Final Season of Battlestar Galactica Confirmed 500
Ant writes "Via Dark Horizons, IESB reported from the 10th annual Saturn awards yesterday, and spoke with Battlestar Galactica stars Edward James Olmos and Katee Sackhoff. Olmos confirmed that, as far as the show that's been running so far, the fourth season will be the last one. It's currently slated to start airing in January of 2008. 'Olmos says "This will probably be the most extraordinary season of 'Battlestar'. It's the final season, so it's definitely going to be the most vicious. As far as we know, in respects of the way we have this show constructed, this is the final season." Sackhoff says "I think part of the problem is that it's an expensive show. It is [a great show], but we don't have the viewership that a great show should get."'"
Expensive show, but what about DVD? (Score:5, Interesting)
deja vu (Score:4, Interesting)
About the first series... "It was the most expensive television production of its time: $7 million (U.S.). Each weekly episode cost a purported $1 million (U.S.). "
I've been here before for the first series, and am seeing it now. In another 30 years when the third version is made I'll bet it won't last for the same reason.
Re:Why so expensive? (Score:3, Interesting)
I figure, yes - because they were both shown on normal broadcast networks, as opposed to a cable/satellite-only channel.
Plus there's that whole "they're not as good as BSG but, sci-fi-wise, they were about the best thing on TV when they were on" thing.
The nature of BSG's story is that they couldn't keep running forever - as sad as I am that (assuming the actors quoted are correct) the fourth season will be the last, it kinda makes sense.
Good Job (Score:3, Interesting)
Take ST:TNG as an example, it ended at the height of its popularity, and the last season is the most amazing one in my opinion. So rather beat it into the ground (which they did with new series instead) they took it out in grand fashion, with the crazy two-parter with Q and a possible future, and bringing back Yar and all that.
So heres hoping they do it right and its not a show where you can't help but think 'What the hell happened?' years later.
Re:Why is it that. all good things come to an end. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's all a matter of opinion.
More action! Less drama! (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's see more armies of Centurians with machine gun hands battling it out with scrappy, loveable humans on some weird alien planet, instead of a bunch of "I'm so fracked up because my mom was abusive."
In all seriousness, though, the drama-oriented episodes were great, but c'mon, let's have some balance.
Just my $0.02.
Re:you can always count on the Sci-Fi channel... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather them kill a show when it's due, than drag it on just because. I can't think of a single science fiction or fantasy show that lasted more than 4 years, that had 4 years of actual good, worthwhile content. Not any of the treks, not Stargate, not Buffy... Heck, as much as I love the show I could have passed on season 5 of Babylon 5. Maybe a 4 year plan is a good thing?
Ending on a high note (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No, it doesn't (Score:3, Interesting)
I differ from you in that I think this all happened a long time ago, and we modern humans are the progeny of the Cylons and humans we are watching now. Basically just a remake of the old Von Daniken(sp?) "the pyramids were built by aliens" hypothesis.
I really wouldn't worry. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sweet!
Re:Parent is not Flamebait... (Score:3, Interesting)
Take the two examples I used in my previous post - Scar was a really good side-story, not only for the combat scenes, and not just because it was an interesting premise that anthropomorphised the Cylons further, but also because it had a huge effect on Starbuck - that was her fall from grace as the star pilot of the fleet. Likewise, Flight of the Phoenix was a brilliant piece of TV. It depicted the weary and depressed crew of Galactica coming together to construct, rather than destroy something. The ending of the episode where they devote the craft to the president was very touchingly portrayed, and the story even spilled over into the main plot when the craft was used in the raid against the Resurrection ship (another great two-parter).
Season 3 hasn't had much of this quality in the fillers in my opinion (and as has been mentioned, the main plot seems to be drifting without a purpose). Most of them seem to have been very detached and on the dull side. That's not to say the entire season has been shit, but like the OP says, there has been a noticeable decline in quality - more in terms of the writing than the special effects budget.
Scratching the surface (Score:3, Interesting)
If you'd been paying attention to the existential and spiritual nonsense, you'd realize that it may well be the driving force behind what you call the "main plot". Also, that Starbuck probably isn't back from the dead because she never died. I think that in the BSG universe, the gods are quite real (although perhaps not what we think of as gods) and Starbuck is favored by - or maybe a personification of - the goddess Aurora. [wikipedia.org]
Or maybe it's all a bulshit distraction. Hard to say.
Re:Why is it that. all good things come to an end. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:...then make it... ROCK! (Score:3, Interesting)
Pfff. Shows what you know. Obviously, the super-smart kid will tell them that Earth isn't advanced enough to defend against Cylons, so they'll need to lead the Cylons away from it. Meanwhile, Galactica will send a couple of time-travelling meat-heads to "prepare" Earth by improving its technology. They won't understand Earth customs at all, and hilarity will ensue. Oh, and there will be Nazis. Lots of Nazis. Because you can't have a good show without Nazis.
Seriously, though. Does finding Earth really end the story? What about the Cylons? Will Earth be in a state to defend against the presence of an entire Cylon empire? Even if it is in such a position, wouldn't fighting such an empire take longer than the time provided in an Epilogue?
That's the problem with the whole "finding Earth" thing. No one ever thinks about what's going to happen when they get there. I have a feeling that the writers have come up with something totally outrageous that they'll try and shock us with. But just about nothing they do (save for the complete annihilation of the fleet) will stop there from being a story to tell after Earth is found.
It's sort of like Voyager. B&B constantly operated under the assumption that getting back to Earth would end the show. Why did it need to end the show? Does Star Trek end like Lost in Space now? You find Earth, and live happily ever after? Of course not! There are plenty of stories to tell! New starships to launch, promotions to be deserved, intrigue to be explored!
To continue with the Voyager example, this open door was recognized by the community, and then exploited [jetc.org]. Why can't television producers learn to do the same?
Gene Roddenberry was once asked, "Aren't you afraid you'll run out of stories?" To which he replied, "How could I run out of stories? The Galaxy is my background! There are a LOT of stories to be told out there." It took the genius of Beavis and Butthead to shrink the vast reaches of the Galaxy into the "bumpy forehead of the week" show.
Re:This really....sucks. (Score:3, Interesting)
A&E, ostensibly for "Arts and Entertainment", has become a "lowest common denominator" entertainment channel. It is now targeted to "Cleetus the Slackjawed Yokel". O.k., I'll say it, it is now "A&E for White Trash".
SciFi has done the same thing.
Back in the 70's, "Sci-Fi" was the schlock stuff that hacks turned out. "Creature From the Black Lagoon" and such. "SF" was what Asimov, Heinlein, Dick wrote.
When the Sci Fi channel debutted, a lot of SF fans were horrified with the moniker, but decided they could live with it as long as it was a home for SF. But, it has started to live up to the old definition of "Sci Fi" rather than the higher ideals of SF. We have lost the battle.
Oh, and when did wrestling ever get connected with either Sci Fi or SF? Besides some B grade movies being star vehicles for aging wrestlers.
Re:Why is it that. all good things come to an end. (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously? Everyone I know thinks DS9 is the best Trek series ever made.
Re:Why is it that. all good things come to an end. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why is it that. all good things come to an end. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, "stupid" was too strong a word. "Around average and below" would be a better one. Considering the average is 100, 50-115 would be a large-enough group and, if it shows a lower demand for quality than the 115+, they would qualify as the low hanging fruit.
I also suspect the public on the 115+ range is very fragmented and more difficult to hit.
On a side note, I have been observing what is happening here (in Brazil) with the popularization of cable-TV: As more higher income households get cable or other forms of premium content, the more traditional TV stations aim lower income families. The difference in quality, say, of journalism, is astounding, even within the same network.
So, for the disappointed fans of Firefly or BSG, I suggest strongly demanding a better educational system, with special attention to scientific education. Sure it won't come in time to save current series, but it could create a more fertile market for them in the future.
If TV survives the next 20 years.
Re:Why is it that. all good things come to an end. (Score:3, Interesting)
Beyond that, most intelligence tests are normalized to fit the Gaussian distribution, so while the statistics are nice, it ain't necessarily that simple in reality. If you want an excellent review of why, then read Stephen J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" for a good treatment of the subject.
Above that, the largest segment of the population is not stupid people--see your own comment about normal distributions. The largest segment is, rather, those individuals within one or two standard deviations of the mean (assuming normality). Thus appealing to the 'average viewer' is not the same as appealing to stupid people (and if you claim it is, then I am assuming that you are comparing them to yourself, in which case evidence that you are actually more intelligent than the 'average' person--say with an IQ 1.5 standard deviations above the mean--which would be 122.5 or above). I'm not saying you're dumb, or that you aren't smart, but that is the impression you seem to be giving.
I am guessing that most slashdottians are thinking that they are in the upper 25% or even higher in terms of IQ, but the truth is simply that programming ability is not necessarily tied to IQ, nor is the ability to work with computers. Frankly, cognitive ability tests are imperfect, and while most people here are probably quite good and capable at what they do, it doesn't mean that people who are NOT good at those things are less intelligent (a common fallacy).
As for the TV execs--they are good at one thing: making money off of TV. Some of them may have technical abilities as well, but not all of them. They will try to appeal to the largest market with an interest in their product. In the case of the Sci-fi channel, this means that they have to figure out what appeals the most to people who are into sci-fi. Frankly, at the moment they seem to be seriously screwing the pooch on this score. First SG-1, now BSG? Next they are going to quit carrying Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Atlantis all at once, start airing Gilmore girls reruns and eventually become nothing more than "Lifetime--IN THE FUTURE!!!!". The wrestling, while sometimes interesting, is more of a thing for SpikeTV. What we need is a well-funded sci-fi channel that continuously shows original and interesting sci-fi in addition to picking up excellent shows like stargate, BSG and Dr. Who.
Nah, Babylon 5 is the best trek series ever made. (Score:3, Interesting)
DS9 was great in a lot of ways--notably, it got a lot of the drama right, which was something earlier trek hadn't done much. By which I mean it had multi-episode story arcs, in part in response to Babylon 5's competition. And "multi-episode," for the first time, didn't mean a two-parter.
On the downside, the dominion war also shifted the writer's mindsets too much--and trek became more about shooting things and less about the characters when the next series came along. (The characters in DS9 were good, with interesting long-term growth, and with good interpersonal dynamics. The characters in Voyager were cardboard, poorly designed, poorly written, and with little knowledge of cadence. The good point in Voyager (hard to find them, but there) was Robert Picardo. (Who wasn't used terribly well in Stargate.))