Battlestar Galactica to the Big Screen?

Originally Posted by BST

No.

Languatron's real name is Andrew Fullen.

He's so famous that he even has his own page on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...=andrew+fullen

He's nuts! Plain, unsalted, non-roasted nuts!

He also has his own blog now. And he's watching...

http://languatron1.blogspot.com/2011...es-thread.html

[Apolloisall]

Uhhh, I thought Senmut killed this conversation... why is it still going on?

[BST]

Originally Posted by jjrakman

He also has his own blog now. And he's watching...

http://languatron1.blogspot.com/2011...es-thread.html

Kinda gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, eh?

[137th Gebirg]

Wow, Senmut!! You just got your 15 minutes of fame on Langy's blog. Do you feel special yet?

And Russ! Shame on you for being a sock puppet for the Vast Universal Conspiracy! SHOCKING! SHOCKING, I SAY!!

I'm now waiting for Languatron to discover my own PERSONAL MASONIC CONSPIRACY to MERGE TOS BSG, NuBSG and STAR TREK into one huge FANWANK CROSSOVER!

Hey Languatron!



[TwoBrainedCylon]

They say that the only constant in life is change -- but I'd submit that its change and Andrew Fullen.

What a sorry bastard.

However, he does occasionally note some good points and the question he cites was one that I've been kicking around in my head since it was first asked. I started to post an answer twice but didn't like any of my responses. Perhaps the 3rd time will be the charm.

What makes Universal and company shy away from the core of Battlestar Galactica?

Its a hard question because its diffictult to get four of its fans to agree on the substance. I'd submit its the ancient astronaut themes, the basic Exodus story, and a never-ending war against alien machines. The trappings are the space fighters and "warrior" society. All of this is wrapped around what I would call a politically Conservative framework.

Conservative themes aren't honored in Hollywood anymore. The Exodus storyline brings along some religiously Conservative ideas that I think twist the jaws of some of the Hollywood crowd. Think of the basic theme of "War of the Gods" and imagine pitching that script to the anti-Christian crowd that runs much of the media these days.

The ancient astronaut themes don't have the charm they once did. A space society looking for Earth was wonderful in the 70s but its a one-trick pony that has already died. Both now have the tone of "Been there, done that". In 1978, all of this was new. Since then, there's been tons of movies and television series that have exploited the same ideas.

We've also seen a lot of space battles and cool special effects since 1978.

So, the strength is in the characters and when you look at them, the characters are the anti-thesis of what's popular in Hollywood these days. They're good and fine people, -- all mutually supportive of each other, and all following good morality and a strong code of honor.

I would personally love to see this set of characters developed further but I doubt few in Hollywood could do it, -- although I could see it happening. The characters in Jericho were a great example of how to portray honorable people in difficult circumstances. Sarah Conner had folks of a darker edge but still compelling. My wife has gotten me to watch some Storybook series which also has characters of the same genre, -- and has them done well, but it seems all too rare that characters are developed as I've seen in these shows, -- Firefly notwishtanding.

Unfortunately, I think that the folks who could do the characters justice aren't interested in reviving an old 1970s series and the folks who are interested in the series only want to exploit its name and turn it into something it was never meant to be.

So, I don't think anyone is scared of the property, -- I just think its a big gulf between marrying up the people who could do it right with the folks who could make it happen.

This is made worse in that too many who look back at Galactica see silver metal cowboy hats, kids riding unicorns, and 70s camp comedy elements rather than the base tale that made the series special.

I've also come to think that those who say you could never tell the Galactica story in a 2-hour movie are probably right, -- at least not the way its been presented before.

OK, I admit, the 3rd time wasn't the charm but perhaps someone else can answer the question better.

(I wonder if I could take all of Lang's writings labeling me as a stealth marketer and send a bill to Universal for unpaid salary).

All my best,


Russell

[Lara]

Originally Posted by jjrakman

He also has his own blog now. And he's watching...

http://languatron1.blogspot.com/2011...es-thread.html

Ta, JJ

Blogs are technology made for individuals like Langy. His audience can find him all concentrated in one dose..

Cheers,
Lara
(a feckless fleets follower??)

[Punisher454]

You hit it right on the head, the original story is just plain too conservative for Hollywood.
As for the characters, I will have to partially agree with many critics of the original show that they are a little one dimensional, but thats more due to a simpler time in tv writing. Jericho's characters are a perfect example of how I think you could write BSG's characters giving them more depth and believability. The Sarah Connor Chronicles characters also appealed to me in a similar way.
Is it any co-incidence that Jericho, TSCC and Firefly all had characters and themes that were fairly conservative and the studios just couldnt cancel them quick enough once they realized what the core themes were? While at the same time left leaning Star Trek TNG,DS9,and Voyager just seemed to go on, and on and on... Enterprise was slightly more conservative and hence had a shorter run.

Liberal writers just dont get conservative characters. I think they like to start piling on the flaws and mental problems untill they start to match something more like themselvs in attempt for believability. What they fail to realize is that in real life there are plenty of good brave people that are not riddled with character flaws that will go all they way to the end staring death right in the face and not flinch. Those writers dont understand these people and are probably intimidated by them, which is probably why you see characters like that portrayed as complete heartless A-holes or nutjobs.

[Gemini1999]

*Sigh*

I'm starting to hate this thread...

[TwoBrainedCylon]

The underlying theme of Jericho was overwhlemingly Liberal.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
MOVE ONTO NEXT POST TO AVOID SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Recall that Jericho was about the vast right wing conspiracy breaking out of control. The George Bush cronie-stand ins started a limited nuclear war to seize total power and overthrow the United States. The premise was hard-line anti-Conservative. Ironically, its just when they revealed this plot that the ratings tanked. Some of the key actors quit when they read the scripts as well so even for Hollywood it was a bit overboard.

I cite Jericho because the characterization in the series was perhaps the very best I've ever seen. It was a marvelously crafted series if you looked at it strictly on the basis of the relationships. It also showed how honorable people should be expected to behave in a crisis.

Firefly is probably a better match for a newer Galactica production as the theme and tone are much closer to what I think would be needed to work the story. Overall, it was a much more fun series but because of that, the characters were a bit more shallow, although not to the one-dimensional Star Trek standards.

As you noted, the original Galactica was a product of its time. Compared to the other series on the air, it was pretty hard-core. Recall, this was an age of Mork and Mindy. Space adventures were still being represented by Lost in Space, the original Trek, and Space 1999. They were entertaining shows but each had as many downright childish storylines as good ones. Given this era, I still think Galactia was about as hardcore as you might expect. That's why I'd expect an update to be fairly intense, although my expectations have always been off.

All my best,


Russell

[Apolloisall]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

*Sigh*

I'm starting to hate this thread...

Yeah, I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Help, "Stop dragging things down to your own level son, it's immature."

Seriously though, I don't think politics really enters in to the whole thing as neatly as all that. And I never saw Galactica as "Conservative" anyway. I always saw it as simply a show about people in ridiculously tough times surviving. Though I will agree that all the whiny, flawed character stuff is WAAAY overboard these days, ESPECIALLY in GINO (to name one).

BTW, does anyone here remember Kirk in A Private Little War? Let's drop the whole notion of political polarization from good or interesting storytelling, shall we?

[TwoBrainedCylon]

Really???

I'd consider the original Galactica to be strongly Conservative. Its underlying themes were "Peace through Strength", trust in God because he cares for you and will ultimately look after you, and the best solution to dealing with an adversary is to blast them out of existence. The society was one that was very structured and resisted change. Also, it was framed by the Exodus storyline.

It fit within the social context of the time.

Your Private Little War reference is a good example. Recall that Trek struggled in its ratings and was always being hounded by the network. For its time it was fairly Liberal (overall) and met with a lot of resistance because of that. "Private Little War" (which is an outstanding episode BTW) was a Viet Nam protest story.

Trek only really came into its own when the social context changed. It had the benefit of existing in a time when studios networks would throw money at films and series that might have promise and let them develop. Now, media has to perform almost from the first instant or its toast. The criteria is very different.

I know many don't like the political observations but I believe they have a far stronger influence than most seem to recognize. Recall that GINO got Bonnie's attention primarily because Ron said he was going to have a female president (like Hillary). It was the Liberal aspects that opened the door and the badly masked anti-Bush elements that garnered its praise. Everyone has their own opinions as to how it all played out but for GINO, it was the political aspects that the network saw as the "interesting storytelling".

When answering the question, why do the networks and studio seem to avoid the original Galactica format, my view is that the political and social aspects have a strong influence, although not as strong as the audience projections. Naturally, any series will have elements of a myriad of viewpoints and beliefs but I think the overwhleming theme has a big impact on what is funded and what is supported.

Its my belief that Hollywood currently strongly supports Liberal concepts. Its also my belief that this is the reverse of the situation that existed in the 1970s.

I still welcome other folk's opinions as to why the studio and networks shy from the original series format.

I suspect its related to the same reason that the Sci-Fi Channel renamed itself and no longer wants to show science fiction.

All my best,


Russell

[Apolloisall]

Originally Posted by TwoBrainedCylon

Really???

I'd consider the original Galactica to be strongly Conservative. Its underlying themes were "Peace through Strength",

In Junior High I was bullied quite a bit (being a Trek geek as I was), so I saw Enter The Dragon, took martial arts lessons & beat the felgercarb out of my tormentors a few times, then went through my remaining public school years very peacefully. That's not "Conservative", that's real life.

trust in God because he cares for you and will ultimately look after you,

Nah, the people did what they did to survive with no real Godly help, save for the Ship of Lights restricting what a crazy alien was trying to do to the fleet. That's just SF IMO.

and the best solution to dealing with an adversary is to blast them out of existence.

When dealing with machines, there is little more you can do.

The society was one that was very structured and resisted change.

And THAT seems true of all societies to me.
Look, some enemies you can make into friends, some enemies you have to make into hamburger; this whole notion of THIS way or THAT way is completely antithetical to how real life works. Bruce Lee would agree with me.

[TwoBrainedCylon]

Apolloisall,

All true but (at least in the USA) when you use the phrase "Conservative" and "Liberal" they have certain defined aspects to them. These remain regardless of what flavor you personally prefer and are sometimes linked to Presidents.

Peace through Strength is considered Conservative (IMO) as it was a keypoint of Reagan. Liberals fought hard against the military buildup and arms race, claiming it was going to lead to everyone's destruction. That was the original slant in GINO (we caused our own downfall/We're responsible for bringing the War on Terror upon ourselves) until Ron either changed it or simply lost his way. In the original, it was the lack of military strength that caused the Colonies to be wiped out.

To me, the "Trust in God" elements were obvious from Adama's speech where he declared "Let the Word Go Forth". It amplified in Lost Planet of the Gods. In the original, God wasn't manipulating everything but he cared for those who showed faith in him. He also bound the supernatural beings to certain codes that duplicated the Bible. GINO was all over the map but the overarching aspects were that God was manipulative, cruel, and didn't want man to progress to the point of making "thinking machines". At best, you could associate this with the Tower of Babel storyline but the rest seemed to parallel a New Age/anti-Christian theme. Ron's comments in his podcasts concurred with this. Typically, anti-Christian themes spring from Liberal circles and pro-Christian themes from Conservative ones.

Further, its not a given that you just blast machines. Hollywood has usually done the opposite since its political landscape shifted. Recall the Borg became a misunderstood menace that should be pittied rather than killed outright. Even the Terminators, who couldn't be reasoned with or negotiated with, became conversationalists. GINO's Cylons were lost children who just wanted to be loved. In the end, they teamed up with the humans against a single evil leader who manipulated the rest. Recall, he entered the scene as a priest. (No small hints there). Winning over the hearts and minds of the enemy has long been the mindset I've seen pushed by Hollywood, regardless of the Franchise. I can't recall any Sci]i-Fi enemy that gets repeated screen time that doesn't eventually become at least the moral equal of the main characters.

Lastly, all societies embrace change but the structure of the original was very stiff. It was a class system in which "warriors" were the elite. Everyone had their defined structure and there was no emphasis that any of it should or would change, even after the destruction of everything. This doesn't have any influence as to whether or not a project would be funded so its a sidebar topic but its one of the reasons I see the original as embracing a Conservative premise -- at least in the manner the term is generally described.

EDIT: FWIW - you just scored big points with me as a fellow Bruce Lee fan!

All my best,


Russell

[Apolloisall]

Originally Posted by TwoBrainedCylon

In the original, it was the lack of military strength that caused the Colonies to be wiped out.

Whoah there, what?
It was a weary wussy President & an evil self-serving count that did that- the military might of the Fleet was able to defend the Colonies, clearly.
For a thousand years, err, yahrens... whatever.

[peter noble]

Originally Posted by Lara

Ta, JJ

Blogs are technology made for individuals like Langy. His audience can find him all concentrated in one dose..

Cheers,
Lara
(a feckless fleets follower??)

Langy's such a fan of the show that he didn't even buy the DVD set!

The guy's a complete loon and still owes RGrant $50!

[TwoBrainedCylon]

Originally Posted by Apolloisall

Whoah there, what?
It was a weary wussy President & an evil self-serving count that did that- the military might of the Fleet was able to defend the Colonies, clearly.
For a thousand years, err, yahrens... whatever.

On second thought, its likely not the best example. I based my perspective in part on Apollo's speech in "Experiment in Terra". Since the original was a replay of the Pearl Harbor attack and referenced the US treaty negotiations with Japan at the same time they were enacting a sneak-attack, its probably unfair to link that to anything other than a historic reference.

All my best,


Russell

[Punisher454]

Russell,
I totally agree with everything you just wrote, except for Jericho. I always got a feeling of a right leaning ideology in that show. But I guess I was looking at it from the viewpoint of the towns people rather than examining the premise of the initial destruction. Jericho had to fend for themselves to survive rather than depend on the government.
Although now that I think about there was the whole corrupt/greedy corporation theme which tends to be a liberal battle cry. As well as the idea that terrorists get falsely blamed for things that "The Man" was really behind. So perhaps Jericho was a poor choice of an example of a conservative themed show, but I still hold with what I said about the portrayal of the main characters. Self reliance and peace through strength were painted in a positive light.

[TwoBrainedCylon]

Punisher,

For Jericho, I thought the characters themselves were politically neutral. In many ways, that was the beauty of them. Except for the main character's occasional rants about "the horrors of Iraq", the rest pretty well followed strong with the story. As noted, I thought they were extremely well written. It was a real shame the rest of the premise was such a pile of trash and dumped with such a heavy-handed political overtone.

As for how they compare to the original Galactica series, ... one can only guess. The original series had fairly shallow characters due to the format. Dirk shared some of Starbuck under Tom DeSanto's vision and it sounded pretty good to me. Starbuck was an aging man who regretted the earlier whiscial way he handled most things and the casual way he treated Cassie. She married someone else and he was now lonely for the life he never had.

Richard told me that he found part of the Apollo of Borg concept interesting because the character had a lot of running room to develop. The initial introduction was going to be a strong jolt to everyone but he liked the idea of being a leader who wasn't fully trusted anymore. Starbuck and Apollo's friendship were strained because Apollo was now effectively the equal of a recovering vampire. He saw the first year of the continuation series as one in which the audience wasn't sure if he was a hero or strong danger. He thought it was a good setup for a strong redemption scenario.

Again, I wish Tom would release the rest of the material as to what they planned. I've gotten more enjoyment and come closer to the real Galactica from Tom's concept ideas than any other development since 1979.

All my best,


Russell

[BST]

As I recall, Adama felt that the downfall of the Colonies was hastened by their embrace of "largesse" and complacency. He gave an example of that while speaking with Apollo, I think, when he mentioned that (Sire) Uri was "one of the best" but, to look at him now, one wouldn't think that.

I agree with the remark about the "class" structure of Colonial society. It reminded me, a bit, of the Roman Empire. Everything swirled around the military. Everyone else was second-tier, at best.

[Titon]

Richard told me that he found part of the Apollo of Borg concept interesting because the character had a lot of running room to develop. The initial introduction was going to be a strong jolt to everyone but he liked the idea of being a leader who wasn't fully trusted anymore. Starbuck and Apollo's friendship were strained because Apollo was now effectively the equal of a recovering vampire. He saw the first year of the continuation series as one in which the audience wasn't sure if he was a hero or strong danger. He thought it was a good setup for a strong redemption scenario.

Interesting. From what i heard in the background Richard was less than cheery about this premis. In fact in some regards talking with Tom himself Richard through a lot of monkey wrenches there way and would not committ to the character if Apollo was not commander of the fleet. It would be interesting to find out who was actually telling the truth about this scenario.

It still amazes me that hollywood cannot wrap it's mind around the TOS concept of Galactica. Although i agree that the original version was highly conservative. Family oriented tv is hard to find anywhere today. In essance i find myself going back to watch the past instead of looking into the future. The only show that has caught my attention is Terra Nova which is supposedly on the fence at the moment. The parallels of pretty astounding if you think of it. Extremely expensive to produce but has pretty good ratings. Although it is on FOX and they kill off original programming like there is no tomorrow.

Like i have stated before Galactica should be left alone. Quite frankly it has been alive for years in the folks i've been lucky enough to meet and greet....

[Apolloisall]

Originally Posted by Titon

i agree that the original version was highly conservative.

There's that word again... it confounds me. My Liberal friends say I go too Conservative, my Conservative friends say I'm a Liberal-

How about this view- the oppressive Colonial Regime, with its rigid social values & unbreakable & unquestionable military-based chain of command led to the destruction of the Colonies, and, in the pilot, only Apollo & Starbuck's stepping outside of that chain with Purple & Orange Squadrons saved what was left; therefore TOS Galactica was a cautionary tale of the dangers of the inevitable downfall of us all due to Conservative control of not only society, but it's inconclusively initiated military response (and lack of viable alternative solutions) to perceived and/or misjudged real and/or unreal aggression.

What a Lefty show that actually was.... I'm gonna burn my costume, my lasers, my Galactica, all my Vipers, my Joyride Cylon & Viper, my landing bay diorama, my Raider, my Son's Basestar, all my Galactica comics, books & photo novels....

[peter noble]

I think the general consensus has always been that the show was 'conservative'.

The only way the Cylons got the upper hand is though the human factor, which was Baltar's treachery.

Sure the Colonials were tired of fighting the war but every indication was that they could have gone on except Baltar's political and military influence got them to drop their guard and the Cylons were able to get through to the homeworld defences because Baltar's operatives had infiltrated them and taken them down (Murder on the Rising Star).

[BST]

Originally Posted by Apolloisall

There's that word again... it confounds me. My Liberal friends say I go too Conservative, my Conservative friends say I'm a Liberal-

They're both F.O.S.

You're a moderate.

[Apolloisall]

Originally Posted by BST

They're both F.O.S.

You're a moderate.

THANK YOU!!!


And honestly, back on topic, I think this (Galactica TOS) is too complex to do again. GINO was all over the place with "Conservative" snipes, "Liberal" snipes- it was an equal opportunity offender, as well as becoming a "shock-reveal-of-the-week" show. And as such it was something I cannot and would not share with my Son or Wife. It was trying so hard to "blow us away" that it left the characters in an amorphous limbo to be plucked out & used as the story saw fit. And that's the rule of thumb today. Solid, unflinching characterization is a thing of the past, and probably why Serenity has no sequel. If the moral compass doesn't spin like a top, short attention spans from today's multitasking, endlessly online texting site-jumpers get bored.

Face it; we are relics. We want stories with characters. Just look at Iron Man 2. Tony Stark is a totally good guy by now, but they still have to get him drunk and "edgy" to make the movie work (I admit to liking it anyway though).
I'm so sick of "edgy."

I blame Anakin....

[TwoBrainedCylon]

In my experience, nobody who claims they're a moderate actually is.

I've long labeled myself a far-right Conservative but I've run into too many folks who are so far right that they turn my stomach so I recognize there's a lot of distance between me and the edge of the map. Plus, I'm too sympathetic on issues like civil unions and the like to truly qualify under the most common definitions.

Perhaps I'm simply confused.

I recognize GINO as an example of how they tried to do Galactica but I wouldn't hold it as a symbol of how it should be done. I read Ron's "Bible" a while back and liked the plan. I like the concepts they went after. The actual execution was so poor in my opinion that it invalidated all the rest.

Truthfully, Richard didn't really get it right either. If you've read his books, they're a far cry from the essence of what I think Galactica should be.

Now Singer is no longer a good consideration for me either.

I'm edging towards Don's viewpoint. Maybe it is best that the attempts keep crashing. Ron's treatment was bad enough. I'd hate to be in a place where I regarded GINO as the good attempt at reviving the franchise.

We are relics!

For Don specifically, ... from our conversation, Richard was clear that at first, he didn't warmly embrace the Apollo role that Tom and Singer had planned for him. He felt they were trying to shuffle him out of the way because people viewed him as a problem. He was probably right. After he realized that he wasn't about to be offered a central role in the start of the new series, he understood that they were at least giving him a path to get back into the game. He then saw the role more favorably. At least that's how he explained it to me.

All my best,

Russell

[Apolloisall]

Originally Posted by TwoBrainedCylon

In my experience, nobody who claims they're a moderate actually is.

I KILL you for that!!!

[TwoBrainedCylon]

Now Bruce would give a disapproving scowl at such use of his image ...

TOTALLY off-topic -- but I very highly recommend "Zen In The Martial Arts" by Joe Hymans. It describes Bruce Lee's philosophies of life. It has helped me develop many of the better aspects of my personality.

In fact, if you give me your address, I'd like to send you a copy as a gift, as one fellow Bruce Lee fan to another. Its truly a life-changing read along the lines of "The Art of War" and "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People".

All my best,


Russell

[Apolloisall]

Originally Posted by TwoBrainedCylon

TOTALLY off-topic -- but I very highly recommend "Zen In The Martial Arts" by Joe Hyams. It describes Bruce Lee's philosophies of life. It has helped me develop many of the better aspects of my personality.

LOL, I have it!
In the words of Ramirez, "We are BROTHERS!"

Favourite technical martial arts book I'd recommend is
http://www.amazon.com/Yuen-Kay-San-W.../dp/1892515032

[Lara]

Originally Posted by peter noble

Langy's such a fan of the show that he didn't even buy the DVD set!

The guy's a complete loon and still owes RGrant $50!

Collectively we remember all.. a right living archive of BG fandom doings
Mind you, with interest rates so low, its the best time for Langy to make good and pay up the $50


and if anyone think that is likely, step this way, I've got a nice little patch of prime Sydney waterfront with a large metal structure on it I will let you invest in for a very modest amount..

Cheers,
Lara

[TwoBrainedCylon]

Lang thrives on the attention. He sincerely does have serious issues that require the services of a mental health professional (and that's not a joke but the real situation). One aspect of his mania is that he feels he is the absolute center piece of all that occurs in the world. He really does think that Universal execs, Ron Moore, Bryan Singer, and everyone here is sitting up nights worrying about what he's going to write next. He truly doesn't get what a cosmic joke he's become in everyone's eyes, -- or maybe on some level he does and maybe that's where most of the anger comes from.

Sadly, I've come to realize that his rantings aren't just a wild presentation but are indeed the freakish thoughts in his head. He's a hateful, miserable little man who acts like a child refusing to take his medicine. He fiercely fights everything and anything that might put him on a better track. One would think that when he hit the ten year mark of wasting his life "fighting the Universal Conspiracy" he'd look in the mirror and realize he's been doing nothing but splashing around in a smelly swamp for no good reason. Unfortunately, he's well beyond that and I really doubt he'll ever come back to reality enough to recognize that all the villains he's tried to confront are mere fabrications spawned from his own mind.

Having exchanged some unpleasant communications with him, its also apparent that he has no idea what he wants to accomplish. All he knows how to do is dump 100% hatred in every direction. In 11 years, I don't think I've ever read a single positive statement from him. He could save a ton of typing if he just wrote "I hate everything and everyone" and left it at that.

Ironically, if he had opted to do a proper chronicle, given the time and effort he's spent, he could have authored one of the better archive books related to Galactica. He must have some pretty meticulous notes because he recalls the most obscure details and he is very thorough. If he ventured forth with the mindset of a historian rather than a maniac, he could probably really make his mark on the Galactica landscape.

Of course, that would require the efforts of someone who was sane and I think Mr. Andrew Fullen is a good distance away from that definition.

I sincerely pity the man, although at times its hard to have any constructive thoughts towards him. Someday, I'd like to hear that he got his life together and things were going well for him -- sincerely well not the lies he dumps all over the place, -- but after 11 years of the same broken record repeating again and again and again, I really doubt that's going to happen.

A sad situation all around.

All my best,


Russell