if you have been following the series from its inception, it's been a fun and wild ride. i've seen every single ep of the original '78 version as well as the mostly horrendous '80 (except for return of starbuck). this one blows it out of the waters with the symbolisms behind everything. not only is it action-packed, character-driven, it has a lot of morality play involved. it's one of the best written first-run SF shows on right now. it's so exciting. i can see them going on and on for ages because of the breath of where they can go with the story. anyone else watching this?

I had the interesting experience of going go karting with people who work on both Battlestar Galactica and Stargate (effects people) a few hours ago.

I thought last season was just great. This season is taking a while getting going. They have to resolve a lot of things from the end of last season which literally concluded with a bang.

I read an article about they guy who created this, and his inception of the show... seemed very interesting... I have to Netxflix it.

I also saw all the old episodes when they first came out, plus the theatrical version (which was just spliced together from the TV series). It was notable for the level of effects which were unheard of for a TV show back then, I think John Dykstra supervised them.

I've also really enjoyed the new series... this is not your father's Battlestar Galactica! If anything, it is maybe a little too gritty and frankly depressing. There's a lot of blood and violence and their stuggle seems hopeless. But it's well done and I look forward to each new episode. Definitely does raise the bar for a sci-fi TV series.

I've worked with some of the actors on it on different projects, and sad to say, I've never been able to catch a single episode on TV. I hear it is good. :)

I'm not that big of a fan of the new series for a couple reasons. I remember seeing every episode of the original and the re-dux and the movie; btw the return of starbuck was a really cool idea since he never really returned and they mixed religion with Sci-Fi (a concept that's not even close to being realized in this new series; the new prophecy/fanaticism thing is a different thing altogether).

I remember looking forward to the Mini-Series with barely contained anticipation and then when I saw it, I was very disappointed. But then the 1st season came and I was cool with it, though I had the following problems with it.

Most disappointing to me was the fact that the air of hope that Lorne Greene always had, has been replaced by the resolute hard line/I'm the BOSS, I know what's best, Career Military Soldier, portrayal by Edward James Olmos. Don't misunderstand, I think Ed does a great job, but the original series was always about keeping the HOPE alive, and this incarnation does not have that. A difference in direction, which does not work for me. I can see Ed's Adama leading a fight and winning, but not inspiring a new civilization while Lorne Greene radiated both.

Another thing I'm not too happy about are the characterisations (the acting is good though). So Starbuck is now an undisciplined, maverick, female? I can live with the change to female, just barely, but to have a military operation allow this Starbucks behavior? Especially with Eds hard line military portrayal? It does not make reaslitic sense; she would have been court-martialled a long time ago (even if Adama says he owes her, how can he maintain control/respect or is military favoritism being outed here?), but it is just a tv show, why expect too much realism?

So, they allow rebellious behavior, angst, etc. to provide conflict; a more creative approach could have been found I am sure, since they really nailed it with the conflict between Adama and his son - best thing about the show. But, I am willing to allow the show time for every character to "settle" in to their long term personas, I can see the producers wanted a lot of shock value to grab attention, than risk not finding an audience.

The 2nd season is dragging a bit, they've introduced some new things, and I think it's going to pick up and maybe end stronger than the last season, but I think it's lost some of the big picture feel as they narrow in on smaller aspects of each story. Is that a bad thing? Only if the show keeps dragging and they get bogged down in to many sub-plots, since it's about time we get to a mini-resolution and this Battlestar is not 100% clear on the purpose of it's inhabitants - the original was fleeing away from Earth to lure the Cylons away. What's the deal with this incarnation?

The overall production on the show is pretty good and I'm very happy its maintained it's production value; I hope it stays on air for a long time. But, I can't be a fan since it seems the show is no longer about hope, it's about survival. Again though, I'm willing to see if they get around to getting that part right.

Personally I think you just need to forget the original series. The new one is completely different. At first this bothered me, but I got over it. However it's kind of fun that they have the original "Apollo" playing a revolutionary leader.

