Just stopping by to respond to this. I definitely don’t think the writers have any kind of overarching story line. I just don’t find those plot points distracting and I think they have maintained pretty good continuity in light of that. I’m more worried about the writers avoiding things like the rampant mediocrity midway through season two. I kind of judge episodes of BSG by the number and quality of “WHAT THE FUCK?!?!” moments in each episode (Such as Laura telling Adama “There’s only one way out of this, you have to kill her.”) and the finale was a doozy.
Man if only the producers of the show knew about QT3 they could hire you all to be the writers and put BSG on the right track. I mean screw that hack Ronald Moore…
As cutting and incisive as your wit is, this comment seems a little pointless, given that it’s really just a general complaint about the horror of criticism.
If only the producers/developers/publishers of the film/show/book/game knew about Qt3, they could hire you all as writers/directors/designers/coders and put it on the right track. I mean screw/bugger/ream/disembowel that hack Ronald Moore/John Grisham/Peter Molyneux.
If only critics were the people that made movies/games/television shows/books/music, the whole [insert scene here] will be so much better.
True.
Bending the rules a bit, I liked the Admiral Kane two-parter better than 33.
If the single-episode rule is firm, then yes, 33 is the best.
The implication being that my opinions are somehow suspect because I’m not a professional writer? That’s a specious argument - I’m also not a vintner, but I can tell the difference between a good and bad bottle of wine.
I mean, we’re not talking about experimental cinema here, where you might validly claim that it’s beyond the capacity of the unwashed masses to appreciate. My complaints are all about basic concepts of characterization and consistency that most of us learned in grade school.