Battlestar Galactica Season 3 Premiere

Published 8 years ago by , Updated February 9th, 2012 at 9:13 pm,

battlestar galactica season 3 Battlestar Galactica Season 3 PremiereGut wrenching.

That’s what the two hour premier of season three of Battlestar Galactica was.

I’ll tell you what: you KEEP your “we’re oh so smart and witty” season premiere of Lost, and I’ll take the riveting drama that is BSG any day.

This was two hours of absolutely riveting and for lack of a better word, uncomfortable TV viewing.


The episode opens with almost six months having passed since the Cylons invaded New Caprica and have been ruling the colony with a heavy hand.

The human-looking Cylons are experiencing some internal conflict concerning how to rule or get along with the human residents. Dean Stockwell is influencing the majority of ruling Cylons that there should be mass executions, whittling down the number of surving humans to a “manageable” number of about 1,000. Two of the others, specifically one of the “Boomer” models and Number Six are aghast at the way the situation is developing, since they broke away from the rest of the Cylon fleet presumably to live in peace with the humans.

The Cylons are rounding up, imprisoning, torturing and interrogating members of the population. Among those captured and tortured are Col. Saul Tigh who now thanks to the Cylons, has only one eye. He is released and if you thought he was cranky and angry before, watch out… that was nothing compared to his mood now. Starbuck (in the only Lost-ish scene that had me worried) is being forced to live with a Cylon who says he wants nothing more than for her to fall in love with him. She seems to be going along with it, but then murders him, only to have him reappear resurrected shortly thereafter, and we discover that this is the fifth time she’s “killed” him. She is truly in Hell.

The rebels (called “insurgents” by the Cylons) have had enough, and with Col. Tigh now pretty much out for blood, they pull out all the stops and even resort to suicide bombings. The president (Baltar) is his usual spineless self until they want him to sign off on something so heinous that even he balks at it.

The battlegroup, which took off when the Cylons arrived 6 months ago has it’s own problems, with minimal and inexperienced crew that can’t even complete training exercises correctly much less face battle. Apollo looks shockingly plump and has lost his “edge”, and Adama (his father) is none to happy about his son’s slide from self-discipline in every regard.

Of course the thing that jumps out while watching the episode is the obviously intentional parallels that they are trying to imply between what’s happening between the Cylons and the “insurgents”, and the current war in Iraq. That was part of what made me uncomfortable with the episode, as we watch the humans get to the point where they are willing to strap on bombs and murder their own kind.

I’m sure people will argue the point, but to me there really isn’t a valid parallel, since the Iraqi insurgents/terrorists and those who blow themselves up in Israel are not being subjugated. They in fact want to subjugate everyone else into living under Sharia law, and that is quite different from what is happening on Battlestar Galactica.

In any case, it’s all thought provoking and gripping stuff that had me glued to the TV and I can not wait to see how this season pans out.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: battlestar galactica

47 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Sorry, but that’s a really naive way of looking at the situation. Radical Muslims aren’t trying to convert the world to Islam or whatever. They simply see the US occupation of Iraq as an imperial move, regardless of whether we see it that way. People aren’t afraid of change, they’re afraid of loss. When we moved in, even though our intentions were in the name of peace, democracy, stability and all that good stuff, we appeared to them to be an invading force. You talk about “what if the insurgents never came” as if they arrived from some other part of the world, which is way off.

    Most of them are Iraqis, members of various factions vying for control of the region for whatever sect or cultural group they support. You have Iraqi Sunnis, Iraqi Shiites, Kurdish Sunnis, etc. all fighting for space, not wanting to submit to what many see as an American puppet regime. Not all of them see it that way, but enough do. Still, you’re acting like the insurgents aren’t Iraqis, which leads me to think you haven’t done your homework. They’re not trying to defeat us to show that they’re better than us. Maybe some are, but for the most part, they just want us out so that they can either have their civil war or partition the country along ethnic lines.

  2. Cross writes
    “Radical muslems aren’t trying to converto the world to Islam or whatever.”

    Actually, the forced conversion into islam is fundimental islamic doctrine, and has been so since Muhammad left Mecca in 622 and ruled in Medina as essentially a warlord, using the sword to force conversion to Islam.

    The most fanatical insurgents are those steeped in Wahhabism, and come primarily from Saudi Arabia where Wahhabism is rooted… these men are ideologically motivated, and intend to die. They are the core suicide squad. They are the followers of the doctrine penned in the Medina years of Mohammad.

    Don’t mistake those local Iraqi’s that are part of the insurgent activities and those that are hell bent to die in the name of islam. Their motivations are strictly different, as are their results.

    Al-Qaeda is fueled by Wahabbism, and most of the 911 attackers were of course, Saudi. And of course they are in Iraq for the fight. If we win in Iraq, the tactic of terrorism looses favor. They can’t have that.

    The issue is not the fact that each faction in Iraq wishes to gain the upper hand… the question is, how do they intend to do it? By violent acts? It should be stressed that most members of each group do NOT participate in violent acts, so then one has no choice but to ask: What is motivating those few that do? Dare you assume that All Iraqi’s are basically violent, and will therefore take to killing to solve their problems? Think carefully. The violence is a *strictly minority issue*.

    It seems to me you have much work ahead of you before you gain much more than a TIME Inc. understanding of what is happing there.

    One final practical tidbit. Consider:
    Victory is ours, in two years, if the insurgency decreases in size by only one percent per week.

    Period.

    On the other hand, if it grows by one percent per week, then there is no end. We have lost.

    This simple 2% sway is all that stands between victory and defeat.

    For either side.

    We also know that the Arab populations have changable views on using terror tactics.

    This being the case…

    This war is a media war.

    What *they* understand of us, is media based. (as is the reverse). Media is the primary means to recruit into the most radicalized parts of the insurgency, and a significant portion are swayed by knowing a friend or relative that has joined. (As indicated by the results of a Saudi study).

    If the media does not fan the flames, recruitment goes down. When recruitment goes down, violence goes down… and eventually things settle down.

    Next time you see a media report, or watch a Michael Moore movie, reflect on this.

    Best regards

  3. I don’t watch Michael Moore movies. Why? Because he’s about as confused in his ideas as you are. And just like you, he bends the facts that suit his own ends, so shame on you for assuming I’m in the same camp as that blowhard simply because I don’t agree that we’re winning this war. Even a great many Republicans would agree that Iraq has been heavily mismanaged. By your logic, the only thing we’d have to do to stop the violence is to leave, because then the insurgents will have felt like they’ve won and so they’d stop killing people. That seems like backwards alien-logic to me and it’s an insult to everything our troops over there stand for.

    What you can’t deny is that most Iraqis want us out of there. Not all of them want to force us out violently, but more are starting to support the insurgency because we’re simply not making them safe. 150,000 troops are about 250,000 less than the number we’d need to even have a shot at bringing stability to the region, according to actual simulations run by the US military. Given this, it’s unlikely that the insurgency will go down because it’s stemming from the Iraqi population itself. And as more become disillusioned with our ability to control the situation, more will align themselves along insurgent lines. If we can’t make them safe, they’ll find factions that they think can.

  4. Actually, I never for a second assumed you were in the Michael Moore camp, nor did I ever say so. Please check your assumptions at the door. This world needs more people that act on facts, and less on assumptions, IMHO. You falling into the latter category.

    Placing you in the M. Moore camp was the furthest thing from my mind actually.

    My moore comments were meant strictly of a clear example of how the media SHAPES world opinion.

    If you were ever on the handle, you seem to have flown off it. You seem like a bit of a hot-head… sorry, but I don’t need your insults, or assumptions.

    Returning this channel to your regularly scheduled programming.

  5. Actually, I never for a second assumed you were in the Michael Moore camp, nor did I ever say so. Please check your assumptions at the door. This world needs more people that act on facts, and less on assumptions, IMHO. You falling into the latter category.

    Placing you in the M. Moore camp was the furthest thing from my mind actually.

    My moore comments were meant strictly of a clear example of how the media SHAPES world opinion.

    If you were ever on the handle, you seem to have flown off it. You seem like a bit of a hot-head… sorry, but I don’t need your insults, or assumptions.

    Returning this channel to your regularly scheduled programming.

  6. If I’ve misread your comments, I do apologize. But I’ve been blindsided too often by so many hard-liners from both the left and right that I often feel compelled to lay it out that there are people who don’t think along those simplistic lines. It just seems like not enough credit is given to the independent thinkers, the same independents that elected Bush in 04 and a Democratic Congress just this week.

  7. Vic,

    I was with you every step of the way buddy. Then you pulled the Michael Savage card. Please remember, he is an entertainer. Nothing more. He has brought some interesting items to the table, but just as often screams hyperbole like “traitor” and “scumbag” rather than actually articulating his point. Savage lives in a world of strictly black and white because it serves his interests to do so. He is an entertainer.

    Okay enough of that. What I just wanted to express was a big thank you to Ronald Moore for dragging Science Fiction television back in to the world of social relavance. The best science fiction is always allegory, and there was a total absence of it on “US Magazine” fan pandering “freak of the week” faux fashion shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Smallville. Hell, Moore left Star Trek when it became obvious that those shows producers would rather fly the Las Vegas Hilton through space full of endlessly happy people and keep their rating number exactly the same instead of challenging viewers and risking pissing someone off. Oh, and as a result a billion dollar franchise went out with a giant whimper….

    But I digress…check out Moore’s work on Star Trek Deep Space Nine for many of the exact themes that are being shown on BSG. It seems to me he has always had an interest in who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist. Though the story in Star Trek was more an exact reproduction of the Nazi’s/French Resistance/Vichy French WWII situation. He would be writing these stories without 9-11 and without Iraq, but is certainly using Iraq parallels to make it even more relevant to today. I do not think that BSG is a direct commentary on Iraq, but the intent is certainly there to make one think about both sides and what makes someone decide what to do, and something that resembles present day events is probably the best way to do so.

  8. Sean, yeah… Moore went through some of the same things when he was over on “Star Trek: Voyager” very briefly. He wanted some depth of story and character and they basically said “like, whatever”.

    Vic

  9. I find Mike’s comments hilarious.

    “If the insurgents went away, the US would be gone. If the insurgents never came, the the US would be long gone already. Everyone knows this, including the insurgents.”

    Err, Mike, the insurgents are Iraqis. Where are they going to ‘go away’ too? The Americans, like the Cylons, came to New Caprica (Iraq) and the insurgency sprang up to resist them. By your logic, if the Iraqis went away, the US would leave?

    I am finding BSG new series very entertaining and a great effort (finally!) by US media (as commented on a lot before here) at making people think and tackling tuff issues.,eg Suicide bombing, resistance, occupation, religion, culture clash etc etc.

    Entertaining TV should also exercise the mind and give people stuff to talk about thats relevant to today. Its great to see the series so far.. I tihnk im up to episode 8 or something.

    The whole section showing the Cyclons recruiting human police from the colonists, with the other humans viewing them as traitors and collaborators should put another spin on the constant US insistence on ‘training Iraqi forces’. The govt is a puppet govt, like Baltar, and the police can be seen as collaborators. Its a tricky situation.

    Also of interest was the recent revelation that Commander Adam had been sent on a secret mission (unauthorised by the government it seems) by the Admiralty, to test Cylon defences and breach the Human / Cyclon armistice.

    A non state sanctioned act of violence that causes a great empire to lash out and attack? sound familiar?

