New Battlestar Galactica Premieres Monday 483
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."
another botched memory? (Score:5, Informative)
Mike
I'm not surprised Ed said that... (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:I'm not surprised Ed said that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Appropriate use of boobs & lycra (Score:2)
You're right - if they're going to go the boobs & lycra route, they should find a better show [utk.edu] to bring back...
Re:Appropriate use of boobs & lycra (Score:3)
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
(warning: site has sound).
Re:I'm not surprised Ed said that... (Score:2, Funny)
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!!!
Re:another botched memory? (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:another botched memory? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:another botched memory? (Score:3, Insightful)
they're different series, and I'll judge them on their own merits
but the point is they went and used the name of the old one. why is that? they want to borrow some of the "goodwill" of the old show. if they really wanted it to be all different they should have chosen a different name
Re:another botched memory? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:another botched memory? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:another botched memory? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Richard Hatch on Oz TV (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:another botched memory? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:another botched memory? (Score:2)
Re:another botched memory? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:another botched memory? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see your response is tounge-in-cheek, but there is a difference between having attractive woman on a show (nothing wrong) and running commercials showing a naked female Cylon (back view) apparently in the middle of having sex (blatant sexuality). Maybe the scene is even useful to the storyline, but the fact that they use it as a centerpiece of their advertising is telling.
I can't believe my original post got modded flamebait. Drugged out, porn-addicted moderator I guess. :)
Re:another botched memory? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:another botched memory? (Score:3, Interesting)
>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
While you're in the mood.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:While you're in the mood.. (Score:3, Informative)
if your going to link to a place, at least make it one with more than 3 costumes to show, and and not a bunch of "coming soon" BS.
Bad omens (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bad omens (Score:5, Funny)
Oh well... at least we already got paid.
Re:Bad omens (Score:5, Funny)
Rick Berman, is that you?
Oh well... at least we already got paid.
Must be.
OT: aintitcool site contents (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OT: aintitcool site contents (Score:5, Informative)
In short his site is indicative of eight-year-old design sensibilities.
Quick comments (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Quick comments (Score:5, Insightful)
You have too many 'm's in that word.
Re:Bad omens (Score:3, Funny)
Kinda gives a whole new meaning to "By Your Command"...
What, no Lorne Green? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:What, no Lorne Green? (Score:2)
Little? Cylon? Different? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which I think they deserve.
You mean like the original series did? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.")
Re:Little? Cylon? Different? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Little? Cylon? Different? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. Amazing, isn't it. For those of us who have been around long enough, reading that paragraph may remind you of the changes that have occurred in our society since the time the original BSG aired..
Seems to me, the remake may actually be a pretty good reflection of what the original BSG would have been had it been written today. Go ahead, reread the quoted paragraph with that in mind.
Re:Little? Cylon? Different? (Score:3, Informative)
BSG a network tv production (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BSG a network tv production (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BSG a network tv production (Score:3, Informative)
Even great directors "borrow" material. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
Re:BSG a network tv production (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.)
As a BSG fan and a Mormon... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:mormon influence... (Score:3, Informative)
I should know, I was married there and attend the temple monthly. I've also looked into the history of temple practice throughout time. I realize there are web sites that say nudity is in the temple, but I can assure you they don't know what they are talking about.
Is it that popular? (Score:3, Insightful)
It was never cheap (Score:2, Interesting)
I am waiting to see the new series before I pass judgement.
Re:Is it that popular? (Score:2)
Its popular in the same way that Go-Bots were popular. Only because it was "like" another more popular product (StarWars/Transformers).
Don't worry... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't worry... (Score:2)
You see, "Enterprise" was such a piss poor series that they had to "spice it up" by adding in some sort of story arc. (The fact that there's no planned arc to the "story arc" is apparently beside the point.) This story arc was supposed to help "Enterprise" reconnect with the Star Trek fan base. In reality they simply annoyed everyone all that much more. Thus the basis of my joke is that they're doing
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say (Score:3, Funny)
'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?
Too many humanoid aliens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too many humanoid aliens (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too many humanoid aliens (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Too many humanoid aliens (Score:2)
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.
All this furor over the desecration of... (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Yeah (Score:2)
It'll fail (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:It'll fail (Score:3, Funny)
Not unlike its predecessor.
Anybody watch SciFi Previews? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Anybody watch SciFi Previews? (Score:2)
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
Amen. (Score:2)
Re:Anybody watch SciFi Previews? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Anybody watch SciFi Previews? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
How can you be a purist? (Score:3, Insightful)
The theme tune (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:The theme tune (Score:2, Interesting)
the usual complaints (Score:3, Insightful)
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
This is not BSG (Score:2)
Re:This is not BSG (Score:2)
For those wondering, it was a line from Robocop.
