Long, NYT Sunday Magazine article on BSG: [link] (Someone mentioned this upthread.) No spoilers (except that it mentions that Starbuck is a chick now). The article is mostly about the long road that lead to the new miniseries, the fan controversy, etc.

eta: Also about the "reinvention" of SciFi from its Star Trek conventions. No mention of Firefly's contribution to this.

Mmmm. Atlantis. And some goofy show with that guy who used to be Crichton.

Seriously, at this point, I'm surprised that SG-1 doesn't just collapse under the weight of the meta. And yet, so good to see Ben Browder on TV again.

I was actually more moved by Ford's subplot than I expected to be. Poor used-to-be-clean-cut kid, who said goodbye to his grandma.

Other than that, good Rodney, good Zelenka, good Sheppard. I am pleased.

I need my Momoa.

Also about the "reinvention" of SciFi from its Star Trek conventions. No mention of Firefly's contribution to this.

I read that article. And, really, great article about television producing and fandom-wrangling. Had absolutely nothing to justify its assertion about "reinventing" science fiction, even science fiction on television. That might be a worthwhile article to write -- it would be required to mention quite a few other series in addition to Firefly -- but that's not it.

(For one thing, if you're going to reinvent SF, military-in-space is not the new direction to go in. For another, what hellacious alternate space-faring civilization could do all that good yet still manage to invent pantyhose?)

I'm not seeing anything in that article that claims the show is reinventing science fiction. It does say

it is not like any science-fiction show on television today.

I'm not seeing anything in that article that claims the show is reinventing science fiction.

Well, that's just my poor attempt to summarize the article. Or else maybe I was remembering the commentary for the BSG miniseries....

eta: OK, I googled - the phrase "reinventing scifi" gets tossed about a lot in discussion of the new BSG, especially by people promoting the show. But that word doesn't show up in that NYT article.

Possibly what Tommy is thinking of (anyway, what I was thinking of) were offhand sentences like these:

Science fiction is a genre that, for all its imaginative expansiveness, tends also to be very conservative; its fans sometimes defend its cliches fiercely. ''Battlestar Galactica'' upends sci-fi cliches.

How Moore and Eick came to transform that show into one of the most original and provocative programs on television is strange.

The former is vastly debatable -- actually, it would make a really great debate, (actually two, depending on whether or not written fiction is allowable as discussion fodder) -- and deserves better context and more evidentiary support. The latter just annoys me with its cliche, blanket enthusiasm.

Suddenly I find myself among meatspace people who like Sci Fi Friday. It's very peculiar. Having to defend the Momoa casting (my justifications may be retrofitted, but I'm okay with that) or the Apollo characterisation (I think that Starbuck is a better son for Adama, and I find that interesting, not a failing) is so very strange.

I'm not used to looking people in the face for those discussions.

I did learn that the role on SG1 that Colin auditioned for was Cameron Mitchell, and felt good consoling him that he had no chance in hell, and not to take it personally. What cracked me up, though, was the revelation that he was friends with Hewlett, and thinks he rocks. So, there you go -- validation on the DH from a guy who's apparently very nice. Or, nicer than me. Whichever.

Between BSG and Aquarium, people want to talk about Aquarium.

t throws up hands

The world has become to strange to me.