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.which seems reasonably accurate to me.
A topic for the discussion of Farscape, Smallville, and Due South. Beware possible invasions of Stargate, Highlander, or pretty much any other "genre" show that captures our fancy. Expect Adult Content and discussion of the Big Gay Sex.
Whitefont all unaired in the U.S. ep discussion, identifying it as such, and including the show and ep title in blackfont.
Blackfont is allowed after the show has aired on the east coast.
This is NOT a general TV discussion thread.
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.which seems reasonably accurate to me.
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.
It's the age of Aquarium.
"What is your sign?"
"Aquarium. What's yours?"
"SeaWorld."
Sorry, BSG leaves me cold. (I blame Six - when I saw all the sex with Baltar I was like, 'oh, so that's the kind of show this is'. I could just see how it was going to be a major plotline and I was tired of it after about 5 minutes.) The only one I like on the show at all is Starbuck.
BSG serves as a grim chaser after two hours of squee. I found myself actually tired when we finally got to it on Friday night. After three hours -- with the addition of Firefly I'm going to be useless all day on Saturday....
I find BSG is fine, when you watch it on mute. It is when the characters open their yaps that the illogic and the histrionics get to me. If they would all just brood shirtlessly silently, it would be a lovely show.
(Anyway, there is usually a game on, so I can click to it for the beefcake quotient and then click away as soon as it annoys.)