Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

New Battlestar Galactica Spin-off Series Announced 473

Posted by samzenpus
from the baby-boomer dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Sci-Fi Channel's hit series Battlestar Galactica may soon be joined by a 50-year-prior prequel series, called Caprica. To be co-exec produced by Ron Moore and David Eick, the new series will follow the tale of the creation of the Cylons."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Battlestar Galactica Spin-off Series Announced

Comments Filter:
  • I'd turn up. More power to ya, Ron.

    BG has gone from strength to strength. Who'd have thought it, for a remake of such a camp piece o'crap. I went in with EXCEEDINGLY low expectations. Maybe that's the secret.

    Anyway, Ron can tell a story. I'll be there.
    • by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:19AM (#15209986) Journal
      You say that now, but you haven't seen the episode where Starbuck flies her viper over a tank full of Space Sharks.

      Ooops! I forgot! SPOILER WARNING!! THE ABOVE IS A SPOILER!!! DON'T READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEE THE EPISODE!!
      • I keep forgetting Starbuck's a female, now.

        I wonder if this will finally make my props from the original series go up in value...
    • Maybe so - but if we find out that Dr. Zee and the superior Cylons from Galactic 1980 are fighting a temporal cold war, I'm outta here. Aw hell, that'd even bring the original BSG and the Moore version into the same "continuity"...

      I hear that Berman & Braga are looking for jobs now, after all, and Moore worked with Berman on DS9... [Shudder]
      • No, what would be really neat is to do a series focusong on Adama and Tigh, when they were in the Academy together. Roslin could be a hot Education major at the civilian college next door, and Zarek would be the wise-cracking troublemaker who's always this close to being expelled. It'd be great!
    • Are you kidding? BSG started off brilliantly but, in my opinion, has been going down hill ever since.

      The second season has been a massive joke. It's turned into a soap opera set in space (mostly). The last episode before the mid season break got me slightly interested again though.

      Most the sci-fi fans I know have been getting very bored with season 2 and some have given up completely on the series. I'm willing to give it a little longer though, mainly due to the small number of quality alternatives.

      Shit
  • I for one (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:03AM (#15209923)
    I for one welcome our new Cylon Overlords.
  • by gasmonso (929871) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:03AM (#15209925) Homepage

    The original series started back in 1954 and was called Paprika.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
  • Prequel? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iminplaya (723125)
    Don't we write stories from the beginning anymore?
    • Re:Prequel? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:21AM (#15209992)
      Well, they clearly can't do a sequel, because the series isn't over yet. And in a fleet of 45 thousand people (ignoring "Lay Down Your Burdens II for a minute) there aren't really enough interesting things going on to have a a co-existing series. I mean, unless the fleet splinters for good along Pegasus/Galactica lines or something (in which case, it'd be two pretty much identical series).

      Therefore, a prequel is really your only shot. And considering BSG started with the near total destruction of an entire civilization that looked pretty darn cool in its own right...
      • Re:Prequel? (Score:2, Funny)

        by iminplaya (723125)
        And considering BSG started with the near total destruction of an entire civilization that looked pretty darn cool in its own right...

        See? There ya go. You already know how the prequel is going to end :-)
        • Yeah, we do know how it's going to end, which is kind of annoying, but we only know that the Colonies survive, and that Adama and any other characters make it. 90 percent of the ships and characters in the show are still at risk of death at any time.
          • Re:Prequel? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            It'd be interesting if they did kill off all the Adama line in the prequel. It'd certainly add fuel to the speculation that Adama's a cylon...
        • Re:Prequel? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Gattman01 (957859)

          See? There ya go. You already know how the prequel is going to end :-)

          That didn't stop Lucas from making his prequels.
          That didn't stop the people who knew what was going to happen from seeing them anyway...:P

          That being said, sometimes know what the results will be can drive suspense, especially if things seem to be going in an direction away from whats *SUPPOSE* to happen.

          Still need to end up with expected results anyway, otherwise people will complain, like when a certain character says she remembers

      • Re:Prequel? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Babbster (107076)
        Well, they clearly can't do a sequel, because the series isn't over yet.

        I'll tell ya the real reason they can't do a sequel: Because as bad as anyone might have thought the original BSG was, Galactica 1980 was at least a hundred times worse. I don't think anyone could "reimagine" that into anything good. :)
    • Re:Prequel? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We've been writing them from the middle for quite some time now (unless you consider Sophocles or Homer to be recent authors). Ever hear the phrase "In medias res" [wikipedia.org]?
  • Honestly... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TechnoGuyRob (926031) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:05AM (#15209935) Homepage
    I'm not interested in a series whose name is an anagram of "I C A CRAP!"
  • Don't hurt BSG (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:07AM (#15209942)
    I just really hope that this doesn't hurt the quality of BSG by spreading writing/producing talent as well as budgets too thin. I mean, I think Stargate might be suffering from that right now, having two complete series to do.

    I also think that having a prequel could hurt a bit, because I feel like a strength of BSG is its unpredictability. I mean, it changes so much (season finale anyone?) that I feel that knowing the ending (Cylons created, rebel, we fight to a draw, Galactica survives to the present day, none of the Colonies get totally destroyed, etc) kind of hurts it.
    • Re:Don't hurt BSG (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Babbster (107076) <aaronbabb@gmail.cLISPom minus language> on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:34AM (#15210043) Homepage
      I don't think Stargate is suffering because there are two SG shows. I think it's suffering because it's been around for so long. Once the Goauld (sp? and I don't care to remember :D) were taken out/neutered, the show started to lose its way. I don't really blame them, though, because that war had to end (probably a season too late, really).

      I think both shows (SG1 and Atlantis) are still entertaining, but the best seasons are probably behind us.
      • Re:Don't hurt BSG (Score:3, Insightful)

        by madstork2000 (143169) *
        I don't htink StarGate is diluted by having too shows, I think it is dilutted by getting unfocused. There are about a zillion enemies now, and I can only by then defeating one major threat at a time. and that it HARD to do. For example we have seen the replicators pretty much wiped out unceremoniously.

        I would have liked to see an extended war with them, and the human replicators (no a crappy Sam clone). But I honestly think they were pressured to kill of the replicators because they were too much like a
    • Re:Don't hurt BSG (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I completely agree. I'm a huge fan of the series and, to be honest, I'm completely mystified as to why Moore went along with this ... considering how much he values the quality of the show & how much time it takes just to make the 20-episode seasons. This was a big issue for the show, especially in the second half of the season, and it's also one of the reasons we saw some filler episodes such as "Black Market"; it's also why the season was pushed back until October, at least one of the reasons. In gene
  • Great idea, BUT... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Raul654 (453029) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:08AM (#15209945) Homepage
    ...does anyone else think it might be a tad too early to start doing the prequels?
  • by voss (52565) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:08AM (#15209947)
    You know adama wont die but thats about it.

    Also regarding the prequel issue, lots of movies come about
    world war II and are quite good despite people knowing
    how world war II turned out they still seem to have good plots.

    • You know adama wont die but thats about it. Also regarding the prequel issue, lots of movies come about world war II and are quite good despite people knowing how world war II turned out they still seem to have good plots.
      Well, everybody KNEW where Lord Vader (we're not worthy, your unholyness) came from, but that didn't stop Lucas from botching it.
  • by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:10AM (#15209955) Journal
    Boomer loves Chachi

    Col. Tigh's Place

    Laverne and Dualla

    Caprica City 90210

    A Different World

    Law and Order: Special Cylon Unit
  • by tiktok (147569) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:11AM (#15209961) Homepage
    I was hoping it would be ADAMA: The College Years.

