Colonial Fleets

Colonial Fleets (http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/index.php)
-   Galactica and Fleets News (http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Battlestar Galactica Movie News (http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18679)

ernie90125 December 18th, 2018 05:31 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Jay Basu Tapped to Write ‘Battlestar Galactica’ for Universal

https://www.thewrap.com/jay-basu-bat...ica-universal/

BST December 18th, 2018 06:51 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ernie90125 (Post 314784)
Jay Basu Tapped to Write ‘Battlestar Galactica’ for Universal

https://www.thewrap.com/jay-basu-bat...ica-universal/


Hmmm.....

Rhaven Blaack December 19th, 2018 12:44 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ernie90125 (Post 314784)
Jay Basu Tapped to Write ‘Battlestar Galactica’ for Universal

https://www.thewrap.com/jay-basu-bat...ica-universal/

I am willing to give it a chance. I am curious to see how it will turn out.

Charybdis March 20th, 2019 09:05 AM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Interesting about this news though as I was looking for more news on the proposed BSG film, is in this story...

https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies...iter-jay-basu/

It says that it will be a reimagining/reboot of Glen Larson's original story/series. Perhaps there is some hope that it will sort of be faithful somewhat to the original series? We can only wait for this thing to develop some more...

Senmut March 20th, 2019 09:37 AM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
I don't trust any "reimaginings", after what happened the last time. If this ever gets to exposing a single frame of film, it will be a travesty, just like the last one.

ernie90125 May 25th, 2019 02:45 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/ne...movie-more/amp

Eric Paddon August 28th, 2019 10:20 AM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
The only reason I'm writing this is because due to the loss of four years worth of posts, something I said in this thread in response to a couple posts of Martok's on this issue of "fandom" are lost. Because an earlier post on the subject is there, I'm only providing a bit of on-the-record counterpoint.

Those who write good fanfic should not be under any illusion that their efforts will ever impress people in actual power. But at the same time, I think there is something to be said for keeping up the good fight in our own creativity and not cede the playing field to people who keep churning out, let us be blunt, utterly BAD comic book series and novels that have not a clue about the nature of the original series. I have yet to be entertained once by the garbage Dynamite Press has put out, and that's because I see people writing stories that think TOS should be filtered through a prism of GINO attitude about TOS as one-dimensional kiddie fare and where there is no understanding of what TOS fans want to see (does ANYONE really think that horrific crossover universe saga that ends with Commander Cain, under Iblis's spell killing Sheba is good TOS storytelling?). To me, it is no coincidence that the reason why Realm Press and the first two Max Press miniseries are still damned good is because they were written before GINO came along to infect every subsequent author's perception of what TOS is ultimately all about.

I don't consider it being a 'victim' to hold to these kind of standards or "falling into a fanboy trap" because I feel I can do better than these hack writers for hire at Dynamite when it comes to entertaining myself and hopefully others in the fan community who are willing to give good fanfic a try. Yes, a lot of it is to please myself but I've found it has managed to please other people too. That to me is as good a point as any to continue with a personal creative vision in a realm where officialdom has failed miserably. Ten years after I stopped writing fanfic because I thought I'd run out of ideas, I've returned to it now and am having more fun than ever.

Anyway, that's off my chest.

Senmut September 4th, 2019 08:40 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
And all Paddon's People said "Amen!!!!"

martok2112 September 5th, 2019 12:02 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
While my views on the reimagined Battlestar Galactica have not changed (I still love that show as much as the original...difficult concept, I know), my views on Hollywood have changed a great deal over the years.

The two best movies I've seen in recent years have been Rogue One and Alita Battle Angel...

Otherwise, EVERYTHING now seems to be a remake or a reimagining....and unfortunately, for the most part, a remake or reimagining involves being "woke".... aka "politically correct", "feminazi", and full of things like "representation", "diversity", "inclusivity" and all those other Left wing buzzwords that have infested Tinsel Town for years. If someone writes a story that doesn't have enough blacks, Hispanics, or other so-designated "people of color", the story and its writer are considered racist. If a story or show does not have at least two openly gay people (who make it a point each episode or movie to remind folks that they are gay) then there's not enough "representation" and the writer and the story is considered "homophobic", "transphobic", "gender binary", etc. If the story and its writer do not present a female lead who makes all the men in the show or movie look completely incompetent or dependent on the skillset of said "Whamen", the the story and its writer are considered "misogynistic", "anti-feminist", or are considered advocates of rape culture.

I did not see this in the reimagined Galactica....and some foolishly claim that IT was the start of the whole movement for all of the above. Sorry, but tis not the case. If it were, the show would be considered racist for taking a black man who was a strong supporting character in the original, and turning him into a white alcoholic in the reimagining. Neither the original, nor the reimagining can be accused of a lack of diversity or being misogynistic because both had multiple ethnicities and colors, and strong female characters....and very rarely in either case did women require rescuing by the men. The original series (at least, the pilot episode/movie) could not be accused of being gender binary or "transphobic" because they did have one species that was both male and female (leaning toward "identifying as female"). About the only thing that the original show could be "accused" of by the Social Justice Warriors (SJW's) of today is "lacking representation of people of "other sexual orientations"...so they would likely call the show "homophobic". Also, those same SJW's would likely accuse the reimagined series of "playing it safe" because gay representation came in the form of two fairly hot chicks (Admiral Cain and Gina) having a somewhat lesbian thing. (SJWs accuse Frank Herbert of being homophobic because he made the main bad guy, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, who is homosexual, a fat, diseased, murderous sexual deviant.)


