# Battlestar Galactica commentary on Farscape



## DreadPirateMurphy (Sep 30, 2005)

So, I'm FINALLY watching the 1st season of Battlestar Galactica on DVD.  Last night, I watched the director's commentary for the first episode, "33."  One of the comments at the beginning of the commentary was that Sci-Fi didn't want a show that evolved like Farscape, where by the end of it, only "nine fans" could follow the plot.  (No BG Spoilers, please.)

I thought the criticism was a little harsh, but I can see how Farscape did get somewhat self-absorbed in its own mythology.  I can also see how a network executive could see that as a problem.  I have a hard time seeing it as a fatal flaw, however, since other shows are equally as guilty.  Buffy and the X-Files come to mind, and both of those lasted much longer than Farscape.

It is hard for me, who probably counts as one of the nine, to be totally objective, so I would be interested in the opinions of others.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 30, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> It is hard for me, who probably counts as one of the nine, to be totally objective, so I would be interested in the opinions of others.




I think Farscape's plot evolved a whole lot, and that jumping in the middle would have been difficult.  But that evolution is part of what I loved about the show.

Seems to me that if the BSG people think they're making a show that folks can jump into in the middle, they're fooling themselves.  You'll have accessibility problems in any show where current events depend upon previous events, and BSG has a whole lot of that.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 30, 2005)

Well, I started Angel pretty late and never had a big problem following, but I watched early eps of farscape, liked them, caught a couple of much later eps and said "What the hell?" and couldn't even begin to get into them, so I'd have to say that Farscape did take the problem to an extreme.


----------



## edemaitre (Sep 30, 2005)

*Galactica and Farscape*

I and other fans of the 1970s "Battlestar Galactica" (dated, but idealistic) have had problems with a few of producer Ron Moore's comments regarding the SciFi Channel's revisionist military space opera. The new "Battlestar Galactica" isn't as original as he claims, incorporating numerous elements of the so-called cheesy original television series, "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (whose fan-rewarding story arcs Moore worked on), and other continuity-heavy shows such as "Babylon 5" (see the recent embedded journalist ep).

While I agree that the newer "Galactica" is well-produced, written, and acted, it's disingenuous to claim that the highly-rated show is especially original. The sexy android, hot-shot pilots, philosophically torn leaders, and humanity under siege are archetypes in much speculative fiction. The darker tone does reflect a crisis in American confidence since Sept. 11, 2001, but if you liked "Farscape's" chaotic heroism, I recommend "Stargate SG1," which has managed to balance friendliness toward casual viewers with long-term character/universe development and still have fun doing so. Plus, "Farscape's" lead actors have appeared on that show, and there are D20 role-playing games for both "Farscape" and "Stargate"...


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Sep 30, 2005)

edemaitre said:
			
		

> The darker tone does reflect a crisis in American confidence since Sept. 11, 2001, but if you liked "Farscape's" chaotic heroism, I recommend "Stargate SG1," which has managed to balance friendliness toward casual viewers with long-term character/universe development and still have fun doing so. Plus, "Farscape's" lead actors have appeared on that show, and there are D20 role-playing games for both "Farscape" and "Stargate"...




I do follow Stargate, and I have all the D20 books for both that and Farscape -- both of which are basically dead product lines.    

Something occurred to me.  Farscape had another characteristic that helped hurt the ability of people to come watch in the middle.  IIRC, the DVDs seemed to take a long time to come out as a set.  There were big swaths of time where somebody entering in season 3 couldn't just go out and buy the first two seasons to catch up.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Sep 30, 2005)

My problem with Stargate is that after having not seen it for several years, I watched one new episode and it felt like the same old stuff.  

There's nothing new under the sun, but BG has at least come up with a good mix of the old.  And atypically for most sci-fi shows, they've avoided the 'new planet every week with a new mysterious race'.


----------



## reveal (Sep 30, 2005)

I didn't watch Farscape almost at all when it was on TV. I tried a couple of times, but it *always *felt like a show where you had to follow it from the beginning or you wouldn't get references and/or in-jokes. When I bought it on DVD, I loved it but still feel that way.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> So, I'm FINALLY watching the 1st season of Battlestar Galactica on DVD.  Last night, I watched the director's commentary for the first episode, "33."  One of the comments at the beginning of the commentary was that Sci-Fi didn't want a show that evolved like Farscape, where by the end of it, only "nine fans" could follow the plot.  (No BG Spoilers, please.)
> 
> I thought the criticism was a little harsh, but I can see how Farscape did get somewhat self-absorbed in its own mythology.  I can also see how a network executive could see that as a problem.  I have a hard time seeing it as a fatal flaw, however, since other shows are equally as guilty.  Buffy and the X-Files come to mind, and both of those lasted much longer than Farscape.
> 
> It is hard for me, who probably counts as one of the nine, to be totally objective, so I would be interested in the opinions of others.




I tend to disagree that _Farscape_ was particularly egreigious on this point. I think that this has been exagerrated by the network to justify their decision to cancel the show despite having previously committed to continue it. Really, was _Farscape_ that much more plot intensive than _Babylon 5_? Or even the current _Battlestar Galactica_? I think not so much.

And then there is also the mainstream shows that have plot arcs like _24_, and just about every soap opera in existence. I don't see a lot of people complaining about the plot continuity of _All My Children_, _General Hospital_, or even _Desperate Housewives_. In point of fact, most people who watch those shows seem to like the continuity (although in the case of soaps like _Passions_, the storylines seem to be ridiculously silly).

_Farscape_ got accused of being too big on plot continuity, but what was really the problem was a network that abused the show, failed to market it effectively, and then flailed about for a "justification" other than it's own incompetence.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 30, 2005)

I tried many times to get into Farscape over the years and found it impossible. When, as a run-up to the finale mini they played them all, I watched them and found that I loved the show.

Comparing it to other shows, its continuity elements were far more complex and semi-buried than soap operas, daytime or nighttime. I absolutely see it as a flaw, from a ratings standpoint. If you wanted to start watch Desperate Housewives right now, I could summarize the entire first season in 3 short sentences. Farscape's seasons were much more complex than that, and worse (from this perspective), even in much later seasons you still needed to know stuff from the first season. I can pretty much guarantee this won't be true of Desperate Housewives.

Still love Farscape. But dude, it's too rich for TV.



			
				edemaitre said:
			
		

> The new "Battlestar Galactica" isn't as original as he claims, incorporating numerous elements of the so-called cheesy original television series, "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (whose fan-rewarding story arcs Moore worked on), and other continuity-heavy shows such as "Babylon 5" (see the recent embedded journalist ep).



You meant to refer to the journalist episode of M*A*S*H in the late 70s, right? 

