Why not a prequel?

[Apoptygma]

Something similiar that they have done in the Battlestar Gallactica Xbox/PS2 game based on Commander Adama as a young Colonial Warrior. There is a lot that could be done with that ...

[ernie90125]

Why Not A Prequel ?

To quote a British Gameshow Catchphrase "It's good but its not the one"

Why support that when we would prefer a Continuation ?

[Apoptygma]

Well ... it just might be a good compromise. I just don't see a continuation happening, as much as I would like one. I cannot think of a similiar situation with two somewhat parallel story arcs running. I don't think it would have enough appeal to the general audience. It would be great for us TOS die hards. I think the only way it could work would be on the Big Screen as a feature film series. That way they could have some separation.

[Eric Paddon]

To me, a prequel as our supposed be-all, end-all to what we've been waiting 25 plus years for, would be another giant cheat like the developments concerning an unmentionable show have been. I do not want a deeper look at stuff I know the outcome to, I want forward momentum on a storyline that's been interrupted since 1979, and if that means moving things ahead 100 years in which Dirk Benedict could only do a cameo in age make-up, but at least addresses some long-standing issues, then that I can live with. But not going in the other direction.

[BST]

Well ... it just might be a good compromise. I just don't see a continuation happening, as much as I would like one. I cannot think of a similiar situation with two somewhat parallel story arcs running. I don't think it would have enough appeal to the general audience. It would be great for us TOS die hards. I think the only way it could work would be on the Big Screen as a feature film series. That way they could have some separation.

It's a good thought but, consider this -- if monies are not going to be available for a continuation of the existing storyline, they would probably not be available for anything else. A prequel would be more of an unknown quantity than a continuation.

[jjrakman]

Personally I would not like to see a prequel done, if it concerns any of the Galactica's crew who were present in TOS, including Adama. Would it be a compromise? Maybe for some. But for me, it would be like using a coupon on a product that you have no use for. Was the coupon really a deal if you have no need for the product? I'd rather see nothing done at all, than a prequel of that kind, because I just wouldn't be interested in it.

The only prequel I would be interested in would be one that details the history of the reptilian Cylons, how their machines took them over, and their conflict with the Hassaris.

Also, It would be interesting to read about the ancient days of Kobol, and when they first colonized the twelve worlds.

[captmiloman]

IMO, prequels usually don't work:
Ponderosa(ran for one season, if that)
ST:Enterprise(four shaky seasons)
SW:EP's 1-3(although, I admit I liked ROTS, we'll see how the two planned TV shows will do)

[Krystal]

In my opinion a prequel, is giving license to change all to whatever they please. In the wrong hands could just bury Tos for ever. I think is the same or worst than we have now.

[Malkyte]

What makes a prequel more appealing then a continuation? I don't get it. If the arguement is, that general audiences will find it more appealing then a continuation... why? and how?

I understand that there are some here that are more then curious to explore stories from times prior to TOS, but I fail to see how a prequel would actually be more marketable then a continuation.

With a continuation you have the guaranty of a certain number of viewers who want to know what became of their favorite characters. A prequel heading into unknown and uncharted waters can not say the same thing. It would be a gamble, with no guaranty of any given viewership. They may or may not watch.

So again, how is a prequel a better way of going? How is it more viable in an environment, where ANY other production is looked upon in distain by the powers that be?


Malkyte


Edit: Let me also add the question... why is a well made continuation of the original not a viable option for some?

[Damocles]

Edit: Let me also add the question... why is a well made continuation of the original not a viable option for some?

The answer is time.

As I understand it now, the mechanics of a DeSanto contrinuation, involve picking up the story some years into the RT fleet exodus future. The further we push into the story future, the greater the danger that the continuation becomes RDMED in the telling.

You have to be careful, whatever you attempt. Just choosing the wrong continuation actors can bollox the attempt.

As always; :salute:

[jewels]

if tom desanto is in charge, no worries about it straying from the source materials that matter most. he totally 'gets' BG. he could write it at any stage of the exodus and it would still be galactica. it's a different ballgame when someone makes a movie or tv show continuation because they love the original and understand it. just ask russell davies of bbc's new dr. who or look at their ratings in the u.k. it makes all the difference in the world if you have someone at the helm that respects the original material.

[Malkyte]

The answer is time.

Forgive me for saying it this way, but duh. Of course time is a factor. But if a continuation were to be greenlite this year or even next year, all the original cast members look in great shape to reprise their respective rolls again. Several would look forward to doing it. So again, this really does not answer the question of why is a continuation not viable for some? When you have Jane Seymore, who died in the second story, wanting to come back and explore her character more and you have several of the acters making similar comments, what is the hold up?

As I understand it now, the mechanics of a DeSanto contrinuation, involve picking up the story some years into the RT fleet exodus future. The further we push into the story future, the greater the danger that the continuation becomes RDMED in the telling.

Why? If you pick someone that has a very healthy respect for the source material, then why is this the only possible outcome? If you look at what DeSanto had planned, and you look at what the creators behind LOTR, Spiderman and even X-Men have been doing, you can imagine a slightly more positive outcome. No, it will not be to EVERYONE'S liking, but it will be a lot closer then to just hit reboot, and reinterpret ... or "re-imagine".

You have to be careful, whatever you attempt. Just choosing the wrong continuation actors can bollox the attempt.

Sure. But thats true for every phase of any production... wrong script, wrong actors, wrong director... etc. Again, I still don't get the viability of a prequel over a continuation argument.

Someone please explain.


Malkyte

[Damocles]

Forgive me for saying it this way, but duh. Of course time is a factor. But if a continuation were to be greenlite this year or even next year, all the original cast members look in great shape to reprise their respective rolls again. Several would look forward to doing it. So again, this really does not answer the question of why is a continuation not viable for some? When you have Jane Seymore, who died in the second story, wanting to come back and explore her character more and you have several of the acters making similar comments, what is the hold up?

1. Legal. Obtaining licensing rights for example.
2. Logistical. Putting together the production company in the terms of talent and physical plant.
3. Financial. Getting the front-end production money.

That takes about two years or more to accomplish minimum.

As for the "duh", (Very gentle remonstration), the simplest problems are the first ones overlooked, when an ambitious project begins. 1979-2006. That is a significant hurdle and anyone who charges into the continuation without carefully considering that fact, is fooling him or herself that it won't have a PRIMARY impact on the way the story continues. However the continuation develops it will CHANGE the way the story unfolds than it would have if it had continued unabated in 1979. You cannot avoid it. The vwery way production is done in film or on TV has changed. Example-CGI might suibstitute for the spaceship modeling. Example-the very style of acting has changed. Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman showed that Jane Seymour had radically changed her acting style since the days when she was on Galactica.

Why? If you pick someone that has a very healthy respect for the source material, then why is this the only possible outcome? If you look at what DeSanto had planned, and you look at what the creators behind LOTR, Spiderman and even X-Men have been doing, you can imagine a slightly more positive outcome. No, it will not be to EVERYONE'S liking, but it will be a lot closer then to just hit reboot, and reinterpret ... or "re-imagine".

Granted, but it just takes one major error in judgement to foul up the effort. Case in point, ZOIC does reasonably good work in the trade as a CGI house from what I can see, but if you hire Michael Rymer to direct, you might as well write failure on the project pilot-no matter how close you stay to canon or to the "look".

Sure. But thats true for every phase of any production... wrong script, wrong actors, wrong director... etc. Again, I still don't get the viability of a prequel over a continuation argument.

A prequel or a parallel story as long as you stick to canon, allows you to tell a semi-independent story to the RT exodus that won't have your continuity editor checking the fifteen thousand page continuity bible to make sure that you didn't goof in showing Starbuck as lefthanded.

Someone please explain.

And someone does;

Sure. But thats true for every phase of any production... wrong script, wrong actors, wrong director... etc. Again, I still don't get the viability of a prequel over a continuation argument.

You just explained it perfectly. :salute:


Malkyte

As always and very respectfully; :salute:

[Malkyte]

1. Legal. Obtaining licensing rights for example.
2. Logistical. Putting together the production company in the terms of talent and physical plant.
3. Financial. Getting the front-end production money.

That takes about two years or more to accomplish minimum.

I must be missing something here. What does any of the above have to do with doing a continuation vs a prequel. They would both require such hurdles to get through. The only difference I see is that one has a known quantity while the other doesn't. And I can confidently say that there are still quite a few years left in the majority of the original cast.

As for the "duh", (Very gentle remonstration), the simplest problems are the first ones overlooked, when an ambitious project begins. 1979-2006. That is a significant hurdle and anyone who charges into the continuation without carefully considering that fact, is fooling him or herself that it won't have a PRIMARY impact on the way the story continues. However the continuation develops it will CHANGE the way the story unfolds than it would have if it had continued unabated in 1979. You cannot avoid it. The vwery way production is done in film or on TV has changed. Example-CGI might suibstitute for the spaceship modeling. Example-the very style of acting has changed. Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman showed that Jane Seymour had radically changed her acting style since the days when she was on Galactica.

And everything you have just stated has absolutely no bearing whether a continuation can or cannot be done. Yes, film making production techniques and even acting has changed considerably since 1978. So? A perfect example, even if somewhat closer in time is Star Trek. The movies created in the late 70s and early 80s were hardly of the same technical quality of the original TV series. And imagine when the writters and producers managed to figure out how to use the orginal actors in more mature stages of their characters lives!(oh the shock!) No difference here. Obviously a continuation would not start directly after Hand of God, but considerable years later... as DeSanto had planned. So again, this arguement is still very hollow to me, and appears to me more of finding excuses. The "problem" you try to present here has been proven to be something that can be overcome, given someone has the balls to do it.

Oh, and sometimes, its when you focus too much time on the little things that nothing gets done.


Granted, but it just takes one major error in judgement to foul up the effort. Case in point, ZOIC does reasonably good work in the trade as a CGI house from what I can see, but if you hire Michael Rymer to direct, you might as well write failure on the project pilot-no matter how close you stay to canon or to the "look".

How is this different from ANY production? DeSanto had updated visuals and they seem to fit quite well with the TOS orginals. So, again, a mute argument against a possible continuation.

A prequel or a parallel story as long as you stick to canon, allows you to tell a semi-independent story to the RT exodus that won't have your continuity editor checking the fifteen thousand page continuity bible to make sure that you didn't goof in showing Starbuck as lefthanded.

That just reeks of laziness, not to mention countering your own arguement above. First, TOS canon, isn't so deep and it wouldn't take all that much effort to stay within canon. Two, you are still missing the selling point of BSG. Do you really believe that if Star Trek came back with anything other then Kirk and crew for the movies, that it would have spawned the other series? I think not. The ability to make other series and even the subsesquent prequel Enterprise rested on the fact that ST became popular again with the TOS crew leading the way.

A BSG prequel or parrallel story would not bring the same viewership to the table as a story dealing with the original and KNOWN characters. Sure, there would be die-hard fans who might tune in, but it certainly won't bring in your average viewer who only remembers vague images from his/her childhood about the adventures of Apollo and Starbuck.

It is not a logical or viable way to bring back any show, let alone one that has been off the air for more then 27 years.


And someone does;

Nope, you said nothing that indicates a continuation would be any less viable. None of the arguments you bring forth has any more impact whether it is a prequel or continuation.


So I am still waiting for the explanation!



Malkyte

[BST]

Time, especially the time since 1979, is most definitely a factor but, not an insurmountable one.

Consider this: the characters from the original show would have kept pace with the passage of time; some of the older characters such as Adama, Tigh, Cain, Baltar, Sire Uri, Siress Belloby, etc, would have either passed away or ascended to senior positions either in the military or civilian government; some of the younger characters - Apollo, Starbuck, Boomer, Cassi, Sheba, etc, would be nearing or past "Earth" standards for middle-age; some would have settled down and had children, some wouldn't have. The children would be at approximately the age as the younger primary characters of TOS.

Do you see where I'm leading with this?

A continuation would NOT be a rehash of the stories of Apollo, Starbuck, etal, it would be the point of transition to the younger generation. In essence, there would be a 'new story', with new characters but, tempered with some of the original characters and their history. Most importantly, though, there would be --- Continuity.

[BST]

1. Legal. Obtaining licensing rights for example.
2. Logistical. Putting together the production company in the terms of talent and physical plant.
3. Financial. Getting the front-end production money.



As always and very respectfully; :salute:


1. If Universal senses that a buck can be made, licensing rights will not be an obstacle.

2. If DeSanto is involved, this would likely not be an issue.

3. See answer to #2.

;)

[Malkyte]

Time, especially the time since 1979, is most definitely a factor but, not an insurmountable one.

Consider this: the characters from the original show would have kept pace with the passage of time; some of the older characters such as Adama, Tigh, Cain, Baltar, Sire Uri, Siress Belloby, etc, would have either passed away or ascended to senior positions either in the military or civilian government; some of the younger characters - Apollo, Starbuck, Boomer, Cassi, Sheba, etc, would be nearing or past "Earth" standards for middle-age; some would have settled down and had children, some wouldn't have. The children would be at approximately the age as the younger primary characters of TOS.

Do you see where I'm leading with this?

A continuation would NOT be a rehash of the stories of Apollo, Starbuck, etal, it would be the point of transition to the younger generation. In essence, there would be a 'new story', with new characters but, tempered with some of the original characters and their history. Most importantly, though, there would be --- Continuity.


Thanks BST!

That puts into words what I was thinking as well!

:salute:

Malkyte

[Damocles]

Thanks BST!

That puts into words what I was thinking as well!

:salute:

Malkyte

Malkyte;

First of all, I am not arguing against a continuation.
Second of all, I seriously doubt that the fast buck artists at Universal will fall so neatly into the fold, as you suggest. If they would, then the Desanto project would be what would be on the air. It is not. That speaks volumes. Quod est demostratum.
Third of all, I have demonstrated conclusively through concrete examples how a continuation is more like to fail than succeed despite the best intentions-simply due to the passage of time and the onset of senility. George Lucas is my primary datum point. But even JMS flubbed the dub with Legend of the Rangers. Or maybe the producer keeps a tight rein on the canon anyway and the underwriters sabotage the effort, as TNT did to Crusade.

This is what BST is ultimately saying, what you are ultimately treying to say, what Tabbi laid out originally and what I developed myaself in considerable detail.

Whether it is accepted or not, at a gut level, there are very practical reasons for a parallel story or a prequel as opposed to a direct continuation-even a continuation projected forward a generation. And yes that attention to the backstory while it must be rigorous can be less than absolute as you dovetail a new story into the Colonial mythos.

Finally, Malkyte , you write there is not that much backstory in the CBSG that requires such close attention to continuity. Oh boy.

http://forums.colonialfleets.com/showthread.php?t=12689

Just writing that piece required me to have a detailed knowledge of the how Colonials and Cylons communicated among themselves in certain ways and the differing societal approaches to the way they did things. This was solidly established in as few as ten episodes in the 1979 series! How else could I describe how the Cylons would react to the situation, or how the Colonials handled things that was even remotely consistent with the way the CBSG canon presented it?

Even at that, I found that the parallel story which involved only two central CBSG characters was difficult to write without making several fat intuitive leaps and assumptions that we never saw shown in the original series, but which were logical extensions of who the Colonials were, and how the Cylons had behaved in similar circumstances. Yet tell me if that feels like the Galactica you remember?

You can try to be as truthful to the original as you wish, but there will be radical changes, sometimes unrecognizable ones as you move the story forward or sideways. It isn't as if I don't have a little practical experience in doing this stuff, myself.

As always and with warmest regards; :salute:

[BST]

Malkyte;

First of all, I am not arguing against a continuation.
Second of all, I seriously doubt that the fast buck artists at Universal will fall so neatly into the fold, as you suggest. If they would, then the Desanto project would be what would be on the air. It is not. That speaks volumes. Quod est demostratum.
Third of all, I have demonstrated conclusively through concrete examples how a continuation is more like to fail than succeed despite the best intentions-simply due to the passage of time and the onset of senility. George Lucas is my primary datum point. But even JMS flubbed the dub with Legend of the Rangers. Or maybe the producer keeps a tight rein on the canon anyway and the underwriters sabotage the effort, as TNT did to Crusade.

This is what BST is ultimately saying, what you are ultimately treying to say, what Tabbi laid out originally and what I developed myaself in considerable detail.

Whether it is accepted or not, at a gut level, there are very practical reasons for a parallel story or a prequel as opposed to a direct continuation-even a continuation projected forward a generation. And yes that attention to the backstory while it must be rigorous can be less than absolute as you dovetail a new story into the Colonial mythos.

Finally, Malkyte , you write there is not that much backstory in the CBSG that requires such close attention to continuity. Oh boy.

http://forums.colonialfleets.com/showthread.php?t=12689

Just writing that piece required me to have a detailed knowledge of the how Colonials and Cylons communicated among themselves in certain ways and the differing societal approaches to the way they did things. This was solidly established in as few as ten episodes in the 1979 series! How else could I describe how the Cylons would react to the situation, or how the Colonials handled things that was even remotely consistent with the way the CBSG canon presented it?

Even at that, I found that the parallel story which involved only two central CBSG characters was difficult to write without making several fat intuitive leaps and assumptions that we never saw shown in the original series, but which were logical extensions of who the Colonials were, and how the Cylons had behaved in similar circumstances. Yet tell me if that feels like the Galactica you remember?

You can try to be as truthful to the original as you wish, but there will be radical changes, sometimes unrecognizable ones as you move the story forward or sideways. It isn't as if I don't have a little practical experience in doing this stuff, myself.

As always and with warmest regards; :salute:


I'm going to disagree with that, Damocles.

Regardless which linear time direction a potential new show would take, be it the past or be it the future, I don't see a greater chance of success with a prequel or parallel story than I do with a continuation. Each is fraught with one unknown quantity - acceptance.

Personally, I don't care for prequels, as I mentioned elsewhere since, one ultimately knows the end result. I prefer stories being more open-ended,with the final chapter as yet unwritten. As far as a parallel story goes, there would have to be some tie-in to the original show, otherwise, it would have no historical perspective (with respect to the canon of the BSG universe). It could work but, in my opinion, only after re-establishing Galactica as the centerpiece of that universe.

My thought would have a 'possible' parallel story introduced in the same fashion as ST: DS9, being introduced AFTER ST:TOS returned, in the form of theatrical movies and AFTER ST:TNG picked up the story several generations later. I don't feel that DS9 would have enjoyed as much success if IT had appeared without that lead-in.

(FWIW: This is rather amusing, discussing several steps down the road when we haven't even gotten to the first step, yet.)

:LOL:

[Malkyte]

Damocles;

Let me start by clearing up my position. I am for a continuation with as many of the TOS cast as possible set 20 some odd years after HoG, which also includes the addition of new characters in the form of a new generation of Colonials. I am ALSO interested in prequels that would deal with numerous questions, such as how did the war with the Cylons begin, how were battlestars built as well as a deeper look into Colonial society. It would also be interesting to explore what other events were happening elsewhere during the main attack and whether any others survived. But all of the that is because I consider myself a diehard fan of TOS Galactica.

And while all of that sounds great, I am in a minority group of fans when it comes to Hollywood making their decisions. So while all of those sound interesting to me, a Hollywood exec is going to try and find what will interest me, but the casual fans or viewer as well. In those terms, the only logical project to green light, would be one that has the most name recognition possible. While "Battlestar Galactica" is a big part of that name recognition, so is Starbuck, Apollo, Adama and even the little robot dog Muffit. Therefore, it would makes sense, that when you bring back a show long gone, you do so with as much familiarity as possible, before you venture off into other explorations.

Malkyte;

First of all, I am not arguing against a continuation.

Never said you did. I asked the question, what makes a prequel more viable then a continuation, which you have tried to explain, but haven't done so convincingly.

Second of all, I seriously doubt that the fast buck artists at Universal will fall so neatly into the fold, as you suggest. If they would, then the Desanto project would be what would be on the air. It is not. That speaks volumes. Quod est demostratum.

This has absolutely no bearing on the question at hand, other then it is true for all possibilities of Galactica and not just a continuation. As for DeSanto's production, someone amongst those "fast buck artists at Universal" thought enough of his production to get it within a few weeks of shooting, and thats no small thing. Regime change is what killed that project, not because of any lack of possible success. It was also killed because the new team brought in didn't feel like exploring a continuation, but wanted to satisfy their own egos by "re-inventing scifi". Again, nothing to do with why a continuation did not fly. It just didn't suite the folks that made the call.

As for the track record of execs and their decisions, I believe we all have stories that pretty much validate the fact that Hollywood execs have no clue what they are doing. They shoot in the dark, counting numbers, and hope that once in awhile they get it right.

But again, irrelevant to the question, as it would be true no matter the production.

Third of all, I have demonstrated conclusively through concrete examples how a continuation is more like to fail than succeed despite the best intentions-simply due to the passage of time and the onset of senility. George Lucas is my primary datum point. But even JMS flubbed the dub with Legend of the Rangers. Or maybe the producer keeps a tight rein on the canon anyway and the underwriters sabotage the effort, as TNT did to Crusade.

I am affraid you are mistaken here. You have not proven anything. Nor have you presented anything concrete that isn't true no matter what the production would be. All the examples you called out are not a problem just for a continuation, but for any production, and as a result does not answer my initial question, no matter how much you might will it. Using Lucas as an example only proves my point, in that a prequel is a bad idea. As for LotR and Crusade... never saw enough to make a judgement. But my understanding of those productions is that there was a heavy hand of the studios envolved. No matter, it still doesn't show any reason why a prequel or parralel story would be more viable then a continuation.

The closest you came to making an arguement for why a continuation might not be as viable, is time. However, you apparently have ignored my counter arguement that the majority of the cast can and have indeed shown interest in revisiting their characters in hopes of examining them at a later point in their character's lives. A production starting in the near future is still a very viable option. Is the window closing? Sure. But its not closed yet.

This is what BST is ultimately saying, what you are ultimately treying to say, what Tabbi laid out originally and what I developed myaself in considerable detail.

I am not sure what you think I am saying, but I have said it a number of times. As with Star Trek, bring back as many of the original cast and follow a continuation which examines what became of those characters, while introducing a new generation to build from. Once this has been established and CBSG is once again on more people's minds, you do your parralel and prequel explorations. But to get there, you use as much recognition to build back the audience, which includes Starbuck, Apollo and the rest. There is no better example then Star Trek, and I don't know why that is so hard for some to see. And no I don't buy the "more time has passed arguement". Despite nothing new in over 25 years, BSG has maintained a strong fanbase. Over 25 million people watched the original on its worst night. They will have fond memories, and will want to rekindle, to some degree those fond memories, should a new production come to be. To rekindle those memories, you use as much familiarity as possible... which would include as much of the original cast as possible. That's what I am saying and I believe mainly what BST is saying. What you and Tabbi have been saying is still rather puzzling to me and I still haven't figured it out. But not for a lack of trying.


to be continued.....

[Malkyte]

Whether it is accepted or not, at a gut level, there are very practical reasons for a parallel story or a prequel as opposed to a direct continuation-even a continuation projected forward a generation. And yes that attention to the backstory while it must be rigorous can be less than absolute as you dovetail a new story into the Colonial mythos.

Maybe your gut, not mine. This is the crux of the disagreement and I have yet to hear one thing that makes it more practical to do a prequel or parralel story as a opposed to a continuation. I will repeat again, that while a prequel or a parralel story is potentially interesting, especially for diehards as ourselves, it is not more practical in the sense of re-introducing the world of BSG to the mainstream audiences.

As for Colonial mythos, you would have the same challenges not matter what story you were telling.

Finally, Malkyte , you write there is not that much backstory in the CBSG that requires such close attention to continuity. Oh boy.

Perhaps my words weren't clear enough, bu this is not what I said or wanted to say. What I wanted to say was that BSG canon is rather light compared to Star Trek and yet they still managed to make 6 continuation movies. BSG's 24 hours compared to 80+ hours of TV, books, animated seires of Star Trek, and they still managed to write the movies. So, my point was that while there is canon to keep in mind, it will not be as difficult as Star Trek which did it successfully. Will it be work? You betcha! But thats what writters are paid for. It has been done before, Desanto was doing it and it can be done again.

http://forums.colonialfleets.com/showthread.php?t=12689

Just writing that piece required me to have a detailed knowledge of the how Colonials and Cylons communicated among themselves in certain ways and the differing societal approaches to the way they did things. This was solidly established in as few as ten episodes in the 1979 series! How else could I describe how the Cylons would react to the situation, or how the Colonials handled things that was even remotely consistent with the way the CBSG canon presented it?

Even at that, I found that the parallel story which involved only two central CBSG characters was difficult to write without making several fat intuitive leaps and assumptions that we never saw shown in the original series, but which were logical extensions of who the Colonials were, and how the Cylons had behaved in similar circumstances. Yet tell me if that feels like the Galactica you remember?

You can try to be as truthful to the original as you wish, but there will be radical changes, sometimes unrecognizable ones as you move the story forward or sideways. It isn't as if I don't have a little practical experience in doing this stuff, myself.

As always and with warmest regards; :salute:

Let me start by saying that I have respect for your efforts. I should also reveal that I am writing a story of my own and have a few others in mind. As I get deeper into development, I know just what you are talking about in doing research to make the story fit as cleanly as possible into the BSG universe. But that comes along with the territory, and someone working for a production will get paid to do it, so there is no excuse.

I think there is a misconception that a continuation would have to be identical in feel to the oriiginal series. This is incorrect. Having seen Desanto's production drawings and listening to him at Galacticon, standing not more then five feet away from me, laying out his ideas and plans for the new show, I know that a balance between bringing back the feel of the original show and adding new elements and modern feel to it, is possible. No, it will not be exactly like the original, nor will it be liked by everyone.

But like Star Trek, like Lord of the Rings, like X-Men, it can be brought to the mainstream audiences and still keep most of the diehard fans happy by keeping it as true to the original as possible.

:salute:

Respectfully,

Malkyte

[TwoBrainedCylon]

This is sounding like a challenge.

What does the Exodus team get if we make a prequel storyline everyone likes?


Sandy

[Darrell Lawrence]

What do they get? Something they already have- Kudos for a great FAN project ;)

For OFFICIAL projects, Continuation comes first in my book :)

[TwoBrainedCylon]

What do they get? Something they already have- Kudos for a great FAN project ;)

For OFFICIAL projects, Continuation comes first in my book :)

Oh, ... OK.

I was hoping for ice cream or something like that.


Sandy

[Darrell Lawrence]

Well... if you want Mushies, I think we can arrange that :LOL:

[BST]

Well... if you want Mushies, I think we can arrange that :LOL:




Umm, it might *chomp .. chomp .. be a while. They're *chomp .. chomp .. on back-order. (The ice cream might be easier to get. I've heard that the distributors are flooded with ice cream.........

Oh, this just in..... The warehouse freezer blew a fuse and they had an ice cream flood! I knew it had something to do with ice cream and flood.

:blush:

(the :mushies: were good, though.)

*tiptoes toward the back door..... :duck:

[Malkyte]

Ah yes... Mushies! Isn't that a new CA award? :D

;)


:salute:


Malkyte

[Darrell Lawrence]

Ah yes... Mushies! Isn't that a new CA award? :D

;)


:salute:


Malkyte

Bingo :D

[Bijou88]

Prequels are iffy things because everyone has a personal mental image about what happened before "now". Because everyone pictures preceding events differently, any prequel is bound to disappoint the majority of fans. I mean, how many Star Wars fans ever pictured Jar Jar Binks in their ponderings about the old republic?

Would I like to discover all the stuff that happended before Saga of a Star World? Yes. Will it ever happen? No. Universal is too busy with Gino to muddy up the water with a prequel to TOS. In their mind, they wished TOS never existed. Then they would not have to listen to the collective Bronx cheers of TOS fans.

However, if I could let my imagination run free, what kind if prequel stories would I like to see?

1. The adventures of Adama and Tigh as young Lieutenants. I would love to see them "give the cylons a good run" with less fancy vipers.

2. The beginning of the war with the Cylons. It would be great to witness earlier Cylon and Colonial technology going at it. What did the Cylons look like in the early days? What did early versions of Battlestars look like?

3. The voyages of the Galactica before Saga of a star world. Adama was in command of the Galactica for some years before the peace conference. What kind of missions did they go on in this period? What were other Battlestars in the fleet up to?

4. Kane. What was the battle of Moleokay all about? What was the highlights of Kane's career?

5. What was ther early career's of Starbuck and Apollo like? How did they meet? Did they get along or was there originally conflict between them?

6. From the beginnings of the war to the peace conference, a millenium passed. What happened during this time? Surely this period is filled with facinating adventures. How did the colonials sustain a war for a thousand years?

7. The fall of Kobol. This is as far back as the original series ever referred to. I would love to see this period in human history.

I feel that these stories will only be told in the realm of fan fiction or fan films. If ever professionally produced, I think the best forum would be a CGI series like Starship Troopers or the recent Spiderman series. This would allow the producers to jump from time period to time period in an anthology format. This would also be cost effective because they would not have to build sets and costumes for every time period.

In the end however, if I had my druthers ( what are druthers anyway?) I would want a continuation of the original series.

[Tabitha]

Continuation vs prequel... why does there have to be an either or? This is whats known as a red herring arguement. I like Pepsi, you like Coke, so if I say Id like to see the store carry Pepsi, for me, that does NOT mean you cannot have Coke. There is a certain illogic here that disturbs me. I mentioned that I would champion a prequel. In fact, my story Chrome Berets is a prequel. In it I have not mentioned the galactica in more than brief terms. I have not changed anything to do with TOS, in fact, Ive given explanation as to why the Cylons attacked, why Baltar screwed the Colonies over, WHY the Cylons didnt finish the job after the Galactica left, WHY the Cylon fleet doesnt just track them down and destroy them... these actually enhance the story for me and the fans of my story. Ive had many private messages left telling me that they like how it gives MEANING to the events. So if fans of TOS can find additional meaning, and it enhances their enjoyment of TOS, how can it be bad? How can something that makes what you love, even better for you, be so horribly wrong? Why do the proponents of a continuation INSIST on painting anyone who prefers a prequel into a corner with this rubbish arguement that its either or? This isnt an either or thing. If you prefer no prequel to answer many of the questions about how and why, then dont watch it! Dont read my stories! Dont dare go to ANY fanfiction sites! You will see so many many people out there trying to do what I do, explain a few things and patch holes in the series. A continuation would be wonderful as well, but there are so many problems with having TWO shows on at the same time that try to tell two different stories, yet have the same name and characters. Common sense here folks. Its confusing, and frankly silly. It would be silly to go head to head with RDM and his project at this time. Everyone who knows BSG knows that his project is to TOS as Lost in Space movie was to TOLIS (The origional Lost In Space) We dont need to compete when we have a perfectly acceptable alternative to offer at this time and later, we can have a continuation.
This isnt about either-or, and to paint it that way is silly. To fight over wether it has merit is silly as well. Both ideas have merit. Im just as much in favor of one as the other. I just thing theres a time and a place for everything. If DeSanto and co. are you choices for the absolute BEST directors, then fine, let them do the prequel as well! WTF is that so hard to figure out people? I dont care if RDM himself does the prequel, just so long as its true to TOS and tells a story that is family friendly, and meets the ethical and moral standards that TOS upheld. Of course I doubt HE could do that, but my point is made. We ALL want the story to never end. Of course. Noone wants the last dance to end, especially when its a fun party, but we have to start this dance somewhere. Why not at the beginning? And if IF the actors and the writers and directors and editors, and producers and everyone else do a good job on the prequel, there might be room for even a word for word retelling of TOS. That might not be bad either. The origional actors coaching them, the origional equipment, the origional scripts everything. Just clean up the flaws, and modernise the effects, give TOS new life and a new chance at shining. After all, if the actors in the continuation are to be trusted, then why not trust them! Give them a chance. Dont be afraid. After all, its not like the DVD's on your TV stand will change if they do make a mess. But at least its a mess from people TRYING, and not just words on a BBS wishing and gushing over a project. Theres risk, sure, but nothing ventured, NOTHING gained. Im all for a prequel, a faithful retelling, a good continuation, and off shoots! I want it all, and I want it right! But I know that i I will get NOTHING if its the wrong time and the wrong place, no matter what the project. Dont believe me? Ask fans of Aliens! They are still waiting for a good sequel to that movie.

tabbi

[peter noble]

Tabbi,

Have you ever heard of paragraphs?

You might want to space out your text every six sentences or so as your posts are very hard to read.

Peter

[Darrell Lawrence]

4. Kane. What was the battle of Moleokay all about? What was the highlights of Kane's career?

Who's Kane? What's Molekay?

[BST]

I'm really at a loss as to WHY I need to be convinced that a continuation is not the only route to go.

That particular story has kept US interested for better than 27 years. Not many other shows can make that claim.

Myself and others have stated our preference......that is, what we would PREFER to see. Why can't that be respected?

If I wanted to see a prequel or a re-telling of the original story, why would I spend time on a forum championing for a continuation. I could do other things and just sit and wait for it, whatever it is, to appear.

[TwoBrainedCylon]

I'm really at a loss as to WHY I need to be convinced that a continuation is not the only route to go.

I don't think you need to be convinced of anything. You have your preferences. So does everyone else. I didn't get that anyone was saying otherwise.

I think that if any concept is presented as a group philosophy and is claimed to be THE ONLY WAY, then it shares the burden of proving why no other way is valid.



Sandy

[BST]

Sandy,

The gist that I'm getting from Tabbi's rather demonstrative remarks are that less focus should be toward a continuation and MORE focus toward other alternatives.

I don't happen to share that sentiment. Granted, my opinion is just that, my opinion but, as I asked a while back, if a continuation is not a viable alternative, why would any other project suddenly become more viable?

Perhaps I'm painting myself into a corner by championing a continuation at the expense of all other "official" project types but, such is life. I've been travelling that lane of traffic for too long, now, to consider changing lanes.

Pete

[Donar]

In a prequel Humans could kick some major Cylon Butt, i like the idea...

I don't know if a continuation of the "classic" Galactica will work, for me the cylons of the '79 show look silly nowadays and caracters were somehow different then. But even with these things said, my "classic" DVD box arrived today and i like watching it.

[Sept17th]

Yeah Baby Yeah!

[Dawg]

You know, I am really, really, really tired of hearing how a continuation isn't going to work, how the actors are too old, how the audience would reject 1978's disco-styled show if it was produced today... How the Cylons look outdated today.

I will now offer the free use of a tow truck TO PULL YOUR DAMN HEADS OUT!!!

*ahem*

;)

All right - I'm kidding around a little - but before anybody can say a continuation won't work they need to see what Tom DeSanto would have done if politics and games and terrorists hadn't scuttled it.

Start here (we have exclusive information here):

Cylon Alliance DeSanto Pages (http://www.cylon.org/bsg/bsg-desanto-01.html)

There's no disco, emphasis on new, younger characters, redesigned - or, more accurately, updated - Cylons. For example:

http://www.cylon.org/images/bg/DS-CylonPilot01a.jpg

And I trust Tom DeSanto to be able to bring us, still, the same kind of compelling story and storytelling.

Read. Get educated. THEN talk to me about how well a continuation would work.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[BST]

Uh, Mizzuh Dawg has spoken.

:D

[dilbertman]

You GO DAWG!

Jim :thumbsup:

[Donar]

OK, if there are no polished walking toasters, and the "transformation" of the Cylons is explained through time going on i can not find so much problems. I always thought that the die hards wanted eg. their original cylons back.

[Krystal]

That's not fair Dawg! Now I want to see that Cylon in action. :cry: He's so cool and definitely have the resemblance of the old Cylons. I just love the old cylons, and that picture shows there are many ways to make them modern. But I would love an old one rumming out there too. ;) They're more exciting than people resembling machines.

Krystal :rose:

[Donar]

Could it be that i saw this "new" cylon in action in the BSG Console game? But he was not treated very well by the Emperor.

[Darrell Lawrence]

Donar, go look at the Gallery here, namely the DeSanto section :)

The Game Cylon is a bit different. Reminds me I need to get THAT section up in the Gallery....

[Dawg]

Donar, a continuation has never been about bringing BSG back in all it's 1978 splendor. It's been about telling the story with 21st Century storytelling technology and sophistication. That's what Tom DeSanto and Brian Singer would have brought us - a story told to the modern audience that was still true to the universe created in 1978.

The continuation has advantages any other format does not - an established set of beloved characters in an established universe where there are established events to build on. From a business perspective, there's also an established fanbase on which to build with a continuation.

And when we're given that continuation, we won't expect it to be a rehash of 1978's season, either - we don't expect Apollo and Starbuck and Boomer in their Vipers each week. That's for the new generation, the characters that will be the major focus of the story.

That's been our goal. Anyone who claims otherwise is either uninformed (and really needs to go read the entire Battlestar Galactica section at CA), or is a troll just out to create hate and dissent.

This is not saying a prequel doesn't have its place - far from it. It's just not the way to re-ignite the franchise.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Donar]

I think i got it, i just stumbled over the new Galactica and decided to also watch the original series again. Then i got interested in technical Data of the ships and somehow got here. Then i got on your nerves because of "repeating old untrue stuff". Sorry for that - but it's not so easy to get behind all this as normal "tv watcher". So no trolling intendet.

C'ya

[Dawg]

Hey - I'm all about bringing people up to speed, Donar. I hope you don't think I was directing any anger or anything at you - I was speaking to the thread subject and several of the posts.

Besides, if I really thought you were a troll.... :rage: ;)

But seriously - if you want to learn more about Battlestar Galactica and what's happened over the years, this is a good place, and over at CA we've got a lot of BSG-related info, including the revival attempts (there have been several) with a lot of images. We've got a bunch of people who are authorities on the subject who have contributed.

I look forward to continuing our conversation.

I am
Dawg
:warrior: