TV (besides those *um* "other" shows)

Hey! Thank you for your "confession"... Smallville is one of my favorite shows!

I'm impressed with your take on the show... with Clark being the real character and Superman being the disguise... I'm a little embarrassed to say that that never occured to me but you pointing it out makes it seem so obvious... I'm like, well DUH! :)

Anyway, I enjoyed reading that. Good job, Smallville!

I may have to revisit BSG since so many people are liking it. Here's my synopsis up to the point when SciFi decided not to run their three biggest shows on Friday nights anymore (2 seasons ago?), which should help explain why I don't currently watch it:

The miniseries that started it was some of the worst trash ever. Almost-porn and robots don't sell me much unless there's a story somewhere to go along with it. There's a reason I dropped my Cinemax subscription ten years ago. The original Starbuck was an ass, but a likable one. The new one is just a one-dimensional ass on a perpetual bender without a single saving grace. Shoot her and be done with it, that's my vote. One unbearable ass per show is enough, and the new Tigh fits the role a little better than the new Starbuck. The neurotic three-year old repeatedly banging on the one piano key every time Baltar is having one of his little schizo episodes is almost enough to send me into a psychotic break of my own. The inconsistency of the Cylons is maddening. They all share a common collective consciousness except when it would be damaging to the razor-thin plot at which point they're all disjointed from the hivemind until that's inconvenient and then some of them are plugged in but not all of them and hey let's just break this season in half so our writers can sort out this horrible mess. The series almost became worth watching when the Pegasus showed up, but alas, that became a train wreck too. Unlike Lloyd Bridges' passable portrayal of what's supposed to be the most brilliant, gung-ho commander of all time, we get another one-dimensional female witch because the first one wasn't stealing enough screen time from the other almost-but-not-quite talented actors. The original series treated us to this military genius disappearing into myth and legend in a dazzling all-guns-blazing display of bravery. The new one? Her tightly-controlled, well-oiled crew allows what is now a universally recognizable Cylon get all the way from the brig of a city-sized starship to the Admiral's quarters where our legendary hero barely manages to squeak her well-written, deeply touching, eternally memorable "frack you" before taking one in the face. People have tried to tell me that reaction was "realistic", but if none of the rest of the scene was remotely realistic, why not at least try to counterbalance it all with a nice campy speech so we remember this hero as a hero? What would have been truly realistic is a hardened battle commander realizing that staring down a bullet always results in death, thus doing something besides just standing there. It was almost as anti-climactic as Darth Maul's death in Star Wars Episode 1, except the dialog wasn't as well-thought out as your average Star Wars movie (that's gotta sting). I suppose that bit should have been fairly easy to swallow after being expected to accept Richard Hatch's character going from despised Osama bin Laden status to beloved presidential candidate overnight. Seriously, if it wasn't for the double coincidence of this show being right after Stargate Atlantis and at a time when I was awake without anything else to do, I probably wouldn't have ever watched it. When the network changed its time to whatever it is now, like 2AM on each third Sunday after a new moon, all they did was give me back an hour of my week to waste on something else. Besides, I really miss the hallmark "By your command" lines from the original BSG, even if I couldn't stand to hear an original Cylon speak more than two sentences in a row without wanting to rip out my own eardrums. It's still better than the Baltar-one-key-piano routine. How come they couldn't bring back Lucifer? Cheesy 1960's effects and acting and all, THAT was one creepy cat. I was starting to sort of like the metaphysical angle of the series but then they had to go and overblow it and now I wish they'd just get back to shooting at each other. BUT, I've been repeatedly told that the story in the new BSG has improved a lot since I last watched it, so maybe I'll catch it on hulu.com or something and see for myself.

I never could get into Lost. I watched a couple of episodes here and there and all it did was give me a serious case of so-what. I cared more about Gilligan getting off his island than these folks. I am mildly curious how you can be stranded on an island that long and still be fat. Thyroid issues, to be sure.

