Dawg
April 6th, 2003, 02:41 PM
First of all, I want to issue a heartfelt thanks to everyone who has posted in this forum for the past several weeks. When I came here, I had just learned that a revival of a favorite show from my youth was beyond the ‘talking about’ stage, that it was being helmed by a writer whose previous work I had admired, and that hope was high that BattleStar Galactica would rise again. The posts I have read here and elsewhere over the last couple of months have been very educational and very thought-provoking. Some of them were touching, some were laughable, some just pissed me off.
I became a member of this forum rather than any of the others for two reasons: the people here seemed to reflect my own (admittedly not-fully-formed) opinion, and there seemed to be a civility here that was sorely lacking at other boards I’d lurked. Some of that has broken down of late, and I regret seeing that. You see, I’m a natural peacemaker; I despise conflicts and want everyone to get along, particularly those people I’ve come to like and respect.
Before I really get into it, you need to know something about me. I am of the same generation as are most of you; I was just past high school when BSG premiered. Unlike most of you, though, I am not an artist or a modeler, but I am a writer (and I would give a lot to be able to work on a BSG book). Because I am a writer, I must work for a living, and so I run a law office during the day.
In a law office, language is everything; each word has a precise meaning, because precision is necessary so that there are no misunderstandings in a legal document. So, if I say I’m a fan of Ron Moore’s work on Star Trek, that’s what I mean – I’m a fan of his work on Star Trek. That does not mean that I automatically accept his work on anything else, including BSG, as being good.
I hope we’re clear on that.
There are several things that bother me about this whole thing, not the least of which is the fact there are members of this board who have obvious blind spots about this whole debate. I refer to the automatic assumption that the end result of this revival is going to be so far removed from anything ‘Battlestar Galactica’ that it will kill the franchise and send us all home to cry in our beer, never to have anything ‘Battlestar Galactica’ to enjoy again.
(There is a two-word phrase I would use here, but the moderators would shut me down for it – suffice it to say it has to do with what you find in the pasture of a male bovine.)
The original series is out there. It cannot be taken back. This group – our group – of fans will always be there. There will always be conventions honoring this short-lived series, if there is an interest for it. There will always be fan fiction and the like, as long as there are people interested. To proclaim such doom and gloom this soon is not just foolish, it’s stupid, and it irritates me no end. Even if they are shooting now, there is a lot of room to hope for us.
I STILL have not seen this script everybody’s all up in arms over, so I can’t form an opinion of it, but I have some questions about it: 1.When was it written, when was it first leaked? 2. How many re-writes has it gone through since? 3. With RDM splitting his time with Carnivale (I’ve heard most of his time is there), and we know re-writes are still ongoing, what elements have changed and what has stayed the same? 4. Anybody seen something recent enough that they might be shooting from that version?
Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell are top-flight actors who can pretty much pick and choose their projects. They will have seen a script well before they signed on – and they liked what they saw well enough to want to be a part of it. I take that as a positive sign that what is being shot is using a decent script.
Because of all this, I still think it eminently possible that the end result will be worth watching.
Think about this: secrecy is the norm. Most movie/tv productions won’t give you much about story line, characters, sets, etc. because they want you to tune in. They will tease you with leaks, promo photos, and propaganda as effective as anything you see out of Iraq today. Information and disinformation. Any press is good press. If you can stir up controversy, so much the better.
How much of what we’ve heard about this production is true, how much is untrue? I don’t know. Who are the most reliable sources we have? Do you know them? I don’t. Where do they work, and who do they work for? Are they being fed disinformation, or the straight scoop? Which news on which bboard is accurate, which is designed just to get our knickers in a knot?
I am a cynic, but I am an optimistic cynic. I do trust several people who post here to give as accurate information as they can, and to debunk the lies. I know, though, that none of us will truly know the content of that movie until the night it airs. I really think that’s when we’ll need to take action, if action needs to be taken. We could probably drive the price down in the sale of SciFi Channel, if we put our minds to it. But we won’t have just cause to try until we see the finished product. To talk of boycotts with as little information we have now is premature.
My work has given me a particular skill: to take a mental step back and observe things more objectively. I have done this with this “debate.” I think I understand, perhaps, some of the reasons why BSG has been treated so differently than, say, Star Trek.
First of all, studio support has been wholly lacking from Universal for the past 25 years. Not so Star Trek. There have been discussions from the end of ST:TOS about more series, the cartoon, books, movies, etc. Paramount stayed with ST – Universal put BSG on a shelf and wouldn’t take it down.
ST:TOS had three seasons of usually well-written, well-presented, frequently complex and thought-provoking episodes. BSG didn’t. There was only one season. Much of the writing was poor and the presentation left much to be desired, as did the talent of some of the actors. A lot of that was understandable when you realize how rushed and pinched for cash the production was, but IMO the final product simply does not live up to its potential, and that’s what current PTB see.
That’s why I don’t think a continuation was given serious consideration.
I also want everybody to understand that even though I see the series as flawed, I still love it and want to see it revived properly – that means I take a dim view of gender changes, name changes, and I find particularly distasteful the ideas of turning the Cylons into man-made machines that are now rebelling, and turning Earth into the homeworld rather than the destination of the 13th tribe (and all the other changes to the base story that would entail).
Regardless of our wishes and wants, though, the revival will contain changes we won’t like. I’ve said before that there will likely be something about it that will make some of us unhappy, and there are, right now, people claiming we have been defeated. Well, it is entirely possible that although we were defeated in specific battles over this, we may well win this war, and be left with something that will actually bring BattleStar Galactica back.
Keep the faith.:thumbsup:
I am
Dawg
I became a member of this forum rather than any of the others for two reasons: the people here seemed to reflect my own (admittedly not-fully-formed) opinion, and there seemed to be a civility here that was sorely lacking at other boards I’d lurked. Some of that has broken down of late, and I regret seeing that. You see, I’m a natural peacemaker; I despise conflicts and want everyone to get along, particularly those people I’ve come to like and respect.
Before I really get into it, you need to know something about me. I am of the same generation as are most of you; I was just past high school when BSG premiered. Unlike most of you, though, I am not an artist or a modeler, but I am a writer (and I would give a lot to be able to work on a BSG book). Because I am a writer, I must work for a living, and so I run a law office during the day.
In a law office, language is everything; each word has a precise meaning, because precision is necessary so that there are no misunderstandings in a legal document. So, if I say I’m a fan of Ron Moore’s work on Star Trek, that’s what I mean – I’m a fan of his work on Star Trek. That does not mean that I automatically accept his work on anything else, including BSG, as being good.
I hope we’re clear on that.
There are several things that bother me about this whole thing, not the least of which is the fact there are members of this board who have obvious blind spots about this whole debate. I refer to the automatic assumption that the end result of this revival is going to be so far removed from anything ‘Battlestar Galactica’ that it will kill the franchise and send us all home to cry in our beer, never to have anything ‘Battlestar Galactica’ to enjoy again.
(There is a two-word phrase I would use here, but the moderators would shut me down for it – suffice it to say it has to do with what you find in the pasture of a male bovine.)
The original series is out there. It cannot be taken back. This group – our group – of fans will always be there. There will always be conventions honoring this short-lived series, if there is an interest for it. There will always be fan fiction and the like, as long as there are people interested. To proclaim such doom and gloom this soon is not just foolish, it’s stupid, and it irritates me no end. Even if they are shooting now, there is a lot of room to hope for us.
I STILL have not seen this script everybody’s all up in arms over, so I can’t form an opinion of it, but I have some questions about it: 1.When was it written, when was it first leaked? 2. How many re-writes has it gone through since? 3. With RDM splitting his time with Carnivale (I’ve heard most of his time is there), and we know re-writes are still ongoing, what elements have changed and what has stayed the same? 4. Anybody seen something recent enough that they might be shooting from that version?
Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell are top-flight actors who can pretty much pick and choose their projects. They will have seen a script well before they signed on – and they liked what they saw well enough to want to be a part of it. I take that as a positive sign that what is being shot is using a decent script.
Because of all this, I still think it eminently possible that the end result will be worth watching.
Think about this: secrecy is the norm. Most movie/tv productions won’t give you much about story line, characters, sets, etc. because they want you to tune in. They will tease you with leaks, promo photos, and propaganda as effective as anything you see out of Iraq today. Information and disinformation. Any press is good press. If you can stir up controversy, so much the better.
How much of what we’ve heard about this production is true, how much is untrue? I don’t know. Who are the most reliable sources we have? Do you know them? I don’t. Where do they work, and who do they work for? Are they being fed disinformation, or the straight scoop? Which news on which bboard is accurate, which is designed just to get our knickers in a knot?
I am a cynic, but I am an optimistic cynic. I do trust several people who post here to give as accurate information as they can, and to debunk the lies. I know, though, that none of us will truly know the content of that movie until the night it airs. I really think that’s when we’ll need to take action, if action needs to be taken. We could probably drive the price down in the sale of SciFi Channel, if we put our minds to it. But we won’t have just cause to try until we see the finished product. To talk of boycotts with as little information we have now is premature.
My work has given me a particular skill: to take a mental step back and observe things more objectively. I have done this with this “debate.” I think I understand, perhaps, some of the reasons why BSG has been treated so differently than, say, Star Trek.
First of all, studio support has been wholly lacking from Universal for the past 25 years. Not so Star Trek. There have been discussions from the end of ST:TOS about more series, the cartoon, books, movies, etc. Paramount stayed with ST – Universal put BSG on a shelf and wouldn’t take it down.
ST:TOS had three seasons of usually well-written, well-presented, frequently complex and thought-provoking episodes. BSG didn’t. There was only one season. Much of the writing was poor and the presentation left much to be desired, as did the talent of some of the actors. A lot of that was understandable when you realize how rushed and pinched for cash the production was, but IMO the final product simply does not live up to its potential, and that’s what current PTB see.
That’s why I don’t think a continuation was given serious consideration.
I also want everybody to understand that even though I see the series as flawed, I still love it and want to see it revived properly – that means I take a dim view of gender changes, name changes, and I find particularly distasteful the ideas of turning the Cylons into man-made machines that are now rebelling, and turning Earth into the homeworld rather than the destination of the 13th tribe (and all the other changes to the base story that would entail).
Regardless of our wishes and wants, though, the revival will contain changes we won’t like. I’ve said before that there will likely be something about it that will make some of us unhappy, and there are, right now, people claiming we have been defeated. Well, it is entirely possible that although we were defeated in specific battles over this, we may well win this war, and be left with something that will actually bring BattleStar Galactica back.
Keep the faith.:thumbsup:
I am
Dawg