Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 3 (Showing 1-3)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
Tue, Mar 24, 2009, 6:21am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S4: Daybreak, Part 2 (April Fools Version)

It's pretty clear on my post in the Part 1 of the finale that I was correct. The ending to "Enterprise" was even better than this.

I can't wait to watch Jammer, who correctly attacked Voyager episodes when they pulled out a "Deus Ex Machina", give this finale and series, which is totally a "Deus Ex Machina" ending, four stars (I write this post before this episode was reviewed). When he attacked previous Star Trek shows for inconsistencies or 'episode reboots', he now praises it in BSG. Within Jammer's reviews, there appears to be no consistent standards whatsoever. And out of all the shows on this website, with the exception of Andromeda, BSG has had to lowest ratings. Even Enterprise reruns were beating out new BSG episodes at one time (which is the bottom of low). It's clear that Jammer's ratings, especially for BSG, are not correlating with the audience reaction.

Only two reasons are for this:

Either Jammer is such an outlier from most people


He is intentionally carrying Ron Moore's water

The only reason why I give any credence to the second possibility is because of Jammer's refusal to do anything with Babylon 5 (which Paramount hates. Since Jammer has had personal dealings with Paramount, I do wonder).

But Jammer didn't seem to understand what my earlier post was driving at. My issue is the entirely inconsistency of standards Jammer is applying to his reviews.

But to answer what Jammer replied to me:

"Just because I like season 4.5 and some supposed "consensus" doesn't, that means I'm carrying Ron Moore's water? Screw that."

Nooooo. I said you either are an outlier to the masses OR you are intentionally carrying Ron Moore's water. In other words, if you think 4.5 is so awesome, that its episodes are on the same level as "Best of Both Words", "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Scorpion", then you very well are an outlier.

There is nothing wrong with being an outlier. But your site became popular because people thought you were a Trek fan like the rest of us except you are probing into more in depth into the episodes.

Be honest, Jammer, if you came to a website that reviewed Voyager's "Threshold" as FOUR STARS, you would rightfully question the reviewer's sanity. You would wonder if the reviewer is such an outlier or if the reviewer was carrying someone's water. You knew in your mind, as did most people who watched it, that "Threshold" was nonsense wrapped inside nonsense.

There was lots of 'hate' about "Threshold". But it wasn't because people hated Voyager, they simply hated what the writer of that episode did to the show.

This is what is generating these so-called 'haters' and why Moore is depressed. Just as anyone would stare, mouth agape, at someone reviewing "Threshold" at four stars, I am staring at how you can possibly CONSIDER giving these 4.5 epsides four stars.

BSG was never so much a good story as it was a good page turner. Unlike Star Trek episodes that were stand-alone, BSG is more serialized. People thought BSG was good because they wanted to see what happened next. With the concluding chapter, the finale, many have realized there was no real mythos and no real conclusion at all. It will be interesting to see if you have realized it after the finale.

"Regardless, I generally prefer to review what's on the screen, not what isn't on the screen. Sure, while a certain amount of the show can be judged based on what has been omitted, I think there's a tendency with many fans of mythology-based series to focus too heavily on the details of the mysteries and puzzles and how they personally feel such mysteries should've been solved. Monday morning quarterbacking, really."

Really, Jammer? You mean like the mystery of Starbuck? Do you like how that was 'answered'? It wasn't answered. Now, if you say, "The way how Moore lets the audience determine what Starbuck is was genius," I would, again, question your sanity or whether you were carrying Moore's water.

Or what about Hera? Apparently, she held no role at all. Not even the mitochondrial DNA part at the end is any explanation about Hera's "importance".

How about the Opera house? With all these Opera House scenes, is it not disapointing that it was all meant to be very literal? And that the entire purpose ("God's Plan") was to have Caprica Six just to pick up Hera and take her to CIC?

You implied that I was making snarky quips at things off screen or some fan-based obsession at 'details'. But these are THE major plots of the show. The entire series of BSG leads to nothing but a big "Deus Ex Machina".

