Battlestar Galactica remake: Time to weep openly (2 Viewers)

[Will_B]

oops. Cylong is what his girlfriends call him, but he's just a cylon to the rest of us.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Will, I hope you're kidding....

THe jackets weren't coudouroy, they were some kind of suede they don't make anymore.

 

[John_Berger]

Well, THIS dosn't bode well.

EDWARD JAMES UH-OH

Sci Fi Channel president Bonnie Hammer visibly squirmed at Tuesday's TCA presentation for Battlestar Galactica, where star Edward James Olmos revealed that devotees of the original '70s TV show are sending him hate mail. Apparently, they've heard Sci Fi's four-hour fall miniseries is a very loosely based remake, and they ain't happy. "If you're a die-hard fan of the original Battlestar Galactica, please don't watch," Olmos declared. "Sci Fi Channel wants you to think everyone will like this. They won't! So please, don't watch! Buy the DVD of the original series, and when we're on, pop it in instead! I don't want you writing me any more letters!"

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, can you imagine being Olmos if Kleist found out his email address? Maybe not the most politic thing to say, but I've got to admire his honesty.

 

[John_Berger]

Oh, come on. I don't think that Jeff will blame the actor. He's just doing his job.

Jeff can slam Sci-Fi, the writers, and so forth against the wall all that he wants, though. In fact, if it's as "loosely based" as Olmos suggests, I hope that Jeff picks me up on his way out to CA. I'm in the mood to rough some people up.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, can you imagine being Olmos if Kleist found out his email address? Maybe not the most politic thing to say, but I've got to admire his honesty.

I would never do such a thing. Olmos is not responsible for the blasphemy, he's hired to do a job. THe irresponsibility of Sci-Fi, Universal, and the production team are responsible and are the sole recipents of my wrath.

Olmos has said similar things in the past. That if you love the original you will HATE this. His brutal honestly makes me respect him even more than I did already as an actor and a person. And confirms my worst fears.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Any and all going to San Diego Comic Con, every single person we'd like to string up will be in da house. Let them have it with both barrels including the infidel Ron Moore. MAKE THEM PAY. Had they not announced this so close
to the date I'd probably have gone myself, but $1200 plane tickets suck.

The SCI FI Channel returns to the SAN DIEGO COMIC CON with the debut of the cast and crew from its highly anticipated upcoming mini-series Battlestar Galactica, July 18th and 19th, 2003.

Battlestar Galactica is the SCI FI Channel's "re-imagination" of the classic and loved original series of the 1970s. The mini-series' executive producer
and writer will join the cast on a special panel to discuss the project. Cast members of the channel's Stargate SG-1 will also be on hand to answer fan's questions.

Additionally, viewers are invited to the SCI FI Channel's booth to have their pictures taken with life-size cutouts of characters from the upcoming animated series Tripping the Rift. Fans can then log on to www.scifi.com to
download their photos.

Dates & Times (cast and times are subject to change):

Friday, July 18th from Noon-1PM: Battlestar Galactica: Jamie Bamber, Katee Sackhoff, Tricia Helfer, and writer Ron Moore. Tentative are Edward James Olmos and executive producer David Eick.

 

[Jason Seaver]

And imagine, the folks sending Edward James Olmos letters don't even have Jeff's class, tolerance, and open-mindedness. :rolleyes

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Jason, when you have your top billed star telling you they've destroyed the original, there is no need to be open minded. They have raped the show and used the barest shell as their base willfully and purposely. The displeasure must be voiced at every opportunity, and snail mail letters should be written to the execs at Sci-Fi and Universal (campaign for which has been going for awhile) to explain exactly WHY we refuse to watch it.

To compound it, Ron Moore lied and said he was a fan of the original. No fan of the original would have written this. Tom DeSanto could quote chapter and verse, and wowzers, turned out a proper script. Whoda thunk?

 

[Jason Seaver]

To compound it, Ron Moore lied and said he was a fan of the original. No fan of the original would have written this.

That's pretty sketchy "logic". Just because he may have enjoyed the original doesn't mean he needs to feel bound by it. He's a writer and was hired to write, and even if he was a fan, he's been charged with creating something new, something interesting to those who haven't ever seen the original.

Or maybe he was a fan of the original when he was nine, but felt it didn't hold up when he re-examined it at thirty. Lord knows we've all had that happen.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I don't see where he claims what they're doing is inferior, just different. And he's pretty clearly aggravated by the nitwits who keep writing him letters using overwrought terms like "blasphemy" without having seen the work they're doing.

WHich is why it should not use the name, character names or any directly taken concepts from the show whose name it's using. If they do not care to do it properly, they should not do it at all and call it something else. The show I seen, the hundreds of stills, the extensive script reviews and the words of Mr. Olmos equal one thing: Blasphemy

It's too late to rename it. but Its not too late to bury this and start over with what the people who have kept thedream alive for 25 years asked for

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

I agree with Jeff, if you want to remake something and call it the same thing, stay close to the thing you are basing it on.

To think they are going to be trying to sell people on this show at the Comic Con down in San Diego this Weekend is a joke.
The only thing I want to hear from Sci Fi is that they are bringing Farscape back.

 

[SpenceJT]

WOW! You've got to give Olmos allot of credit for saying what he believes!

I wouldn't want to be in Bonnie Hammer's shoes.

Unfortunately, I think that SCI-FI channel has enough "lemming" viewers, to once again, bring in record ratings for the "re-imagined" Battlestar Galactica. This is too bad as SCI-FI will continue it's path to oblivion.

Prior to heading up for the night, I flipped by SCI-FI in the program guide to discover that they were airing "Clan of the Cave Bear".

...what basis does a story about a Neanderthal girl living among a group Cro-Magnons have in Science Fiction? I find that along with SCI-FI channel's airing of "Braveheart" very confusing.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, to be fair, I've found Auel's books shelved in the sci-fi section of the bookstore before. It's weird that they get shelved there and Michael Crichton's don't, but people get weird ideas.

Unfortunately, I think that SCI-FI channel has enough "lemming" viewers, to once again, bring in record ratings for the "re-imagined" Battlestar Galactica. This is too bad as SCI-FI will continue it's path to oblivion.

"its"

Still, Galactica may wind up being pretty good. All the reportage thus far has seemed to be either been Sci-Fi press releases or folks who really want it to fail.

Also, it's a two-night miniseries, right? If the first week is as bad as the naysayers, um, say, people probably won't come back for the second. Sci-Fi has had some sharp drop-offs like that before.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Jason, the problems brought up in the script reviews have been ones that are not "fanboy wants it to fail" issues such as:

(from FilmJerk's script review, which is about as objective as you're going to find-http://www.filmjerk.com/nuke/article354.html)

This is not to say that Moore is not a good writer. I happened to have also received a copy of the pilot screenplay for his upcoming Depression-era drama "Carnivalé," which I will be reviewing soon and will be getting positive marks from me, as that show looks to have much potential for the future. But the Galactica fans are right on this fight. This story is not worthy of the name "Battlestar Galactica."

Michael Faries does a pretty good pro/con analysis as well
http://www.battlestargalactica.com/f...02b-plain.html

These are confirmed accurate script reviews, and I believe Mr. Moore personally provided Mr. Faries' copy. Take them as you will

I'll sum them up for you- "Blasphemy" "rape" "destruction" of the original

 

[Jason Seaver]

Did the original have these?

Utterly irrelevent. In case you've missed this point, this isn't the original.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

NOT irrelevent. This is a remake called Battlestar Galactica. As long as it's called Galactica, it should be holding itself to basic characters, structure and rules set by the original

 

[Matt Hamand]

Jeff

The original did have vulgarity and sexual situations inappropriate for children. They were just dressed up with "sci-fi" language so that we had "frack" and "felgercarb" instead of curse words, and Cassiopeia was a socialator insted of a space hooker.

As for the lack of military protocol, the original had every character disobeying orders right and left. Hardly proper military protocol.

Jason

My Border's shelves Crichton in the SF section and Auel in the regular fiction. The Barnes and Noble does the opposite. Go figure?

Matt

 

[Jason Seaver]

NOT irrelevent. This is a remake called Battlestar Galactica. As long as it's called Galactica, it should be holding itself to basic characters, structure and rules set by the original

Why?

Answer that. Why, especially now, in an age of common, persistant media, should a new version of a story strive for sameness? What value would such a remake have aside from slicker special effects?

This isn't ancient, pre-literate times, where the storytellers had to learn stories word for word so that the story would not be lost. This is a time period where one version of a story can be put on disc/tape/paper and saved, to be available when anyone wants to read it. Trying to reproduce the original would be mere imitation, but storytellers can now take ideas, twist them around, play with them, and put them out there without harming the original.

The late-70s Galactica isn't going anywhere. It will, as Olmos points out, be on DVD by the time this one comes out, and if that's what you want to watch, you are free to do so. If that wasn't the case, if a new version were the only way to get a worthy story in front of a new audience, you might have a better argument, that doing this would cause the original to be lost. But since the original will still be very much available, why must it be recreated?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

But since the original will still be very much available, why must it be recreated?

I can't quite understand it either. I was a Galactica fan back in the day, I had T-shirts, a handheld electronic game, models, an Estes model rocket, and so on.

Yet I wouldn't even be interested in watching a literal remake. Been there, done that.

I will watch since they've mixed things up some, and I'll watch with an open mind.