From the special I saw about this series I'm not sure what to think

I’ve never worn rose tinted glasses, but it would take a helluva tint to give it a “solid” rating. We think you must be kidding, redskin.

Not as kidding as you might think. Sure the show had some serious clunkers (like the Starbuck and Children vs the Cylons I had to suffer through last night was pretty bad indeed), and there were only like - what, three effects shots total?

But given the limitations of the time and the constraints of the show (that it was only suppose to be a 5 episode mini-series that the Network wanted more more more of), it was pretty good and showed real promise for seasons 2 and beyond.

Or maybe I'm just hitting the fire water again.

I think if the network hadn't rushed Larson it would have been even better, instead the writers basically had to steal from other sources

El, I totally agree with your reasoning, and appreciate you bringing up the 3 FX shots (although, I think there were really 4 or 5).

But I don’t think you can give out points for handicaps. Hell, Enterprise had potential, until they shot the first episode. Shall we give it props because they’re hamstrung with writers who read at the third-grade level?

Rather than call it “solid,” which it certainly was not, I’d like to think of BG as a Classic, in much the same way as Dr. Who and even TOS. This elevates it way above Guilty Pleasure, IMO, a label I might give to Space: 1949, fer instance.

Don’t mistake my disagreeing with your assessment as ragging on the show. I just don’t give it quite as high an overall mark as you seem to.

Buck Rogers, on the other hand, was one solid show.

watching it as we speak, err type. taped it today off sci-fi while I was at work