The monotheistic enemy vs. the polytheistic heroes, that's new. The richness of the "should complex machines be afforded the rights we give to humans" interaction is certainly new (an episode or two about Data pales utterly). The military vs. civilian government on a very small scale stuff has hardly been touched. Etc. Completely new? No. But richly new-feeling? Big frickin' time.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 30, 2005)

I watched _Farscape_, although I wasn't a hardcore fan, and it still confused me. The show was crazy. It was amazing, but it was confusing. Shows like _Buffy_ and _Angel_ have plot arcs that last a season or two then go onto something else, the characters having grown and changed, but the plots not relying on what happened three or four seasons ago. _Farscape_ was a plot arc. This means that missing an episode, or even forgetting about what happened in an episode, might come back to bite you months down the line. It was brilliantly written, but I have to say that it required overly avid viewership.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Sep 30, 2005)

The only problem I have with Moore's comment is that, while true, Farscape was still one of SFC's highest rated shows.  So I really don't think the "nine fans" comment is entirely appropriate at all.  It was a very rich show, and that was what made it so good.  While some part of blame does lie with the producers of the show, a big part lies with SFC themselves, for reasons which people have already gone over numerous times.  SFC could have done a lot to make the show more accessible to new viewers.  The marketing was terrible, and whoever made the DVD point is dead on.  I don't see why they couldn't have had a summary episode like ABC has done for Lost... and really, one episode would have been enough to explain one season.


----------



## John Crichton (Sep 30, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> The only problem I have with Moore's comment is that, while true, Farscape was still one of SFC's highest rated shows.  So I really don't think the "nine fans" comment is entirely appropriate at all.  It was a very rich show, and that was what made it so good.  While some part of blame does lie with the producers of the show, a big part lies with SFC themselves, for reasons which people have already gone over numerous times.  SFC could have done a lot to make the show more accessible to new viewers.  The marketing was terrible, and whoever made the DVD point is dead on.  I don't see why they couldn't have had a summary episode like ABC has done for Lost... and really, one episode would have been enough to explain one season.



 That's not a bad idea at all.  My case all along has been the lack of repeats during dead times.  Early on, when the show had support you couldn't get away from a weekend of a few eps of the show.  But in seasons 3 & 4 when you really needed to expose the show some more they would hardly run any repeats.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 30, 2005)

Farscape and the new Battlestar Galactica are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to fantastic sci-fi vs. more realistic sci-fi.  Though I'd consider both them to be the best series of their respective sides of the sci-fi spectrum.


----------



## KaosDevice (Sep 30, 2005)

I loved Farscape the way a fat kid loves cake. It was a pretty dense little space fantasy though and I did have to seriously work to explain things to get people into watching it. But honestly I don't think it was any more involved then Babylon 5 that's for certain. I think that comment was pretty seriously uncharitable and unwarranted. SciFi's reputation for cancelling good shows is starting to reach near Fox like heights and I think Farscape is one example of this very alarming trend.


----------



## The_Universe (Sep 30, 2005)

There's nothing wrong with an evolving internal mythology in a show, if you balance it will more accessible faire. The X-Files, which had an extremely elaborate mythology, balanced that by having about half the episodes almost completely unrelated to the continuing plot, but still using the show's overall themes (mystery, paranormal, etc). 

BSG slides by, despite having no "unrelated" episodes, by repitition. The characters are relatively simple in concept, and their basic traits are repeatedly asserted in every episode. There's always a little bit of exposition reminding you what happened last time, and the main characters practically slap you in the face with the main plot points. BSG, though excellent, is not subtle. 

On the other end of the spectrum, Star Trek: TNG was wildly popular in its day beyond the core fan group because it so rarely had a continuing arc. Although the characters grew and changed slightly throughout the show, you almost never had to know what had happened last time to make what happened this time make sense. Even if you did, there was a convenient montage that reminded you of all the key points. 

Star Trek: DS9 took a step away from TNG's casual approach, and has thus won itself a number of diehard fans, because it rewarded the loyal more clearly. Thus, it's generally considered part of the Babylon 5 crowd. It's certainly frequently compared in places like this. Its internal mythology was hardly as elaborate, but it was a Trek that took a step in that direction. 

Farscape is deeply intricate, character changed a lot, there were almost *no* "casual" elements of the show, which made it extraordinarily different to attract new viewers. In fact, the show's format encouraged viewer attrition, since you were punished for failing to follow along. Once you missed an episode or two, there was little point in coming back. To travel toward the main stream, Lost is the same way - very intricate, with little point in tuning in unless you've been there since the beginning.  

Now, if this is all the case, why is a relatively intricate show like Battlestar Galactica considered so successful? I'd say that the rise of TiVO/DVR has made intricate shows more potentially succcessful. It's easier to stay current on a show, since it's easier to record. 

Anyway - YMMV. That's my idea.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 1, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> I have a hard time seeing it as a fatal flaw, however, since other shows are equally as guilty.  Buffy and the X-Files come to mind, and both of those lasted much longer than Farscape.



Both of those shows mixed in a large percentage of standalone episodes, and even continuity elements in the episodes were almost always in digestable pieces. X-Files also wasn't _meant_ to be totally understandable, much like Lost.

Buffy also essentially ended everything every year, and the next season was always new-viewer-friendly.

As for soap operas, the characters all spend a great deal of time spouting exposition so that every episode is new-viewer-friendly.

And of course a network executive is worried about this, and rightly so. Insisting everyone see the first few episodes of a series instead of being able to jump in later on is a recipe for low ratings.


----------



## KaosDevice (Oct 1, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Now, if this is all the case, why is a relatively intricate show like Battlestar Galactica considered so successful? I'd say that the rise of TiVO/DVR has made intricate shows more potentially succcessful. It's easier to stay current on a show, since it's easier to record.
> 
> Anyway - YMMV. That's my idea.




That isn't a bad observation. I would think the rise of DVD sets as well, as I know a few people who bought the whole Lost set just so they could get up to speed before S1 E1 (for example). I think that is going to become the rule rather then the exception.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 1, 2005)

Another big difference between shows like X-Files and Buffy compared to Farscape is that in the former if you know what modern daily life is like, you've got 95% of the show concepts each episode. Life in an entirely alien universe with amazingly weird powers and motivations is not the stuff people deal with every day, so it was much more difficult to apply a filter to a story and only have to ask about the 5% (which you can even show in a "last time on Buffy"). With Farscape, at least 50% of what you saw each episode was foreign to normal modern life.


----------



## Mystery Man (Oct 1, 2005)

Battelstar is really the better show. Probably one of the best on TV right now. I just wish it was on HBO...and I think you all know why!


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 1, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Battelstar is really the better show. Probably one of the best on TV right now. I just wish it was on HBO...and I think you all know why!



 Wait.  Better than Farscape?  Buffy?  X-Files?


----------



## The_Universe (Oct 1, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Wait.  Better than Farscape?  Buffy?  X-Files?



 YES!!!


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 1, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> YES!!!



 Heheh.

