Join 3,501 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"So Say We All"
March 18, 2009 12:07 PM   Subscribe

Fantasy Meets Reality. The very best works of science fiction illuminate controversial current events and the intricacies of human nature. So, it's no surprise that the United Nations Public Information Department and the Sci Fi (SyFy?) Channel co-hosted a panel yesterday evening on "humanitarian concerns" at the UN, with the creators and actors of Battlestar Galactica -- a show which regularly explores those themes. A 2-hour video webcast is archived here. (RealPlayer video). Entertainment Weekly has an additional write-up.

SciFi.com will eventually have a transcript up of the event.

The first link in this post is a review by the television critic of the NJ Star-Ledger. More on why the UN decided to host the panel. Topics discussed last night include human rights; terrorism; children and armed conflict; and reconciliation and dialogue among civilizations and faiths. The panel was moderated by Whoopi Goldberg, with Mary McDonnell, Edward James Olmos, Ron Moore and David Eick participating.
posted by zarq (57 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite

 
There's no direct link for the webcast. On the webcast archive page, scroll to the first March 17, 2009 item, "Special Event: UN Public Information Department, Sci Fi Channel to co-host a panel with Battlestar Galactica creators to raise profile of humanitarian concern."
posted by zarq at 12:10 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


Twice in the last two weeks I hear a story on CBC radio in my car and then see it posted on the blue when I get home!

The panel also included two UN staffers who were at the level of deputy director of something or other. CBC radio interviewed them both. Here's what I recall:
- The SciFi channel approached the UN with the idea
- The UN staffers were not initially familiar with the show, but after watching some clips and doing some research, saw how the show was tackling the same problems as the UN, namely genocide, human rights, counterterrorism...
- The UN recently has launched an initiative to engage the public through popular media in order to help their messages reach a wider audience. Sci-Fi's proposal was seen to fit nicely with this initiative which is the main reason the UN participated.
- The panel discussion was apparently a success.
posted by PercussivePaul at 12:17 PM on March 18, 2009


Actually, I find SF that attempts to address "controversial current events" is heavy-handed and immediately obsolete. Which does in fact describe a lot of what is often called "the very best works" of SF, but does not describe what I enjoy reading.

But getting people involve in current events is an absolute good, so....yeah. Nice.
posted by DU at 12:19 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


io9 wrote about this as well.

Also, BSG is so fucking awesome.
posted by chunking express at 12:23 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


The panel was moderated by Whoopi Goldberg

Why?
posted by homunculus at 12:25 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


DU, I think it depends on the author. Alastair Reynolds, Iain M. Banks, Charlie Stross and David Brin have written decent SciFi that obliquely critiques current events without being too heavy handed. Sometimes an author will also do it well in one work or series (Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series comes to mind) and bludgeon you with his points in another.

On the other hand, there's Orson Scott Card, who really should have stopped writing long ago....
posted by zarq at 12:30 PM on March 18, 2009


Well I always knew the Klingons stood for the Russians, the Cardassians for the Chinese and so on.
posted by yoHighness at 12:34 PM on March 18, 2009


Man, I was gonna make this FPP!

There's another write-up of the event (haven't read it yet) by the Chicago Trib's excellent TV critic, Maureen Ryan.
posted by rtha at 12:38 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


The panel was moderated by Whoopi Goldberg

Why?


Everything links back to Star Trek, now that we're getting our news from comedians, and our human rights information from Science Fiction television shows. Some day we'll have real journalism, and a real government, just not yet. So say we all.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:41 PM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]


rtha, thanks for that link. Very cool. :)

Yeah, I've missed making quite a few FPP's to MeFites with faster fingers. ;)
posted by zarq at 12:48 PM on March 18, 2009


Whoopi moderated because she's good at verbally running people over on The View, and because she's a huge BSG fan.
posted by rtha at 12:49 PM on March 18, 2009


The panel was moderated by Whoopi Goldberg

Why?


Um because her planet was assimilated by the Borg so I think she knows all about "human rights; terrorism; children and armed conflict; and reconciliation and dialogue among civilizations and faiths" and more than you could ever imagine "listening" about.

On preview (because I got distracted by work and forgot to post) I guess blue_beetle covered this first.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:49 PM on March 18, 2009 [4 favorites]


The very best works of science fiction illuminate controversial current events and the intricacies of human nature.

