Wow, I really liked this. My memory of the original series is rather vague, but the remake is better than I remember the original being. I realized, after watching about half an hour of it, that I've been programmed by decades of Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon Five and other TV space operas to expect things like transporter beams, energy shields, telepathy, and so forth. So it was refreshing to see a space drama that was almost %100 science based. The only concession made was a faster-than-light travel system, and as sf writers we kinda understand why they had to do this. It was also, in my opinion, really well written. There were lots of surprises, unexpected reversals and so forth. The acting and general production values were very good. I would not have been disappointed seeing this in the theater.
My only minor quibble is with Starbuck. I love that she's a woman this time. It's a great way to update the series. But I felt they tried to hard to make her masculine, as if afraid that people wouldn't believe a more natural-acting woman could be a successful pilot. Sort of like when a black woman wins a big beauty pageant, but she's got really light skin and caucasian features. (Oh, boy, I'm going to get in all sorts of trouble now.) Starbuck was a frat boy in a skirt. If she went to my high school, the girls would have eaten her alive. I've known athletic women before, strong women, successful women. In our society, most women of this sort that I've known have been extremely, overwhelming *competent*. They can't afford to screw up, get drunk, get thrown in the brig, etc. But this is the far future, so maybe it's all different. In the end, I think I'd have been happy if they got rid of the cigar. Who smokes cigars anymore? Certainly not young, health-conscious pilots. Well, anyway, liked Starbuck, but she didn't come together for me as well as I would have hoped. I wish, instead of transplanting the original male starbuck into a female body, that they'd reinvented the character more, made Starbuck more organically female rather than...gee, I have a word or two in mind here, but I think I'll keep it to myself. I don't want any bricks through my window.
The above post is mine. Tawk amongst yourselves.
Posted by: Catherine | December 10, 2003 at 09:59 AM
I added your name to the title.
Is the new series something that people who have never watched BG before can follow?
Posted by: Lisa | December 10, 2003 at 06:36 PM
It's actually a miniseries telling the origin story of the Battlestar Galactica, so, yes, definitely. They're apparently planning a series, but I guess it's not starting next week or anything, darnit.
Posted by: Catherine | December 11, 2003 at 09:41 AM
I can see what you're saying about Starbuck, but I disagree with it. The women that I've met that have been in strongly masculine (and I use that in deliberate contrast to male-dominated) professions, and especially when those professions are also in the military, have had to be as loud, as aggressive, and even bigger pains in the ass than the men they work with. In other words, they have had to be better at being one of the boys than any of the boys. Of course, I'm sure some women have found other ways entirely of dealing with the same situation, but since I've know a couple of women who dealt in exactly the way portrayed, I didn't read her as all that unbelievable.
Additionally, and I admit this is a big haggis thing for me, I'm tired of the Victorian view of women as the 'repositories of civilization', holding the line against men's bestial and uncivilized aspect. I've run up against not being 'feminine enough' sufficient times to be thoroughly annoyed with the whole concept. So I like cigar-smoking, smart-assed, intemperate young women who punch people in the head and get into trouble because it's what I wish I could do sometimes. (Alas, I am allergic to cigars and jail.)
And, of course, I also realize that this is entirely a matter of opinion. I'm not saying 'you're wrong and I'm right', just 'I've got a different viewpoint'.
Posted by: Erica | December 11, 2003 at 12:19 PM
You know, there's nothing I can really point to and say "This character is not a real woman." It's more that she just didn't *feel* right for me. I'm suposed to accept as a hero someone who is violent enough to throw a punch without real provocation? We get no background into why she hates this man, except that he's weak and a drunk? Great, so she goes around beating up people she thinks are weak. It seemed to me that they gave her an excessive number of hypermale traits as if in justification for casting a woman in the role. I was waiting for her to grab her crotch. Ultimately, she just didn't hold together for me. In contrast, I'd point to Demi Moore in that marine movie--can't remember the name. She was tough, but she wasn't stupid enough to give her superiors such an obvious reason to wash her out.
And the cigar? Silly. Oh, well.
Posted by: Catherine | December 11, 2003 at 02:16 PM
You know, there's nothing I can really point to and say "This character is not a real woman." It's more that she just didn't *feel* right for me. I'm suposed to accept as a hero someone who is violent enough to throw a punch without real provocation? We get no background into why she hates this man, except that he's weak and a drunk? Great, so she goes around beating up people she thinks are weak. It seemed to me that they gave her an excessive number of hypermale traits as if in justification for casting a woman in the role. I was waiting for her to grab her crotch. Ultimately, she just didn't hold together for me. In contrast, I'd point to Demi Moore in that marine movie--can't remember the name. She was tough, but she wasn't stupid enough to give her superiors such an obvious reason to wash her out.
And the cigar? Silly. Oh, well.
Posted by: Catherine | December 11, 2003 at 02:17 PM
So do you feel the character as a whole was poorly written? If it had been a man in that role, would you have the same problems seeing him as a hero? I didn't see the whole thing, so I assumed there was back story to the fight that I didn't know about. I guess I'm not sure if you're saying the character itself was just plain unbelievable or the character was an unbelievable woman, or the character was even more unbelievable than if it had been a man, but would have been unbelievable in any case.
And I liked the cigar thing. Like I said, haggis.
Posted by: Erica | December 11, 2003 at 05:09 PM
No, there was no background given for the feud. That's a good question. It's just possible that the character wasn't written or acted well enough and that's what put me off. I do like my heroes to have good reasons when they kick somebody's ass, and to be able to accept an apology semi-graciously. Of all the characters in the four hour show, Starbuck was the one with the murkiest motivations.
However, this was only a small complaint. I don't mean to make it sound like I hated hated it. Some day I am going to have to taste haggis and see which side I fall on.
Posted by: Catherine | December 11, 2003 at 05:49 PM
i am in love. THANK YOU SO MUCH KAYE! these photos are holetsny one of the most precious gifts anyone could have offered me. they way you caught us looking at each other in some of them truly melts my heart! god i love tommy so much! thanks again kaye! i am so glad we have become so much closer over this summer
Posted by: Christel | July 29, 2012 at 09:54 PM
I'm really loinkog forward to this, the network supposedly LOVES the pilot ..which looks like it includes action sequences straight out of a feature film I hope they can keep the quality level high and do justice to the original, I love the homages in the new opening credits, i just hope by the time it airs, that they're al least 1 minute long, the day of 30 second themes/opening credits blows .especially when they're tackling one of the greatest opening/theme songs in television history
Posted by: Nabeel | August 01, 2012 at 12:51 AM