BattleStar-eyed wonder

[Zeke]

evay, I'm ready to admit when I've been nailed, and you have nailed me. I didn't think that "consequences" comment through at all. I still think Jammer's wrong that BSG has any sort of special maturity where sex is concerned, but the charge I made is unfair, and I'll remember that.

I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye about T/T, though. Will-they-won't-they is how the majority of TV romances work (look at Apollo and Starbuck). I think S4's arc would have been the last of that -- if the show had been able to continue, we'd have seen T/T settle into something like Tom and B'Elanna, but more central because of the characters' importance. I don't like "Harbinger" any more than you do; I guess the reason it doesn't bother me as much is that I was expecting T/T practically from the word go. When I talked to Thinkey after "Broken Bow," she was dead convinced that those two would be the show's big couple, and so I kept an eye out for it and ended up liking the idea.

Finally, the fact that I don't think BSG is more mature than Trek about sex doesn't mean I think Trek is mature about it. That idea would always have been dubious, but it was eradicated for good in the decon chamber. (Hmm, guess decon did do something.)

[evay]

I appreciate your fair-mindedness -- can't ask for more than that. I agree with you that Jammer's wrong, and we can agree to disagree about T/T.

[Chancellor Valium]

Um, Zeke, the new Doctor Who is about as depressing as walking in a field of pansies in the bright sunshine with Eddie, the central computer of the Heart of Gold [provided you added legs for him/it]. RNT even designed it specifically to be 'upbeat' and have a 'positive' air. Just thought I'd say that first of all

Secondly: Most Star Trek is fairly formulaic and dull, IMO. DS9 being the exception in that it broke the mould rather by admitting - SHOCK! HORROR! That the galaxy was not starkly divided between 'Goodies' and 'Baddies', and that CONTROVERSY! HERESY! - the Federation was not whiter than white (they'd been buying black-market Daz - always buy the retail version, folks...). Seriously. Single episode adventure, the Glorious Federation Triumphs, move on. Occasonal two-parters, but They All Live Happily Ever After at the end of the episode. All right, it's not quite so bad in VOY, but it still happens. In DS9 characters do develop, at least...The most exciting main-character event to happen in TNG was that Tasha Yar died, right at the beginning. Ooo.

Anyhow.

One of the great reasons for liking BSG for me is that it's learnt all the good lessons from B5 - or at least pretends pretty well - without some of the pre-DS9 "whiter-than-white Earth" thing (and better dialogue - is there a single first-season episode where Sinclair doesn't mention something like "this could destabilise the very foundation of this station - peace.", owtte?)

Oh, and am I the only one who finds Baltar's way of speechifying an amusing parody of Chairman Blair?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Chancellor Valium

Um, Zeke, the new Doctor Who is about as depressing as walking in a field of pansies in the bright sunshine with Eddie, the central computer of the Heart of Gold [provided you added legs for him/it]. RNT even designed it specifically to be 'upbeat' and have a 'positive' air.

Perhaps compared to earlier Doctor Who series, but it's still darker than most Trek. The Doctor (Eccleston more than Tennant) has such a deep sadness to him now that he's the last Time Lord; it doesn't often show, but it's always there. And the nature of the series allows more characters to die, because most places the Doctor goes, he doesn't come back.

I have been a little annoyed with the overly convenient endings of some episodes. "The Doctor Dances" was one thing because the Doctor exulted in the fact that "everyone lives" for once, but since then we've had "New Earth" and "The Idiot's Lantern" with similar too-easy endings. The Tenth Doctor's only really costly victory (that I've seen so far) was in "The Age of Steel," though you must admit that one was pretty grim.

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Perhaps compared to earlier Doctor Who series, but it's still darker than most Trek. The Doctor (Eccleston more than Tennant) has such a deep sadness to him now that he's the last Time Lord; it doesn't often show, but it's always there. And the nature of the series allows more characters to die, because most places the Doctor goes, he doesn't come back.

I have been a little annoyed with the overly convenient endings of some episodes. "The Doctor Dances" was one thing because the Doctor exulted in the fact that "everyone lives" for once, but since then we've had "New Earth" and "The Idiot's Lantern" with similar too-easy endings. The Tenth Doctor's only really costly victory (that I've seen so far) was in "The Age of Steel," though you must admit that one was pretty grim.

Not really. It's all sentiment sans emotion - and in the end feels like little more than sap, IMO.

[Burt]

I think I tend to follow Derek more - Star Trek wasn't trying to show everything as perfect and people as flawless beings - they were more metaphors. To explore different parts of Humanity. (Racial differences, The Cold War, etc). Trying to show that there Humanity could achieve more though co-operation, and putting aside differences. And like he said, that was up till mid Next Gen. Now it's more focused on action type stories (I still like!), which I guess is in part due to the need to compete with other sci-fi shows. I suppose back in the original days and at the start of Next Gen there wasn't much competition, so they could do more slower 'moral' stories.
To be honest thought, I caught a BSG on TV today (Remake). It was the one about a Cylon suicide bombing, and then a big old trial to find out who was to blame. And as I watched it, I realized, it was very like 'The Drumhead', an old Next Gen episode. Yes, more glitz and glamour - and certainly more kissing- but they were so alike even down to the 'Captain gets Tried at the end and proclaims it a witch-hunt'. I suppose even though Star Trek never really had the sex, drugs and rock&roll in it, so long as the story had meaning, it didn't really matter.
As for Doctor Who I think this series has quite a bit of depth and sadness in it. As a companion, the Doctor seemed very close to Rose. A fair few other companions seemed rather 'throwaway'. But the way this was played, it always felt to me that there was always a worry in the Doctors head about the safety of Rose. I wonder if they’ll be able to add this to the next assistant. Plus there's him being the (So far) last Time lord. He doesn't seem too happy bout that. And while he's never been a fan of the Daleks, he's turned really quite cold towards them, with what’s happened with his race. I don't know, to me the whole thing has a much darker feel. (Again I mean against the older series - compared to some American shows it's practically the Teletubbies) Even the TARDIS is different. Darker, spookier.

[Chancellor Valium]

But there isn't any substance - everyone always lives happily ever after at the end of the episode...TPOTW - everyone is ressurected, for example.

[Zeke]

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...

Originally Posted by Chancellor Valium

Not really. It's all sentiment sans emotion -

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.

[evay]

Originally Posted by Zeke

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.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I love Agatha Christie almost as much as Conan Doyle; G. K. Chesterton also wrote some terrific mysteries (his detective was Father Brown).

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

[Burt]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I love Agatha Christie almost as much as Conan Doyle; G. K. Chesterton also wrote some terrific mysteries (his detective was Father Brown).

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.'

Originally Posted by Zeke

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.

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?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Chancellor Valium

Secondly: Most Star Trek is fairly formulaic and dull, IMO. DS9 being the exception in that it broke the mould rather by admitting - SHOCK! HORROR! That the galaxy was not starkly divided between 'Goodies' and 'Baddies', and that CONTROVERSY! HERESY! - the Federation was not whiter than white

Wow. Obviously you and I just look at stories in different ways. TOS and early-to-mid TNG wasn't about the "Star Trek universe," it was, as TMP stated, about the "Human Adventure." The Federation and the constructions around it and the characters in it were very often just means to an end. They were trying to say something and they used the Trek universe as the vehicle to do it. Sure, sometimes they'd have the fun scifi plot or humorous plot, but very often it was supposed to be black and white. The Enterprise crew was supposed to be the good guys, who helped the helpless and righted wrongs and hopefully said something to you the viewer while doing it.

As Star Trek grew, the writers became more interested in the universe they were creating and hence started to tell more stories about the universe and about the characters. These are still good stories, and I have enjoyed them, but I don't watch them in the same way as I watch the old Trek.

About BSG: I have tried to watch the show. I watched a few random episodes in the middle of the first season, and recently I Netflixed the miniseries, but honestly, it's not doing much for me. I could keep watching it, but I'm not seriously inclined to.