Reverse homage

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by julix

Explain yourself here...I am not sure I understand what you mean so clarify and give examples......

You need rockets to manuever, you can't see lasers in space, there's actually a reason for humanoid aliens...

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Mustex

I don't remember TOS Adama saying "SO SAY WE ALL!", did I miss it?

Mustex, reread the rest of what I wrote.

When I quoted Adama: " 'Life here began out there,' Those are the first words of the sacred scrolls, and they were told to us by the Lords of Kobol many countless centuries ago."

That is the excerpt from the speech I refer to as the "SO SAY WE ALL" speech.

That was one of the greatest nods I could find.

But we overlooked the greatest nod of all.


The look of the Viper Mk II which is ALMOST directly taken from the classic show.
With the exception of a couple of design elements.


Respectfully,
Martok2112

[martok2112]

*ahem ahem--cough hack wheeze*

Why ya crazy young whippasnappah! I says it does look almost like the ---cough-cough, hack-- original Vipah!

Wheeze!!!


Why if I wuz a few years youngah--

Ack!

THUD!

Martok the Mortalitized


(Now look and see what ye've done, Warrior, ya done got the old man riled up and dead.)

[peter noble]

If by some blessed miracle a continuation does happen, why would the original want to copy the copy?

Peter

P.S. "The Viper is the most advanced flying machine ever devised by man." – Captain Apollo (Richard Hatch)

[BST]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

What makes science fiction different, what has changed in human story telling is the direction we look in time. Rather than tell stories that take place in a magical past that never was, science fiction tells stories that take place in a magical future that just might be.

Ok, Io, I'll bite --

• "what has changed in human story telling is the direction we look in time"

Not sure if I understand this one, completely but, IMO, what has changed in human story telling is the seemingly incessant to go over the top in portraying human failings without giving due course to the opposing cases of humans rising above themselves. Also, the apparent need for "shock" footage, to somehow capture viewer interest. Case in point - in the ST episode, "Wink of an Eye", you see Kirk sitting on the edge of the bed, putting on his boots and the Scalosian woman (Deela, I think) combing her hair. With the mini-series, Moore chooses to go the next step and give play-by-play with Gaius and Number 6. In either scenario, was there any question as to what had just occurred?

Do we need this type of "sophisticated" storytelling or have we sunk to the level where we need to have everything explained to us, with illustrations.

• "Rather than tell stories that take place in a magical past that never was, science fiction tells stories that take place in a magical future that just might be."

Battlestar Galactica, TOS or Mini / New series, may not apply in either case. Neither show indicates whether it is a story about OUR past, OUR future, or for that matter, OUR present. When and if they would ever reach Earth would be at the hands of the show's creator / writer. In other words, whose to say whether either show failed to live up to that criterion?


With regards to Moore being a gifted writer, he may be. I just haven't seen much of it yet.

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by Mustex

Unfortunately TNS is running the same risk as "2001" of using real science, and possibly being ahead of it's time. Are the masses really ready to accept that space is silent, and you can't see lasers in it?

This was all done a lot better in Firefly, where you actually had NO sound in space whatsoever and spacecraft manouvered with thrusters and space was truly three dimensional.

One of the reasons why Zoic was hired to do the FX nuGalactica in the first place was because of the look and techniques they had developed for Firefly.

Peter

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by peter noble

If by some blessed miracle a continuation does happen, why would the original want to copy the copy?

Peter

P.S. "The Viper is the most advanced flying machine ever devised by man." – Captain Apollo (Richard Hatch)

Precisely my point, good sir.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Mustex

You need rockets to manuever, you can't see lasers in space, there's actually a reason for humanoid aliens...

It's okay to want to see what we would consider hard science...unlike Gemini1999, I am a died-in-the-wool tech-head, and I do like to know the details of how things work, even at my older-than-dirt age of 43. However, I also totally agree with him in saying that the technobable is all just window dressing. Whether you are watching From the Earth to the Moon, The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, Star Trek, or Farscape: The why and how of the technology (real or imagined) is just so much pretty scenery without a good story with engaging characters.


The other thing that I would like to point out that what is often meant by “hard”- or “smart” science fiction is really “understandable” science fiction. If sci-fi deals with something that we don’t understand, that doesn’t invalidate it, or make it "dumb". It just means that the creator of the sci-fi has decided that what he/she wants to occur will be hard science by the time the events of the story occur.

Case in point: Everyone knew that Trek’s warp drive was a dramatic device to get them around space quickly, and that it was something that could never be real (not “hard” science)…until a mathematician studying in Mexico City came up with the formula to create one. It is not achievable now, and may still never be…but it IS understandable, and thus now falls into the realm of “hard” science fiction.

Hard science fiction is also often based to closely on what we think we know to be scientific reality, only to find out later that the paradigm has shifted, rendering the story a quaint fable.

Case in point: We all know that War of the Worlds (the book, not the film) is relatively primitive sci-fi that science has proven could never have been the case. But when it was written it was based on what was considered hard science (Yes, it was considered very probable at that time that Mars was inhabited. The Edgar Rice Burroughs' series John Carter of Mars was also based on this idea.)

The more we learn about the nature of the universe and search for our theory of everything, the more we find out just how much we don’t know… To assume that we know what a people hundreds or thousands of years more advanced that we are will know of the universe is no less fantastical than suggesting that pigs will be creatures of flight at that time.


My 2 p

JJR

[Ioraptor]

Thanks, you hit it right on the head justjack....

However I do disagree with your assertion that flying pigs are fantastical.
I hunt them all the time...

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

Thanks, you hit it right on the head justjack....

However I do disagree with your assertion that flying pigs are fantastical.
I hunt them all the time...

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

Good one, Ioraptor.

Martok the Breathless

[Ioraptor]

Hello BST,
I was describing science fiction in a very broad sense. I have been eating copious amounts of chocolate and drinking tea which puts me in an expansive mood.

My point was that science fiction is a new kind of story telling. A paradigm shift in the tradition of entertaining fables, moral tales, cautionary instruction or 'whatever'. If you look at story telling traditions that come before industrialization you see over and over again tales that refer to a distant past. The trappings of these tales are pseudo historical and or magical. Gods work their will, magical fate intervenes and the trappings and implications of industrial technology are not present.

At some point this changed. Stories inspired by the new technologies were set in future times. When you think of the expanse of time that humans had been telling each other stories about mythical pasts (5,000 years that we know, 500,000 years possibly, more?) this is a profound change. As profound a change in our behavior as industrialization itself. We are projecting our myths into the future now.
What it all ultimately means who can say?
So I was talking in broad historical terms in order to frame my argument concerning Battlestar Galactica. There has never been a time when stories were not reinvented and transformed by the needs and desires of the people who tell them (and the people who listen to them). If a story fails to be 'reimagined' it had no value in the first place and dies a meme death.

A conflict has risen concerning the evolution of the Battlestar Galactica tale. What some would wish to see, others find shocking or lacking entertainment value. If enough people are disturbed by this transformation, if they find the content vulgar or the action dull then that story version will end for lack of interest.
The new writer is man who has sold stories and earned the attention of an audience who enjoys his work. He is a business man and his business is telling stories. He is a doer. Not a talker, a person like myself who posts on bulletin boards. I firmly believe that the person who can create, put a story foward in the media of television or film, should have more say in the matter of his creation than critics. After the work is done, the audience will decide if the story telling was a success. They will watch it or not as it pleases them.
I will be watching it.


Your example of 'showing everything' versus 'suggesting everything' suggests two seperate issues to me. Distaste at the visual portrayal of a sex act and dissappointment that so little is left to the imagination in film and television today.