Yesterday, I went to see the film Z, which is very much a product of its politicized late-sixties era.

It does address "controversial current events."

But when you separate that film from that politically-charged climate, it can't really stand on its own as a work of art. Four decades after the political events that inspired the film, it's a boring, poorly paced flick with cardboard characters making speeches at each other.

The very best works of any artistic genre are those where the creator loved her creation so much that she did the very best work of which she was capable. It doesn't matter what subject matter she may have picked; the very best work can be appreciated decades, even centures after its time.

The very best works are not necessarily the products of controversy; they're the product of skill and love.
posted by jason's_planet at 12:51 PM on March 18, 2009


The panel was moderated by Whoopi Goldberg

Why?


Not sure, but I do know she's a big fan of the show. Apparently she's mentioned it several times on The View.
posted by zarq at 12:51 PM on March 18, 2009


You all do realize that the best SF is really about the present. Right?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:00 PM on March 18, 2009


Yes. Which is one of the reasons I love BSG. (And one of the reasons why some people I know couldn't bear to watch it -"Too much like Right Now," they said).
posted by rtha at 1:14 PM on March 18, 2009


Yeah, I'm sorry -- they should have gotten actual SF writers, not SF TV-show writers and actors. Big difference.
posted by Amanojaku at 1:16 PM on March 18, 2009


I love that they used special nameplates.
posted by rewil at 1:17 PM on March 18, 2009


The very best works of any artistic genre are those where the creator loved her creation so much that she did the very best work of which she was capable. It doesn't matter what subject matter she may have picked; the very best work can be appreciated decades, even centures after its time.

The very best works are not necessarily the products of controversy; they're the product of skill and love.


I don't necessarily disagree with you.

However, works of science fiction are more often than not deliberately used as vehicles to examine both human nature and timely, *currently* controversial topics. A SciFi movie made in the '60's should be looked at from the perspective of that time period, and not necessarily adapted into what we think they should mean today.

Heinlein's Starship Troopers novel is a good example of this. It came out in '59, and directly addressed communism, democracy, militarism and the concept of a meritocracy. To a 1959 audience, the book carried specifically tailored messages about the world they lived in. But when Verhoeven adapted the novel into a movie in the late '90's, he subverted its messages by turning them into a satire on propaganda and militarism. The time frame into which a work is released is important in science fiction.

For this reason, I'd argue that films and books of the genre rarely stand the test of time.
posted by zarq at 1:24 PM on March 18, 2009


You all do realize that the best SF is really about the present. Right?

Strongly disagree, unless by "about the present" you mean "indicative of the hopes, dreams, and fears typical of the time at which the work was created." Which describes, um, everything.
posted by ook at 1:42 PM on March 18, 2009


For this reason, I'd argue that films and books of the genre rarely stand the test of time.

Can you think of some that do stand the test of time? And if they do, how do they manage to do this?

(I don't know shit about science fiction, just in case I haven't made that completely clear.)
posted by jason's_planet at 2:04 PM on March 18, 2009


Amanojaku: Yeah, I'm sorry -- they should have gotten actual SF writers, not SF TV-show writers and actors. Big difference.

Is this something I'd have to disdain television and elevate novels for no other reason than to feel superior, even though they're both just mediums, not messages, to understand?
posted by tzikeh at 2:18 PM on March 18, 2009 [3 favorites]


You all do realize that the best SF is really about the present. Right?

The best art holds a mirror up to its beholder, which is why Shakespeare and Goethe are still read today. BSG plays on current events but it does also explore the "human" experience, which is why it will likely hold in people's imaginations longer than the campier original.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:31 PM on March 18, 2009


Can you think of some that do stand the test of time? And if they do, how do they manage to do this?

The "classics" have arguably passed that test: The Time Machine, War of the Worlds, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, 1984. All would appear terribly dated and wouldn't succeed if they were published today, but that's true of the classics in any genre. (There's also room to debate whether some of those even are science fiction, but I'd rather not go there.) But all of those (and probably others I'm not remembering at the moment) made enough of a mark that their themes are still part of the common imagination many decades after their publication.

I enjoy BSG... but I have a feeling that five years down the line it's going to be one of those shows we're all faintly embarrassed about after the fact. File it between Alien Nation and Max Headroom.
posted by ook at 2:47 PM on March 18, 2009


Can you think of some that do stand the test of time? And if they do, how do they manage to do this?