Fanservice Galactica (Score:2)
Hrmm, have they tried advertising this? (Score:5, Funny)
Number 6 (Score:5, Informative)
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)
hmmm (Score:2)
Bah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bah! (Score:2)
Lord I hope this doesn't suck... (Score:3, Interesting)
"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.
The beginning of the end (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:2)
These two shows are much more alike than most people are admitting.
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:3, Funny)
Typical Corruption (Score:3, Insightful)
What ever happend to REAL sci-fi that required the viewer/reader to actualy THINK....
Re:Typical Corruption (Score:2)
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. :)
Wired article (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Fans who don't watch are morons because.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory Family Reference: (Score:5, Funny)
"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
Re:Obligatory Family Guy Reference: (Score:2)
J
Now that's script reuse for you... (Score:2)
BSG was popular... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:BSG was popular... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Hey why not? (Score:2)
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
I may have missed something... (Score:2)
Then again, I may have just not seen enough of the promo material.
hark! (Score:2)
Prepare yourselves... (Score:2)
- Chick starbuck.
- Human created cylons.
- And cylons that look like humans.
3 strikes and you're outa here.Seems faithful to me (Score:3, Funny)
Next up Sci-Fi is going to redo Star Wars (Score:3, Funny)
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
Battlestar Gallactica purests (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Brains! Brains!" (Score:5, Funny)
Simple - when they started filming, he rolled over in his grave - they then just dug him up and put him in costume.
Re:So in other words.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree completely. Same thing with Enterprise. The show is so lackluster and not "Star Trek" that Paramount was finally forced to prepend "Star Trek:" to the title to boost ratings. Had DS9 and Voyager not had Star Trek in the title, it's likely they would have died unlamented deaths for the same reasons.
GALACTICA 90210 (Score:5, Funny)
It's a standard Hollywood trick (Score:5, Insightful)
Its an entirely different animal, it is in fact so different that I suspect that the only reason its title is BSG is to get the built in audience ...
You hit the nail right on the head there. See, it's risky for a movie or TV studio to put up the cash for a brand new show. They don't know if anyone is going to watch it or not. Doesn't matter how good it is. It's much easier to simply co-opt an existing brand name and slap it on your product. That way, you're guaranteed that some people are going to watch the first couple of episodes of your show, regardless of whether it's any good or not.
Perhaps the most striking example of this in recent years was Hollywood's remake of Godzilla. The Japanese Godzilla that we all know and love was a real force of nature -- with a twist. It was an unpredictable and unstoppable as a hurricane but with the added sting of knowing that mankind was responsible for its creation. The Hollywood version turned the once-mighty creature into a powerless wimp who scampered away like a frightened kitten in the face of helicopter gunships. Thus, you never really felt like the world was in danger. Every time Godzilla popped up you could chase him away with helicopters or tanks. Of course you can't keep doing that forever but I think we can all agree that eventually they would have found where he was hiding and finished him off. So the writers tried to make him a threat by having him spontaneously produce offspring. So instead of having a large, scary, unstoppable force bearing down on you, this new Godzilla was little more than a glorified bacterium, reproducing rapidly. Not very scary and not at all faithful to the original. In fact, other than the fact that both monsters were created as a result of nuclear testing, there was nothing about this new monster which indicated that it was Godzilla. You could hear kids in the audience tugging on their parents sleves asking "Why is Godzilla running away?" It was clear that Devlin and Emmerich (the writer/producer/director team) had just made up their own monster and story and slapped the brand name of Godzilla on the front to move more product (be it movie tickets or associated toys).
There's a balance that needs to be struck when doing a new version of a beloved classic. You don't want a shot-by-shot remake like Point of No Return (La Femme Nikita) or Gus Van Saint's Psycho. On the other hand, it does the original a disservice to completely throw everything out the window and start from scratch. I watched the "Behind the scenes" special on BG last night and Roland Moore came right out and said that the only thing they were planning on keeping from the original was the Viper shape. Stuff like making the cylons humanoid and the womanizing, but likeable, Starbuck into a bitchy woman is going way, way too far.
Before someone flames me for calling the new Starbuck a bitch, I want to make it clear that I have nothing whatsoever against women as action heros. Quite frankly I think it's a long time in coming. But if you had seen the show last night, I think you would have to agree that this new actress is trying way, way too hard to be 'tough'. Jean-Luc Picard was tough and he didn't feel the need to mouth off to people constantly. He was respectable and everyone knew it. True strength simply radiates from people -- there's no need to constantly shout out your superiority to everyone. It just doesn't work.
GMD