Ghostbusters 2016 bombed because it was a poorly written story, and featured an all-female GB team who were largely unattractive to look at, and the males were made to be incompetent or simply dick-ish..and the "story", if you can call it that, comes across more like some kind of prolonged improv.

Lots of folks are really pissed off at Disney Lucasfilm because of the direction that the sequel trilogy has taken. The only Star Wars movie that has had a male lead in any of the Disney offerings has been "Solo: A Star Wars Story", and people boycotted it because of their feelings toward The Last Jedi. While I enjoyed The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, my enjoyment was not without a lot of reservations. Those movies left me wanting, did not do true respect to the Legacy characters, and really just felt like footnotes as opposed to any kind of Episode in a ongoing saga.

I think the Story movies (Rogue One and Solo) far outstripped the sequel trilogy thus far, and Rogue One is my all time favorite Star Wars film. Why? Because it is a WAR movie. Yes, it has a very hot female lead, but she is not what people would call a "Mary Sue" (to use the fanfic vernacular).

Ok..enoof on that, let's get back to the point: I once felt that people who clung on to the past by exclusively, and with extreme prejudice, writing a lot of fanfic about the original versions of their beloved properties (Battlestar Galactica) whilst eschewing any other version that did not fall into lock step with the settings and motif of the original were indeed just butt-hurt fanboys, but that is because I had been told by both sides of the fandom (both the original hardcore fans and the prospective fans of the reimagined show--sight unseen) that I had to choose a side...that I was not allowed to like and/or support both shows. So, I chose a side.....MY side, and I dropped fandom like the bad habit it still is. I still like to read such fanfics, because indeed they are of very high quality. It's the self-righteous attitudes behind some of them that give them a bad flavor. Yes, I wrote the long-forgotten Battlestar Galactica: Dark Exodus, but I did not write it with any kind of "I DO THIS BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY BATTLESTAR GALACTICA"... I just wrote it because of my longer familiarity with the classic show. Same thing with when I do CG model builds.... I mostly stick with the original versions, because they are the ones I am most familiar with....not because of some "aversion" to the newer takes. (Although I do find the U.S.S. Discovery to be a very uninspired design for a Federation starship.)

Why do I say it is still a bad habit? Because, there are toxic asshats out there who spew the following: "What?! You liked Star Trek 2009?! You don't know felgercarb about Star Trek!" (which is a rich thing to say to someone who has loved Star Trek for forty-five out of his fifty years of life on this planet). Yes, I LOVED the Kelvin era movies, but I despise Star Trek Discovery which was SJW front-loaded from pre-production. "What?! You liked The Last Jedi?! You ain't no true Star Wars fan!" Sorry, but again, rich thing to say to someone who has loved Star Wars for most of his life. Also, the thing is, with some of these people, it does not matter if you tell them "I liked The Last Jedi, but......". All they hear are the first five words.... nothing afterward. They hear those first five words, all of the sudden they declare you an SJW, Disney shill! (Although, in the broader sense, they would be technically correct..because, again, I am NOT a fan of anything, anymore, because of people like THEM.

So, since 2003, thanks to the childish fan wars over Battlestar Galactica, I have had little to no reason to return to fandom, because the attitude is largely still the same. I still love those things (Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, StarGate, Harry Potter, etc...most things involved in pop-culture), I still love to talk with fans about our common love of these pop-cuture icons, I still obtain collectibles when I can, I still do fan anmations and CG model builds, I just am not a fan of those icons anymore. Being a fan has become a badge of dishonor in my eyes.

I do agree with a lot of fans about the way Hollywood is frakking up our favorite franchises, with diseased SJW infestation in the constantly dying creative process. Star Wars, Star Trek, GhostBusters, etc., have taken a nose dive because of SJW demands that have somehow been given overwhelmingly undue power and influence. Where I disagree with a lot of those fans is when they disallow for someone like myself, being possessed of independent thought, to like what I wish to like, even if I recognize the many flaws and pitfalls of the things they may despise. It's the whole "with us or against us" mentality that keeps me from wanting to even consider considering (sic) returning to the ranks of fandom. I stand apart (though occasionally allied) with fandom, much in the way Han Solo stood apart yet allied with the Rebellion. I still do not, to this day, believe that the reimagining of Battlestar Galactica was anything like the trash being put out today.

Eric Paddon September 5th, 2019 01:29 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
For the record, I have never been on the side of advocating that one's subjective reactions to any end product was something someone should be attacked for. All of us old enough to remember the name Languatron have a permanent reminder of what *real* obsessed "fandom" at its worst, leads to. If I still choose to believe subjectively that GINO was a horrible end product that also on an objective level caused permanent damage to the reputation and value of what TOS represented that is a POV that does not carry with it the casting of aspersions on people who liked the other show. If viewing enjoyment is derived from it by anyone, that is their business. But neither however, is holding a POV about what the existence of that show meant to the reputation of TOS, a sign of over-obsessive fandom.

