lol, dude you totally beat me to the Agatha Christie point!
Did you know there's a new 'Murder on the Orient Express' coming out with David Suchet playing? Totally excited about that! Been waiting for it for years!

wow, I'm sorry you feel that way. I find Shakespeare still relevant (MacBeth for politics, Othello for politics and jealousy, Julius Caesar for politics, Romeo and Juliet for headstrong teenage rebellion and the giddy rush of first love, lots of the sonnets can break your heart -- just off the top of my head) and his language sparkles. What did you read, or what kind of teacher did you have, that the Bard came off so poorly to you? You've never seen a single film adaptation of Hamlet you enjoyed? Never watched a single stage performance of any of the plays you liked?

Ok yeah, there are some aspects that are ok. As you say, the love the R&J felt for each other, and the tragic nature of Macbeth.
Macbeth was one that we studied. I found it drawn out, and quite frankly, dull. The same with R&J (R&J? That sounds like a Deptment store...! lol). But my biggest bone is with 'A Midsummer Night's Dream'. I was looking forward to that. A comdey? That will brighten up English class (After essay's on euthanasia and the genocide of World War Two!).
But brighten up?
I have yet to find and humor in the whole thing! Because (I feel) it's no longer relevent to today.... The humor is no longer funny.
But my teacher certainly tried to sell him. She was a fantastic English teacher, though and utterly loved Shakespeare.
I just dislike that so much time is spent in schools studying it. I really think they should open up (Certainly in England) and look at other books/authors. Like I said, I think Agatha Christie is certainly under used. The women is a humor nature genius!

I'm not saying I pushed the reply button twice. There is however, a chance that it happened....

I love Agatha Christie almost as much as Conan Doyle; G. K. Chesterton also wrote some terrific mysteries (his detective was Father Brown). And the Bard is definitely worthy of his fame. I cherish my copy of Shakespeare's collected works -- a one-volume, leather-bound book printed over a hundred years ago. I'm the third in my family to own it.

I'm a bit of a Polyanna sometimes, I know. But I'm glad of that. I'd rather my standards be too low than too high -- people who take everything cynically rarely find something they can just enjoy.

Speaking of which, I meant to remark on this earlier...

What in the world is "sentiment sans emotion"? It reminds me of the Cynic's oft-repeated term in his VOY reviews: "name-dropping masquerading as continuity." That always ticked me off. Most of the time, name-dropping is what continuity is.

"name-dropping masquerading as continuity" is throwing in something without really addressing it properly -- the Ferengi on ENT is a prime example. Given that we aren't supposed to know who the Ferengi are prior to "The Last Outpost," to have them abduct the most important ship of the fleet, and spend several hours in contact with the bridge officers and crew, but have no log of the event surviving to Picard's time even in a fragmentary or misunderstood form, seems ridiculous. That was someone trying to make a TNG connection but not understanding how to do it properly. "Regeneration" with the Borg was better, although still not a great idea. Mentioning kas-wahn in a story with a lot of camping references is a name-drop which is continuity.

So maybe "sentiment sans emotion" is the idea that the sentiment is stuck in falsely, rather than really earned by good writing engendering the actual emotion in the viewer? It's the script holding up a sign saying "YOU SHOULD SAY 'AWWWW' NOW!" because the writer couldn't figure out how to create something properly? That's my guess. The phrase was in reference to Dr. Who, which I haven't seen to tie in to the discussion.

Chesterton wrote fiction? One more reason to try to get around to reading some of his stuff.

I'd wasn't sure I'd heard of this guy, it sounded like something I knew...but that turned out to be the Father Dowling Mysteries.
Don't tell anyone I said that, ok?

I did find this cute story about a Father Brown movie though...

'While on set, filming the Father Brown movie, actor Alec Guinness was approached by a young Italian boy who, seeing him in costume, exclaimed 'Padre, padre!' and, hanging on his arm, rambled on and on in a language that Guinness didn't understand. Eventually, the boy said goodbye and left. Guinness, amazed and impressed that the mere uniform of a priest could inspire such trust and happiness in a child who was such a complete stranger, that he started to investigate the Roman Catholic faith, and subsequently joined the church.'


I totally agree with that. I'll reading anything once. And a few thousand times if I like it. Shakespeare I've tried - we learned about and read many in school - I've even picked up a few more and read them since. But it is really not my thing. But I won't turn anything new down.
I do remember a slight disagreement with a friend. He loved 'Lord of the Flies'. Best book ever he said and certainly best childrens book. While, on the other hand, I thought Harry Potter was. I read his, and while it was ok, I found it a little dull and depressing. He on the other hand read about 10 pages of 'Potter', and proclamed it 'Crap!'
Hey ho!
There is one book I want to read again, but I can remember it's name. It's about a bunch of people all over a town, caught in an earthquake (including one guy who has an (?)Irish surname). When they wake up the part of the town they're in has been shifted to another world, and it's now like a floating island in a no-where place. And there's this scary black goo monster thing, that doesn't like the light and is trying to kill them.
Sounds daft, but really was rather good. Anyone know it?

I can't say it rings a bell at all.

Chesterton is one of those people whose work I feel I ought to read more of, but have never actually got round to doing so (a bit like the essays of George Orwell, when I've only read his fiction, but oh, what fiction). I'm also I suspect rather biased towards SF, in that my standards are perhaps less stringent than they are for other sorts of fiction, though to be fair I consider some of the best novels and short stories ever written to be in that genre, wide as it is.

Don't get me wrong, I find them entertaining in a similar way to that by which I find the Flash Gordon film entertaining ( "Quick! Check the angular vector of the moon!" ), just not literature in the same way that, say, the aforementioned Christie is.

Oh, and "sentiment sans emotion" is like...well...when you hear of people crying about for example, the death of someone they never knew, never met, probably never even saw in their life, but cry because its...done. Or because they ought to. There's sentiment, but there's little substance.


Oh, and cynicism is fun.

No, disguises are fun. Cynicism is practical. And I'm all in favour of it, just not all the time. When you find yourself being really cynical about a TV show, it may be a sign that you're taking it too seriously (or too personally).

I'm aware of the irony, by the way. I take BSG and Veronica Mars way the heck too personally. Nobody's perfect.

Apart from the Pope, obviously.

Obviously.

Obviously.

I apologise for not choosing the BBC, but A) I don't trust their neutrality, and B), they are rather silent on this topic...

I believe this conversation may be spiralling into the same furrow carved by a certain gentleman named "Borusa". I suggest we change the topic, PDQ.

Righ-- ... errr, how's that?

The parts of Valium's post I understand are right -- this is an unproductive line of conversation. I think a sensible compromise we all can agree on is that (a) Pope Benedict does kinda look like the Emperor, and (b) that's not his fault.

Anyway, papal infallibility is a much-misunderstood subject. It only applies to ex cathedra statements, and those are rare.

Personally, I was thinking Martin Luther.

I'm sorry?

Who's Borusa? The only one I know is...well the Timelord one.....And I think he's still stuck on the side of a coffin/tomb....

My point ;)

I just thought I'd pop in to say that "Exodus, Part 2" was without a doubt one of the finest hours of sci fi to ever grace television. Or hell -- any medium.

To call it amazing would be an understatement.

Hot frakking damn....

This is exactly what I don't get about you BSGers. Good episode, sure, but how can you possibly claim it's brilliant or groundbreaking? This kind of episode works a certain way; we've seen it with DS9's "The Sacrifice of Angels," with B5's "Endgame." "Exodus II" did nothing special. It was entertaining, it moved the pieces where they needed to go, and that's it.

And besides, "Exodus, Part 2" is where they killed the Professor. Not that the third season has been all that great, but you can't break up the core group. And the new girl they seem to be replacing him with is just annoying. I think I may be done watching this show.

You're considering slip-Sliding away?

Regardless of whether you consider the writing or direction groundbreaking, I can't help but have a positive opinion of a show that makes me jump up and cheer. I know they're emotionally manipulating me and I love every second of it.

Take that, objective criticism!

Gatac

@Zeke: True, but originality isn't necessarily a good thing. Three words. "Love and Monsters". You'll see. If you haven't already.

That said, while I haven't seen the Exodus double-bill, it doesn't sound like no 'In the Pale Moonlight'.

And I will be raving about that episode for the next twenty years, or at least until it's brilliance is duplicated or outdone.

I've seen "Love and Monsters." It wasn't without its charm, but yeah, the twist at the end was beyond stupid. Your point is well taken, and I can think of many other cases... "Threshold," for example. It doesn't get much more original than "drive too fast and you're a LIZARD!"

Well, I'll say this, I must admit that the effects were pretty darn cool. The atmospheric jump is the stuff of legend. Also, the series is going back to its roots a little, and that's cool too. Brilliant? I might not go that far, but I'm still watching the show next week.

Charm? If by charm you mean up-itself, my-aren't-we-clever 'humour', then yes, I suppose 'charm' is as good a word as any.

It makes 'Spock's Brain' look like quality sci-fi. Partly because even Spock's Brain just isn't that stupid. And doesn't contain the following:

1) the abysmal Scooby-Doo crap at the beginning of L&M.
2) An attempt to dismiss the programme's fanbase and any critics of the writer
3) Peter Kay
4) An alien drawn by a nine-year-old
5) A young man trying to seduce an older woman who looks like the rear end of a cow and acts like it.
6) References to fellatio*
7) Rose Tyler in 'Dumb Chavette' mode
8) Jackie Tyler
9) A rating of 6.66m - a clear sign of the damnable craptitude of the episode.

Also, the early drafts turn half of Elton's backstory into a gratuitous continuity reference.

*This further puts toward my own theory that Russell T. Davies can't decide whether to make the programme totally a Children's TV thing, complete with Andy-Pandy, or to use it as a vehicle to exorcise his own personal demons.

Rant? What rant?

Yeah, I like clever and twisty shows as much as anyone, but sometimes big action bits can do it too...
I still remember sitting and watching Sacrifice of Angels in totally disbelief... This was the bit that so many storylines over the years had worked up too....It was kinda a release. Like shaking a fizzy drink, then finally opening it. I think of them as special episodes. Many shows have them. That one big exciting episode, that any non-fan wouldn't have a clue what was going on, but you, would sell your soul to see...

To explain myself a bit. It goes a little to what Gatac speaks of.

The word that characterizes the episode best is payoff. We've had three episodes of build-up to a conflict that came to fruition in this episode. I didn't find "Exodus, part 2" brilliant because of profound philosophical questions or shocking twists. I found it brilliant because it seemed to so simply pull off the impossible task of giving the audience a satisfactory payoff to what had come before. And it did it with so much damn style. We were told already how clever the battle plan was. What we got didn't fail to deliver -- it did that and then some. Tigh stole two very crucial scenes at both ends of the episode -- his character continues to be absolutely fantastic. And he joins the rank of a dozen characters who got their time in the sun and glowed spectacularly. Ellen. Starbuck. Leoben. Anders. Roslin. Adama. Lee. Baltar. And hell, even Gaeta. Especially Gaeta. There was a profound sense of cause and effect where everybody's actions were plausable and in character. We finally got a hell of a lot of payoff. And it felt damn good.

So this episode didn't make me think too much. But that's just fine. The show does that plenty (and has done so plenty recently). It appealed to a more primitive part of the brain. That happy ending center that BSG never caters to all that often, and as a consequence makes each a treasure. That's not to say all has been won, of course. I bet we see a survivor count next episode and I bet it's way lower. But it was a good day. Full of maneuvers just fantastic enough to drop a jaw and just plausable enough to avoid skepticism.

The rare sort of show that causes me to put random expletives after the word "holy". Damn enjoyable. And yeah, brilliant.

And re: "In The Pale Moonlight" -- part of the reason that episode sticks so well is the way it shows the darkest side in all of us. The dirty side of Utopia. The new Battlestar Galactica lives in that dark side. There couldn't be an equivalent for that episode on the show. It wouldn't have an analog. And I have a hard time seeing a fan of that episode not enjoying RDM's new series.

Never said I don't *enjoy* BSG. I just don't rate it as highly as other things. One criticism, however, must be the lack of contrast in the series. There's not even the *occasional* joke. Or even half a joke. There's just dark all the way down.

Don't get me wrong, I like dark, but without light, how can you tell it's dark?

That's not really a fair criticism. The characters on the show joke around all the time, be it Starbuck with her pilots, Adama with Lee... or Tigh... or Roslin... or any of his extended family, really. Doc Cottle makes sarcastic jokes all the time.

And again, the show certainly isn't all dark either. There is a definite contrast, and here it is: a dark, overpowering pessimism makes every victory all the sweeter for the characters. Look at the end of the miniseries. Or "Hand of God". Or "Colonial Day". And now "Exodus, part 2". I hate to bring in the oft-cited argument here, but it many ways it is the opposite of Trek in this respect. Where dark episodes of Trek stood out ("Year of Hell", "In the Pale Moonlight", etc.), the lighter optimistic episodes of BSG stand out in a different way. It gives the show an overall sense that things aren't hopeless in even the bleakest situations. Anyone who says the series is all dark doesn't seem to be paying much attention as far as I can tell.

How many actual victories have there been? I don't just mean where they've escaped to fight another day, or not gotten themselves killed for another day, I mean actual, real victories. Where they've actually, really defeated the Cylons. One? Two?

Cottle's remarks are hardly jokes. And in any case, how often does *he* appear? Twice a season?

I'll agree, Trek was too prozac-utopian. But BSG has boxed itself into a corner. It's bleak to the point where it simply can't get that much worse. Soon, they're going to run out of disasters.

Well there are still cylons around, of course. But I can think of three episodes off the top of my head where the cylons were dealt a major strategic blow.

But I wasn't just talking about victories against the cylons. For one, there are a multitude of episodes where a successful mission did not entail major cylon casualties. "Miniseries". "Home". "Scar". "Lay Down Your Burdens".

And its a little silly just to focus on the cylons, since there are many enemies aboard the fleet itself. Does "Colonial Day" not count as an optimistic episode? What about "You Can't Go Home Again."? "Flight of the Phoenix"?

I could certainly add more to these lists. The show certainly depicts a drastic situation and dire actions on the part of the characters. But part of the series' poignancy is that it's not all pessimism.

edit: According to imdb, Doc Cottle has been in eleven episodes so far. Not counting his season three appearance(s?). He was introduced in the fourth episode of season one. That's eleven out of thirty (pre-season three) episodes he's been in. Roughly every third episode.

You know it's too dark when the viewers start topping themselves. To be honest I found B5 kinda dark. I sort of like it, butsort of not. I like being in the Trek universe. It's so dam happy, and warm and fuzzy. But sometimes it is nice to take a dip in the darkside. More so when the effects are that good.

BTW what is that ship on your logo Chancellor? It looks like....The one from Event Horizen...or the one from Starship troopers...

A success doesn't really generate an alleviation of tension. You don't tend to think 'Yes! I've finished one page of the hundred-thousand page form I have to fill in to get my bank card cancelled because someone stole it. What an achievement! I'm proud of myself!"

@Burt: B5 wasn't that dark...In some ways I'd describe it more as...gothic. Particularly the Shadows.

re: The Ship - Starship Troopers...Event Horizon?!

This, young fella-me-spoon is Discovery One!

Did Adama's Earth speech in the miniseries not alleviate tension? Or the reconcilliation of Adama and Roslin and their subsequent return from Kobol with a new clue on the search for Earth? Or Starbuck's return from Caprica with her posse of survivors?

Adama's Earth speech reads like someone desparately trying to convince themself of something as much as their audience.

Adama and Roslin - that was just a resolution of their own screw-up.

Starbuck's survivors are just more mouths to feed, and more people to protect. Sure, there's a small amount of hope, but at the same time they're another problem.

I'm not sure where you're getting these flaws from. For one, Adama has never sounded desperate. For two, the "more mouths to feed" argument is your own, and not something the show brought up. It's your outlook that's pessimistic there, not the show's. And for three, how is that not a textbook case of the aleviation of tension? (Most of) our characters lost on Kobol are back, the government/military schism has been healed, and our crew finally has a clue where to head to find Earth. How is that not an alleviation of tension? How is that not optimistic?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that season three is at least as good as season one. Certainly better than season two. Anybody else agree?