Battlestar Galactica: The Motion Picture

[palitoy]

See.... even THAT bugs me. It seems like a really tennuous connection thrown in as an attempt to pander to old fans. Or capitalize on the name. It's almost a non-sequitur.

Not really, it's an apt name and more believable than a guy named Starbuck. I always found that kind of cheese. Also, this is an interpretation of the series, it's not in continuity with the original. It could be worse, what if it was? It's easy for a fan of the classic to consider it doesn't count. Like I do with anything past Star Trek the animated series. Am I wrong for thinking that way? No, but I'm not going to even try to tell a fan what they like isn't valid. Plus it kept trek fandom alive, that's something.

That sort of thing bugs me too; when it's just thrown in. More pandering, this time to the 14 year old on all of us. That's why I hated the nekkid chick in Baltar's head: she's a caption with clevage. Having to TELL me what's going on is bad enough, but trying to disguise it with boobs is kind of insulting.

I don't agree that it's simply there to pander, the Six thing was never my favourite plot device either, mind you. People do have sex and they have messed up relationships, it's less far fetched than other shows.

Yeah, there is lots of drinking but there is lots of drinking in our own world and we didn't just have an armageddon.

[Werewolf]

My take on the new Starbuck is male writers generally don't know how to write for female characters. The writing for them usually falling into three stereotypes: victim, **** and butch. In my opinion, female characters can be complex/strong/heroic/independent without writing for them as they were men.

Maybe it's a lingering inherent sexism in Hollywood or just pandering to the male audience? I don't know.

[megoscott]

That's it. I'm changing my avatar.

[Werewolf]

That's it. I'm changing my avatar.

Um, okay?

Back to the show.

Besides calling it BSG, the big thing that turned me off of the show just as a stand alone series was its negative female stereotypes, from the outdated manipulative “****” stereotype in Baltar’s head to “butch” stereotype Starbuck.

It’s like they lacked the either the knowledge or skill or both to write convincing female characters. Still dwelling on the outdated stereotype of male equals strong and female equals weak so for a female character to be strong has to be written masculine-ized.

In a way it’s kind of like when white writers don’t know or lack the skill to write for ethnic characters so they write them as “white” or some kind of over top urban stereotype.

On a personal note, I honestly find it rather cringe worthy. The negative female stereotypes mixed with the over the top angst makes the show come off as just pandering way too hard to male audience. It doesn’t seem so much as a science fiction show to me, more like a soap opera for men.

[kryptosmaster]

a lot of it just equates to nerd rage .

That's FUNNY!
I've never heard that term before.
I'll have to remember that one!

Rich

[palitoy]

Um, okay?

Back to the show.

Besides calling it BSG, the big thing that turned me off of the show just as a stand alone series was its negative female stereotypes, from the outdated manipulative “****” stereotype in Baltar’s head to “butch” stereotype Starbuck.

It’s like they lacked the either the knowledge or skill or both to write convincing female characters. Still dwelling on the outdated stereotype of male equals strong and female equals weak so for a female character to be strong has to be written masculine-ized.

In a way it’s kind of like when white writers don’t know or lack the skill to write for ethnic characters so they write them as “white” or some kind of over top urban stereotype.

On a personal note, I honestly find it rather cringe worthy. The negative female stereotypes mixed with the over the top angst makes the show come off as just pandering way too hard to male audience. It doesn’t seem so much as a science fiction show to me, more like a soap opera for men.

First off, it's all on a personal note because that's all we're talking about here, preference.

I don't honestly understand what you're on about, the character of Starbuk is not this so called "butch" stereotype, that's far too broad a stroke to take and honestly I don't know how much you've based it on but it sounds like you didn't see a lot.

Characters like Rosalind and Kara are some of the best characterizations I've seen on television and probably why the new series has a strong female following.

I'm pretty easily disgusted when it comes to this sort of thing and I refuse to agree with this oversimplified assesment.

[Werewolf]

First off, it's all on a personal note because that's all we're talking about here, preference.

Agreed and I am also happy we can politely and respectfully discuss our differences of opinion on the subject.

Which also brings me to this:

Having to TELL me what's going on is bad enough, but trying to disguise it with boobs is kind of insulting.

I have to agree with this.

As I mentioned before, I personally find the manipulative “****” stereotype offensive. But I feel ctc also has a valid point about the character being insulting to men as well. It's like the creators of the show think the male audience would not pay attention to the plot or understand it if it wasn't spoon fed to them by a pair of breasts. The character can be seen as bit insulting to both women and men.