    Maybe in one episode, Adama has the sorority girls from Caprica Caprica Caprica over for a game of Strip Pyramid.
  • Steadicam? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pipingguy (566974)

    Will this one also feature the "edgy", trendy, subtly shaky camera work designed to give that "gritty, real-world" feel? Sheesh, it's overdone and hackneyed already. I think there's even software now that can take perfectly-filmed stuff and shakify it "for artistic effect".
  • by Rydia (556444) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:15AM (#15209973)
    So, after finally getting around to watching "Tooth and Claw" (Doctor Who 28x2), I am reminded of Gregg Easterbrook's discussion of (someone's, I forget whose) theory of the sci-fi "idiot plot," a plot which can only carry on forward motion if everyone involved is an idiot. BSG has been full of them, especially of late, with fantastic "should we ask him if he still has that bomb we know was ours yet is the only one unaccounted for? Naaaaaah."-related activities.

    Why do I mention Doctor Who? Because it, quite simply, is not that. Star Trek (at least TNG) likewise rarely ran into this problem, so it's not just an american thing. But why do we buy into these plots? They're ridiculous on their face, yet we keep watching more sci-fi full of them. Are we that impressed by apocalyptic stories and high technology that we ignore the whole reason we're watching the show?

    I just don't get it.
    • I disagree. I don't think there has been much in the way of "idiot plots" up until "Lay Down Your Burdens", and I feel that

      1) There was no reason for Tyrol not to trust Cavil (he's an ordained priest after all)
      2) The only person who didn't trust Baltar was Roslin. Adama didn't like him, but had no reason to think that Baltar would actually give a bomb to a Cylon. I mean, he was the frakking Vice-President, and the chief scientist. It's not unreasonable that people trusted him with a nuke, even if
    • Are we that impressed by apocalyptic stories and high technology that we ignore the whole reason we're watching the show?

      Boobs?

      KFG
    • by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @01:44AM (#15210272) Journal
      Every so often I read a slashdot comment that forces me to imagine it as if it were being spoken by the Comic Book Guy.
    • by DarkZero (516460) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @04:58AM (#15210687)
      BSG has been full of them, especially of late, with fantastic "should we ask him if he still has that bomb we know was ours yet is the only one unaccounted for? Naaaaaah."-related activities.

      I think the reason you don't get it is because you're missing the fact that Galactica is largely based around politics, which means that it is intentionally based around the "idiot plot", where everyone acts like idiots. For instance, if they accused Baltar of stealing a nuke, who are they really accusing? They're accusing the second most politically powerful human left, who also happens to be some sort of Bill Gates/Stephen Hawking celebrity mega-genius. Just look at all the accusations that have been levelled against George Bush or Dick Cheney, neither of whom are ridiculously popular outside of politics the way Baltar is. Regardless of that, those accusations go nowhere, even if they're from other powerful politicians.

      The whole thing is about people knowing the right thing to do, but having their hands tied to the point where they're forced to act like idiots. In the finale, literally every main character knows Baltar is wrong... but he's the president, so WTF are you going to do? Plenty of Western heads of state have done very bad things, but very, very few end up like Richard Nixon.
    • by pandaba (38513) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @05:59AM (#15210804)
      I really hate plots dependent upon idiots. They're so bloody banal and completely unbelievable.

      Was reading this alt-history book about a completely useless and improbable war. Apparently there was this relatively evil empire barely beaten in a long war, and then a new, much more evil leader takes over the evil empire and manages to convince the leading powers to just give him entire countries, even when the other powers could have easily crushed him. Then he joins forces with another equally evil leader and surprises these idiots by launching lots of invasions. Then the other evil leader is shocked when the evil empire turns on him too. What a bunch of bloody idiots! Not to mention yet another set of evil idiots who picked a fight with a country twenty times their size, though that country was somehow surprised by the attack even though they could read all the encrypted transmissions. "World War II" was complete drivel and a pointless sequel to that fair-to-middling book called, imaginatively enough, "World War I". Can't remember who wrote it but, with the flatness of the plot and characters, it was probably Turtledove.

