Jump to content

Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.159.181.74 (talk) at 20:32, 17 March 2010 (→‎Criticism???). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criticism???

Wasn't there any public criticism about the overall Galactica plot and notions? I mean, I watched all episodes now, and found it to be well executed and mostly entertaining... But the message, compared to e.g. Star Trek, simply is an extremely conservative one. This whole untouchable clique of military leaders, getting heavily drunk and making decisions about humanitys future, often based on mysticism and random personal notions? I can't be the only one who noticed that? -- 217.186.222.19 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they thought it was good because it was based on "realism". I'm not sure what's realistic about an advanced space-faring culture parking itself on a primitve planet and destroying every bit of its technology including its entire fleet of spaceships. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if anything was published on this topic, then add it to the article. If not it's moot discussing it here. Averell (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless public websites and forums all over the net crammed with complaints by fans who didn't like the show's plot, themes and ending and thought it should all have been done differently. These forums are easy to find and easy to contribute to. There are also countless websites and forums filled with praise from fans who thought the same elements of the show were just great. But Wikipedia is not a forum - it's a place for recording factual, verifiable information, and should only include opinion if the opinion is of particular significance or from someone particularly notable; in which case, as Averell says, it just needs to be properly cited. - Laterensis (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That this show is so popular just shows how little good science fiction is available on television. 99% of the rest of the crud they show on the "SyFy" channel makes BG shine like a diamond when it's really just a rhinestone. Years from now people will say "what were they thinking?" when they look at today's reviews and comments about BG.

As Twain said, the majority is always wrong, the minority is always right. Such is the case with BG. The reason so many people like it isn't because it's innovative groundbreaking brilliant storytelling and drama. It's because it is lowest common denominator rehash dressed up with dysfunctional characters, self-important delivery of political and theological drivel, bad sex scenes and annoying camerawork.71.112.38.38 (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to put it another way, you don't like the show and you're annoyed that everyone doesn't agree with you? Look, the heading of this section, 'Criticism', really isn't supposed to be an invitation for you to add your feelings about the programme. This isn't a review site. There are plenty of forums and groups where you can do that to your heart's content. Here we're interested in verifiable facts about BSG. And these can include criticisms, of course, but the criticisms would need to be from notable sources, with cites provided.
(And if Twain ever really made the comment you've attributed to him here, and wasn't being satirical, then he's gone down a little in my estimation. I couldn't trust anyone who'd take such a dogmatic position.) - Laterensis (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twain actually said "whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform". I think they're slightly misquoting Henrik Ibsen "The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right". Pointless pedantry strikes again Doc Meroe (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some argue that BSG makes no sense being a clone to startrek i agree with them. it is basically "days of our lives" star trek and somehow they didn't cure cancer with all that technologically.

# seasons planned?

Quick question: was 4 the number of seasons originally planned, or was the original number reduced at a later time (e.g. Babylon 5, Farscape, Enterprise)? SharkD (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Channel

Should "original channel" be changed from Sci Fi to Syfy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.71.155 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Technical Data

In an earlier version of the wiki article I had added a Technical Data section, because it struck me as odd that the article talks about a big, important TV series, but doesn't even mention how long the series is.

However, somebody deleted that section again (following the current global trend never to reveal technical data about anything).

Now I'm wondering what others think about this. Do we really want to conceal the most basic information about the entire TV series? Strikes me as similar to explaining a new type of car without mentioning how many seats, doors, and kW of power it has. —Hgmichna (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it seems to me that the infobox (and the infoboxes on the miniseries, webisodes, ...) contain all relevant data like image format, episode length and whatnot. It does say how long the series is. I don't see any particular reason to add another section for that. Averell (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move

My proposal is to move the current article to Battlestar Galactica (Re-imagined Series). The reasons that justify the move are:

  • The series actually spans several years, therefore the current reference to 2004 is misleading
  • The series is commonly known by fans as "Re-imagined" (for example, in Battlestar Wiki)

Please discuss here if there is any opposition to this move. Thanks! --jofframes 15:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemarcos (talk • contribs)