I will maintain to my dying day that if TOS fandom had been rewarded with a continuation/closure movie that ended the storyline of TOS in a way we could have been happy with and THEN, five years later a guy named Ron Moore does what he did, hardly any of us would have cared. We might have still called it a bad idea and disliked it, *but* it would not have carried with it the deeper underlying issues of decades of faith not being rewarded and hopes for something that had helped make Galactica fandom a close-knit group for so long, dashed forever. Trek fans who love the original series and hate everything else that followed can't relate to that in the same way because original Trek went as far as it could possibly go with a movie series with the original cast. The emergence of new properties didn't deny them a thing. With our fanbase, we have received little to none in the way of true rewards for our patience. We had a brief shining moment in comic books in the mid-90s that sadly went off the rails, but that would be it. Hatch's novels failed to gain traction with the fanbase because they simply are hopelessly off in terms of remembering basic things that most fanfic writers are capable of grasping. The less said about Dynamite, the better.

Ultimately, if the failure to see our faith rewarded in official projects motivates me to say, "I can do better than that!" I view it as channeling negative energy into something positive. And if respect is merited for fans who like GINO and can look past the circumstances of how it came to be and what it meant (what a lot of us regard a bad flavor), then at the same time we can read fanfic and look past whatever subliminal context motivates a fanfic writer's motives and just judge the story on its own merits. That's all that counts from my standpoint.

martok2112 September 5th, 2019 02:26 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
This is good discussion....especially in the context of the current day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon
For the record, I have never been on the side of advocating that one's subjective reactions to any end product was something someone should be attacked for. All of us old enough to remember the name Languatron have a permanent reminder of what *real* obsessed "fandom" at its worst, leads to. If I still choose to believe subjectively that GINO was a horrible end product that also on an objective level caused permanent damage to the reputation and value of what TOS represented that is a POV that does not carry with it the casting of aspersions on people who liked the other show. If viewing enjoyment is derived from it by anyone, that is their business. But neither however, is holding a POV about what the existence of that show meant to the reputation of TOS, a sign of over-obsessive fandom.

Ach...oy...yes....Langy. Now there was a guy who gave classic Galactica fans who were opposed to the reimagining a very bad name in the public eye. I never had any interaction with this person, thank God, but I was all too aware of his insane ramblings.

Yes, we should all be free to (healthily) like and dislike what we will without any thought of repercussions by others who think oppositely. If anything, good friendly, spirited debate should spring from differing points of view. Those days seem like a century ago.

I always respect those who loved the original Galactica, because I, too, love the original show. I draw the line when they tell me "you like a show that was made by a**holes, for a**holes." I certainly have never told them that they "like a show that was made for young kids". (I got sick of that rhetoric from the more toxic, pre-formed reimagining fans.) I would never dream of it because I loved that show. It rounded out my sci-fi weekends in 1978. (Starting on Saturday mornings with Jason of Star Command, catching whatever Trek, Space:1999, Lost In Space, or other sci-fi shows I could in reruns during the day, and then capping off with Galactica on Sunday nights.)

Despite my aversion to the show, I respect people who like Star Trek Discovery, so long as they like it for legitimate reasons: those being that they've actually seen the show, and appreciate the show for its storytelling, its characters, and its production values. If they're shilling to regurgitate SJW buzzwords and notions, then I dismiss them because nine times out of ten, they are people who do not watch the show...they are simply making some fool hearty stand for nothing burger issues about Social Justice because they heard from some other source that the show espouses SJW ideologies.) Personally, I've seen enough of the show to know that overall, I do not like it, although I did like the classic Enterprise redesign (as much as I love the Kelvin era redesign, I do think STD got it much closer to right with their iteration).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon
I will maintain to my dying day that if TOS fandom had been rewarded with a continuation/closure movie that ended the storyline of TOS in a way we could have been happy with and THEN, five years later a guy named Ron Moore does what he did, hardly any of us would have cared. We might have still called it a bad idea and disliked it, *but* it would not have carried with it the deeper underlying issues of decades of faith not being rewarded and hopes for something that had helped make Galactica fandom a close-knit group for so long, dashed forever. Trek fans who love the original series and hate everything else that followed can't relate to that in the same way because original Trek went as far as it could possibly go with a movie series with the original cast. The emergence of new properties didn't deny them a thing. With our fanbase, we have received little to none in the way of true rewards for our patience. We had a brief shining moment in comic books in the mid-90s that sadly went off the rails, but that would be it. Hatch's novels failed to gain traction with the fanbase because they simply are hopelessly off in terms of remembering basic things that most fanfic writers are capable of grasping. The less said about Dynamite, the better.

I completely agree with this statement, Eric. Yes, I too believe that had we gotten someting closer to the original that we remembered as kids, whilst updating just enough to appeal to the adult in us that wanted a bit more mature storytelling without going overboard, then the negative impact of the arrival of the reimagining would have been drastically less on those who would disagree with the motif of the show. What you said about Star Trek is bang-on, and something I have tried to tell the more self-righteous Star Trek fans....the new stuff denies them nothing. They both make some acknowledgement of the original, whilst going their own way. Also, thanks to DVD and blu-ray, fans of the old-school stuff can watch it any time they wish.

