Galactica in name only?

[Aragon101]

I'd have to agree to a certain level. but the times change things significantly.

If SG1 had been made during the late seventies, wouldn't it have had much the same flavor as the original BSG? Hell, the original BSG BOMBED because it was just so campy. That being said, what was THE most popular episode of BSG 1980? That's right, the first one which was a time travel story involving nazis and pew pew, and the last one which was the return of Starbuck.

it's another case of the characters having to hold up a less than stellar writing. Starbuck was hilarious in the original BSG, Adama was competent and non-moody, Tigh was the hardass who wasn't above joining the others... Apollo was a bit flat IMO but it made sense to a degree given that he DID lose his brother right in front of him.

I think the heavy contrast between the darkness of the story (Colonies getting annihilated) and the lightness of the characters and plot lines (Boxy anyone?) was what both made the original BSG appealing, and also unappealing.


Now to nBSG. Is it Galactica in name only? I don't think so. BUT, it's not the original nor should it be compared to it since they are completely different genres. It uses an idea created by someone else and gives it a different flavor which at the time was a successful experiment. It wasn't the original creator turning a much beloved franchise into a soap opera (although Season 3 to 4.5 kinda were)

I love both series. the original BSG was fun and campy, but the new one has well written drama (for the most part) believable characters and plot lines (except the God did it thing) and a very well balanced mix between the genres of humor, drama, action and adventure.

So in my mind, both Galacticas are separate from each other. Saying one is better than the other is a subjective argument given that they're really not much alike. it's like saying apples are better than oranges because they taste better.

HOWEVER, objectively. nBSG lasted a hell of a lot longer and won insane critical acclaim. *evil laugh*

 

[zzbeach]

The Real Question Is....

The real question is would nBSG have done better if it were just a reboot of the series instead of a "reimagined" version? nBSG started off pissing off the fanbase right away. I say had nBSG played it like the new Star Trek movie, nBSG would have been a prime time NBC show instead of on SyFy.

By the way, the original BSG didn't bomb, it was too expensive at the time compared to other shows. Much like now where we have a lot of reality shows because they're cheap.

 

[ginogoneforever]

I'd have to agree to a certain level. but the times change things significantly.

If SG1 had been made during the late seventies, wouldn't it have had much the same flavor as the original BSG? Hell, the original BSG BOMBED because it was just so campy. That being said, what was THE most popular episode of BSG 1980? That's right, the first one which was a time travel story involving nazis and pew pew, and the last one which was the return of Starbuck.

it's another case of the characters having to hold up a less than stellar writing. Starbuck was hilarious in the original BSG, Adama was competent and non-moody, Tigh was the hardass who wasn't above joining the others... Apollo was a bit flat IMO but it made sense to a degree given that he DID lose his brother right in front of him.

I think the heavy contrast between the darkness of the story (Colonies getting annihilated) and the lightness of the characters and plot lines (Boxy anyone?) was what both made the original BSG appealing, and also unappealing.


Now to nBSG. Is it Galactica in name only? I don't think so. BUT, it's not the original nor should it be compared to it since they are completely different genres. It uses an idea created by someone else and gives it a different flavor which at the time was a successful experiment. It wasn't the original creator turning a much beloved franchise into a soap opera (although Season 3 to 4.5 kinda were)

I love both series. the original BSG was fun and campy, but the new one has well written drama (for the most part) believable characters and plot lines (except the God did it thing) and a very well balanced mix between the genres of humor, drama, action and adventure.

So in my mind, both Galacticas are separate from each other. Saying one is better than the other is a subjective argument given that they're really not much alike. it's like saying apples are better than oranges because they taste better.

HOWEVER, objectively. nBSG lasted a hell of a lot longer and won insane critical acclaim. *evil laugh*

BSG wasn't all that successful. It was a bad rip off of Larson's creation, that lost 69% of its already smaller viewing audience, to this day has not been picked up for syndication by any channel or network and got the worst ratings for NBC, when they attempted to air it twice. ...not to mention, by the 3rd season, reruns of the worst of the STAR TREKS (ENTERPRISE) were matching firstrun episodes of Moore's reworking of Larson's BSG source material. Brad & co. did the same thing to the SG fans, that Moore did to the original BSG (as created by Glen Larson) fans: They took the original tone and feel of the show and converted it into something almost unrecognizable, with a bunch of unlikable, selfish, anti-social characters at the core.