Smallville is a guilty pleasure of mine too. I like how they've really stuck to the one defining characteristic of the Superman character: he always does the right thing no matter what it costs him. I agree with you that the depiction of Superman as the alter ego and Clark Kent as the real person is very well done. I was initially upset that this cast didn't make the "Superman Returns" cast. It's especially humorous that Brandon Routh is the adult Superman while Tom Welling is the younger version even though Welling has a few years on Routh. I'm not a huge fan of Erica Durance as Lois but I much prefer her to Kate Bosworth. Michael Rosenbaum is a far more believable Lex Luthor than anyone else they've found, even Kevin Spacey. I don't know how many more seasons this series has left in it, but I've been wondering how they plan on removing Lana from the plot line since elevating her from childhood crush to a major role in Clark's life. I was initially curious about the Chloe character as well, but it looks like they've now got several plausible ways to eliminate her. My biggest complaint with Smallville is that I wish the writers would decide whether or not Lois can handle herself in a fight. One minute she's mega-Matrix kung-fu super-ninja, the next she's being taken out handily by the nearest twelve-year old with a bad attitude.

I agree that is hilarious ...

My secret is that all t.v. really seems that ridiculous to me, on some level.

I wouldn't force yourself to watch it if you can't get past all that stuff you mention though.  I'm mainly engaged because of the political and philosophical issues they bring up.  It's not as clumsy with that as most prime time t.v. crap to me... I enjoy the balance in the controversies they present.

I am a tad more forgiving with sci fi or 'superhero' shows on the logic spectrum of things too, and I hadn't compared it to the earlier version.  

There are plenty of asses in the show... I can understand why most people would cringe at Starbuck being an ass ... and think Tigh does it better to some extent, but I see it as an "equal opportunity" moment.  She's a strong female character in the way she can make the same asinine mistakes that the men do on the show.  It doesn't endear me to her, but I find it very interesting to watch.  Breaks a bit of an annoying stereotype for me personally... and it's done in such a way that it doesn't go to the other end of the spectrum on that mistake either.  

Dude... that's so hilarious... I've had the very same problems with BSG... but I still love it.  I guess for me those failures of the show pale in comparison to the triumphs.  I mean, come on... even if I think it's the greatest TV show ever... it IS still a TV show.

As for Lost... I've long held that its allure is more about what people hope it will be rather than what it is.  And I've admitted that the biggest draw for me has been the other fans I get to talk to.  But hey, that's just me.

Amen on Smallville, brother.  Amen.

Any special triumphs in mind? There were some decently cool episodes along the way but I personally didn't consider them quite enough to save the rest of them. I'm upset that they overdid the CG on the Cylon centurions so much that they seem to be pretty rare. The suits they used in the original series were reusable so they could have had Cylons in every episode without incurring excessive cost. Now it seems like they only break out the centurions on special occasions. The new centurions are much scarier than the originals, which is one triumph over the original series. One of the biggest plot holes in the original series was how computers that were such notoriously bad shots and so easily disposed of could have brought human civilization to the brink of extinction. What they should have done in the new one is have some decent looking centurion suits augmented with some supahbad CG Cylons here and there. That way we could still get our geek on without them having to blow the budget every week. The human-looking Cylon idea was pretty cool at first but it didn't take long before it was little more than an excuse to have a show with a robot-race without paying for the robot-look.

I'm so used to watching shows that no one else I know watches that I get used to not having any fans to converse with. Then again, considering I'm the guy who can't resist helping Dean Stockwell out with the sound effects of his Quantum Leap handheld gizmo every time he comes onscreen in BSG, along with any other MST3000 commentary I can come up with, maybe it's my own fault nobody wants to watch TV around me. Yes, I will talk to the TV even when no one else is around to hear it. I think my favorite part of the new BSG is the chain-smoking doctor. He's believable.

I keep hoping I'll run into other Stargate Atlantis fans. I didn't really start paying attention to the original series until it was almost done, mainly because I didn't think anyone could salvage the Jack O'Neill character from the damage Kurt Russell did to it. The premise wasn't great because it drug out the movie plot way too long, the stories weren't great for the same reason, but Richard Dean Anderson, Amanda Tapping, and Michael Shanks made for some chemistry that really worked. I don't want to leave out Christopher Judge, but Teal'c was such a flat character that just about any imposing person could have played the part. When Claudia Black was added in, her dynamics with Michael Shanks made for some of the funniest television ever aired. It was apparent that the actors were what kept that show going when Ben Browder was brought in to replace Anderson. Granted, some casting director was apparently sleeping when selecting the guy that single-handedly made Farscape even worse than it would have been otherwise, but the show would have suffered badly even with a talented actor. Someday I intend to go back and see how all that stuff with the Ori ended up, as they were some way cool bad guys.

Surprisingly, the Atlantis series is working out fairly well. The cast presents almost the same quality of chemistry as the original and the superior plot lines fill in any gaps. I really liked this latest season finale, as they hop through all those hoops and over all that drama to sort out some major cosmic cataclysm to avert certain disaster, and just as you're all set up for a happy ending, it's snatched away by a totally separate unforeseen disaster. Well, guess we'll have to wait to see how they wrap that one up.

Well I think the writers do an excellent job of weaving pertinent political and existential issues into the plot of the show.  It rarely seems forced and the heavy themes always seem to be treated with the weight and complexity they merit.  TV is rarely able to do this, in my experience.  Which is tragic to me because TV, with its serial format, ought to be able to do this better than anything else.

Thank God the BBC and PBS are around to set the standard for quality TV.  Too bad the US decides to make pathetic retreads of BBC shows rather than just show the high-quality originals.

I don't think people want much social commentary in their TV. To be honest, I completely missed out on a lot of that. I did of course catch the existential issues, but I personally think they were way overdone.

After watching the heavily slanted "Intelligent Design on Trial" series, I think PBS is about as neutral as Fox News and am no longer unhappy they are suffering funding issues. By all means, I do hope they continue wasting their limited funding by continuing to send me their pleas for financial support so I can keep filling my recycle bin with them.

... don't go throwing the baby out with the bath water!

No media source is completely balanced and no TV show will get everything right.  But what do you want us to do, turn off our TVs???

Hey, wait...

I expect anything with human involvement to have at least some bias, to be sure, but that series failed to meet any minimum standard for neutrality. It was so thoroughly one-sided from premise to conclusion that it permanently damaged any credibility that Nova or PBS ever had any claim to. 99% of the people I meet don't have the faintest clue as to what Intelligent Design really is, and this series does nothing except muddy it even further while promoting a pro-atheist agenda.

National Geographic Channel is my choice for scientific TV. They do a far better job of keeping their bias at bay. I even enjoy some of their explorations into my religion.

I thought US was all about freedom of speech... wasn't it? So, what's wrong with it? Why should "pro-atheist agendas" be "bad", and "pro-religious agendas" be "good"?

And why should anyone expect science to be neutral about religion? Is religion neutral about science? Huh?

</Grumpyness>

I knew I should have dropped it and not said anything else. Here we go again.

If PBS or Nova classified themselves as atheistic organizations then there would be nothing wrong with what they did. If the program represented itself as an atheistic argument against religion I would find nothing wrong with it. If they sought their tax shelters and non-profit status as religious organizations then there would be nothing wrong with it. The issue I take with that program and with your statement is the propagation of the fairy tale that science supports atheism and/or that science disproves religion. Atheism is a religion, not a science. Atheism has as much scientific support as Greek mythology. Intelligent design is not "religious" in nature, as anyone who actually bothered to investigate its definition should immediately understand. Science does not contradict intelligent design. Evolution does not contradict intelligent design.

So while PBS and Nova and apparently you feel safe making broad sweeping accusations, let's try a little "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and see how well your grumpiness stands against mine.

Why is an atheist allowed to practice his religion in public schools but a Christian is not? Why is an atheist not restricted by the separation of church and state but a Christian is? Why is the atheist religion allowed to be considered the "neutral" stance but all others are not? Why is it that an evolutionist with no theological training that writes a book disparaging theology is hailed as a brilliant thinker while a theologist with no scientific training that writes a book disparaging evolution is considered a small-minded crackpot? Why is it that an atheist's disbelief in a thing automatically given greater weight than a theist's belief in a thing? An atheist can say "Intelligent design is wrong" without even the most basic education on what it is and expects everyone to think he's right, but immediately dismisses the theist that doesn't believe in evolution using exactly the same principle. Why is it that if a person uses religion as an excuse to kill a bunch of people, atheists feel empowered to say all religious people are bad, but if a person uses evolution as an excuse to attempt to wipe out an entire race and take over the world, theists aren't allowed to say that all evolutionists are bad? And then, after all that, why do atheists constantly feel as if they are in a position to point out the hypocrisy that goes on in the religious world? You know, I heard this interesting little story once about this pot, and some kettle, and... oh, hello pot!

"Freedom of speech" doesn't cover shouting "fire" in a theater or "bomb" in an airport, but apparently it is appropriate for supporting campaigns to negatively portray religious people in America and abroad under the guise of "neutral" pseudo-science. That's remarkably similar to how Hitler got his start. The fact that more people don't have a problem with that is disturbing.

It seems I started a fire, there. Ok, just for the sake of discussion, I'll try and answer from inside my ignorant self. And that's not irony, nor sarcasm -- if I knew the difference between them, I wouldn't be so ignorant...

First, I didn't say science supports atheism. I asked why science should be neutral about religion, question mark.

Second, I didn't make any accusation. Where did you find it?

Third, I agree atheism is a belief, but I don't see it as a religion. From where I stand -- and I insist in my ignorance -- a religion is somewhat more organized. But let's not split hairs over that. Yes, I also think an atheist chooses to believe there is no God.

"Why is an atheist allowed to practice his religion in public schools but a Christian is not?" -- ESi

One of the reasons why I don't see atheism as a religion it's because it doesn't have any ritual. So what would you consider "practice atheism"? Anyway, I don't know why a Christian shouldn't practice his religion in public anywere. Or a Muslim. Or whoever. I don't see religions as threats, but as choices.

"Why is an atheist not restricted by the separation of church and state but a Christian is?" --ESi

Ehm... because there is no atheist church? And yes, that's other reason why I don't see atheism as a religion. Anyway, why do you think a Christian is restricted by the separation of church and state?

"Why is the atheist religion allowed to be considered the "neutral" stance but all others are not?" --ESi

I don't know who considers atheism as "neutral". I don't. It's just another choice of belief.

Why is it that an evolutionist with no theological training that writes a book disparaging theology is hailed as a brilliant thinker while a theologist with no scientific training that writes a book disparaging evolution is considered a small-minded crackpot? --ESi

I don't know who would cheer at the evolutionist in your question. I wouldn't. I don't understand why an evolutionist with no theological training should write about theology at all. And I don't understand why a theologist with no scientific training should write about evolution at all. I'm not saying they mustn't, after all this is a free world and there is such thing as free speech, but I don't understand it. I don't have theological training, so I don't talk about theology. Full stop. I may -- as is the case right now -- talk about what I feel, or think, about religions, but that's all. Of course I may be wrong.

"Why is it that an atheist's disbelief in a thing automatically given greater weight than a theist's belief in a thing?" --ESi

I'm not giving it greater weight. It's just my option, as being a Christian seems to be yours. So what.

"An atheist can say "Intelligent design is wrong" without even the most basic education on what it is and expects everyone to think he's right, but immediately dismisses the theist that doesn't believe in evolution using exactly the same principle." --ESi

If anyone talks about something he doesn't know at all, and expects everyone else to think he's right, the aforesaid anyone is being stupid. Full stop. That's why I won't enter a discussion about how right or wrong is Intelligent design, at least not until I've read a bit about what's that and made my own mind about it.

"Why is it that if a person uses religion as an excuse to kill a bunch of people, atheists feel empowered to say all religious people are bad, but if a person uses evolution as an excuse to attempt to wipe out an entire race and take over the world, theists aren't allowed to say that all evolutionists are bad?" --ESi

Same answer above. Generalizations are nothing but uninformed opinions, and therefore bound to be wrong. You know it's easier to disprove an absolute...

"And then, after all that, why do atheists constantly feel as if they are in a position to point out the hypocrisy that goes on in the religious world? You know, I heard this interesting little story once about this pot, and some kettle, and... oh, hello pot!" --ESi

I'm guessing you're pointing to the hypocrisy in the "atheist world". OK, you're right. Hypocrisy is not exclusive to religious people.

As I don't see how your post relates to mine, I can only guess you saw my post as an apology of PBS and/or Nova. It isn't. I don't watch any of those -- I don't even know if they can be watched over here.

It seems I started a fire, there. Ok, just for the sake of discussion, I'll try and answer from inside my ignorant self. And that's not irony, nor sarcasm -- if I knew the difference between them, I wouldn't be so ignorant... - Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'. It's like that.

I'm going to leave it there. I had a big reply typed out but I fail to see the point of continuing. Think whatever you want, believe whatever you want.

But, honestly, I didn't want to pick a fight. I was being curious about your opinion. Anyway, I subscribe: Think whatever you want, believe whatever you want.

Peace out, man.

I have to say... you make some valid points there, ESi.

While it's true that most political candidates in the US have the best chance of being elected if they're Christian and just about the worst chance if they're Atheist... that doesn't excuse the hypocrisy that's often seen in the public debate.

Have you seen the movie "Contact" recently? I'm speaking of the movie primarily because I don't remember exactly where it differed from the book. Part of the point they made is that while the public generally doesn't like someone who is too strong in their faith, they don't like someone who is completely devoid of it either.

