Battlestar Galactica 2003? (1 Viewer)

[Terry St]

The original BSG ran for *one* season. One measly season! (I'm not counting "Galactica 1980", but then who would? That's just crazy talk.) If it were to be continued directly there would be a plethora of problems to solve. The actors have all aged 25 years or died. What happened to Adama? What happened to the Galactica in the last 25 years? Nobody wants to watch a geriatric starbuck trying to get it on with women half his age. Not one of the female cast members has a hope of competing with that Vulcan sex-pot on that *other* show. (Yes, the horny teenage male is a key demographic in most exec's minds!) New characters would be required to make the show remotely viable. Battlestar Galactica, as we knew it, died in the seventies. Sorry. That's the way things go.

The other option was to remake the original BSG series. Yes, the details are different now, but the general thrust and conflict of the show is the same. One can only speculate at present, but season 1 of the new BSG series may follow the general plot of the original BSG quite closely. What then, pray tell, will happen in season 2? That's where the continuation is going to happen. It actually makes continuing where the old BSG series left off *easier*. Instead of introducing a host of new characters and explaining the sudden geezerdom of the old ones plus 25 years of missing time, season 2 can actually pick up right where the old series left off. The nice thing will be that all the new fans of the show will actually know what's going on, thanks to season 1.

I know you're absolutely obsessed with the old seventies show, but it's time to let go. The new show isn't what you remember, but that's not necessarily bad. It can continue the original saga in a way the original actors never could. If you must spend your spare time annoying people, why not start adapting your wild ideas for the continuation of the old BSG franchise to season 2 of the new one? That would actually be productive.

Frankly, I'd like to see this thread move off in a new direction. Cut the whining. Let's discuss the DVD, if it hasn't already been beaten to death, or speculate on where the new series is going.

 

[Eric Paddon]

"The original BSG ran for *one* season. One measly season!"

So? It was cancelled for reasons that had nothing to do with bad ratings, unlike Star Trek which ran a measly three.

"If it were to be continued directly there would be a plethora of problems to solve. The actors have all aged 25 years or died. What happened to Adama? What happened to the Galactica in the last 25 years? Nobody wants to watch a geriatric starbuck trying to get it on with women half his age."

And this misses the point. A continuation saga set in the *same* universe and the continuation of the general storyline is what we want, not a program that just picks up with the last episode. We are well aware of the fact that the original cast can only appear in supporting roles in such a project, and that is something perfectly acceptable to us. Heck, I'll even go you one further and say flat out that if we had a "next generation" saga set 100 years later that couldn't have any of the old cast but was set in the same universe and building off established story ideas, then that too would be acceptable.

"Not one of the female cast members has a hope of competing with that Vulcan sex-pot on that *other* show."

Frankly Anne Lockhart and Laurette Spang both still exude a lot more appeal than the Cyloness hired for Moore's joke of a show.

"The other option was to remake the original BSG series."

Another falsehood which requires you to ignore the facts surrounding the DeSanto-Singer project which already had several original cast members signed on and sets constructed. The reasons for this being derailed had nothing to do with what you're stating.

"One can only speculate at present, but season 1 of the new BSG series may follow the general plot of the original BSG quite closely."

Which only would show how devoid of creativity Ronald Moore really is after reveling in how he didn't rely on anything from the original when he started out.

"I know you're absolutely obsessed with the old seventies show, but it's time to let go."

Only on the day Moore's show is cancelled.

"If you must spend your spare time annoying people, why not start adapting your wild ideas for the continuation of the old BSG franchise to season 2 of the new one?"

That would be like asking a classical composer to make touch-ups to an acid rock composition.

"or speculate on where the new series is going."

Right into the dumper.

And before you get on me for being "obsessed" I'd only note that every one of your bashings of the original series to justify Moore were based entirely on wrong information, which is the reason why an indignant reaction from the fanbase usually ensues.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Taking personal shots at actresses like that strikes me as very poor taste. What'd she ever do to you?

 

[Eric Paddon]

My reference which I have changed is to the one on the Moore Galactica show (the characterization was meant to refer to the character, not the person but it was written wrong and hence changed).

 

[Jonathan Kaye]

Regardless of the hatred you feel towards the remake, that does not give you the right to crap all over a discussion about the possible DVD of the remake. We know you won't buy it, so there's nothing more you can usefully contribute to this discussion other than continue to insult those who dare not to hate the remake.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let's cease with the personal references right now! Furthermore, some of you need to step away from this discussion and stop hijacking this thread because your negative opinion about this dvd release has already been duly noted for all to see.






Crawdaddy

 

[Sven Lorenz]

So back on-topic:

DavisDVD has posted some info on the release and they make a point of saying that it's 'uncut' and the running time is 185 minutes.

Since the show ran 176 minutes that's at least 9 minutes of new footage - even more if they cut the end credits of the first episode and the opening credits of the second one.

It's on two discs - so it hopefully won't have the lousy transfer the single disc R2 version had.

Too bad the audio commentary is only by the director - I was hoping to hear from Ron Moore or some of the actors.

The documentary "Battlestar Galactica: The Lowdown" seems to be the same one from the R2 release which means that it's only 30 minutes long but pretty good - it includes interviews with everybody connected to the show and does address the controversy. (It also includes the now infamous "Hi! My name is Katee Sackhoff and I play Starbuck. Deal with it!" line)

 

[Kevin Hewell]

I believe this is the same one shown on the SciFi channel before the miniseries aired.

This is definitely one DVD I'll pick up.

 

[Mike Robertson]

Just finished watching my copy of the new Battlestar Galactica miniseries. Had a question about the DVDs. They appear to be double sided (even says that on the back of the case). However, there is nothing on the other side of either disk. Anybody happen to know what's up with this?

 

[CaptDS9E]

Yes. First the set was announced as 2 disc. Then they switched to double sided. For some reason there are some copies out there with two discs, and the rest double sided. I got one of the two discs as well

capt

 

[Will_B]

I finally tracked down the new Battlestar Galactica series, and I am surprised at the reaction to Starbuck being a woman.

I am surprised because I found the character of the new Starbuck to be the one element of the show which was really overtly true to the original.

As before (in 1978), Starbuck is a cocky, brash pilot with a wicked smile and a sentimental streak hidden behind her bravado. The casting was perfect - her eyes sparkle just like Dirk's did. I loved the new Starbuck because the character has the very same charm as the original.

Can't say I was impressed by the other characters, who may have retained the original gender ('cept for Boomer of course, who also traded minorities) but lost everything that made them noble. Gone was the strong sense of family, replaced with what I call the "itchy and scratchy" show themes that I'd last seen on Deep Space Nine.

Apollo hating his father (rather than loving him as before was the most obvious example, but the whole sense of people not liking one another was everpresent in this remake.

The new Galactica painted a vision where families hate one another, people are drunks, act childish, and are generally unpleasant.

Watching the documentary, it appeared that the person with such an unpleasant memory of family is a guy named Moore. I think he might have been the guy who populated Deep Space Nine with a bunch of "itchy and scratchy" characters too.

Somebody get that Moore guy some therapy, please. While his views may have helped Baltar become a more interesting character, I don't think it has helped the rest of the characters.

I will likely give the series a try once it comes out on DVD, just because Starbuck seems like an interesting character. The rest of the crew, including Courtney Love as the evil cylon with breast implants, haven't won me over.

(It wasn't really Courtney Love).

Also, on a technical level, I didn't appreciate the way they ripped of Joss Whedon's special effects style without giving him credit for it. I also missed the Egyptian influences which were pretty much the core visual theme of the original series. Well, Egypt crossed with a TRS-80 that is.

 

[Clay_E]

...How do you rip off someone's "special effects style", and how would you go about giving them credit for it, anyway? I don't think they give out on-screen credits for that.

 

[Will_B]

In the documentary. They carefully avoided saying they were using Whedon's style of using, in all space scenes, the impression of "handheld cameras in space with sloppy zooms", which Whedon's team pioneered on Firefly. Instead they carefully said it was "documentary style" a la Saving Private Ryan. Give me a break. Copy a man's style and give him credit, at the least.

 

[RickER]

Same company did the effects.

 

[Travis_S]

Oh god. This thread is scary. I just read through it for the first time. I love both the miniseries and the new series. I have never seen an episode of the original series. Some people take things WAAAAAY to seriously.

Anyway, I got the 2-disc from Amazon after being really impressed with the show when they had the 4 week marathon a few weeks ago. This is a great show, and I can't wait to see the rest of the season as well as the DVD of it which will hopefully follow soon after it ends.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Not to split hairs, but didn't Attack of the Clones uses the same camera techniques in 2002 before Firefly came out? BTW I loved Firefly-not intending to take anything away from it. Just saying the camera moves rmeind more immediately of AOTC.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

It's just an FX technique. Universal was sued, probably for the same reason, for the original BG - the FX were too much like Star Wars. Well, the argument didn't hold then and it doesn't hold now.

 

[Clay_E]

Again, how would you suggest the credit should read: "Special Effects Done Like The Ones On Firefly"?

Or to put it another way, NYPD Blue owes a lot of its camera work to The French Connection , but there was no obligation to say so on-screen, and nor should there have been.

 

[Will_B]

I'm not an expert on Star Wars, so I don't know if I can answer this, but you probably can. The style involves creating special effects that seem to be (but of course are not) the result of a sloppy cameraman in charge of the camera (hanging out in space, evidently), mostly expressed in the form of using zooms that are erratic and often out of focus for a few seconds. And by "zooms" I mean creating the impression that the focal length of a zoom lens is being zoomed (we don't see many zooms being used today in tv or film, but this was popular in the 70s).

 

[Will_B]

But in the commentary on NYPD Blue, when the cinematographer talks about how French Connection inspired the look, that was nice.

Look, I admit, that Moore guy rubbed me the wrong way. He came across as a very uncaring guy, not only in how he creates characters, but in how he relates to his potential audiences, and even in how he seems to not give credit where credit is due. Maybe he's a swell guy in real life. But he didn't come across that way in the documentary.

There is no "OBLIGATION" to be nice. But it is a great option.