BSG is a wonderful show and the best genre TV on the air at the moment (er, on break at the moment).  But it'll have to give me at least 4-5 more years to equal Buffy/Farscape status.  I'll enjoy watching it try and do so - and hopefully succeed.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 1, 2005)

Interesting, I would go the other way: I feel Farscape the better of the two shows, my love for it knows no end and I really dislike BSG.  I enjoyed the caharacters, the plots, the interactions on Farscape as much as I did B5, BSG did not grab me from the get go, the characters were weak at the beginning, yes, they have gotten better but...  then there was some other issues that I will not go into.   

Now, here is the kicker, I don't think BSG could not be without Farscape, Buffy, Angel and B5, put forth in story lines, it has been a progression, now you see a number of shows that push just a bit more.  Times change, ideas change, fan base change...


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 1, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> So, I'm FINALLY watching the 1st season of Battlestar Galactica on DVD.  Last night, I watched the director's commentary for the first episode, "33."  One of the comments at the beginning of the commentary was that Sci-Fi didn't want a show that evolved like Farscape, where by the end of it, only "nine fans" could follow the plot.  (No BG Spoilers, please.)
> 
> I thought the criticism was a little harsh, but I can see how Farscape did get somewhat self-absorbed in its own mythology.  I can also see how a network executive could see that as a problem.  I have a hard time seeing it as a fatal flaw, however, since other shows are equally as guilty.  Buffy and the X-Files come to mind, and both of those lasted much longer than Farscape.
> 
> It is hard for me, who probably counts as one of the nine, to be totally objective, so I would be interested in the opinions of others.



Kinda disappointed in hearing a comment like that.  As far as shows go Battlestar is right up there with Farscape and its because of evolution.  I stopped watching BSG last year because I missed a few episodes and coulnd't get into it until i had achance to watch the summer returns.  I  started watching Farscape at the end of Season 2 and it seamed really straight forward. Prison ship, criton has wormhole knowledge in his head hate love relationship with Aeryon.


----------



## Endur (Oct 2, 2005)

I havn't watched Farscape, but I did watch Babylon 5.

I would compare BSG to B5 this way.

BSG season 1 and 2 is better than B5 season 1
B5 season 2 is better than BSG season 1 and season 2 so far
B5 season 3 is better than B5 season 2


----------



## Volaran (Oct 2, 2005)

I think I originally caught a few episodes mid first season of Farscape when it was airing late night/early morning on YTV (in Canada), and then again starting around third season when they were showing it here on weekends on Space.

It struck me as a high quality show, but I had a fair bit of difficulty putting it all in context.  I'm glad I've been able to catch it straight through now that it is complete, as I quite enjoyed it.

I've had a great time with BSG so far, and have been watching the DVD commentaries.  Remembering threads on this board during the save Farscape campaigns, the first thing that occured to me when I heard that comment on the comment in question was "I wonder how long until a thread about this shows up on ENWorld?".  Obviously, not long.

I sort of expect to hear these sorts of comments on DVDs.  The commentary is where you hear the story about how things came up, the creators swearing up a storm, ect.  There is a reason there are disclaimers about DVD commentary.  I've just been watching the commentary on "Act of Contrition", and one of the initial lines is something to the effect of "Here we are, fresh from the drinking experiment that was our commentary of Bastille Day."

It seems natural to me for creators to compare themselves and their efforts, jokingly or not, to other shows in their genre.  I don't blame them for it, and I don't want them to sensor themselves for me.  I don't see much point in the commentary if they are censoring themselves.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Oct 2, 2005)

My favorite BSG commentary by far is when Ron Moore explains why the corners are cut off of everything.  It's so rediculously stupid that I seriously can't watch the show without noticing it now.  I think it was the season two eppy with Lucy Lawless as the reporter... he explains why they cropped the video like they did.

Honestly, as far as curves go, I think BSG is ahead of Farscape as far as quality goes.  Keeping in mind Farscape had a full first season (22 eps IIRC) versus BSG's thirteen episode first season... well, the quality on BSG really is better than Farscape at the equivalent point.  Farscape was great, but BSG is better.


----------



## edemaitre (Oct 2, 2005)

*Farscape and the new Battlestar Galactica*

Yes, both "Farscape" and the newer "Battlestar Galactica" are well-produced space operas and have loyal fan bases. While I'm probably in the minority in preferring the sense of wonder and aliens of "Farscape," I think both are relatively heavy on continuity and have had a darkening tone, reflecting current trends in television in general.

Many genre entertainment fans have recently complained about the lack of continuity in the idealistic "Star Trek: the Next Generation," but let us remember that it was one of a few shows that helped lead to a rebirth of sci-fi TV in the past decade or two, from the dueling "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" and "Babylon 5," through "The X-Files" and "Buffy: the Vampire Slayer," and now with the long-running "Stargates" and the revisionist "Galactica." If only fantasy would catch up with science fiction, as it has in the movies!

I like shows such as "Doctor Who," "Highlander: the Series," "Farscape" and "Stargate" not because they're "continuity-lite" but because of their sympathetic characters, heroic plots, grand settings, and occasional social allegory. Isn't that what drew most of us to genre shows and role-playing? IMHO, Ron Moore's "Galactica" has been rather heavy-handed in plot (the trope of robots rebelling and destroying most of humanity in a theological debate), makes most of its female characters sex objects or martyrs, and overstates its claims of originality. But I'm still enjoying it and am curious about where it will lead. I think balancing long-term stories (currently exemplified by "Lost") and more accessible one-shot weekly episodes (say, "Smallville") is a challenge that any producer or Game Master can appreciate.

I don't think I'm alone in being disappointed in the premature cancellations of many genre shows or in the SciFi Channel's decision to run schlock horror or reruns of only a few selected shows rather than "classic" speculative fiction or original programming outside of its Sci-Friday block. Ideally, television should entertain and enlighten all of us, reflecting our varied preferences... It's too bad that many licensed D20 games haven't gotten ongoing support, but my bookshelves are crowded enough already...


----------



## noretoc (Oct 2, 2005)

I like BSG, but It isn't as original as everyone is saying.  It seems to be a cross between the old series and Space: Above and Beyond.  It is higher quality then SAB, but the whole space marine thing is there and the reality tone.  It is probably what SAB could have been, genre wise.

As for Farscape, I loved it in the beginning, but the last season was horrible in my opinion,  They got too caught up in thier own plot.  It is like a D&D adventure where the group goes from quest to quest, to saving the world.  It can be great, but after 12 sessions of it, it get a little blah...  I think if they had stuck to thier earlier format, where the shows were fun to watch and didn't leave you with the whole "How are they gonna fix the whole wormhole stuff" if would have leasted longer.  The classic episodes to me are when something is introduced and it is resolved in a couple of episodes.  Then they go back to being the group you love.  That is one of the things I like about firefly.  Things from earlier episodes come back and haunt them, but they still go about there business.  Toward the end, Farscapes business was all wrapped up in one thing, and it lacked the variety and fun it had in the beginning.