    A great series so far, and a lot of talking and thinking points, and good to see lively discussion here too.

  10. One poster wrote “Riiiight… and how exactly were we oppressing them before terrorists bombed the U.S.S. Cole? How about the first World Trade Center bombing? Israeli women and children being blown up in malls and on buses?”

    People dismiss the argument that the Iraq war is creating hatred of the United States by saying that people hated us before we invaded Iraq. This argument drives me crazy. Yes, some people hated us before the war. The question is whether MORE people hate us now.

    If I were to go to the middle east, become the leading spokesperson for al quaida, convince half the muslim world that the U.S. is plotting to poison muslim babies with laser controlled tooth picks, would you say that what I did was okay because people hated us before I started broadcasting, or would you be concerned that I was creating MORE hatred of the U.S.

  11. And there you go, putting the intentions and actions of the U.S. government on the same level as that of a terrorist organization in your analogy.

    That’s the problem with folks looking at it from that point of view: Moral equivalence which does not exist.

    Heck, why not make an analogy between a parent disciplining their child and Charles Manson?

    Vic

  12. Vic wrote “And there you go, putting the intentions and actions of the U.S. government on the same level as that of a terrorist organization in your analogy.”

    I’ll respond to your point even though you didn’t respond to mine. Of course I believe that our INTENTIONS are far more benign that those of terrorist. The problem is that good intentions only count for so much. Do you think the families of the thousands (by your estimate ?? I don’t know what your estimate is) or hundreds of thousand by other estimates care about our intentions.

    Now back to my point. You are not the only person to argue that we don’t have to worry about increasing hatred of the U.S. because they hated us before the war. Of course some people hated us before the war. The question is do MORE people hate us beceause of the war and is that hatred harmful.

    Do you believe that more people hate the U.S. because of the Iraq war. Would an increase in the number of people who hate the U.S. be harmful whether that increase is the intended consequence of terrorist or the unintended consequence of the U.S. government.

    I would welcome a NO answer to both questions, but please answer the questions.

  13. To answer your question: I don’t care who hates us or how many people hate the U.S. if what we are doing is right. No one should make a decision based on what other people think, only on whether something is the the good and right thing to do.

    Notice the above statement does not necessarily say that we ARE right. I believe that the initial reasoning and the ultimate goal are right but in the end it’s up to the Iraqis to find a way to live together and no outsider can force them to do that. That may be where an ultimate failure may come from all this.

    Vic

  14. You fail, Vic. I had hope for you and you failed. Initial reasoning was ties to al Qaeda and WMDs. None of which were found. Please don’t b******* us. And don’t use the excuse that it’s “up to the Iraqis” because the Iraqis have been divided ever since they were under Saddam. Please, please don’t say anything this stupid ever again.

  15. Dude, this thread is pages long. What exactly are you referring to?

    BTW, say what you want but I still think we were justified based on a dozen years of outright non-compliance with the resolutions put in place by the *U.N.* after they attacked Kuwait.

    Vic

  16. Right. Even though the UN didn’t approve of the invasion of Iraq nor did we invade immmediately after Saddam attacked Kuwait and bombed Kurds. Are you seriously saying that we were justified in invading them TEN YEARS after we already pushed them out of Kuwait? You cannot be this dense.

  17. Dude, go find a political blog to continue this discussion. Head on over to Blogcritics.org and you’ll find plenty of folks who agree with you.

    I’m done with this thread and BTW you’re starting to push it with words like “stupid” and “dense” so I would suggest you tone down the rhetoric.

    Vic

  18. Sorry, Vic. But I do think someone’s lying to you. None of what you’ve said so far would be confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report. In fact, they’ve been thoroughly discounted. The administration changed its reasons for going to war upon discovering that their original reasons where completely without merit. And they relied on the American people having a short enough memory to let it slide. I didn’t think you’d be one of those people.

<-- Taboola Alt -->