Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Sci-Fi's Battlestar Galactica miniseries opinions


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
105 replies to this topic

#41 of 106 OFFLINE   Eric Paddon

Eric Paddon

    Screenwriter



  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted December 31 2004 - 03:49 AM

17 episodes, but several of them were two part stories which means you had 23 hours of weekly programming which translates to a full season. And check the Nielsen ratings sometime and you'll find it finished in the Top #25 that season and would have been higher if not for some pre-emptions and early repeats in the spring. (And drew better numbers than Star Trek ever did or any other network TV sci-fi show).

Galactica was cancelled not because of lack of popularity but because of ABC's obsession with cutting corners. "Galactica 1980" was their cop-out way of acknowledging first that they had goofed in cancelling the show, but at the same time still tried to have it both ways by bringing it back as a cheap shell of its former self.

That's the kind of info that a Galactica fan usually needs to set the record straight on.

I can just picture now the people saying that if Star Trek had been done the same way Moore altered Galactica in the late 70s how a lot of others would have said "Star Trek was cool for the late 60s but you couldn't revive the original version today."

#42 of 106 OFFLINE   Rutgar

Rutgar

    Second Unit



  • 495 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2004

Posted January 01 2005 - 08:21 AM

Okay, because of all this thread, I picked up the new BG. First of all, let me say that I am a fan of the original. I even bought the big Cylon Head Box set. But, after watching the new show this morning, I have to say that I really like it. And, I don't understand all of the controversy. To me, it's just an up-to-date modern re-make of the original show. And, I think they did a great job. Let's face it, the original was okay in it's day. But it would have been a huge mistake, and I think a dismal failure, had the new Galactica been a re-hash of the original, only with modern special effects. This new BG reminds me of the Lost in Space feature. It's the same basic concept, but with fresher ideas, minus the "Leave it to Beaver" wholesomeness. I think the new characters are much more relistic, and fleshed out than their original 2-D, cardboard cutout counterparts. And it was a great move to make Starbuck a girl. Also, I like that Baltar was innocently deceived by the Cylons, and isn't just a plain, cartoon-like bad guy, that predictably betrays his own race. Overall, I have to give the show a "thumbs up", and I'm looking forward to the series.

#43 of 106 OFFLINE   kennethROGERSON

kennethROGERSON

    Auditioning



  • 6 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 2004

Posted January 01 2005 - 09:03 AM

I have seen both the old Battlestar Galactica series and the New Battlestar Mini-series, and to be honest there is room for both.
Each version represents a different comprehension about human nature. The first Battlestar Galactica was created before we truly knew how bad the world could get.
And the new one, while reflectinbg this new understanding in a post 9/11 age, has a tighter form and in some cases logic, which seemed not present in the first series.
For instance, the new mini-series, gives you a reasonable explanation as to why they Cylons and the Humans were at war, while the first one did not have a chance to realy delve into the story.
And the primary focus of the first series was on the adventure and not the drama.
Both, I find, are very good and would reccommend both.
I really surprised that anyone is making any comment about the series, because quite frankly if we do not support our science fiction stories, then we will end up with another incomplete series.
My trouble with the current studios are not the fact they are trying to remake old shows, it is the fact that they never want to finish them.


#44 of 106 OFFLINE   Rutgar

Rutgar

    Second Unit



  • 495 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2004

Posted January 01 2005 - 09:21 AM

Quote:
My trouble with the current studios are not the fact they are trying to remake old shows, it is the fact that they never want to finish them.


I think the same can be said for new SciFi shows as well: Can anyone say "Firefly"?

#45 of 106 OFFLINE   Richard Michael Clark

Richard Michael Clark

    Second Unit



  • 373 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2001

Posted January 01 2005 - 09:33 AM

I only saw the new miniseries when it was shown again on SkyOne (here in the UK) just before the series began. I have to say I loved every second of it! Posted Image

The series is FANTASTIC, one of the best new shows of recent times. I hope it comes to dvd very soon and I hope it is given a chance by US viewers so that it can run and run! No matter how well it's doing in the UK, apparantly it'll be the US that decides it's fate! typical! Posted Image Posted Image

I'm glad I didn't get the UK dvd of the miniseries as it appears that the US release is much better (with deleted scenes and commentary etc).

It's a GREAT show, I can't recommend it enough! Enjoy it for what it is and take it on it's own merits. It's thoughtful and dark, tense and exciting and really quite beautiful and sometimes rather moving (I love all the religious cylon stuff!). Sci-fi with real brains for proper grown-ups and on a par with the other superb TV dramas around at the mo Posted Image

#46 of 106 OFFLINE   Rutgar

Rutgar

    Second Unit



  • 495 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2004

Posted January 01 2005 - 11:45 AM

Looking around the Web, it looks like Universal HD (which I already have) is going to be airing Battlestar Galactica in High Def. But, I haven't been able to find an air date and time slot for it. Starting on the 14th, SciFi Channel is going to air it on Fridays at 8:00pm my time (which would be right after Enterprise). But, I would prefer to watch it in Hi Def. Even Enterprise is a great show in Hi Def.Posted Image

#47 of 106 OFFLINE   Randall Cyrenne

Randall Cyrenne

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 83 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2004

Posted January 01 2005 - 03:29 PM

I took a chance and bought the miniseries DVD this week. I have always enjoyed the old show, although I can see its weaknesses as well as its strengths. I have been really looking forward to seeing the new version, and had the chance to watch it this afternoon.

It was GREAT. The story was a little oversexed (especially in the first half-hour), but otherwise I thought it was compelling television. It felt like a war movie, and it made me care about what was happening. The action was more intense than the old show, and frankly I thought the acting was better overall than the 70s version as well (I do still respect the work by Lorne Green especially, but most of the other regulars--- though appealing--- always seemed amateurish to me). I don't understand these compalints about actors mumbling in the new version (although I have not seen any of the newer episodes), as I found everything understandable enough in the mini.

I'm looking forward to the regular series, but at the same time will continue to enjoy my big ol' cylon head DVD set of the old show. I sympathize with Eric and others who would have liked the original story continued rather than "re-imagined", but I choose to enjoy the fine work that is being done instead.

#48 of 106 OFFLINE   Eric Paddon

Eric Paddon

    Screenwriter



  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted January 01 2005 - 03:55 PM

"I don't understand these compalints about actors mumbling in the new version"

Because that's how it sounded. Not to mention the unemotional mumbling over events of significance like planetary destruction and 30 battlestars being destroyed.

"For instance, the new mini-series, gives you a reasonable explanation as to why they Cylons and the Humans were at war, while the first one did not have a chance to realy delve into the story."

Here we go again. As has been the case for so many years, criticism of the original series so often has to rest on repeating something that just isn't so. The matter of why the two sides were at war was summed up in the opening episode in Lorne Greene's exchange with the doomed Council President. ("They hate us with every fiber of their being. We love freedom, the right to question....."). Then later in the episode, specific reference was made to how the war began when Colonial Civilization came to the aid of an ally that had been brutally attacked by the Cylons. And finally, in "War Of The Gods" we learned why the Cylons have to be seen as a force that represents total, unemotional evil when we learn in just one scene that they are in fact the Devil's own creation.

That to me is a lot more novel way of presenting a conflict, freed from the cliches of moral equivalence doctrines and shades of gray relativist thinking to just point out that maybe in fact there are such things as moral absolutes of Good and Evil that exist in the universe. The theme of "man's creation turning against him" is the oldest, stalest cliche known to sci-fi, and presenting it in a story with the name "Battlestar Galactica" is ultimately for many a lot more wrong than just changing the genders of the characters.

Someday, I hope all the people who keep yapping their heads off about how a continuation set in the same universe as the original with the original cast back in supporting roles could not work in today's TV, will take the time to actually read the production history of what led to this, and how it was the betrayal of a project headed up by Tom DeSanto that was such a continuation, and was just weeks away from beginning production, that led to Ron Moore coming in to do his reimagining based on zero knowledge or understanding of the original. If he was so determined to present a storyline with these themes of his, then the least he could have done was do it with an original project instead devoid of any connection to a show that stood for an opposite set of values than the kind he chooses to champion.

#49 of 106 OFFLINE   Rutgar

Rutgar

    Second Unit



  • 495 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2004

Posted January 02 2005 - 12:43 AM

Quote:
Someday, I hope all the people who keep yapping their heads off about how a continuation set in the same universe as the original with the original cast back in supporting roles could not work in today's TV,


Obviously if what you wanted was a continuation, and not a re-make, then the new Galactica isn't for you. Like I said in a previous post, I like the new show, as well as the old. But, I watched the new one solely on it's own merit, going in knowing full well that it's a re-make, and I gratefully acknowledged the nods to the original series (the old style Vipers, Starbuck smoking a big ol' stoggy, etc).

To further address your point, there are several things I see that would make a "continuation" of the original series a bad idea. The new writers would have to always work in the constraints of the old shows structure, characters, and story, thus stiffling creativity. The old show was made in a completely different time, where ideas, attitudes, and ideals were totally different (think of "The Brady Bunch vs. Malcome in the Middle). Plus, in case you forgot, the original series WAS completed. They did find their way to Earth (Galactica 1980).

The original series was fine for it's day. But, it's time has passed. And the new show is actually very good, and should be judged on it's own merit, and not on a 27 year old show.

#50 of 106 OFFLINE   Chris Dugger

Chris Dugger

    Supporting Actor



  • 665 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 05 1998

Posted January 02 2005 - 12:46 AM

Those 23 hours of TV back in 78/79 seem to have made quite an impression....

But, if this new series continues to be as smart as it is, then I'm afraid that TOS series will become a faded memory...

Dugger
 

 


#51 of 106 OFFLINE   Eric Paddon

Eric Paddon

    Screenwriter



  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted January 02 2005 - 02:32 AM

"The old show was made in a completely different time, where ideas, attitudes, and ideals were totally different (think of "The Brady Bunch vs. Malcome in the Middle). Plus, in case you forgot, the original series WAS completed. They did find their way to Earth (Galactica 1980)."

First off, anyone who thinks "Galactica 1980" counts for anything as far as "completing" the original series goes, only proves the valuelessness of what they say about judging the original series. That series has been disowned from the outset by Glen Larson and all others who participated in it.

Second, there is nothing outdated about the values of strong family relationships, positive portrayals of religion and faith, not to mention challenging the old sci-fi cliches about relativistic views of conflict. Sure, there are some aspects of the original that betray the time it was made in, but there has never been any argument over jettisoning the weak aspects of execution (i.e. Muffit the daggit) while staying true to the original's values, philosophy and overall concept in the characters. On those points, Galactica is anything but outdated except to those who believe that appealing to the lowest common denominator with gratutious sex, dysfunctional families and relativistic universes somehow represents being more "adult." If anything, the new version only succeeds in being more juvenile than anything else by taking that approach.

And as far as saying don't judge it based on the old show goes, well sorry but Ron Moore asked for that when he chose to call it by the name Battlestar Galactica, just as any new version of a movie called "King Kong" means you invite comparisons to the original, and any new version of a show with the name "Star Trek" in it inevitably must invite comparisons to the original. And that's just going to remain a fact of life.

#52 of 106 OFFLINE   Rutgar

Rutgar

    Second Unit



  • 495 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2004

Posted January 02 2005 - 03:27 AM

Quote:
First off, anyone who thinks "Galactica 1980" counts for anything as far as "completing" the original series goes, only proves the valuelessness of what they say about judging the original series.


I guess there's no need to confuse you with facts, since obviously, your mind is made up. But, like it or not, and the quality of the show not withstanding, Galactica 1980 WAS made, and it DID complete the original series. You can dismiss that as being "valueless", but the facts remain.

#53 of 106 OFFLINE   Eric Paddon

Eric Paddon

    Screenwriter



  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted January 02 2005 - 03:48 AM

And you are are required to ignore the facts about (1) the circumstances of how that show came about, (2) the fact that everyone involved with it acknowledges that it should not be thought of as any kind of official product that ended the original series and (3) the 25 year effort of the fanbase to encourage a proper continuation of the original series in a Next Generation type setting, which in point of fact *was* in advanced pre-production by Tom DeSanto and Bryan Singer before circumstances totally unrelated to the merits of a continuation project caused that to collapse.

Those are the real facts that remain.

#54 of 106 OFFLINE   Rutgar

Rutgar

    Second Unit



  • 495 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2004

Posted January 02 2005 - 04:14 AM

Maybe so. But that doesn't remove the biggist fact, which is, Galactica 1980 is the "Big White Elephant in the Room".

#55 of 106 OFFLINE   Eric Paddon

Eric Paddon

    Screenwriter



  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2001

Posted January 02 2005 - 04:29 AM

Under your logic, the Star Trek animated series would have been the "White Elephant" to argue against starting any new project involving the original cast and that some trendy "reimagining" should have been done in the late 1970s. And I think the dubiousness of that position speaks for itself.

And I can also point to the countless examples of movie franchises that purposefully ignored previous incarnations that were pitiful (think "Exorcist III" ignoring "Exorcist II") to justify the concept of a new continuation approach, and of course there's the real White Elephant you have to keep ignoring regarding the history of how we got to where we are now, which is the DeSanto-Singer project.

