Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

New Battlestar Galactica Premieres Monday 483

Posted by michael
from the starbuck-gets-a-sex-change dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In several news articles, 'Battlestar Galactica' returns in a new four hour mini-series on the Sci-Fi channel this Monday. However, there has been fan furor over some changes to the story. Aluminum Cylon enemies look more like humans, complete with feelings, including one with rabid sexual desires, and the quest is not for a mythical Earth, as it no longer exists. More information at the BattlestarGalactica.com website, and the Sci-Fi channel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Battlestar Galactica Premieres Monday

Comments Filter:
  • by sweeney37 (325921) * <mikesweeney@gmai l . com> on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:07PM (#7629104) Homepage Journal
    let's not forget that Edward James Olmos has warned fans of the original series to not watch. [bayarea.com]

    Mike
    • by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:22PM (#7629276) Homepage Journal

      From there, things get different. Starbuck, the hotshot fighter pilot played by Dirk Benedict in the original, is now a woman played by Katee Sackhoff

      They can't just make Starbuck a woman :cry:

      The show appears to be darker, sexier and a lot less escapist than the original.

      Oh, that's ok then, as long as we get to see tits being squashed together in crappy lycra suits!

      • They can't just make Starbuck a woman :cry:
        Sure they can, as long as they make Starbuck a hard drinking, hard gambling, sexually agressive woman. Otherwise there'd be no reason to keep the name "Starbuck".
      • Oh, that's ok then, as long as we get to see tits being squashed together in crappy lycra suits!


        You're right - if they're going to go the boobs & lycra route, they should find a better show [utk.edu] to bring back...
        • no way! Bring back 'Buck Rogers in the 21st Century' (but without that wikiwikiwobot).

          Ah, Erin Grey.. mmmm. (It was on in the UK during my formative years. those TV producers are bad people :) )

          http://members.aol.com/KatieKat91490/BuckRogers. ht ml
          (warning: site has sound).
      • "Oh, that's ok then, as long as we get to see tits being squashed together in crappy lycra suits!"

        Jesus H Christ on a bicycle and his black bastard brother Bart! Why didn't they do it right then and remake "Buck Rodgers in the 25th Century"?!!! Goddamn that was every 14-year-old's dream!! mmmmmmmmm.... Erin Grey.... And Twiki & Dr Theopolis for the robosexuals out there.

        Honestly, I will never be able to fathom the depths of stupidity of Hollywood. And they think their consumers are dumb!!!

    • by D'Arque Bishop (84624) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:25PM (#7629315) Homepage
      According to the producers, Olmos's warning was kinda taken out of context. Apparently he loves the new BSG, but felt that die-hard fans would not appreciate the changes made to the show. The quote printed on the site linked in the parent makes me agree with the producer. (Namely, "The intent and the way we've built the reality is very different from the reality of the original.")

      The producer's rebuttal can be found here [scifi.com].

      For what it's worth, I've been watching my box set of the original series while stuck on a business trip. I'm hoping the new series will be good, but even if isn't, well... they're different series, and I'll judge them on their own merits, not how they relate to each other.

      Just my $.02...
      • ..."they're different series, and I'll judge them on their own merits"...

        This is perhaps the most reasonable and fair statement I have heard regarding the new show from either side.

        I am a huge fan of the original series and look forward to continued efforts and new content based upon it. However it IS a different vision so it should be allowed to be judged on its own. Hey--it still has Vipers and the Galactica.
      • by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75@nospAM.yahoo.com> on Thursday December 04, 2003 @01:45PM (#7630236)
        For what it's worth, I've been watching my box set of the original series while stuck on a business trip. I'm hoping the new series will be good, but even if isn't, well... they're different series, and I'll judge them on their own merits, not how they relate to each other.

        Well, I will judge them based on how they relate to each other. The fact is both series are called "Battlestar Galactica" and if this new mini-series' producers wanted to do a different sort of story they could have called it something else. As it is, it seems they're just trying to cash in on a well-known name, and the series should be judged as such.

        When you use the title of a well-known series/movie/whatever, I expect either a remake or a continuation. I don't think that's unreasonable - these amount to brand names, and what SciFi is trying to do is equivalent to New Coke. I don't think anyone would have complained about New Coke either if it was called, I don't know, Wild Mountain Cola or Mister Smith's Fabulous Cola or something. I mean the public would not be comparing it to real Coke (except in a generic and non-specific "this is not my favorite cola" sort of way), because nobody's trying to pass it off as Coke.

        These people, though, are trying to pass this off as Battlestar Galactica. As such, it should be judged as Battlestar Galactica, not some sort of standalone series, because it's not a standalone series, whatever the producers try to say to subdue the fans. I mean what's next, an Indiana Jones movie where Indy is a woman and the setting is 21st century Tokyo? Part of the criteria of any franchise entry is how well it adheres to the narrative that's already been established. And on that basis, without even having seen it but based on what we all already know, this alleged version of Battlestar Galactica obviously fails miserably. It will have to be absolutely amazing in every other way to redeem itself at all, but it will never be considered "great" simply because it is a poorly interpreted imitation of its own namesake.
      • If you want to make a show 'very different from the reality of the original,' then give it a name very different from the original.

        Far too many brands get hijacked by morons who know that the only way they can get their crappy idea on TV is to bastardize a good brand and kill it with their crappy universe. Make your own! At least don't try to premise your work as a remake of the original. Call it Battlestar Galactica: Rise of the Cylon Pornbots or something.
      • by quinkin (601839)
        The lead from the old series (error 23: name retrieval failed) of BSG was on TV in Oz just a day or two ago.

        He was far from complementary of the rewrites of the new BSG. Despite the abscence of earth and the trans-sexual character evolution he also discussed that indefinable quality that is the difference between classic/crappy - he did not sound hopefull...

        Ah, Richard Hatch I think was the name. He didn't really want to denigrate the new series too much but you got the idea....

        Q.

    • by Dinosaur Neil (86204) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:46PM (#7629546)

      I watched the original series when it first aired and there was nothing else like it on TV at the time. Those were the lean years; no Star Trek except reruns of the original series, no other big budgeted SF TV shows (Space:1999 had been canned the year before BSG started), and no cable channels to fill the void. There were three networks (that's right, pre-FOX, pre-UPN) and cable was a rare thing involving bulky switch boxes... Whoa, this is turning into a "when I was your age" type rant.

      In its day, BSG was fairly sophisticated and thoughtful. In its day, the SFX were the best you could see on TV (those vector graphics displays they used were, for the time, amazing). Re-making the show now with deacades of new Star Trek series and Farscape and SG1 and such to compare it to pretty much requires the details to be rebuilt from the ground up... The underlying theme of conflict and hope should hold up no matter who's gender changed.

    • I'll watch it, but I'm skeptical. I really don't like the idea of the enemies being replaced with hot babes. This whole trend toward making sexy females the antagonists (see Terminator 3) is getting so tiring. Giving me something scary, or disturbing. If I'm in the mood for porn, I'm not going to waste my time on basic cable.
      • by letxa2000 (215841) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @01:44PM (#7630232)
        Giving me something scary, or disturbing. If I'm in the mood for porn, I'm not going to waste my time on basic cable.

        You got that right. The whole "sexy baby" thing is annoying, not just when they're the bad guys. Don't get me wrong, woman are beautiful. But like you said... if you want to see some hot chicks, you know where to go. Not EVERYTHING has to be about hot babes, and I'd like to be able to enjoy some fun science fiction without having to feel like I'm watching something that's really targetting some puberty-controlled teenage boy.

        There was a Battlestar Galactica marathon on SciFi about two months ago and I got to watch a few episodes. Of course, most of the commercials were for the new Galactica that they were going to release in December. One of the commercials actually was talking/showing a photoshoot from Maxim magazine where apparently one of the actresses came from (that ought to tell you something... their cast consists of models, not actors apparently).

        In other words, screw promoting the series based on its storyline (apparently no longer involving earth) or characters (which apparently have had sex changes and I get the impression that they even had to put a gay character in there, you know, to be PC and all)... rather just promote the blatant sexuality of the series. After all, with a sensual sex scene with a female Cylon, showing previous photoshoots of the actress^H^H^H^H^H model, and using the "Battlestar Galactica" goodwill, profit is guaranteed.

        I don't plan on watching. I hope to buy the original series DVD box set this month, maybe even by Monday, and I'll watch that instead. Sure, this new series is completely different and should be judged on its own merits. It might even be fun. But I don't want to contaminate my memory of Battlestar Galactica by even associating this new material with the name.

        I will be interested to see, though, how well the series does. They've basically alienated the real fan base that's been waiting for a new Battlestar Galactica for 25 years and I'm not convinced the new generation is really dying to see a remake. Who IS their market? Maybe it IS just the pubery-driven teenage boys.

    • >let's not forget that Edward James Olmos has
      >warned fans of the original series to not watch.

      I read his quote way back when, and it seemed to me he was saying that if you're the sort of obsessive fanboy who regards every word of the original series as Holy Writ, and will get upset at the slightest change... Then, no, you should not watch this version, as it will upset you. Otherwise, you might like it.

      I never cared much for the original; I only watched it for a while because there was no other SF
  • Check out the Battlestar Galactica Original costume and Prop Museum [kobol.com].
  • Bad omens (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Squideye (37826) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:11PM (#7629152) Homepage Journal
    A preview on aintitcool.com [aintitcool.com] is not optimistic.

    Looks sex-addled, low-action, and pretty scanty on the mythology. "Cylon Fembots" is all we need to know.

    The mythology was pretty much all that made it distinctive, such as it was, in the original case.
    • by Dutchmaan (442553) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:18PM (#7629232) Homepage
      ..but all my business man charts saids that nerds like sex and science fiction!

      Oh well... at least we already got paid.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      OK this is the first time I've been to aintitcool.com... Why in god's name is the entire article text defined as <h2> tags?!?!? That's one of the most moronic html authoring moves I've ever seen.
    • Quick comments (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GuyMannDude (574364) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @01:35PM (#7630117) Journal

      Looks sex-addled, low-action, and pretty scanty on the mythology. "Cylon Fembots" is all we need to know.

      I was a bit surprised when I saw how much sex stuff was going to be in this new show. I know that Star Trek has gone this way (7 of 9, T'Pol) but the guy doing BG is Roland Moore and between him and Braga (the other ST:TNG writer) I always figured that Moore was the one who didn't feel the need to use sex as a way to sell an inferior product. I guess I was wrong. Of course then they try to head off the criticism that the new show is sexist by making Starbuck and Boomer women. Yet the people on the 'making of' show last night clearly indicated that Starbuck and Boomer were going to be in sexual situations as well (sexual tension but no action in Starbuck's case).

      The mythology was pretty much all that made it distinctive, such as it was, in the original case.

      You're probably already aware of this but just in case not: the story of the original is based very heavily on the story of the Mormons trying to find a place to settle. Obviously, most Hollywood types are Mormons so they were completely unaware of this. For them, and the vast majority of the American public, the story was a brand new idea. In reality, the backbone story was already done. All the writers had to do was take an obscure, yet interesting, story and flesh it out a bit and transfer it to the stars.

      GMD

    • Cylon enemies look more like humans, complete with feelings, including one with rabid sexual desires
      Kinda gives a whole new meaning to "By Your Command"...
  • It's been way too many yarons since I've been able to see Our Hero.

    Maybe some digital recreation of LG could allow him to reprise his role.

  • by Tebriel (192168) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:12PM (#7629173)
    You know, if they wanted to do a different story, that's fine. Great. Good stuff. They shouldn't, however, have called it Battlestar Galactica. They should have slapped on a different name for the Cylons, different ships, and different character names. Not that hard to do, but it would probably draw more people to watch it than tacking on a known name and then having it blow up in their faces.

    Which I think they deserve.
    • Battlestar Galactica was hardly an original series even when it was the original series. This will be like a CGI rendition of a photocopy of a carbon copy of Star Wars.

      And yes, I saw the movie release of the original -- in SENSAROUND! Which meant, back then, bass speakers less impressive than those playing in the "Love Boat" revamp I saw last weekend, "Love Actually." (That movie took the high road, though, and did not call the loser who traveled to Wisconsin "Gopher.")

    • nice to see you got a +4 insughtful for talking out your ass.

      First off the "cylons" are still the red eye robots. there happens to be an addition of stealth cylons that look exactly like us.

      The story line is pretty damn close to the origional and the effects are awesome.

      I have the dvd here from work with the first 2 episodes on it. (we are a cable ad-sales company... I get all the goodies that are sci-fi based and because we are one of the largest markets we get the premium freebies/goodies.)

      and It's n
  • by Ubergrendle (531719) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:12PM (#7629177) Journal
    Battle Star Galactica got its genesis from some TV execs who wanted to emulate the success of Star Wars on the small screen. I'm not overly familiar with the back story, but BSG has always struck me as a hodge podge of space opera concepts, strung together long enough to maintain a TV series. Where shows like Dr Who and Star Trek at least had a conceptual basis and tried to do something original, BSG was an attempt to fill a 1 hour timeslot once per week. I don't think BSG deserves to be considered alongside other shows in the great SF series pantheon, even though the Cylons looked cool.
    • For sure, I remember watching the episode where I believe it was starbuck crashed and was stranded on a planet that was a copy of the Wild West and the local tough guy had gotten his hands on a damaged Cylon and reprogrammed it to be his gunfighter enforcer. Starbuck was taken in by a Widow with child who nursed him back to life. He has to eventually go into town and have a Western Style shootout.. then leave.. halfway through I stood up and shouted "Shane"... About the only reason I watched it was to see w
      • Before you go on about "stolen plots" you should know that your example, Akira Kurosawa, took many of his plots from Shakespeare. Throne of Blood, Rashomon and Ran are three good examples. His "High and Low" looks a lot like something Hitchcock would have done.

        Even great directors "borrow" material. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

    • An aquaintance once refered to BSG as "Jews In Space", equating the rag-tag fleet with wandering in the desert for 40 years. With the Eqyptian / Roman influences throughout BSG (the 12 tribes, 'Apollo', Casseopia', and didn't they have a Battlestar Atlantis show up once?)

      So Glenn Larson grabbed a hodge-podge of stuff, through in some special effects and cobbled together sets (the Viper interiors were reused in Buck Rogers) and tried to pass it off on TV.

      Unfortunately, it never hit big with the adults of
    • Actually.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cnelzie (451984) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:59PM (#7629692) Homepage
      The original BSG was composed of a mixing of Space Opera Science Fiction and the Mormon religion story.

      The whole thing with the 12 colonies of man and the 'lost' 13th colony is exactly like the Mormon belief of 12 tribes of man with a lost 13th tribe and how reuniting with that 13th tribe would be their salvation or something along those lines.

      There was a great deal of other Mormon influences behind a great deal of the back-story to BSG. The actual TV series stories followed the basic 'hodge-podge' that often plagues the first season of a number of television series, although there was some really interesting storylines built around the Mormon mythology, like the thing with the beings of light that went through a handful of the episodes.

      If it had stayed on the air, it would have developed into a very significant series of stories instead of just the barely exposing the surface that was shown back in the 70's.

      The whole draw to the series was and still is the way the characters were, how they interacted and the relationships they held with eachother. These days the producers and storywriters claim that having 'damaged' characters and conflict amongst the heroes is the way that things are supposed to be. That's not the BSG that I remember and it's not the BSG that I would like to see.

      I will probably watch this show, just to give it a chance, but in the end I will likely still give more weight to the original with it's compelling back-history and lofty ideals. (Even though it is based heavily on a somewhat 'odd' religious group's history.)

      • The whole thing with the 12 colonies of man and the 'lost' 13th colony is exactly like the Mormon belief of 12 tribes of man with a lost 13th tribe and how reuniting with that 13th tribe would be their salvation or something along those lines.

        I am aware of no such doctorine. The idea of 12 tribes of Israel is straight from the Bible. Ten of those tribes were taken captive or "lost". There is nothing uniquely Mormon about that. There are LOTS of things about BSG that are references to the LDS faith an

        • Lost Tribes (Score:5, Informative)

          by JohnsonJohnson (524590) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @02:35PM (#7630851)
          The 10 Tribes were not "lost" in the sense of being missing. The short story is that the Hebrews organized themselves into 12 tribes, presumably founded by the sons of the patriarch Jacob who had 11 sons but the tribes descended from Joseph traced their roots to his two sons. Each of these tribes occupied a different area of

          When the Babylonians returned the tribes to Israel and Jerusalem, which was located in the lands of the tribe of Judah, was reconstructed, some of the other tribes began traditions that were an amalgamation of ancient Hebrew and Babylonian culture. The tribe of Benjamin sided with Judah in returning to a more strictly Jewish lifestyle. So that's how the other 10 tribes were "lost", a more accurate description would be they, left the faith, or were, lost to God, depending on whose point of view you wich to honor.

          At any rate, we know exactly where those 10 tribes went. The lands they occupied became known as Samaria or the home of the Samaritans, hence the story of the good Samaritan.

          The idea of a 13th tribe is peculiar to the Mormons though, although I think other Judeo-Christian sects claim to be yet another unknown tribe of Hebrews. I believe according to Mormons the 13th tribe were the ancestors of Native Americans.

          Incidentally the Biblical use of the word tribe is more closely related to the modern idea of a clan: a people group related by blood. A tribe is a people group related by language and custom, usually made up of multiple clans. The clan system helps prevent inbreeding since your close relatives are easily identified.
  • by QuackQuack (550293) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:13PM (#7629180) Journal
    I always saw BG as a cheap Star Wars rip-off. Is it really that popular? It never seemed to have much of a following, like Star Trek and other SF shows.
    • It was never cheap (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Mycroft_514 (701676)
      Part of the reason the show was canceled was because it was too expensive to produce at the time.