If I forgot about the original, along with everyone else, well then what would be the point of calling this a re-make? Just slap a new name on an old concept, something that's happening a lot these days, and market your product as a new series, a la Star Trek: the New Generation.

You can't deny that this has been touted as a "re-make" so I don't see the validity of forgetting about the original that is the benchmark so to speak.

The problems I have with the new series don't really come from my appreciation of the old series and I am willing to see if this remake finds its own niche.

hmmm... i saw the original just a few months ago. i'm sure all of you remember the SAME EXACT visual fx footages that were used OVER&OVER&OVER, again and again and again ad nausem even through season2 (1980s).

season 1, 1978 was ok, but season2, 1980s BSG was terrible. i still can't believe i sat through all of it. the only redeeming part was return of starbuck and even then i dunno why lorne returned to it, money? who knows. season1 was good but the original Battlestar Galactica was (for me), loose. it's sole purpose was to be a popcorn entertainment/trying to cash in on the star wars SF craze, but did it even try to lift itself beyond that level? i don't think so. as much as it is trying to fuse religion w/SF. it was just a side mention and never really focused on it. all in all, no one will say battlestar galactica of '78, 80s is going to be in the annals of the classics.

having seen every single ep of the new bsg, i gotta say, we've entered into a new renaissance of SF. you can't really attach any strings to the old series because ron moore has taken the nomenclature of the old series, ships names, characters names and have elevated them into a classic that will be remebered for years to come. the reason is that there is absolutely 0 relationship between the old and the new save in name, ideas and a few homages here and there.

what ron moore has done is taken an idea meant for popcorn entertainment and elevated it into a uniquely satisfying human drama. i loved the dynamics of the show. man vs himself. man vs man. man vs machine. man vs nature. man vs God, etc. these are ideas that star trek in the 60s used to inspire an entire generation. now bsg in the 21st century is inspiring an entire new generation to be something more than they can be. if you keep an open mind, the show will continually surprise and engage the viewer into thinking about the various facets of the human experience and they deal with machines, each other, God and nature and so on.

and no, i don't work with for show.

it's sole purpose was to be a popcorn entertainment/trying to cash in on the star wars SF craze

Well as the original series wore on it really was a lot like a kid's show with all the stuff about "boxy" and his robot dog. The new one defintiely isn't for little kids!

even then i dunno why lorne returned to it

Yeah, especially considering his high standards for projects like "Earthquake" and "SST: Death Flight." ;-)

having seen every single ep of the new bsg, i gotta say, we've entered into a new renaissance of SF.

.. new renaissance of SF on TV that is.

The funny thing is, I agree with the sentiments you guys have expressed, but I do think I've seen the dark side of sci-fi so many times before it's becoming old hat: the Matrix was a prime example though it devolved with its sequels, hence my saying I can't really be a fan. I, Robot wasn't a bad movie though the book was much better.

How many times can we see originality in man vs machine, or AI's becoming aware and rebelling. I'm just thinking aloud here, but I am sure there are areas open for further exploration within the genre of sci-fi. You know the existential can a machine have a soul, the son trying to surpass the father, etc., which are all elements of the best man vs machine stories.

That does not mean I do not appreciate the show however and I do watch it; I am willing to wait it out and see where it goes. I also think we have a lot of good sci-fi stuff happening now - see my comment in the 4400 thread!!

lol, i thought i, robot was terrible as a film =). only will smith made it watchable.

a lot of stories we deal with are dark (from Bible through Odyssey through Star Wars through rap music, etc.) because humans are dark. but it doesn't mean we stay in the dark all the time. i think the inverse can be bad. star trek the next generation was NOT a dark show (except after season3) and it suffered because of it. there is a lack of conflict. i think humans love going from dark to light. it's the journey itself not the starting point that we love watching/experiencing =). at heart, BSG is a very hopeful show and wants to get to the light at the end of the tunnel (earth). the journey is what all of us love watching.

originality isn't in the 7 architypical stories (google it), it's in the people who retell it. in BSG's case it's ron moore who is bringing his unique vision to the table. in the matrix, it's the warchowski brothers. i loved matrix revolution better than matrix&reloaded. there are many who call the sequels "trash" are still trapped in the matrix. google matrix, why are there still so many people debating it philosophically. it's the most philosophical trilogy ever, ever made. watch disc8 on ultimate matrix collection to get a primer. it's much deeper than most people call it to be.

Stories are about conflict. The only difference between 'dark' and 'light' is in the solutions and outcome.

Yeah, the Matrix had a lot going for it, although I also think the Wacowski Bros. "borrowed" quite a bit from the comic book "the invisibles."

To re-phrase what I was saying about the Matrix (original); it delt with these issues so well I find a lot of shows coming after, including the new BSG, a little weak in their realization because it seems as if I've seen these conflicts before and better handled. To go away from BSG a bit to draw a parallel, anyone remember, "Tour of Duty"?

That show rocked man! Forgot to add it to my list on fav TV shows. But, the interplay of the characters was better done and there were more guys to deal with on a regular basis than BSG, which in my opinion, has not developed the back-story well enough or provided enough information to illustrate why the characters behave as they do.

Conflict is a part of life, so we can't realistically have a story without some degree of it, I'm just saying BSG could do with some more balance and adding countless sub-plots without really dealing with the big story slows the momentum down.

I definitely believe it is the journey and not the destination both for life and entertainment!!

Dark and light huh, maybe they're both one and the same, we just chose to see as much of each as we want!

I remember "Tour of Duty". At that age I couldn't get around the fact that they couldn't show blood on TV. Comparing the sanitized version with "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" was too much to ask.

*SPOILER AHEAD*

i think moore ron (oops, i meant ron moore ;) did develop a lot of the back stories.

for example, the latest episode had starbuck playing pyramid. they explained her backstory in the first season, and now we actually get to see why she was almost a pyramid player =). pretty good backstory. plus, we get a glimpse of how starbuck's past as an artist? that was kinda weird =).

also, colonel tye almost committed suicide had it not been for adama. i thought that back story was awesome.

PS i thought some of the action are awesome. like when one of the "toasters" lept over apollo and he blasted him right on time.

PPS i also liked how they show it's pretty hard to take down just one of them toasters.

Well, backstory is as backstory does; they show events, but not motivations. Although the Colonel suicide/drinking thing was a good touch, it was predictable that he had a skeleton; and this one I've seen so many times. But, like I've said I do look at BSG and I'm keeping it on my give it a chance list.

As for the battles, yeah they are good. I've always thought though, feel free to disagree, a non-human mech/digital/cyborg/whatever pilot could cream a human pilot in a dog-fight. Since the non-human thingee wouldn't have to wait on a targeting system, it would become the targeting system?!You see what I'm saying? Is that possible? I mean, the Cylons don't have to hear a tone for missle lock, they would automatically fire, speed of the computer targeting system wouldn't be delayed by human pilot having to use senses and tactile mechanics (pressing the button/s), was just a thought.

Tour of Duty; yeah, it can't really compare to Platoon (this movie is just awesome, my physics professor and my class looked at it like everyday for a week during class time!!) and Full Metal Jacket. But, my point was they developed the characters to a point you knew how they would react and why they would react as they did, where they came from, family, religion, blah, blah, blah: on an aside you don't have to show blood to show war, check out "My Name is Ivan", or "The Cranes are Flying" (they're old but pretty good Russian Classics). It just goes to show the differences in expectations and standards for programming/media today as opposed to yesterday; everyday becomes yesterday at some point.

The one cyclon, yeah that was awesome. Definitely shows they are a force to be reckoned with, but I wonder why don't they just attack in full force if they are that powerful; obviously they would wipe the humans off the face of the galaxy. The whole human cylon thing is very interesting though, since it begs the question is it really alive and where does it get a soul from? Likewise, the cylons. Are they alive? Or just sentient, non-soul containing automatons? Ala Frankenstein? Wonder if they will get around to explaining these concepts in BSG? Hey, just because the show doesn't work 100% for me doesn't mean I'm not into it, :-)

One thing I'll raise, and I'm not trying to start a war here, so I ask for understanding. So, my qustion is: why do minorities always have to be the bad guy (in general)? But, especially since, in BSG, asian's (other minorities as well) aren't even that populous in the crew. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the clones to be caucasian? Fit in better? Being female makes sense, but not sure about the rest? Anyone care to offer an opinion?

