BSG Mini

[peter noble]

Originally posted by jewels
There is a critical difference between Sheba and Kara: Sheba, even under the influence of Iblis, was never a _______(place another word for a female breeding dog in the blank).

I think it's alright to say bitch jewels.

Re Sheba and Kara Thrace, there is no comparison! Sheba's an experienced pilot who follows the chain of command and has no chips on her shoulders. She's got shiney light brown hair and dark sparkly eyes and is sweet and awkward around people.

Kara's an experienced pilot but that's the only similarity.

Peter

[Corwwyn]

Originally posted by SAR Pilot

Here's why: in recent years there haven't been any successful space-based sci fi movies at the big screen, and most studios are frankly leaning well away from the genre because there is no monetary incentive for them.

Star Wars:TPM - budget=115m domestic gross=431m world gross=925.6m (smash hit)
Star Wars:AoTC - budget=115m dom gross=302.1m world gross=648.2m (smash hit)
The Fifth Element - budget= 95m, dom gross=63.5m, world gross=263.9m (major hit, domestic flop)
Star Trek:Insurrection - budget=58m dom gross=70.1m world gross=117.8m (marginal hit)
Galaxy Quest budget=45m, dom gross=71.5m world gross=84m (marginal hit)

Lost in Space (remake) - budget=80m , dom gross=69.1m , world gross=? (flop)
Mission to Mars - budget=90m, dom gross=60.8m, world gross=106m (flop)
Starship Troopers - budget=100m, dom gross=54.7, world gross=121.1m (flop, domestic tankage)
Star Trek:Nemesis - budget=60m, dom gross=43.1m, world gross=62.7m (flop)
Solaris (remake) - budget=47m, dom gross=14.9m, world gross=14.9m (flop - total tankage)
Red Planet - budget=80m, dom gross=17.5, world gross=17.5 (flop - total tankage)

There have been several successful space-based sci fi movies at the big screen in recent years.

There have also been a number of failures, but this is not a fault of the space-based subgenre. It's just that those failures really have not been very good films (even the quality of most of the successes might be arguable).

Space sci fi is some of the most costly to produce since you must create everything from scratch, including sets, since you can't just run out to your local space battleship and ask to fiim a movie onboard. That being said, in light of the lack of success in recent years, I really fear that a BSG continuation movie on the big screen will not attract a large enough audience to make revenues sufficient to continue the dream of follow-on movies or series.

As shown above there is no "lack of success in recent years" in space-based big budget movies. The ones that failed failed because they weren't great movies.

As for attracting a large enough audience, well, there are several factors I can see currently in its favour:

1. A unique look from other space-based movies of recent years.
2. Budget need not be bloated by massive star salaries (no Tom Cruise, Patrick Stewart, etc eating big chunks out of the budget before the movie begins).
3. With the Star Trek franchise wallowing in B&B burnout, and no new Trek on the horizon, and with the Star Wars movie franchise finishing up next year, there are/will be two huge fanbases crying out for quality space-based big-screen viewing of the good vs evil variety - a niche a kilometre wide which BSG could fill - a HUGE opportunity for a BSG continuation movie franchise.
4. True Brand Recognition, without the bait and switch. You see a cylon eye in advertising, you get real cylons in the movie. You see THE GALACTICA in advertising, you get THE GALACTICA in the movie, some some imo weak impersonator that looks nothing like her. Tell me the glory shot of the Enterprise refit in Star Trek:TMP wasn’t one of the enduring key points of that movie.

I am afraid that should a big screen BSG fail, all hopes of ANY future BSG projects, including those based upon the mini will be forever dropped as a losing proposition by the studios and we will be back to where we were as a fan-base only a few years ago. Searching our memories for moments past as there will be no future ones, since hope will have been taken away.

Forever is a long time. Despite what some mini proponents seem to think (not referring to you) the original franchise is undeniably hugely popular. Heck, I’ve seen BSG references in both the Simpsons and Farscape no less. Ask a bunch of random people (except possibly kids) who have any interest in SF what a Cylon is or use the term "Imperious Leader", and blank stares are not the likely outcome.

What would really happen if a big-screen BSG failed? It depends entirely on why it failed. If it failed because it was a crap production effort, then that imo opens the door for a remake at least. If it failed because the budget was much too high for the box office returns due whatever script/etc is there that just means that any followup movie should be on a tighter budget (eg a la ST:TWOK). For example, if the box office gross is 200million, but the budget was 200million, the movie is a "failure" even if it is a great movie. OTOH, if the movie cost 50 million and made 150 million it is a "big hit".

I hear other TOS fans talk about the DeSanto project and how it was a go until 9/11, then everything shut down. . . blah, blah, blah. (Please do not mistake what I am about to say for it is not an attack by any means) IT is precisely the environment spawned by 9/11 which makes the mormon-based feel good BSG of old, a show I loved as a kid and still enjoy as an adult, out-dated.

No offence, but I think that’s bollocks. I dare you to find any evidence to support this.

Into this darker time stepped the new vision for Galactica, and it was appropriate to it.

See above.

There are concepts and changes in the re-imaged BSG that I didn't care for, but overall I liked the stronger military feel aboard ship,

Can’t argue that one.

I liked the more realistic characters (let's face it, look at BSG:TOS OBJECTIVELY and the characters are less human in nature),

I can’t easily disagree more here. Objectively the BSG characters are imo immeasurably more human in nature than those in the mini (talking main cast - the crew in the mini seemed ok to me). They might be larger than life in some respects, but I see that as A GOOD THING. They espouse different aspects of certain positive values (perhaps even in archetypal ways at times), hence they make excellent role models.

The main characters in the mini seemed to me to be more like the passengers of the B-Ark (if you’ve seen/heard the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy you’ll understand my reference here). By and large they seemed petty, incompetent, and just unlikeable. Sure there are people like that in real life, but geez, that really doesn’t make them enjoyable viewing for me.

and I liked the presentation of the Cylon perspective of who they are and why they are back.

That’s fair enough. I have an opposing view for a number of reasons, but I don’t see anything unreasonable in your stance on this point.