Back on the point of remakes and continuations: Nostalgia is a tricky business. How to appeal to nostalgia without seeming like it is just plastered haphazardly all over the place just to trigger 'membah-berries. It's a balancing act...just like over the top visual effects, nostalgia is something you have to balance with good story telling, and compelling characters, otherwise it is just a big, toothy-smiling husk of its former self.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon
Ultimately, if the failure to see our faith rewarded in official projects motivates me to say, "I can do better than that!" I view it as channeling negative energy into something positive. And if respect is merited for fans who like GINO and can look past the circumstances of how it came to be and what it meant (what a lot of us regard a bad flavor), then at the same time we can read fanfic and look past whatever subliminal context motivates a fanfic writer's motives and just judge the story on its own merits. That's all that counts from my standpoint.

I agree here, again, in the current day. The way that Hollywood is degrading our favorite properties, yes, it does seem to fall to the fans to maintain the original spirit of things like Star Wars and Star Trek. I have always said it is amazing to me, the tools available to Joe/Jane-Average-Filmmaker, to make productions that are practically on par with modest Hollywood films. The ability of fan film makers to make BSG, Star Trek, and Star Wars fan films that pretty much rival current day big screen offerings is beyond extraordinary. Fanfic writers can indeed write stories that blow away the current crop of Hollywood drivel, thanks to the memory of what was, and balancing it out with contemporary sensibility to maintain the appeal of what we loved before. Yes, there are some reimagining fans of a sensible bent out there who do recognize the denial that classic fans received in terms of a true continuation for Galactica, and believe me, they are empathetic.

I have always felt (and seen) that the classics can often receive an all-new appreciation because of someone's introduction to a given property via a remake or reimagining. Classic Trek got a major boost in appeal to a new generation of fans because of the Kelvin era films. I see that as nothing less than win/win. The same thing for Battlestar Galactica. A lot of people I know who had never seen the original show, was turned onto the original via the reimagining...and they've come to appreciate both shows for their differences, and can see why some classic fans were beyond heartbroken that they never got the continuation that Trek and Wars fans got.
__________________

Senmut September 6th, 2019 02:27 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
^THIS^
For me, the worst part of the whole nuBSG thing was neither the "reimagining", nor the warping of the characters and motivations, as nauseating as I personally found them to be. It was RDM's dismissive condescension towards the fans. The "your popcorn's in another aisle" slap pretty well sealed it for me. The fans are, after all, the one's who ultimately pay the bills, by buying the tickets/tuning in. And to treat millions of BSG fans, a generation of fans, like they were annoying, slightly retarded children, or yapping dogs, was totally without justification.
Do I need to say more?

martok2112 September 6th, 2019 04:12 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Respectful counterpoint:

To be honest, I never saw the phrase: "Your popcorn is in another aisle" as an insult to the fans.

Were the reimagined show to have been some kind of big screen release (as the original series' pilot was), popcorn would likely have been consumed. What do we do when we go to the movies? Get popcorn. Does it matter which movie we're watching? No.

Captain Marvel is playing, but you came to see Alita Battle Angel (the more superior film, btw)? Your popcorn is in another aisle.

I also recall hearing Ron Moore actually responding to a question that asked if a certain element in an episode was a nod back to the classic show, and his first words were something like: "I really wish I could wave the fan banner for that one, but...."

He acknowledged that at its heart, the original Galactica had a very powerful premise. I think Moore gave the original show a bit more credit for being a good show than some fans here give him credit for acknowledging the qualities of the original.

Now, contrast this with the way Disney/LFL and Disney/Marvel have been treating fans of Star Wars and the Marvel Cinematic Universe/Marvel Comics. D/LFL and D/M have been extremely condescending and dismissive of the fans than Ronald D. Moore was ever perceived to be.

The showrunners/producers/writers/directors/actors of pretty much any new movie or show that remakes/reimagines earlier original iterations or which twists the ongoing narrative of certain long lived properties (The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, Captain Marvel, GhostBusters 2016, Oceans 8) or upcoming shows and films like Batwoman, Terminator: Dark Fate, etc...the showrunners and associates will verbally attack the fans who show any backlash toward these productions. They will accuse the fans of being Alt-Right, misogyinistic, racist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, transphobic, as well as actually saying (without mincing their words) that the old-school fans no longer matter.

They accuse the old fans of being scared of portrayals of powerful and empowered female leads or supporting characters.

They couldn't be more wrong. We have loved characters like Princess Leia Organa, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Lara Croft, Padme Amidala, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, etc, for decades. They were all examples of empowered women who did not look down on their male compatriots, and in fact, relied on their male compatriots help (whether they'd admit it or not).

Now you have a movie like Terminator: Dark Fate coming out which is all "Whamen". Where is John Connor in all this? Why does Arnie's Terminator role seem drastically reduced? (and not just because of his age). You have a show like Batwoman getting ready to hit the CW which has been releasing trailer after trailer of cringe-worthy "feminazi" propaganda. "I never let a man take credit for a woman's work." (when she clearly has stolen everything Bruce Wayne/Batman ever had to make her pathetic self effective). Disney recently released an animated micro-series on YouTube called "Star Wars Galaxy of Adventures" and in one episode they completely redefine Princess Leia as a blood-thirsty war leader who despises men and apparently does not need them. I'm sure you've seen pics of LFL CEO Kathleen Kennedy sporting a tee-shirt that says: "The Force Is Female" alongside three other women.

