Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Olmos Tells Fans: "Don't Watch Galactica" 546

Posted by michael from the felgercarb dept.
Obiwan Kenobi writes "Edward James Olmos, in a meeting with a group of TV Critics, did something unbelievable: he pleaded with them to tell their readers not to watch the new Battlestar Galactica remake on the Sci-Fi Channel: 'I must say one thing and will say this very clearly, if you are a person who really has a strict belief in the original, I would not advise that you watch this program. It'll hurt them.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Olmos Tells Fans: "Don't Watch Galactica" More

Olmos Tells Fans: "Don't Watch Galactica"

Comments Filter:

  • hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CptChipJew ( 301983 ) *
    He's going to be sued for this.

    • Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by DoctorYoooWhoo ( 514195 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:28AM (#6422294)
      At least the XXX remake "BattleWhore Ejactica" was profitable, albeit derivative...
    • He's going to be sued for this.

      Hardly. By making an unexpected statement like this, he generates additional coverage; the slashdot coverage alone is probably worth an additional ratings point or two!

      After all, aren't *you* now more likely to watch it than before--if only to find out for yourself what all the fuss was about? I know I am.

    • Re:hmm (Score:2, Funny)

      by Geek Tragedy ( 134539 )
      Olmos probably will be - the comment is a bit of a Gaff, isn't it? ;)

      *hopes moderators get it*

    • Re:hmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by jmccay ( 70985 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @02:09AM (#6422455) Journal
      Not likely, 90% of the fans were already planning on not watching, and sci-fi (and everybody involved) knows it. The Battlestar Galactica buletin at the sci-fi channel is full of complaints, "I am not going to watch because...", and leaks about the re-imagining of the series. The re-imagining is based off of the Battlestar Galactica movie, and all changes were made based on the so-called flaws of it.
      In fact most of them are planning on boycotting anybody who advertises during the mini-series. It's a poor script, and Ronald Moore has a lot of sexual issues (he turned Battlestar Galactica into a soft-porn flick).
      I hang out at the Sci-fi Board for Battlestar Galactica. There is very little support for this re-imaging on the boards. In fact, a couple of people started to fabricate A LOT of personalities to generate support for this re-imaging. In fact it pissed off Mr. Moore (Mr. Mooron) that he wrote a note on the web telling the people to knock it off.
      I doubt there are a lot of people that will watch it. The only resemblance it has to the original is it's name.
      Most of the characters in the re-imagine have major problems and can't be considered heros anymore. Starbuck and Boomer are Females now (just for the sake of the femist cause!)!!! The cylons were made by humans and now look like humans. There is no longer 12 planets with 12 colonies. There is 1 planet with 12 colonies that are technophobic. Baltar doesn't betray the human race on purpose (so he can rule his people). He is seduced by a female cylon.
      That just the high-lights. Check out BattlestarGalactica.com [battlestargalactica.com] and search for the miniseries articles, and check out my earlier comment [slashdot.org] for more information.

      • Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @04:05AM (#6422808) Homepage
        Fans don't not watch anything. It's their nature. They'll watch. It takes forever for fans to break their franchise-addictions, while they so often fail to give truly good new material their support.

        Pardon me if I sound bitter. The fact all the Star Wars and Star Trek movies made gallons of money, and that Gattaca lost money, tells me that SF fans deserve every bit of misery they get.
        • Gee whiz, they shot the thing in some shopping mall and I think the only spaceship shot was a launch plume (could have used stock footage of a Saturn V takeoff.)

          Some might call it "intelligent sci-fi" - I call it cheap and boring. Give me a rousing Space Opera any day over the visual valium of Gattaca.

      • Re:hmm (Score:3, Funny)

        by Kibo ( 256105 )
        Starbuck and Boomer are Females now (just for the sake of the femist cause!)!!!

        I guess someone doesn't watch his daily interval of anime.

        Which frequently goes a little something like:

        Wake Up.

        Strech luxuriantly in light clingly sleep clothes.

        Playful lesbian tickle fights.

        Giggles.

        Talking.

        Explosions.

        Shower Scene.

        Existential Monologue.

        Follow up on a clue.

        Miracle of technology.

        Our heroine cowboys the fork up.

        More bigger explosions.

        Talking which diminishes todays victory...

        ...and sets up next wee

      • Re:hmm (Score:3, Funny)

        by Arker ( 91948 )
        Sounds truly awful, except for the soft-porn bit. Hell, I thought the original was soft-porn. Of course to a horny little boy, Cassi and Athena and skin tight costumes... they didn't actually have to do anything to get the effect. ;)

      • Re:hmm (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nanoakron ( 234907 )
        I'll be boycotting becasue they killed Farscape, which just shows the sci-fi channel has no taste and no time for real sci-fi, and couldn't give two shits about the opinions of their fans.

        In other words, I expected the remake to be a total farce of the original, because the sci-fi channel DOES NOT CARE about sci-fi.

        -Nano.

        • No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)

          by msobkow ( 48369 )

          Kill off an original top-quality show like Farscape, and instead produce drek like Tremors, Battlestar Galactica, and those awful made-for-SciFi movies of theirs.

          I'm starting to think they hate science fiction, and should be relabled as the "Schlocky Horror Channel".

  • Doesn't surpise me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Flamed to a Crisp ( 688872 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:45AM (#6422071)
    ...After all, aren't remakes always worse than the originals?

    • Re:Doesn't surpise me... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I don't know, that Ben Affleck/J Lo remake of Casablanca is sure to kick the crap out of the original.

      Oh wait...
    • I dunno. IIRC, Evil dead II was a remake of Evil Dead I and was much better. Most of the time? Perhaps but always, no.
    • ...After all, aren't remakes always worse than the originals?

      Specifically, Masters of the Universe (He-Man), and Transformers (any remake/sequel).

      Both were 1980's cartoons, remade recently. Both remakes remake what it means to SUCK.

      This may be a biased comment, having grown up on the original He-Man and Optimus Prime. But, like Olmos suggests, I feel hurt having seen the remakes. I'm almost offended by them.

      --Doogie Howser
      • I actually don't mind the remake of Transformers. It's ok. The H-Man remake is god-awful. I also noticed a remake of Teen-Age Mutant Ninja Turtles on Fox the other weekend. Didn't see enough to form an opinion either way. But it appears to be darker than the original cartoon series.

        • Re:Actually (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Exatron ( 124633 ) <(moc.liamtoh) (ta) (nortaxE)> on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:24AM (#6422276) Homepage
          The He-Man remake has been better than the original in every conveivable way.

          Transformers Armada is atrocious. Half the time Armada's writers can't bother to get the characters' names right, the animation gives new meaning to the word cheap, and the writers spend so much time hinting at "epic" storylines that the series effectively goes nowhere. As far as remakes or sequels to the original Transformers go, this one is at the bottom of the barrel. Expecting another G1 or Beast Wars is probably asking for too much, but at this point I'll take Beast Machines or Robots in Disguise over the Armada cartoon.

          The new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon is mostly based on the original Mirage comic, which is why it seems darker than the original cartoon.

          • Whoa - there's a comic-faithful version of TMNT? This I gotta see.

            For the record, I liked Beast Machines. Some of the eps were weak (like blowing up cybertron every 3 episodes) but overall I enjoyed it a lot. I felt the characters were much better developed (Primal becoming more and more of a space-cadet while Cheetor has to take command more).

        • Re:Actually (Score:4, Informative)

          by Sevn ( 12012 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @02:10AM (#6422457) Homepage Journal
          In the original comic, the turtles were almost as
          bad as shredder. They'd kill a lot of innocent
          people and utterly destroy private property to get
          at him and it ROCKED. God I hope when you say
          it's darker, they captured the feel of the comic
          perfectly.
      • The new transformers comic books are startlingly good acutally. DreamWave has finally gotten their act together with that shit. I highly recommend The War Within and Armada comic-book TF lines.
    • Not always. Other 2 examples are John Carpenter's The Thing, and thje second remake of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the one with Donald Sutherland).
      • I don't recall a 2nd remake of "Body Snatchers" with Sutherland. The first BS remake was pretty awful, though. It was just on Sci-Fi the other night.

        Are you sure the Sutherland movie you're talking about isn't "The Puppeteers," based on the Heinlein novel? I'm pretty sure he was in that.
    • Oh, sure, remakes can be terrible, though I loved Aliens, T2, and any number of other remakes and sequels.
      As mentioned elsewhere, we all know that Evil Dead II was amazing.

      What I want to see is a BG based on the comic, which got to be one of the best dark and weird comics from the majors in those pre-indy days.
      Fraud, incompetent leaders, black markets, prostitution, homeless people stranded in the halls while Caligula-like banquets take place behind the guard of the growing private militaries. Adama flak

  • Ugh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Robert Hayden ( 58313 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:45AM (#6422073) Homepage
    From everything I've read or heard about this miniseries (including conversations with some SciFi channel employees assigned to the project), it is exceptionally more crapacular than Episode I and Higherlander 2 combined.

    Avoid avoid avoid...
    • If only it would be released in a theater, then I could demand my money back..and sue for pain suffering...

    • Re:Ugh (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by thegreat682 ( 664186 )
      In a related story... I want FARSCAPE back!!!!

    • Re:Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:48AM (#6422372) Homepage
      Sounds like it's going to be a disaster on the level of the American version of "Iron Chef". It's really too bad TV staff assigned to do remakes don't give a crap about the show they're remaking. They want to do their own thing, and express themselves...okay well why are they doing a freaking remake then? Because they're bankrupt on ideas! Christ the circular craptacularness confounds me.

      • Re:Ugh (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jmccay ( 70985 )
        Most sci-fi fans don't like the head of the Sci-fi channel. They, and I agree, that she has ruined it. They play more horror than sci-fi. The there's that stupid crossing over guy and scare tactics!
        Ronald Moore, of Star Trek fame(he sucked then too), wrote the script, and he based it off of the movie! The movie was the first couple of episodes with a lot cut out. He didn't even bother to watch the WHOLE series! It was just one season. I have it on 5 tapes! I think Mr. Moore needs to rent more

  • Lorne Greene is choking on his Alpo (Score:3, Funny)

    by windowpain ( 211052 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:45AM (#6422074) Journal
    Poor bastard.

