<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:26 PM, James Wynn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crushtv@gmail.com">crushtv@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br> </blockquote></div><br>Not at all. The BSG god is a god as a-term-for-we-know-not-what. It can quite literally mean whatever you want it to mean. It is an idea of God that denies rationality. Baltar makes that quite clear. And despite all the sermons by Baltar that we have heard over the last 2 years, I challenge you to tell me what his followers believed about Him. Christian mystics acknowledge that there is a lot about God that we don't understand, but you can understand aspects of God they describe.<br>
<br>That's alright with me. It is a frequent presentation of God in movies. The problem is when such a god becomes the primary mover of the narrative...which he did in BSG.
<div class="im"></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I never thought the viewer of BSG was supposed to take Baltar's mysticism the least bit seriously. He was as phony as they come and the fact that he never spouted a coherent philosophy reflected that. Only his statements on the "angels" he saw were heartfelt. The fact that his confused, post-atheist ramblings struck a chord with Cavil had as much to do with Cavil's own weird relationship with religion than with the legitimacy of Baltar's point. Note that convicted atheist Bill Adama didn't seem to have a major change of heart due to anything Baltar said.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im"><span id=""></span> </div>I believe what she said was "You can show yourself out" meaning "It's time for you to go _now_ and I mean _right_ now." Leno once asked Charlie Sheen why he utilizes prostitutes when he could self-evidently get it for free. He responded "I don't pay them for sex. I pay them to go home." If you're a big enough jerk, you don't even have to pay for that. She couldn't have even gone out for breakfast with the guy? Reverse the gender and you can see that such a scene (ala in "Iron Man") could not be written except to degrade the character being sent home.
<div class="im"> </div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Or to show some of Roslin's ability to be cold, ruthless, or just flat-out unsympathetic. I bought it for her character all the way.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="im"><span id=""></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">In BSG people have (and don't have) sex for all sorts of<br>human reasons, and have all sorts of human reactions.<br>
In Wolfe people apparently have sex to show what bad<br>people they are, and suffer for it later.<br></blockquote><br></div>That's ridiculous. Do you really intend to compare the writing of BSG to Wolfe in favor of BSG? Incidentally, I thought the one other use of sex in the Caprica arc that I have not addressed yet--a strip club-- was nothing but exploitive. </blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Ehh. I thought the scene was tame in a show for adults and I thought that it fit the Ellen/Saul relationship, which otherwise didn't get a lot of focus in the finale. <br>_______________________________________________<br>
Urth Mailing List<br>To post, write <a href="mailto:urth@urth.net" target="_blank">urth@urth.net</a><br>Subscription/information: <a href="http://www.urth.net/" target="_blank">http://www.urth.net</a><br></div></div><br>