When it is darkest the light shines brighter

[jewels]

This is a cross post from scifi.com,
I think it has encouragement for the weary warriors among us.
KTF. We have many, many friends. They understand & they are talking. The word is going forth. --Jewels

Date: 05/30/2003
From: CaptainHornblower

Hello,

I am a regular at one or two of the other bboards here at scifi.com, especially the Farscape bboard. I am also a Battlestar Galactica fan, and I wanted to comment on the Galactica board about why I have a problem with the conception of this new Galactica miniseries.

I have read Ron Moore's letter at the site, and I have read several other scifi wire interviews with cast and production people from the show, defending the decision to reinvent the show in the way that they have. The following is why I take issue with their comments, and the new conception of Galactica.

1) Battlestar Galactica is a show that has a history to it. The new conception of the show ignores that history, and in fact sets out to re-write it. The original series showed the viewers the destruction of the colonies, Galactica's flight in the lead of its "rag tag fugitive fleet", who the main characters are. We have already seen 13 stories from this universe. The new show effectively says that the original stories, plots, situations, and characters, never existed as we have known them. It, instead, replaces this history with new stories, new characters, and new plots, that are similar to the original, but not the same. In essence, this new conception of Galactica ignores the show's legacy, and effetively says that the work of the original creators of the show does not matter.

2) The justification for having a female Starbuck is, basically, that people need to wake up and smell the 21rst Century, that women can do what men can do. But, there was already this element present in the original Galactica. There already is a female pilot in the Galactica universe, the character of Sheba. In fact, there was a whole squadron of female pilots in the second and third episodes of the series, one of them played by Jane Seymour. So, the arguement for a female Starbuck (that the old show somehow discriminated against women being female pilots) is not accurate.

3) Ron Moore's letter basically writes off the old show as being shallow, campy action, with no real deep plots or stories behind it. I would respectfully ask Mr. Moore if he has seen the original series. For an example-The so-called one-dimensional cylon villains-okay, they were mostly clunking robots. But, there was the mysterious Imperious Leader, who's voice was the same as that as the villain Count Ibli, and there was hinting at a reason for that. Even if the original series' story did not match modern standards or depth to drama, then why not continue the story from where it left off, or some time later, and add the depth to the new story. This does not mean you have to go back and retell the old story in the "new" way.

4) The effort to get Battlestar Galactica back on the air as a new television project has been a fan driven effort from the very beginning. The groundwork, the very reason for the existence of this new miniseries, is thanks to the work of such people as Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict, and other former Galactica cast members, and the thousands of fans who wanted to see Galactica reborn. But the people who did all of this work wanted to see the series reborn as part of the history started by the original series. It wanted to see a new series which acknowledged the contributions of the original. This news miniseries, as it has been conceived, ignores the wishes of the fans, ignores their work in getting the new series to become a reality, and ignores the intentions of the fan movement to get Galactica reborn in the first place.

5) Let's do some comparing. When Star Trek-the Next Generation was produced, did it ignore the original Star Trek as its history? No. It updated it, produced a new show with more depth and modern methodology in its storytelling. It acknowledged that there was a history behind the name Star Trek, it earned that name. With all due respect to Mr. Moore, and the producers, cast, and crew of the new Battlestar Galactica, this new miniseries does not deserve the name "Battlestar Galactica" because it has not earned it.

Conclusion:

I find it so disappointing that the REAL Battlestar Galactica will not be returning. Instead, a copy of it that ignores the history of the Galactica story will be aired, It might as well not be called Battlestar Galactica, because it will not be Battlestar Galactica in the eyes of the fans.

I do not want a Battlestar Galactica that basically brings back a 1970's style TV show. I recognize the fact that the new Galactica should be a modern series that uses modern storytelling. But I think the relationship between the old series and the new series should have been like that of a master and an apprentice. The apprentice learns from the master, builds up his/her own skills, is tested by the standards set by the master. Then, the apprentice goes forth as a master craftsman himself/herself, praticing the trade that they have been taught by their former master, and even employing and inventing new techniques to improve upon what their master had taught them. But, the former apprentice, now a master himself/herself, still pays homage to the old masters work, and would never seek to replace it or demean it. Alas, Mr. Moore and the producers of the new Galactica miniseries have been a poor apprentice to the original Battlestar Galactica, rather I would liken their actions as that of an apprentice being disrespectful to their master. They have thus brought shame down upon their project.

I predict that the old Galactica will live on as the classic it has already become, while alas, the wary new miniseries will air, be shamed, and will pass into oblivion soon after, only to be remembered as one of televisions great mistakes.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Ian K.
aka Captain Hornblower

[Senmut]

While I disagree that the storytelling of BSG needs updating, I find the rest of the article by Ian K. perfectly on target. This piece of trash will soon be forgotten. I only hope that it's wafting boquet of putrefaction does not make a REAL revival impossible. Let us take heart-Even the sinking of the Titanic did not stop ships from being built.

[LadyImmortal]

I actually agree with everything Ian K said.

I'm sure the storytelling could use a bit of updating - but when I was twelve, I can tell you I thought BG was practically perfect in everyway! =)

--Rhonda

[Krystal]

Great post , definitely points up for it.

Krystal