While visiting an old friend of mine yesterday, the subject of the new Battlestar Galactica show was brought up. He then lent me a few DVDs. A couple of years ago I rented the original miniseries with another friend: We both were bored stiff but managed to knock it off. The conversation was quick after the screening... it was bad. Maybe the series is better. Maybe this. Maybe that. Even the original was better. And at least it was a grande scaled (budgeted) show, albeit poorly written, and was watchable for that quality alone.
Ten minutes ago I finished watching a regular episode of the reimagined BG. It is a darn shame the producers did not just imagine making it and leave it at that. What makes this argument more interesting, if not exciting, for me is the fan base this show enjoys -- well, the three or four million veiwers that is claimed by ratings services. (Jeez, a show would be cancelled yesteryear when it averaged a paltry ten million. There were more variables than that, but you get the idea.)
Where do I start? For starters this version of the BG name feels very cheap to me. This is not the indicator of quality, but given that recent advances in technology have minimized visual effects and post production costs, I am amazed at how there are no apparent onscreen gains here. Maybe the show is working with less money than I would have thought. Anyway, I am the first to admit that a show done for pennies can still attract my admiration and attention; if it is done well, and the scripts are good.
(I clicked on the 'time remaining' menu on my DVD player: Only 15 minutes gone?! Thirty minutes to go?! No!)
What is it with those ridiculous snap-zooms in the effects shots? And what is it with that shaky camera in the live action scenes? This would make sense if a very long lens was on the camera to go with analogous content, but no, the camera appears to have a normal focal length lens on and the operator just likes shaking. (The crew might not even know what I am talking about, so it's a non issue. The fanzies should take up a collection and buy a tripod for the Cattlestar production team.)
The cast is uniformly bad. Everyone is pretentious and exhibits that wankfest acting style: Look at me act! The music scoring is Synsonic Drum heaven, the production design is poor as are the effects shots, over and above the issue of SnappyCam. CG shots are often accused of looking like something "done on my computer" but this effects crew has succeeded in making CG spaceships look like Dinky Toys. I never imagined I would see that happen.
(I clicked on the 'time remaining' menu on my DVD player: Still 12:26 to go?! This is going to be the longest 12:26 ever!)
It is hard for me to gauge the quality of scripting in the series, but this episode could not convince me it has acheived any level above paint-by-numbers. I have heard that themes of this and that have been dealt with in different episodes. My smark would go something like this, "and it's not as though that has been done before!"
After minutes of reflection I cannot think of anything I like about the show -- well, it got made and sold; and that always gets my admiration.
There is no way I am watching more episodes of this abortion. As my friend Larry would say, I can never get those hours back.
I was going to search for a nice photo to attach above... but even that is not worth my time.
... I can never get those five minutes back.
3 comments:
Yes, absolutely agree. Uniformly awful. I've never understood the purpose of taking a "brand name" and then ignoring everything about it. The new BIONIC WOMAN (by the producers of BG, conicidentally) is awful as well. TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES, while not fantastic, at least had the sense to expand on the source material, rather than jettison it entirely. And, unlike BG and BIONIC WOMAN, the action sequences in T:TSCC, while not terribly exciting are at least well staged and shot.
I'll give the show some credit. Though I prefer the original and screening the 1978,79 boxed set actually improved my respect for old school Galactica, I have seen the pilot and some of the first season of the reboot and it has its own value. Seeing Stands-With-A-Fist as the teacher-turned-President makes for interesting politiporn as she is sworn in with a speech that is an inverse of a certain current administration. But even the "post 9/11" subtext that elevates the new show is not going to age well.
I don't much like the false documentary approach either. I didn't care for it on NYDB Blue either. John Sayles mentions in his commentary for Sunshine State that he got around the "false hand-held" feeling with a wider (normal) lens by using a contraption by using some sort of harness for the camera that whips it around. It hangs on a bungee cord I think. He used it for a town meeting scene.
I used to say that faux hand-held would not last long because afer all documentary filmmakers actually try to keep a steady shot. But in the age of youtube the concept of anyone whipping a camera aroud artlessly in home movies may indeed be cemented into the cinema vocabulary now as something to emulate when usefull.
I have avoided seeing Cloverfield strictly due to my personal dislike of this approach, or more because of my respect for movies that spend exactly the right shot on exactly the right moment. That being said, I have to admit I saw The Bourne Ultimatum on DVD a few days ago and it managed to evoke decisiveness, confidence and clarity despite being hand-held.
I can't say the handheld has been bothersome; for comparison, I tried watching NYPD Blue a few years back and gave up after vertigo set in.
The orginal mandate was to have every shot in the effects appear as though it could have been plausibly taken from a real camera (even one mounted on a wingtip, etc). This tapered off after a while, especially once the battle scenes got complex enough to require master shots that had arbitrary POVs.
Some of the early effects were awkward (they got particular flak for the lighting levels on the CGI Centurions) but they've improved enough that the visual effects team won a 2007 VES Award for Outstanding Models and Miniatures in a Broadcast Program. (If the award was given for the strafing-the-resurrection-ship sequence in that episode, then it was well deserved.)
Post a Comment