Haha, echt he. In een review van de serie in The Guardian stond dat veel fans dat probleem tegenkomen
. ff terugzoeken:
" How about a series that's as passionate and intelligent as The West Wing when debating war and terrorism, or as emotionally articulate about death, loss and love as Six Feet Under, or as trippy, mystical and deliciously baffling as Twin Peaks? A series that's not afraid to take you on an epic, existential journey during which you'll grow to love characters who are wrangling with metaphysical issues such as the nature of humanity and god? A series that does all this while never losing sight of the idea that television should be entertaining? But what's that? You don't do spaceships? Oh ...
That's the problem when you start to recommend Battlestar Galactica. As we approach the last-ever episode (or get ready for the last box set, depending on how you're watching it), it's clear to fans that the last five years have been about much, much more than watching robots chasing people across space. And yet, there's no denying it - BSG is filled with scenes where brilliant actors such as Mary McDonnell or Edward James Olmos are called on to deliver lines about "firing up the FTL drives for a jump" with a straight face.
And yes, it is set in a universe where a lone military spaceship is protecting an ever-dwindling population of humans from the relentless onslaught of a race of sentient robots. And yes, even the show's name is ridiculous. It's not solid and enigmatic like The Wire, it doesn't have the elegant irony of The Sopranos, and there's a distinct lack of the now-wow zeitgesty zip you get from say, Sex and the City or Desperate Housewives. It's daft. It's pompous. It's - let's face it - sci-fi."
Volledige artikel hier:
Battlestar Galactica: Better than The Wire? | Television & radio | The Guardian
Zelf heb ik niets tegen de naam, uiteindelijk is de Battlestar Galactica de grote hoofdrolspeler.
)