It's a good role regardless of whether it's a villain. It's not an Uhura role.

The main thing in western cinema and TV is that the leads are usually caucasian. The rest can be whatever. And everyone has to be good looking.

That said, I think the casting is pretty good within those parameters. All of the characters have something to do and have more than one dimension.

Hmm... in the original Col Tigh was African American, in the new one he's Caucasian. But they made Starbuck female. The lead Cylon character (Baltar's girlfriend) is a blonde. I think "Boomer" was African American in the original too? I don't think we can really draw any conclusions from any of this....

If I had to pick one detail that bugs me, it has to do with all the trouble they have identifying the humanoid cylons. Geez, we've seen that when a cylon has sex their backbone glows! You'd think there would be some rather obvious anatomical difference to observe there! ;-)

i fail to see how one can distinguish backstory and motivation. backstory IS the motivation of some characters. it's because of ti's alcoholism that pushed him on the verge of suicide. that's motivation. it's his verge of suicide that pushed him to thank adama because adama rescued him.

re: technobabble (dog-fights in space). that's what ron moore is trying to get away from. he used to work on star trek and every single week was an episode of star trek that used esoteric terms to get out of bad plotting. ya know, those stories of when the ship is about to fail but someone devises a concotion of reconnection somn in the plasma relay/coil/blablabla to cure the problem. then you wonder, they didn't they do that in the first place. the focus isn't on the technical details of SF. the focus of ron's BSG is on characters.

re: platoon/fmj. no matter how deep those characters are, it's only 2 hours. you're getting a mere glimpse of them. with BSG in season2 we're logging more than 14 hours. there's just no comparison. it's like going to the dentist and trying to get a haircut.

re: machine soul. see that's pretty much the soul of the show. ron moore doesn't want to explain the whole thing. he wants you to think about it. those are the marks of a classic. if he explained everything it'd be stupid. asking questions is the first step towards englightenment. look at the X-Files. season1-5 they kept you in the dark. season6-9 when they started to answer ALL the questions, all the fans tuned out. most fans think the series finale is the dumbest thing ever because it explained everything.

re: minority. that's always been the case. according to the latest US census, blacks are around 13%, hispanics are around 15% and every other minority falls below 3% of the US population. i see a lot more black and hispanics in more positive role-model positions than before, but those in the 3% range (like asians) don't get to see any. plus, the positive role models are limited because those who are in power in the hollywood system are mostly still white. when that changes and audiences vote with their $, that's when more minorities will be in more positive roles.

Well, backstory is as backstory does...

As for the battles, yeah they are good. I've always thought though...

Tour of Duty; yeah, it can't really compare to Platoon...

The whole human cylon thing is very interesting though, since it begs the question is it really alive and where does it get a soul from? Likewise, the cylons. Are they alive? Or just sentient, non-soul containing automatons? Ala Frankenstein? Wonder if they will get around to explaining these concepts in BSG? Hey, just because the show doesn't work 100% for me doesn't mean I'm not into it, :-)

why do minorities always have to be the bad guy (in general)? But, especially since, in BSG, asian's (other minorities as well) aren't even that populous in the crew.

Personally, I don't care what "race" the leads or any other characters, are in any given movie. Although, I do notice that there are lots of white faces in most of the recent hollywood movies I've seen. As far as cacasions in ALL hollywood positions of power goes, doesn't SONY own one of the major studios? It seems to me that there are many african american actors who get lead roles. As far as asian stars go, I would mention jet li, chau yun fat, maggie chung, and jackie chan, all of whom have had a fairly strong showing with positive roles in western films, but it's been explained to me that the sort of positive roles they get (warriors n such) is part of the problem. I wont dispute this point, being caucasion myself, i don't pretend to understand what it feels like to be a minority in the west. I think, though, you would be hard pressed to find a young actor of any race or hue, who would feel slighted or exploited if they were given an action lead in a picture.

