Battlestar Galactica remake: Time to weep openly (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

They had several scenarios to go with this:

1- Pick up 200 years later (given the average lifespan of a Colonial). New cast, new almost everything, chances for cameos

2-Start from the beginning, do the same important stories for continuity. This would be a mistake, for example it was done with "Queer as Folk", cribbing off of the UK series (badlY) until they found their feet.

3- Blaspheme and just invent a whole new show and slap the BSG name on it

They have removed everything that seperates Galactica from any other Sci-Fi show. The Cylons were Borg 10 years before TNG, Baltar had his own schemes, his own plans, he's not just some sex toy for 6 of 9, and he executed them fairly well. Virtually the entire mystical pseudo-Mormon religious structure that drives the Kobalians as a people has been stripped away. The designs, which are supposed to draw on the connection between our peoples (egyptian/Mayan designs) are gone, replaced by OfficeMax gagetry. The entire structure of the war has been changed. No longer has it gone on for a millenia, instead it's a freaking generic Terminator scenario, instead of an alien race who attacked an ally, and drew humanity into conflict.

Make this show, call it ANYTHING but Battlestar Galactica. As titled, we have minimal expectations of what makes something BSG. This is no more BSG than "Starship Troopers" was to its novel. I believe Mr. Faries said it best:

"Moore keeps referring to the original show, character names (like mentioning an offscreen "Jolly" character), Vipers, battlestars, etc. It just reminds audience of what "used to be", but reminds viewers of an era where Starbuck/Boomer were guys, where there was the loving/supportive/caring family of Apollo, Adama and Athena, of others from the original series. You can NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If you are going to ignore the first show when it comes to gender, etc. for example, then you can't embrace it when it comes to concept and storyline."

Please read the rest of his analysis that I linked above, as he knows the show as well as I do, and has actually read the new script

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Well Jeff, they could have always picked right up where Galactica 1980 left off.

I knew you'd like this comment.

 

[Frank Anderson]

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Frank, you just wanted a chance to use the Cylon smiley

 

[David Forbes]

I wasn't a fan of the original, I thought it was the worst kind of TV sci-fi trash (Adama: "A lost colony somewhere beyond our galaxy, maybe even beyond our own solar system." How's that for scientific accuracy!). I watched the original series once, when it originally aired (and I was a freshman in high school), and groaners like that have stuck with me since. I would have zero interest in watching a by-the-numbers remake.

However, I am interested in seeing what a "new, improved, lemon-fresh-scent" Galactica might have to offer. It still might suck, but at least I'll give it a look, where I wouldn't even bother with a literal rehash. I have no idea how many others are out there like me, but I may be the exact audience SciFi is catering to.

And Jeff, your continual use of hyperbole like "blaspheme" in regard to a low-brow TV show only serves to weaken any real merits your argument may have. Tone it down a little and I might take you a little more seriously. Your rhetoric, though, is so overblown that you come across simply as a raving fanboy lunatic.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

David, of course we'd want to correct the boners like that one, that was lazy television. I never said to pick up where the story left off, 70's hair and all. You can update without pillaging and raping the property. See ST:TNG

The closest thing I have to religion is wishing for story integrity.

Webster's defines the word as

Blas*pheme" (bl[a^]s*f[=e]m"), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Blasphemed (-f[=e]md"); p. pr. & vb. n. Blaspheming.] [OE. blasfem[=e]n, L. blasphemare, fr. Gr. blasfhmei^n: cf. F. blasph['e]mer. See Blame, v.] 1. To speak of, or address, with impious irreverence; to revile impiously (anything sacred); as, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

I'd say that fits to a T exactly what they have done to anyone who has enjoyed Galactica all their lives.

 

[David Forbes]

Sorry, but I'd hardly call anything about BG "sacred." The dictionary reference is all well and good, but the more widely known useage refers to something sacred or holy, neither of which applies to BG. IMHO, a much more suitable term is "travesty."

If this does get picked up as a series I would hope that they'd use elements of the Count Iblis storyline, which was the only worthwhile thing to come out of the show. (And maybe the Pegasus/missing battlestar arc). Everything else about the show should be tossed.

As for story integrity, if that's your religion, to be consistent you would have to pick up the story after Crap-actica: 1980. Or is that being too consistent for you? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but if you're so into story consistency how would you handle this? You can't just act like it didn't happen, or your comment about story integrity being so important to you carries no weight. And if you have to act like it did happen, then the whole premise of the show (find missing colony/Earth) was already concluded in the original series, which means the new show has to come up with something different.

You may have addressed this earlier in the thread but I honestly don't have time to review the whole thing, so please indulge me if you've already made a case.

 

[MichaelW]

I'll tell you what I think this entire thread boils down to for the Sci-Fi channel...

Whether you like the idea behind the re-make or not...

Whether you like the idea of a modern retake on BSG where Starbuck has evolved into a hot-mamma blonde with large mammary glands or not...

The fact is, you'll all be watching.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Galactica 1980 is officially removed from continuity, didn't feature 80% of the cast, and frankly everyone involved would rather pretend didn't happen

Pick it up from the last episode of Battlestar Galactica, the Hand of God, move it foreward as much as you have to, and start it up again. Maintaining previous continuity is a must.

Sorry, but I'd hardly call anything about BG "sacred." The dictionary reference is all well and good, but the more widely known useage refers to something sacred or holy, neither of which applies to BG.

It is to me.

I literally read-out the library as a child, and maintaining the original author's intent is of paramount importance to me. Since Glen Larson IS around to defend his work, he should be directly involved. JRR Tolkein is not around to defend his work from the inventing pen of Peter Jackson for example. When William Goldman made changes to The Princess Bride, that was not blasphemy. He is the God of that story, and we can ALL be positive that what is on screen is his ideal filmed PB. And look how well that one turned out.

 

[David Forbes]

For a guy who seems to know a lot about "the biz," you certainly seem to have a lack of understanding about the collaborative creative efforts that go into television shows or films.

Was Glen Larson involved at all in Galactica 1980? I'm wondering how it became "officially" removed? By whom?

 

[David Forbes]

Okay, I checked IMDB and it seems Glen Larson wasn't involved in Craptastica 1980. Still, who removed it "officially" from the canon?

I'm a writer and I value authorial intent very highly. But when you work in a medium like television, where the creator is almost never the owner of the work, then you better go in with your eyes wide open that some things you won't like have a pretty good chance of happening. Comes with the territory. Similarly, if a writer sells his book to a production company, he/she no longer has control of that property. If he/she doesn't like that then the book shouldn't be sold in the first place.

Back to BG and your attitude toward it, all I can say is that if you consider it "sacred," your bar for what constitutes holiness is set absurdly low.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

G80 has been declared out by Glen Larson, Richard Hatch, Tom DeSanto and the fan community at large. It was a clusterfuck from conception, and I've told the tale in other threads, do a search.

It's a pillar of my childhood David. I know what kind of show the concept could have been. Sure there's a ton of craptastic episodes. but the difference is that I know WHY, because I've spent years meeting the people involved, talking with them, and trying to get the show revived. I know why G80 sucked, I know why half the standalone BSG eps are extremely weak(and for some reason were the ones released on VHS, sigh). I also know the stuff that was going to be going on in the second season and beyond, and it was a sincere departure from Bonanaza, delving deep into the spiritual side, a lot more action, a lot deeper storyline, the return of Commander Cain, basically a chance to get the overall push of the macrostory really going.

I have personally met the entire cast except Maren Jensen, J and Lorne Greene, talked with them extensively, including a bunch of the bit players of reoccuring characters like Sarah "Rigel" Rush, Ron "Security Officer Reese" Kelly. I have also met some of the writers, and I feel privileged to have been there to help film and watch John Colicos play Baltar for the last time, and the drink we shared while he was in the costume. Terry "Col Tigh" Carter is one of the most gracious human beings I have ever had the privilege to meet, and it was a pleasure to watch him perform as well. I know the story, I know the characters, I know the people that make the show Galactica. Sure on the surface it was cheeseball, but the undercurrent that was about to pop to the surface was going to be huge. Sure there probably wouldn't have been that many new FX sequences, but frankly motion control was just too expensive for a TV budget at the time. it was BARELY cheap enough for TNG almost 10 years later, and they reused a lot of their shots too.

Glen Larson owns the FILM rights to the show still, just not the TV rights. The difference is that like Gene Roddenberry, he was still alive when his show was revived and should have been brought in. If not Mr. Roddenberry, they should have hired true fan consultants (yes, like ME) to come in and make sure they weren't screwing it up. When Fox bankrolled Tom DeSanto's production, they bankrolled a TRUE continuation of the series. Something that looked felt and tasted Galactica, but set 25 years later with a ton of new cast memebers to supplement the originals. The Colonials believing they had found sanctuary on a world, but the Cylons had caught up.
I could hear Dirk Benedict speaking Starbuck's lines, it looked, smelled and tasted like Galactica, it WAS Galactica. Darker, more complex, deeper, but it was still the show whose name it carried. I have not read his entire script, but I've read about 30 pages of it, and that's enough to get a taste.

This "re-imagining" tastes like nothing but bile spewn in the faces of the fans that kept the dream alive for a quarter century. The people tuning into this series are not going to be new viewers, it's not going to be their desired 18-40 demo, it would have been the people who remember the original fondly. I'll be fascinated to see the second hour and second night numbers, they're going to be really poor. The worst part is that then the Universal executives will say "we tried, didn't work" and that will kill the franchise outright, or for at least another quarter century.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

People keep saying "they're not trying to destroy the original, they're releasing the series!"

Indeed they are, and guess what, not a SINGLE human being are present on the new covers. Scroll down to see the new cover art on the movie version

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=533

 

[Dave Mack]

Jeez guys, Jeff and some others liked Galactica when we were young. Let it be. Stop trying to just slam the original show. In' 78-'79, it was pretty damn cool and if it looks bad by today's standards, so does the original TREK and many Twilight Zone episodes. Yes, the writing might was not the greatest but at least the people in the show seemed to be into it and not just some post-modern, ironic, cynical, detached, trendy automatons giving line readings while simultaneously plotting their next career move.
Their WAS a pretty cool (albeit slightly borrowed from Star Wars) premise. With decent writing and production values, who knows what might have been....?


Dave

 

[Jeff Kleist]

(albeit slightly borrowed from Star Wars)

Actually Larson was pitching Galactica in 1973 in pretty close to final form

 

[Dave Mack]

Hey jeff! Wassup Bro?

Actually, I meant more in design, FX... Dykstra, the fact that the shape of the cylon helmet is a bit similar to Vader's if you took the top 1/2 of his mask off... etc...
Even most of the critics at the time called it the TV Star Wars.. and did comparisons... Not that it mattered to me. I dug it...

D

 

[Will_B]

I was a fan of the original series. Had pictures from Starlog on my walls and everything.

But I'm welcoming this new miniseries, as a potentially wonderful revisit to the concept of Galactica. The production design (from the photos seen thus far) look fabulous, and if the story itself has the same amount of obvious love and care, we'll be in for a treat.

All the "blaspheme" rhetoric does come across as little more than an effort to stilt the argument by using extreme language. Like calling people who are "pro-choice" as "pro-death", it is just the sound of a mind slamming shut.

 

[Will_B]

Indeed they are, and guess what, not a SINGLE human being are present on the new covers. Scroll down to see the new cover art on the movie version

No doubt they're trying to trick people into thinking they're buying the new miniseries by doing that T2-like metal slipcase. Just as the actor who played David Banner in the 1980s is no where to be found on the front of any of the Incredible Hulk tv series reissues.

Evidently, the marketing people also beleive that the new Galactica series will be bigger than the old one. Interesting.

But don't worry Jeff. As you're so partial to the "blaspheme" term, remember that the Bible has sold well even though there's typically NO PICTURE OF GOD on the front cover AT ALL! Just plain old leather most of the time! Blasphemers!!!

 

[Kevin Hewell]

However, I am interested in seeing what a "new, improved, lemon-fresh-scent" Galactica might have to offer. It still might suck, but at least I'll give it a look, where I wouldn't even bother with a literal rehash. I have no idea how many others are out there like me, but I may be the exact audience SciFi is catering to.

Here's another one out here. I loved the show when it originally aired but I was twelve. Yes, the show looks a little cheesy now and many people have pointed out that original Trek and Twilight Zone do as well. The difference is that the writing was so much better on those shows that they've aged much better than BG has. I still think the premise is a very intriguing one and I hope that the new version will finally do it justice.

 

[RobertR]

not just some post-modern, ironic, cynical, detached, trendy automatons

I thought that described the Cylons.