----------



## reveal (Oct 2, 2005)

noretoc said:
			
		

> As for Farscape, I loved it in the beginning, but the last season was horrible in my opinion,  They got too caught up in thier own plot.  It is like a D&D adventure where the group goes from quest to quest, to saving the world.  It can be great, but after 12 sessions of it, it get a little blah...  I think if they had stuck to thier earlier format, where the shows were fun to watch and didn't leave you with the whole "How are they gonna fix the whole wormhole stuff" if would have leasted longer.  The classic episodes to me are when something is introduced and it is resolved in a couple of episodes.  Then they go back to being the group you love.  That is one of the things I like about firefly.  Things from earlier episodes come back and haunt them, but they still go about there business.  Toward the end, Farscapes business was all wrapped up in one thing, and it lacked the variety and fun it had in the beginning.




I think they knew they would be cancelled at the beginning of the season. Because of that, they had to take one season to wrap up a major story arc instead of doing it slowly throughout multiple seasons.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 2, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Both of those shows mixed in a large percentage of standalone episodes, and even continuity elements in the episodes were almost always in digestable pieces. X-Files also wasn't _meant_ to be totally understandable, much like Lost.




I'll go a step further, and say that XFiles didn't really have much of that core continuity, more like the illusion of it. If you watched a season of XFiles, very little of the "core background" was expanded really. Fans got to debate about the appearance of this guy, or that guy, but overall there weren't any explanations or any new knowledge of importance. It was a very enjoyable show, and the appearance of the background plot was good, but it wasn't really that intensive.

I watched two episodes of the new BSG, found it bland, badly acted, way too melodramatic and kind of cheesy. Opinions vary, obviously, but any military issuing the FN 57 deserves to be wiped out by Hot Robot Chicks.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 2, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Opinions vary, obviously, but any military issuing the FN 57 deserves to be wiped out by Hot Robot Chicks.



  I think that's still better than issuing some decorated flash lights or plastic pieces (though in BSG a flash light can be a potent weapon  )


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 2, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I think they knew they would be cancelled at the beginning of the season. Because of that, they had to take one season to wrap up a major story arc instead of doing it slowly throughout multiple seasons.



 I can say with all confidence that the producers didn't know at the beginning of season 4 about the cancellation.  I had a chance to meet David Kemper and he didn't seem like a liar about such things (why would he?).  They found out halfway through the season and were blindsided as everyone was under contract for a 5th (and supposedly final) season.  They wrote it and produced it like they had a 5th season to wrap things up.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 2, 2005)

noretoc said:
			
		

> I like BSG, but It isn't as original as everyone is saying.  It seems to be a cross between the old series and Space: Above and Beyond.  It is higher quality then SAB, but the whole space marine thing is there and the reality tone.  It is probably what SAB could have been, genre wise.
> 
> As for Farscape, I loved it in the beginning, but the last season was horrible in my opinion,  They got too caught up in thier own plot.  It is like a D&D adventure where the group goes from quest to quest, to saving the world.  It can be great, but after 12 sessions of it, it get a little blah...  I think if they had stuck to thier earlier format, where the shows were fun to watch and didn't leave you with the whole "How are they gonna fix the whole wormhole stuff" if would have leasted longer.  The classic episodes to me are when something is introduced and it is resolved in a couple of episodes.  Then they go back to being the group you love.  That is one of the things I like about firefly.  Things from earlier episodes come back and haunt them, but they still go about there business.  Toward the end, Farscapes business was all wrapped up in one thing, and it lacked the variety and fun it had in the beginning.



There was some stuff in the 4th season that wasn't great but everything after the mid-season break was back to business as usual for quality.  That's when the formula you described above returned (multiple 3-ep arcs).


----------



## reveal (Oct 2, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I can say with all confidence that the producers didn't know at the beginning of season 4 about the cancellation.  I had a chance to meet David Kemper and he didn't seem like a liar about such things (why would he?).  They found out halfway through the season and were blindsided as everyone was under contract for a 5th (and supposedly final) season.  They wrote it and produced it like they had a 5th season to wrap things up.




Then I, too, was disappointed by the last season. It just wasn't as "fun" as the other seasons. It seemed to get wrapped up in its own mythology and I always just figured they were trying to finish things more quickly than anticipated.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 2, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I think they knew they would be cancelled at the beginning of the season. Because of that, they had to take one season to wrap up a major story arc instead of doing it slowly throughout multiple seasons.



They say they didn't know. They seem to have been taken back by it, they expected one last 
season. By all accounts, the 5th season was supposed to be the last and the 4th season was
mostly about setting things up for the final kabloohy, where everything would be resolved.

The Peacekeeper Wars was just all the most important bits of that final season compressed 
into 2 1/2 hours.

But yeah, the 4th season was kinda slow around the middle.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 2, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Then I, too, was disappointed by the last season. It just wasn't as "fun" as the other seasons. It seemed to get wrapped up in its own mythology and I always just figured they were trying to finish things more quickly than anticipated.



 I agree, but just about the first half of S4.  It seemed like it took forever to get things going.  Also, S3 was such a fantastic season it's hard to duplicate that success.  For my money, I'll put S3 of Farscape on the same shelf as S4 of B5, S2/3 of Buffy, S4 of Angel, S5/6/7 of DS9 and S1/2 of Alias.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 2, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> They say they didn't know. They seem to have been taken back by it, they expected one last
> season. By all accounts, the 5th season was supposed to be the last and the 4th season was
> mostly about setting things up for the final kabloohy, where everything would be resolved.
> 
> ...



Yeah, there was supposed to basically be a race around the galaxy, maybe a bit more with Earth and The Ancients.  It certainly started looking like that once things got rolling.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Oct 2, 2005)

The Amazing Race: Farscape.


----------



## wingsandsword (Oct 3, 2005)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> That isn't a bad observation. I would think the rise of DVD sets as well, as I know a few people who bought the whole Lost set just so they could get up to speed before S1 E1 (for example). I think that is going to become the rule rather then the exception.



I know several people who got interested in BSG after it premiered, but didn't want to start watching it until they could see the S1 DVD's and be up to speed on the entire show.



			
				noretoc said:
			
		

> I like BSG, but It isn't as original as everyone is saying.  It seems to be a cross between the old series and Space: Above and Beyond.  It is higher quality then SAB, but the whole space marine thing is there and the reality tone.  It is probably what SAB could have been, genre wise.



Actually, Space: Above and Beyond was intentionally an updated Battlestar Galactica clone.  In the mid 90's FOX was considering remaking BSG (one of the failed comeback attempts), but the network didn't think it was worth it to buy the rights and instead wanted their own space opera series.  New Galactica really just reflects the era it was in, you wouldn't see realistic Sci-Fi with a hard military look in the late 70's from anything made in the US, while the New Age Disco Pseudo-Greek motif of old Galactica wouldn't be made by any show today.


----------



## Dagger75 (Oct 3, 2005)

I watched the first season for Farscape religiously.  It was cool.  Missed a lot of the third season.  Then I remeber Sci Fi ran all the episodes in order for the season premier.  It just got to wierd for me, forgive me but I was like WTF is this a lot and stopped watching.

Angel on the other hand I only saw like 3 episodes then season 5 started.  I watched them all, I may not have understood everything or who everbody was but I was able to keep up and was entertained.  Farscape unfortuantly didn't have this quality.


----------



## frandelgearslip (Oct 3, 2005)

I would have to agree with the comments that farscape wasn't easy to watch coming into the middle of it.  I watched episodes here and there, but they just were not that interesting or understandable for somebody who hasn't watched every single episode.  I watched it when I did for the same reason I watched firefly it could be really funny at times.  (The only difference is that farscape was great sci-fi if one watched every single episode, firefly wasn't).

As for battlestar gallactica this originality complaints are ridiculous.  Farscape was original, but its one of the few science fiction series that I can think of that was, star wars wasn't, star trek wasn't, DS9 sure in the hell wasn't, firefly wasn't, x files wan't...  I mean there are very few totally original shows out there.   

On continuity I would say the difference between farscape and BSG is that BSG rewards you for watching every episode while farscape punished you for skipping episodes.  In BSG S2  E2 a viewer doesn't need to know that random away team casualty (to use star trek terms) Socinus who dies, covered for Tyrol in a previous episode and was stripped of rank and thrown in the brig for it.  But it makes things more enjoyable and meaningful especially in later episodes when Tyrol finds out Sharon was a cylon.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Oct 3, 2005)

frandelgearslip said:
			
		

> As for battlestar gallactica this originality complaints are ridiculous.  Farscape was original, but its one of the few science fiction series that I can think of that was, star wars wasn't, star trek wasn't, DS9 sure in the hell wasn't, firefly wasn't, x files wan't...  I mean there are very few totally original shows out there.



Farscape was orriginal? I mean, it was nice and all but "Virile earth man from aproximately now is throw into futuristic space setting with hot alien babes and becomes hero..."   All the classic space opera elements were nicely put together, but I find it hard to believe that you consider it more orriginal than the others on your list.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Oct 3, 2005)

Originality doesn't really ring true for me as a commentary on stories.  Every story has been told before.

Battlestar Galactica:  Machines turn on their creators.  Antagonists engage the protagonists in a long chase.  Conflict in the military vs. civilian mindset.  Post-apocalypse survival of the race.  Rooting out the hidden agents of the enemy.  Hotshot fighter pilots versus the enemy horde.

Farscape:  Journey of odd companions.  Quest for redemption.  Lost man searching for a way home.  Reckless pursuit of a doomsday weapon.  Romance between a seemingly incompatible couple from different worlds.  Advanced biotechnology with a living ship.

Good sci-fi IS rare, but so is good television in general.  Attention to plot and character and respect for the genre is a hard combination to keep going.  Those qualities matter more than any perceived originality, which is highly subjective.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Oct 3, 2005)

Little is original. All tales have been told and there are no new sins. Battlestar is a kind of redux of Aeneid, in much the same way Watership Down is also a kind of redux of the same story. Farscape is a kind of redux of Buck Rodger, itself a kind of redux of the Odyssey. In any event, BSG v 2.0 is increasingly hard to get into.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Farscape was orriginal? I mean, it was nice and all but "Virile earth man from aproximately now is throw into futuristic space setting with hot alien babes and becomes hero..."   All the classic space opera elements were nicely put together, but I find it hard to believe that you consider it more orriginal than the others on your list.




Well, I'd hardly call John the "virile earth man". Just about every alien in _Farscape_ is stronger, faster, and generally better than he is at most things. And most of them have a lot more sex than he does. If anyone on Moya's crew is "virile", it would be D'Argo.

One of the original elements of _Farscape_ was that Crichton wasn't very good at much, and certainly not as good at a lot of things as the rest of the crew. Aeryn was a better pilot, and a better "action hero". D'Argo was stronger, and tougher. Rigel was craftier. And so on. About the only thing John had going for him most of the time was that he wasn't burdened by the prejudices and preconceptions his crewmates carried around.

As for plot originality - there's really only four dramatic plots: (1) man against man, (2) man against nature, (3) man against god, and (4) man against himself.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Oct 5, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> About the only thing John had going for him most of the time was that he wasn't burdened by the prejudices and preconceptions his crewmates carried around.




John was always "the brains" - he was the only scientist-like person they had, and they establish that pretty quickly.  Sure, there's Pilot, but since he can't really leave the ship and is more concerned with Moya than abstracts, he counts a lot less.

Also, he's by far the most creative of the bunch, everyone else is sort of mired in their role.  Chiana and Rygel will always "Rogue" their way out of situations, Aeryn and D'Argo will always fight, Zhaan always picks the zen path.  Only John has the creativity to be flexible, and it's that quality that lets them stay on the run for so long.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 6, 2005)

Don't you know nothing is truly original anymore...

Someone mentioned that BSG uses its female characters as sex objects...  But so does Farscape as well, I'm especially thinking of that episode with Chiana and Jool and that club-owner/drug-lord who ends up using them to make more drugs, about every episode Chiana and the rest of the crew went crazy, not to mention a bunch of other things involving all of the younger non-sebaccean female characters (and maybe a bit with Aeryn).  

I'm not favouring one series over the other as I happen to like both of them, but a lot of the things that fans of one series accuse the other series of doing, also happen in their respective series as well.

I don't know if it's been mentioned on this thread, but the new BSG does owe a lot of its asthetic to Firefly.  I even remember Ron Moore mentioning that about the mixture of old retro tech with newer tech.  In fact you can even see the Serenity in the background of the Miniseries in the scene on Caprica where Roslyn gets diagnosed for breast cancer....


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 6, 2005)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Don't you know nothing is truly original anymore...
> 
> Someone mentioned that BSG uses its female characters as sex objects...  But so does Farscape as well, I'm especially thinking of that episode with Chiana and Jool and that club-owner/drug-lord who ends up using them to make more drugs, about every episode Chiana and the rest of the crew went crazy, not to mention a bunch of other things involving all of the younger non-sebaccean female characters (and maybe a bit with Aeryn).
> 
> ...



It certainly helps that Battlestar Galactica and Firefly both use "Zoic" for their visual effect shots.

About Originality:
The plot lines probably aren't that original, since there are only a few basic plotlines. 
But both shows (all 3 if we add Firefly) have their own, unique appearence. Sure there might be other series that have done the dirty, documentary style look - but none of them were Sci-Fi shows. Though this unique appearence is probably natural for most shows...


----------



## Staffan (Oct 6, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> John was always "the brains" - he was the only scientist-like person they had, and they establish that pretty quickly.  Sure, there's Pilot, but since he can't really leave the ship and is more concerned with Moya than abstracts, he counts a lot less.



Zhaan also has a scientist vibe, though more focused on medicine/biology.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 6, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> John was always "the brains" - he was the only scientist-like person they had, and they establish that pretty quickly.  Sure, there's Pilot, but since he can't really leave the ship and is more concerned with Moya than abstracts, he counts a lot less.




He's only the brains because he can think outside the roles assigned to the other character's by their respective cultures, a point made numerous times (mostly with Aeryn). In point of fact, although John is "the brains", he is clearly shown to be in over his head with a lot of technical issues.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 6, 2005)

John is clever, but he's not that smart.


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 6, 2005)

IMHO, Farscape was very non-casual viewer friendly, in a way that BSG and some other shows were not.  I watched the first season and liked it.  I missed a few episodes in the second season and was occasionally confused at some character changes.  However, due to schedule restrictions (this was pre-Tivo), I ended up missing plenty of episodes.  Every time I tried to come back, I felt more and more lost.  Who's THAT guy?  Why is she kissing him?  When did HE join the crew?  When did HE leave the crew?  Why are they attacking?  HUH?  BSG is usually self-contained, has a good meta-plot intro every episode and reminds you periodically of the critical information.  That's neither good nor bad...but it makes it much easier to get into the show.

As for originality?  Farscape had some very original takes on the classic plots (the bodyswitch episode, the time-loop episode, "_I'm not trying to fool you...I'm trying to drive you crazy!_"), made all the more interesting as shows like Voyager stuck to the old canards.

BSG, by the same token, has original takes on much of the matieral and how it approaches it.  The religious aspects of the show are very much unexplored territory for TV SF, as are many of the deeper philosophical topics.  It's been done before in different places and different ways, but not so successfully and with such a deft hand.  B5 is one of the few other shows to tackle relgion so competently in an SF context, IMHO.


----------



## frandelgearslip (Oct 6, 2005)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Farscape was orriginal? I mean, it was nice and all but "Virile earth man from aproximately now is throw into futuristic space setting with hot alien babes and becomes hero..."   All the classic space opera elements were nicely put together, but I find it hard to believe that you consider it more orriginal than the others on your list.




The look of farscape was original.  There are many times when I watched that show and wondered how much LSD the writers had smoked (one episode where crichton is stuck in a VR game comes to mind).  Overall it was the look of the show that was unique.

Star Wars owes a lot to old pulp science fiction, not to mention the fact that a lot of the original movie was borrowed from _Hidden Fortress_ .  DS9 should have just started calling themselves DS5.  Firefly's individual episodes where very cliched.  I groaned aloud when I saw the end of what would have been its season finale on DVD.

In the end originality is not as important as some people seem to think.  Battlestar Gallactica is one of my favorite shows and star wars one of my favorite movies.  Original crap is still crap


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 6, 2005)

I think that one of the main issues many people had with _Farscape_ is that Crichton isn't a classic science fiction hero. He's a scientist, but his technical knowledge is severely limited by the fact that he comes from a backward planet. He's not the best fighter in the bunch (probably Aeryn), or the toughest (probably D'Argo). He's not the most compassionate (Zhaan). He's not even the craziest (Chiana) or the most crafty (Rigel). He's not really the best at _anything_. Even his technical capabilities are shown to be lacking compared to other characters on several occassions.

Compare Crichton to, for example, the characters on SG-1. O'Neill is the hero, but he's clueless about a lot of technical issues. Tielk is the fish out of water, Carter is the scientist, and Jackson is the guy with the unconventional ideas about how to deal with problems. Crichton is, in many ways, an inversion of the O'Neil archetype - _Farscape_ essentially takes someone like Carter and makes them the main character in the show. On almost any previous science fiction show (or really, any action oriented show), Crichton would have been a supporting character.


----------



## edemaitre (Oct 7, 2005)

*"Farscape" and the new "Battlestar Galactica"*

I agree that John Crighton on "Farscape" was an interesting amalgam of the brave, displaced Earthman dating back to John Carter of Mars and Flash Gordon with the mad scientist or plucky underdog. The SciFi Channel's revisionist "Battlestar Galactica" mines different archetypes, including postapocalyptic dystopias and a navy ruled by "rum, sodomy, and the lash"... Both harken back to Homer's Odyssey and Iliad.

Sure, many of the female characters in speculative fiction have been sexualized, but there's a difference between Aeryn Sun/Vala's control (or Claudia Black's characters' lack thereof in "Farscape" and "Stargate SG1") versus the chronic seduction/rape of and by various Cylons in the newer "Galactica." Sure, the 'verse is often an ugly place, and balancing fantasies of victimization or empowerment can be tricky, but I've felt that the characterization of women in "BSG" often lacks the range given its male characters. The possible exception is "Kara 'Starbuck' Thrace," who constantly struggles to put her messy past (not unlike most of her crewmates) behind her.

Yeah, I've also noticed how the effects, cinematography, and soundtrack of "Galactica" are very similar to that of "Firefly/Serenity." At least space opera hasn't completely gone into hibernation, despite the demise of the "Star Trek" franchise and the networks' preference for reality shows and "X-Files/Lost" clones...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 7, 2005)

edemaitre said:
			
		

> Sure, many of the female characters in speculative fiction have been sexualized, but there's a difference between Aeryn Sun/Vala's control (or Claudia Black's characters' lack thereof in "Farscape" and "Stargate SG1") versus the chronic seduction/rape of and by various Cylons in the newer "Galactica."



You're completely forgetting about Scorpio's mother (a scene they actually show) who got raped by a Scarran and then died giving birth, and then there's Chiana.  Chiana almost was raped by Chrichton when he went crazy, the various threats she got, and then there's her actually getting raped between season 3 and 4, by certain authorities because they found out she was a 'cheat' during the ill-fated 'road-trip' she and Rygel had.  That's something major you forgot about when criticizing Galactica, because it already happened in Farscape.  As well Jool and Sikozu also were quite sexualized as characters through out the entire series.

There's been nothing about Laura Roslyn that's been sexualized, or Admiral Cain.

Thus going back to my statement about whatever one series is being accused of, the other series is guilty of.


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 7, 2005)

edemaitre said:
			
		

> characters' lack thereof in "Farscape" and "Stargate SG1") versus the chronic seduction/rape of and by various Cylons in the newer "Galactica." Sure, the 'verse is often an ugly place, and balancing fantasies of victimization or empowerment can be tricky, but I've felt that the characterization of women in "BSG" often lacks the range given its male characters. The possible exception is "Kara 'Starbuck' Thrace," who constantly struggles to put her messy past (not unlike most of her crewmates) behind her.




I'm going to have to disagree with you, there.  You feel that Roslin, Boomer and Duala lack range?  Even Kaylee and Six have some degree of depth....and while Six's sexualization originally seemed to be a warning bell of the series lack of quality to me, I actually gave the series a chance and discovered her character(s) to much more complex than just a sex object, IMHO.  I mean, Roslin and Adama are the linch-pins of the series...and the only person to upset that balance has been Admiral Cain.  Now Cain's characterization has been pretty shallow...but that's more because she's a plot element to affect the regular cast, not a true regular character.  She's no different than Lucy Lawless' character of a few episodes ago or the doctor on Caprica...her presence is only important in how the cast regulars react to her.

If you refering to events like the baby-factories on Caprica and the gross mistreatment of the anthroforms by the Pegasus crew...those are atrocities, and are meant to elicit a very negative response.  Unfortunately, as conflicts across the world show us, things like rape and torture occur in wartime.  What defines a character is his reaction to it; Helo and Tyrol put aside their differences to save Boomer from one of war's horrors.  Cain seems to be very reminscent, to me, of the kind of mindset that was shown in such horrible conflicts and the bosnian-serbian conflict.  Once you reduce the humaniod cylons to being inhuman, anything is allowable.  But that's really another discussion entirely.

I view the female characters as very competent and well-developed on the show.  All of the characters have their warts, male OR female.  Is Colonel Tigh any more or less a complex character than Boomer, for example?  For my money, they are equals.  Obviously, YMMV and does.


----------



## ecliptic (Oct 8, 2005)

The scifi shows that I like and dislike.

Like/Love
Battlestar Galactica
Firefly
Invasion
Threshold
Surface
Star Trek Next Generation
Star Trek Deep Space Nine
Earth 2

Dislike/Hate
Stargate SG1
Stargate Alantis
Farscape
Buffy
Angel
Babylon 5
Original Star Trek
Star Trek Voyager
SeaQuest


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Oct 8, 2005)

ARGH.  PLEASE use SPOILERS tags.  Now I feel like I can't read the thread I started anymore.  (Still in season 1).


----------



## Tuzenbach (Oct 8, 2005)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> My problem with Stargate is that after having not seen it for several years, I watched one new episode and it felt like the same old stuff.
> 
> There's nothing new under the sun, but BG has at least come up with a good mix of the old.  And atypically for most sci-fi shows, they've avoided the 'new planet every week with a new mysterious race'.



 True. However, I'll say this in Stargate's defense vs. BSGalactica: I'm not sure why this is, but Stargate's re-runs are 100% more watchable than Galactica's. 

You know how the Sc-Fi channel has these things run twice or thrice on Friday nights? For whatever the reason, (if I'm really REALLY bored!) I have no problem watching the same episode of Stargate twice in the same night. However, I CAN'T watch a repeat of Galactica. It's as if Galactica's far more compelling upon first viewing (compared to SG), but SG holds up better upon repeated viewing. Is it the "soap-opera" nature of Galactica that erodes its endurance? I'm not sure.

Am I alone in this?

Oh yeah.... Though an "unwatched" episode of Galactica holds more value for me than an unwatched episode of Stargate, a "watched" episode of Galactica holds ZERO value for me at all. 

Guess which of the two series I'll end up owning on DVD (having not missed any episodes of Galactica)?


----------



## Tuzenbach (Oct 8, 2005)

ecliptic said:
			
		

> The scifi shows that I like and dislike.
> 
> Like/Love
> Battlestar Galactica
> ...



 Without Doctor Who in either of your lists, your lists don't actually exist. You know that, right?


----------



## Viking Bastard (Oct 8, 2005)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Am I alone in this?



I agree. It's like Clockwork Orange and Independance Day. I love Clockwork Orange, it may
very well be my favouite movie, but I've watched ID4 10 times more often. Heck, I don't 
even own the Clockwork Orange DVD.


----------



## edemaitre (Oct 8, 2005)

*"BSG" vs. "Farscape"*

Without giving away any "spoilers" for those who are still catching up on the SciFi Channel's revisionist "Battlestar Galactica," there's a difference between the traumatic experiences occasionally shown on "Farscape" and the constant draping of seminude "Number Six" over Gaius Baltar in "Galactica." In fact, my least favorite episodes and seasons of "Farscape" were when the series got too dark late in season three, when Chianna and Jool were busting out all over. Sure, Roslin and Starbuck in "BSG" aren't sexualized, but they are martyrs.

I agree with the poster who noted that although both are steeped in backstory, "Stargate SG1's" reruns are more watchable than those of almost any other recent space opera. As another poster's lists clearly show, much of our likes and dislikes are personal preferences, so we can't expect to agree on all of them. For the record, of the shows you mentioned, here are my favorites and least favorites:

Like:

Babylon 5 (esp. later seasons; not to mention Blake's Seven)
Battlestar Galactica (primarily the 1970s version)
Buffy: the Vampire Slayer and Angel
Doctor Who (old and new)
Farscape
Firefly/Serenity
Smallville
Space: Above and Beyond
Star Trek: the original series, the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine (and even-numbered movies)
Stargate SG1

Dislike

Battlestar Galactica (only the supposedly original premise and some heavy-handed characterizations and plots, IMHO)
Earth 2
Invasion
Threshold
SeaQuest DSV
Sliders
Surface
Stargate: Atlantis (except for certain characters)
Star Trek: Voyager, Enterprise (except for final season)
X-Files (only the later seasons)

As you can see, there are arc-driven shows on both of my lists. I have a slight preference for the heroic over conspiracy/horror themes, but there are notable exceptions. Before this thread gets too negative or argumentative, perhaps we should consider what we do like about these various genre television programs (and how relevant they are to D&D3.5/D20/OGL games)...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 9, 2005)

Season 3 was the best season of Farscape, it gave Crais some depth, expanded on Aeryn's backstory, and did something original with the whole 'twinning' concept that happens in sci-fi from series to series.


----------



## frandelgearslip (Oct 9, 2005)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> Without Doctor Who in either of your lists, your lists don't actually exist. You know that, right?




Believe it or not there are a LOT of Americans have never seen an episode of Dr. Who.  I am 24 years old and to the best of my knowledge a Dr. Who show has not been shown in America during my television watching days outside of maybe BBCAmerica.  Dr Who is not the end all be all in America.



			
				DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> ARGH.  PLEASE use SPOILERS tags.  Now I feel like I can't read the thread I started anymore.  (Still in season 1).




I think there should be an expiration date for spoiler tags after a certain point. if somebody is talking about a show you should expect the responses to include up to the date information.

For example you remember in star wars when 



Spoiler



Darth Vader turned out to be Luke's father


 I have actually had somebody request spoiler tags over subject matter a good 5 years old.

And since were doing lists now 
Like/Love (in no particular order)
Buffy
Angel
Battlestar Gallactica (New Version)
DS9
Babylon 5
Farscape
X-Files

Dislike/Hate
Battlestar Gallactica (Original)
any non DS9 Star Trek
Anything Stargate
Firefly
Sliders
Seaquest
Smallville
Battlestar Gallactica (Original) Yeah I already named it but I hate it enough to name it twice.  I have always envisioned fans of it as the comic book guy from the simpsons (who is a HUGE fan of battlestar Gallactica).


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Oct 10, 2005)

frandelgearslip said:
			
		

> I think there should be an expiration date for spoiler tags after a certain point. if somebody is talking about a show you should expect the responses to include up to the date information.




Perhaps, but when the person who starts the thread explicitly asks in the first post that there not be spoilers, and when the shows in questions are less than a year old, then I would expect people to see that as a reasonable request or not post to that thread.

BTW, I have never seen an episode of Dr. Who, and I grew up in America.  What little snippets I have seen look slightly cheesey.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 10, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but when the person who starts the thread explicitly asks in the first post that there not be spoilers, and when the shows in questions are less than a year old, then I would expect people to see that as a reasonable request or not post to that thread.
> 
> BTW, I have never seen an episode of Dr. Who, and I grew up in America.  What little snippets I have seen look slightly cheesey.



Once its pretty common knowledge I dont think its spoilers anymore. We're in the middle of season 2 which means that the only thing spoiler would be if you got a headsup on next season.  I"m sure that he means future episodes are at the very least the last episode.  

If I start a 24 thread and ask for no spoilers I"m not going to get upset because someone starts talking about things from season 2.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 10, 2005)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> True. However, I'll say this in Stargate's defense vs. BSGalactica: I'm not sure why this is, but Stargate's re-runs are 100% more watchable than Galactica's.
> 
> You know how the Sc-Fi channel has these things run twice or thrice on Friday nights? For whatever the reason, (if I'm really REALLY bored!) I have no problem watching the same episode of Stargate twice in the same night. However, I CAN'T watch a repeat of Galactica. It's as if Galactica's far more compelling upon first viewing (compared to SG), but SG holds up better upon repeated viewing. Is it the "soap-opera" nature of Galactica that erodes its endurance? I'm not sure.
> 
> ...



I enjoyed rewatching Galactica immensely, and I never watch reruns of Atlants or Stargate episodes, so I guess it can work both ways.  (Wonder if anyone hates or loves rewatching in general  )

(And I liked rewatching Farscape episodes, at least many of them)


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 10, 2005)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> I
> Still love Farscape. But dude, it's too rich for TV.




Eh, this is why I don't watch much TV anymore. I'm tired of "dumbed down" entertainment. I loved the complexity and continuity of Farscape. I wish more shows were like that. 

As for BSG, I find it to be painfully boring. I've tried watching it several times, and I even watched one of the mini-marathons on Sci-Fi...and I found each episode to basically be the same thing. The camera work in that show is awful too. Blecch. 

(puts on flame-retardant suit...)


----------



## Orius (Oct 10, 2005)

I'm just getting into Farscape now, the local WB is airing syndicated reruns of the show on late Sunday nights now.  It's not too bad.  I wasn't overly impressed by the first episode, everything was jumbled in there pretty chaotically (I think maybe it was meant to reflect John Crichton's confusion*), and it seemed like they tried to stuff way too much into a single hour of television.  The episode that was on last night had some better pacing to it.

However afterwards, the same channel has syndicated episodes of Stargate Atlantis ( a season behind, like Stargate SG-1), and IMO, that show is far better at least at this point.  I'm certainly enjoying it.


*The character, not the poster of course.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Oct 10, 2005)

*Sigh*  I'm a total 'Scaper, 'Gater, Trekker, and everything else (well, except Babylon 5... never could sit through an episode of that without falling asleep).  And I do have to say, Farscape's far-reaching continuity and intelligent plotting was the very reason I fell in love with the show.  Oh, sure, at first it was the original settings, whacky aliens, and all the goofy humor, when I first started trying to watch it on TV some time around late season 2/early season 3... but it didn't really _hook_ me until I was able to watch it all straight through at one time (first by downloading all the eps off the 'net, and then later buying the DVDs).

But I've loved Stargate too, ever since the movie first came out, and do you know why?  Not because of anything about the writing or the acting in particular, but because of the nostalgia factor: "Ancient Egyptian aliens?  Boy, this reminds me of that old series, Battlestar Galactica!"  Yup, the 70s version.  And naturally, I love the new BSG, too, since it's about 99% more intelligent than that older, campier series -- I agree with the sentiment that it's the best show on TV right now (though no way it's better than Farscape).

As for Farscape's 4th season, I do agree that taken as a whole it wasn't the best, but there are plenty of gems in there... the loony-tunes episode (Revenging Angel), the one where they go into a VR game (John Quixote), and man-oh-man, the arc that spanned those last four episodes (We're So Screwed & Bad Timing) made the whole season worth it.

Heh... I'm such a fanboy.  I'm probably the only person to ever write a crossover fanfiction that combines Farscape, SG-1, BSG, and Alternity...    How nerdy is _that_?


----------



## Gronin (Oct 10, 2005)

I would think the comment is a bit uncharitable but I came to Farscape late and kind of immersed myself in it and watched all 4 seasons in the space of 2 months.  Left very little chance of forgetting previous episodes.

As far as BG is concerned (which I am also a fan of), if they think someone can just jump into the middle of that storyline they are sniffin' glue.  There are enough different story lines going on that you really have to watch most of the episodes to know what is going on.


----------



## Chaldfont (Oct 10, 2005)

Another vote for Farscape. I mean, the whole reason it was cool was because it had strong continuity. The whole reason you cared about the characters was because you had seen them go through so much.

Strong continuity might have had some impact on its ratings, but I think Farscape suffered far more from lack of marketing, changing time slots and freaky seasons.

There should be more shows like Farscape.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 11, 2005)

ecliptic said:
			
		

> The scifi shows that I like and dislike.
> 
> Like/Love
> Battlestar Galactica
> ...




What was that intended to accomplish, other than to reveal that you have very questionable tastes in televised science fiction?


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 11, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> *The character, not the poster of course.



Actually, both apply.


----------



## WizarDru (Oct 11, 2005)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> As for BSG, I find it to be painfully boring. I've tried watching it several times, and I even watched one of the mini-marathons on Sci-Fi...and I found each episode to basically be the same thing. The camera work in that show is awful too. Blecch.
> 
> (puts on flame-retardant suit...)




What, you're not allowed to dislike a particular show others like?  The new BSG isn't to the tastes of some folks...nothing wrong with that.  I don't like pickles, but I do like brussel sprouts.  BSG is not without its flaws, no show is.  I can't really understand, for example, why so many folks hold Space:Above and Beyond in such high regard...but then I know many folks who think Dr. Who is the worst kind of drek, while I love it unreservedly.

Different strokes, man.  Just remember, it's not a zero-sum equation.  We can have both shows, and that's great.  Ron Moore pointing out that the SciFi Channel executives viewed Farscape as a failure may be uncharitable on the execs part, but it's a factor that Moore had to deal with while making his show and it illuminates the design process for the series.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Oct 11, 2005)

Yeah, I'm not sure what it is, but I just can't get into the new series. I loved the old series, despite it's camp! 

I really liked Babylon 5, Star Trek TNG and DS9, Space: Above and Beyond, and Stargate. I haven't had the chance to watch Stargate: Atlantis so I can't really comment on it.


----------