I stopped watching the CW series version of Supergirl because it has extremely far Left leaning narratives....and they made no bones about it.

You have the upcoming "Thor: Love and Thunder" in which apparently Thor gives his powers over to Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). You have She-Hulk which is in the throes of early pre-production where the SJWs are demanding that her origins be changed (so that she "stands on her own", rather than being created as a result of the kindness of her cousin, Bruce Banner.)

Critics were extremely dismissive of the film Alita: Battle Angel. They accused the film's fans of being Alt-Right, and thought that Alita was somehow over-sexualized. What?!!! Alita is a positive role-model, as was Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, and the critics call them Alt-Right and oversexualized?

They want to accuse US of being misogynistic? LMAO! That's the nature of the Left: Have all these poor qualities of humanity, and deflect and deny by "virtue signaling" (where they truly have no virtue to begin with) and by saying that normal people are the ones who possess these sickening traits. They are the ones who call evil good, and good evil.

By contrast, Ron Moore's popcorn comment pales (by a multitude of shades) in comparison to the vehement condescension and accusatory remarks being hurled at fans by Disney/Lucasfilm and Disney/Marvel, and any other production company that has succumbed to SJW influence.

Eric Paddon September 6th, 2019 04:20 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by martok2112 (Post 315042)
This is good discussion....especially in the context of the current day.

I'm glad you think so and glad that we've been able to restore what I felt was a good tone of discussion we had that got lost in the big list crash.

I think the one point I have to disagree on whether the Moore thing started some of the later trends you spoke of, and because you mentioned the example as proving the opposite, is that the reimagining of Tigh I felt did play to them. Tigh was now a dislikable and dysfunctional character so all of a sudden that seemed to mean he had to be white bread rather than black because only someone white should be that dislikably dysfunctional. That was how that came off to me when I was forcing myself to watch the first season (the only season I did sit through way back when). I also was predicting how Commander Cain would be reimagined and that too I saw was borne out because once again, just like with Starbuck we couldn't have the old-fashioned male hero of renown anywhere in Moore's universe. To me, Moore made it safe for the SJW trends you're describing in other properties with what he started with Starbuck and then continued with Cain. He may not be a primary cause of it, but he's certainly a forerunner of it from my standpoint.

And I can not unfortunately agree with the argument that Moore was being more conciliatory to the old show. I listened to his commentary tracks and I heard a lot of wrong information that was making me throw things at the screen and a fundamental misperception of the show's underpinnings. I have also read his comments in that recent oral history book that covers the history of both shows and my view of him personally is as strongly negative as it was before since he *really* gets venemous about the fanbase there (and even gets ticked off at Glen Larson for being ticked off regarding Larson's suit to get credit for the pilot screenplay and then using pseudonyms.)

martok2112 September 6th, 2019 04:33 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Let's look at the SJW/Leftist buzzwords of "inclusivity" and "representation".

Take a movie like Star Trek Beyond (my favorite all time Star Trek film). Even though the film had this misguided notion of honoring George Takei by making the character Sulu gay, the way in which they handled both on and off screen was admirable enough. They never front-loaded with a bunch of SJW propaganda, and they kept Sulu's homosexuality down to thirty seconds (if that). He sees his little girl, Demora, goes to embrace her, and walks off with his partner, another man, arms around each other...and that's it. Otherwise, the story goes right back to Sulu being a competent, loyal and capable StarFleet officer. Nothing further is mentioned. Even George Takei himself balked at the misplaced honor, stating that he always saw Roddenberry's version of Sulu as straight (and he was portrayed as such in the original series and even in the first six movies).

Contrast this with Star Trek Discovery: Up front, the showrunners and actors were pushing the "selling point" that two of their major supporting characters were openly gay, and would explore their relationship. They also act as if the character, Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green), is the first black and/or female of prominence in Star Trek.

They push these narratives in the misbegotten names of "diversity", "inclusivity", and "representation". Little do they realize or even remember that Star Trek was always about "diversity", "inclusivity", and "representation"....the original Trek and its follow up shows and movies just never made big virtue signals out of those traits. Nowadays, however, a show must push those appropriated virtues to the forefront of their narratives to try and force change on a world that is trying to change at its own pace.

The "tolerant" and "inclusive" Left are nothing of the sort. They are the most intolerant, racist, misogynistic, -phobic, and hypocritical beings on the planet....but, as always, they deflect and cast the shade of those traits by accusing normal people of being the very things that the Left/SJWs are.

martok2112 September 6th, 2019 04:53 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon (Post 315046)
I'm glad you think so and glad that we've been able to restore what I felt was a good tone of discussion we had that got lost in the big list crash.

I think the one point I have to disagree on whether the Moore thing started some of the later trends you spoke of, and because you mentioned the example as proving the opposite, is that the reimagining of Tigh I felt did play to them. Tigh was now a dislikable and dysfunctional character so all of a sudden that seemed to mean he had to be white bread rather than black because only someone white should be that dislikably dysfunctional. That was how that came off to me when I was forcing myself to watch the first season (the only season I did sit through way back when).



Yes, this is good and healthy discourse. It is something that has been lost in recent years with fan-wars over other properties.

I think, looking back at the time, no one really would have raised a stink if Tigh had been kept as a black man, but retained the traits that encompassed the reimagined Tigh (alcoholic, disagreeable). Had Tigh been written that way in this not-so-distant day and age (black, alcoholic, disagreeable), the SJWs would have been in an uproar. The writers would have been accused of being racist, stereotyping the black male.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon
I also was predicting how Commander Cain would be reimagined and that too
I saw was borne out because once again, just like with Starbuck we couldn't have the old-fashioned male hero of renown anywhere in Moore's universe. To me, Moore made it safe for the SJW trends you're describing in other properties with what he started with Starbuck and then continued with Cain. He may not be a primary cause of it, but he's certainly a forerunner of it from my standpoint.

And I can not unfortunately agree with the argument that Moore was being more conciliatory to the old show. I listened to his commentary tracks and I heard a lot of wrong information that was making me throw things at the screen and a fundamental misperception of the show's underpinnings. I have also read his comments in that recent oral history book that covers the history of both shows and my view of him personally is as strongly negative as it was before since he *really* gets venemous about the fanbase there (and even gets ticked off at Glen Larson for being ticked off regarding Larson's suit to get credit for the pilot screenplay and then using pseudonyms.)

I can honestly see how a lot of folks would indeed at least indirectly attribute the origin of the sad state of affairs in Hollywood today with the reimagined show 16 years ago. (God, has it been that long?! Where's my walker?) Yes, I can agree that if they wanted more empowered female characters in the spotlight, they should have just dreamt up new characters to work alongside/against the male versions of Starbuck, Boomer, and Cain. For myself, I was not interested in seeing an SJW narrative get pushed (I am the last person on Earth who would ever want to see that, and until more recent years, I never even saw or heard of a Social Justice Warrior). I was simply interested in the different take on those characters. (Also, it did help that they were pretty easy on the eye. :) ) But yes, the male hero of renown is something that is especially balked at in the current day and age. Such a character would be considered as possessed of "toxic masculinity". (Why do you think they are changing up the nature of 007 for the next film? Daniel Craig's James Bond will be yielding the designation, position and status of 007 to a black female because SJWs have thrown major shade on the character of James Bond for being toxically masculine, and supposedly racist....for all these decades...gasp...horror. How dare the 007 movies adhere to the essence of James Bond...classy, stylish, capable, stunning, charming, disarming, acerbic when necessary... for so long? Bond, nor the movies were ever racist.)

I never listened to the commentaries by Ronald Moore on the Blu-Ray set. I listened to his commentary on the miniseries DVD, and did not hear a lot of the condescension that supposedly permeates the commentary sections of the series itself. As a newly forged non-fan at the time (because of the toxicity of both sides of the childish fan-war), I was disinclined to listen to those commentaries. I just wanted to watch the show. Behind the scenes tech-stuff, I could watch. I wasn't interested in personal motivations back then.

However, today, you can't even escape those things. They are thrown up in your face... and any backlash against them (largely seen on YouTube) results often in demonetization, censorship, deplatforming...and sometimes even doxxing of those who oppose the current trends in Hollywood.

Eric Paddon September 7th, 2019 09:12 AM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by martok2112 (Post 315048)
I think, looking back at the time, no one really would have raised a stink if Tigh had been kept as a black man, but retained the traits that encompassed the reimagined Tigh (alcoholic, disagreeable). Had Tigh been written that way in this not-so-distant day and age (black, alcoholic, disagreeable), the SJWs would have been in an uproar. The writers would have been accused of being racist, stereotyping the black male.

The public reaction I don't think ever would have been much then or now. But Moore seemed to reflect a view borne out of typical white-liberal-guilt syndrome that he just *had* to do it this way to make himself feel better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martok2112 (Post 315048)
Yes, I can agree that if they wanted more empowered female characters in the spotlight, they should have just dreamt up new characters to work alongside/against the male versions of Starbuck, Boomer, and Cain.

And in this case, Moore's total unfamiliarity with the series (where he said he'd watched only the cut pilot and one episode in 25 years) made him completely ignorant of the character of Sheba. Indeed, this is something I notice a lot when people give their assessments of TOS and are critical of it. They often are relying on the theatrical cut of the pilot because for many years in the 80s and into the 90s that was the *only* thing about TOS you could have easy access to. Consequently, when I see the brushoffs of TOS about it treating the subject lightly or this instinctive view of Starbuck as the perpetual Casanova who never matured over the course the series, I realize that these people have formed their entire impression on a false read of the series (Boxey's prominence in the pilot also makes them exaggerate the amount of time he and Muffit had in the series as a whole). This is why they're clueless about Sheba, or about even big dramatic moments that are not in the theatrical cut version like the Athena-Starbuck locker scene or Adama's lonely musing after the fleeing of the Colonies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martok2112 (Post 315048)
(Why do you think they are changing up the nature of 007 for the next film? Daniel Craig's James Bond will be yielding the designation, position and status of 007 to a black female because SJWs have thrown major shade on the character of James Bond for being toxically masculine, and supposedly racist....for all these decades...gasp...horror. How dare the 007 movies adhere to the essence of James Bond...classy, stylish, capable, stunning, charming, disarming, acerbic when necessary... for so long? Bond, nor the movies were ever racist.)

