BSG at the UN

This comment, via A ‘Battlestar Galactica’ panel discussion at the United Nations | The Watcher, makes me wonder if this individual ever saw the show.

Of course the UN would select BG as a show to study: it humanizes terrorism, it presents the army as a bunch of emotionally bankrupt violent people, it mocks Christianity, monotheism and religion, it presents everything through the prism of moral equivalency. I was surprised that Noam Chomsky was not selected to play the captain’s role, and Bernadine Dohrn to play the president. Not to mention the absolutely horrible acting, the cheesy dialogue, and the story-lines which always evolved in the most illogical, however very new-agey way. Every episode of BG is an insult to the viewer’s intelligence, as every decision and statement that comes out of the UN is a similar insult. What next? The UN will invite the cast of Grey’s Anatomy and Ugly Betty for a symposium? The UN is a corrupt and pathetic organization. Why is it any news that a 3rd rate organization chose to study a 3rd rate TV show? The whole thing would be comical if it wasn’t this pathetic.

While every commentor is allowed to have their own opinion, this one screams “I DON’T WATCH THE SHOW BUT I’M AN ANGRY RIGHT WINGER.”

Like a lot of good SCIFI, BSG discusses modern day issues within a different context.  It is not like essay by a pundit, but it is a valid discussion of the world in the 21 century.

Also, Bad acting?  If we want to see bad, pathetic acting, we should jsut look at the republicans kissing Limbaugh’s ring.  That’s pathetic, bad acting.

3 thoughts on “BSG at the UN

  1. I’m not entirely suprised it’s been panned by some conservatives. The way the military basically controls everything is just anathema to their outlook.

    Maybe it’s because it was filmed in Canada.

    Fun locations fact: the building where Roslin and the doctor are sitting in the first episode of the series (it appears in some other scenes as well) was designed by Arthur Erickson.

  2. These criticisms are being spat and yelled, but they’re not invalid. This is just another example, though, of someone equating the very presence of an idea as evidence of badness. I mean, it is certainly possible for a show to consider moral equivalence, mock religion, and humanize terrorists and also be good. There are a great many works of wonderful storytelling about terrible people or unflattering portrayals of otherwise respectable subjects.

    These complaints reveal, I think, a critic that spits out anything that isn’t sweet.

    Though it’s certainly possible that these are just canned criticisms, recited from the review of some other pundit who watched and was disgusted by the show.

    I’m always wary of criticisms like “cheesy dialogue” or “bad acting,” though. Those criticisms are just barely there, and I expect they’re the limit of the critic’s ability to appreciate a work. What makes acting bad? What makes dialogue cheesy? These are things people say when what they mean is “I don’t like it.”

  3. given that BSG has multiple layers of meanings to different belief systems, i would think that the ‘opinion’ writer would at least endorse the execution of terrorists that find their way into government and treasonist/left wing enablers.

Leave a Reply