UNCUT REACTION - Battlestar Galactica S1E2 - Water

OK blah I love blah blah this show blah blah So exactly 33 minutes…. Uh days ago it was BASTILLE Day. I didn’t get into this show until hand of god I liked it but it turned a corner with that episode. I am catching up

I loved the original BSG as a kid in reruns in syndication. The remake? Uh, I dunno. It's like some seasons I really enjoyed, others I barely remember. But I know there was a really boring, tedious stretch or two from what I recall. That said, it's been a long time since I watched the show on Scyfy, so I might as well give it another looksee along with you gents.

I think part of why you may be a little more muted in your reaction to the show is the aspect of the audience being ahead of the characters, which can be pretty pronounced early on in this show. What's going on with Sharon(s) here is a prime example. Clearly we've got 2 Sharons, so clearly a cylon, and they even give away with the "some are programmed to believe they are human" that she's like a sleeper agent. I was confused at first why she was wet as well, and even showing the bombs underwater it just looked like it was dark with a dull blue light, almost like moonlight. But when the tanks blew, I put 2 and 2 together and realized she went swimming to plant the bombs. As the show reveals more, the characters catch up to the audience. As far as the shaky cam, depending on the scene I'm torn between whether they're trying to put us in the POV of an in universe camera or an in universe person. Definitely the camera getting hit by the debris at Armistice station was meant to be immersive like we were seeing footage from a security cam. But on the hangar deck for instance there's no reason someone would be running around with a camera, so it's more like some other tech walking around and we're seeing from their POV(though we've all walked or even run and not had our vision shake around like that, so not an immersive effect in that case). Of course that doesn't work when there's only 2 characters in a room. I think it was just a creative trope at the time that ended up being overused. I think Cloverfield in 2008 took it to a point that was so exaggerated and annoying that it ended up being the beginning of the end for that filming style. I get Tyrol trying to cover for Sharon given how he feels about her, but from a professional standpoint his actions are very irresponsible. There's been a bombing and he knows she woke up with explosives and detonators in her bag. She's the prime suspect, and even if his theory she was framed is true, security can't investigate that given he's covering up the whole thing. This ep is very much part of a serialized show. We don't really get resolution on anything, just a Salt Bae sprinkle of progression all around on the plot and character development. Little Roslin and Adama, little water shortage in the fleet, little suspicion cast on Boomer and Tyrol covering for her, little Starbuck and Baltar, little Helo and other Sharon. You just need to keep watching to get the pay off for all that.

I'm glad I'm watching along with you guys. I don't feel so lost and alone. 😕

Hey guys! I still can’t find your Demolition Man reaction video? I love that movie I first saw it when I was 13.

I love this show, saw originally religiously, and I LOVE YOU GUYS! And now I can say, I do have to admit and agree, my god it is like the one cameraman is obviously on high caffeine or no pee breaks with a super zoom lens, lol, and rewatching with you two has confirmed omg lol. But I'll say, I think they eventually ditch that cameraman or adjust it later, I don't believe its that much as time goes on.🤓

Also, don’t wish to labor the point as we have mentioned this before but this was written to be the antithesis of 90s sci fi shows and movies. At this point in history we had around 28 seasons of Star Trek under our belts. I can see how this feels strange to watch right in the middle of the Golden age of Trek.

I think you never love the school teacher but you get to understand her and appreciate what she is doing.

Thumbnail made it look like you were going to be super negative but you actually were quite reasonable. It is good have a non episodic show for a change.

The shaky cam and the way it is filmed improves greatly as it goes on. Dr Baltar is my favourite character in the series and I think although you are not impressed at the moment you will come to really appreciate him for his complexity and the acting of James Callis.

This is a wonderful take. I think what Ron Moore was trying to demonstrate with this show is that science fiction can very much be a serious TV drama. It doesn't have to be goofy or campy, and depend on comic relief and quirky aliens. That you can do a real real drama with wonderful writing and acting but also have a sci-fi setting and sci-fi concepts. This show really did elevate the genre. It's an important inflection point in TV history in my opinion. Right up there with the way The Sopranos basically created the modern concept of adult, cinematic, episodic television.

Y'all gotta retune your phasers to a different frequency. I think you're going into BSG with a "Star Trek" mindset, and that's not gonna work. The show is far darker than Star Trek, obviously. Maybe that fact was understated. It's not an uplifting, hopeful vision of humanity'a future. It's well... more complicated than that. This is still one of my favorite television shows of all time, but it's NOT episodic, and can't be watched with the expectation that every episode will be a self-contained story. Nor is every episode guaranteed to be a net positive for the characters. I am concerned that you haven't really liked either of the episodes so far, because I was hooked after "33" even without having seen the miniseries. I didn't like "Water" as much, but I still REALLY enjoyed it, and it was still good science fiction. I feel like there's a certain lack of comprehension, but I can't explain what I thought was obvious my first time through without possibly spoiling what is to come. "The Cylons were created by man" text is important. I always felt like it took Star Trek a couple seasons to really find its feet, and that Battlestar Galactica hit the ground running. Obviously you don't have the same feeling.... I did have a few friends where it took them some episodes to feel engaged and connected. And one who absolutely hated it, because it wasn't BSG (1978). And he told me that was the reason he hated it. In the end, it's down to each person how they individually approach it. Like I said before, I think the darkness of the show was undersold when you were being told how good it is. It's very dark, and has a much less flattering portrayal of human beings. But as a result you get stories and concepts that Star Trek couldn't explore because human beings in Star Trek are not flawed. They're all well-educated and cultured and evolved. Not so in Battlestar. Rodenberry's vision of the future REQUIRED that there be no interpersonal conflict between humans. So while he was still overseeing the show, the writers had to find external conflicts in every episode, because they couldn't do internal, interpersonal conflicts. Not so in Battlestar, as we saw in part in this episode. The show is about humans. Flawed, conflicted, terrible, wonderful human beings. I hope you enjoy the next few episodes.

President Laura Roslin = Doctor Beverly Crusher

This is one of the best science-fiction television series ever aired, in terms of a prestige TV show with quality writing. It is very much of its moment: the post-9/11, GW Bush years with the war and occupation in Iraq. That's at the spiritual core of the topics being explored. It's this high-minded, nuanced political series, BUT it's wrapped in this amazing, dark, pulpy, psychological-thriller, political backstabbing, body horror, Sci-Fi space battle epic. It can get grim, but it's just so frakking GOOD. You may hate it, but I really think you'll love it, and it'll end up being one of those shows you think about forever. Just like TNG. :)

You must remember the original Battlestar Galactica was episodic. This series is not. It takes its time to build. In time you'll be hooked. Some questions will be answered, but other questions will take there place. Baltar is not the mustache twirling evil villain he is in the original. The actor simply plays him as an emotionally confused, pumpous ass. And i think he does a great job of it, and he's funny. Edward James Olmos is an Academy Award winning actor. If you want to see him at his finest, check out "Stand and Deliver" or "Blade Runner". He won for "Stand and Deliver".

I’m curious if my willingness to stick with the show originally had a lot to do with already liking the actors playing Adama and The President going into this. I know I wasn’t hooked yet at this point but liked this episode more than the previous one.

I'm not watching this, but seeing that thumbnail made me chuckle.

...she was wet because she was in a WATER tank planting bombs :)

By the season finale you will secretly yearn to binge the rest of the show, but will be unsure how to tell the other these strange feelings of desire and guilt. My calculations say there is an 11% chance one or both of you cheat on the other and watch ahead late at night when no one is looking.

I like the character of Laura Roslin. I do not find her arrogant (like Baltar is). She is intelligent, good at what she does, not condescending to others, and able to accept ideas from others as well as make the big decisions herself. I have not seen her be deliberately mean, hurtful, or deceitful to anyone. Sooooo. Kinda confused as to why Alex finds her character arrogant. I know Alex and Josh are not intimidated by strong women; can we all say Dr. Crusher?? ;) I am just confused as to why the opinion started off that way so soon. Thank you for the reaction, guys!

This is a legitimate drama TV series. This is how its going to be. Its not funny. There aren't any Marvel movie style jokes and comic relief segments every few minutes. It's not going to have a resolution and an upbeat, uplifting moment at the end where people laugh and slap each other on the shoulder while the music swells.

you like character development and will love this show

I figured you guys would like this one a bit more than the previous one because this has more of the character stuff, while the previous episode was more of a nail-biter. I think you'll really love some of the episodes coming up.

I love that I am going to rewatch BG from the start with you guys. It's really a masterpiece of character work, with titanic performances from Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos particularly. You guys are clearly empathetic enough to shed a tear when the drama invokes it, and you won't be short of moments as this series progresses. Ron Moore became a god to me from TNG and this show. Imagine how thrilled I was to learn he was coming to Scotland to showrun "Outlander" for the SciFi channel. Its now in its 8th and final season, and although I now work in high-end television in Scotland (Good Omens, The Rig, Anansi Boys, Department Q), I never got the chance to work with Ron 's team. Maybe its best not to meet my hero!

All of the characters do get developed very well, which is one thing I appreciate about a show with such a large cast. Ronald Moore hit the sweet spot with this series, I think.

"There's a bug casino in the next system..." LOL I think you have heard by now that Eddie Olmos was ADAMAnt (lol) that there be NO 'bug-eyed-monsters' on the show (and Ron wanted to get away from 'bumpy-headed aliens' and other sci-fi tropes anyway), and if Eddie saw even ONE, he would fake a heart attack on set and quit there and then.

They do calm down on the shaky cam as the series progresses. The shaky cam makes it almost feel like the footage was recorded by like a news cameraperson or someone else documenting the events as they unfolded for posterity. Firefly of course used the same techniques. It was a bit in vogue at the time.

I forgot how annoyingly distracting the jerky hand-held camera movement was in these early episodes, but they do calm it down as the series progresses. Long before the workplace comedies, that directing style was primarily used in hour-long dramas, beginning with "Hill Street Blues" in the 80s and becoming nearly unwatchable in "Friday Night Lights" in 2006. It does help to create that sense of urgency and immediacy in a scene, but it can really be a bit much. You're right when you say that the show is planting the seeds of the characters and stories early on, and it is a slow build. That being said, I think you'll particularly appreciate the next episode.

I know it's hard to figure out, but Boomer (Galactica sharon) was wet because... well... how do YOU think explosives got inside the water tanks?

One of the few things that I remember about this television series was that it took FOREVER for them to air any episodes. The miniseries aired on December 8, 2003, so I was ready to watch some more episodes in a few days or weeks. No, it took over an entire year for them to start airing the television show. For some reason they started airing the television series in the United Kingdom on October 18, 2004 , but Americans had to wait for another 3 months or over a year to see the television series air on January 14, 2005. They lost all of their momentum with me when they did that. I had never even heard of the term reboot before back 20 years ago, so when I watched the miniseries I didn't have a clue how the new show related to the old show. I can't remember much about the show, but I think some critics said it was an allegory in someways for the War on Terror which was going on at that time. Edward James Olmos was the one thing I remember from this show. I remember that he told those confused about Cyclons to watch his movie Blade Runner. The new show also spawned a very popular board game.