The poor reviews posted here seem to be based on a common misunderstanding: that this is a nonsensical and boring introduction to a supposedly highly praised series. This is due to a huge flaw in the way in which Battlestar Galactica is presented on IMDb and on streaming services. "33" is technically not the first episode of the series. In actual fact, there is a two-part pilot miniseries (running 180 minutes) which sets up the events of the series. It's typically packaged separately, which causes a great deal of confusion for those who are not aware of the proper viewing order. A serious flaw on the part of the creators, to be sure. But one might understand better if the series is viewed from the proper beginning.
Additionally, one should also be aware that this is not a traditional sci-fi. If you're looking for blinking lights and transporters and long-winded conversation about fancy futuristic technology... look somewhere else. This show is about human behavior and the human condition. It's about people first and foremost; it just happens to take place in space. In the same way that a show taking place in the western United States doesn't automatically make it a Western genre series about the Wild West. Do Battlestar fans consider it sci-fi? Absolutely. But it's a reinvention of sci-fi.
Those who take issue with the mention of god/gods have clearly missed the point of the underlying social commentary. They've also overlooked the obvious possibility for sci-fi to put science and reason to the concept of gods and higher powers, or to view all of these concepts from a philosophical view, which is where Battlestar differs from sci-fi of the past. While previous shows in this genre took a more literal approach with "cool technology" and gimmicks, Battlestar sets the stage with how people react emotionally to fear, and war, and loss, and trauma, and all of the flaws in the human condition. It makes us think about our own humanity-and what makes us human. One needs only to look at present day sci-fi to see how Battlestar influenced the genre and changed everything (even current Stark Trek incarnations) to embrace serialized dramatic storytelling with darker tones and more human substance, now preferring that structure over old-fashioned isolated, self-contained episodes in which everything resets back to normal at the end of the hour.
Additionally, one should also be aware that this is not a traditional sci-fi. If you're looking for blinking lights and transporters and long-winded conversation about fancy futuristic technology... look somewhere else. This show is about human behavior and the human condition. It's about people first and foremost; it just happens to take place in space. In the same way that a show taking place in the western United States doesn't automatically make it a Western genre series about the Wild West. Do Battlestar fans consider it sci-fi? Absolutely. But it's a reinvention of sci-fi.
Those who take issue with the mention of god/gods have clearly missed the point of the underlying social commentary. They've also overlooked the obvious possibility for sci-fi to put science and reason to the concept of gods and higher powers, or to view all of these concepts from a philosophical view, which is where Battlestar differs from sci-fi of the past. While previous shows in this genre took a more literal approach with "cool technology" and gimmicks, Battlestar sets the stage with how people react emotionally to fear, and war, and loss, and trauma, and all of the flaws in the human condition. It makes us think about our own humanity-and what makes us human. One needs only to look at present day sci-fi to see how Battlestar influenced the genre and changed everything (even current Stark Trek incarnations) to embrace serialized dramatic storytelling with darker tones and more human substance, now preferring that structure over old-fashioned isolated, self-contained episodes in which everything resets back to normal at the end of the hour.