#56 of 106 OFFLINE   RickER

RickER

    Producer



  • 5,130 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2003
  • Real Name:Rick
  • LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Posted January 02 2005 - 05:22 AM

My 2 cents, I loved the old Galactica, and i will give the new one a chance. Even the Star Trek Animated was a good show, with the limits it had. And yes, that crap called Galactica 1980 did exist. Even it had ONE good episode. Eric i saw the great trailer that Richard Hatch made for his idea of a continuation, and it looked wonderful. Could have, should have, would have, but thats not the Galactica we are gonna get. I guess you have 2 choices, give the new one a chance, or dont watch it. As much as i like Star Trek, i have not seen much of it that is good in the last 10 years. So, i dont watch, but i do get to still enjoy the ones i DO like. Some times i even find a show i think will be crap, and its good! Posted Image

#57 of 106 OFFLINE   Jose Martinez

Jose Martinez

    Screenwriter



  • 1,113 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2003

Posted January 02 2005 - 08:56 AM

Quote:
I've seen the first nine episodes and there's more character development than in three seasons of Enterprise (or seven seasons of TNG).


Now this is war!!!!

I'll forgive you for saying that about Enterprise. But to include TNG is unforgivable. Posted Image
Live Free or DIE!!!!!

#58 of 106 OFFLINE   Chris Dugger

Chris Dugger

    Supporting Actor



  • 665 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 05 1998

Posted January 14 2005 - 01:48 AM

Just for those looking forward to this....

Hollywood Reporter says
For character-driven, hard-edged science fiction, the return of "Battlestar Galactica" can't be beaten. Where the original series cruised in with campy derring-do, this re-imagining of the franchise is "space noir," with actors playing it for high, realistic stakes. Old fans of the series may be a mite disappointed at the changes, but this fast-paced, tense and dramatic hourlong has plenty of choice rewards for viewers and upholds the smart promise of the 2003 miniseries. … The visuals and sound effects are extremely cool, with spaceships rendered as both sleek and dangerous, and the noises of fast-moving fighter ships toned down from the high-pitched whines of the original series. Characters Lee "Apollo" Adama (Jamie Bamber), who is the commander's son; Kara "Starbuck" Thrace (Katee Sackhoff); and Colonel Tigh (Michael Hogan) are all generously dysfunctional and fun to follow.


Variety says:
Niftily picking up where the 2003 miniseries left off, the new franchise provides solid storytelling … Those who don't frequent Internet chat rooms have missed much of the off-screen drama surrounding "Galactica's" voyage, with plenty of overheated bleating from fans of the original that has gone a long way toward giving sci-fi nerds a bad name. Fortunately, producers of the new show have mostly tuned out the static and stuck to their guns, crafting a very adult series whose principle shortcoming is being almost unrelentingly grim -- though not inappropriately so, given the subject matter. … in terms of top-notch sci-fi fare on a budget, this impressive new vessel flies well beyond its predecessor.

These are just a few of the reviews....

This re-imaging of the old series is certainly something to watch...

Dugger
 

 


#59 of 106 OFFLINE   Rutgar

Rutgar

    Second Unit



  • 495 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 17 2004

Posted January 14 2005 - 02:15 AM

Tonight's the night.

#60 of 106 OFFLINE   Mikel_Cooperman

Mikel_Cooperman

    Producer



  • 4,184 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2001

Posted January 14 2005 - 04:04 AM

I wasnt real keen on the idea of a re-imagining so I didnt watch the miniseries when it was on. Watched it this week and loved it. Much better than I had inticipated. In the process of the redo they have put more emphasis on characters and flehsed the story out. Ron Moore has succeeded wholeheartedly.

Quote:
I've seen the first nine episodes and there's more character development than in three seasons of Enterprise (or seven seasons of TNG).


I am a big fan of TNG as well and still enjoy it but when looking back there wasnt a whole lot of character development. Even the writers have said in interviews they werent allowed to do too much character development. So saying that, I dont think it was meant to be a knock just the reality of it.
I am really quite shocked at how many people are disliking the show just Because it is not the original. If you dont like it, dont watch it! Your loss!

I tivo'd Galactica 1980 last night to see how it had aged it was completely horrible. Boy was it bad! I'd like to know the story as to why they decided to continue the original show with this heap and with a budget of $2.50


Back to TV on DVD and Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow