Battlestar Galactica

So, what does everyone think ?

Personally its got to be one of the most realistic (well as realistic
can be) shows for ages. Love the camera work and the way that the
sound disappears when the ships are launching.....

Sorry Dirk, but you look better as a woman ;-)

In article , Chelsea Fan
says...
So, what does everyone think ?

Personally its got to be one of the most realistic (well as realistic
can be) shows for ages. Love the camera work and the way that the
sound disappears when the ships are launching.....

Sorry Dirk, but you look better as a woman ;-)

Gonna be one hell of a series. The cast seem to have got it together
far quicker than the "Hex" cast. Stargate Atlantis si shaping up quite
well too but its a little too "more of the same".

--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:29:26 +0100, Chelsea Fan
wrote:

So, what does everyone think ?

Personally its got to be one of the most realistic (well as realistic
can be) shows for ages.

It takes the "realism" a bit too far in some ways though - is it a
Battlestar or a USN aircraft carrier, complete with a CAG, Chief Petty
Officer, and the "hull number" BSG-75...?

Charlie

--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs

BORING
LIFELESS

has no life in it, and what a cop out making them sexy blondes

its slow, and just sits in 1st gear, very very slow



--
Larry.gold
Arsenal For Life
Thierry Henry:
Arsenal is my Paradise


"Chelsea Fan" wrote in message
...
So, what does everyone think ?

Personally its got to be one of the most realistic (well as realistic
can be) shows for ages. Love the camera work and the way that the
sound disappears when the ships are launching.....

Sorry Dirk, but you look better as a woman ;-)

Dave wrote:
What was that all about then?

Anybody have a clue what was the point of the series apart from
showing off some great visual effects?

The point of the programme was to entertain us.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:26:34 +0000, Andy wrote:

Dave wrote:
What was that all about then?

Anybody have a clue what was the point of the series apart from
showing off some great visual effects?

The point of the programme was to entertain us.

The point was to fill in the time in between advertisements.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

is that it then - no new series on the horizon?


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:26:34 +0000, Andy wrote:

Dave wrote:
What was that all about then?

Anybody have a clue what was the point of the series apart from
showing off some great visual effects?

The point of the programme was to entertain us.

It could have done that in one episode and told as much of a cohesive
story as spreading it over multiple episodes while the incoherent sub
plots built up to their non-informative finale.

Come back Lorne Greene, all is forgiven.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
is that it then - no new series on the horizon?




The second season will get the green light assuming the viewing
figures for the US screenings on SciFi remain buoyant.
SKY1 probably can't afford the $1.8 million per episode by themselves
but considering they pay half the cost it's highly likely the decision on
a second season is a no-brainer from the US studios/broadcasters viewpoint.
Six scripts have already been ok'd for production once the deal has been
done.

If BSG had premiered in the US last year like it was planned then it's
likely
the second season would already have been given the go ahead, since we
got it first there is going to be a longer than usual gap from our
perspective
until a decision is made.


Mike C

"Andy" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
What was that all about then?

Anybody have a clue what was the point of the series apart from
showing off some great visual effects?

The point of the programme was to entertain us.


Fair enough, but FWIW I'm getting increasingly cheesed off with Sky series
that just end / fizzle out / or I just get into to find that I've go to wait
until 2006 to see more of:

Battlestar Galactica (if ever)
Deadwood (2006?)
The 4400 (2006?)
Hex (Never)

IMO, the ending of BG series 1 when there was no second series already
confirmed was ****ing unforgivable. Not clever. Not funny. Better would
have been to at least give some sort of closeure (off to find Earth etc).

As far as BG (series 1) goes, I agree with the original poster with one
provision, *if there is no second series* what was that all about then? Or
perhaps better, what was the point of all that then?

"Mike Henry" wrote in message
...

SNIP

Even though I enjoyed watching the episodes I did see, it all seems a
waste of time. Odyssey 5 in particular was getting really good, and
ended on a huge plot twist+unbearable cliffhanger.




Hardly SKY's fault, at least SKY1 showed all of O5 unlike Showtime
who just stopped with I think 4 episodes left but then again they didn't
censor
O5 like SKY1 did
Of course the only answer is for SKY never to buy any show until a second
season has been actually produced but then what happens with the second
season cliff hanger?
If SKY wait then other broadcasters just go right ahead and buy the shows
anyway so does that mean you don't watch them on those channels just in
case
Cliff hangers have been with us for decades, they are really infuriating but
they do the job in getting people talking and then switching on when/if
a show returns.

Even if a US series is confirmed for a second season there is still no
guarantee it will be produced in full, Boomtown and Tru Calling to name
two recent examples.

I fully agree that SKY have been very lax over the years with abandoning
some US imports, before the internet we were all probably blissfully unaware
that second/third season have even been produced.
Dumping The Pretender/Millennium was really annoying at the time

I wonder if people would be complaining as loudly if SKY hadn't secured
global first run rights by co-financing BSG and they would have had to wait
until Jan to see the series with the US seeing it first


Mike C