TV critics

[dotsomething]

Umpteenth review of Battlestar Galactica which praises it by bashing the science fiction television show inherently as a format. Battlestar Galactica isn't like those OTHER science fiction shows. It's okay to watch BSG, you're hip, you're cool, if you watch BSG. Those other shows are just for geeks.

This is really getting old. Battlestar Galactica

Comments

[mabfan]

As I noted in another journal (http://chelseagirl47.livejournal.com/101589.html), "The New Yorker probably had to take that approach for their main audience, which presumably either knows little to nothing of the SF genre or generally shares in the magazine's implied scorn."

[dotsomething]

I get that. But it seems like in that case it would be adequate to say "science fiction may not be your cup of tea, but this is unique in these ways," giving examples, but without the remarks about "geeks" and how boring it is to watch shows with aliens. It is possible to do that without bashing the genre this unique show is a part of.

[sdelmonte]

Woul do yo any good to know that I think this critic is full of hot air all the time, like most other TV critics these days? I find her reviews unreadable in general.

Stick with TV Guide's Matt Roush, who loves genre TV, loves Lost, loves Veronica Mars, and can be forgiven for actually liking the occasional sitcom.

[dotsomething]

Matt Roush was a champion of Farscape as well, if I remember right. He's the only tv critic I pay any attention to.

[ivy03]

It's annoying, but I get why the reviewer's doing it. They're trying to bring non-sci fi people to BSG, and in order to do that, the first thing you have to do is address common perceptions of sci fi. You have to first say "we're not like those wacky Trekkies" or you risk alienating the non-Trekkies. I don't think he worries so much about alienating the geeks - we already watch it.

[dotsomething]

I don't think he worries so much about alienating the geeks - we already watch it.

True. And annoyance at a tv critic won't have any bearing on me watching the show, so I guess it was a good risk for the critic to use that approach. They'll hook the non-genre people with that article, and the geeks will be irritated by it, roll their eyes, and then keep right on watching.

Just so bloody TIRED of hearing it though. Getting to be like the grownups in Peanuts. The first few paragraphs of that review came through to me as "Whah whah wah whah blah whah wha wanh" ;)

[chelseagirl]

Right, exactly like the Peanuts grownups! As I said in response to someone else, I just wish they could plug in a box that said "obligatory sf disclaimer" and have done with it, and then everyone could just move on with things.

[filkerdave]

There is, in both literature and more visual media like film and TV, a perceived impression among some that SF/F is, on some level, "not as good" as other things. This does not hold in all places, of course, but it definitely exists. This is why, for example, Margaret Atwood claims she does not write SF (despite "A Handmaid's Tale" being very definitely SF).

The sort of bigotry makes it hard for someone to look below the nuts and bolts that hold the surface on and see good storytelling, compelling characterization, etc, in the same way that "someone's who's black can obviously never excel intellectually" or "women cannot be firefighters."

[dotsomething]

Word.

This reminds me...comics got treatment like that in the New York Times magazine section a few years back. They did a big write up on how cool graphic novels were, and proceeded to tell just how silly sequential art is as a medium, and most of it is skippable, oh, except for this or that oh-so-edgy graphic novel creator/artist.

Puzzling, since the article was supposed to be in praise of the format, not "almost everything in this format mostly sucks except this short list of three artists we think are the hot thing."

[meko00]

You know, I've seen and loved some of Farscape (must get back to it one of these days), but I just cannot get into SG-1 or SGA mainly because the sets look so awful. It's a thing. And well, global/political issues can be dealt with in other ways, without transporting things to outer space (with more or less credible make-up); I do see why some people think it's unnecessary to do that. That doesn't mean they have to mean about it.

[dotsomething]

because the sets look so awful.

Which is perfectly fair. You judge shows on the basis of whether you feel they're good or not, as tv shows. It doesn't seem like you categorize in that way--to you, a show is GOOD or it is NOT GOOD. You'd judge any show with bad sets the same as you'd judge SG-1.

While the tone of that article seemed to imply that bad sets, etc., is something confined to genre.

Also: you need to watch more Farscape :)