  • Egads!` (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UrGeek ( 577204 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:47AM (#6422085)
    The original "Battlestar Galactica" was not the worst science fiction show on TV but it was not good, not good at all.

    Maybe I will like this new one after all.

    • Re:Egads!` (Score:5, Funny)

      by gjbivin ( 204168 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:56AM (#6422130)
      I believe it was Harlan Ellison who called the original series "Battlestar Galaxative".
    • It *wasn't* the worst??? Good gravy, how can it get worse?
      Look, I own a legitmate, fully paid for, video of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" -- Ed Wood did better stuff than any episode of BG. BG never failed to, within a few minutes, turn my stomach out of shear stupidity of dialog, poor plot, and reckless ignorance of science in a science fiction story. And it is obvious that I have a strong stomach. (See above: Ed Wood).

    • Re:Egads!` (Score:5, Funny)

      by Wavicle ( 181176 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:11AM (#6422209)
      Yeah, not mention really, really bad physics.

      Col. Tigh: We're dangerously low on fuel
      Cmdr. Adama: Bring the fleet to a halt.

      Uh... yeah... must be because of all that interstellar drag. The next line should have been:

      Col. Tigh: I said WE'RE LOW ON FUEL.

      But in all honesty, I was so young when Galactica was made, I really just watched it because I liked to pretend I was Boxie... a six yaron old snot nosed brat living on the coolest ship in a rag-tag fugitive fleet, fleeing the Cylon tyranny.

      • Re:Egads!` (Score:4, Insightful)

        by agurkan ( 523320 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @02:55AM (#6422599) Homepage
        well, as a physicist i have to disagree. the ships in battlestar galactica do not move by classical propulsion, they use that only to maneuver. the real means of travel is via distortion of spacetime around the ships which does not change your inertia but let you move in spacetime by modifying the geodesics. incidentally, this is why these people do not feel the fictitious forces due to accelaration of the ships. of course that distortion does require energy so bringing fleet to a halt is necessary when you are low on fuel.
        i hope this clarifies...

      • Re:Egads!` (Score:5, Funny)

        by gclef ( 96311 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @06:33AM (#6423051)
        Battlestar Galactica line: Cylons at 10 Angstroms!

        Friends mom: Wow, that's close enough for sex.

        Us (ignorant kids): huh?

  • In a related story... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alan Holman ( 607935 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:48AM (#6422086) Journal
    In a related story, William Shatner wants people to watch ST:TNG, DS9, VOYAGER, and ENTERPRISE, because they're "da bomb."

  • Reverse psychology? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GreatOgre ( 75402 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:48AM (#6422087)
    Best way to get people to do something is to tell them not to!

  • Any disrespect to the original is balanced out... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by douglips ( 513461 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:48AM (#6422089) Homepage Journal
    by the fact that Starbuck is played by
    Katee Sackhoff [katee-sackhoff.com].

    Yummy. [tvtome.com]

  • Won't hurt that much. . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:48AM (#6422092)
    'if you are a person who really has a strict belief in the original, I would not advise that you watch this program. It'll hurt them.'

    "On the other hand," he continued, "If you really have a strict belief in the original, watching this probably won't make your life any worse."

  • Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SYFer ( 617415 ) <syfer@syf e r . n et> on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:49AM (#6422097) Homepage
    He's been saying this for quite some time now (Google: olmos galactica purist).

    Clearly this is just PR. I wonder how many of the "purists" will actually tune out?

    Suckas.

  • It will suck (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:53AM (#6422114)
    More "space opera" with the emphasis on opera. Lots of badly acted interpersonal drama with an occasional shoot-out. Why? Because no-name actors playing kissy face are cheaper in their first couple years than special effects.

    The Star Trek folks even figured out how to deal with the now-famous actor (read $$) problem. Cancel the series and start a new one. Frequently.

    • Re:It will suck (Score:4, Funny)

      by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:07AM (#6422189) Homepage
      The Star Trek folks even figured out how to deal with the now-famous actor (read $$) problem. Cancel the series and start a new one. Frequently.

      I'm offended, but can't quite figure out where the error in that statement is
    • The Star Trek folks even figured out how to deal with the now-famous actor (read $$) problem. Cancel the series and start a new one. Frequently.

      If you pay the actors what they can now demand you could wind up with Buffy season 7. The world cannot risk that happening again.

  • An obvious ploy... (Score:5, Funny)

    by the darn ( 624240 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:53AM (#6422115) Homepage
    Your Reverse-psychology-fu is useless against my hazy recollection of C-3PO wannabes with KITT eyes and creepy cyborg bear-things!
  • is because it's full of rap music, product placement advertisements, gratuitous sex scenes (well those are okay), crappy dialogue, additional characters, and a new ending. just a hunch....

  • What is Sci-Fi's core audience? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Goldfinger7400 ( 630228 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:55AM (#6422125)
    I've often wondered why the Sci-FI channel goes to such incredible lengths to alienate what would be one of its key audiences, specifically, the Buck Rogers/escapism crowd. Fantasy-ish shows dealing with interesting issues through the use of cartoonish characters that serve as a foil for the seriousness of situations always seemed to be at the heart of science fiction for me. Yet when I turn on the Sci-Fi channel for some light entertainment, more often than not I'm greated with some awful, disturbing horror movie.

    Granted, these shows are cheap, but Sci-Fi got great ratings (i think) when they brought Star Trek to the network, proving that light entertainment is appreciated. So why the realism in a Battlestar Galactica show? Why the heck is Sci-Fi so dark?

    • Stargate SG-1 is currently the most popular show, by far, and is hardly lite fare.

    • Re:What is Sci-Fi's core audience? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sabalon ( 1684 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:16AM (#6422240)
      AMEN!!! Crossing-Over? Scare Tactics?

      I understand that original programming is costly, though they seem to be doing good with Tremors, Stargate, Farscape, etc... even the Dune series were well done.

      But if they don't spend the money there, then what about re-running other shows...there is a huge list of both good and bad stuff that they could show. They have shown some things, others they haven't. (assuming that sci-fi also includes fantasy)

      ST: TNG, SeaQuest, Dr Who, Hercules, Xena, Highlander for some of the long running stuff that would fit.

      As for some shows they could probably get cheap that were one-series things: Battlestar Galactica, Otherworld, Automan, Wizards and Warriors, Space above and beyond, etc...

      There is a huge list I can't remember. I just looked at the schedule for next week, and they do have some shows in there I didn't expect, but lots of runs of old (ie cheap) shows like ST: TOS, Dark Shadows, Outer Limits, etc...

      They'd be better off with more variety.

      Oh well...I guess I'm in the minority or something and just cranky.
    • ...Sci-Fi got great ratings (i think) when they brought Star Trek to the network...

      This must be the explanation behind the "New TNN". Granted, I don't mind at all being able to watch ST:TNG again, but having it come on right after WWE Smack Down is a bit disorienting.

    • Re:What is Sci-Fi's core audience? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday July 12, 2003 @03:47AM (#6422763)
      AMEN!

      Preach it brother!

      This is a question I have had for years, why doesn't Sci_Fi channel actually run Science Fiction? Take a look at their schedule for a week and count up the hours actually running things that qualify as Sci-Fi and it comes up pretty damned short.

      Freddy, Jason and Chuckie are NOT Sci-Fi.

      Most of the other slasher flicks are NOT Sci-Fi either.

      John Edwards is NOT Sci-Fi.

      Beyond Belief is NOT Sci-Fi. (Having an actor from a Trek franchise as host does not make a show Sci-Fi.)

      In Search of... is NOT SCi-Fi.

      Scare Tactics is NOT Sci-Fi.

      Braveheart is NOT Sci-Fi. (Yes they actually ran it.)

      And I'm sorry, I want someone to explain how Dark Shadows is Sci-Fi. Being a cult classic doesn't make a show Sci-Fi. Let some other channel run it.
  • slow space convoy shots? No more the same ten space battle sequences again and again and again and again? No more Lorne Green and John Calicos and "By Your Command"? No more figuring out ways of running away faster? No Muffit, the robotic daggit?!?

    I just might watch.

  • That is NOT what he said. (Score:5, Informative)

    by sakusha ( 441986 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:56AM (#6422134)
    Olmos said that FANBOYS of the old series should not watch the new series because they backstory was thrown out and a new one created. He never said people in GENERAL should not watch it.

    Oops, I think I multi posted this by accident. Sorry.

  • Gratuitous Mormon Content, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MsGeek ( 162936 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @12:59AM (#6422150) Homepage Journal
    I'm curious...I wonder if the mythos of the show, which were basically cribbed from the Book Of Mormon and also may or may not have included some items of Mormon dogma that the LDS folks wanted to keep secret, will remain intact in the remake?

    It is interesting to note that the LDS Church did not sue ABC over Battlestar Galactica. Then again, the Super Seekrit Skripturez of the Church of Scientology are very well protected under the Sonny Bono Act, where the Book of Mormon passed into the Public Domain generations ago. If someone cribbed the bizarro stuff that passes for "higher revelations" in the CoS and used them as inspiration for a SF movie/TV show, the one who had the temerity to do so would probably be legal dead meat. Not to mention OTHER possible ramifications...[shudder]

    • Re:Gratuitous Mormon Content, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Teancom ( 13486 ) <david&gnuconsulting,com> on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:37AM (#6422335) Homepage
      As an active, temple-going Mormon, and someone whose seen the original BG movie, I had to have the connections pointed out to me, and even then it was just surface stuff like calling the council at the beginning of the movie "The Quorum of the Twelve" (or something like that, it's been a year or so and my memory is hazy). It was more along the lines of insider jokes for fellow mormons to laugh at (the writers were mormon). Either way, it was *not* some sort of "expose" of the "secret Mormon dogma". There is nothing to sue over, or worry about...

      Oh, and the people that had the temerity to base a work on the CoS were Cos members themselves. And the results *were* horrific, but only to the audience. Unless you *liked* "Battlefield Earth"?!?!?
      • Oh, and the people that had the temerity to base a work on the CoS were Cos members themselves. And the results *were* horrific, but only to the audience. Unless you *liked* "Battlefield Earth"?!?!?

        Indeed...I thought I had erased the horror of "Battlefield: Earth" from my brain. But you had to remind me. DEEEEEP Hurting!!!!!

    • Yeha, ya know... I've read the Book of Mormon, I don't remember any parts about space ships and phaser gun thingies. Kind of wish there was though, it would have made church a whole lot more enjoyed as a young boy!

      If you havn't noticed by now we Mormons aren't all that secretive about our religion. There is whole bunch of young guys in suits, ties and name tags all over the world trying to tell people all about it.

      My only real memory of BSG was how easy it was to make the bad guys ships with two paper p

  • Translation (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nova Express ( 100383 ) <lawrenceperson.gmail@com> on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:00AM (#6422160) Homepage Journal
    "Despite thousands of manhours spent honing the concept, we were unable to make it as suckey as the original. We apologize for this, as we know that the medicore acting, idiotic scripts, irritaing kid and robot, and repetitive battle scenes were integral to making Battlestar Galactica what it was, but they just set the bar too low for us to crawl under. Again, we apologize, and we'll be using all the skills Hollywood is known for to make sure the series becomes more wretched and unwatchable as time goes on, climaxing in the premier of Galactica 2005. Thank you."

    Maybe if they kept the theme music and threw every other "classic" element away...
    • Maybe if they kept the theme music and threw every other "classic" element away...

      But will they still use those ridiculous time measurements? I haven't seen the show in 20+ years so I'm a little fuzzy on the what they were.

      Or will they show that same fighter launch sequence over and over?

      My guess is that the show will contain a couple tributes/gibes to the original and ignore it other than than that (a la the non-explantion of old Klingons vs. new Klingons in Star Trek).

  • It can only get better (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Sabalon ( 1684 )
    Face it - as much as I have fond memories of the original, it was something hacked together to be a running series to have lasers becaue star wars did.

    Overall, it was kinda cheesy and almost a family show. (Acutally as I remember, they had a lot of stuff crammed into that one season) As I remember, a lot of time with Boxey and Daggit. They took this to the next level with Battlestar 1980.

    If the sci-fi version cuts out some of the cheese and makes a darker galactica, more power to them. For a rag-tag,

    • Re:It can only get better (Score:4, Funny)

      by Rxke ( 644923 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:21AM (#6422262) Homepage
      ...As long as they have the original music, it can't be bad :) OOOOOOWWWWW!!!!! that hurt! I can still remember, even as i watched the original series as a snotty nosed 10 somewhat years old, cringing when i saw the scenes of their 'parties' That made me really mad, like this is the future, all metallicky-silvery hi-tech stuf, and they are dancing on some kinda waterded down muzak disco stuff, 'dancing' with stupid colored err... tubes in their hands, boy oh boy, was i pissed when i saw that, it was sooooo bad. Of course, now, seeing where the music bizz is heading, these days, maybe they WERE right.... /shudder/

  • New Galactica is the Cylon "Why We Fight" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joneshenry ( 9497 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:08AM (#6422192)
    The old Battlestar Galactica suffered in comparison to Star Wars because the television series could give no hope that the heroes would win. The heroes were therefore losers. On the other hand the constraints of network television story telling demanded that the enemy Cylons, at least the normal soldiers, be portrayed as being ridiculously inept and incompetent, to be swept away like flies in single combat when the heroes used their innate ability. Both sides were portrayed as losers.

    Decades have passed and United States audiences willing to watch science fiction have been exposed to anti-heroes in the mass media, from the movies to TV shows such as the Sopranos to WWE pro wrestling. The anti-hero is almost a norm, and it is expected for the weak to be continuously humiliated.

    Now is the right time to re-image the Galactica story. Instead of network television having to cater to mass tastes, the Sci Fi Channel can concentrate on a smaller niche, a niche that is quite comfortable with WWE or reality show entertainment.

    When I read purported leaks of the Galactica storyline by Ron Moore, I saw that Moore had solved all of the problems posed by the constraints on the original series. What Moore has done is to understand that while the supposed heroes are required to fill up time on the screen, the real stars of the series are the Cylons. Victims in modern television are no more to be pitied than the people trampled in a Japanese monster movie. The story of Galactica has never been about the humans, it should have been, and Moore has remade it to be, about the rise and victory of the new dominant species, the new top predator.

    Many will criticize the ridiculous and humiliating portrayal of humans in the new Galactica series. What they fail to see is that we should watch the story as if it were told from the Cylons' perspective. The new series will examine why humans are inferior and why Cylons are obligated to wage total war to eliminate human evil.

    Root for the true good guys of Galatica--the Cylons.

    • Re:New Galactica is the Cylon "Why We Fight" (Score:5, Funny)

      by FatherBusa ( 139333 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @02:42AM (#6422564)
      The new series will examine why humans are inferior and why Cylons are obligated to wage total war to eliminate human evil.

