Did any of y'all watch this when it premiered as a 4-hour miniseries on SciFi about a year ago? I did, and I was pleasantly surprised. Although it changed several things from the original series, I thought it was a very good science fiction film. The acting was pretty good, and Edward James Olmos as Adama was outstanding. SciFi has made it a series now, starting on Friday night, January 14th. They're showing the miniseries on Wednesday night, January 12th, if any of you are inclined to check it out. I'm looking forward to watching "Enterprise" and "Galactica" back-to-back on Fridays!!

I've heard that it has already been airing in the UK for a few weeks now...true?

i loved the mini-series and am looking forward to the regular series!

Yes; I was looking at the credits at IMDB and discovered that there were already comments on the series from UK viewers. They were pretty positive, too.

I've seen the first 8 episodes, and while it's not Battlestar Galactica in any meaningful way, it is a VERY good post 9/11 sci-fi show. Why do the Cylons want to destroy humanity? They're religious zealots. No joke.

The new Battlestar Galactica is very good series. It's not like the old series, this one is much better!

I enjoyed it a lot - not a big Galactica fan (had a cylon toy as a kid though!) but thought this was entertaining and fun.

I like the way it looks, and I think had this not been the first time I had seen something called Battlestar Galactica, I'd be all over it. However, in the service of the ever on-going war between Good and Evil / Black and White / Us and Them, allow me to list all of the things I saw in the the mini that undercuts the concept of HERO as applied to the crew of the Galactica:

Adama: then - a man of great faith and vision, who fought for his truth in the face of scorn, ridicule, fear, and violence. Now: a man with no faith or vision using lies for political expedience.

Tigh: then - the rock-solid, most dependable member of the Command Structure. The mother for the crew (an X-O's role) willing to fight for what's right when it matters, and overlook things that don't. Now, a drunk who can't be trusted, isn't respected, and who plays power games with the crew.

Apollo: then, a slightly wound up eager officer, maybe a little too dedicated to his father's vision. Now, a man who resents that vision, and despises his father

Starbuck: then - the playboy, who took nothing seriously except duty and friendship. Now - a playboy model who sacrified duty for friendship, and it cost her both.

Zac: then - a green as hell rookie who knew the price, and went down fighting. Now, an unqualified joke, only here to create regret and sexual tension.

Boomer: then - the third amigo, just as good as the main characters, and the fact that he was black didn't enter into it at all. Now - a traitorous plant.

Baltar: then - a cold blooded traitor, who sold out his people for power, and used every advantage to subjugate the remainder of the human race. A towering will, and Adama's nemesis. A villain of the grandest sort. Now, a poor misunderstood scientist, victimized by his girlfriend into betraying humanity.

I understand that the battle against one's self is one of the 3 dramatic storylines, but the fact that they took all of these (admittedly) two dimensional heroes and villains, and piled all this baggage on them annoys me. I did not see a character on the show who has retained their fundamental heroic nature. And yet they kept the cardboard acceptable to kill one dimensional villains.

I put what they've done to Battlestar right up there with what they did to Gimli, Aragorn, and Gandalf in LoTR; to Spider-man in the movies; the Sopranos and The Shield did to crime on TV; Steve Austin and the NWO in pro wrestling, and lots and lots of others. They made the heroes frailer, more "human", more fallible, and the villains more cool, and appealing - all in the name of making them more relatable to today's audience, and in doing so, have undercut what it means to be a HERO.

At the end of the day, it's heroic fiction - not soap opera. I want to see good, and I want to see evil. And then I want to see Evil get it's butt handed to it at the last minute by people who know what they're doing is right. I don't want to see people whining over how sorry their lives are.

And yes, I have had this little rant boiling up for a while.

Jason

While I sympathize with your points, especially re: Sopranos and The Shield, you lost me completely with your addition of Spider-Man. I enjoyed both films very much.

Regarding Galactica, from what I know of Ronald Moore's work on Star Trek, I believe that this new series is going to see the evolution of these characters. By beginning with flawed people who are thrust into the ultimate battle for survival, it is my hope that we will see these characters grow and change, becoming heroes in the face of great adversity, and not being "two dimensional." We'll just have to wait and see. If the show progresses in the directions you fear, then I will undoubtedly lose interest as well.

Besides, I want to see Richard Hatch's guest appearance!

It's good. He's a badass.

Well said Jason! I couldn't agree more!

Jason - I had most of the same gripes when the mini first aired, and I don't want to give away too much, but the mini by itself is like reading the first 6 pages of Amazing Fantasy 15 and saying "Spider-Man's a selfish bastard! Why should I care about his story?"

