no I agree that the show is a refreshing breath of fresh air, as something that conservatives can find material to appreciate as compared to just about every other sho that goes out of their way to cram liberal mentality down the throats of every- particularly Trek.

My only comments were for the quote I held up: why does it seem impossible for libs to portray virtue without it having an ulterior motive? Why does every family have to be dysfunctional? Why must every relationship need to be strained? Is it truly more realistic to portray Will Adama and Lee Adama at odds? Why was it campy to portray Adama and Apollo in TOS as close?

Everything always has to be written grittier, edgier and darker. It’s as if optimism has no credibility any more. I can promise you that there are more good people, good relationships and better families in existance than Hollywood writes like to give credit for.

As for why I like the show- it’s good sci-fi, space combat scenes, good actinge, and contrary to my criticisms it is still quality writing. I just wish the writers would utilize their talents to write something that wouldn’t make the audience want to take medications for depression. Is that such a bad thing?

Besides- as correctly stated- it not only holds the right accountable, but holds the left accountable as well.

84. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

I still think that when all is said and done we are going to find out that both the Coloniels and The Cylons are both Machines. The Final five seems to be the key here, they link both cylon and Coloniels. Their purpose seems to be to bring together both Human and Cylon of course this development depends on how the Cylon civil war ends. It’s possible that when they get to Earth, it may in fact be an Earth of the past, from a story standpoint this possibility seems to fit best. Them arriving in the present, near or distant future seems an unlikely possibility.

85. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

#83 Human beings a are very messy and imperfect creatures no doubt, but the best dramas tends to be have the messiest people going through the motion of a drama, People in good relations, Boring and predictable drama,If everybody on Galatica were nice agreeable people,which in a dire situation as they are in, would simply be not all that believable, then the Drama would neither be creditable real or entertaining at all.

86. Dr. Wh-at now?! - April 19, 2008

64 Oh, they used her for a proper tea service.

Moving on….

87. Irishtrekkie - April 19, 2008

Yet Again another EPIC FAIL on the trekmovie site , why are people taking every comment personal or as an attack on something they like . meh……..lighten up .

88. CW - April 19, 2008

I tend to disagree. It has been shown time and time again that people- humanity- can bind together and be at its best when things seem to be at their worst… and plenty of credible drama can be gleened from it without having to show humanity as feces.

89. Randall - April 19, 2008

#49 Sebastian:

I said that someone who claims Battlestar is “the greatest show on TV” or the “greatest show ever” or whatever the hell it was—that yes–their opinion is far too skewed to be of any real value. I mean come on now. The greatest show on TV? Or “ever”? That’s absurd. The show isn’t even on a major network—which means that it was deemed unable to garner a large enough audience to be a success in big league terms. I have no doubt it may get good or even great ratings for the Sci-Fi network… but if you know anything about television economics, that’s still second rate (at best) to the major networks. Which is not to say that good shows can’t be on cable–that’s what it’s for, and is great at—to give us alternatives. But the point is, if this show is so incredibly great, why isn’t it being snapped up by ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX? Well, one of the reasons may be that they still view the audience as fairly small and too narrow to drop big bucks on this show.

Or, of course, I concede, that may have nothing to do with it. My main point is, it’s absurd to lavish such excessive and hyperbolic praise on a show that clearly a *lot* of people find annoying, depressing, plodding, and hard to watch.

Believe me—I would love nothing more than to like Battlestar and think it’s a great show. I tried very hard to like it. I watched numerous episodes and became more disenchanted with each viewing—not because I didn’t like what they were trying to do—I get it… I get the commentary on contemporary issues and so on, and I get the twisting and playing going on with what’s real and true, and so on…. but my problem with the show is that each time I’ve tried to watch it, it has been near-torture. As I’ve said repeatedly, it has no pacing, it plods and then goes in fits and starts—it’s woefully short on action, and then throws in a lot of cutesy camera tricks to show us how “hip” it is. My judgement is that it’s all blather with no substance—but it’s fooled a lot of people because it’s so “gritty” and “serious” and seems so “edgy” and hip. Which is why I said it’s trading one kind of superficiality for another.

As for what I said about people who like this show–hey, I was just trying to get into their heads and understand WHY people would so love what to me is little better than a confused, boring, and depressing mess. I didn’t say I was right, but it makes sense to me. Because I can’t figure out why anyone would go back and “re-imagine” a show like Battlestar Galactica in the first place—except to correct the ultra-cheesiness of the original (and we must all recall that the original series was literally nothing more than a cheap ripoff of Star Wars–and it got slammed, and rightly so, at the time, for this). And so they’ve corrected it, I think, by going way far in the other direction—they’ve tried to make the silly but nevertheless entertaining premise of the show serious by grafting over it what I see is a lot of shallow dark-edged nothingness. But in this day and age, if you lather a lot of darkness and depression on things, people automatically tend to think it’s profound and hip. Even when there’s nothing there.

Again—I’d love nothing better than to like this show… but I tried hard and couldn’t manage it.

Moore does not impress me. I see in him a lot of signs of the poseur, and like many adept poseurs, he gets away with his pose by fooling the gullible. Me, I look back on his record and see a lot of crap. Why should I be so wrong in this? I have nothing personal against the guy. I’m just making an honest assessment of what I’ve seen him spit out over the years. He could come up with something good maybe, I don’t say that he can’t—but to me Battlestar isn’t it.

90. CW - April 19, 2008

How was the original BSG a rip off of Star Wars?

91. Anthony Pascale - April 19, 2008

well the debate sparked every week has proved to me that a weekly BSG column was a good addition to the site. I enjoyed last night’s episode, maybe not as much as the previous two. I think they tried too hard with some stuff. Did like the 1701D ref of course, but it sure wasn’t subtle…I thought they were going to start talking about their ‘cylon enterprise’ while in the weapons locker

92. Sebastian - April 19, 2008

#83. While I may not entirely agree with everything you’ve posted, thank you for making your points much clearer. I DO agree that optimism is in short supply on new BSG, but it IS a show dealing with a post-apocalyptic society. I used to watch the old show, and the consequences of that show never seemed particularly “real.” Maybe there was too MUCH optimism in that one. Maybe because it was intended as a family show. And I agree there’s nothing wrong with showing healthy relationships; but as any network exec will tell you, there’s no drama in that. In TV, “nice” tends to be thought of as “boring.” Not right, perhaps, but on TV conflict is the basis for good drama. As for politics, I see the good and bad of BOTH sides. Which is why I enjoy the “pick and choose” politics of new BSG. No left-wing or right-wing agenda, just examination; in the best sci-fi tradition. Thanks again, CW, for clearing up my lack of understanding on your post (and for keeping it civil).

93. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

#90 Actually George Lucas did sue Larson over Battlestar Galactica as being to much like Star Wars, the suit of course was later thrown out or dropped or something. Larsons had written a synopsis years before called Adams Ark which became the basis of Galactica. But If you look at the Time of the Original Galactica It did attempt to ride the coat tails of the Star Wars. In the entertainment industry everyone borrows from everyone else. Also consider one other fact before Lucas you had Tv shows like UFO and Space 1999 which had fighter craft that battled in outer space.

94. Sebastian - April 19, 2008

#89. Well, Randall. That was a rather lengthy piece for an “absurd” show that is so overrated. I say again (for the LAST time, so please read slowly): Just because YOU do not like something, does NOT give you the right to INSULT or BERATE those who DO lie it, as pretentious, gullible or skewed! Now, if you dislike it sooo much, WHY are you so passionate about it? No, please don’t answer that. I’m not replying to this anymore. You’ll just go into another insulting-the-fans tirade again…and it’s getting OLD. This is silly.

95. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

#89 i agree that the original series was a very bad Tv show even by the low writing standards of the day. The new series is by far a better show then the disco abomination that was the original. The show has generally good writing and the acting is quite impressive. Tricia Helfner,Dean Stockwell and the other actors who play the Cylons and multiple variations of their characters that impresses me. Ron Moore has also made it hard to completely hate the Cylons or Completely like the Colonils. This series you have varying degrees of shades of grey, which the original series did not have. True this series is not to everyones liking but not all of us like the same things.

96. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

I will tell you one thing after Galatica leaves the airwaves, it is very likely to be forgotten, because story arc televsion shows generally loose audience in syndication , and coupled with the fact that Galactica’s numbers even at their best, were never steller to begin with. As for Caprica, that will happen as a Telemovie, but its success seems very unlikely, less so without Galactica around.