      Yes, and I think the general reaction of the Cylons should be one of insoucience. Rather than getting all worked up about "human evil," they should simply have a meeting in which they decide that the only reasonable response to this problem is the genocidal elimination of the human race.

      The point of series then becomes the preposterous striving of the human characters in the face of this perfunctory act of bureaucratic expediency.
  • Sean Connery warns people not to view LXG unless they want to get into a fight with the manager about getting a refund.

    Jennifer Connely advises taking some NoDoze or at least a double cappucino before attempting to view the Hulk.

    and Johnnie Depp warns ladies not to see Pirates of the Caribbean unless you want to fall in love with in all over again since you just recently got over your obsession with him after viewing Chocolate for the 20th time.

  • Classy move (Score:4, Insightful)

    by infonography ( 566403 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:11AM (#6422212) Homepage
    Hollywood is out of ideas, to borrow a phrase from Fark. Even if he's just trying to head off nitpicking from critics the previews I've seen are rather lackluster. DUNE sucked, and the killed off Farscape. Beyond that the SciFi Channel needs to get over it's fear of Anime. I realize they are trying not to swamp the channel with Animated (but really cool) stuff and turn into a Cartoon Network knockoff. However if they keep trotting out RICHARD GRIECO [scifi.com] someone will step in and take their nitch.

    Tech TV's Anime Unleashed [techtv.com] is trying really hard and getting out the Channel for IT Nerds image.

    The SciFi Channel is fast becoming 'The place bad programing goes to die'

    • Agreed - you Americans are (were?) lucky - in Canada, we have the Space channel, and that description "The place bad programing goes to die" hits the nail right on the head. I hope your Sci-Fi doesn't become the same.

  • Thank the Elders it's not going to be the same (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DavidBrown ( 177261 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:12AM (#6422216) Journal
    Think about it. The original concept of Battlestar Gallactica was great: Refugees struggling to escape annihalation and find a new home. But there were so many bad, bad things about BG that had nothing to do with the state of the art of special effects.

    Here are some examples:

    1. The damn robot dog.
    2. The incredibly stupid plots - even in the TV movie. Remember the insect aliens running a casino to entrap humans into becoming larva food? The first half of the TV movie was great, but it went way down-hill from there.
    3. The damn robot dog.
    4. The damn robot dog.
    5. Cheesy 70's hair. At least Boomer didn't have an afro, but that wasn't much help.
    6. The overall plot turning into something that wasn't all that different from Space 1999 - each episode was either a throw-away event where the BG either meets aliens or suffers a cylon attack, and then escapes at the end - usually after being betrayed by the aliens or fighting off another cylon attack. The episodes dealing with the plot to find Earth were mostly "Gilligan and the Castaways almost, but not quite, make it off the island again" episodes.

    The things I remember about BG that were cool was the tech - the whole idea of an aircraft carrier in space, the way-cool Cylon fighters and base-ships, the cylons themselves (except for the leader-bots, which were lame). Even the thinly-veiled Mormon philosophy was OK.

    There's just one thing I'm hoping for: No damn robot dog. If they have to have a robot, it had better be Crow-T-Robot, Tom Servo, or Bender. Or a damn robot dog that's very quickly taken over by the Cylons.

    Oh yeah, and make Starbuck a lesbian, too.

  • What is so wrong with The Sci-Fi Channel? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Camino SS ( 264212 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:15AM (#6422233)
    Really people. If the sci fi channel had the real money to pump into something, they would. *Cough* Farscape! *cough*

    Complaining that the sets look cheap on a non-mainstay cable channel isn't the reality of television now. Farscape was the most expensive made for cable show ever. It really needed a lot of viewers. I was one of them, but obviously the economics don't support it. Period. So it died. I cannot help that. I was watching. But at least Sci-fi is trying to do something original. It is at least aggressive about growing its audience. That is why I watch them. They try. And they make original TV. So there. Can you say that about many other channels? Does lifetime have a budget for their made-for-tv crapfests that last seventy million hours? NO. Sci-fi is working on it. It may not be the best, but they are working on it.

    Now that Galactica (a mediocre at best TV show, but one that makes us remember our past, I even had a jacket as a kid) comes back for a little cable money, you all start screaming that it is crap long before it airs. Months before it airs. Look, they just cannot afford to make the best shows with the best actors. YOU NEED TO BUY MORE ADVERTISING AND THEN THEY CAN AFFORD TO GROW THE BRAND. Sorry, as much as I am a sci-fi nut, we are a niche market. We will always get a "niche price" on things. Pray that you are not the Oxygen channel and that you have the Isaac Mizrahi show as your original programming.

    Look, complaining about the Sci-Fi channel will not change the fact that they are broke and trying to change that. Giving you something to watch... even if it is a remake, is not cheap. They at least have the balls to venture on TV. They are spending money, employing light riggers, paying actors, and getting TV made when you have no room to bitch or get stuck with the same reruns you've seen since '95.

    Stop bitching about anyone making new programming, because if the execs smell backlash, then we are getting NOTHING NEW, and they are putting all of their money into TRADING SPACES. Got it?
    • Hold on there for a second, pardner. You're saying we should be GRATEFUL when television gives us a new, crappy series? Count me out, chump.

      Personally I'd enjoy a new Galactica with a "Band of Brothers" personality. Would really make the story of fleeing the Cylons hit home.

    • The problem is Sci-Fi is wasting their money on "Sci-Fi Originals" such as:

      * Tremors - Does anyone even watch this show? Holy crap it's bad.

      * Crossing Over - You might as well take a power drill to the temple of your head.

      * Dune/Children of Dune - I'm not a big fan of the original Dune movie, so I gave these a chance. They're awful. The original movie is better.

      * Riverworld - Who watched this? If you did, can you explain to me what was going on, and what the purpose of the film was? Thanks.

      These sci-fi

  • This Just In... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Enrico Pulatzo ( 536675 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:22AM (#6422267)
    If you have a "strict belief" in sci-fi, you're setting yourself up for a whole world of hurt.

  • Face (Score:5, Funny)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:28AM (#6422296) Homepage
    Its just not going to be the same without Face from the A-Team. I always wanted to see the cross over where the Cylons captured Face + The Rest of the A-Team and then out of a the pieces of their jail cell they created a tank/car, resuce everyone, ended the war and no-one actually got killed :)

    Rus

  • I Was Worried Once I Saw Ron Moore's Name On It (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:42AM (#6422353)
    I used to pitch stories to Star Trek: The Next Generation. My agent was the same one that got Ron Moore started. She got me in the door and I would pitch stories over the phone (I'm told this is VERY rare) to Moore. Even though I did get a couple mentions (by reference, not by name) in "Hollywood Scriptwriter," I have to point out, before I make my comments, that Ron Moore is making a living writing for film and TV and I'm not (although my company will soon be producing video and digital film).

    Ron likes to change things. He's the writer at ST:TNG who would frequently change things from the way they were. He wrote "Relics," the episode where Scotty is found in an old ship and says, "I'll bet Jim Kirk himself took the Enterprise out of mothballs to find me." Later he, with Brannon Braga, has Scotty see the gaping hole in "Generations" where Kirk was "killed."

    Ron, as best I could tell, is a very intelligent, articulate, and friendly (if shy, it seemed) person. I would never wish him any ill will. However, he has shown that whenever he works with anyone else's material, he "loves to change things" (as Scotty once said). He seems to actually take delight in making sure he takes the original material and changes it enough to actually irritate fans of the original.

    Once I saw his name attached to the project, I basically decided I was VERY unlikely to watch it. When I found out Starbuck was a woman, I was sure I wouldn't watch it. It completely destroys the "buddy" relationship that was so important to the original.

  • Sci-Fi Mythos (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:57AM (#6422404) Homepage Journal
    Sure, people might bitch and complain about the Mormon influences in BG and the cribbing of Joseph Campbell in Star Wars, but they were the heart of each movie. Star Trek was just a western in space with capitalist vs. communist overtones.

    This new version (without seeing a single episode) is completely devoid of what real fans of the show liked. It's like finding out that Darth Vader was really really annoying kid who then later turned into a total poser. Oh wait, that really happened. Now you can see what fans are feeling.

    Hey, it wasn't the best show that it could have been. The daggit should have been set on fire, roasted and shot into space. Sure, they could have used more space scenes, but you have to understand that ABC wouldn't pay the money to produce more and they were rushing the entire project. Glen Larson did the best with what he had at the time... which was the late seventies. Everyone in the thread seems to be trashing the obvious mistakes, but forget the great stuff the show had. The *robot* cylons were the shiznit. The Vipers were cooler than X-Wings and I'd take Face... er, Starbuck and Apollo over Luke and Wedge any day. The cylon bases were kick ass and Boltar was the guy you loved to hate.

    Let me sum up. BG without the Mormon mythos behind it simply isn't the same show. You don't have to agree with the theology any more than you had to agree with the Catholic undertones of the X-Files to enjoy the show. Heck, when the show was in it's first one, no one really even knew it was there. It's what the show was based on and Sci-Fi is using the show in name only to attract viewers. Sci-Fi really should have let Glenn and Richard Hatch do the show *they* wanted done which would have kept the backstory intact and allowed the show to be updated and entertaining.

    Here's hoping that the miniseries is a failure and the series never gets started.


    • This new version (without seeing a single episode) is completely devoid of what real fans of the show liked.

      Really? Well, I was 6 when the real show came out. Maybe I'd just like to kick it a little bit with some new Galactica. I certainly am a fan (matter of fact I have my tiny little Galactica kids jacket framed in my home) and I would like to say no one alienated me. You just said that you and everyone else has not seen the new Galactica... yet you run it into the ground. Seems like you are

  • Request: Please change the Sci-Fi icon. (Score:4, Funny)

    by ashitaka ( 27544 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @02:04AM (#6422434) Homepage
    That face scared the crap out of me when I saw it at the end of Star Trek many, many years ago.

    I'm now scarred for life.

  • Powered by Tektronix (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @02:06AM (#6422441) Homepage
    Somebody cares about that turkey?

    A computer-related note: Unlike the original Star Trek bridge, the Battlestar Galactica controls and displays actually worked. Tektronix provided much of the gear. This created a problem - the actors had to be trained to run the stuff. The Trek crew could push random buttons, but the Galactica crew had to get it right. They hated that.

  • SciFi can afford this? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FullCircle ( 643323 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @02:18AM (#6422486)
    But they could not afford one last season of Farscape to end the series that loyal fans had watched for four years?

    SciFi is trying it's level best to run headlong into the ground.

    They do not have my sympathy.

  • Expansion of Mr. Olmos' Comments (Score:4, Informative)

    by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Saturday July 12, 2003 @02:45AM (#6422577) Homepage
    You can go here [aol.com] and read the FULL comments by Mr. Olmos. The linked article didn't take him out of context or anything, but his comments are expanded quite a lot on his own page.

    In short, he is NOT saying that he thinks the current BG project is of poor quality but rather that die-hard Galactica fans might not like the changes.

    I think most of his attitude is probably being caused by the fact that there are probably some shrill BG geeks keeping close track of production and e-mailing him with their complaints.

  • Expiring Galactica copyright might benefit public (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Adam J. Richter ( 17693 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @07:01AM (#6423096)
    If coyprights were accelerated to the 14 years duration of the Copyright Act of 1790 (USA) and the Statute of Anne (England), then the original copyrights on Battlestar Galactica would now be expired and we might have more competition in Galactica sequels (which would have their own copyrights begining when they would be made).

  • What about Galactica '80? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Megane ( 129182 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @09:07AM (#6423325)
    The article mentions that the original "just lasted one season in the late 1970s". While I admit that they might very badly want to forget about Galactica '80, the fact is that this turd, which had a plot that first appeared as a parody six months earlier in Cracked magazine (!), in fact was broadcast by ABC. NBC's short-lived and low-rated Quark was a much better show.

    I'm sure I'm not the only kid who was scarred for life back in 1980 by this travesty inflicted upon humanity.

  • Sci-Fi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kyouryuu ( 685884 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:20AM (#6423693) Homepage
    I've often wondered just what exactly is up with the Sci-Fi Channel. They seem notorious for taking really good ideas and then crushing or otherwise mauling them. Battlestar Galactica was never a show I watched nor can I say I was ever a fan enough. But the fact that this new one promises to be very different from the original prompts me to wonder why they didn't just create an entirely new series with new characters and hype it to death.

    Anyhow, back to my original point. Sci-Fi has virtually no good programming. As the person way up above said, they spend a lot of time airing shows that have nothing to do with sci-fi (except for Crossing Over... of course ;p). The final straw was when they killed Farscape. In their deus ex machina ending, Aeryn and John get vaporized and left to die. The crew screams and begs for mercy. And then Sci-Fi thanked the viewers for 5 great years. Yeah - that's what did it for me. The whole "You really don't give a rip about your fans, do you?"

    Then there was Mystery Science Theater 3000. It was saved by Sci-Fi after Comedy Central decided to can it, it's true. But they stipulated that MST3K stick with sci-fi and horror movies (Horror is sci-fi? Since when?). Now they run the same five episodes ad nauseum every Saturday. Ironically, Sci-Fi's filler material consists of the same movies Mike and the crew would "pay homage to."

    There also was the Saturday Morning Anime a long time ago, which was an introduction for many people to the art form and probably was one of the first major showings of anime on the cable networks. Even if it wasn't the greatest anime, it was better than the Ray Bradbury Theater. But Sci-Fi in their infinite wisdom scrapped that idea as well and the station continues to be decisively animephobic.

    So, for me, Sci-Fi is a waste of a television station. A good idea marred by horrible execution and ignorance. Maybe someday they'll get the clue that I don't want to watch cheesy B-movies from the 1950s, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

    So it's not a complete diatribe (too late), you might ask what I would do if I were Sci-Fi. Well, first, I'd either surround myself with a combination of older space operas and have at least two exciting new ones. If we can't have the lavish sets of Farscape, we can scale it down a bit. Have some anime movies from time to time. Ditch all of the goth and horror nonsense that isn't sci-fi. It's probably okay to keep some of the new age programming, like the UFO secrets thing or even that show where they have the homebrew sci-fi clips, but don't rely on it. And for crist sake listen to your fans. Not the rabid fanboys who know what kind of underwear Captain Kirk wore in episode 24, but your typical casual fan. Fans make sci-fi work. Without them, you have nothing.

  • As a fan of the original series... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by downix ( 84795 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @01:52PM (#6424309) Homepage
    I'm actually looking forward to this. Sound corny, but I'm curious to actually witness what they've done. Sure, I loved the 70's show, but I'm not so foolish as to think that it is a golden goose. I see potential in this interpretation, even with the less-than-folklore aspect in comparison to the original. I see strong actors, a good plot, and most of all, a far grittier template to work from.

    The only thing I've read that I'm less than thrilled about is the sex. I'm sick of sex in sci-fi. I don't want to see Ripley's underwear. I don't want to see the vulcan chick get jelled-up. I don't want to see Baltar getting a hummer from a damned inflatadate!

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close