I, Robot (not the movie) has aged very well. The book is a series of detective stories, each revolving around the interplay between three moral maxims. Barring an enormous shift in cultural norms or AI production, I don't see any reason it won't remain an engaging read.
posted by uri at 3:03 PM on March 18, 2009


Um because her planet was assimilated by the Borg so I think she knows all about "human rights; terrorism; children and armed conflict; and reconciliation and dialogue among civilizations and faiths" and more than you could ever imagine "listening" about.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

Hey, I know, they should do a crossover: Borg vs. Cylons. That would frakkin' rule.
posted by homunculus at 3:21 PM on March 18, 2009


I enjoy BSG... but I have a feeling that five years down the line it's going to be one of those shows we're all faintly embarrassed about after the fact. File it between Alien Nation and Max Headroom.

NEVER. I'm going to name my children BSG.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:53 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


enjoy BSG... but I have a feeling that five years down the line it's going to be one of those shows we're all faintly embarrassed about after the fact.

Naw, dude, accept it.

The only way that can be true is if the next five years see such a flood of excellent programming that not only are there show after show that are so much better than Galactica that they make it look like a sack of crap, but also so strong that we don't even notice what little dross remains.

I for one welcome that timeline.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:44 PM on March 18, 2009


We can only hope that Woodrow Wilson arises from his grave thirsting for blood and revenge before it's too late.
posted by paultopia at 5:01 PM on March 18, 2009


but I have a feeling that five years down the line it's going to be one of those shows we're all faintly embarrassed about after the fact.

To follow up on this, I think what has saved BSG, what has really solidly anchored it is the acting. Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell fucking made this show, they gave it heart and built a foundation for every writer, director, actor and damn gaffer to do great work from. They were literally lighting in a bottle and you don't get that too much.

Five years from now, the story elements may seem dated, especially in relation to 9/11, but the bold risks, the incredible acting and characters will be remembered.

Oh and for those who missed "BSG: The Last Frakin' Special" this week, be warned about what Ron Moore said about the series finale. He was trying to tie all the plots together and eventually came to the conclusion that they didn't matter, this was a show about the characters and the point of the finale was to finish their arcs. While somewhat disappointing, this doesn't surprise me. but I expect there to be much grumblin' about never finished plotlines.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:23 PM on March 18, 2009 [2 favorites]


but I expect there to be much grumblin' about never finished plotlines.

Yeah, and I understand why. But I've stuck with this show - and this is true for pretty much everyone I know who watches it - because of the characters. I watched the pilot miniseries recently and was amazed at how much younger everyone looks (Tyrol especially), and how much younger the characters seem. I mean, they are younger; they haven't been put through hell yet.

Some arcs have been dreadfully painful to watch. They feel very personal, and that is a testament to the acting and writing. I get a little impatient with folks who complain that "nothing happened!" in an episode where maybe nothing got blown up or nobody died. I do love me some space porn, and this show did it gorgeously, but a lack of explosions doesn't mean "nothing happened."

Y'all should go back and read past posts of Maureen Ryan's column I linked to above, if you're not familiar with it; after the episodes air, she often interviews the writers and/or director of that particular episode. Very interesting, occasionally illuminating.
posted by rtha at 5:41 PM on March 18, 2009


OH! David EICK.

I totally thought at first that this meant David "reptilian overlords" Icke
posted by rmd1023 at 6:05 PM on March 18, 2009


Is this something I'd have to disdain television and elevate novels for no other reason than to feel superior, even though they're both just mediums, not messages, to understand?

It has nothing to do with the medium. If you're going to get a bunch of science fiction people together to have a little tete a tete about humanitarian concerns, I'd bet hard money that actual science fiction writers -- who are frequently actual scientists and researchers and so on -- would have more of value to say than a pair of producers and Edward James Olmos.
posted by Amanojaku at 8:27 PM on March 18, 2009


jason's_planet: Can you think of some that do stand the test of time? And if they do, how do they manage to do this?

Sci-Fi classics tend to survive because they focus on aspects of the human condition that aren't restricted to a time period. The books ook mentions all do so, but perhaps tellingly, they're not just scifi. They're fictional stories with scifi elements.

That said... Herbert's Dune, Asimov's Foundation series, Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Blish's Cities in Flight, Brin's Startide Rising (and perhaps all of his six book Uplift trilogy), Niven's The Mote in G-d's Eye, Banks' Excession, or Consider Phlebas and others are all relics of the time periods in which they were written, yet I believe they contain enough general commentary that isn't so deeply rooted that they'd be impossible to understand a century from now.

I could be wrong, of course. :)

But every last one of them contains technological references that either seem quaint or queerly outdated today or probably will in just a few years. Spinning magnetic tape data reels, etc.
posted by zarq at 8:51 PM on March 18, 2009


rtha, she's excellent at analyzing the episodes. Thank you again, I'm having a great deal of fun reading her archive. :)

BTW, if you're not already reading the site, Television Without Pity's "Jacob" has been recapping BSG since the middle of the first season. He's long-winded, but also excellent at seeing connections that a casual viewer might miss. This is his recap of "The Oath" from earlier this season, and this is a quick analysis of Boomer from his recap of "Someone to Watch Over Me". TWOP tends to be snarky, sarcastic and filled with smartass attitude, but in this case, they asked someone to recap BSG who's a truly dedicated, passionate fan. He's given the show an added layer of depth, which I appreciate.
posted by zarq at 9:04 PM on March 18, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'd bet hard money that actual science fiction writers -- who are frequently actual scientists and researchers and so on -- would have more of value to say than a pair of producers and Edward James Olmos.

Why? Basttlestar Galactica is not about science, or space. It is about human beings in crisis; they make difficult choices and terrible mistakes. I think that writers and actors are among those qualified to talk about that.
posted by rtha at 9:55 PM on March 18, 2009


thanks, guys! i appreciate the recommendations.
posted by jason's_planet at 8:41 AM on March 19, 2009


Why? Basttlestar Galactica is not about science, or space. It is about human beings in crisis; they make difficult choices and terrible mistakes. I think that writers and actors are among those qualified to talk about that.

Yes, but *lots* of things are about human beings in crisis. What's special about Battlestar Galactica? Why the producers and actors? Why not the cast of 24? They deal with terrorism all the time.

The implication, I suspect, is because Battlestar is science fiction, it must be somehow predicative or have a real "think outside the box" view of the situation. I don't agree with that particular assumption, but even so, why not get actual science fiction writers, who at least have to do a bit of research?

Once I set my internal nerd aside, I can only take this as seriously as I would the cast of Grey's Anatomy talking at a symposium on black market organ trafficking: it's basically just a bit of successful PR for a program that gets to ratchet up its credentials as a Serious Show.
posted by Amanojaku at 12:41 PM on March 19, 2009


I don't know if it's because BSG is science fiction, but it certainly dealt with issues fictionally that the U.N. deals with in real life - war, refugees, human rights, torture - in a way that other shows (e.g. 24) do not.

Was this a chance for scifi.com to grab some publicity? Sure. As for the U.N.'s reasons:
“As one of the launch projects of the Creative Community Outreach Initiative, this event will show how skilful storytelling can elevate the profile of critical humanitarian issues,” said Kiyo Akasaka, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information. “Not only does it present an opportunity for creative discussion, but, more importantly, it offers a chance to deliver a message about the many harsh realities that still exist worldwide.”

The Department of Public Information’s Creative Community Outreach Initiative aims to partner with the international film and television industries in order to raise awareness of critical global issues. Building on collaborations such as The Interpreter, Che and an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, the Initiative provides film, new media, television and documentary producers worldwide with access to information about the work of the United Nations and its priority issues, offers logistical advice and assistance, and participates in dynamic special events with creative community partners.
emphasis mine
I'm trying to think of another show on (non-premium cable) TV right now that isn't a reality show, a sitcom, or a copshop drama. There aren't many - Terminator, maybe, which I hardly watch but from the movies at least it seems to deal with issues of state/corporate control and authority. But that's scifi, as well.

Lots of TV shows have partnered with nonprofits to send messages about various issues - ER and Grey's Anatomy, for instance, have both been vehicles to address the issue of living with HIV, HIV testing, etc. Gloria Reuben, whose character on ER had HIV, continues to do HIV/AIDS education work. It's true that she's "only" an actor, and not an epidemiologist or doctor, but fortunately neither of those things is required to be an informed and effective outreach worker.

If addressing a U.N. panel raises the profile of a show like Battlestar, that's not the worst thing in the world if it encourages other TV execs to take risks and address complex or troubling topics in ways more nuanced than "terrorist bad! torture! kill!", which in turn raises the profile of issues the U.N. deals with. The U.N. has titled and degreed experts out the wazoo; what they lack is a better grasp of effective ways of getting their message out. When faced with a public that largely believes that torture works, or has hardly heard of Darfur, the U.N. doesn't need more help in how to write more white papers or hold more hearings - they need new ways of getting (regular) people interested and involved. Seems like the TV execs of a Peabody award-winning show would know something about that.
posted by rtha at 2:20 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]


Yeah, but we (BSG fans) are not the world.*

Transcript of a recent phone txt conversation between me and my college-age daughter:
Daughter: So, what TV shows are you watching?

Dad: The only show I am into is Battlestar Galactica

Daughter: .... No you're not.

Dad: It is the greatest show ever!!!

Daughter: Hahahahahaha

Dad: You are mean.

Daughter: No. I've never seen it. But it's the show people make fun of when they talk about dorky people. When someone wants to say how much of a dork somebody is, they say "He probably watches Battlestar Galactica."

Dad: Well, maybe we should just talk about books.

Daughter: No! I mean. It's not like it's any better that I love shows like Gossip Girl. You should watch The Office. You'd love it. They guy with the glasses reminds me of you.

____
*(Despite the fact that the guy who just sat down at the table in front of me in this coffee house is watching the video of BSG at the UN even as I type this. Craig Mckhber (sp?) has been talking for the last five minutes. When will the Old Man get a chance to talk? ... oh, now Woopi is talking ... by the time I finish this post I'll have watched the whole thing over his shoulder. Oh ... wait, almost finished and Old Man is speaking. Too bad I can't hear.)

posted by grooveologist at 4:22 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]


Daniel Was Battlestar's Biggest Fiasco, Says Ron Moore
posted by homunculus at 8:12 PM on March 19, 2009


rtha:

Good points, and well said.
posted by Amanojaku at 11:42 AM on March 20, 2009


Daniel Was Battlestar's Biggest Fiasco, Says Ron Moore

What about "pulling the Final Five out of our ass" ?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:39 PM on March 20, 2009


12 Plotholes That Must Be Filled in the Battlestar Finale
posted by homunculus at 1:55 PM on March 20, 2009


1. They had a plan, then they kept changing their mind. You can't really hold'em to this one, as they've split forces. Some want to wipe out humans. Some just want to be individuals.

2. *Beep* "Hello, you've reached the office of Ron Moore and I'm not in right now, but if you have leave your name and number, I'll never get back to your plotholes"

3. "Fine, we'll answer this one." *grumbles*

4. Radiation kills.

5. They're clearly going to answer this one, but so far it's been with Gaius Baltar.

6. "Ok, two answers! But you're pusshing it"

7. AIG, probably.

8. Anyone who's had kids knows the bastards can turn you.

9. Thematic device. Visual, kinky clue to get you hot. It's not the resurrection, it's the dying. Having a kid the biological way gives great diversity and sustainability to the species.

10. Might be all they had time to make.

11. See Philosophy 101

12. It's a universal song, so appears everywhere, though in slightly different forms.



13. What the hell was the point of Tory's character?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:24 PM on March 20, 2009


Wow, what a shitty ending. "We're them. They're us." Goddidit. "Hey, let's throw away all our technology!" Ron Moore cameo.

God, no wonder Cavil killed himself.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:43 PM on March 20, 2009


I liked it. And hey, they even answered your 13th question so what's the prob?
posted by linux at 8:49 PM on March 20, 2009


The point of Tory's character was to be a pointless cylon, then die? LAME.

I like how for the most part the show hasn't held our hands, until this episode, where it forces us through everything.
Remember the opera scene? Well, just in case, here's every part of it matched up against the real premonitions!
They're on real earth. Don't understand? Well, we'll flash to the future and lecture you on robots a bit, explaining that they were your ancestors.

Shit, I expected the show to end with the two "space angels" or whatever looking directly at us through our televisions and admonishing us to change the world.
posted by graventy at 9:55 PM on March 20, 2009


I really, really wish they just ended before the cut to the future. It was wrapped up really nicely and just let the watcher figure out what they wanted from it.
posted by mrzarquon at 11:28 PM on March 20, 2009


I don't know what to think. Pretty sure I'm kind of disappointed. But I'm going to sleep on it.
posted by rtha at 12:01 AM on March 21, 2009


What's wrong? Graventy nails it, felt like I was being lead around by hand: Look, this is what happens to so and so, isn't that nice? Oh and see what we did with X, my don't you find that just beautiful?

I liked the series, while realizing it was imperfect, props to the Ron Moore and co for a lot of great moment and I don't want to sound like churlish fanboy, but ending was disappointing. Laura dies in Raptor, when no one is watching? Adama takes off and decides not to come back, spending his days babbling to ghosts? The future finds evidence of people, but not any of the technology? Ron Moore has to make an appearance? Starbuck got to come back just so she could give the coordinates to Real Earth, great, but couldn't anyone have done that, like maybe Sam the former musician? Or if she came back, couldn't she have figured out the coordinates earlier, perhaps at some point where she "felt" Earth, saving Gatea his leg and the mutiny, Dee her fairwell salute?

I was willing to forgive a lot of plotholes, but subpar ending just brings them all up. I got no closure Ron!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:48 AM on March 21, 2009


A long while back Rekha Sharma talked about her reaction to the finale in an interview, how she first read the script on a plane to Vancouver and was shocked at every plot twist and revelation and it was oh-so-stark and grim, but the ending was so beautiful and uplifting that she was sobbing tears of joy by touchdown.

That wasn't the finale I watched last night. What I saw last night was 30 minutes of a cool space battle where no one of consequence died, 30 minutes of absolutely pointless flashbacks, and 30 minutes of fucking about on Earth capped off by a robot dance routine. The only three moving scenes were Baltar's "I know about farming" bit, Galactica wobbling post-jump, and Kara's fate. Kara's fate being moving only for how cheap and lazy it was. I don't think I've ever literally wanted to smash a TV before.

Also, the series spelled it out very clearly that Tigh valued his friendship with Adama more than anything. How could Saul and Ellen not share a cabin with Adama and his fetid rock pile for the rest of their days?
posted by bunnytricks at 6:56 AM on March 21, 2009


What was Starbuck?

Oh I got that she was sent back to help mankind find Earth. The question is why and why in that manner. The character died in a fiery explosion far from Earth, so why was her ship and body on the planet, what was the point? And why was she on fake Earth, not real Earth?

Thematically, on paper, it all sounds good. She was sent back because her mission wasn't due, and she helped them find fake Earth so mankind/cylonkind/whatever could learn about it's past mistakes and thus pledge to start anew on Real Earth.

Actually, no, that doesn't sound good on paper.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:35 AM on March 21, 2009


the ending was so beautiful and uplifting that she was sobbing tears of joy by touchdown

That's bullshit this show has pulled at every big story reveal. "Oh, the cast was so sad and overwhelmed when Starbuck was killed it was so emotional blah blah blah." If anything, she was crying tears of joy because her character actually got to do something.

Tigh valued his friendship with Adama more than anything

Yeah, after they put us through all the bro-love this season, I can't believe they didn't give us a scene between those two before Adama went and built his shack.

What was Starbuck?
kittens for breakfast addresses this over in the other BSG-related thread. tl;dr - Moore wrote himself into a corner.
posted by graventy at 8:37 AM on March 21, 2009


you know what i was thinking about the parting ways on earth thing?

They should have called in neil gaiman for that very last bit. Not to write the whole thing, but to throw in some nods to legends of yore. I was seeing Saul Tigh as odin, etc. Not that they would pull a stargate, but just enough to leave hints at what would come.

And then made end on the fade out of Hera starting to play with one of the young human like creatures on the grassy plains.
posted by mrzarquon at 12:15 PM on March 21, 2009


Fuck all of you. That was great, except for the very very very end.
posted by chunking express at 7:28 PM on March 21, 2009


And seriously, people bitching about plot holes, what do you want. Would the show be better if they had 5 minutes of dialog where Gauis is all, "Starbuck is a quantum tackeyon blah blah blah blah blah blah." They wrapped up everything with the characters nicely. The rest you can use your imagination for.

Dancing robots though. That's something to get annoyed about. But even that I can forgive.
posted by chunking express at 7:30 PM on March 21, 2009


« Older Fly-Post...  |  LET IT DIE:... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments