A slightly disgruntled BSG followup

[chipotle]

I’ve gotten a few comments, on the journal and off, that are along the lines of, “Oh, that sucky ending for ‘Battlestar Galactica’ makes me feel glad I never watched it. It must have really sucked. The Sci-Fi Channel sucks. Suck suck suckity suck.” You know, in direct response to me writing that despite its problems I think it was the best science fiction show that’s been on television.

Setting aside the question of what problems the show had in its second half and to what PSI the finale did or did not blow, to me this is kind of like saying that because so many people threw tomatoes at the series finale of “The Sopranos” it must not be worth watching, or that “M∗A∗S∗H” devolving into self-indulgent moralistic drek for its last few seasons negates the mostly brilliant writing of its first few seasons.

Anyone who actually cares about science fiction on television should watch at least the first season of “Battlestar,” because not having done so is like claiming you care about science fiction in the cinema but having no interest in seeing Blade Runner and Alien. You might see them and think they’re overrated and flawed, but just not bothering to see them is, for that field, like being a literature student who’s never read Hemingway and Faulkner. Sure, you can hate Ernie and Bill after you’ve read them—but you’d better damn well read them.

Did I just compare the first season of BSG to Blade Runner? Yes. And I’d do it again. Bite me. Maybe you’ll think the show lost its way (a very defensible position), and maybe you really won’t like it much from the start. (Although if you really come away thinking that none of the writing and none of the acting and none of the story was worth engaging with, you’ll probably have to remind me just what it is we have in common.)

If you haven’t watched it, though, don’t tell me that the presence of religion or providence or Bob Dylan demonstrates that you don’t really “need” to see it in order to know how terrible it was. Because you know what? If I ever got a TV show on the air and it only “failed” as badly BSG did, I would be unimaginably ecstatic.

Now back to your regular programming, whatever the hell it is you kids are watching these days.

Comments

[silasmouse.livejournal.com]

I admit I shouldn't make such heavy-handed comments about a show I've not paid much attention to.

It does make me wonder why so many things insist on running past their due course, though. I'm starting to wonder if "sequel fever" tends to degrade (not necessarily negate) certain achievements. Consider The Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean, Jurassic Park, and so many other good movies that had less impressive or downright terrible sequels. Maybe television serials (emphasis on serials like BSG, as opposed to stuff like Family Guy) would be better if the writers would stick to just one or two seasons.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. This is one area where American television tends to be sorely lacking; it rarely if ever knows when to stop. Regardless of how good something is it will jump the shark eventually, and in the case of American television it'll probably be after at least five seasons of wandering crap.

With the power of brands and titles, the advertising-driven nature of the industry makes it inherently prejudiced against the wisdom and satisfaction of ending on a high note or a laugh; the chance of any venture outliving its usefulness and losing its artistic way is thus directly proportional to its success.

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

I don't think the show's Achilles' heel was quite as much running past its course as much as losing its course. Having said that, though, I do wonder if its premise was somewhat self-limiting, in the way that any show whose premise essentially sets the conditions for its conclusion has to be. A show with an episodic premise like "Law and Order" or "The X-Files" can keep running indefinitely; a show like "Battlestar" or any of the seemingly endless remakes of "The Fugitive" can't. (I used to joke that every few years "The Fugitive" got remade with different names; the TV version of "The Incredible Hulk," "Nowhere Man," "Werewolf," "The Pretender," etc.)

[momentrabbit.livejournal.com]

You remember Werewolf.

♥

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

I remember it dimly, I confess, but yes. "Werewolf" is, IIRC, what actually led me to formulate the Recurring One-Armed Man Theory, which states, essentially, "No decade will be without at least one incarnation of 'The Fugitive.'" If you take the basic structure as "Person A travels around the country in pursuit of Person B, who holds the key to [Insert Plot Device Here], while in turn he is pursued by Person C," it keeps coming up in various iterations.

But you do get extra points if your iteration has Chuck Connors as an alpha werewolf.