In Harm's Way

[kingfish]

dvo is correct. Comparing In Harm's Way and this new Galactica is like comparing apples and oranges. No way is Paul Tigh, Eddington. Dvo had a point. Would you punch Eddington in the face? Starbuck or should I say Starduck manages to make Tigh say, "Ouch." after she clocks him one. Eddington would have mopped the floor with her. But the scene is so ridiculous that it should have never been shot in the first place. Billy Bob Adama is no "Rock" Torrey. Wayne was a legend. NO one can ever fill his shoes.

I don't think I am trying to say "In Harm's Way" is an exact twin of the mini. I do think it is obvious that more than the majority of characters and scenes are the same in the two movies. As such if the mini was called "In Harm's Way" I think the majority of people would have a much easier time saying this is a reimagined "In Harm's Way" than "Saga of a Star World". If you read the whole thread I do talk about characters being combinations or splices of characters from "In Harm's Way" not twins, although Adama for Rockwell Torrey is just about a direct lift.

I also agree with Jewels that a few of us have enjoyed talking about the subject. Since to me the comparisons seem like getting hit over the head with a two by four. If you can't or don't want to see it I thank you for reading the thread but ask politely that you reserve throwing bombs.

I originally came to BattlestarGalacticaClub and then to Colonial Fleets specifically because I wanted to talk about this subject. Previously I found out that at least at the time you could not get posted if you went into any detail on this subject at SCIFI. I think this hits SCIFI a little too hard. I also mentioned although not on this thread that if what I think is true that there may be some legal issues involved at some point. "In Harm's Way" is not credited in the mini. I don't know if Moore and crew or those that financed the mini paid or secured the rights to "remake" "In Harm's Way" or the book it is based on.

Please no replies on this question:
I wonder whether the goal of some of the harshest replies is to close this thread not discuss the subject?

Before I finish I would like to discuss President Roslin, her sidekick, and the CIC woman he kissed. When I conclude I want to look at the differences between the two and speculate why they are there and what this may mean if this is a series pilot.

[Sept17th]

I have to agree with Antelope with out even seeing Harms Way. The title of thread gives you subject, Antelope has made attemps at a well thought out discussion on the subject. Others appear interested. Of course there are plenty of Mini-Series Sucks threads we can go back to because that subject has not been done to death.

[Dawg]

I've never seen In Harm's Way, either; but based on what Moore has said and antelope's rather exhaustive comparison between the characters, I strongly suspect the similarities between IHW and the mini probably outweigh the differences.

At my next opportinity I intend to watch In Harm's Way.

I have noted in particular the splitting or combining of character traits antelope has pointed out; I have also noted that antelope has not found much comparison between the characters in the mini and TOS BSG - only IHW (the basis for the claim that the mini is a remake of IHW). (I'd like to also point out that us TOS fans have been saying the same thing for a long time, now: the mini characters bear no resemblance to the TOS characters of same or similar name or position.)

Now, sure, antelope's also sticking to the contention that by the end of the mini it was BSG and not a remake of IHW (a contention I have yet to get a grip on, myself - I can't understand how a remake of one movie can suddenly become the remake of another), but that may yet become clear to me.

Now - I know (and so do most of you) that the mini bears little if any resemblance to TOS BSG. I submit that antelope may very well have found one reason why: Moore remade IHW and simply overlayed a few design elements (and stole a few scenes) from other sci-fi efforts - BSG, among others.

Which makes me, for one, wonder why, since he was hired to remake BSG, he chose instead to remake a 40 year old WWII movie.

I am looking forward to antelope's continued analysis; perhaps the answers to some of our questions of recent months might become clearer.

I am
Dawg

[Darth Marley]

Dawg, a quick aside bit here.
In some post from the distant past,it was suggested that for legal reasons a BSG continuation was not possible for now,and someone suggested a continuation with the characters you desire,but named "RagTagFleet" or some such.
Many continuation supporters accepted that they could live with the product they wanted under a different name.
Given that acceptance in the face of adversity,what is the big deal about the label "REAL BSG?"

[Dawg]

Originally posted by Darth Marley
Dawg, a quick aside bit here.
In some post from the distant past,it was suggested that for legal reasons a BSG continuation was not possible for now,and someone suggested a continuation with the characters you desire,but named "RagTagFleet" or some such.
Many continuation supporters accepted that they could live with the product they wanted under a different name.
Given that acceptance in the face of adversity,what is the big deal about the label "REAL BSG?"

Very good questions, Darth.

Talking about "legal reasons", as I understand it, one theory as to why the mini was made at all is that it was made in order to preserve the BSG copyrights for Universal. I really don't know how it works, but after a time of inactivity a copyright will expire and either revert to its original owner or become "public domain". Something Bonnie Hammer said, apparently, about "preserving the franchise" lends credence to this theory.

Tell me, do you agree with the assertion that the mini bears little resemblance to TOS? One of the questions in my mind (and others, I believe) is, basically, why they didn't just remake Saga if all they were interested in was to maintain the copyright. Instead, they chose to erase 99% of TOS in favor of Moore's story. Of course, that's not the question being discussed here, but it is an important one if we are interested in how this all came about.

As far as a continuation under a different name is concerned, though, I'm one of those who would be OK with the TOS universe under another name; not that such a thing would silence my grumblings entirely. After all, since TOS came first and the mini later, it's the mini that should be showing under another name; that would only be fair.

"Long Live the REAL Battlestar Galactica." Kind of a rallying cry, I guess, based on the very thing we've been discussing, and closely related to the rest of your questions. I know I share the view of many who feel that, because the mini's characters and story are so different than the TOS characters and story, there isn't enough similarity to see them as remotely the same; therefore, TOS is the "real" Battlestar Galactica. If you or anyone else finds that assertion the least offensive, consider the word "real" as shorthand for my views: there are too many differences between TOS and the mini to consider them the same story, and I am pro-continuation of the TOS universe.

Does that answer your questions, Darth?

I am
Dawg

[dvo47p]

Originally posted by repcisg
This is a very good thread, I like the parallels you have drawn here.

Moore did not do Sci-fi any favors using In Harms Way as a model, for the remake. In Harms Way was it self is a composite of a number of battles and personalities drawn from the Guadalcanal campaign.

Sky Hook was Rock Torrey’s (a Halsey) plan to take Gavabutu (Guadalcanal)

RDM did take NROTC @ Cornell, “In Harms Way” was a good movie, and many missed Otto Preminger’s antiwar theme. |

Indeed repcisg the many sea battles that beget Iron Bottom Sound never had a movie to inspire RDM

Originally posted by dvo47p Sarcasm as in mockery, RDM’s dubious claim to have used ‘In Harm’s Way’ is a best an analogy, albeit a piss poor one. WW II was fresh in the American consciousness. ‘In Harm’s Way’s’ end, we see Wayne broken and depressed in a hospital, with an amputated leg, a dead son, a dead substitute son (Eddington). Dead friends, and a dead crew. What has he gained? Guilt and probably irremediable loss. Well, he still has Neal, but one gets the sense that he's hanging on to her like a life preserver rather than as a life-mate. Victory and its attendant glories have come at too high a price for Wayne. Even the cast credits at the end are somewhat shocking, with its roiling sea storms and explosions, finally ending with a detonation of an atomic bomb! ‘In Harm's Way’ may be the subtlest anti-war picture ever made.

‘Battlestar Galactica 2003’ v. ‘In Harm’s Way’ I shall endeavor to draw a parallel, hmm Ok piss in a bottle by a performance artist @ Agora Gallery in Soho. v. Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa @ Le Louvre someplace near The Capital of oh say France?

Schlock scifi v. ‘maybe the subtlest anti-war picture ever made”

Originally posted by Darth Marley Dawg, a quick aside bit here. In some post from the distant past, it was suggested that for legal reasons a BSG continuation was not possible for now, and someone suggested a continuation with the characters you desire, but named "Rag Tag Fleet" or some such. Many continuation supporters accepted that they could live with the product they wanted under a different name. Given that acceptance in the face of adversity, what is the big deal about the label "REAL BSG?"

Glen A. Larson v. Vivendi/Universal was settled out of court, Saga of a Star War is not in the purview of that Sony Bono Law as it was made before ’78 for TV. BG: 2003 was made, Basically, give it a new life – “to maintain the franchise”. Hell here is the link read: http://www.cinescape.com/0/Editorial...e&obj_id=35364

Battlestar Galactica is analogy not to a pre WW II treaty cruiser, but an Aircraft Carrier in Space!

Admiral Torrey answered to a chain of command, he bypasses Broderick ergo Cmdr. Oweyn. Petty jealousy not espionage was that plotline.

Originally posted by antelope526 Admiral Broderick (Baltar) Both are morally challenged.

HELLO Call the Inquirer!

Originally posted by antelope526 Admiral Broderick (Baltar) has a sidekick named Commander Neil Owen (Cylon 6). Commander Owen (Cylon 6) is the real brain of the duo. Both manipulate their superior for their own personal benefit not the benefit of society or the military situation. Commander Owen (Cylon 6) although a military officer (human-Cylon) is primarily motivated by how he will appear after the war in his position in the American (Cylon) government.

Never mind the Enquirer would not believe this http://www.***banned site*** felgercarb!

Originally posted by kingfish dvo is correct. Comparing In Harm's Way and this new Galactica is like comparing apples and oranges. No way is Paul Tigh, Eddington. Dvo had a point. Would you punch Eddington in the face? But the scene is so ridiculous that it should have never been shot in the first place. Billy Bob Adama is no "Rock" Torrey.

Step down, next?

For Sagan’ sake, did I say “next” UNHOLY felgercarb! Ronald D. Moore did mention in that very same filmjerk.com article that his Battlestar Galactica 2003 was also influenced by Alfred Hitchcock!

Jesus H. Christ, Ronald D. Moore is a misunderstood genius, or that bunch @ http://www.***banned site*** now has an endless black hole of inaccurate, baseless, unfounded and specious nonsense from our http://www.***banned site*** twit, keyboard-gaffer, nincompoop GOODGOD HE MIGHT RUN RIOT with Cylon’s lurking amongst Hitchcock’s vast filmology, SEE $#*&*+!%>>>> Family Plot, Frenzy, Topaz, Torn Curtain, Marnie, The Birds, Psycho, North by Northwest, Vertigo, Suspicion, The Wrong Man, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Trouble with Harry, To Catch a Thief, Rear Window, Dial M for Murder, I Confess, Strangers on a Train, Stage Fright, Under Capricorn, Rope, Notorious, Bon Voyage, Lifeboat, Shadow of a Doubt, Saboteur, Suspicion, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Foreign Correspondent, Rebecca, Jamaica Inn, Sabotage, The 39 Steps or for our hyper little http://www.***banned site*** bon viant, The Man Who Knew Too LITTLE?

[larocque6689]

Sh!t Jon - no fewer than four references to one of your favorite web hangouts. And most of the Hitch movies you could stack in a single paragraph.

In defence of RDM, the Bamber character was more likeable than Crazy Otto's version...

Maybe we can build a G2003 episode around "The Trouble with Harry" and find out who killed Fred Astaire.

[shiningstar]

excellent answer Dawg. Very nice.

[Gunstar Aries]

Very interesting, antelope. I had no idea "Harm's way" played a part. THAT movie is pretty faithful to the book, but not exact. Thanks for bringing this up.

Regards,

GA

[dvo47p]

Oh never mind

[dvo47p]

Originally posted by larocque6689
Sh!t Jon - no fewer than four references to one of your favorite web hangouts. And most of the Hitch movies you could stack in a single paragraph.

In defence of RDM, the Bamber character was more likeable than Crazy Otto's version...

Maybe we can build a G2003 episode around "The Trouble with Harry" and find out who killed Fred Astaire.

I'M BANNED @ http://www.galactica2003.net THAT FAKE ZAC felgercarb, JOHN

[Dawg]

AH-HA!

NOW I understand!

I couldn't wrap my brain around your contention, antelope, that a remake of In Harm's Way could somehow end as a remake of BSG. But now, thanks to your last post in this thread, I understand:

http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums...&threadid=5947

I know, now, how you can say that with a straight face. Thank the Lords of Kobol, I understand!!

At the end of BSG, Adama has one surviving son. At the end of the mini, William "Husker" Adama has one surviving son.

At the end of BSG, Apollo looks to be getting cozy with Sheba. At the end of the mini, Lee "Apollo" Adama may, potentially, have an interest in Kara "Starbuck" Thrace. So, both have a pending love interest at the end.

Etcetera.

Fascinating!

You have done it, antelope! You have proven my contention that the mini IS NOT, at heart, Battlestar Galactica!!!!!

By your own analysis, the characters in the mini are rewritten characters from In Harm’s Way. They did not come from TOS. The Cylons did not come from TOS. In fact, if it weren’t for the names (most of them pilot callsigns in the mini) there would be nothing recognizably BSG about it (with the exception of the Viper, of course, the one design element necessary for anything to be called BSG).

That the characters who share that tiny link to TOS BSG wind up in similar situations is completely and utterly immaterial. They aren’t characters carried over and updated from TOS, they are characters from In Harm’s Way. Again, your own analysis proves this!

A Truth: In order to remake one piece of material, you must actually remake that material.

Moore overlayed a very thin veneer over his remake of In Harm’s Way to make it look like BSG. But veneers to not a remake make. Certainly, the mini character called “Apollo” has a potential love interest in the character called “Kara Thrace”. But because the character called “Apollo” is a character (or half a character) from In Harm’s Way, this does not at all equal the point in TOS BSG where Apollo and Sheba are getting cozy.

Different source material entirely. Different characters entirely.

I understand, now, and I understand fully. There is the flaw in your argument, antelope. In order for the mini to wind up more or less at the same point as when TOS ended, it needed to have the characters from TOS. That’s not what’s there. Your own analysis proves it.

You rock, antelope!

Edit: And, as I think about it, I find that the anxious feeling I've been developing the last week or so has gone away. This contention has been niggling at the back of my mind, and I am very grateful to antelope for giving me the key. I am at peace.

Peace to you all.

I am
Dawg

I think we are at the same point but call it different things.

The bottom line I think we can both agree on:

The mini is a flawed remake of "In Harm's Way" not "Saga of a Star World".

We may not agree but you can see where I come to believe:

Moore changed (adapted may be a better word) the "characters" from "In Harm's Way" so he could start a new Battlestar series with the "characters" at the end of TOS season 1.

I actually thing we pretty much agree on things at this point and and are more talking about semantics.

I'm not versed on the cut and paste option on this site I wonder if you or a mod could put that reply from the other thread here so people wouldn't need to jump between the two threads.

Thanks for the conversation/debate dawg.

[kingfish]

Apollo and Sheba were getting cozy. Season 2 had Sheba being blown to bits in the opener.

[Dawg]

Originally posted by kingfish
Apollo and Sheba were getting cozy. Season 2 had Sheba being blown to bits in the opener.

Only in the preproduction "notes", Kingfish. We'll never know for sure.

I am
Dawg

[kingfish]

http://www.geocities.com/sjpaxton/yeartwo.html

[kingfish]

Originally posted by Dawg
Only in the preproduction "notes", Kingfish. We'll never know for sure.

I am
Dawg

Thank the Lords of Kobol for that. Cain as an android STUNK big time.

I have been enjoying the other threads so much I haven't finished what I started here so I will try to get this done. This will be a good thread to explain the remake/reimagination/ripoff (pick your word) for someone new to the fleet.

Maggie the head nurse of "In Harm's Way" is the charcater that President Roslin is loosely based on. Both are in charge of the casualties of war. Maggie has the wounded soldier, sailors, and marines while Roslin has the refugees. Both are "in charge" in their perspective worlds. Both have a run in with Admiral Torrey (Commander Adama) in the middle of the war. In the case of "In Harm's Way" Maggie unwittingly orders Admiral Torrey (Adama) around while in the mini Roslin knowingly orders Adama. Both characters are a focal point for the estranged son of Admiral Torrey (Adama). The scene of Roslin dealing under stress on Colonial 1 is loosely based on Maggie in the field hospital. The final scenes (human not cylon) of both movies contain Maggie (Roslin) and Admiral Torrey (Adama). Both focus on the future of their campaigns and are introspective on what just happened.

Maggie the character President Roslin is based on had a beautiful nurse sidekick. This nurse was young but naive and ended up playing with fire. Roslin's assistant, who's name I forgot (shows how much impact I think he had) is based on Maggie's sidekick nurse. The scenes with Duella and Roslin's assistant are very loosely based on the naive "tease" scenes between Eddington, Ensign Torrey, and the young nurse. I felt that as played in the mini both characters were superfluous and their little flirtation added nothing to the mini. However the fact that Moore felt a need to put them in and put a very watered down version of the Eddington/Torrey/nurse tease and rape inuendo goes to the fact that he remade "In Harm's Way". The entire Eddington rape subplot could not work in the mini but for some reason Moore couldn't let go of every related scene. To understand what I am getting at on these characters I do think you have to watch "In Harm's Way". The only thing I think Moore may have felt he needed was some very youthful characters for eye wash. Maybe they only served to be young naive people swept up in events far greater than themselves.

What do I take from what Moore did?

I think from my view of the mini and "In Harm's Way" that Moore has a plan for how he wants the mini-based series to go. To view his thoughts we need to look at what he changed from "In Harm's Way" and what are non-related original issues in the mini. If this is an example of what Moore plans to do I would speculate he plans to rewrite old but popular stories into the Galactica mythos while running a continuous subplot of original ideas that build on the old or new mythos. In a way this is not too different than TOS. The best stories in TOS and many of the lesser ones also were remakes into the Galactica mythos of old favorites. Some remakes I already have seen mentioned on other threads in the TOS genre include, Patton, Midway, The Dirty Dozen, The Guns of Navarrone, and The Battle of the OK Corral. I am sure others could point out more.

The main ideas added to the mini not found "In Harm's Way" include the concepts of religion especially expressed by the cylons (modern Islamic fundamentalism?), the enemy within is a REAL enemy not a self serving personal agenda, the exodus from the homeland (as opposed to a conquest of enemy land).

The character end state in "In Harm's Way" ends with the majority of the characters dead. I believe the end state of the mini however was based to give Moore the opportunity to write human relationship stories based on the TOS type characters you see near the end of season 1. I would look for:

Adama and Roslin are in a similar relationship to Adama and Siress Tinia (new leader of the Council of 12) at the end of season 1.

Lee Adama and Kara Thrace are very similar to the relationship of Apollo and Sheba at the end of season 1.

Tyrol and Boomer may end up in the Starbuck/Athena/ Casseopeia love triangle if they throw Callie in the loop.

Baltar was with the fleet at the end of TOS season 1 but as a known prisoner he had little use for future episodes. In his current mini incarnation it frees the writers to use a fan favorite.

I think the mini series universe may not be as different as we think but only time will tell. A mini lover I think has much to look forward to but I also think a mini hater can hold out hope that a mini based series may be returning to its roots in TOS after all.

With "In Harm's Way" on AMC tonight I thought it a good time to bring this thread up front. For those of you not familiar with the In Harm's Way = Moore's Battlestar Galactica concept this is a great thread to read and then go watch the movie tonight.

[Eric Paddon]

I've watched the movie twice, and for me it's the worst movie I've ever seen with a Pearl Harbor backdrop, and believe me it's not easy for me to say that I think there's a movie that actually makes "Pearl Harbor" seem good!

I've mentioned the 60s go-go dancing in the opening party sequence which sets the wrong tone. I also can't approve of what Otto did to the real life CINCPAC at the time of the attack, Admiral Husband Kimmel who as played by Franchot Tone really gets an unfair rap. It's interesting to note that to avoid a lawsuit, Preminger lists his character in the credits not by name but as "CINCPAC 1" and likewise Henry Fonda is not identified as Admiral Nimitz but as "CINCPAc 2."

Ironically, I felt the entire Adama-Lee exchange of the miniseries owed itself less to "In Harm's Way" and more to "Midway" where it seemed like the opening conversation was cribbed almost completely from the Charlton Heston-Edward Albert exchanges of that movie (this annoying subplot was what dragged down an otherwise fine movie about the battle).

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon

Ironically, I felt the entire Adama-Lee exchange of the miniseries owed itself less to "In Harm's Way" and more to "Midway" where it seemed like the opening conversation was cribbed almost completely from the Charlton Heston-Edward Albert exchanges of that movie (this annoying subplot was what dragged down an otherwise fine movie about the battle).

Interesting observation although I still go with more of a Captain Torrey versus Ensign Torrey moment. Ron Moore is supposedly a fan of naval history. It also seems that the Pegasus episodes are partially based on the Coral Sea and Midway battles (along with the movie Patton). Since Moore says he wants to redo the Pegasus episode possibly I wouldn't be surprised if this is not the last time we talk about the movie "Midway" and how it relates to Battlestar Galactica.

I also notice a trend: If you liked "In Harm's Way" you liked the mini. If you didn't you don't.

[dvo47p]

I believe you missed the point of this thread.

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon

I've watched the movie twice, and for me it's the worst movie I've ever seen with a Pearl Harbor backdrop, and believe me it's not easy for me to say that I think there's a movie that actually makes "Pearl Harbor" seem good!

Ron D. Moore based Col. Tigh on ‘In Harm’s Way’ character Cmdr./Capt. Paul Eddington by Kirk Douglas, it did not work.

http://www.filmjerk.com/nuke/article354.html
Colonel Tigh, the Galactica's XO. The first time we meet Tigh is during Kara's morning jog around the ship, in which we see the after effects of a night of heavy drinking. Tigh drinks because he knows his wife is sleeping with half the population of Geminon while he's on active duty...

John Paul Jones November 16, 1778, 'I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail FAST; for I indend to go in harm's way.'

[Eric Paddon]

Originally Posted by antelope526

I also notice a trend: If you liked "In Harm's Way" you liked the mini. If you didn't you don't.

LOL, I suppose we should take a survey on that sometime. It is interesting though that for me it's one of the few movies from the era of classic Hollywood that I had a strong negative reaction to. It's not just the soap opera of it though, it's the disconnect to the real world that seems to run through the whole film. I never hear any references to familiar battles like Coral Sea, Midway etc. or references to real commanders in the Pacific and the whole congressman serving out there in the Pacific subplot is just historically ludicrous (as is the idea of a character of Burgess Meredith's background being privy to Top Secret info).

And to carry that further, with "In Harm's Way" seeming so disconnected from the real World War II, it's not surprising that for me Moore's miniseries redid that sense of disconnect by taking familiar names and ideas and putting them into a setting and story that was as unauthentic from a Galactica standpoint as "In Harm's Way" seemed unauthentic from a World War II standpoint.

[Eric Paddon]

Originally Posted by dvo47p

I believe you missed the point of this thread.

I'm not sure I understand what point there is to miss. We're all aware of Moore borrowing from "In Harm's Way" because he thinks it represents a great piece of moviemaking that the Galactica story should emulate. My take on that is that the movie isn't worth emulating in any new imagining, least of all Galactica.

[Senmut]

Whether one likes IHW or not, the fact remains that RDM blatantly copied it, put a bunch of FX in it, and called it Galactica. It's Galactica like my Plymouth is a Bently. Uh uh. It is just one more proof, were any more neded, that RDM is a third rate, low-talent hack, who parasitizes the works and ideas of others, and calls himself a filmmaker. God help whatever he gets his hands on next!

[ernie90125]

Antelope526. For once I agree with you. I have great respect for what you have had to say and the parallels you have pointed out.... This is a very impressive effort....

Can I suggest you re-write this onto one sheet. With all the Galactica plotlines one the first line, and the 'In Harm's Way' plotlines on the second line. Then another Galactica on this third line, and another 'In Harm's Way on the fourth line etc etc etc.

I think you raise some VERY important issues here, and this sheet you could create could become the basis for a letter writing campaign. It is worthy of it.....

No studio would be able to ignore receiving letter after letter after letter, highlighting these very important issues.... They would have to do something about it....

Contacting whoever owns the rights to 'In Harm's Way' would also be a worthwhile idea...

Great Work !

Ernie90125

[Darth Marley]

A letter campaign?
For what purpose?