      So I gave up on that crap and started watching a movie about some imaginary American president who never read the newspapers but somehow managed to start a war against some minor country on the basis of lies even a child could see through, after he was caught napping by a bunch of barely competent terrorists. Of course, to advance the plot, the minor country had nothing to do with the terrorists, and was ruled by some incompetent moustachioed kitten-eating dictator straight out of central casting, circa 1915. I think the director just wanted to draw the audience in with some big explosions with a villain so laughably evil that everyone would just hiss at him and ignore the huge plot holes.

      Anyways, there was also this really pointless subplot involving some idiot who used to run some horse organization who, after being fired, was put in charge of emergency systems or something, and then he managed to sit twiddling his thumbs while some city was utterly destroyed. Not sure what the point of showing this idiot was other than maybe the director has some bug up his ass about global warming and wanted to make a point using a sledgehammer.

      The film's plot was so completely dependent upon idiots that I left the movie early and have no idea how it ended. Feel free to post spoilers here.

      So, yeah, there's no relvance to these idiot plots. Wish writers would stop using them and stop relying on special effects, banal good/evil imagery, and absolutely stupid characters to get their points across.
      • by ArcherB (796902) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @08:55AM (#15211332) Journal
        Was reading this alt-history book about a completely useless and improbable war. Apparently there was this relatively evil empire barely beaten in a long war, and then a new, much more evil leader takes over the evil empire and manages to convince the leading powers to just give him entire countries, even when the other powers could have easily crushed him. Then he joins forces with another equally evil leader and surprises these idiots by launching lots of invasions. Then the other evil leader is shocked when the evil empire turns on him too. What a bunch of bloody idiots! Not to mention yet another set of evil idiots who picked a fight with a country twenty times their size, though that country was somehow surprised by the attack even though they could read all the encrypted transmissions. "World War II" was complete drivel and a pointless sequel to that fair-to-middling book called, imaginatively enough, "World War I". Can't remember who wrote it but, with the flatness of the plot and characters, it was probably Turtledove.

        When I first read this, I realized that you could have already been talking about Iraq.
        Apparently there was this relatively evil empire barely beaten in a long war (Iraq/Iran) and then a new, much more evil leader takes over the evil empire and manages to convince the leading powers to just give him entire countries, (Kuwait) even when the other powers could have easily crushed him.(France, Germany, Russia, China).
        Or maybe you were talking about the old Soviet Union (Afghanistan, Eastern Europe).

        Funny how you talk about idiots who do nothing when could-be powerful leaders start threatening everyone and all the countries that could stop them simply don't believe their tyrant rants. I think Iran is a good example of that today.

        So, I see your point, if from a different angle, and still come to the same conclusion. The world if full of idiot plots.

  • by ian_mackereth (889101) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:19AM (#15209988) Journal

    There are only twelve types of BG spinoffs.

  • by prakslash (681585) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:23AM (#15210005)

    What is it with Hollywood's fascination with prequels anyway?

    First there was Star Wars with Eps I-III, then there was Star Trek with Enterprise and the new proposed movie on when Kirk/Spock were in the Academy. And, now this.

    I feel doing prequels is a bad idea and will never produce great entertainment.

    There are three main reasons:

    (1) Future is Known: Since the audience already knows what will happen to the characters in the future based on earlier movies, there is never that subconscious element of suprise. For example, no matter how much the main characters are in jeopardy, we know they will survive to justify their existence later in history. Writers basically paint themselves in a corner since they are bounded by the events that are supposed to come later.

    (2) Risk to Established Canon: Sometimes the writers try to inject novelty by doing things that meses up the canon. They introduce things that no longer justifies what was established in the earlier movies. This leaves a bad taste in the audience's mouth because it invalidates everything they have come to believe. For example, the appearance of Borg on Star Trek Enterprise before the time of Kirk.

    (3) Anachronistic Special Effects: Since prequels get made with special-effects technology that has evolved much beyond when the earlier movies were made, we end up seeing special effects and the general look of the movie not being in line with what we would expect how things would look in the past. For example, some of the consoles and user interface screens used by the cast in Star Trek Enterprise looked more advanced than the ones on Star Trek : DS9. This anachronistic anomaly again leaves a bad taste in the audience's mouths.

    I feel Hollywood should abandon this fad of making prequels and just start making more novel sequels where what they can do is only limited by a good writer's imagination.

    • I don't think any of your three concerns apply in this case.

      1. "Future is known": While this is true in a "historical" sense, if the series is set 50 years in the past the only three main BSG characters who could show up are Adama, Tigh and the doc. Given that all of them would be at most late-teens, early 20s, I doubt that they're going to be a focus of the program. Thus, it would be more like watching a dramatization of events happening during World War II, in the sense that we know what happens between 1945 and 2006 but the story could still be entertaining.

      2. "Risk to established canon": Since this series would be running concurrently with the only other material from the same reality AND it's being run by the same folks, this holds very little danger. They've really only gone into detail about events in the months right before the Cylon attack, so there's not much "canon" to put at risk.

      3. "Anachronistic special effects": For movies and programs separated a large number of years, I can see this being a problem. Again, though, this doesn't apply at all to BSG.

      I think I agree with you in general, mainly on the issue of screwing up what has gone before (or after - prequel/sequel tense confuses), but I don't think this particular concept is too dangerous.
    • by McFadden (809368) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @12:50AM (#15210100)
      What is it with Hollywood's fascination with prequels anyway?


      Do you really need to a$k?

    • Good points, but how do you explain the Vito Corleone sequences in Godfather II?
    • (3) Anachronistic Special Effects: Since prequels get made with special-effects technology that has evolved much beyond when the earlier movies were made, we end up seeing special effects and the general look of the movie not being in line with what we would expect how things would look in the past.

      Anachronistic SPECIAL Effects? How about Anachronistic REALITY? Or are you still operating your PC with toggle switches?
    • Risk to Established Canon

      You did see the season two finale, right?

      **What** canon? ;)
    • by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @01:37AM (#15210245)
      "What is it with Hollywood's fascination with prequels anyway?"

      The sad thing is, I've yet to see a prequel done well. The reasons you've mentioned are limitations, but they're also windows of opportunity.

      The future is known, right? So why make a prequel that supports it? What if what you thought you knew about it wasn't correct? What if the Sith were really the good guys? What if the Federation was built on slavery? What a difference a generation or three makes.

      Risk of Established Canon? Typically a fair point. I'd refer back to my previous comment. First Contact was a semi-interesting example of it. Cochrane was recorded in history as a big hero to humanity, turns out he was just a regular guy with fairly selfish motives in mind.

      On an unrelated note: I don't think your Borg example was very strong. They were the Borg from First Contact. If anything, they helped explain some of the other oddities in the series, such as the lack of the NX-01 in the 1701-D's conference room. I think a better example would have been the Feringi. The Federation had supposedly never met them, but obviously they ventured in to Star Fleet's space from time to time. That was not a smart move. Thanks B&B.

      Anachronistic Special Effects: Okay, Star Trek was unusual here. The show started in the 60's. Deep Space Nine did a Forrest Gumpian venture into the past. They had no real choice but to follow that pattern. Modern shows like BSG wouldn't really suffer from this. Set construction these days has pretty much reached a point where just about any artistic vision can be made. Actually, this is one of the reasons the prequels come about anyway. When a movie alludes to a massive un-realizable event, a prequel made a few years later can offer the opportunity to make it happen.

      Believe it or not, this is not a rebuttal to your post. Lots of opportunities are presented by prequels, but Hollywood just doesn't seem to be able to zero in on them. If they can't take these simple steps and make something compelling, then I agree, they shouldn't go this route. Gimmick gimmick gimmick.

    • In Star Treks case the future is never really known. Since the writers are always using cop-outs to write themselves out of a corner. Kirk and Spock will probably be killed off several times only to have a clone / transporter created copy / supremely powerful being (i.e. Q) / alternative universe copy, etc... Show up to replace the "real" Kirk after they "kill" him off.