Rest assured, the characters are intact, for the most part (and I say that having seen 2 more episodes since I posted yesterday). To go Joseph Campbell on you, heroes have a journey. The original series had us meet the heroes fully formed. The new series shows us how they got the way they are. Olmos is becoming more like Greene. Bamber is becoming more like Hatch. Sackhoff is becoming more like Benedict. But she's still hot.

This show is getting better and better with each episode.

Thanks Hank.

That sounds promising.

I've seen the mini and all 10 (?) episodes that have aired so far and despite not being impressed by the mini except for the last 5-10 minutes the series is growing on me and a marked improvement over the mini.

I don't want to spoil anything but I can say the gripes over the difference in characterisation should be eased by the series.

With the Mini you had essentially 3 hours to introduce every single character, give backstory to the series and squeeze in a lot of exposition and events. Thankfully these characters aren't caricatures and those who were dissapointed by their original compressed introduction in the mini should be pleased with what else they learn ands see of them and how they develop (somthing we didn't see much of in the original series).

I'm in favour of the changes, and I liked the original series. I'm a big fan of Enterprise despite it's contradictions because I don't see point in doing the same thing twice.

Without spoiling anything I'll say the series starts off a little sluggish but by #10 there's been some cracking episodes.

What I greatly dislike but have become immune to is the '24'ish syle of extreme close ups, randomesque Zoom ins and shaky cam.

What I really like is Baltar or the guy playing him; he's become the best character on the show with some humdingers of lines and situations.

The last couple of eps have also had some loose bearing on what I liked best about the Mini; the last 5 mins or so.

Hatch's guest appearance is great. Again the gripers won't be happy as he's certainly not their Apollo, but I dare say Hatch was delighted to exercise his acting chops in a somewhat meatier role than I've ever seen him play.

If you liked the mini, you'll love the series. If you didn't like the mini for some of the reasons above you should be pleased. If you hate Shaky Cam avoid like the plague.

It's keeping me amused till Enterprise starts up again in bloody March!

If anyone has any spoilerific questions, maybe they can start up a spoiler thread?

Mike Daniels

One question - just out of curiosity - this series is in "continuity" right?

They mention the old Galactica, etc..? or is it a reboot?

No; it's not within the same continuity as the old series. The first mini-series was essentially a remake of the original Galactica movie.

Kevin, it's not a question of enjoyment - I enjoyed the mini-series, and the Spider-man films, and the LoTR trilogy for what they were. It's an objection to remakes / reinterpretation of heroic fiction that immediately make the heroes significantly less heroic in order make them relatable to the current public at large. In Spider-Man's case, it was the bio-organic web shooters, and the excuse for not stopping the mugger. It strikes me as pandering.

The story that shows the evolution of an everyman into a hero is important - but I feel it's also important to show stories with heroes who have never been an everyman - they've been heroes from day 1.

Jason

I agree with you in principle, Jason, but I think your guidelines are just a lot stricter than mine. For example, I view the biological webshooters as the creators of the film sacrificing accuracy for expediency, not making Peter less heroic. I would have liked the films better if he'd created the webshooters, but I felt it was a small loss.

I agree with Kevin - we have to remember movie makers are not saying they will adapt Spiderman issues 1-10 - they are paying a fee to use the character in their story - (with hopefully some degree of accuracy because then there is no point in licencing a character if they will change him completely - may as well create a new character and save the cash).

I'm sorry but I think that is just apologism at work. We have seen now multiple times how the Film version of a character becomes the comic version. Spider-Man's secret identity and webshooters are now the latest casualty directly echoing what has happened in the films - bio-webs and Spider-Man unmasked in public. This trumps the X-Men leather fetish look that went from film to comic. What do you bet we won't see Mary Jane (who is the film's stand in for Gwen Stacy as well) giving birth to the Green Goblin's twins in any Spider-Man film despite this being a current comic storyline?

I've maintained all along that what was done to Gwen in the Spider titles was a deliberate attempt to "tarnish her image" in the eyes of fans so that MJ can, in accordance with the movies, be the "one steadfast and true love of Peter's life".

Hmm. Still smarting over the LoTR impressions.
I wonder, do any of y'all "fill in the blanks" around your fictional heroes? That is, when you read a book, lets say James Bond. for ease, do you try and surround some of his comments and actions and reactions with the WHY or "what would make him think that"?
I do this all the time, and I don't think that Aragorn or Gimli or really any of the heroes were terribly misrepresented in the films. I do think there was a great difference in seeing (f'rinstance) humans portraying actions and mortal feelings, than say the animated attempts to relate the same stories or the illustrated treatments LoTR has been given over the decades.
Somewhat the same with Spiderman. A couple of times I was disappointed over the way Peter acted, but then realised I was basing that on thirty years of knowing the character; it has to be viewed within the context of the movie, and the wonderful thing that actors can bring to film is precisely that emotive connection to the viewer.