The page has been restored to the title "Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)". While there has been no comment regarding the proposal, it is important to note that there was extensive discussion regarding the proper page title during the merger discussion at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)/Archive 2#Merge same topic, the consensus of which was to use this page name per the naming conventions. As well, I would note that this is the second time the page has been moved by the same editor, contrary to the established consensus. --Ckatzchatspy 17:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been moved back. The current title was decided upon after discussion (found in the archive). Specifying the year is a common disambiguation method, where the year denotes the the year series premieres. Also, your capitalisation was not correct; "series" should not be capitalised. — Edokter • Talk • 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country of Origin

There seems to be a persistent need to list BSG's country of origin as CAN/USA/UK. I would submit this is entirely WP:POV or WP:OR (depending on how you look at it), with no foundation. BSG is an American production, made and copyrighted by an American company (Universal Network Television). My source? The credits, which I'm looking at right now. Country of first publication: USA. Network ordering the production: SciFi (SyFy), and American network owned by NBC. Country of legal ownership (i.e. laws governing protection of the copyright, etc.) USA. R&D TV is also an American company. Yes, there was limited British money funding the first season. That doesn't make it a British show, any more than the American money coming from BBC America or PBS makes any number of British shows from Prime Suspect to Robin Hood American. Hired studio space, etc. in Canada doesn't make the show Canadian, any more than it does a good few other shows shot in Canada. Drmargi (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it´s not complerely true. The show wouldn´t have been possible withut financing from British SKY One. And part of the deal is why many episodes were first aired there instead of the US. --Lennier1 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TV, like film, is generally classed by the country of the production company. So BSG would be US. Yes it's filmed in Canada, and made with some money from the UK, but the company that made it was American. Everything else isn't official to the country of a TV series, just like it's not to a film. Distribution company, country of finance, country of filming, country of editing, actor nationality, director nationality etc are irrelevant, it's all down to the country of the production company. Canterbury Tail talk 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my point. It's not unusual for shows to have overseas financing as part of their production deals. A good few British shows have financing from American networks (PBS, BBC America, etc.) as I noted above, but that doesn't make them American series. Compared to the contribution of NBC Universal and the usual revenue stream for an American series, Sky's contribution was comparatively small and of comparatively short duration. There's simply no justification for describing this series as anything but American. Drmargi (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The show is actually partially funded by money from Canada, Canadian Space Channel. So it is a multi-country production. That's why there are so many Canadian actors, as well as British actors, as this was part of the deal with Sky TV (Baltar & Apollo are played by Brit actors. I'm amazed that if you two are actually fans of the show and the values it espouses, you still can't look beyond your American sense of nationalistic pride and patriotism and embrace this as an international show.
Ok, just one sec - Universal Studios is partially owned by Vivendy Entertainment, which is a French company. So, if the production company (Universal Studios) is partially-French owned, and it goes by the production company, then it should be USA/FRANCE. How bout Sony? Mostly Japanese-owned. So Sony movies should say "JAPAN?" Pretty dumb guys. --70.68.172.77 (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reread above. Country of funding is irrelevant -- see the note re: PBS/BBCAmerica participation in British shows. The show has Canadian actors and Canadian crew because that's what Canadian labor laws require of US productions made in Canada. There is a difference between funding and licensing a show for broadcast. Do you even have a source for any Canadian funding? Hired studio space and crew do not make a show Canadian.
As for ownership of the production company and origins of cast, by the logic in the two comments above, every production made by a company that has some ownership in another country would be a join production, right? Want to try to disentangle that one? Sorry, no dice. BSG is owned and produced by Universal Network Television which operates and is incorporated in the US. They hold the copyright to the show and its distribution rights, and license any and all reproduction stemming from it (i.e. DVD's, merchandise, etc.). Whatever small ownership role Vivendi (correct spelling) has only serves to make Vivendi a multi-national, not BSG a French production. And PUH-LEEZE. Since when did cast nationality have anything to do with the country of ownership of a production? By that logic, ER was a US/Croatian production because Goran Visnjic, who played Dr. Luka Kovac, was Croatian. Sorry, that one doesn't pass the laugh test. I'll say this for you both, the arguments you put forth are so thin, they simply serve to reinforce mine. And the only nationalism on display here is on the part of editors trying to claim what is patently an American production for their own. Drmargi (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting 24.150.185.254's edit regarding country. Canterbury Tail's edit was correct regarding standard TV production company classifications. Whether someone feels that other countries involved in production of a tv show should be recognized is a valid concern, but one beyond the scope of this article or talk page. After all, we wouldn't change Law and Order : UK's page to say its an American - British show simply because NBC has a hand in it. Like other articles, we use the standard until the standard changes, then everyone uses the new standard. Astraeos (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus with one reference?

In the section References to modern society, the following sentence appears:

There is a consensus that with "its third season, the show has morphed into a stinging allegorical critique of America’s three-year occupation of Iraq

It has a single reference that supports the notion of the show being an allegory to this event, but does one source represent a "consensus"? The final paragraph of the same section quotes one of the show;s producers as saying events in the show can be as generically applied to other situations. This is also stated earlier in the sections that this could be applied to other situations. I don't object to this interpretation appearing in the article, but I am not so sure that it is the consensus view. If it is, it should be more soundly supported as such. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis at end of "Plot" section

Over the past few days, Evans1982 and I have been going back and forth regarding text at the end of the "Plot" section. It was originally in the section as:

"Consequently, the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica is a myth of origin for modern Homo Sapiens, taking place in our collective pre-historic past rather than future history. "

Evans1982 changed it to the following, which (I feel) extended an already unreferenced analysis:

"Consequently, the revelation that the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica took place more than 150,000 years in the past means that unlike most space opera science fiction stories, the series was a tale of ancient history rather than future history and serves as a myth of origin for modern humanity. "

and its most recent incarnation was:

"Consequently, the revelation that the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica took place more than 150,000 years in the past means that the series was a space opera science fiction tale of ancient history rather than future history and serves as a fictional tale of origin for modern humanity."

I have several problems with the text, not the least of which is that it reads as an opinion, similar to what one might find on a fan site such as the Battlestar wiki. (Not surprisingly, Evans1982 has informed me that he was the one who added similar text there.) My contention is that this text a) needs a source from a critic so that it is not Wikipedia making the analysis, and b) needs to be somewhere other than the tail end of the plot section if used at all. Given that the two of us haven't been able to resolve this, I think it is time to bring the text here and get additional input. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Evans1982 has immediately reverted it back in. This needs additional input please. --Ckatzchatspy 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an opinion piece at all. It's an observation! The series took place 150,000 years in the past and therefore was a tale of ancient history. That's a fact! Seriously, Ckatz. I'm not trying to be difficult, but something is genuinely wrong with you, if you believe that stating a fact constitutes giving an opinion. -- Evans1982 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It reads as original research, it needs a citation or it should be reworded. I know you're stating it as a fact but it's a fact you came to, therefore it needs a source. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, rereading the whole last paragraph and not just the last sentence from the end, it doesn't read as original research as much. Although, I think a source that helps confirm everything (it being in the our actual Times Square and our Earth, not some alternate Earth) would help avoid problems like this in the future. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I think it's mostly the wording (the train of logic and flowery prose) that makes it sound like OR. "consequently" "means that" "was a tale of" "serves as myth of ...". Couldn't this all be said much more succinctly as "Given the setting of the series 150,000 years in the past, it is unusual among science-fiction works, most of which are set in the future." de Bivort 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sounds better. Anyone else have a thought? (Deftonesderrick (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Again, and not to nit-pick, but shouldn't we have someone authoritative make the analysis? After all, if we say BSG is unusual because it is set in the past, wouldn't that mean we are also describing works such as Star Wars are "unusual"? ("A long time ago...") --Ckatzchatspy 01:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per the verifiability policy the entire sentence should be struck, unless it is properly referenced. Otherwise, it remains an opinion that most science fiction works are set in the future. There are plenty of works which have contemporary settings (to the time they are written/filmed). LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence makes no claim that most science fiction works are set in the future. It's an observation that most space opera science fiction works are set in the future. Perhaps, some people here need to look up "space opera." -- Evans1982 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the thing we're trying to get across here is, well, read your own statement above... that's your research/knowledge of the subject, not a reliable cited source. Therefore the sentence would fall into the same category. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The articles Space opera and Science fiction have multiple references indicating that said stories tend to happen in the future. And to be frank, this borders on common knowledge not needing a source. We don't need to source the statement that historical fiction is set in the past - it's definitional. Personally, I would restore the sentence, but frankly this kind of wikilawyering reduces my enthusiasm to work on articles, so I'll leave it up to you all. de Bivort 05:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)&oldid=350466821"