[ramsey37]

You're all nuts. everyone knows "Galactica 1980" was the best BSG ever!
George

[palitoy]

I just don't agree, the character seduced Baltar but he did the same to her. From a very passing glance sure, it looks that way but it goes far deeper then a simple "****" character. I don't even find it all that sultry to be honest.

I don't know a man or a woman (and I know a few woman fans) who is insulted by all these so called "****s" and "*****es" than people who are equally offended that the series is titled "Battlestar Galactica"

Usually, such displays of misogony came with a large outcry.

[david_b]

>I know Starbuck was his name on the original show but here it's just a nickname for a woman named Kara.

See.... even THAT bugs me. It seems like a really tennuous connection thrown in as an attempt to pander to old fans. Or capitalize on the name. It's almost a non-sequitur.

>Too much drinking and too much sex is alright by me, lol.

That sort of thing bugs me too; when it's just thrown in. More pandering, this time to the 14 year old on all of us. That's why I hated the nekkid chick in Baltar's head: she's a caption with clevage. Having to TELL me what's going on is bad enough, but trying to disguise it with boobs is kind of insulting.

Don C.

THANK YOU.. You've just reinforced my point about the sex stuff, when it's gratuituous, like in this show. It's along the lines of Voyager's '7of9' excess..

[david_b]

My take on the new Starbuck is male writers generally don't know how to write for female characters. The writing for them usually falling into three stereotypes: victim, **** and butch. In my opinion, female characters can be complex/strong/heroic/independent without writing for them as they were men.

Maybe it's a lingering inherent sexism in Hollywood or just pandering to the male audience? I don't know.

Excellent, excellent point..! Again, I thought 'Firefly' had some excellent female characterzations, without falling prey to your three options.

Again, in the classic show, look how Sheba or Cassiopea were developed...

[palitoy]

You're all nuts. everyone knows "Galactica 1980" was the best BSG ever!
George

I liked Buck Rogers better than all of them as a kid, in a way I still kind of do, it's like junk food for your brain.

[kennermike]

BSG

man just jumped on the computer .we all have our opinions which is a good thing. to each their own! the only thing I will take offense to is dissing Dirk Benedict I never individually talked bad about the new BSG actors they are just doing their job and saying whats written.I had the fortune of meeting Dirk in LA back in 2002 when I was living their he wished me luck and gave me advise in my acting career and for me that was a dream.and in response to Palitoy sir I am with you I also loved Buck Rogers

[ctc]

>It could be worse, what if it was?

I'm seein' Will Ferell in that viper helmet again....

>People do have sex and they have messed up relationships, it's less far fetched than other shows.

I gotta give you that one; but I don't think it's 'cos new Galactica is particularly well written; just less badly written as a lot of other shows. I find relationships; even in straight up dramas, are generally poorly done since they happen strictly for plot convenience. We can never really figure out WHY two characters are attracted to each other, except 'cos of proximity.

>It’s like they lacked the either the knowledge or skill or both to write convincing female characters.

I think the same problems afflict the MALE characters as well. They're all pretty stock.

>the character of Starbuk is not this so called "butch" stereotype,

See.... that's kind of what I was getting at. She's angry; like everyone else. I wouldn't call her butch, 'cos she's not really different enough from everyone else to fit a category. (Well, maybe she's angrier.... but that just made me think of the "tank" guy from "Space.")

>it looks that way but it goes far deeper then a simple "****" character.

I sort of agree here; but from the other direction. (That it goes LESS deeper....) She wasn't the "****" character so much as she was a plot device. They hired an attractive woman for the part as eye candy 'cos you're gonna be staring at her a LOT 'cos they have a lot of explaining to do.

>It's along the lines of Voyager's '7of9' excess..

Sort of, but I think in Voyager's defense (I can't believe I typed that....) 7of9 was really the only CHARACTER on that show. She was the only one who developed as the series went on, the only one that had any kind of goal, and the only one that had any tangible interests outside of the plot. So it's only natural that the audience would gravitate towards her.

....'course; keeping with an earlier point, they felt the need to include her in not one, but TWO bizarre love subplots that came out of nowhere.

Don C.

[UnderdogDJLSW]

I wonder if in 5 years we'll be talking about Star Trek in this way? (Roddenberry v. Abrams)

As Brian mentioned, both shows are a sign of their times. Back in '78 some of the cringe worthy stuff wasn't as "cringe-full" as we see it today. Other shows like Love Boat, Fantasy Island, etc. had the same feel. Look at today and you have 24, Lost, etc. All shaky camera cinema, angst, etc. 30 years from now who knows how we'll think of those shows?

To be honest, I would rather have the 78 shows style than today's style. But that can be said for almost everything I grew up with: music, toys, even some of the clothing!