      I am waiting to see the new series before I pass judgement.
    • >I always saw BG as a cheap Star Wars rip-off. Is it really that popular?

      Its popular in the same way that Go-Bots were popular. Only because it was "like" another more popular product (StarWars/Transformers).
  • by AKAImBatman (238306) <akaimbatman@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:14PM (#7629195) Homepage Journal
    ...half way through the season they'll figure out that they're loosing ratings and have the characters suddenly stumble upon evidence of the Xinidi^H^H^H^H^H^H Earth and begin a quest to find it. Then they'll destroy some of the deepest elements of the show by using them in throw-away lines.

  • by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:14PM (#7629202) Homepage Journal

    'Battlestar Galactica' returns in a new four hour mini-series on the Sci-Fi channel this Monday. However, there has been fan furor over some changes to the story. Aluminum Cylon enemies look more like humans, complete with feelings, including one with rabid sexual desires, and the quest is not for a mythical Earth, as it no longer exists.

    WHY FUCKING BOTHER?

  • by luckytroll (68214) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:15PM (#7629210) Homepage
    I really miss the old shows like Dr. Who that had really alien aliens - crazy blobs, and lethal rocks, and robots without faces. Now every alien has to have a humanoid form and a face so that the actor can "act" and the audience can empathise. When did the universe become so darned human?
    • by agentZ (210674) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:29PM (#7629362)
      Maybe you should try "The Simple Life" on FOX. I hear it has characters you can't empathise with.
    • by mblase (200735) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:41PM (#7629498)
      When did the universe become so darned human?

      Always has been. Sci-fi literature did it first, but the original "Star Trek" was probably definitive in using humans with makeup and funny clothes as aliens. The simple and obvious reason is that it's much easier for studios to produce human actors as aliens, and easier for viewers to relate to them.

      When you have an alien that's a blob or a rock or a robot, you have to work ten times harder to find the pathos. "Dr. Who" used them as identityless villains without much in the way of personality.
    • When did the universe become so darned human?

      When the Star Trek budget was announced.

      I've never managed to catch the NG episode where they explain why all aliens look humanoid, but I heard it's a pretty interesting story, and somewhat consistent with the ST universe.
  • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:18PM (#7629244) Homepage Journal
    Battlestar Galactica?

    I could understand if we were talking about Shazam, or Land of the Lost or some other really important show from that era. ;-)

    But Battlestar Galactica?

    • by Greyfox (87712)
      I used to really dig the show when I was 10. I caught a few minutes of an old episode just recently and it made me vomit. I'm lucky I stopped watching when I did or I'd have horked up several internal organs. Just thinking about it makes me queasy now.
  • It'll fail (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:20PM (#7629257) Journal
    It has all the classic formulas of the newest Star Trek series:

    1) It is based on an old, out-dated Sci-Fi show that will not appeal to the mainstream public, no matter how much senseless T&A, sexually charged adult themes, pointless gun battles, and especially computer animation they add.

    2) It does not appeal to the old fans whatsoever, because of many of the same reasons in #1, plus the fact that it is "untr00" and often fails to explore many of the themes of the older series, and rather focuses on the "development" of silly, stereotypical characters.

    It'll fail after a few seasons of low ratings.

  • by cblguy (697834) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:22PM (#7629277)
    I usually leave SciFi channel on in the evenings when working. Saw a preview. I am looking forward to it. I watch all kinds of B-scifi-movies, and actually enjoy them.

    They flat out stated that they were taking a different approach to this BSG. In the earlier one, the Cylons were just mad at humans. That's all we knew. Why? Nobody knew. What was their history? Nobody knew. At least they're attempting some sort of story / history on the Cylons, and not just an Independence Day scenario of aliens attacking because they feel in a pissy mood that day.

    I am glad the SciFi channel at least does *something*, but I'm still not happy they discontinued Farscape.

    I enjoyed their Dune remakes (bought the DVD's even). I'm a sick pup, but those 3- and 4- star (out of IMDB's 10 star rating) are some of my faves. :D

    • In one episode of the original series, maybe the pilot, one of the characters stated that the Cylons attacked the colonies because the humans helped another race get out from under Cylon oppression. That's about all I remember... you are right though, the old series never really gave much detail on the Cylon race at all.

      The biggest problem I had with the old series though was how they broght Baltar back to life, haha. At the end of the Pilot movie, a Cylon centurion decapitated him... then he suddenly rea
    • I was very dubious till I saw those teasers. I can't understand why they only show the sex-toy on the website, instead of showing off the *real* toy, the Galactica!
    • by Marsala (4168) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @02:04PM (#7630479) Homepage
      Not quite. It was mentioned in the series (sorry, not enough of a fan to quote the episode title) that the silver droids with the sweeping red LED eye were built by the Cylons, a reptilian race.

      The Cylons were fighting some war, so they built themselves a nice little robot army and gave them a simple command: "Go blow stuff up and kill things." So the robots go out and do it and wipe out the Cylons' enemies. Then they start looking for new targets, and, well... the Cylons happen to be the closest civilization, so the bots wipe them out. And then they start wandering the universe looking for stuff to kill.

      It's basically the same premise as the Berserker novels by Saberhagen.

      Moral of the story: Automating killing machines with just enough intelligence to distinguish between a lifeform and a rock and giving them power supplies that last for hundreds of thousands of years is a really, really, monumentally stupid idea.

      And, just for the record, if a huge armada of homicidal robots showed up and started razing my world, I really wouldn't give a crap where they came from until *AFTER* I'd managed to stop 'em.
    • by Zoop (59907) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @02:48PM (#7631024)
      In the earlier one, the Cylons were just mad at humans. That's all we knew. Why? Nobody knew. What was their history? Nobody knew.

      Yeah, nobody knew...unless you, you know, watched the first three episodes.

      Cylons had been a reptilian race that created robots as slaves--the robots had themselves a revolution, and were bending everybody to their order, but in a weird bit of synchretism (sp?) kept the name "Cylon". Humans were the only power that hadn't bowed down before them, and they'd been fighting on and off for the better part of a thousand years.

      So they hit on a peace conference, and then sucker-punched everybody with the fleet away at the signing ceremonies. The Cylons, much as Hitler and with the Jews, were determined to exterminate every last remnant of this troublesome race. Like the Mormons, the Humans took a wagon train to the promised land. Like the Jews, they were looking for the missing 13th tribe to fill their ranks and enable them to stand up to the cylons and hit back.

      It was also very influenced by the self-perception of America in the wake of Vietnam. 60's idealism was dead, the Soviets were on the move, and the US was very much the underdog as the Sovs broke treaty after treaty (ABM, SALT I, etc. etc.). How different a world we live in.

      Anyway, the backstory was told in the first movie and in repeats as the first three episodes. But if you missed that, then yes, take it as read that robots hate humans, commence plot.
  • by JonathanF (532591) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:22PM (#7629287)
    I can't imagine someone being in a furor over changes to the storyline in the remake of a short-lived and not always universally-liked series like Battlestar Galactica. It would be like complaining that they changed the dolphin in SeaQuest DSV to an Orca!
  • by mccalli (323026) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:23PM (#7629297) Homepage
    But does it have God's perfect theme tune, which is what the original was? A superb piece of music, as stirring in Battlestar Galactica as it was in Revenge of the Mutant Camels...

    Cheers,
    Ian

    • Re:The theme tune (Score:2, Interesting)

      by GigsVT (208848)
      There's no excuse after all, Jeff Minter could probably be pryed away from his sheep and yaks long enough to score it for them. :)
  • by looie (9995) <michael@trollope.org> on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:24PM (#7629309) Homepage
    why would i want to watch an "updated" version of the original? what does that mean, exactly, "updated"?

    i've watched a couple of the originals on sci-fi this week. c'mon people, it was a lame show with low-res special effects and horse-opera plots. it was "wagon train" in outer space! some of it was so badly done, it was "cover-your-eyes" embarrassing.

    how do you update that? apparently, the complainers want the producers to give them the same tired plots with the same tired characters but in different uniforms with "hi-res" special effects. how boring.

    i don't know if the new version is any good, of course, as i haven't yet seen it. but it's for sure that it should be allowed to stand or fall on its own merits. "is it a good movie?" is the only question that needs answering. it is not the original -- thank goodness. we already know that one was a clunker.

    mp

  • Only some of the names happen to be the same. Starbuck a woman, no 1000 year war, no earth? What's next? A series named Star Wars that involves mud wrestling between Britney Spears and Paris Hilton playing as Leia and Padme?
  • Sounds to me like the only thing good about this show is Edward James Olmos. Everything else is the usual ratings-fodder crap. "But, without lots of breasts, nobody will watch it!" Monty Python was right about television programme planners.
  • by Bluetick (516014) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:29PM (#7629365)
    Is it just me, or is Sci-Fi really letting this slip under the radar. I've been watching the Sci-Fi channel, and really haven't noticed any promotion of this at all. Maybe they should try some flashy campaign with lots of explosions, cg graphics, hot chicks, and some ridiculous lines repeated over and over. But I don't know, I just don't see this thing panning out with this little promotion. Who knows, it could be a sleeper hit.
  • Number 6 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Call Me Black Cloud (616282) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:33PM (#7629410)
    A hot Cylon in a low cut dress...woo hoo! Here's the actress' biography from the SciFi site:

    Victoria's Secret model Tricia Helfer was born in Donalda, Alberta, Canada. The 1992 Ford Supermodel of the World winner and former Elite model has graced the covers of such magazines as Elle,Amica Italia and Cosmopolitan UK, and has walked the runways for Christian Dior, Givenchy, Claude Montana, Emanuel Ungaro and other top fashion designers.

    Clearly the producers have spared no expense in landing top thespians. According to IMDB [imdb.com], her previous acting gigs include:

    A part in an episode of CSI, where she played a model who ends up dead.

    A small part in the 16 minute short "Eventual Wife"

    A judge at the 2003 Miss Teen USA

    The role of Farrah Fawcett in "Behind the Camera: The Unauthorized Story of 'Charlie's Angels'"

    IMDB also reports her measurements are 34-24-34

  • Starbuck and Apollo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sturm (914) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:34PM (#7629416) Journal
    I know that this will be worn out on this thread, but I'll be DAMN if I'm going to watch a half-ass attempt to recreate a classic sci-fi series that changes the gender of two of the main characters. That is just blatant pandering to try and interest different demographics. You wouldn't make Buck Rogers a woman and you wouldn't make Wonder Woman a man. I just don't see why people can't leave well enough alone. The original series was popular for a reason. Why change the formula?
    • Wonder Woman a man....hey wait a minute isn't that on the BBC right now? or am I thinking of something else?
  • Bah! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FrostedWheat (172733) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:34PM (#7629423)
    I thought they where moving away from space-based shows? Wasn't that one of the reasons they give for stopping Farscape?
    • by KC7GR (473279)
      Off-topic, granted. However, in the context of a fantastic show like 'Farscape,' I think "excuses for stopping Farscape" would be a better way to put it.

  • by ArmenTanzarian (210418) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:36PM (#7629444) Homepage Journal
    It's generalizations that could lead to disaster:

    "Starbuck was a womanizing, cigar-smoking guy," explains SciFi.com general manager Craig Engler. "Now, she's a man-izing, cigar-smoking bundle of trouble."

    Yeah, all he did was have sex and smoke cigars, that's why his character was so great... Not to mention "bundle of trouble" popping up highly on my oh-crap-o-meter for plucky obnoxious characters.

    Only time will tell how well adding hot chicks who can't act to dead TV series' will work out. I thought (and please don't flame me for this) SciFi did a pretty good job with Dune though, but they didn't try to make Paul a woman.
  • by ScottCanto (705723) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:36PM (#7629448)
    As the new series premieres, those of us who loved the old one will lament the modernized, politically correct show geared towards the typical American audience.
    • In a way that's kind of rich if you think about it. The treasured "old one" you speak of was, at that time, a current, politically correct (politics change don't they) show geared towards the typical American audience (who had just shown they would spend impressive amounts of "bank" on science fiction entertainment.

      These two shows are much more alike than most people are admitting.
  • Typical Corruption (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:37PM (#7629465) Homepage Journal
    Its pretty typical these days, to take a 'known show', pervert it to fit todays standards.. toss in a bunch of sex and big explosions to raise market share....

    What ever happend to REAL sci-fi that required the viewer/reader to actualy THINK....
    • What ever happend to REAL sci-fi that required the viewer/reader to actualy THINK....

      You can still find that, if you look for it in the Sci-Fi section of your local bookstore. :)

  • by PIPBoy3000 (619296) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:37PM (#7629466)
    Wired has an article [wired.com] on it as well.

    Personally, I'll give it a chance. When I was a kid, there was an early 2-hour episode and I pestered my parents to leave the pizza place so I could make it back in time. We returned to find the rug burning in front of our fireplace. Our parents ran into the kitchen to fill pots and pour it on the fire. Us kids ran into the t.v. room to huddle under the smoke and watch our show.

    I now refer to the tale as the time Battlestar Galactica saved our house.
  • by SoVi3t (633947) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:40PM (#7629490)
    ....remember when Star Trek decided that Klingons should have funny looking forheads, instead of just being played by african americans? That's pretty much the same deal here. Times change people. What was once done 10-20 years ago can't still be done now. Or else we'd still be boogying to disco, wearing tie dyed shirts, and listening to Zeppelin. I never really watched much of the original, but dammit, I'm still gonna give the new one a chance. Cuz if anything, the stuff on tv right now just plain SUCKS (aside from Simpsons)
  • by dark_panda (177006) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @12:42PM (#7629508)
    Scene: Community cable access TV show. Portly 30-something, probably single, hosts:

    "That's all for this week on KISS Forum. Stay tuned for Battlestar Galactica Forum."