Does all of this take away from my enjoyment of select episodes of TOS? No. . . I say select because there are just some episodes which are just too campy for my taste! Does it mean I don't want to see a continuation? No! I am afraid of the consequences of a big screen continuation flop, and the loss to us all.

I don’t think you have anything to fear from a big screen continuation then. Should it fail, I can’t see that affecting the mini or any series coming from it by Scifi Channel. I think that, should a G2003 series come into being, that it will rise or fall purely on the strength of its ratings (and of course Bonnie’s hammer - her record when it comes to shows she’s lost interest in is pretty clear).

However, should a big-screen continuation succeed, what then? I think that depends on Universal, which owns the rights to the name on the small screen, which may wish to cash in on it. It may make more funding available for a G2003 series. It may change tack and decree a continuation-styled series. It may try something novel. Who knows?

Originally posted by Darth Marley
Jayworld, I would be totally embarassed if most of my camp proved to be that stupid.
For my part,I have no desire for the original cast. A cameo appearance would be a polite nod to TOS,but I have no desire to see the original cast in these roles.

I shudder at the thought of mere cameo appearances in a continuation, because for me, finding out what happened to the characters, what they are like after all this time, is part of the attraction (especially on the big screen). I feel that that important roles for them are crucial, though the film should be about much more than just them. It imo should also be the opportunity to develop new characters who can potentially take on more prominent roles in subsequent films depending on how well they work. Thus, a movie can provide a renewal of acquaintance for the main characters, while also potentially enabling a sense of closure so that the BSG saga can continue without them or without them being always preeminent. There is a downside risk here of course, in that an appealing new character may choose not to return for a future movie (a la Kirstie Alley from TWOK not returning for TSFS).

I bet I would enjoy the DeSanto script brought to film. I don't see it as the Holy Grail though. And some of these concepts have been done in the genre before,not that it is a fatal flaw.
Hopefully a remake series will give more hours that a feature film effort.

Be mindful that, having spilled the beans now on development/story, Tom DeSanto, should he ultimately get to do a BSG movie, will be coming from a different angle, with a more developed, possibly far more sophisticated story than what we’ve seen from his mini plans.

I would like a continuation series, but alas, that is one battle I feel out of my reach currently, barring a sensible Galactica fan being in a position of power in NBC and/or Universal.

[Corwwyn]

Originally posted by antelope526
I agree with many of the points on this thread by both sides. I liked the mini, I liked TOS, and I would have liked a continuation. I think however that from a financial point Battlestar Galactica is at a crossroads.

If Moore's Battlestar becomes a series it will spell the end of any continuation effort no matter what we want to think. No one is going to finance something that appears to COMPETE with a successful Battlestar on SCIFI or where ever it appears.

You’re kidding?

If BSG or G2003 is greatly successful wherever, every hollywood type and his or her dog would be racing out of the woodwork to throw something on screen to cash in on it (if they can get around rights issues). Heck, BSG and Star Trek:TMP both originally got the greenlight by ABC because of the success of Star Wars. Competing projects come out all the time. What about ER and Chicago Hope, St Elsewhere, etc.?
What about Babylon 5 and DS9?

If Moore's version goes to series and fails people outside the world of Galacticon and colonial fleets will think Battlestar Galactica failed.

Doubtful.

We will not see funding for anymore projects.

Basis of opinion?

If SCIFI fails to greenlight a series or another mini the purist will treat the mini just like we all do BSG80.

Hehehe. Some of us already do. :evil:

From a financial standpoint the mini appears to be a success.

As a standalone mini, I think (and I might be wrong here) it is regarded at SciFi/Universal as a marginal success. Certainly not enough of a success to garner a rubberstamp greenlight for series goahead.

Someone will see this and at some point in the next few years make another Battlestar Galactica. Whether it is a continuation of the original, a continuation of the Moore version, or a Battlestar Pegasus type story who knows. It will all depend on who pays and who writes the script.

Agreed.

What am I trying to say? If you want a continuation you need to hope that SCIFI does not greenlight a series.

I saw that as the case before the mini aired, but after the rights settlement between Glen and Universal, a continuation movie is no longer dependent on Universal and/or Scifi in any way. A continuation series on the other hand is a more complicated beast. Still, even that I think would be easily possible (even if G2003 goes to series) if the admittedly unlikely event of a major network ponies up a deal too good for Scifi or Universal to refuse (or if NBC decides it want some BSG lovin’ it could be a sweet deal indeed with potentially a BSG AND a G2003 series one on network the other on Scifi). Boggles the mind thinking of the possibilities if the desire/will is there.

If SCIFI does greenlight a series no matter what side you're on you better hope for it to be a success because it will be the only shot at new Galactica we are going to get.

As you can tell from my previous paragraph I see things somewhat differently on this matter.

Since the mini is based on an old movie maybe a new series would return to the themes of TOS. No matter what you think of the mini I would give a new series a chance. Moore is already talking about remaking "Living Legend".

This actually troubles me a bit, and is another reason I don’t favour the mini going to series.

Personally I thing Battlestar Galactica lives or dies in 2004-2005.

I think there are two chances of that being the case: Buckley’s and none.

We are on the same path as Star Trek. Success breeds opportunity but failure ends the franchise. No one is going to blame the script writers when they cancel Star Trek. I already heard Patrick Stewart says something to the effect that "Star Trek may have runs it's course." I just hope the Battlestar community is at the same point Star Trek was at the start of TNG not where Star Trek is today.

BSG will not die so long as it has fans, and the same is true of Star Trek. In Star Trek’s case, I think the franchise is hamstrung by the killer bees at the moment, but they will not be there forever.

Originally posted by Hito
It is interesting you say that becasue the equivalent of TOS BSG fandom or "pureists" in X-Men fandom thought both movies were garbage.

Say whaaat? Excuse me, but I am an X-Men purist and I adored both X-Men movies. They were certainly NOT garbage in any way, shape or form.

And even tho you might say well they didnt change the sex of anyone or it stayed thematicaly true to the source material.
What was changed was as imoirtant to them as what was changed from TOS to the mini was to TOS fans.

I think the ONLY people who think that are those who don’t appreciate that not everything from the comics can be adapted to fit into one or two movies.

The only gripe I had with the XMen adaptation was that Rogue didn’t possess her Ms Marvel powers, and Anna Paquin’s accent was not well done (at least the cartoons did the accent justice imo).
However, she otherwise portrayed a "young Rogue" better imo than the "young Rogue" flashbacks in the XMen comics themselves, so I find that forgiveable, especially since the XMen continuity has suffered a few big hiccups in the comics themselves, even within the Claremont era!

[Corwwyn]

Originally posted by Eskimo
First of all, I am a fan of TOS. I would have enjoyed a return of the so as it was in the 70's. I would have watched and hopefully enjoyed the show if it was done right. A return of Mr. Hatch, Benedict, and those who chose to return to reprise their roles. But I really do not think that is going to happen.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I hope it does.

Second. For those of you who think the TOS and the mini can co-exsist, SORRY! Not gunna do it. It wouldn't be prudent at this juncture. It can not happen. Let me put it in simpler terms. Two shows about the same thing using the same basic story line and same charaters but different people playing it is just not feisable and not possible .

Now you can't have one on TV and the other on the big screen and make it work. If you can find anything in history where this was successful with proof, I will recant my arguement and concead defeat. But i do not think you can.

Hmmm, Star Gate? M*A*S*H? Buffy? Ok, Buffy’s a bad example because the movie tanked.

The point I used in an ealier post where I compared Star Trek: TOS and the Next Gneration was a bad one and not understood anyways. Lets try it again then. We will use the TOS of Star Trek. Now imagine all the original charaters of Star Trek. i.e Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty, and so forth, all played by the original actors. Now imagine all the same character but played by the actors form the next gen cast, i.e Stewert, Frakes, Spiner, and so forth. The plots are basically the same but there are differences as compared to BSG: TOS and the new mini. Both running at the same time. Do you really think this would work? I really don't think so.

Of course the mini (for the most part) doesn’t have the same characters, though they have callsigns aligned to characters in BSG.

As to your question, do I really think this would work? It’s an excellent question. It’s also difficult to answer by example, because screen rights/threat of legal action usually prevent two series running concurrently in such a fashion.

If I assume that rights are not an issue or that one studio decides to make two versions of a series, I think it could work, but by no means do I think the success of both (or either for that matter) is assured. Imo the bottomline is all about how good each show is.

Oh wait, I do recall one example of something of this nature. Two cartoons: Ghostbusters and The Real Ghostbusters. That’s the closest to your example that comes remotely readily to mind for analysis of the question.

Third. If it wasn't for the mini, it might have been possible for the original to make a come back but after the green lighting of TOS movie and then the backing out of the director, I do not think there is room as of now for a come back of that paticular incarnation of the show now. The problem now is that the mini in now either the life or death of BSG.

Now you see, I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion. I don’t see the mini as having any effect on BSG except insofar as it relates to Scifi Channel producing BSG or G2003.

If it fails most of the fan base that was created by the mini would go away and that would effect the money makers that make the movies.

How many people watched the mini on Scifi? 3-4million? Of that total, how many are "mini fans"? Of that total, how many would not be interested in a BSG continuation? See where I’m going here?

I don’t think the effect would be great on the movie moneymen.

Unless there was a massive campaign for monies by the fans of the original series with donations in the millions (say areound 20 - 40 million) there will not be a return of the original show.

...or one or a few wealthy fans/business interests who can see the potential $$$ returns.

Now I know there will be people that still disagree with me and that is OK. You are entitled to your opinioins and I do welcome them .

That’s very cool. I likewise welcome your opinions, even those diametrically opposed to my own.

Cheers,

Cor.

[Corwwyn]

Originally posted by Soulmage

Even if it were possible in some universe that a TOS-style movie would be made. . . guess what, its not going to be a continuation either. Nobody is going to produce a movie that relies on people recalling plot elements of a TV show 25 years old.

Paramount produced Star Trek:TMP.

The thing is, it’s not an either/or situation. You don’t have to make a movie that either relies on recalling elements from years ago, or a reimaging.

It seems to me that formula for success would be to make a movie that works on multiple levels. If the movie makes sense as a standalone, but is enhanced for those who remember the original show with elements from what came before, it is richer than a pure standalone or a pure sequel.

What you would get is another re-make/re-imagining that may be more or less palatable based on your individual taste.

Unfortunately too many Hollywood types think this way.

Just look at every decades-old series that has been made into a movie. Lost in Space, Charlie's Angels, even when the 1st Star Trek movie came out, you didn't really need to know anything about the old series. The new movie was self-contained (and bad).

Well, I do agree that a BSG continuation movie should be made in such a way that you really don’t need
to know anything about the series to enjoy it.

I think Corwwyn made a good point on how a successful mini based Battlestar series could spawn more Scifi series and movies but I don't see how that is relevant to a competing Battlestar. To some extent I think today's Battlestar remake may have a lot to thank from the overall success of the Star Trek franchise over the past 25 years. Even there the versions are either futures, prequels or different places and ships/stations not competing originals or remakes. All the Babylon 5, Farscapes, SG1, and yes even Battlestar mini would not be here if it wasn't for the success of Star Trek TNG. The question now is whether the mini is too dark and kills the franchise just like Space Above and Beyond, if we are at the start of a Star Trek or Babylon 5 run or somewhere in between.

Betting that Galactica is going to imitate the ghostbusters cartoons is about as long a long shot as you can make.

I see a lot of argument over whether the mini is or is not Battlestar Galactica. I think we can agree that it is similar but not the same. Since each episode in a future series will either be good or bad on it's own I suggest we watch. The best TOS stories to most people I talk with are usually either the two Pegusus based episodes and the two episodes on the ice planet, both of which are the most clearly based on other main stream military movies. "Living Legend" obviously draws from "Patton" and "Midway". "Gun on Ice Planet Zero (?)" obviously draws from "The Guns of Navarrone".

Last night I watched the best "Enterprise" episode I saw in a long time and guess what... it was an obvious rip off of the old original Star Trek episode with the half black and white guys with a modern Al-queda twist.

I think the anger of "what Moore did" blinds us to the possibilities we may have. I don't want to convert anyone to a mini-lover but I hold out hope for a series. I see a half full glass where others see it half empty.

I also am amazed at the passion of people who write against the mini on the pro-mini forum who state on the anti-mini forum how glad they are THEY NEVER WATCHED THE MINI.

I don't want to pick a fight but I leave my harsher issues with the mini to the bad and the ugly forum and try to stick with the positive or neutral things on this forum so I don't anger either crowd.

I am pro-mini but have some issues. I am pro-TOS (hardcore). I am pro-continuation but hold out little hope to see it. I am especially pro-Battlestar Galactica but it doesn't have to be 100% MY VERSION of Battlestar Galactica.

Since this is the mini good stuff forum I am sure I didn't offend anyone. If you want to see me beat up Moore or SCIFI feel free to read my comments on those matters on the bad and the ugly forum.

[Darth Marley]

Thank you antelope526.

I will hold off on my lecture on the value of analogies since you brought a bit of reason to this thread.

I am glad to see you are consistant in your comparision of epsisodes/movies that lift from previous work. This kind of thing does not bother me at all.

I am sure Anne Lockhart is a wonderful and beautiful lady. I watched her act in Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers but never saw her in anything else. Since until proven otherwise I assume people are good, I would never say anything negative about this fine actress. Since Jewels met her and said Anne is wonderful I take her at her word.

The character Sheba was introduced to us in the "Living Legends" episode as an abrasive, cocky, beautiful, hot dog viper pilot. She obviously annoyed Apollo when they first met and was downright hostile to Cassiopeia. By the end of "Living Legend" she had lost her love and possibly her father. In later episodes she became a regular partner/sidekick to Apollo and Starbuck. Feelings between Apollo and Sheba were building throughout the rest of the season. If Galactica was extended another season we all know their was a great potential for romance between Sheba and Apollo.

So I don't get hung by the Sheba fans:
I think Sheba is better looking than Kara Thrace. I think Sheba was arrogant at first but rapidly became a softer character. I am hoping they soften Kara a bit if the series is greenlighted. At this point I think Anne Lockhart was a better actress.

They call Kara Thrace, Starbuck but she acts like Sheba. She is the arrogant, cocky hot dog pilot. I think she is over the top in this area. At this point I am holding my opinion on whether the writing was over the top or her acting. We got the lost love for Zac (just like Bojay) story. We have the budding feelings for Apollo. In a world of tight budgets who is to say that it was easy for Moore to pay one actor to play two roles especially if you plan to use the Pegasus story at the END of the season as a cliffhanger. Who's not to say the Kara Thrace Starbuck is not Commander Caine's daughter. In our military it is doubtful a father would be in the chain of command of his daughter.

Dirk Benedict as Commander Caine in a future episode! The circle is complete!

Maybe the mini is a lot more like the original mythos than meets the eye.

[Dawg]

Originally posted by antelope526
I see a lot of argument over whether the mini is or is not Battlestar Galactica. I think we can agree that it is similar but not the same.

Sorry, antelope, no can do. The only similarities I can see are the most superficial aspects:

Vipers
Big ship named 'Galactica'
Bad guys called 'Cylons'
A few of the 'rag-tag fleet' ships
Attempt at genocide by the Cylons
"Exodus" set in space
The names "Adama" and "Baltar".

That's about all I can think of. I'd ask John Laroque to add to that list, if he can; he's a TOS wizard and happened to like the mini, too.

Originally posted by antelope526
Since each episode in a future series will either be good or bad on it's own I suggest we watch. The best TOS stories to most people I talk with are usually either the two Pegusus based episodes and the two episodes on the ice planet, both of which are the most clearly based on other main stream military movies. "Living Legend" obviously draws from "Patton" and "Midway". "Gun on Ice Planet Zero (?)" obviously draws from "The Guns of Navarrone".

Last night I watched the best "Enterprise" episode I saw in a long time and guess what... it was an obvious rip off of the old original Star Trek episode with the half black and white guys with a modern Al-queda twist.

I'd like to respond to this, and something from Darth Marley he posted earlier:

Originally posted by Darth Marley
As for originality,I find it interesting that some would remark over how Larson took elements from the Old Testament and Book of Mormon and say "that is so deep" yet give grief about RDM lifting story elements from past movies.

There is nothing wrong with finding inspiration from other sources, finding themes that your viewers will identify with. That is a mark of a good storyteller, to tell the story within parameters your audience understands and appreciates.

It's a whole different thing to rewrite your "inspiration" in toto, the way Moore seems to have done with "In Harm's Way." In this case, it does appear (and your thread on this is fascinating, antelope) that the mini's final form is really a space-based remake of "In Harm's Way" with the "Battlestar Galactica" logo pasted over the front of it.

(Hey - new thought. Perhaps the best thing to do would be for them to repackage the mini with the title "In Harm's Way 2003" - it would be far more accurate, IMO, and diffuse the arguments.)

Originally posted by antelope526
I think the anger of "what Moore did" blinds us to the possibilities we may have. I don't want to convert anyone to a mini-lover but I hold out hope for a series. I see a half full glass where others see it half empty.

That is certainly your prerogative, antelope. I, on the other hand, hold out hope for the opposite.

Funny, isn't it - my glass is half-full, too.

Originally posted by antelope526
I also am amazed at the passion of people who write against the mini on the pro-mini forum who state on the anti-mini forum how glad they are THEY NEVER WATCHED THE MINI.

I don't want to pick a fight but I leave my harsher issues with the mini to the bad and the ugly forum and try to stick with the positive or neutral things on this forum so I don't anger either crowd.

I am pro-mini but have some issues. I am pro-TOS (hardcore). I am pro-continuation but hold out little hope to see it. I am especially pro-Battlestar Galactica but it doesn't have to be 100% MY VERSION of Battlestar Galactica.

Since this is the mini good stuff forum I am sure I didn't offend anyone. If you want to see me beat up Moore or SCIFI feel free to read my comments on those matters on the bad and the ugly forum. [/B]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to split this thread over to the other forum, too, but this is has been a wonderful, civil debate; something I very much enjoy and hope continues. I truthfully don't think this debate could have endured on the other forum, in fact; the pro-mini statements have been made with clarity and without rancor, the pro-TOS statements the same.

I've got a question for you, though, antelope. I ask so that I may be enlightened, not to start an argument; I am genuinely curious, OK?

I am a hard-core pro-TOS (and anti-mini-as-BSG for the reasons I've stated) fan. You say you are a hard-core TOS fan as well.

How can you be a hard-core TOS fan and still be pro-mini-as-BSG?

Is it where you draw the line on what is or isn't BSG? Do you see the mini as BSG, or another production with that label? Do you see more similarities with TOS than I do (and, if so, what are they)?

How does this work? I truly don't understand.

Anyway, I'm at work so I'm likely to get into trouble if I keep on.

Thanks!

I am
Dawg

[Darth Marley]

I give the old engineering answer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

I am a pro-TOS fan for probably all the same reasons you are.

I am a pro-mini fan because although I was expecting a remake of "Saga of a Star World" I also liked very much "In Harm's Way". Although I think "In Harm's Way" is a better movie than the mini it was close enough that between the story and the special effects I enjoyed it for itself.

I hope for a mini based series because all the changes done to "In Harm's Way" in the mini seemed based on putting us fairly close to where we were at the end of TOS character wise. As such I think the series starts in a similar position to how the TOS Battlestar ended with Serena already dead, Starbuck marooned never to be seen again, Apollo with Sheba (now Starbuck) as his female warrior friend/love interest, Adama with issues with the Leader of the Council of 12 (forgot the woman's name) with a potential love tension, Boxey on board without his Mom. This puts all the relationships where they were at the end of TOS (Starbuck marooned -- only good BG1980 episode). The cylon Boomer thing will be a issue that spices thing up not detracts since she can only be exposed to everyone on one episode without being killed or "converted". The religious questions raised already lay the ground work for the religious issues of TOS. I think the names have been changed in some cases but the characters from the end of TOS are the same. He may be making a continuation plus putting the best original episodes (Living Legend) back out again.

If this goes to series I hope everyone watches at least the first two or three episodes. If I'm let down it will die on it's own. If it goes the way I think Moore is thinking we are getting our Season #2 after all.

[Dawg]

Originally posted by antelope526
I am a pro-TOS fan for probably all the same reasons you are.

Glad to hear it!

Originally posted by antelope526
I am a pro-mini fan because although I was expecting a remake of "Saga of a Star World" I also liked very much "In Harm's Way". Although I think "In Harm's Way" is a better movie than the mini it was close enough that between the story and the special effects I enjoyed it for itself.

I hope for a mini based series because all the changes done to "In Harm's Way" in the mini seemed based on putting us fairly close to where we were at the end of TOS character wise.

Here's where I think my difficulty lies, antelope. I read you saying that the mini wasn't a remake of Saga, rather it was a remake of "In Harm's Way."

How does that make it "Battlestar Galactica"?

The recognizable things from TOS are few and far between - and seem to be simple superficialities, paper masks, if you will, over the face of something else. So, how does that make this remake of "In Harm's Way" suddenly become "Battlestar Galactica"?

Originally posted by antelope526
As such I think the series starts in a similar position to how the TOS Battlestar ended with Serena already dead, Starbuck marooned never to be seen again, Apollo with Sheba (now Starbuck) as his female warrior friend/love interest, Adama with issues with the Leader of the Council of 12 (forgot the woman's name) with a potential love tension, Boxey on board without his Mom. This puts all the relationships where they were at the end of TOS (Starbuck marooned -- only good BG1980 episode).

Again, how can it be "in a similar position to how the TOS Battlestar ended..."? These people and relationships bear no resemblance to TOS. These are people and relationships from IHW.

I agree, though - "Return of Starbuck" was the best G80 episode - but I am one of those who ignores G80 as "BSG canon."

Originally posted by antelope526
The cylon Boomer thing will be a issue that spices thing up not detracts since she can only be exposed to everyone on one episode without being killed or "converted". The religious questions raised already lay the ground work for the religious issues of TOS. I think the names have been changed in some cases but the characters from the end of TOS are the same. He may be making a continuation plus putting the best original episodes (Living Legend) back out again.

If this goes to series I hope everyone watches at least the first two or three episodes. If I'm let down it will die on it's own. If it goes the way I think Moore is thinking we are getting our Season #2 after all.

Since the cylon Boomer thing has absolutely no comparison to TOS I can't and won't comment on that part.

But do you see my point? Do you see why I don't think you've answered my question yet?

What is it about the mini that says to you that it's BSG? Or does it?



I am
Dawg

[SAR Pilot]

Dawg, you were right that I wasn't trying to insult anybody, and if it came off that way, I apologize. I was meerly stating a situation which I personally feel is becoming more and more untenable is developing. The longer the period before a continuation is made and the mini (and subsequent series) is out there, the less I see a movie based on the original series working out in our favor, since the audience at large will have a mini-universe in their heads.
My two cents about the two BSGs, quickly: I like each one when taken individually.

I continue to say I like the mini in it's own right even if it was called Space Cruiser Gallipoli. Whether they called them Americans instead of colonials, robots instead of cylons, war vessels instead of Battlestars, and changed all their names I would have enjoyed it for what it was. A good scifi remake of "In Harm's Way".

Moore did made an effort it appears as I referenced above to end the mini with the same character dynamic we had at the end of TOS (note: I said the end NOT THE BEGINNING). Some of the NAMES have been changed but the main CHARACTERS are still there.

I elaborated on the Apollo/Sheba, Adama/Siress (Forgot her name) situation. Starbuck is either gone or Tyrol is the Starbuck figure. Does anyone notice the Tyrol/Boomer dynamic is similar to Starbuck/Athena? We also have 2 more female figures that have yet to be fleshed out---Calley and the CIC girl (forgot her name). Either one may turn into the Cassiopeia figure in a series. Calley may be the beautiful Cassiopeia when she is out of her work uniform in "civies". I liked the TOS Boomer, Jolly, and Tigh but none of them ever had any opposite sex relationships in the show. As such they are truly blank slates for Moore. They all played basically "good loyal men".

Yes -- the mini was not the REAL Battlestar (Saga of a Star World) but it did set the stage for the REAL Battlestar season 2 with all the same CHARACTERS (not names). After 25 years I hope we finally get season 2 of Battlestar Galactica!

[Dawg]

Antelope, you can't have it both ways. So, I'm going to put you on the spot:

Originally posted by antelope526
I continue to say I like the mini in it's own right even if it was called Space Cruiser Gallipoli. Whether they called them Americans instead of colonials, robots instead of cylons, war vessels instead of Battlestars, and changed all their names I would have enjoyed it for what it was. A good scifi remake of "In Harm's Way".

In the above paragraph, you are saying the mini was a remake of IHW. And, yet:

Originally posted by antelope526
Moore did made an effort it appears as I referenced above to end the mini with the same character dynamic we had at the end of TOS (note: I said the end NOT THE BEGINNING). Some of the NAMES have been changed but the main CHARACTERS are still there.

I elaborated on the Apollo/Sheba, Adama/Siress (Forgot her name) situation. Starbuck is either gone or Tyrol is the Starbuck figure. Does anyone notice the Tyrol/Boomer dynamic is similar to Starbuck/Athena? We also have 2 more female figures that have yet to be fleshed out---Calley and the CIC girl (forgot her name). Either one may turn into the Cassiopeia figure in a series. Calley may be the beautiful Cassiopeia when she is out of her work uniform in "civies". I liked the TOS Boomer, Jolly, and Tigh but none of them ever had any opposite sex relationships in the show. As such they are truly blank slates for Moore. They all played basically "good loyal men".

Here, you say it's BSG.

Originally posted by antelope526
Yes -- the mini was not the REAL Battlestar (Saga of a Star World) but it did set the stage for the REAL Battlestar season 2 with all the same CHARACTERS (not names). After 25 years I hope we finally get season 2 of Battlestar Galactica! [/B]

And here, you lump them both together. - it's IHW ("Not the REAL..."), it's BSG.

It can't be both.

If it's a remake of IHW, then none of the characters are from Battlestar Galactica. If it's BSG, none of the characters came from In Harm's Way (but you've pretty much shot that theory full of holes already ). Which is it, antelope?

Ain't I a stinker?

You have utterly convinced me that Ron Moore remade In Harm's Way and set it in space for this miniseries. Therefore, it is impossible for the mini to have "set up" anything even remotely related to TOS BSG. The characters cannot be "at the same point as the end of TOS" because they are not TOS characters. They're IHW characters, renamed for this remake.

I am not, in any way, shape or form, trying to deny you (or anyone else) the pleaure you had in watching it, or even looking forward to a series. But you have successfully argued that the mini was not "Battlestar Galactica" - and at the same time said that it is. Can't have it both ways.

Your a good egg, antelope. I'm looking forward to your response.

I am
Dawg

Although the mini is a "remake" of "In Harm's Way" certain aspects of "In Harm's Way" were specifically changed so that at the end of the mini it comforms to the Battlestar Galactica mythos at the end of TOS season 1. In this respect Moore merged "In Harm's Way" into Battlestar Galactica at the end of the mini. I don't know if you've seen them both but I think you will understand where I am going if you watch them.

The specific differences:

Ensign Torrey (Apollo), Commander Eddington (Colonel Tigh/Starbuck), Burgess Meredith character (Boomer) are all dead at the end of "In Harm's Way". In the mini we end up with the Apollo/Sheba dynamic and maybe the Starbuck/Athena/Casseopeia dynamic.

"In Harm's Way" ends with a victorious battle in a larger war. The mini ends with the same escape we had after Carillon or ever better the TOS episode with the Base Star engagement.

"In Harm's Way" has a sexual relationship between Admiral Torrey and Maggie. The mini relationship between Adama and Roslin is not sexual but similar to the relationship between Adama and Siress (forgot her name) at the end of TOS season 1.

"In Harm's Way" is about a Pearl Harbor attack and a follow on campaign. The mini has the same Battlestar end state; the colonies are destroyed and only the Galactica and rag tag fleet are left.

The mini ends with the mission of going to Earth not to the heart of the cylon empire (Tokyo) like "In Harm's Way".

The heavy cruiser is destroyed in the final battle. The Galactica was not.

See we do have it both ways. The mini as a free standing movie is an alterred incomplete "In Harm's Way". It is altered and incomplete because it's end state is the Battlestar Galactica mythos and characters at the end of TOS season 1.

I think if you watch TOS season 1, don't watch the mini, then watch the new mini based series if it's greenlighted then hold a score card in your hand that says Starbuck = Sheba, Tyrol = Starbuck, Boomer = Athena and you can get beyond the new style clothes and hair cuts it won't appear that different after all.

For the new generation who never saw TOS they will be on the same page you are on day 1 but since they only have the mini they won't need the score card.

[BST]

"...similar to the relationship between Adama and Siress (forgot her name) at the end of TOS season 1."

antelope,

The name that you may be trying to think of is -- "Tinia", Siress Tinia. (If you are referring to the "Siress" that appeared on "Baltar's Escape" as a thorn in the side to Adama.)

Originally posted by Corwwyn
Perhaps, perhaps not. I hope it does.

Hmmm, Star Gate? M*A*S*H? Buffy? Ok, Buffy’s a bad example because the movie tanked.

Ok Corwwyn, I see you missed the point. Star Gate, M.A.S.H., Buffy (which I thought was funny, especially Paul Rubens Death scene) were all made BEFORE the shows came out. The point I was making was this (And Dawg, Thank you for understanding the point). Using Star Trek: TOS as the example again. Kirk, Spock, Bones, were all played by Shatner, Nemoy, Kelly. We all know this unless you know nothing of ST but of course anyone here knows ST. Now say this show was canceled. Now say 25 years later some studio (say NBC, CBS, ABC, SciFi, doesnt matter who) decides that they want to run a show with the ST name using the same characters (Kirk, Spock, Bones, and so fourth) but instead of hiring all the same actors back they hire new actors to play the characters. They also take the story line in a slightly different direction then the TOS. Wait I've heard thid before......Oh yes! like they did with BSG TOS and the Mini. For this part of the example we will use the next gen cast, Stewert (Kirk), Frakes (?), Spiner (Spock, I think would do better job then Frakes).......ect. This studio decides to run it as a series. But hold on. Paramont (which currently holds the rights to ST) wants to do a movie using the original characters while the new series is still running. Now having explained this in a more drawn out fasion than I think was neccessary, do you really think that two shows, one on TV and one on the big screen, can run AT THE SAME TIME (capitalize bacause most people miss this part), about the same plot line basically, during the same spot on the time line, using the same characters but different actors. I really do not think that it would work. It would only prove to confuse the genre and the fans. I know it would leave me scratching my head going "Why the hell did they do this?" So I say this again. If you can find something that did this and was success, I will recant my arguement and concead defeat in the matter. Until then..................well I don't know.





What am I doing with this fish in my ear..............?

[BST]

Originally posted by Eskimo

What am I doing with this fish in my ear..............?

Swimming??

[Dawg]

Originally posted by antelope526
[B]Although the mini is a "remake" of "In Harm's Way" certain aspects of "In Harm's Way" were specifically changed so that at the end of the mini it comforms to the Battlestar Galactica mythos at the end of TOS season 1. In this respect Moore merged "In Harm's Way" into Battlestar Galactica at the end of the mini. I don't know if you've seen them both but I think you will understand where I am going if you watch them.

I understand what you're saying. Really, I do.

I don't think you realize that your logic is faulty.

The mini is either a remake of IHW or BSG.

EITHER-OR. Not 'and', EITHER-OR. One OR the other.

It is not a remake of both. It can't be. They are two entirely disparate stories.

I see where you make the false step, too:

certain aspects of "In Harm's Way" were specifically changed so that at the end of the mini it comforms to the Battlestar Galactica mythos at the end of TOS season 1. In this respect Moore merged "In Harm's Way" into Battlestar Galactica at the end of the mini.

Because it's a remake of IHW, the only connection to BSG are the superficial elements I referred to earlier. Therefore, it is impossible for the "BSG mythos" to be present at any point of the mini - beginning, middle, or end.

In the mini, by your own description, the IHW characters meet different ends than in the original movie. Such is the nature of remakes, occassionally.

I restate: Because it is a remake of IHW, there are no BSG characters, so there are no parallels, character or plot, to TOS. There is no BSG mythos to end at.

See we do have it both ways. The mini as a free standing movie is an alterred incomplete "In Harm's Way". It is altered and incomplete because it's end state is the Battlestar Galactica mythos and characters at the end of TOS season 1.

I hope you can see that we don't - we can't have it both ways. There is no way a remake of one movie can end as the remake of another, unrelated story.

The most accurate statement - 100% accurate, by your own research - is "The mini as a free standing movie is an alterred incomplete "In Harm's Way." ".

I'm about to get smacked on top of the head - I've got to go. I hope you see, now, where I see the flaw is in your statement - and understand why I see it as a flaw.

Good night!

I am
Dawg

[Darth Marley]

The mini is BSG,despite the wishes of some. It certainly is different than the original,and some such as I see this as an improvment.

Perhaps "Ice Planet Zero" is not BSG because it rips off "Guns of Navarone."
Clearly this isn't the case,but it makes as much sense as claiming the mini isn't BSG. Despite mutilating the analogies,RDM remade BSG.
To not like it is one thing,to argue it is something it is not is misleading, or perhaps wishful thinking.

[Dawg]

Originally posted by Darth Marley
The mini is BSG,despite the wishes of some. It certainly is different than the original,and some such as I see this as an improvment.

Perhaps "Ice Planet Zero" is not BSG because it rips off "Guns of Navarone."
Clearly this isn't the case,but it makes as much sense as claiming the mini isn't BSG. Despite mutilating the analogies,RDM remade BSG.
To not like it is one thing,to argue it is something it is not is misleading, or perhaps wishful thinking.

I see, Darth, that you are not a fan of TOS BSG. Too bad.

"Ice Planet Zero" took its inspiration from "Guns of Navarone", sure. But they didn't change the characters of Apollo or Starbuck when they wrote the episode.

No, I stand by my argument that the mini was a remake of IHW (with some other, superficial influences) and so it was impossible for it to also be BSG.

Or, if you want to put it another way, it was a remake of IHW with scenes ripped virtually intact from Abyss and other movies, with character makeup from IHW (and, in the case of 6, overlayed with ST:V), and certain superficial references to BSG.

Antelope has very effectively shown that the mini was a remake of IHW. Therefore, it cannot be BSG.

I am
Dawg

[BST]

This thread is being temporarily CLOSED for review.

Please check back for further updates (I WILL be updating this thread after reviewing it but, it will take a little while).

Thanks for your understanding,

BST

[BST]

Folks, I promised that I would review this thread, which I have done.

I’m listing below the items that I found troublesome and why –

Originally posted by Eskimo 01-12-04

“Because of the new BSG, a revival, of the old ways of BSG are now non-negotiable”

• This statement is an opinion, it is inflammatory, and serves no purpose in the discussion. To the best of my knowledge, no one on this forum is seated at the table, at which the decision to continue or scuttle the franchise will be made.

Originally posted by The Rain 01-12-04

Eskimo, I'm in your camp. The mini was great and a resurrection of the original would be pointless and redundant. Moore done good!
And I don't believe for one minute that the majority of the people who saw it thought it was hum drum or whatever.

“That's nonsense from disgruntled fan boys. And there are only a few highly vocal ones among the masses.”

• Bashing of a particular fan group’s hopes, wants, and desires for the show WILL NOT be tolerated on this forum. It may help in the understanding of those folks’ sentiments if one keeps in mind that some of the “disgruntled fans” have been engaged in this effort for a great number of years. In other words, before criticizing another, walk a mile in their shoes.

Originally posted by Dawg 01-12-04

However, you do point out where the danger is, as I see it. If a series based on the mini is produced and runs for more than a few episodes, there is a very real danger that what you propose here will come to pass:

“…we will not see a revival of (what I see as) the real BSG.”

Originally posted by Dawg 01-14-04

“I hope you're not offended by that. I still have a very hard time reconciling the idea that a "real fan" of TOS BSG could even remotely consider the mini as BSG. That's just me, though; perhaps a failing on my part....”

• This has already been addressed in a previous reply of mine, in this thread. Suffice it to say that the revival being alluded to is that of the Original BSG. References about “real” or “true” when accompanying “BSG” or “fans” only serve to cause anger toward others since it tends to “cheapen” their happiness.

Originally posted by antelope526 01-13-04

“If greenlighted we will have in reality a pro-franchise camp and an anti-franchise camp not a pro and anti 'mini' camp.”

• While this may be a true statement, it also is a lightning rod for divisiveness. We will never begin the journey toward finding “common ground” if we constantly think of ourselves as being in “separate camps”.

Originally posted by Dawg 01-14-04

“If, however, you and Dogface feel such efforts are wasted and it's time to walk away, please do so.

You go with my blessings, and the blessings of the Lords of Kobol.”

• Invitations to leave the forum will be extended by the moderators and/or the administrator and only, if the “rules of the forum” are being broken.

In summary,

This thread is an excellent example of the healthy exchange of ideas between folks who happen to have differing opinions. I have only highlighted these particular remarks because they tend to disrupt that healthy exchange of ideas.

That healthy exchange of ideas, opinions, etc is what the Colonial Fleets forums are all about. While the forum is a “Pro-Continuation” site, that is not meant to infer that folks who enjoyed the mini are not welcomed. Quite the contrary, we open the door to all who wish to visit this beautiful, little, island paradise and contribute.

So, with this in mind, I’m re-opening this thread. I look forward to reading more of your thoughtful insights.

BST

Thanks BST for reopening the thread.

My intention on my statement was not to offend. For those I may have unintentionally offended I apologize.

I think we are all BSG fans and thank you all for your thoughts, time, and friendship.

T.J.

[Darth Marley]

Originally posted by Dawg
I see, Darth, that you are not a fan of TOS BSG. Too bad.

Did you get on of those Walmart crystal balls? I find it amusing that you would say such a thing. It would be offensive had you not mentioned:

Originally posted by Dawg


I still have a very hard time reconciling the idea that a "real fan" of TOS BSG could even remotely consider the mini as BSG. That's just me, though; perhaps a failing on my part....

so I'll just take it as such.

Your statments regarding logic seem to say; since a=c,then a MUST not = b. This is not accurate in any sense of logic.
It can rightly be said that I am my father's son,and that does not exclude me from also being my mother's son.
Because one statment is true,it does not (by logic) necessarily exclude other statments from also being true.

A few words on the tired (yawn),old arguments you among the TOS faithful are subjected to.The Rubic's cude was invented in Hungary,and independently in Japan within 6 months. Numerous identical patents have been recieved in the US within days of each other. It is easy to think that the same old arguments are merely "clones" stirring up trouble.
A simpler answer is that these opinions are widely held. Many that enjoyed the mini,or even preferred it to TOS have similar reasons.

Disagreement need not be vindictive or insulting. As fans of SF in general we are going to have some commonality in desires for product in the genre,and vastly different preferrences for the implementation of such products.

Originally posted by BST
Folks, I promised that I would review this thread, which I have done.

I’m listing below the items that I found troublesome and why –

• This statement is an opinion, it is inflammatory, and serves no purpose in the discussion. To the best of my knowledge, no one on this forum is seated at the table, at which the decision to continue or scuttle the franchise will be made.

• Bashing of a particular fan group’s hopes, wants, and desires for the show WILL NOT be tolerated on this forum. It may help in the understanding of those folks’ sentiments if one keeps in mind that some of the “disgruntled fans” have been engaged in this effort for a great number of years. In other words, before criticizing another, walk a mile in their shoes.

• This has already been addressed in a previous reply of mine, in this thread. Suffice it to say that the revival being alluded to is that of the Original BSG. References about “real” or “true” when accompanying “BSG” or “fans” only serve to cause anger toward others since it tends to “cheapen” their happiness.

• While this may be a true statement, it also is a lightning rod for divisiveness. We will never begin the journey toward finding “common ground” if we constantly think of ourselves as being in “separate camps”.

• Invitations to leave the forum will be extended by the moderators and/or the administrator and only, if the “rules of the forum” are being broken.

In summary,

This thread is an excellent example of the healthy exchange of ideas between folks who happen to have differing opinions. I have only highlighted these particular remarks because they tend to disrupt that healthy exchange of ideas.

That healthy exchange of ideas, opinions, etc is what the Colonial Fleets forums are all about. While the forum is a “Pro-Continuation” site, that is not meant to infer that folks who enjoyed the mini are not welcomed. Quite the contrary, we open the door to all who wish to visit this beautiful, little, island paradise and contribute.

So, with this in mind, I’m re-opening this thread. I look forward to reading more of your thoughtful insights.

BST

Apparently, the word "forum" has a different meaning for the moderator of this "forum" than is held as common usage. The prior remarks of BST make it clear than an opinion which differntiates from that of the moderator and his/her cronies is unacceptable and therefore labeled "inflammatory," and in need of immediate suppression. If this "forum" has an agenda, that agenda should be made apparent at the outset, as some type of disclaimer, so that any person, foolishly assuming that the First Ammedment of the Constitution of the United States of America applies, can tailor his/her remarks to fit in with the agenda of this "forum."

[Darth Marley]

Eskimo,that is more than a bit out of line.

For one thing,someone else has paid for the microphone here.
The US Constitution does not apply to private forums such as this.

I would be among the first to say that the leadership of this forum tilts generally against the mini. Still, I manage to defend my point of view, hopefully without offending thier sensibilities.

Despite holding opposite points of view, the mods here are genuinely careful to attempt to make this a welcome place for all well behaved critics. Usually this means restraining those that hold a similar view to their own.

[BST]

Eskimo,

Please check your Private Messages.

BST