What do you consider as "Official" Galactica?

I wonder if there is any consensus on what counts as "official" Battlestar Galactica. If you were to create a chronology of events in the Battlestar Galactica universe, what would you include? Obviously, the original series is official. Over the years, there have been many adventures published beyond the televised episodes. Do the Marvel Comics series count? They were an officially licenced product. How about books by Berkley? They were licenced by Universal as well. When you go beyond the era of the original series, things get a bit sticky because they often contradict each other. The Maximum comics series has the Galactica finding Earth in the dinosaur days. Galactica 1980 (groan) has them reaching earth in (duh) 1980. Richard Hatch's novels conflict things that occured in the Maximum press books (or the other way around depending on your point of view.) Should fan fiction published on the net count? Personally, I consider the Marvel, Maximum and Realm Press comics as part of the canon. I also think that the Berkley books should also be included. I have not read all of Mr. Hatch's works to comment on them authoritatively. Galactica 1980 is not part of the universe (except for maybe the flash back portion of "The Return of Starbuck".) The Sci Fi Channel miniseries does NOT count because it has nothing to do with the original series in any way, shape or form. What do my fellow fans think? What do you consider official?

[Charybdis]

I consider what happened on the TV series as Official, nothing else.

But that also leaves us with the black sheep known as Galactica 1980!!!! Oh well...

[radama]

Originally posted by Charybdis
I consider what happened on the TV series as Official, nothing else.

But that also leaves us with the black sheep known as Galactica 1980!!!! Oh well...

That's OK.That's how Paramount feels about "Star Trek" the animated series!:laugh:

[Belloby]

Only BSG. No 1980, no 2003.

[Artemis]

I think it is the original episodes plus the 14 Berkley books, they were mostly just the episodes with more depth, except the last few books but they may have been story ideas for the 2nd season. I would not include G80 since it was a cheap rip off to try to make up for their mistake of canceling the series in the first place. BG2003 can't be considered canon because it is not compatible with the existing universe of Galactica.

My two cubits. :colwar:

[Charybdis]

I don't know, the books directly contradict the original series. For example, the novelization of Saga of a Star World had the higher brains and all that of cyborg Cylons and of course, the series only had robotic Cylons...

it's a hard call.

I like to think that Battlestar Galactica is a very big tapestry that allows for new, non-televised stories to be introduced into the canon. While the series is the core of the mythos, I think elements from officially licenced sources can be introduced. The Marvel comics show how Baltar is rescued fom the tomb on Kobol by Lucifer. It also reveals the true fate of Adama's wife on Caprica. Other stories relate Sire Uri's attempt to take over the fleet while Adama is incapacitated. The Berkley books gave us more insight into Cylon society. The business of the multi-brained Imperious Leader was always viewed by me as extra memory and analysis capacity rather than actual organic brains. The Maximum press comics gave the name "Seraphs" to the angelic beings from "War of the Gods." In the end, It is left to the individual fan as to what is to be regarded as "real" events in the Galactica universe. I just love the show so much that the precious few episodes of the series are not enough. There is a burning desire for more. Too bad Moore just doesn't get it.

[Darth Marley]

This was just the sort of question I was going to ask fans of TOS.
I take the opinion that myths must be revised and updated for new audiences.But hey,that is just me and other mini-fans.
The issue of canonic continuity has come up in many other shows,movies,and comics.
Any recommendations on sites for BSG continuity glitches?
As far as TOS goes, G80 must be discarded,and only rely on the aired episodes.

[GreggAllinson]

The way I look at it, the '78 series has precedence over everything else...unless another source comes up with a better idea. For example: the Cylons of the novels are a much more fascinating bunch than the TV robots, so go with them.

Honestly, I don't mind the idea of a "re-imagining" because it would provide us with a great opportunity to weave all these disparate threads into a cohesive tapestry. My problem with Moore's "re-imagining", of course, is the fact that it jettisoned so much of what gave Galactica its identity. But if somebody were to come along and shuffle the novels (both the old school Thurston variety and the Hatch ones), comics, TV show, and movie into one coherant new whole, I'd be all for it.

[dru]

Canon is a flexible issue. Clearly even in the tv classic something didn't make sense but that series, now on DVD, is the "holy writ" as it were. At best, the flashback of "The Return of Starbuck" is the only piece of Galactica 1980 that worth noting.

I suppose some bits can be used to 'fill in' where it would never be contradicted by the classic series: Lucifer rescuing Baltar since Baltar was clearly rescued but we never saw how and never will since Colicos is departed.

I don't know if anyone has studied the episodes enough to develop a 'show bible' or TOS encyclopedia from what was on screen: character histories and profiles, Colonial and Cylon histories and so forth. Never contradicted deleted scenes on the new DVD should be noted as well, if perhaps footnoted as "deleted" material. That would be a handy project for classic fandom or any "continuation", I think.

[Charybdis]

Go check out Susan Paxton's BSG Concordance site. She has the most extensive BSG Encyclopedia there is...


http://www.geocities.com/sjpaxton/content2.html

As a hobby, I make chronologies of TV shows. I use the "Star Trek Chronology" model devised by Micheal and Denise Okuda. With this model, everything that is shown or refered to on screen is "real." So far, I have made one for the Planet of the Apes TV show and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Now that I have Battlestar Galactica on DVD, I will start making one for one of my favorite shows. As soon as I compleate it I will post it for the entertainmant of my fellow fans.

[Senmut]

What we saw on screen, between the pilot, and HOG. Period!

[Micheleh]

"I take the opinion that myths must be revised and updated for new audiences. But hey, that is just me and other mini-fans."

Hmm. If the orignial series fans didn't think this, why the fan fiction? Why did DeSanto (an OS fan) write his updated version? Why did Richard (an OS fan) write the comix, the books, the trailer?

It seems inherently contradictory to say, however, that 'myths must be revised and updated' seems to be a view shared by the mini fans, becuase the mini is ttbomk not an update, and is only a revision bu the broadest stretch of the definition, which is, I assume, why they prefered the made up term 're-imagining'. (Does anyone have the official SWG definitions on these?)

As far as what is considered 'canon', I guess that depends on what would officially be acceptable by the SWG. What actually constitutes the BG universe is up to each fan.

[peter noble]

Battlestar Galactica 1978-79, and like it or not Galactica 1980, which was a continuation of the original show set in its future and our present (at the time).

Until someone films a continuation that dismisses G'80 then tough felgercarb, it counts!

Peter

[Dawg]

I agree - TOS. Period.

That has been built upon by fanfic, it was built upon by Tom DeSanto, and Richard Hatch - but the fanfic, DeSanto's unfilmed efforts, even Richard's faithful 4 minute trailer are not canon (nor, actually, should they be).

Canon is the universe, mythology, characters, etc. that were presented to us in 1978-79. Obviously, this doesn't mean canon can't be presented in an updated fashion (which most of our detractors can't seem to understand).

(Sorry, Peter, my friend, but I found G80 so bad I, too, must disregard it in the face of what might yet be.)

I am
Dawg

[peter noble]

Originally posted by Dawg
(Sorry, Peter, my friend, but I found G80 so bad I, too, must disregard it in the face of what might yet be.)

While I agree with your right to disregard it, it still remains a fact, that Galactica 1980 is a direct continuation of the original storyline.

It exists just like this min-series, and until those with the "power" get off their backsides and stop sitting on their hands and shooting the felgercarb then we've really come no further than we were two years-18 months ago, plus a couple of decades.

Peter

[Muffit]

Let's see, what's cannon...

32 pounders, muzzle loading
24 pounders, also muzzle loading
18 pounders and bow chasers (a bit puny but serviceable)
Assorted carronades

Anything after 1865 is really just a gun, IMHO, as the word cannon pretty much gets dropped, especially among naval vessels.

...What??? OOOOOHHHHH, you mean canon!!!!
Duh, I don't know, the Pope and I really don't talk much...

[CaptainTux]

This may not be too popular, but I would fo with TOS, the Marvel Comics rendition and the original books. Also unpopular is my wish that other authors would follow Hatch's lead with books along his vein. Get some of the people from the SW and ST and other series to write novels and flesh out a cannon bible and I will read them. If Larson Desanto do not happen, a book series may be our last vestige of hope. I really hope we get our continuation on screen, but I like the novel idea.

Cheers!

[Dawg]

Originally posted by CaptainTux
This may not be too popular, but I would fo with TOS, the Marvel Comics rendition and the original books. Also unpopular is my wish that other authors would follow Hatch's lead with books along his vein. Get some of the people from the SW and ST and other series to write novels and flesh out a cannon bible and I will read them. If Larson Desanto do not happen, a book series may be our last vestige of hope. I really hope we get our continuation on screen, but I like the novel idea.

Cheers!

Would that it could happen (the books, I mean)!

But it won't - not yet, anyway. Universal has given exclusive rights to Richard Hatch and iBooks - at ruinous rates, by all accounts. All books must be written by Richard (with a co-author selected by iBooks).

Nobody can touch the franchise without Universal's OK - and the payment of beaucoup bucks to Universal for the priviledge.

Another case of mismanaging the franchise, IMHO.

I am
Dawg

[Westy]

Depends on what you mean by BSG. There are now 3 Battlestar Galacticas IMO.

TOS canon:
The '78 TV pilot, the series following that and the novels written for them. Nothing else.

Hatch TOS continuation canon:
The '78 TV pilot, the series following that and the novels written for them and Hatch's novels. Nothing else.

2003 Mini Series canon:
The mini series. Nothing else.

[BST]

I would submit that whichever occurred first would be considered canon and then, subsequent items in that same medium. So, since BSG appeared in a televised form, (theatrical movie outside USA and television) then, that would be considered canon and, like it or not, Galactica 1980 would also have to be included. Now, if we can just get a "Dallas"-type dream...

To include any of the other items like the novels and comic books, their stories would need to be adapted for tv.

Note: I would consider the mini to be an alternate timeline. Not canon.

(Just a few loose thoughts bouncing around an otherwise empty head!)

BST

In the end, I guess you need to include what you like. If you like a comic or a novel that doesn't contradict what was established, it fits. If you only want the original episodes, that works too. I like to include the comics and novels in my personal Galactica canon. But that is just me. I feel that any officially licenced material for tos counts. It is just a universe I like to escape to now and then.

[Dawg]

We each, in our own minds, know what we accept as "canon". Personally, I would have liked to see more influence of some of the Star Trek books in the movies; some of those authors really had some wonderful ideas.

But "canon" must be what the majority of the audience is most likely to embrace. Using the ST example, very few of the audience will be familiar with the books. So, the books cannot be considered Star Trek "canon". In the case of BSG, then, what was developed in the TOS episodes is what most people will recognize; Richard's books will not reach a healthy percentage of the TOS audience (for a variety of reasons), fanfic simply doesn't count (the audience there is miniscule compared to the viewers of TOS).

That's why I maintain that, regardless of what we accept within our own minds as acceptable BSG, "canon" is TOS.

I am
Dawg

[Trevor Angelus]

Originally posted by GreggAllinson
The way I look at it, the '78 series has precedence over everything else...unless another source comes up with a better idea. For example: the Cylons of the novels are a much more fascinating bunch than the TV robots, so go with them.

Honestly, I don't mind the idea of a "re-imagining" because it would provide us with a great opportunity to weave all these disparate threads into a cohesive tapestry. My problem with Moore's "re-imagining", of course, is the fact that it jettisoned so much of what gave Galactica its identity. But if somebody were to come along and shuffle the novels (both the old school Thurston variety and the Hatch ones), comics, TV show, and movie into one coherant new whole, I'd be all for it.

I agree! I would have like to have seen this with the same team behind Firefly doing it! Joss Whedon has a talented team of writers.

[Trevor Angelus]

Personally I accept TOS and Richards books as canon.

Although I only consider the original series to be canon, I sometimes think that there is one episode of Galactica 1980 that could also be considered canon - Starbuck's Fate, the episode featuring the return of Dirk Benedict. A fun watch and a good story. Even if the rest of 1980 is ignored, this episode could still somehow fit in.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dawg
[B]We each, in our own minds, know what we accept as "canon". Personally, I would have liked to see more influence of some of the Star Trek books in the movies; some of those authors really had some wonderful ideas.

But "canon" must be what the majority of the audience is most likely to embrace. Using the ST example, very few of the audience will be familiar with the books. So, the books cannot be considered Star Trek "canon". In the case of BSG, then, what was developed in the TOS episodes is what most people will recognize; Richard's books will not reach a healthy percentage of the TOS audience (for a variety of reasons), fanfic simply doesn't count (the audience there is miniscule compared to the viewers of TOS).

That's why I maintain that, regardless of what we accept within our own minds as acceptable BSG, "canon" is TOS.

Dawg has convinced me! While I love the comics and the books and I include them in my personal timeline, I think Dawg has a strong point. Canon must be the original show because it is what most people are familiar with today. The Marvel comics were published 25 years ago. They may not be accessable to many fans. The last Berkley book came out in 1988. Other than in second hand bookstores they are hard to find. If a true revival were to be made in the future, the original episodes are the only source material that should be referred to.

[ViperAce]

As much as I've dug, and read, and reviewed & put away over the years... I gotta go with TOS and stand firm on ignoring BSG80 ... even with Starbuck's cameo

[callsignfalcon]

i consider BSG and BSG03 two seperate shows on the same -basic- idea.... can't judge one by the other.... so this is a hard one... well I'd have to say definitly not G80!