I forced myself to watch all the Craig Bond movies once and they are terrible. I never saw a worse actor in the part and the scripts were awful one to the next (and a BIG mistake that also is a sign of today's SJW trends was the insistence on keeping Judi Dench as M and exaggerating her role way out of proportion. Dench was great as a foil for Pierce Brosnan. In the Craig films she was a distraction of epic proportions. If you want to reboot Bond as a character start with a traditional M and Moneypenny already in place and not take three films to get to them!)

The Gal Godot Wonder Woman movie I saw had a lot of promise but was done in alas by needless PC concessions. On the plus side it retained the traditional telling of romance between WW and Steve Trevor (instead of going for the lesbian undercurrent that is more faddish today). But because Hollywood doesn't want to be pro-America they decided the story couldn't be World War II, where the pro-America flag-waving of the original (and which was also in the Lynda Carter series) was vital to the character. So instead we get it reset from a "good war" to World War I, though the writers were profoundly ignorant of the fact that World War I was being fought mostly by idealistic believers in the notion of "War to End All Wars" and "Make The World Safe For Democracy" (the idea that Trevor, who is not a veteran of the Western Front would hold such weary cynical sentiments is absurd). And of course we had to get the token Native American in Trevor's group to give us a momentary discourse on how bad America was to his people (and never mind that Native Americans who fought in their country's service in the military were the last people likely to utter such sentiment). The tragedy is that Godot was damned good in the part and a worthy heir to Lynda Carter.

martok2112 September 7th, 2019 03:49 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Yes, Gal Gadot is a very worthy successor to Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman.

We definitely have some different viewpoints. I personally loved the Craig-era Bond films... Casino Royale and Skyfall were the best. Quantum of Solace was largely forgettable, and Spectre was pretty good. Actually, of all the 007 films I've seen, I have to say, Skyfall is my all time favorite.

The SJW stuff really has to hit me in the face in order for me to have aversions to a movie or show. What turned me off to not even wanting to watch Captain Marvel was actress Brie Larson's constant virtue signaling and feminazi agenda....her "wokeness" that she kept touting at every opportunity. Her off-camera virtue signaling killed any interest I could otherwise have potentially had for CM. Thankfully, her appearance in Avengers Endgame was kept to a minimum.....but there was one scene in the climactic battle that damn near killed the battle (and the movie itself) for me. It is a foreshadow of the very dismal future we face with the Marvel Cinematic Universe in Phase IV.

I will agree that I think they should've kept Wonder Woman's origins in World War II instead of going all the way back to WWI. I am, however, very anxious to see Wonder Woman 1984. (I just hope that, if she ends up taking a dip at some point in the movie, they do NOT put her in that ridiculous, all-concealing blue-dive outfit that always ticked me off whenever Lynda Carter had to go for a swim as Wonder Woman.)

When it comes to Disney Star Wars, here's my stance:
-The "Story" movies far outstrip the Sequels thus far. (Both the Story films take place in the Galactic Civil War era...Rebels vs Empire...my favorite era in the SWUniverse.) Rogue One is my all time favorite Star Wars movie. To paraphrase Kevin Smith (whom I otherwise do not put a lot of stock in when it comes to Star Wars): "Rogue One puts the WAR back in Star Wars!" Rogue One is unapologetically a war film. It shows a Rebel Alliance that wasn't always squeaky clean and above board. It shows some of the horrors of war (within PG-13 and Star Wars standards). It is not so much about the broader scope of the Rebel Alliance vs the Galactic Empire as it is about the little guy/gal who gets caught up in the fervor of the GCW. Whereas Episodes I-VI tended to sort of romanticize war, I felt that Rogue One showed its much uglier and unwanted side.

-The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi....both of those movies, whilst enjoyable to me, really left me wanting. The sequel characters just aren't as compelling as those with whom we grew up during the original trilogy. Rey, for whatever reason, seems to be able to do everything at least as well as, if not better than the Legacy characters. She comes by her Force powers with little to no effort or training. She is admired or loved by pretty much everyone...except perhaps Luke. By definition, Rey is a Mary Sue. She does have plenty of flaws, but they do not offset her unexplained abilities with The Force. Her ferocity as a fighter, yes, that can be explained....but not (at least yet) her inexplicable abilities with The Force, and using a lightsaber. The Last Jedi throws EVERYTHING for a loop, and does disrespect some of the Legacy characters (like Admiral Ackbar who was killed off with no more fanfare than a disposable Rebel trooper in the original Star Wars)....just so they can bring a "Whaman" into the spotlight in the form of V.Adm Holdo (Laura Dern) who just seems to come from out of nowhere, looking like a Gender Studies professor at (insert the Leftist college of your choice). Personally, I didn't mind so much what was done with Luke Skywalker. Lots of fans call him "Jake Skywalker" because of his diminished status and stature in the SW Universe, and I can empathize with them over that. Even Mark Hamill was extremely dissatisfied with the portrayal of Luke in TLJ. However, I did not see those things. I still saw the smarmy, bantery Luke that I knew from the OT...and the way that he was setting about to instruct Rey in their first lesson had me laughing. To me, that just seemed like something Luke would do, even if he were still the swashbuckling Jedi knight of Return of the Jedi.

Yes, there were a LOT of missed opportunities with the Sequel films, and sadly, those opportunities may never rise again, due to the death of Han Solo, the passing of our beloved Carrie Fisher (who apparently will still appear in The Rise of SKywalker thanks to some unused footage from The Force Awakens), and now the death of Luke Skywalker. I am not overly enthused about Episode IX..... at this point, I can only see it as big screen Damage Control, rather than think about it being a Star Wars film to be experienced.

Eric Paddon September 7th, 2019 08:27 PM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
Craig rubbed me the wrong way from the very beginning as Bond. And the plots were just way too muddled, especially with the lame attempt to establish some kind of story arc over all of the films that never held together. Bond was going "rogue" too many times and we were also seeing him go from "not yet a double-oh" (which made his closeness to M really ridiculous) to virtual retirement in too short a span.

Not being a fan of Craig, this fan-created spoof of a "Casino Royale" trailer done in the style of the 1967 "Casino Royale" just has me busting a gut every time I see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9GsLPDSfTY

I haven't seen any of the SW or Marvel Universe stuff because I prefer to let my SW memories stay uncontaminated. (I even got well-done Blu-Ray boots of the original trilogy cuts to serve as my viewing copies). In general I am completely divorced from today's pop culture (the Gadot Wonder Woman was one of my once in a blue moon exception viewings) and I feel better for it.

Of late, in my fanfic writing, I've been having fun trying to "cast" certain early 80s performers in parts that have become more prominent in my writing because it makes it easier to envision in the mind when writing if there's a certain performer who *could* have done an early 80s Galactica project. Somehow once that's done its easier to envision a film that "might" have been even if its forever just in my imagination.

martok2112 September 8th, 2019 01:30 AM

Re: Battlestar Galactica Movie News
 
In writing any kind of story, be it original or fanfic, we go with what we know. We go with what suits our story the best. If that means sticking with the actors from the past because we knew them well enough (because we wanted to know them), then that's what it takes. It helps facilitate the creative flow.

When I write an original or a fanfic (which I have not done since trying to complete Galactica: The Last Battlestar....both it and Battlestar Galactica: Reciprocity still need to be finished), it is easier to stick with the original actors. With The Last Battlestar, which is a mix of worlds between both the classic and imagined universes, I envision actors/actresses from both shows....and when it comes to the actors/characters from the reimagined show, trust me, they are nothing like they are portrayed in that show...they are much more in line with the original series' spirit. They look exactly like they do from the new show, but their characters are vastly different.

When I write originals, I go strictly with faces, whether they are old actors or new generation actors. The bodies are the shell....if I know the actors well enough, old or new, I will try to write according to what I may know about them...otherwise they are husks awaiting new souls in the form of my story.

Trust me, you're not missing much with much of the new Disney Star Wars, although I would highly recommend Rogue One. Among even those who hate most of the Disney LFL SW films, Rogue One is generally considered a favorite.

Something that really irks a lot of fans about the new Star Wars films is how Disney has restructured its canon. Now, I have never considered the Expanded Universe stories canon, and neither did Lucas, nor Lucasfilm before Papa George sold it to Disney. Certain elements outside of the movies were indeed considered canon....such as the Star Wars Radio Plays (which I love immensely), and a couple of the video games as well...The Force Unleashed, I do believe was granted canon status. When Disney bought LFL, they immediately started claiming Star Wars as absolutely their very own. They relegated the EU stories (comics, novels, reference materials) to "Legends" status, which solidifies their non-canon status. Disney LFL has been known to cherry pick from the Legends/EU stories though.... example: Grand Admiral Thrawn, Captaina Pellaeon, the star destroyer Chimaera, Rukh, the TIE Defender have been given canon status, as Timothy Zahn, the creator of those characters and other elements had been asked to write new stories for them in the Disney canon....and its probably the only stuff that even Disney LFL haters agree is worth reading/watching. (All of the above have also appeared in the canon animated series "Star Wars Rebels").

Disney LFL is engaged in some very insidious marketing when it comes to Star Wars. All the old Marvel and Dark Horse comics and the Expanded Universe novels and comics have been relegated to Legends status, as have The Force Unleashed games. New comics, video games, novels, and shows released under Disney are considered canon. However, what this has done is allowed the writers of the new Star Wars movies (well, the Sequels, anyway) to write very sloppily. Things that are possibly vague, or misunderstood in Eps VII or VIII can suddenly gain clarification if you buy this particular new comic or novel. The ONLY time that a movie's story point should even be clarified in another medium is with a novel tie-in of that film itself.... not in some loosely related side novel or comic. It is a plan that, while insidious, is also proving filled with pitfalls for Disney LFL as their new comics and novels are not selling very well. Disney knows that the fans want the Legacy characters, and direct continuations (or more stories from their heyday as heroes) as relate to them....and not some mysterious rise of an incompetent offshoot of the Empire (The First Order), or the less than compelling good guys like Poe Dameron, Rey, Finn, Rose Tico, etc. Therefore, Disney is now scrambling to try and push more OT/PT material, especially into their Sequel properties.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:51 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content and Graphics ©2000-Present Colonial Fleets