I agree that too little is left to the imagination in film today. Writers and directors seem drunk on the new visual effects and hell bent to paint pictures where our imaginations can do it better. But where sex acts are visually portrayed in nuGalactica there is one scene that is 'suggested', that is powerful and evokes intense discussion.
The killing of the child.
That is a scene that is only suggested, we never see the act. But our imaginations invest it with horror. Its an example of storytelling by suggestion and it serves the purpose it was meant to serve. The Cylon evil becomes personal, a blow to the face, something horrible and beyond redemption.
And all we see is the face of #6 and all we hear is a faint crunching sound.
Scary isnt it?
That scene is also the single greatest departure from TOS, it introduces a horror element that never existed in the original.

There are other example of suggestion rather than showing in nuGalactica, some of which can be attributed to budget constraints, other to the intention of its creator. All in all I think it turned out rather well.

Then there is the sex. Our nation is in a culture war of sorts. Many find sex shocking or offensive, immoral outside of marriage or for any other purpose than procreation. Others see it as nothing more than a joyful act between consenting adults. It does not disturb them to view it, it is not shocking.
The sex in TNS serves a purpose. We see that Baltar is a shallow man who is easily led into evil through his desire. Its a cautionary example for the viewers.
With the Tyrol and Boomer we see young love and its hardly graphic. It doesnt go beyond what you could see in a soap opera twenty years ago.
We should admit to ourselve that young love often begins with physical attraction and proceeds to other levels and different ends in time.

Ah felgercarb, gotta go unload groceries.......
Well if you had the patience to read through all that yackity yack you can see where I'm going......

Gotta sign off now, bye..................

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Warrior

Hate to break it to ya, but yer younger than I am

(rises from the dead...)

Cough--hack--wheeze-- why, if I was just a little older.....awww, heck!


(goes back to the coffin)



Irreverently,
Martok2112


P.S. Well stated, Ioraptor...especially this part....

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

Then there is the sex. Our nation is in a culture war of sorts. Many find sex shocking or offensive, immoral outside of marriage or for any other purpose than procreation. Others see it as nothing more than a joyful act between consenting adults. It does not disturb them to view it, it is not shocking.
The sex in TNS serves a purpose. We see that Baltar is a shallow man who is easily led into evil through his desire. Its a cautionary example for the viewers.
With the Tyrol and Boomer we see young love and its hardly graphic. It doesnt go beyond what you could see in a soap opera twenty years ago.
We should admit to ourselve that young love often begins with physical attraction and proceeds to other levels and different ends in time.

[thomas7g]

I think its near pointless to argue bring offended at seeing more sexual content in Battlestar Galactica 2004. I mean we sound like prudes at times. Prudes that are outdated with the times. The whole dang programming schedule is ALOT sexier nowadays. There is ALOT of sex on tv that none of us complain about.

BUT YES. This new show does go past the bounds of what is good taste and into the offensive. The cybervirtualsex scene mostly. And the sex with Baltar earlier was a little bit too much with a long extended scene of 6's naked backside bouncing on his dick. Not that sex scenes shouldn't happen. But the extent shown is gratuitous for a show we expect alot of young kids to watch.

But that is really a tired discussion we seem to repeat over and over. Things we don't like about the new show.

Back on topic (homages)

I think alot of people don't want ANYTHING at all from BG4 in the revival. The new show is a bastard son best forgotten for them. But I stand by my view that you can have fun with it. That Hatch and those guys can include scenes that play off the fact that there is a new director. Like Kirk saying to Spock in the second movie "Aren't you dead?"

Of course there is no reason at all to pay homage to the new show. For the new show really didn't pay homage to the old show. It was more like it pillaged the old series and took what it wanted. Anytime it used the old show was to booster itself. Though every show and business has a selfinterest going.

But for me, there comes a time that you have to get over the pain. And get over the injustices and things people did to you. If I didn't believe in that, I would have to focus my life on hating most of our own fanbase cause I've been screwed, raked over the coals, and betrayed ALOT OVER AND OVER and rarely did I get an apology. Cause everyone is always right in their own heads and or seek martyrdom. But ya got to put it in the past and just laugh at the stupidity of those times. Cause frankly you live in the same universe. You can either choose to continue a conflict without end. Or you can run. Or you can put it behind you and hopefully make it a source of laughter instead of pain.