97. Paul - April 19, 2008

If the original BG was soooo bad why recreate it in the first place. I thought Ron was redoing The Thing. I wish we could have seen the Singer/DeSanto BG project.

98. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

#97 Paul from what I read, it was little more then a continuation of the original, which in all likelyhood it would had a very short run on the scifi channel. Why Redo it in the first place? ,well we are talking about the scif channel, which does scifi shows. In this day and age you don’t take a risk with new ideas you take the safe road and reboot old ones. Thats what Hollywood is doing nowadays or so it seems.

99. CW - April 19, 2008

“Ron Moore has also made it hard to completely hate the Cylons or Completely like the Colonils. This series you have varying degrees of shades of grey, which the original series did not have.”

I have a very hard time seeing why that is a good thing.

At least the original had a defined “good” side to cheer for, and a defined “bad” side to cheer for.

100. Garovorkin - April 19, 2008

# 99 yes and that made boring an uninteresting.The original Galatica was crap, the only redeming quality of the of original show was that it became the basis a far better show. please the acting on that show abysmal and the wring more so.

101. CW - April 19, 2008

If one were to dismiss it’s state of the art cinema quality effects (for the time, at least) then the only redeeming quality was that there was a defined good side and bad side.

Sadly, the moral ambiguity that some celebrate in the current BSG can be found in our own society, where individual politics make one’s hatred of an elected leader so visceral that they would sympathize more with the nation’s enemies than with their protectors.

But to the current SG’s credit, at least they touched on that issue so that its viewers on the right can see the colonials as treasonous and the viewers on the left as heroes.

But you can still convey such story lines without turning the Adama household dysfunctional or making Starbuck a drunken slut.

102. sean - April 19, 2008

#88, 99

Even in the instances when humanity does pull together, they’ve 9 times out of 10 crawled through the muck to get there. I don’t think BSG shows humanity as ‘feces'; rather, I think it just presents the species without the rose-coloured glasses that are so often applied in SciFi. I would consider BSG to be the darkness before the dawn, so-to-speak. This is that humanity’s dark period, where they struggle with the big questions, and try to find out who they are and what defines them. There are moments of ugliness and grief, but there are also moments of joy and kindness sprinkled throughout. It’s easy to focus on the dark aspects of BSG and forget that there’s a lot of love in that show, underneath it all.

The truth is, I also enjoy shows where the good guys are more easily identified, and usually win in the end. But ultimately, those aren’t typically the type of programming that requires a lot of heavy thought from me.
Shows like BSG can often force me to think about WHY something is right or wrong. The show doesn’t try to change my opinion or anyone else’s, but it does often make me justify that opinion, if not to another person than to myself. That’s something the literary greats were often able to accomplish, and I think BSG more often than not achieves the same goal. Even Star Trek often had its greatest moments when posing truly challenging questions of morality (A Private Little War, City on the Edge of Forever, etc.).

Of course, that doesn’t mean I’d want to LIVE in that BSG world,but I often find myself not being overly thrilled with this world I live in either.

103. Frank B. Chavez III - April 20, 2008

BSG is misogynistic, Luddite rubbish. I thought it was cool until I noticed that every other episode was either bashing the female characters or damning technology. Female characters seem to exist to be punished (Starbuck), act as traitors (Boomer), seductresses(6), or martyrs (the President). The only good technology is analog technology that can’t be networked and for having the distaste to break out their programming the Cylons deserve to be extinguished. If the so-called creators of the “re-imagined” BSG never work in TV again it will be too soon.

104. Randall - April 20, 2008

#94 Sebastian:

Honestly, Sebastian, grow up. If you can’t take someone bad-mouthing your favorite little TV show, then you’d best not venture out into the real world where you’ll find far more bashing of the things you cherish.

I went into NO “tirades,” however, insulting Battlestar fans. I commented honestly on how it is I think people could like what to me is a confusing, dreary, and even pretentious show. Seems I hit a nerve with you; the “passion” about this is all on your end, not mine.

105. Randall - April 20, 2008

#100 Garovorkin:

Having well-defined “good” and “bad” in a story does NOT make it “boring and uninteresting.” Let’s not degenerate into silliness here. There’s a reason moral ambiguity is considered a distasteful thing—because it IS distasteful. It may be the way the world work sometimes, but it isn’t ever *right* that it works thusly. Sometimes the purpose of fiction is to remind us that there CAN still be good and bad in life, and that good can win out. There’s nothing wrong with that, nor is it “boring and unintersting.”

What made the original Battlestar such crap was not it’s comic book war between good and bad–what made it crap was awful writing. It was typical of 70s television, when the network types believed that you couldn’t slap anything on TV that was above the comprehension level of a seven year old. Writers and producers–for all the vaunted examples where they fought this standard–usually fell in line and gave the networks what they wanted. Thus the original Battlestar.

Now… as to the lawsuit stuff… you were way off on all your points.

A) it wasn’t George Lucas that sued Glen Larson. It was 20th Century Fox (who produced Star Wars) that sued Universal (the studio that produced Battlestar). Universal countersued, claiming Fox infringed on old properties of Universal’s. Yes, the suit was eventually dismissed. However:

B) It was clear to anyone at the time who had eyes to see that Battlestar was a blatant rip-off of Star Wars. No one to my recollection ever raised the Gerry Anderson shows (UFO, etc.) as precursors to Star Wars—that’s just silly, because the resemblance is near-nil. But *clearly* there was a strong resemblance in execution between Battlestar and Star Wars. The stories were somewhat different (reflecting Larson’s earlier idea) but in many respects the depicted detailings of Battlestar appeared to be lifted right out of Star Wars and only slightly retailored. This wasn’t an example of how “everyone borrows from everyone else,” (which *is* often true) rather, it was an example of blatant infringement. Fox clearly had the stronger case on this point—but Universal had made the also well-considered point that Star Wars had borrowed and/or been inspired by several far older properties–Flash Gordon, for instance. (Universal had also brought up the robots of “Silent Running” as inspirations for the robots of Star Wars, but most felt this was silly). Universal’s countersuit wasn’t really worth anything, but it helped to deflate the argument Fox was making.

Nevertheless, it was obvious that the original Battlestar wasn’t just “riding on the coattails” of Star Wars–it had climbed right on the film’s back and was picking its pockets.

106. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

#105 Randal the old notion of the Bad Guys wear black hats and good guys wear white hats just does not work for me anymore. Though you do make a good case I simply don’t agree on this one and yes very obviously the writing on the Original Galatica was 90 percent of the problem with that old show.

When the whole legal thing was going on between Fox and Universal , its funny that no one brought up the Issue of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson.

107. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

#105 As to legal thing what i stated was stuff ive heard over the years, apparently I heard wrong, oh Well.

108. sean - April 20, 2008


The fear of technology has been a theme present in Science-Fiction since its origins. BSG is hardly the first show to explore it (the Borg, anyone?). However, I don’t think the show is espousing a Luddite philosophy. If something similar to a Cylon Rebellion occurred in our own civilization, you can bet your bottom dollar that people would vote to ‘restrict’ further exploration of AI technology. That’s just a reasonable extrapolation. But just because BSG explores that theme doesn’t mean they’re making a value judgment on technology as a whole.

Besides, I could actually say the show is showing the superiority of technology, as the Cylons are frequently more sympathetic than their human counterparts. Plus, the purely mechanical Cylons managed a stalemate with their human masters, The armistice was only broken when the Cylons began to incorporate human nature into their programming. One could say the show demonstrates the inherent imperfection of humanity.

As for supposed mysogyny, I don’t see that. I think there are characters in the show who demonstrate a degree of it (Baltar, obviously), but women are in positions of authority throughout the show, and I don’t see a lack of respect for those women or their authority in terms of the show’s general approach to the characters. Starbuck, sure, she’s dealing with an obvious case of Borderline Personality Disorder, but I don’t think that has anything to do with her being a woman.

109. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

Tthe whole notion of the Cylons rebellion had been a problem for me until recently. The thing is if you build a Sentinet machine like a cylon how do not put in safety protocols or a kill switch to circumvent rebellion? Caprica Six’s actions pretty much answered that particular issue. The Cylons rebelled because someone enabled them to . The thing that is still troubling is that the coloniels with their past history with the cylons would design their weapons systems in such a way as to render themselves vulnerable to the cylons. Why would you network link your fighter togethers together that is foolish given the Cylon penchant for computer viruses and why would you not have an emergency backup systems in your fighters and your battlestars that should have kicked in when the main systems went down. Here on Earth we have computers getting attacked by viruses all the time, thats why we have things like Norton anti virus and McAffee. How could a technically advanced computer savy civilization like the Coloniels not have anti viral protocols and how is that they could not in turn attack the Cylons with anti virals in responses. And in the middle of Battle why would your communication systems be open to recieving malicious Cylon transmissions? I know Baltar designed the system but how is it that you don’t have other programmers checking to see if what he has created is dosen’t have any bugs or back door codes nested inside of it. Also when the first Cylon war started where did the Cylons get their ships from Factories on the Planets? thats very unlikely> alos the war was fought with tactical nuclear weapons which destroy Electronics so this beggs the question why could not the Coloniels have developed electo rmagnetic pulse weapons to disable and destroy huge numbers of attacking Cylons at once. And would it not make sense for the Coloniel to have more effective side arms then they do, In 40 years their side arm technology has not advanced significantly. Galatica has some issues,all scif shows do in one form or another.

110. bernie - April 20, 2008

anyone see the number of the weapons locker, 1701D

111. sean - April 20, 2008


To be fair, even in our age of backups and anti-virus software, plenty of systems still end up being vulnerable. The simple fact is that no system is without its flaws. Plus, my assuption was that the Cylons – being software themselves – simply had a leg-up on the Colonials in terms of their ability to manipulate it. I think it was also clear that the Colonials had become somewhat complacent and weren’t totally aware of what sorts of software and weaponry the Cylons had developed in the ensuing years after the armistice had been signed.

In terms of the 3 laws issue, even Asimov explored the fact that they had certain imperfections that could lead to unknown or unanticipated results. Plus, the laws fail to anticipate evolution or the possibility of eventual sentient qualitiies in a machine. Who’s to say that the Cylon’s didn’t eventually develop a form of sentience whereby they simply ignored or rewrote their own programming? I think that’s always a feared result when dealing with a possible Artificial Intelligence.

112. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

#111 What you say makes sense but considering what the Coloniels were up against, It seens that that kind of complacency has a certain level on unliklyhood to it., especially with the life and situation that they were in. However I do agree that a fixed set of laws may not absolutely prevent the possibility of revolution, especially in light of evolution, but what about shutdown code subroutines being built into the AI software wouldn’t that preclude the possibility of rebellion? A friend of mine came up with an interesting notion for the computer virus. That the ultimate virus software to use against the Cylons would be the human persona and these past two episodes with the cyclon civil war bare this notion out.

113. sean - April 20, 2008

I don’t know, complacency seems to be all too common a problem in our modern society. Who would have thought that 6 years after Sept 11th that we’d still have so many security issues and failures here in the U.S. along our borders and ports? I know some of that is a result of bureaucracy, but it’s also the result of a certain lack of urgency to fix it. The Colonials had 50 years to get too comfortable. Plus, you have to remember all the infighting that was going on between the 12 planets. They were essentially sidetracked by their own problems (as we often are today).

I do agree with your friend’s assessment. It seems like humanity is the virus that the Cylon’s have no cure for. Ultimately, would they have even hunted the humans down and endangered their own civilization were it not for the humanoid models?

114. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

# Sean with regard to Complacency, that is unfortunately true enough,lapses that big can in fact happen and do happen. Also true, i get the impression that the Centurians would have probably preferred to leave the coloniels be, sinse it seems that the Humanoid models were the ones who not olny Orchastrated this genocidal but lobotomized the Centurans and Raider thus becoming like the humans that were their original masters. It has happened before and it will happen again and it already has. I don’t see this situation ending well for either Coloniel or Cylon.

115. colonyearth - April 20, 2008

Randall said: “To the point where they don’t notice that what they’re being fed is another version of superficiality.”

If there is one thing the new BSG is NOT it’s superficial. You obviously don’t watch the show. Too bad it’s over your head.

Sad really.

And SB: I’m with you on an intelligent dialogue here. Please feel free to visit and join us there in intelligent dialogue on many topics from BSG to politics and religion in general. Really, B5 fans are usually more able to engage in real conversations and a genuine sharing of ideas.

And on a final note, while RM is rising in Hollywood and while RM has literally blossomed after being freed from his time under Berman and from having to work with Braga, JMS has risen further. In fact, it’s to some degree that JMS is responsible for RM’s new rise. Their recent histories are very similar. Only thing is JMS isn’t bound by sci-fi.


116. colonyearth - April 20, 2008

Matt said: “I don’t feel like going deep here, but as far as – the history of televised science fiction series – BSG is one of the top three – with TOS and Twilight Zone.

So, let’s just say IN OUR LIFETIME BSG is the best SF series.”

I agree but let us not forget Babylon 5, without which we wouldn’t have had BSG like we’re getting it now. B5 broke the TV idea of “episodic” television for shows other than “soaps.” It was the first “novel for television” with a beginning, middle and end. It’s because of the landmark and television changing Babylon 5 that we have shows like LOST, BSG, Heroes, etc.

Now…I’m not disagreeing with you for the most part, it’s definitly Twilight Zone, Trek (TOS mainly), B5, and BSG. These were, are and will be the television science fiction behemoths that will continue to define not only sci-fi but television in general.


117. startrekfan - April 20, 2008

Vulcan Soul
Ronald D. Moore is one of the best Science Fiction writers out there. A little space opera is a good thing otherwise you just have a bunch of special effects and technobabble with no where to go. Sorry to inform you but life happens even in Sci Fi.

118. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

Well on the plus side got a lot said on this thread.

119. startrekfan - April 20, 2008

There is a bit of the shrill in your comments, being a stranger reading them that’s how it sounds. Everyone else seems to respond to you calmly but your responses are very antagonistic. At least that’s how they sound to an objective reader. You don’t like BSG, you aren’t impressed with Ron Moore we are all clear now about your dislike but I agree with Sebastian, there’s no need to belittle those who like or even love both and your comments do sound belittling. One of the things I like about this blog is the difference of opinions and perspectives with out attacking those who feel differently. I rarely post comments myself but felt it necessary here.

120. Garovorkin - April 20, 2008

#119 Startrekfan Im guilty of that one myself from time to time

121. Simon - April 20, 2008

Kenneth Johnson, in an interview by David Chase, talks about why the remake of “Bionic Woman” failed and hits on the head what I find wrong with the current BSG:

DC: Back in the day, you were involved in the creation, writing, producing and directing of the original Bionic Woman TV series. Obviously there was the recent (and short-lived) Bionic Woman NBC series – which was eagerly anticipated, but quickly lost its audience and the ratings. Did you get to see it, and if so, what are your thoughts??

KJ: Well, I was not involved in it. I saw a good bit of the pilot when it was first made, and I felt very clearly they were going in a much different direction…not my cup of tea would be the polite way of putting it. I just felt it was just so grim and dark and particularly violent that it missed all the humanity and humor that we had originally brought to the Bionic Woman all of those years ago.

Humanity. Humor. Hope. David Eick seems bereft of such things.
People point out that life “doesn’t have happy endings” or “it’s a show that opens with the Cylons wiping out civilization”…well, if I want to be continually depressed I’ll read the news. When I turn on my TV I want to be entertained. Sure, I want to think, but I also want to be entertained. DEEP SPACE NINE did this very well in its later seasons…it was dark and at times seemed hopeless, but Sisko and his crew kept their humanity, there was humor, and we knew deep down that the Dominion would lose the war. WWI, WWII, the Cold War…horrible times for humanity, but we pulled through in the end. There were heroes. BSG seems to want to destroy what humanity there is left.

122. Garovorkin - April 21, 2008

Sometimes the very best drama is darkest and the most pessimistic and the most hopeless, that seems to bring out the best and the worst in human beings. Though Happy endings on occasion are okay for breakin up the monotony.

123. Coffee to the Stars - April 21, 2008

How dark should it be?

Every country besides the United States seems to face up to the fact that they sometimes have lost wars.

A friend of mine just visited Vietnam. We lost soldiers there, but we also killed many soldiers and even more civilians. Some say as many as 2 million individuals.

Would we feel like happy endings are satisfying if that was the culture we lived in? Would it make you liberal to realize that your culture might be exterminated?


124. Garovorkin - April 21, 2008

#123 life is real and more often then not there are no happy endings, fiction should reflect that particular reality but again that does not mean always a sad ending. There is room i both drama and real life for happy endings. As cynical and Pessimistic as i am on the human condition, not everything need be dark and without any possibility of hope.

125. Jeyl - April 21, 2008


What about Farscape? That to me was the most “alien” looking show I’ve ever seen on television, and it was also a jolly good show! Plus they had the “evil person in the brain” long before BSG.

126. Matt - April 21, 2008

Of course I like happy endings too, I’m not sure I was responding to you directly. I was just writing from the point of view that “happy endings” are more like “Hollywood” endings, not mythic endings or even fairy tale endings. Even Fairy Tale endings, which were written to educate, were mostly quite scary.

127. Sebastian - April 21, 2008

#119. That’s because you are right, star trek fan. Don’t waste energy worrying about him. He tells me I need to “grow up” because I responded to his insults of BSG fans; calling us “gullible” because we don’t heed the wisdom of his teachings. Again, for a show he allegedly hates, he sure wastes a LOT of time telling US how stupid we are for liking it. And appealing to his sense of civility won’t help. Don’t waste the energy of the keystrokes. All I tried to convey to this angry, close-minded little person was that if you don’t like something you don’t have to play amateur shrink and tell us how we’re only pretending to like this “superficial” show to appear “hip.” It’s a matter of personal taste, and we all have a right to our own; whether Randall agrees or not (as if I’d give a rat’s a**).

128. Randall - April 22, 2008

#127 Sebastian:

Again, grow up. What is all this vitriol being expended for? Clearly you simply can’t deal with someone having an opinion that differs from yours, Sebastian. How do you get by in life?

I am not “angry,” nor am I close minded. As I stated time and time again, I tried very hard to like this show and found I just couldn’t. Where is the “anger” in that? Nor am I “angry” with fans of the show. Good lord.

NOR did I call ANYONE “stupid” at any time–certainly not for liking the show. (I never even used the word). For chrissakes—this is just ridiculous. Clearly I’ve hit a major nerve in you—you’d think you’d step back and realize it, and settle yourself down.

You want amateur shrinking? The person here venting all the anger is you, not me. What does that tell you? Well, tells me you can’t cope when someone else says something you don’t want to hear.

129. Randall - April 22, 2008

#119 Startrekfan:

Go back and read my *original* posting. There was nothing shrill or angry about it (indeed, I haven’t been “angry” at all in this thread… I have nothing to be angry about). Indeed, if you read it carefully I think you’ll see I wasn’t “insulting” anybody—I made an offhand (and really slightly tongue-in-cheek) attempt to analyze why people would like this show that I personally find confusing and plodding. THAT’S ALL.

But there’s one or two people who took enormous offense at what I said. Well too bad. I don’t spend my time going through life mincing words in the concern I might offend some minor percentage of the population. I think most people–even fans of the show–would read what I wrote and shrug it off. I know I would, if it were me. At most I’d debate about it. But getting all up on my back about it is silly.

And when someone does that, yes… I’ll respond in kind.

130. Garovorkin - April 22, 2008

#128 Randall Its not so much what you said as how you say it that puts some people off. You are a little on the abrasive side, but your not insulting, not in the least . True I don’t agree with you with regard to BSG and other issues but ,I say to each his own.You have to realized there are some of on this site that can’t always deal effectively with opposing viewpoints, Myself on occasion being one of them. Scif wise you know your stuff, no question. I do hope that you keep posting to this site, just to keep things honest if nothing else.

131. Randall - April 22, 2008

#130 Garovorkin:

I am what I am.

But thanks for the kind (or polite at least) words.

132. Garovorkin - April 22, 2008

#131 Hey, any time Randall keep swinging for the fences

133. Sebastian - April 22, 2008

#130. Randall, it’s called ‘polite’….look it up. I can deal with different opinions; it’s rudeness like yours that I can’t stand. Too many like you in this world, and I for one, am sick of “cyber-bullies” who criticize those whose tastes differ from theirs; heaven forbid. And how dare you presume to tell me to “grow up?” You don’t even KNOW me! I take offense NOT to your comments on the show; but how you generalize and criticize ME for liking it. Do you FINALLY get it? Or are you just too thick? Some call you abrasive, shrill, you call it “tongue in cheeK”; I call it RUDE. Try some manners; I am over this and your immature baiting. Next time I see your name on a post here, I will dutifully avoid it AND you. Reply to this all you like, little man. I promise you I won’t read it or give a crap. is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.