      They could not even stand to kill of Data in the last movie. I kinda liked it until that part (and the part where they drove a dune bugg
    • (1) Future is Known

      Not exactly. Counting the (older) main characters out (Adama, Tigh, etc), there isn't really much to prevent the creators from simply saying, 'oh well X character managed to survive the Cylon attack and then simply hid underground until the end of season 2/beginning of season 3.' We already know there were resistance groups and you can simply caulk the 'well why didn't they re-establish contact with Adama earilier' question to poor communications and poor transporation.

      (2) Risk to Estab

      • They could 'remain true' to the main series and keep everything low-tech, OR they could use the 'well the only reason why you didn't see things like cell phones was because the Galactica was so old and was supposed to be decommissioned that it was simply never stocked with them. OR when the fighting broke out they were simply scrapped/destroyed for parts/to make sure the Cylons didn't hack into them.'

        It was established in the first episode of BSG that the reason that everything was so low-tech (except


    • 1 Future is Known:

      All you need to do is watch an episode of Columbo to know that suspense isn't necessary for an audicence to maintain interest. It's certainly one trick that's used in writing, but there's a lot more. In any case the ultimate fate of the characters is only a minor part of suspense.

      2 Risk to Established Canon:

      Only if you're a stickler for everything being perfect. What sci-fi show has ever strictly stuck to previously established fact? Some people seem to think TV is there to be a histor
  • Too Adama-Centric? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xdc (8753) *

    The article [zap2it.com] is rather scant on details, but includes this information:

    "Caprica" will be set more than 50 years prior to the events of "Battlestar Galactica" and focus on the lives of two families -- the Adamas (ancestors of future Galactica commander William) and the Graystones. Humankind's Twelve Colonies are at peace and on the verge of a technological breakthrough: the first Cylon.

    As "Battlestar Galactica" is about a lot more than space battles, "Caprica" will be as much family drama as sci-fi tal

  • First Cylon! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27, 2006 @01:18AM (#15210188)
    I'm most excited about meeting the first Cylon. In the series, the Cylons a sophisticated belief structure and a strange confidence in those beliefs (although we know they sometimes change their minds). We get to see a little of how Cylon society is structured in the second season, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. How did an artificial intelligence creat a monotheistic belief system? How did it come to believe anything at all? Why do Cylons believe they're God's chosen species?

    In the director's commentary for the first-season episode "You Can't Go Home Again," Moore and Eick say that they think the key to a great BG episode is to give away secrets. There's a lot of secrets left.
    • How did an artificial intelligence creat a monotheistic belief system?

      How did our (supposed) intelligence create a monotheistic belief system?

      How did it come to believe anything at all?

      ditto ... and / or, because it is intelligent.

      Why do Cylons believe they're God's chosen species?

      erm... yeah, be a tad self reflective here. (ans: People tend to as well.)

    • Re:First Cylon! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Fastolfe (1470) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @10:36AM (#15212074)
      I really hope this element gets some treatment in the prequel.

      For example, what if it turns out that the early Cylons were unsafe machines, or made judgements that were too cold and treated walking-toasters and biological humans equally? Maybe the people tried to fix this by introducing a form of the Three Laws of Robotics by impressing the Cylons with a human religion: biological humans are "chosen", follow God's rules, etc.

      So after the war, they sulk about how they're not biological, and then they have a eureka moment and figure out how to evolve themselves to be biological humans too. Maybe then they could claim to be God's children too and finally be at peace with their beliefs.

      Of course, I'm just pulling this out of my ass, but there's a lot of possibilities here that would make for a very entertaining story.
  • This could be really, really bad.

    I'm picturing families having dinner with cylon servants....

    This could easily ruin the other series for me...
    • Um, there's family drama like mad in BSG. Some key episodes SPOILERS AHEAD

      Act of Contrition (Starbuck and Cmdr Adama about Zack)
      You Can't Go Home Again
      Kobol's Last Gleaming (the boxing match, and Lee's "betrayal")
      The Farm (Lee can't denounce his dad)
      Home (the Adamas coming to terms with each other)

      I mean, between Lee and Commander Adama, there's huge tension (the boxing in KLG), and Starbuck and Commander Adama and Zack have that whole thing going. I mean, there's a lot of family-based drama i
    • by smoker2 (750216)
      Planet of the Apes Spoiler Alert !