That's why I mentioned I would like to see a scene or two where they make harmless jest about the Moore show. Or include references.

Humor is good for the soul. And good for a fanbase that REALLY needs to heal.

[thomas7g]

Why does it have to earn it?

[thomas7g]

[martok2112]

I guess some heads were gonna roll sooner or later.

Irreverently,
Martok2112

[thomas7g]

Yup and Yup!

[Sept17th]

I found the "homages" to TOS in the mini-series insulting and reminded me of what I was getting after 25 years.

Let each vision go its own seperate way, "So say we all"?

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Sept17th

Let each vision go its own seperate way, "So say we all"?

"So say we all!"

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by peter noble

This was all done a lot better in Firefly, where you actually had NO sound in space whatsoever and spacecraft manouvered with thrusters and space was truly three dimensional.

One of the reasons why Zoic was hired to do the FX nuGalactica in the first place was because of the look and techniques they had developed for Firefly.

Peter

I had never seen "Firefly". I'll have to check it out now.

[Mustex]

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

It's okay to want to see what we would consider hard science...unlike Gemini1999, I am a died-in-the-wool tech-head, and I do like to know the details of how things work, even at my older-than-dirt age of 43. However, I also totally agree with him in saying that the technobable is all just window dressing. Whether you are watching From the Earth to the Moon, The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, Star Trek, or Farscape: The why and how of the technology (real or imagined) is just so much pretty scenery without a good story with engaging characters.


The other thing that I would like to point out that what is often meant by “hard”- or “smart” science fiction is really “understandable” science fiction. If sci-fi deals with something that we don’t understand, that doesn’t invalidate it, or make it "dumb". It just means that the creator of the sci-fi has decided that what he/she wants to occur will be hard science by the time the events of the story occur.

Case in point: Everyone knew that Trek’s warp drive was a dramatic device to get them around space quickly, and that it was something that could never be real (not “hard” science)…until a mathematician studying in Mexico City came up with the formula to create one. It is not achievable now, and may still never be…but it IS understandable, and thus now falls into the realm of “hard” science fiction.

Hard science fiction is also often based to closely on what we think we know to be scientific reality, only to find out later that the paradigm has shifted, rendering the story a quaint fable.

Case in point: We all know that War of the Worlds (the book, not the film) is relatively primitive sci-fi that science has proven could never have been the case. But when it was written it was based on what was considered hard science (Yes, it was considered very probable at that time that Mars was inhabited. The Edgar Rice Burroughs' series John Carter of Mars was also based on this idea.)

The more we learn about the nature of the universe and search for our theory of everything, the more we find out just how much we don’t know… To assume that we know what a people hundreds or thousands of years more advanced that we are will know of the universe is no less fantastical than suggesting that pigs will be creatures of flight at that time.


My 2 p

JJR

Would people in the future have any REASON to make sound in space, even if they could?

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by Mustex

Would people in the future have any REASON to make sound in space, even if they could?

Why does something that may happen have to be made to happen? Perhaps what we are seeing/hearing is a consequence of the circumstances we are viewing, or perhaps even OF our viewing.

If we, the viewer are actually sitting in a place where we can view the action, then we are likely utilizing the same technologies. Perhaps tylinium generates sympathetic vibrations when subjected to various EM waveforms, such as those that might be generated by the collapse of the intense gravimagnetic containment field of a population inversion-created electron bolt (the exploding laser blast outside a cockpit). We, sitting in a nice cozy tylinium bubble would then hear the waves created by these vibrations...sound.

However, in most cases in TOS (or just about any other show I can think of), the POV of the external shots is usually what I like to call the God Camera – a dramatic device that is a third-person objective viewpoint removed from what is happening, giving the viewer more information about what is going on than someone there would have. Since we are seeing the action as God sees it, maybe we are hearing it as God hears it.

JJR

[justjackrandom]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

Why does it have to earn it?

Besides being because Warrior says so, homage (as I think it is being defined by Warrior) is given as a sign of respect. Respect for any entertainment property is earned by its quality, among other things. I think Warrior is saying that it is the respect that must be earned.

I know a number of folks out there will disagree with me on this one, but I do feel that TNS paid tribute and respect to TOS with the inclusion of a number of elements. There were things they had to take from TOS in order to make it BSG (“Life here began out there” is a premise necessary to make it BSG), but there were also a number of things TNS did that they did NOT have to do dramatically, but did solely out of tribute, i.e. as a homage. This included Zoic’s use of the original Rag-Tag fleet designs for a number of the new ships (Zoic also put a signature piece in by showing a Firefly in the Caprica scenes), the use of the classic Cylon design as what they used to look like, as well as the raiders, base stars, and almost everything else seen in the museum, and the use of the original music in the decommissioning ceremony.

Maybe not everyone involved with TNS gave a rat’s behind about TOS, but a number of them did, and gave tips of the hat where they could.

My 2p

JJR

We already see a large amount of homage to TOS in Moore's version. Unfortunately if you don't like what Moore did in general it offends you. I doubt that was Moore's intent. Of the recent scifi remakes or novel based stories I actually think Moore's Battlestar Galactica stayed truer to its source than many others out there. Compared to Planet of the Apes, Lost in Space, and Starship Troopers the new Battlestar is easily the winner in the "true to its source" category. If you look at the description of upcoming episodes we see a lot more homage coming. At least one episodes is even named the same as a TOS episode.

Whether we like it or not the destinies of both versions are linked in the business realm. Moore's version is not a parasite but a compliment (in economic terms). The timing of bringing the TOS DVD box set to market was meant to both help and ride the publicity and release of the mini. TOS is helping the new series and the new series is reviving interest in TOS. It's a two way streak. Look at the increased traffic on TOS based web sites. When the series starts the purist will have a whole new audience of people to educate for the Continuation effort. I bet reruns of TOS will do better on scifi once the new series is airing episodes also. In the future with more episodes I bet it will be easier to sell and franchise TOS and the new series as a package deal. Battlestar Galactica as a franchise has been on life support for some time. Whether you like it or not the publicity of Moore and the scifi effort is the best hope for a future of either Battlestar version.

[Dawg]

They are linked only by name.

They are two different shows.

The "homage" moments were and are attempts to link the two shows - and because they are such vastly different shows, those of us who prefer the 1978 BSG find these attempted links to be another in a long string of slaps in the face that began when Sci-Fi hijacked the production out from under DeSanto.

Like it or not, the fate of the former is not linked to the latter.

Like it or not, some of us continue to believe TNS is not BSG. Never was and never will be.

Like it or not, some of us are disgusted with the fact the producers of TNS are trying to overwrite TOS with their version.

Like it or not, some of us believe that a continuation movie can (and will) happen without reference one made to TNS. And there should be none - TOS came first and without it - and the fans that kept it alive for 25 years, the people this production ignored - TNS could not have happened. COULD NOT have happened.

Like it or not, some of us are already sick and tired of these new argument buzz-words: "like it or not". Like it or not, some of us won't be convinced that TNS is better than sex, so like it or not you're going to have to knock off the like it or not comments.

Have a nice day.



I am
Dawg

Originally Posted by Dawg

They are linked only by name.

Unfortunately as a business they are linked by more than just name as we see time and again by various business issues that arise in reference to TOS, SCIFI, Larson, Universal and the continuation effort.

They are two different shows.

They certainly are although as the credits say they are based on the same thing.

The "homage" moments were and are attempts to link the two shows - and because they are such vastly different shows, those of us who prefer the 1978 BSG find these attempted links to be another in a long string of slaps in the face that began when Sci-Fi hijacked the production out from under DeSanto.

I think the word hijacked would objectively be called "bought", "purchased", or were "sold". It's a business not the bible.

Like it or not, the fate of the former is not linked to the latter.

That's an opinion I highly doubt the actual owners share.

Like it or not, some of us continue to believe TNS is not BSG. Never was and never will be.

I agree TNS is not the same as TOS. Although TNS is inspired by TOS.

Like it or not, some of us are disgusted with the fact the producers of TNS are trying to overwrite TOS with their version.

Since TOS can not be destroyed or overwritten and is in fact playing on SCIFI this very day and available at Netflix and for purchase as a box set I wouldn't worry about this ever happening. TOS will be here in its original form so long as America remains a society with DVDs and its future incarnations.

Like it or not, some of us believe that a continuation movie can

I agree with you there 100%!

(and will)

I wouldn't bet on that in Vegas.

happen without reference one made to TNS. And there should be none - TOS came first and without it - and the fans that kept it alive for 25 years, the people this production ignored - TNS could not have happened. COULD NOT have happened.

Like it or not, some of us are already sick and tired of these new argument buzz-words: "like it or not". Like it or not, some of us won't be convinced that TNS is better than sex, so like it or not you're going to have to knock off the like it or not comments.

Like it or not the future of the two are most likely linked. That is business reality. Whether that is a good thing or bad thing depends on what you think that likeage means. Many think a successful TNS means a TOS Continuation is more likely. I don't subscribe to that thought but it is a compelling opinion I hope is right.

Have a nice day.

Thanks, I hope you have a nice day also.



I am
Dawg

[thomas7g]

Originally Posted by Antelope

Whether we like it or not the destinies of both versions are linked in the business realm.

No.

They aren't linked anymore. Not really. They are more like Richard Hatch and the other Richard Hatch from Survivor.

Fans relate the two together. So does the public. But business sees these as two entirely separate shows. Though oddly, legally miniseries is the same property as the DeSAnto project.

Also note, that there is a difference between the miniseries and the 2004 series in the business world.

Legality and business does not think in the same terms as the public or fans.

When I say they are linked I mean they are linked in the same way that the various books, toys, and other Battlestar items are all linked. One feeds off the other. Interest in one supports the interest in the other.

Legally there is linkage also as you (Thomas) point out. Everything derives from Larson. Larson in turn sold certain rights to various people. How these people expand or use the rights they bought depends on them. That they all derive from a common legal source is not in dispute. Larson is indirectly responsible for the mini and the new series because he sold his concept to Universal who in turn did what they did.

As the new series comes out depending on how well it does it may spurn a resurgence in TOS related areas. For example it may increase DVD sales. It may result in better time slots and more viewers for reruns of TOS. It may increase Hatch book sales. It may mean TOS actors sell more photos at scifi conventions. It may mean TOS merchandise may increase in value when sold on ebay. Maybe, just maybe, it may help create momentum for a TOS continuation.

They are definitely "linked" that doesn't mean they are twins. Two brothers are two separate people plying their separate lives but they are linked to a family that may or may not lend a hand or one may stand in the shadow of the others success.

[BST]

Originally Posted by antelope526

That's an opinion I highly doubt the actual owners share.

Lest we forget the ownership issue --

Universal owns the TV rights to Battlestar Galactica;

Larson owns the Theater based, i.e., movie rights to Battlestar Galactica.


Universal has absolutely NO influence whatsoever in any theater-based production of Battlestar Galactica. Period.

[BST]

While we are sitting here debating the various merits of being scientifically "true to source", let's step back and take a deep breath.

Have we forgotten entertainment?

Which makes a larger impact on your entertainment meter --

the scientifically correct "no sound in space" ?

OR

the earth shattering, blast you out of your seat explosion of a base ship, battlestar, viper or raider?

While we go around espousing the theoretical merits of Newton, Einstein, Asimov, etal, do we forget the primary reason for watching the show

ENTERTAINMENT!!