Not long ago, I was discussing ID with a colleague and after curing his misconceptions of what it is, he still said he preferred schools to not teach ID because the atheist position sounds more "science-y". I consider that individual to be of significantly above average intelligence and to have greater than normal ability in critical thinking. If he approaches it that way, then I suppose I'm wasting my breath. If you ever stumble across the website for the Flat Earth Society then you'd have to admit their position sounds pretty "science-y" too. I pray atheists never take up the cause of the Flat Earth Society or we'll be plunged back into the dark ages before you know it.

Excellent t.v. shows...  I loved the female casting of Starbuck in Galactica - I didn't think I'd like it at first since I grew up with the original show.  Extremely well done on bringing up challenging issues - even just the presentation of the cylons looking like humans - and the question "what does it mean or take to be 'human?'".

Carnivale - oh man... I love the mysticism and the setting of that show - I've always wondered about that period in human history (30s dustbowl).  That opening scene with the tarot cards is so freakin awesome... the art of it blows me away every time.  I wish they sold a deck like that!

I like Smallville, it's true - the 'country boy values' you speak of and the interaction between Clark and Lex - but for all that stuff, I feel, was much better in the first few seasons... and I'm tired of Lana, cute though she may be.  I was surprised with how much I liked this one when it started out too.  I've never liked the other Superman spin off t.v. shows - ie Lois & Clark.  One of the best things about this one was the clever jokes they threw in... like playing Good Ol' Boys when Clark's dad was driving the pick up (from his bygone Dukes of Hazard days) - or the one liners Clark had about not being able to be a businessman because he "couldn't see himself in a suit flying around everywhere". 

One more I'd add that's new and rather brilliant - I've really been enjoying Eli Stone.  Every episode tackles some big, controversial or political issue in the most creative of ways.  I was wondering how they would keep it going, and so far the writers have done an excellent job. 

I like the casting of Starbuck too, even though I agree with what ESi said above. I think this repeats what you were saying, DL, but I like the fact that a woman can be just as big a jerk as anyone else. But also the ways in which she is make sense for me as to the kind of person she is--the kind of person who'd be a hotshot pilot--her strengths and weaknesses are believable and make for good story. Have to say my favorite thing in BSG is Baltar--I love the acting, all the conflict--ethical, identity, religious, political etc. that gets played out in his character.

Carnivale--I think maybe I like that show even more except for it's being cut off in midstory. But the tone and characterization are over the top the best. And I agreee about the whole opening sequence.

Smallville, I like the things everyone else was mentioning. I think especially Clark's relationship to Lex, and the way his relation to his parents is portrayed. I stopped watching around the time they graduated from highschool--and there were some plots with Lex's Dad that started to seem very silly to me. Of course that means I did miss James Marsters as Braniac--and I like his acting so I should probably go back and catch up.

Another show I really, really liked that was on BBC America was "Life on Mars"--I keep hoping it'll show up on Sci Fi. I hear ABC is doing a remake (*shudder*). It's about a present day cop who's in an accident and wakes up in the 70s where he's also a cop. He doesn't know whether he's in a coma or whether he's time travelled or what. The depiction of the 70s was great; a lot of interesting moral dilemmas; cultural conflicts between the way he approaches policing and the way his boss does, plus all the questions about what is "real."

One more to add--I'm currently watching "The Riches" which is about a family of travellers that take over the identity of people who have died in a car accident. Then it's about how they try to con their way into the American Dream. One thing I like about the show is that even though the family is very dysfunctional the mother and father show a lot of love/passion for each other. In that way it reminds me of the Addams Family. Plus interesting to see Eddie Izzard without make up and not cross dressed. (He and Minnie Driver are incredibly good.)

I had a bit of an aversion to the "Eli Stone" show when it first came out because of the over-promotion of it during my favorite show that is Lost, but that was just a little peeve.  But I watched the first episode and immediately I thought it was an interesting concept for a show... ultimately, it just depends where the writers will take it, and how well.  Regretably, I haven't seen every episode (every other one or so) but this last one I saw - George Micheals ACTUALLY enters Eli's life. Wow. The last episode was awesome. VERY intriguing concept for a show, I hope they keep it up.

YES!! I used to watch Smallville religiously!! I LOOOOVED that show... I dunno why I stopped watching it but I haven't seen it in, GAWD, like 2 years. *sob*

Yay! I'm glad you brought it up. I know what I'm doing when Lost goes back into hibernation.

Never seen the battlestar... hhhhmmmm...