I do think, though, that if people feel left out that things should be changed.
inclusiveness is good for everybody.

Sony USA is now just as big as Sony Japan. just because it's sony doesn't mean it's Japanese. sony haven't been a Japanese-only company for more than decade now. and i believe you're referring to Columbia/Tristar their film division.

you can name names, but the sad fact is that none of the stars you listed are in positive films that don't stereotype them. an example of a film that goes against type is antwon fisher. but you can't list that for any of the asian film stars. jet li, jackie chan are stuck in the stereotypical kung-fu action flicks. if they try and break out everyone just laughs at them. jackie chan has said in several interviews that he'd like to be the asian deniro. i think even hong kong/asian newsmedia don't take him that seriously. as for jet li, he'll never break out of the action kung-fu films in the west. the latest film had jet li acting like a dog. how demeaning is that? the worst part is, both of them continues to take part in furthering the stereotype. it's all about $. it's the same as fat. anytime he tries to break out of his HK "hit-man" mode the west don't like it. remember anna&the king with jodie foster? *sigh*. i don't even think she's been in any large hollywood productions. plus, asian females are typically stereotyped as dominatrixes (lucy liu) or exotic sex objects.

Backstory VS Motivation.

This is what I'll say using your example. Alcoholism is not what makes someone want to kill themselves, it's what "caused" the alcoholism in the first place that will drive someone to commit suicide.

The alcoholism is the manifestation and it can be seen through backstory (usually an event as seen in BSG where Adama provides a situation which allows an easy out, but does not resolve the problem since we do NOT know what the problem is at this time, we can guess maybe), however the motivation is what caused the alcoholism, or allows the alcoholism to continue or crop up again (as alluded to in BSG's last episode, but again we do not know what caused the alcoholism, perhaps we will find out?).

This is what I mean by backstory and motivation; we usually see events (backstory) in films/television and as an audience we are shown a point of view (via a specfic sequence) that is supposed to carry us towards the realization of why a character acts as they do (motivation), however it is usually done without truly explaining the characters motivations.

One can always argue though for compression of the facts, the directors choice/s of viewpoint, linear timeline, limited time, etc. to justify why things may be done without a full disclosure of the characters motivations.

My example, Spider Man/Peter Parker. What is his backstory? What is his motivation?

Backstory: science student Peter failed to use his powers responsibly (was selfish) resulting in the death of his beloved uncle ben.

Motivation: with great power must come great responsibility - his credo - said to him by his uncle ben which he ignored and then was taught in the worst possible way (so he becomes selfless as Spiderman).

If backstory were motivation, then after avenging his uncle Peter could have gone on his merry way and made some money. But, his motivation remains and he lives up to his credo without having to relive his failure/guilt again and again since he tries to prevent anyone having to experience his loss.

The Spidey thing works because there's also a ton of irony in his situation.

There is a difference, some writers just chose to ignore it or perhaps some of them just don't understand the distinction between them; a fine line to walk sure, but a line nontheless.

in this case, ron moore chooses to uplift characterization in the present and slowly peel back the bacstory.

edit: O/t post I wish I'd never made.

actually, deniro is very well versed. check out his backlog of films he has done on imdb. mobster/italian themed is not the ONLY thing he is known for. he's a good actor period regardless of the various "isms" people wanna tack onto him.

regardless of what i use as terminology, the fact remains. asians in hollywood cinema are very under-represented and when they are represented, they are stereotyped.

as for jet li, he'll never break out of the action kung-fu films in the west. the latest film had jet li acting like a dog. how demeaning is that?

Did you even see the movie? It was one of the best performances Li has ever given - he goes from traumatized, brutalized beast to awakened man, so that at the end he is able to choose to be a man and not a beast, and he gives the entire performance with his face, having very little dialogue. The scene with Victoria, when she takes his collar off and he doesn't know what he's going to do when she takes it off, it's filled with apprehension created entirely by Li's performance.

Li could quite easily have a career as a dramatic actor - like his much honored Hero co-star Tony Leung has had - if he choose to, but he's never wanted to go that route; though as he gets older, he seems to be choosing more and more actorly roles.

edit: O/t post I wish I'd never made.

yesh, but ya gotta agree with me that the majority of the movie spent fighting/being a dog, that's humiliating no matter how dramatic a few scenes can be.

who do you think are the other 8 cylons in the fleet?

yesh, but ya gotta agree with me that the majority of the movie spent fighting/being a dog, that's humiliating no matter how dramatic a few scenes can be.

No - a good portion of the first act is, in order to set up his situation. Everything after that is about Li becoming a man again. When he's taken by Bart again (and quite importantly, it's done by his choice, becuase in order to protect Sam and Victoria), he's grown from what he was like before, he's able to appreciate his captivity and do something about, because he is a man. When he is made to fight again, he makes a choice not to hurt or kill anyone, and only fights to save his life, and then to save Sam and Victoria. He's no longer a dog, but a man in control of his own life. And it works because of the dramatic set up of his life as a dog before that. Yes, it's humilitating, it has to be in order to make his reawakening dramatically powerful. By the power of his performance, and his character's self-imposed control over his own life - despite the obstacles he faces - Li's Danny is a character of dignity, who is not pitiable, but full of great strength.

I think we can all agree is that regardless of what the role is, actors relish characters that are rounded and have dimensionality.

You could have a role that is the hero of the film, a character who is in every way stalwart and moral. But if the character is flat and boring, any actor will sleepwalk through it and the audience will be bored by it.

You could also have a role of the villain of the film and make that character funny, self-conflicted, in other words human. The actor is challenged by it and the performance carries forward to audience appreciation.

Morgan Freeman began to get notice in "Street Smart". He played a vicious pimp. Who remembers Christopher Reeve in that film as the heroic white reporter? Everyone remembers Freeman's ferocious pimp character.

OFF TOPIC (Kind of)

Keith - I loved 'Tour of Duty' what a blast from the past; thanks!

Yi Fong Yu - I like when people back up replies with statistics. I already knew that Deniro had not done 'majority gangster' flicks but it's nice to see you provide this info into the discussion.

I have yet to give this new Battlestar Galactica my time although I plan on it. I do have revervations about it just not being what I am used to; Starbuck being a girl and Cylons not looking really like anything at all; you shoud be afraid of the Cylons not want to bed one. ;)

The original (stealing from Star Wars or not) was great stuff. I was 8 years old so obviously it blew me away. And who was cooler than Dirk Benedict anyway? Even the Main Theme ruled (still does)

Race in Cinema? Hollywood market's to the common denominator. Period. There is no conspiracies or agendas. If the majority of the population was black, Latin or Asian then we would see that in the majority. I also don't buy into stereotyping. I see plenty of films and/or television that represent all races equally good and bad.

Here's a nice site:

http://www.battlestargalactica.com/overview.htm.

Correct me if I am wrong, and I may well be, really, but I believe my exact words in reference to Dinero was "more gangster of than any other sort" or some such, not "majority", but after looking at the filmography, I cannot honestly say if this is true or not, because many of the films I have not seen.
so in short I was alluding to knowledge i did not possess. So right or wrong, by my own stards I am still wrong.
I also misinterpretid something Yi Fong Yu said in one of his posts. Wrong again.
Wrong is apparently my specialty.
it is good to be good at something, anyway.

Anyway, I know it's bad form to back down or concede on the internet, but I feel compelled to apologize to everyone, especially Yi Fing Yu for dragging this thread off topic and generally behaving like an @$$.

I also edited the content out of most of my posts, which I realize now was probably the wrong choice, although, in this at least my motives were okay- I didn't want to inflict my stupidity on anyone else.

Well, anyway, sorry.

john, re: cylons. there are different models. i think there's the toaster versions where they were afraid of them. but i think the cylons that look like humans are freakier because you dunno who is or who isn't and if they are one, it's very creepy, like ghosts or somn. almost supernaturally scary cause it's a subcreation of humans... it's not supposed to replace humans. very creepy =).