You castigated Star Trek episodes for doing this. Yet, I suspect you'll contradict yourself and praise it here.

"I think BSG is a terrific work of fiction."

Remember that BSG is not Moore's creation. He is using someone else's major universe and doing what he wants with it. The universe of BSG was well established long before this new BSG show came around.

It would be wrong to praise this new BSG for its premise and certain plot points (like Pegasus, New Caprica, etc.) since they were uplifted from other people's material.

"Personally, I watch this series for the characters. Space battles and complicated plots and mythology are great, but I see them as a means to an end."

What characters? There are no characters in this show.

Just as Voyager had the 'episode reboot', BSG has invented the 'character reboot'. Every character has been rebooted into something else with no reason on how they got there.

The commanding Adama has turned into an alcoholic who cries while staring at walls and brushing his teeth. He ends his life as a hermit who stares at a grave with no wish to see his son again (despite a raptor nearby).

Roslin who became stronger due to her illness became nihilistic, decided to be 'president in name only' while shirking her duties, starts "dying" in the mini-series and finally kicks the bucket in one of the last scenes. We only see Roslin die on screen because the actress demanded Moore put it in. All along, Roslin wasn't a character but a puppet being manipulated by the plot. I've never seen a cancer patient live so long without treatment.

Lee Adama? What a joke. His character got 'rebooted' into a politician. There is no character development here, just that a writer hit the 'reset' button on his character and turned him into something else because the writers weren't interested in writing space battles anymore.

Starbuck? There is no character called 'Starbuck'. There is only a puppet. She is a focal point of the Deus Ex Machina, and it was never her character choice that resulted in anything since she got 'reserrected' (i.e. rebooted). Starbuck is undeniably a puppet of the plot who makes no character choices, only is pulled by divine strings. After all, she doesn't choose to 'disapear'. The puppet master decides to yank her away at that moment.

The 'Final Five' characters becoming cylons were another 'character reboot'. Tyrol has a kid. Oh wait, no he doesn't! That would ruin the plot point of Hera being special. So Tyrol got cuckolded by a "Hot Dog". Tyrol gets promoted in one episode and then in the next episode votes to leave the ship. Is this a character? No! It is a puppet. Even the actor had trouble explaining to annoyed fans why his character was acting that way. The real answer is that there was no character, just a sock.

Saul Tigh? Another puppet. Rebooted as a 'cylon', the new Tigh becomes cowardly and has secret meetings while boinking a jailed cylon. His child had to die not because of anything with the character but because the plot demanded it. In the same way, he has to stand at a certain point at a certain time so he will be a 'glowing figure'. Character choice? No.

Ellen Tigh was obnoxious but once rebooted in 4.5, she was given maternal qualities. Yet, the episode later, she goes back to being the old Ellen Tigh in great inconsistency. Was she acting as a character? No, she was a sock puppet acting that way because "Deadlock" needed some conflict in it. So it was manufactured.

Tory? The less said about her the better.

Anders? No character there. Once he gets 'rebooted', he starts giving us exposition dumps. Then, he becomes rebooted again as a 'hybrid' so he can carry out critical plot problems such as disabling guns and flying ships into the sun. What a joke.

Caprica Six? No character there. Rebooted several times, from evil cylon to enlightened cylon to saved hera cylon to frakking Tigh cylon to I-Love-Baltar-Again cylon. She is a tumbleweed tossed by the winds of the plot.

Baltar? Here was a promising character. He used to obey a different morality than the rest of the crew. After he got rebooted in the fourth season to 'priest', there has been no point to his ramblings or to the cult. He doesn't stay on Galactica because of a character choice but because an angel told him to. You cannot have a character without character choices, and this is what we are seeing with Baltar's choices being led by the hand by 'God' (i.e. the writers).

You say you watch this show for the 'characters'. But what characters are there? Show me the characters. There are none. When the writers got bored with one direction for a character, they just had a 'character reboot' and turned the character into something else. In the end, we discover it was all done by 'God' anyway.

You thought you were watching a show about characters. The finale proved that you were actually watching puppets whose strings were being pulled by 'God' (i.e. the writers).

"I think most of the major questions of this series were wrapped up in "No Exit," and many of the rest I suspect will be in "Daybreak, Part 2."

Nice try but No Exit didn't answer the questions. Daniel was only invented just to have a cylon #7. Daniel held no other part except to make "Don't Call Me John!" Cavil into a Cain like figure.

Daybreak Part 2 answered none of the questions people wanted to know. How is Starbuck the harbinger of death? What is Starbuck? Why is Hera important? How is Baltar the author of the Human race? No answers.

Now, the finale and BSG in generally was wonderfully produced with great acting. But so was "Threshold" (which won an emmy).

As a reader, is it too much to expect Jammer to use the same standards he applied for previous Star Trek episodes for BSG? How can Deus Ex Machina be the cause of one star reviews yet be praised as four star reviews for BSG?

It is not that I disagree with you, Jammer (though I think you are insane to think 4.5 good in any sense, especially since it has destroyed the characters of BSG). It is that I don't see any consistent review standards. I don't see why when a Star Trek episode does Y and is bad for doing Y, why does Y get praised in BSG? (deus ex machina for example or meaningless flashbacks) Why does a review that praises a Star Trek episode for X gets complaints when BSG does X? (such as glorification of the mythos?)

There is a reason why BSG is going off the air. And it isn't because the show is 'too sophisticated' for the audience. It is because people don't like what they see. The ratings for BSG have been in the toilet.

And frankly, so have these reviews.
Set Bookmark
Fri, Mar 20, 2009, 12:45am (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S4: Daybreak, Part 1

Jammer, stop carrying Ron Moore's water. If you look around, such as the sci-fi BSG board, you'll find that fans have been very disapointed with the finale so far and 4.5 in general.

There are so many unanswered questions with so little time left, it is insulting to the audience to waste this time on flashbacks. No one cares that Roslin's relatives got killed by drunk drivers. No one cares what a drunk Lee Adama would do when attacked by a pigeon. And the arch-villian of the show, the cylons who caused the holocaust, instead of being evil robots are shown getting assisted living for Baltar's elderly father. So far, this finale is making the hated finale of 'Enterprise' look good. Voyager's maligned finale is looking like genius compared to this.

People want to know about Daniel, about Starbuck's reincarnation, about the Head People, and of course the other mysteries this show has dropped (such as Earth cylons putting out devices that cause disease among the newer cylons). Maybe the next two hours answers these questions, but there will be tons of mysteries hanging because of sloppy writing.

It is clear the finale is going to attempt to tie in to the new show of Caprica. People do not watch BSG for soap opera, they do so for military battles hence the entire premise of an aircraft carrier in space.

Ron Moore's wife has revealed that Moore has been depressed over how the fans have been disapointed. I come here and you give almost every episode of 4.5 a 'four star' rating.

I cannot consider you an honest reviewer since you have become such an outlier. Either your views are so out of sync with the viewers or you are deliberately carrying Ron Moore's water.

My questions are "Which is it?" and "Why?"
Set Bookmark
Fri, Jan 16, 2009, 8:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: BSG S4: The Hub

I agree with Greg. The Baltar scenes were fun.

In fact, the entire purpose of Baltar in this episode was comedic release. The Hub is a very serious episode where the rebels fight, the re-activation of De'anna, the destruction of the Hub, and the betraying by Roslin. Add to the fact of Roslin watching herself dying and talking to a dead character. These are very grim scenes!

Baltar was very funny. I thought him preaching to the centurion was one of those funny moments. Baltar talking to the Hybrid was hilarious to me. "I don't believe it. I just opened myself up to it on a spiritual level, and it will not respond to me." "Hey, yes you, please stop jumping the ship." "I am not just shouting at it. I am focusing at it." (and then he begins to shout again)
Page 1 of 1
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2021 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. Terms of use.