      Back when I was a kid, there was a film called Planet of the Apes. Charlton Heston, you remember.

      Well, I happened to get hold of the books, I forget how many there were but they had a lot more in there than the film(s). Basically, the story starts off with the astronauts crash landing on the planet of the apes, as does the film. But the plot continues throughout several books, until 3 of the chimps figure out how to fix the astronauts space ship and get back to earth in t

  • by StefanJ (88986) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @01:29AM (#15210215) Homepage Journal
    Also in the works are a miniseries based on the book "Chariots of the Gods"

    Oh, Puh-LEEZE!

    I was a gullible little tweener dweeb when Chariots of the Gods? was a hot paperback. It didn't take long to see that it was a crock.

    Now, it's an old crock. (Heck, the idea was getting kind of corny when the first Battlestar Galactica series cribbed from it for their background.) There are tons of SF books that Sci-Fi could be adapting that would have better name recognition.
  • I worked for the Boston Museum of Science's Lyman Library when I was in high school. One afternoon someone came in and asked for "Chariots of the Gods". I'd not heard of it (I volunteeered in the Planetarium, and knew Erich von Daniken's premise, just didn't recognize the title right off) so I walked them over to the card catalog to look up where the book was shelved.

    On the way I passed my boss, who had overheard the request. He gave me a nod, and directed me to Humor, where he'd shelved the von Daniken books. I do recall someone once complaining about the von Daniken's being in that section, Les's comment was we were a science library and they'd be shelved there or nowhere.

    I really wish the Scifi Channel would stop with the psuedoscience-as-science bs, talking-from-the-dead scam, and big-bug-o-the-week movies, and get on with telling some really good SF: Strong stories with powerful ideas. Stargate et al is nice light comedy in the SF genre, but von Daniken presented as legitimate, well, give me a snarky G'aould any day.

  • Isn't it ironic that there's a Von Daniken-inspired series being announced at the same time as the new-school BSG prequel? Old-school BSG, circa 1978, was heavily influenced by Von Daniken....
  • I was hoping for... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DarkEdgeX (212110) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @02:14AM (#15210365) Journal
    ..."Battlestar Pegasus". Basically a way to leapfrog back and forth and continue the story at a faster pace (or, they could split the ships up from time to time). But this might be interesting.
  • by MichaelPenne (605299) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @03:30AM (#15210554) Homepage
    As "Battlestar Galactica" is about a lot more than space battles, "Caprica" will be as much family drama as sci-fi tale.

    It is just me, or isn't there enough family drama on TV? Why can't we have more Space Battles??? I mean with quad dual cores for less than the cost of a compact car and the effects shipping as presets in most 3D packages, why not a space battle every show? At least 50/50?

    Hmm, maybe a Spacebattles.com channel?

  • by rufty_tufty (888596) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @06:51AM (#15210905) Homepage
    Thinking back to the miniseries, the schematic the guy in the space station had for the cylons were the centurions we knew from the 1978 series.
    Does this mean the new series will have to go back to men in suits to maintain that canon? Or will there be new CGI-tastic cylons that are supposedly created for more mundane tasks that humans origonally used them for?
    i.e. this show will be set before the cylons split off and created the centurions?
  • by Carcass666 (539381) on Thursday April 27, 2006 @09:22AM (#15211462)

    In an interview [bearmccreary.com] series composer Bear McCreary said:

    "Bear McCreary sees Battlestar Galactica's music as taking a more emtoional turn as it gets closer to the long-lost colony of Earth ."

    So, for those of you who missed Galactica 1980, your chance will come! (a show so bad even SciFi Channel won't re-air it). It makes you wonder though, when they will turn up though.

Natural laws have no pity.

Working...