Yi.

I think Colonel Ti's wife is a cylon.

John.

Hey man, I'm the one who brought up Tour of Duty!! Thank me!!! Lol, I gets no respect, man, none. Lol.

Michael.

I'm not sure exactly what happened since I didn't read all of your posts, but it takes a big man to admit he's wrong. I'm just not sure what you felt was wrong?

I think Deniro is a good actor, really liked Heat!! And Taxi Driver is a really good movie!!!

As for the minority thing, when I first asked the question of course I hadn't intended to start anything. I do know, like most I am sure, that products are directed towards those most likely to purchase them; obviously mainstream America. But, I was thinking more along the lines of a valid reason to have the cylon be asian, since we don't see other asians in BSG. Of course other cylons exist that are not asian, but come on the asian cylon tried to kill adama man!

Good parts are hard to find, I think it's cool we see minorities in BSG, but they could have more. I would have thought, they could have turned Apollo into a minority as well, I mean Adama is Latino, why is his son so caucasian?

NE ways this is me just thinking out loud as usual, don't think too much of it. School starts in a couple weeks and I am full of nervous energy.

Side note: The Cylon we saw looks just like a "Mandroid" a robot sorta thing from the comics (I think seen in The Avengers - Marvel - a long time ago).

I'm just not sure what you felt was wrong?



Thanks for ypur kind words. Please understand my unwillingess to answer this question.

I will, however, leave you with one of my favorite quotes, it is from an historian named Richard Adams, (this may be a bit off, but the gist of it is right)
"There is always something to be learned from stupidity, unfourtunately it is always the same lesson: don't be stupid."
He was writing about the Russian Revolution, but it applies equally well to my situation. :)

Hey Michael.

Sure, no probs man. Thanks for that quote, I studied the Russian Revolution through Russian Cinema last year, and I totally loved looking at those old films: Battleship Potemkin, The End of St. Petersburg, Bed and Sofa, Ballad of a Soldier, The Cranes are Flying, My Name is Ivan (aka Ivan's Childhood), are some good ones I studied if you don't mind B&W, and some are MOS. My Professor would be so proud of me right now!

I'm always on the lookout to add to my knowledge base, so thanks again!

I started reading about a RUssian WWII film called "Look at Me". Did you see it or heard about it? A reviewer said it blows "Saving Private Ryan" out of the water.

LOL

Sorry Krystian! Thank you!

KEeith; I can't find any film (Russian WW2 Film). Have any links or.........?

Lol, no probs John :-)

"Look at Me" wasn't on our list. But, I'm gonna email my professor about it for sure!

So this is Off Topic:

One thing I liked about those Russian Films, they had their own sense of aesthetic and they were pretty much pushing the envelope all the time.

Just to digress a bit,

Bed and Sofa was about a threesome - two men and a woman - and it dealt with abortion, and this was in 1927. Talk about controversial!

The Cranes are Flying (really like this movie) featured some outstanding cinematography and nominated for 2 BAFTA, won 2 Cannes (Palm d'Or and special mention for actress), and was a great success on the art house circuit in the USA.

Ballad of a Soldier was another great film that really shows you another side of the war and is very subtle about how it accomplishes this.

The russian films were all done to elevate public awareness of issues affecting the people, but the film makers did not allow themselves to be saddled by mediocrity or politics (although to be honest, these films were funded by the Govt). Sigh...to be a film maker during an era like that is probably not gonna happen for me, but I'll take what I can get!

Back on Topic

So, one thing I've been wondering about BSG (and some other sci-fi shows). Whatever happened to ray guns? Can't we get some laser blaster thingees happening? Better than Andromeda though, since I thought their stuff was weak.

Ever since Alien, Stargate/SG-1, etc. It seems as if we've got lotsa regular firepower. Where's the tech? Military firepower must have evolved if we have StarCruisers man. So what's the deal? Is it just easier to do, and more familiar?

And why would the Cylons have more tech than humans? So they're machines and don't need sleep, food, whatever, doesn't mean we got stupid or something?

I gotta say though, the SG-1, SG-Atlantis and BSG have very good production values. Anyone know how much they spend per episode?

All I know is I'm just a guy, up at almost 2am in the morning trying to enjoy the last couple nights I'll be able to do this b4 I go back to the training camp we call a university! Lol, I'm just kidding, I love my jail cell, uhm dorm room. Sigh.

I started reading about a RUssian WWII film called "Look at Me". Did you see it or heard about it? A reviewer said it blows "Saving Private Ryan" out of the water.

I'd love to see that. Most Americans are pretty ignorant about what went on in Russia in WWII, and a good high profile film might do something to raise awareness. There is an excellent book about the battle of Stalingrad called, conincidently enough, "Stalingrad" by Anthony Breevor. Amazon has it but I wasn't certain if it would be okay to post link.
I saw a lego, stopmotion remake of the Battleship Potemkin just the other day.

On topic: I prefer blasters and old cylons, but whatever best serves the story works for me.

I got the title wrong. It is "Come and See" ("Idi i Smotri"). Here is the Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005Q4DF/002-8982063-2211219?v=glance

IMDB:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0091251/

On topic: I prefer blasters and old cylons
http://members.fortunecity.com/wavjunky/swl-c/cylon.wav

Krystian, good nerdy question on why bullets now versus lasers / beam weapons.

The funniest answer to that was in "Stargate SG:1".

Alien heavy to O'Neal, hefting a beam weapon:
"This weapon kills with its second shot!"

O'Neal hefts a submachinegun:
"Well, this weapon kills with its first."

Anyway, it seems in the SG:1 universe human's primitive technology just catches everyone off guard and so they continue using it.

As far as science goes, the advantage lasers have is that the targetting is instantaneous and is direct fire. The big advantage would be over very long distances of course. The air force for that reason has been throwing millions (billions?) into developing energy weapons. If you can see it; you can hit it. The disadvantage currently is that it requires a lot of energy. Currently, they can probably deploy an anti-aircraft energy weapon on a ship. But it will take a lot more work to bring it down to tank sized or infantry deployable. They have lasers now that are used for targetting and can even be used to blind sensors (or people's eyes).

But in science fiction movies, rarely is weapon as instantaneous as a laser portrayed. A beam 'grows' or is a 'pulse'. Come to think of it, I think the original Star Trek TV (ST:OS) had instantaneous beams. But in almost all other science fiction films featuring beam technology they are not weapons that move at the speed of light.

One theory of mine is that a battle with lasers wouldn't be very exciting. After all, assuming your targetting is correct, you would hit whatever you aim at. So, no dodging, no risk or chance of countering (unless you bring in some shielding technology). No competition = no excitement. However, a 'beam' would still have the attractive lightshow but the enemies would theoretically have a chance to dodge and counter each other. Ask yourself why the Jedi in Star Wars battle with 'swords' rather than just shooting each other. It's more exciting to see a swordfight, that's why.

Space battles in reality (assuming sub-light battles) would be more akin to submarine battles. They may take place over days, weeks, months. So not so exciting. And if they involve automated ships, even more boring to viewers. Launching a missile on Monday and then seeing it if hits on Friday would be a snoozefest. Instead, we have ships that dive and tumble like WWII fighters.

On the last episode of Galactica I found it interesting that the Capricans seem to have developed the Hummer in parallel to our own civilization. In earlier episodes we learned that they also eat Ramen noodles.

Yeah, I've always loved the way that laser beams shoot across the screen. I suspect this dates all the way back to Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers with their "death rays" though. They also make some interesting sounds in outer space which seem to be fairly consistent between the different sci-fi series.

Remember that the reason that the Cylons didn't get the Galactica initially, was that it was behind the times technologically. No networks, remember?

Actually I thought the point was that they had networks, but Adama refused to turn them on. So it was more an issue of his old school stubborness that saved Galactica. In one of the episodes this season they turned the network on long enough for some computations and they cylons were trying to hack their way in.

I believe they had to "network" it all together - with a bunch of cables and temporary connections. I don't believe there was a real network. Otherwise it would have been compromised to begin with.