Friday, March 29, AD 2024 3:19am

Adama v. Adama

 adama-1adama-2

Hattip to Cranky Con.  Since there is nothing of real importance going on today, at least nothing that can’t wait for comment over the next four years,  I thought this might be a good time to take a look at these reflections by Dirk Benedict on the current Battlestar Galactica show.

As Cranky Con observes, a large part of Benedict’s comments are probably sour grapes from an actor whose career peaked with the A-Team, but I think many of his criticisms are on target.  I watched the old show and although it seems dated now, and is, it was good harmless science fiction entertainment in the seventies that obviously didn’t take itself very seriously.  The current show which I watch is better acted, has great cgi effects, and is much better written.  It is also down-beat, bordering on soft-core porn in parts, ultra-violent, frakking foul mouthed, and presents a bleak, nihilistic, thus far, view of the human condition.  I think Benedict nails it in this passage:

“Re-imagining”, they call it. “Un-imagining” is more accurate. To take what once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show based on hope, spiritual faith and family is un-imagined and regurgitated as a show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction. To better reflect the times of ambiguous morality in which we live, one would assume. A show in which the aliens (Cylons) are justified in their desire to destroy human civilization, one would assume. Indeed, let us not say who the good guys are and who the bad are. That is being “judgmental,” taking sides, and that kind of (simplistic) thinking went out with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and Kathryn Hepburn and John Wayne and, well, the original “Battlestar Galactica.”

Well what is worthwhile about the new show and why do I watch it?  In one word Adama.  I love how he is portrayed in this show by Edward James Olmos who I think gives  a realistic portrayal of a career military man dealing with an impossible situation.  Lorne Greene  never convinced me that he wasn’t about to call on Hoss and Little Joe to straighten out those galmonging Cylons!  I also think the show does gain a few points for dealing with moral questions, although many of the answers given to the moral questions are appalling to me.

Ah well, there is at least one other person who joins Benedict in preferring the old Battlestar Galactica to the new Battlestar Galactica.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Davis
Tuesday, January 20, AD 2009 5:58am

I still prefer the little-known Battlestar Galactica of the 1940’s and 1950’s. I think it’s available on DVD, if you’re interested.

Matt
Matt
Tuesday, January 20, AD 2009 11:10am

Thanks for the comments and link to the amusing remarks by Dirk Benedict. As a member of the (original 1977) Star Wars generation, Galactica was a favorite show! But your comments prompt me to a related subject. You mention that the current iteration, like many shows since the 1990s, features soft-porn. Without wanting to appear sanctimonious or guilt-free, how do you justify watching it? Is it for the entertainment value? If so, what makes you (or me) different in that respect from any non-Catholic? It’s just that I think Catholics have fought shy of this issue in the last forty years. There used to standards for entertainment based on the catechism. As far as I still know I have no good reason to watch simulated sex or erotic content. Those things in some way or other fall under the 9th commandment. Granted there are shades of grey. And one could talk of subtle distinctions in mature entertainment before the 60s, but things are so in your face now, that those arguments no longer apply in many cases. I throw this out there for the sake of debate. Ultimately there must be an objective standard. As Catholics we object to porn, hard or soft, in our popular culture. How do we counter it? Do we allow ourselves to participate in it just because we like James Bond movies, etc.? What makes our stance any different from that of some antinomian “Christianinty” that has emasculated our religion and rendered us impotent in the face of neo-paganism. Again no judgementalism here but I’d like some answers. Thanks!

Jasmine
Jasmine
Tuesday, January 20, AD 2009 11:34am

The only thing I would take exception to is the “sour grapes” comment. It skews where the article is coming from – using the new show *only* as a jumping off point for the state of television (and society) as a whole. The whole “career peak” thing comes from the fact that he chose parenthood (gasp!) over acting, something to be applauded and which is too often overlooked.

Matt
Matt
Tuesday, January 20, AD 2009 4:09pm

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I didn’t want to be overly contentious, but I’m not sure it’s the answer I’m looking for. Whether your approach works for you or not remains subjective and some might say indistinguishable from the mainstream view (“don’t look at it if you don’t like it”). It’s not “Amish” to say that what passes for entertainment now would have been totally inadmissible to the clergy and most laypeople fifty years ago. We had moral continuity for centuries and now it’s gone. Can definitions really change that much? Granted there are grey areas and room for prudential decisions. (Let’s avoid “puritanism” as a red herring.) But as I think you admit, there are excesses which no one should realistically be expected to grapple with. The problem is that today’s immorality is the rule and less easily avoided than an obscure piece of literature (e.g. Petronius) was in the past. If the standards have fallen then presumably we need to restore them rather than acquiesce to evil in the interests of aesthetic urbanity. On the other hand, if it means that we have to view lingerie displays and groping for the sake of some pulp sci fi show… well, that’s a bid of a hard sell for me, I admit! All said in charity.

David Van Cleve
David Van Cleve
Tuesday, January 20, AD 2009 5:32pm

“It’s not “Amish” to say that what passes for entertainment now would have been totally inadmissible to the clergy and most laypeople fifty years ago. We had moral continuity for centuries and now it’s gone.”

From where I sit -and given the general direction of this reply- Matt is seeing things fairly clearly. Well spoken.

My best friend is a nominal Catholic (his mother practiced, he never did) and seemingly obsessed with “BG 2.0”. As I liked the original as a child I thought I’d give the new series a chance, and joined my friend to watch up to the second season, but I won’t watch beyond that point. Among other issues I have with the new series there’s simply too much moral relativism, too much violence, and too much sexuality on display for me to find much redeeming about its story arc. Naturally, my friend thinks I’m taking my moral objections too seriously while I on the other hand wonder how any practicing Catholic could do anything else!

As opposed to the original series “2.0” is nothing I’d show my fiancee, much less any children we might one day have.

Still, I will thank you for this humorous and thought-provoking entry!

trackback
Monday, February 16, AD 2009 10:29am

[…] who portrayed the original Starbuck (Dirk Benedict) has a problem with this portrayal (hat tip to Donald McClarey); and not just that – he sees it as a sign of a deep flaw in the entirety of the new series. It is […]

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top