Post originally by GNM at 2004-12-31 17:39:22
Converted from Phorums BB System

"I know it may sound "insane" :-) but BSG was firmly rooted in the Bible, or at least Biblical mythos."

Of course it was. What's insane is holding a sci-fi TV show to a Bibical standard of fidelity to the original source material.

"1) If you can forget that the series is called 'Battlestar Galactica'- something that a more than few folks seem to think was the real mistake here, re-using the original title, rather than just giving it a new title with a caveat like "Based on the original series..."- then the series, though a bit slow at times, is promising."

Fidelity to the original isn't a concern of mine, though I understand loyalists' concerns - the classic show was a favorite of mine. Rather, I'm of the opinion that the new series *needed* to differ from the old in many important ways.

And it is slow, at times, but I'd rather say the pacing has been somewhat uneven. Some of the episodes (out of the first 9) do not substantially advance the main story. I do feel there's a chance the show will solidify further at the end of series 1. (As Farscape did.)

"2) If you've never seen the original, and thus have no baggage, the series, while not the best sci-fi that's ever been on TV, is far from the worst. And might be even good."

I've been watching a fair bit of sci-fi TV of late. New Galactica isn't Babylon 5, but its first series is stronger, IMO, than B5's - at least two-thirds of the way through it. And it's *much* stronger than Farscape's first series, which was dreadful until the last couple of episodes, IMO.