 

[shavedape]

The thing I noticed about the first BSG was that the Cylons were bad guys/the enemy for the entire run; they didn't become "friends" with the humans. There was no moral murkiness there, no sympathy for the devil. Contrast this to nBSG where the Cylons basically became human and were no different than the humans they were fighting -- And then they became friends, sigh... :puke:

There was a religious element in the first BSG with that whole Count Ibbly (sp?) story arc, although it was nowhere near as bad as nBSG's theme of a religious war. But that was just one aspect of what was wrong with nBSG; the horrible, out of control writing pretty much destroyed what had been good about the show in the beginning.

 

[ParagonPie]

I think it goes into what were the Cylons. I know I'm stating the obvious here. In the original the cylons were created by a lizard race whereas in the re-imagined version they were created by man, in mans image so therefore susceptible to mans flaws and desires. It was a problem as that they were not really machines who became sentient but more like cyborgs with the imprint of a human mind set. So really it wasn't the machines rising up in a revolution, but it was humanity rising up against the humans.

By giving them a human side it was an attempt to sort of play devils advocate with them, however when you've just wiped out perhaps 10's of billions of people any sympathy is pretty much removed as a result. Also the cylons in this sort of contradicted themselves by wanting to be pure machines yet at the same time reverting back to human emotions such as revenge or injustice. (edit that was only one guy I know, that Priest Cavil right?)

Also the overly religious 'God' got kind of annoying giving the impression that for the humans to ever find peace we must need 'God' or else we'd fall into the same cycle of destruction, completely ignoring how in other science fictions that it is humanity saving it from itself by itself. In that our humanity may be our greatest flaw but also our greatest strength.

As always just my opinion no need to go spreading it around, I know some people will disagree with that, but that is what I thought.

 

[zzbeach]

No Syndication? You're right!

BSG wasn't all that successful. It was a bad rip off of Larson's creation, that lost 69% of its already smaller viewing audience, to this day has not been picked up for syndication by any channel or network and got the worst ratings for NBC, when they attempted to air it twice. ...not to mention, by the 3rd season, reruns of the worst of the STAR TREKS (ENTERPRISE) were matching firstrun episodes of Moore's reworking of Larson's BSG source material. Brad & co. did the same thing to the SG fans, that Moore did to the original BSG (as created by Glen Larson) fans: They took the original tone and feel of the show and converted it into something almost unrecognizable, with a bunch of unlikable, selfish, anti-social characters at the core.

Holy Crap! The show all the critics couldn't get enough of and the show that Wright and company wanted to copy has not found any buyers for syndication. I just seacrched and found not one station is airing any nBSG episodes. Meanwhile SG1 and Atlantis have had buyers here and overseas as well as the original BSG. Maybe Larson will get his movie afterall.

 

[Aragon101]

As a heavy serialized show, i don't think syndie would work well for it.

In fact, i wonder how it's doing in DVD sales.

 

[Robbie_Rocket_Pants]

Holy Crap! The show all the critics couldn't get enough of and the show that Wright and company wanted to copy has not found any buyers for syndication. I just seacrched and found not one station is airing any nBSG episodes. Meanwhile SG1 and Atlantis have had buyers here and overseas as well as the original BSG. Maybe Larson will get his movie afterall.

Glen A Larson wants to make a BSG movie? Awesome!

 

[ginogoneforever]

Despite certain media journalists insinuating Singer is no longer doing the Battlestar Galactica movie, based on Larson's creation, Singer is quoted as looking for a writer for the project

Director Singer shares "X-Men," holiday plans

BIG-SCREEN TAKE ON THE TV SHOW) AND THE OTHER PROJECTS?

We just concluded a deal for "Battlestar Galactica," and we're looking for a writer. And for "Excalibur," we're still in negotiations. Those are the four directorial projects that I and my company are involved in.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/entertainment/6614611/director-singer-shares-x-men-holiday-plans/

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/entertainment/6614611/director-singer-shares-x-men-holiday-plans/

 

[Aragon101]

I've been relatively docile until now, would you people stop comparing nBSG to Larson's BSG as if one is better than the other? "Reimagining" seems to imply that it's DIFFERENT and alot of the fans understand that. Who gives two shits what a stealth marketer says? Both shows had their audience and being so dissimilar to each other, it's no surprise that the stealth marketing causes so much ire.

Unlike SGU which was never labeled as a reimagining and reboot, Moore's BSG is its own entity in my opinion completely separate from Larson's BSG. In fact, didn't Richard Hatch continually try and bring BSG back, including a version where he had been 'assimilated' into the Cylons? I have no issues with Larson making another BSG, and i don't think anyone but nBSG squeedrones would mind either. So putting down nBSG in favor of something that may or may not happen is as bad as putting SGA down to favor SGU in my opinion.

Do i think nBSG was the second coming? Hell no, there were lots of problems and there's a damn good reason it was canceled after 4 seasons. But just because some shills try and build up more audience for it using scare tactics doesn't mean the story didn't have good points to it all its own.

[/rant]

 

[ginogoneforever]

...don't wanna really get into it too much here, but let's not pretend. Hammer, Eick & Moore totally screwed over Larson. Hammer and Eick brought on Larson, Singer & DeSanto to produce a faithful BSG continuation. The 9/11 tragedy put Singer behind schedule, so he had to leave the project for the XMEN movie, he had already committed to. DeSanto and Larson were more than happy to continue but Hammer and Eick brought in Moore to do the show on the cheap [hence hardly any f/x, Centurian Cylons, battles, the human Cylons, the JC Penny catalog off the rack clothes, etc). Moore came in and told DeSanto and Larson to get bent, and that he's gonna re-imagine the show, much to their dismay. To add insult to injury, Moore even lifted DeSanto's continuation storyline and re-imagined that into some incomprehensible junk. Then came the stealth marketers to push it down our throats and attack us if we dared criticize the changes that were advertised. ...not to mention the multitude of SyFy press releases ridiculing Larson's BSG, in a sleazy way of placing the bad remake up on a pedastal. The whole thing was down right nasty.

Q: Now that Firefly has jumped from the small screen to the big as Serenity, would you ever consider doing a theatrical feature of the new BSG? (This ought to stir-up the original series' fan nest.)

Eick: Ultimately, I would think any appetite for a Battlestar feature film will be in part driven by how Serenity performs at the box office. However, Glen Larson, the producer of the original Battlestar, in a strange, unusual twist of contractual dexterity, was able to carve out the theatrical film rights back in the '70s when he made his initial deal for the television series. He holds those rights to this day, so any pursuit of a feature film would have to involve Mr. Larson. Given his purported disdain for the new series, that would seem an unlikely scenario

http://www.battlestargalactica.com/outside_docs/bg_outdoc0026.htm

Glen Larson speaks out against SCIFI CHANNEL molesting his BSG source material!

‘Battlestar Galactica’ returns
But fans of original are wary of remake


Updated: 1:15 p.m. ET Dec. 9, 2003

A few years ago, fans thought they’d get the continuation saga they’d clamored for when Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto, the director-writer team behind “X-Men,” hooked up with original “Galactica” creator Glen Larson to develop a project at 20th Century Fox.

When that deal fell through, Universal TV chief David Kissinger brought in executive producer David Eick and Moore to rework the franchise for Sci Fi.
“We want the fans to embrace what we are doing,” says Sci Fi President Bonnie Hammer, “but if you produced now what was produced then, it would feel like old TV. We wanted to make it more relatable, even in terms of the stereotypes of characters.”
___________________________________________________________

“I understand they’re trying to do a modern version,” says Larson. “But change for the sake of change — it’s taking the title and exploiting it.”
___________________________________________________________

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-03-battlestar_x.htm

 

[Rac80]

I agree with you gino!

...don't wanna really get into it too much here, but let's not pretend. Hammer, Eick & Moore totally screwed over Larson. Hammer and Eick brought on Larson, Singer & DeSanto to produce a faithful BSG continuation. The 9/11 tragedy put Singer behind schedule, so he had to leave the project for the XMEN movie, he had already committed to. DeSanto and Larson were more than happy to continue but Hammer and Eick brought in Moore to do the show on the cheap [hence hardly any f/x, Centurian Cylons, battles, the human Cylons, the JC Penny catalog off the rack clothes, etc). Moore came in and told DeSanto and Larson to get bent, and that he's gonna re-imagine the show, much to their dismay. To add insult to injury, Moore even lifted DeSanto's continuation storyline and re-imagined that into some incomprehensible junk. Then came the stealth marketers to push it down our throats and attack us if we dared criticize the changes that were advertised. ...not to mention the multitude of SyFy press releases ridiculing Larson's BSG, in a sleazy way of placing the bad remake up on a pedastal. The whole thing was down right nasty.

Well gino I must agree with you. As a huge fan of the original BSG - I was eager for a new series, but the shit they gave us didn't thrill me at all. It's was "okay" but not fabulous. I have the original series on dvd (complete with cylon head boxtop!) but have absolutely no interest in buying the new series. the only characters I liked were Sam and the chief (two cylons) - although I liked the Roselyn/adama romance- nice to see an older romance portrayed positively on tv.

 

[zzbeach]

Will Larson Get His Movie?

Over a year ago I read the news that Larson's BSG was going to be made into a movie. Since then nothing. With the success of V I thought maybe the talks would be heating up again but I read nothing about it so far.

 

[ginogoneforever]

Movie take 3-4 years to make, when you include the pre-production, production and post-production process. Remember how long the new STAR TREK movie took to be made, since we first heard the first news of its inception?