    Quickly puts on Cylon helmet

    "WELCOME TO BATTLESTAR GALACTICA FORUM."

    J
  • Flesh Gordon 3 - This Time It's Tinfoil - lives, albeit with the title crossed out and replaced with 'Battlestar Galactica'.
  • BSG was popular... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Creepy (93888) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @01:01PM (#7629716) Journal
    I love all the reviews mentioning it only lasted one season. Technically that's true, but it was cancelled for one reason - the price tag of 1 million per episode. Today that's a joke - each primary _character_ in Friends makes that, but back then it was an unheard of amount.

    Fans clamored to get it back after it was dumped, and were given BSG 1980, based on Earth where the executives could get away with much cheaper cost/episode. Most of the original cast was gone, and the episodes reeked of being cheaply made and for the most part poorly written.

    Personally, I don't mind a rethinking, since, for instance, I can't imagine the original Star Trek working with today's audiences, but I'm a little wary about new cylons, which seem more like dopplegangers than machines. I still think of BSG as a man-vs-machine conflict (even though, if I recall this correctly, the Cylons are some kind of proteus mass that lives in the robot body). Not to say that it won't work - Terminator did the doppleganger robot thing believably. T2 and T3, on the other hand, were very non-realistic with their liquid metal robots (I can see being damaged and self repairing, but being blown to bits and having all the pieces flow back together? Give me a break). I don't really consider those movies sci-fi - they're fantasy in a sci-fi setting.

    I still don't picture Starbuck as a woman - it doens't seem like a female name and the character was so well defined. Boomer I can picture more (it's got that fighter-pilot aura) and the character didn't stand out as much as Starbuck or Apollo. Speaking of, if they'd made Apollo a girl, I'd have to whack them upside the head (there are much better and appropriate female goddess names, like Artemis, Athena [though that was used in the orig], and Kalypso). Thankfully, they didn't.
    • by rworne (538610)
      You know, one cool thing came about from Galactica 1980. When I was in high school in the San Fernando Valley (near Univeral Studios), someone bought one of the motorcycles used in the series. It was neat watching it tool around the neighborhood with the Galactica-esque type body panels on it.

      One of the coolest lines in the show was when they were observing earth from space and zoomed in on the Los Angeles freeways:

      "It must take them many years of training to be able to travel like that". (paraphrased)
  • If the Cat in the Hat drives a rocket car and sounds like Charles Nelson Reilly, why can't Battlestar Galactica erase it's entire background story? (Question: Has anyone EVER seen more advertising before? It's nauseating)

    It even has a blond semi-alien with a number for a name. Now that's original. If you're going to objectify women, at least make it obvious.

    Entertainment executives cannot green light an original idea any more. They simply cannot do it. The attention span in the board room is no di
  • To this point, I haven't seen anything that says this couldn't take place in the BSG universe before the human/cylon war and the scattering of the tribes. It would explain a whole heckuvalot, like the female Starbuck (ancestor) and the reasoning behind the cylons.

    Then again, I may have just not seen enough of the promo material.
  • by dutky (20510)
    kibo says. [google.com]
  • For major suckage.
    1. Chick starbuck.
    2. Human created cylons.
    3. And cylons that look like humans.
    3 strikes and you're outa here.

  • by bluethundr (562578) * on Thursday December 04, 2003 @01:20PM (#7629959) Homepage Journal
    So, let me get this striaght. Starbuck... a girl. Boomer...also a girl. Cylon warriors...sexpot girls? So what elements from the original show did they keep? Vipers. We have Vipers. If you took the Vipers out of Battlestar Girlactica you'd might as well call this series "Ernest Goes To Outer Space".
  • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @01:51PM (#7630314)

    But Luke will be a disadvantaged inner-city kid, struggling to cope with life as an orphan. And the robots will be played by people. Alderaan won't be destroyed either (too non-pc after 9/11). The Death Star will just orbit the planet and drop leaflets on them.

    But all the character's names will be the same, so we can still call it Star Wars. Right?

    Weaselmancer

  • by sjonke (457707) on Thursday December 04, 2003 @03:38PM (#7631654) Journal
    Just don't f*ck with dagget!

Federal grants are offered for... research into the recreation potential of interplanetary space travel for the culturally disadvantaged.

Working...