Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

New Battlestar Galactica Series Starts Tonight 451

Snaller writes "Tonight the Scifi channel begins airing the new reimaged Battlestar Galactica series. Having run to rave reviews in the UK, the new series is darker and grittier than the original, and showrunner Ron Moore aims for a more adult narrative with comments on issues such as terrorism, security, freedom, religion and what it means to be human in a series which is essentially one long story arc. The entire cast from the 2003 mini series is back and the first episode, called '33', picks up almost where the mini series left off: The humans are still on the run, but each time they come out of hyperspace, the Cylon armada catches up 33 minutes later ... every 33 minutes. When we join the crew this has been going on for five days."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Battlestar Galactica Series Starts Tonight

Comments Filter:
  • 33 minutes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DrugCheese ( 266151 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:25PM (#11366377)
    At least you know when not to take a bathroom break.

  • by cnycompguy ( 663483 ) <> on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:27PM (#11366406)
    Scifi channel should start airing episodes when the rest of the world does, with the internet people who are actually interested in the series have most likely already seen the released episodes. Once the media execs realise that the internet has basicly tied the entire world on one release schedule they'll actually see the true ratings for the episodes.
  • by Morphix84 ( 797143 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [rohtnax]> on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:28PM (#11366414) Homepage
    Sounds like what I felt like during Calculus 3.
  • by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:33PM (#11366501) Journal
    is the fanboys of the older series huffing and puffing about violating the purity of the original (like making Starbuck a girl or some other thing that got their pink panties all wrapped around the axle, to mix a metaphor).

    I guess in a world where Britney Spears or Adam Sandler can have millions of devoted fans, even the original Battlestar Galactica can have them, too.

    The scene in the new miniseries, with a horizon filled with mushroom clouds and desperate people blindly fleeing, by itself kicked the ass of the entire original series.

    And don't even argue with me or I'll bring up Galactica 1980. AND I'll bitch slap your sorry ass, punk, and then make you cook me a steak.

  • Re:BTEFNET.NET (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lemkepf ( 727820 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:37PM (#11366547) Homepage
    It's great that we can download stuff off the net... but in reality that could hurt the possibility of a second season. The hard core scifi fans have already downloaded it and watched it, and odds are wont turn into the show. Based on that the ratings for the US showing will be lower than what they couuld be. A screw up for the SciFi channel big time.... I really hope we get a second season, these first episodes really are quite good.
  • by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:42PM (#11366622) Journal
    Good point. :-) OK, it's REALLY REALLY REALLY darker and gritter than the original.

    The Cylon attack in the original was a cheap SFX lightshow.

    The Cylon attack in the new show is really nasty: nuke after nuke after nuke right in the heart of population centers. It makes "The Day After" look like Mary Poppins. You really get the sense that this is not war- this is an attempt at complete extermination. The original was too cheesy to accomplish that.

    One thing I don't see mention much is the virtual zoom lens activity in the spaceFX shots. It really gives a greater sense of 3D and more more solid feel to the spacecraft than previous shows.

  • by shadowjk ( 654432 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @05:06PM (#11366989)
    Erm, inducement to commit copyright infringement?
    Pardon me sir, but are you perhaps referring to the ONE MAJOR REASON why the WHOLE WORLD (apart from the US) are tempted to defer to copyright infringement?

    Ok, I have to confess. Per hollywood definitions, I am a pirate.

    When my peers on internet are discussing movies and shows, which will at best, if one is very optimistic, be released here on TV or in Cinema, a year (for cinema) or 3 years (for TV), if at all, from when they air in the US, and the DVD release, if there is one at all, being even further delayed, I have no choice but to use illegal sources to watch this show.

    I wish to welcome all of you lucky US citizens who like Battlestar Galactica, to the reality of us who like ANY american produced show. Welcome to the crowd.

    It is my firm and principal belief, that most of the TV and Movie piracy could be eradicated if only the silly time limits and restrictiond on the content were removed. Release Movie A only in Country B. Obviously, Country C - Z will pirate it, DUH! It is simple. Why can not the moviemakers understand this?

    Why can not the content distributors realize, that by restricting distribution, they are only hurting themselves, and feeding the pirates? Why are the distributors this damn braindead? Why the hell do you want to kill prospective audiences? Why the hell do you want to tell your customers to FUCK OFF? Why do you want to tell your customers to go away? Why do you want to tell your customers to come back in 2 years?

    It is quite illogical. It is what breeds contempt for the legitimate content produces in general, evne for those who do not practice these unfriendly procedures. I do wonder, do they even want our legitimate business?

    It seems to me, that they would rather see us download the pirates versions, which, contrary to the legitimate versions, actually PLAY in STANDARD media players, without need for custom media players or custom DRM patches or DRM software or DRM players, and, the illegitimate versions most often play on every operating syste, every processor and every architechture in use, whereas, the very few proprietary DRM releases that make it to the internet, are restricted to the few who afford a platform powerful enough, a platform glamorous enough, a platform recent enough, a platform lucky to run one of the few system approved by the media conglomerages.
  • by Leo McGarry ( 843676 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @05:37PM (#11367458)
    While I agree with you completely, there was one other scene in the miniseries that, in my opinion, kicked the ass of the original.

    Near the end, during the "after the fight" montage, Tigh goes back to his cabin, takes out his liquor bottle, and drops it into the trash can by his desk.

    We cut away to other scenes, other characters reacting to their new circumstances.

    Then we cut back to Tigh. He's fished the bottle out of the trash, has it sitting in the middle of his desk, and is sitting in his chair with his chin on his hand just staring at it.

    That, to me, said more about Tigh's character and how the show plans to deal with flaws than anything else in the entire 180-plus minutes. These are real people with real flaws. Tigh's not a lovable scoundrel. He's the best damn XO in the fleet who also happens to be a drunk with massive stupidity when it comes to women.

    There are no heroes here. There are just regular people trying to survive under unbelievably hard conditions.

    Which, I guess from a certain point of view, makes them all heroes after all.
  • by brianosaurus ( 48471 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @06:39PM (#11368399) Homepage
    IANAL... Especially for "free" TV, I don't see anything wrong with it. And as for supporting advertisers, if I don't watch the show live, I don't watch the ads. Once the show has aired, those advertisers have already missed their opportunity to reach me, or rather they had their slot, and I missed them. If I later watch on tape or ReplayTV or Tivo, I'll skip of FF through the ads, and won't watch them (and that practice has been legal since Sony was making Betamax). There's no lost revenue to advertisers, because I wasn't there to see the ad when it aired. If I download the show instead of watching it on my ReplayTV, its practically the same thing.

    I know SciFi isn't free TV, but I have cable and I pay my bills so they're getting the same amount of my money whether I watch or not. I can just as easily record the show on my ReplayTV as download it off the internet, but the download is far better quality. Its a win-win situation as far as watching first-run shows goes.

    I consider this drastically different than a DVD rip or theater bootleg, where someone else has payed for the media and is letting others download for $free. In that case the downloaders are getting something for free that isn't otherwise available to them without paying for the disc. I don't download movies or DVD content, as I can follow the "its stealing" logic pretty easily for DVD-rip downloads. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but I don't think its worth the risk vs. the price of DVDs. (I also think the MPAA could battle "piracy" with more aggressive pricing, but I'm sure they're doing the S&D curves and figuring out which lawsuits work best).

    As for first-run TV shows (whether broadcast, or on cable/sat channels I subscribe) the content is 100% legally available to me, and I am paying for it through whatever billing process the content providers have made available, ie. my cable/sat bill. I can get a better looking picture by downloading off the internet than watching the recordings on my ReplayTV. Its almost as good as the signals already being legally sent to me (over the air, or over pay-TV), and I don't have to spend the money on a high-priced first generation HD recorder.

    I know the MPAA and cable co's, etc, must be looking at downloads as an additional revenue stream; another way to get you to pay more for something you already get. In fact, its their way to get you to pay more for even less than you already get, when you consider the DRM restrictions.

    Some cable (or sat?) DVRs will record shows and only save them for a short period of time (1-2 weeks, based on a flag in the show data). They charge an additional monthly fee for their DVRs, even though there is no value add once you've purchased the box: there is already a program guide on digital cable and satellite, so its nothing new for them to develop. The shows are already being broadcast, so there's nothing extra they need to send over the wire. The hardware has the capability to record shows whether or not you pay an extra $5/month (though if you don't pay, I imagine they disable it in software). The monthly fee is either to rent the box (is that it?) or just some bullshit pure profit move.

    Oh yeah... and they want to make sure you can only watch shows on approved devices, so you can't catch up on your shows with your laptop on an airplane.

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.