A guilty defector to the Battlestar

Of all the guilty pleasures, perhaps the most insidious are those that involve a volte-face on a personal dislike. Once you hated it, now it is rather nice. Perhaps it's why churches never have any problem finding sinners.

As someone who was very fond of the original Star Wars trilogy, I regarded the (original 1970s) Battlestar Galactica as a cheap, horrible, knock-off imitation and despised it deeply. Actually I still do. (Even the logo of the original series looks suspiciously like that of Star Wars.) I wasn't alone in this. Apparently Isaac Asimov said 'Star Wars was fun and I enjoyed it. But Battlestar Galactica was Star Wars all over again and I couldn't enjoy it without amnesia.' Not to mention the reaction of 20th Century Fox, which promptly sued Universal.

However I recently had an evening to spare, and meandering through Netflix for something to watch I came across the 2004 Galactica reboot. It had one of the highest star ratings of anything I've ever seen on Netflix, so I thought, grudgingly, I'd give it ago. And having sat through 3 hours of the opening miniseries, I'm hooked.

Okay, bits of it are still derivative. Where it's not playing on Stars Trek and Wars, it has huge dollops of Heinleinesque Starship Troopers (not the movie, the original book). But having said that, there is much to like about it - whether it's the intriguing presence of the phantom, red dress wearing Cylon woman, apparently in the head of the amoral, in-it-for-himself British (inevitably) computer wizard, the pull between state and military, or the idea that the Battlestar was essentially a museum, so has the relatively low tech that is the best defence against the robotic enemy.

What's more, now I've discovered it ten years after everyone else, I've got four whole seasons to watch...

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog