How is scriptcontent contemptuous or insulting?

[Dean Martin]

A question, Jewels that I have been wanting to ask, but didn't feel that a rational discussion was possible. How exactly have the producers arrogance and contempt? Genuinely curious. I have read all of the interviews of the various players, read of their attendance at various fan gatheings, and I can't find the contempt. Everyone has seemed very polite and conciliatory. Is it just that they are doing the project their way that is taken as contempt ?
I have read some pretty serious charges on verious boards, satanisim, conspiracies sending out false posters, buying off critics, sexual favors etc.
I work in the business and have never seen that kind of behavior on the part of anyone. Trust me I don't see producers and studio heads as saints, but what exactly have they done?*


I agree with you. I don't see contempt EXCEPT in making a female Starbuck. At the very least there is a lack of respect for TOS fans. But for the rest of the mini I saw a lot of genuine homage to TOS.
There were nods to the original Cylons and many other connections that were made. I still can't get past the female Starbuck though. I haven't found a reason other than to create some sort of sexual tension but that could have been accomplished with ANY character.
If I was given some sort of plot connection that I could see, oh they 'Had' to do it to make it work but I just don't see it.

[thomas7g]

Oh you better ask that question in the OTHER miniseries forum! :)

Don't answer it on this side!

[malachi42]

Dean-
How is scriptcontent contemptuous or insulting? I can understand finding it annoying, infuriating, but insulting? I just don't get that part of the debate.

[thomas7g]

Thanks Malachi :D

I think the insulting part is when the writer shows no awareness of what made the original characters so good, but keeps telling you how his version is so much better. Its like he's telling you hey, I'm the one in hollywood, and I KNOW better than you. That's the insult part. We get it from Scifi all the time. And then they give us just what we've always wanted, another season of Scare Tactics.

:rolleyes:

[malachi42]

Thanks Malachi

I think the insulting part is when the writer shows no awareness of what made the original characters so good, but keeps telling you how his version is so much better. Its like he's telling you hey, I'm the one in hollywood, and I KNOW better than you. That's the insult part. We get it from Scifi all the time. And then they give us just what we've always wanted, another season of Scare Tactics.


I'm really not trying to be obtuse, Conundrum. I know this is very emotional and important to everyone, but I have read these sentiments a lot, and yet when I read the interviews with the writers and prodcers, I can't make the connection. For example I have never read anything by RDM where he has said anything like he knows better than anyone else because he's the one in Hollywood, or that he doesn't have any awareness of the characters. But he is consistent in sticking to his revision. But isn't that what he was hired to do? Specifically to reimagine BG? Isn't that what he has done? Had the studio asked him to stay true to TOS or to make sure he took the long times fans wishes into account, and then he decided to do his version anyway, then I guess I'd understand better.
I hope you don't mind my asking. I do it with respect for everyones feelings, have no intention of slamming anyones and am only trying to get a clear understanding/

[thomas7g]

oh I don't mind it in the least when anyone asks. :)

Alot of the changes were pretty needless. Sure, have a strong female role. But why name her Starbuck? The fans protested HEAVILY at that one. It woulda been easy to make one small concession. But almost never were the fans given any bit of consideration even though alot of the fans have been campaigning for BG to comeback for 25 years. That's along time. And a huge amount of emotional investment. And it was dismissed pretty callously. No compromise. No consideration.

Also Bonnie Hammer gave a few interviews were she basically said she thought the kind of fan that liked big star wars kind of films were basically obsolete. And no one likes to be called that. Her belief was that scifi needed to move from less of the old stuff (which we see in the new galactica too) to the more weird phenonenon kind of show. Like Scare Tactics. Tremors, and that new MadHouse thing. Crossing over with John Edwards. All of which is what scifi is telling us is cool. Even though everyone hates them.

There is alot of other things that scifi does. Like censorship on the main forums there. They often take out your post even if you are nice and polite just because of it doesn't fit the image they want the user to see.

Bonnie Hammer said this about Olmos's statement that old fans shouldn't watch.
Bonnie Hammer: "Anybody who was there and was listening knew he was doing it to egg people on and make them want to tune in. ...it was a total tease."


Basically there was alot of PR spin on this show rather than being upfront and honest. And people get really irritated if you assume you can trick them with spin.

They shoulda been upfront.

[thomas7g]

btw alot of the attitude is not so much a contempt for the fans. More like a MASSIVE disregard of them. Treating them as if tehy are unimportant. Plus we notice that a few definitely look down on us, like Hammer.

[BST]

An example of contempt:

*****
The network is hoping for another hit with an update of "Battlestar Galactica," a rethinking of the 1978-80 ABC series that starred Lorne Greene, Anne Lockhart and Dirk Benedict. Sci-Fi's version stars James Edward Olmos in the Greene role of Commander Adama, and is slated to air in December. "When we tested the segmentation study, every single group ... all said that they were interested in it," Hammer said. "They'd love to see it reinvented, reimagined.

"I think we are going to knock this one out of the ballpark."
*****

(For the entire article: http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/excite-com/news-story.asp?guid={78A40422-43E4-4773-A693-4CF81C72E7F4}&alias=/ht/nw

The remarks by Hammer were an outright lie. There is at least 1 group that I know of that was not in favor of a re-imagining. :D

BST

[amberstar]

I know exactly what group that would be ;)

Amber

[malachi42]

Well Hammer does sound insensitive to the fans of TOS. And I can understand that it feels pretty insulting to be dismissed when something is so important to you. Like every other corporation the film business is just that, a business. One of the frustrating things for me in this business is dealing with the corporate mindset juxtaposed against a creative medium. There are times where I'll get a directive from studio exec to make a female cops uniform tighter or her pants ride lower, or a million other stupid ideas that execs feel will garner them the maximum number of viewers. Pure dollars and cents. And my guess is that the TOS fans didn't really show up on the radar screen. Their numbers are too few. Just like WalMart, who doesn't care if 20 small family business get wiped out upon their arrival in an American town. The number of people affected negatively cannot compete against the billions of shoppers gained. It's business.
I have to say tough, it seems that David Eick and Ron Moore are being painted by the same brush as Hammer. That eludes me.

[jewels]

Go to www.scifi.com/battlestar if they still have the Ask David Eick stuff up: read through that, it contains a lot. The lowdown had more, check his chat transcript archived at www.scifi.com/chat . Does anyone have RDM's popcorn letter still?

As far as "how not to succeed in public relations" RDM's letter was a case study in how not to approach an established fanbase that should be in marketing & PR textbooks. Very bad word choices, very "I'm the answer to all that's wrong with sci-fi" sort of attitude. Anytime someone thinks that "they" are the solution to something, that there is no other way than theirs, no understanding of why another way might be wiser or at least a stronger marketing way to approach a project, my "arrogance" meter goes off.

As Tom DeSanto is quoted as having said during X-men "always stay true to the lore." For treating their source material with a little respect and humility that team got 2 blockbuster movies out of a comic book franchise, kept fans mostly pleased, added fans from the movies themselves....

I like how they did it. I wish that Tom gets his chance with BSG again.

[peter noble]

Originally posted by malachi42
And my guess is that the TOS fans didn't really show up on the radar screen. Their numbers are too few.

If the numbers were too few, why did they go ahead with bringing the property out of mothablls after 25 years?

Surely TPTB saw there was an interest in the property, after all 16,000 people signed a petition to get the original cast included into the DeSanto version, and while that's not Star Trek numbers, surely it shows interest?

Peter

[jewels]

peter, pssst: it's something around 17,400 ish now. ;)

[Starbuck]

And if we're so few in numbers, why go through the time and effort of putting together a DVD box set for the series and a video game based on the series? :girl:

[peter noble]

Originally posted by Starbuck
And if we're so few in numbers, why go through the time and effort of putting together a DVD box set for the series and a video game based on the series? :girl:

Exactly! As malachi42 said, it's showbusiness, no one's going to greenlight a product if they don't think it's going to sell!

Peter

[malachi42]

It is unfortunate but true that 17,000 viewers is not enough to green light a series. It may be enough to puit out a DVD collection because that costs them virtually nothing since all the footage is sitting in a vault. Any profit matterscompared to nothing.
But as an example, when a studio does a release of say, Wild Wild West, it costs them considerably less than an original project that they don't own and have to develop, eliminating an entire tier of costs. And they don't market it to the original viewers because they wouldn't account for a big enough demographic and their demographicdoesn't go to the movies or watch tv in numbers comparable to a younger audience. Which is who they then market the remake to. An audience who never saw the original.
It may be crappy, but most business is.

[malachi42]

RDM actually said "I am the answer to all that is wrong with science fiction"?
Is that in an interview or chat that I can read somewhere? Wow!

[thomas7g]

basically he stated that all scifi was bad and that his version is better cause its more real. That was in the lowdown. But he said it elsewhere I'm sure.

[BST]

malachi,

Your effort to be diplomatic is most appreciated and I do mean that.

What it all boils down to is that there has been a revival of Battlestar Galactica in the works, long before Hammer, Eick, and Moore showed up on the scene. False starts and corporate intransigence kept the product from appearing much sooner than a week ago. After the Fox effort with Singer and DeSanto fell through, Moore was handed the project by Hammer and Eick and they did what they wanted.
They owned the property so who was to stop them?

The only problem is that, in our combined humble opinion, their way was not the best way. Their effort trampled all that made the show special. Sure, it may appeal to younger viewers who don't know the back story. So would the same show with a different name.

All that we are saying is that they would have had nearly absolute guaranteed support if they had stuck to the original storyline and then, picked up the story from there. To a creative mind, the possibilities are endless. It would have been no problem to pick up the story 20-25 years later.

Finally, there have been remarks that the new viewer would have been disadvantaged by not knowing the back story. How were they going to view the mini? The same network, broadcasting the mini, has been broadcasting TOS re-runs for years. That argument (stated many times by others) falls flat with me. It's a matter of willingness.


BST

[oldwardaggit]

Plus I have said this many times before but I will say it again. Almost every story has a story that took place before it.

Star Wars started at episode 4 and only had a scrolling of words to fill the audience in on what took place before it.

Even the original Battlestar Galactica had a story before it and that didn't stop the viewers. A continuation would have made less confusion to new fans that go back to view the original and it would have made better DVD sales for the mini on DVD because most of those buying the box set would have felt that it wouldn't be compleat with out it just as we feel that it's not really compleat now without the 4 1/2 minute trailer by Richard Hatch.

Yes Tom Desanto knows how to make all parties mostly happy and thats because he is a fan of Galactica and respects the original source. Ron said him self that he was aiming his Galactica at the casual fan like him that might remember it a bit.

To me that's pretty much saying, I'm making a new show that will barely keep enough of the original content so that I can justify using a name that will draw the viewers in and I can still say that this is my creation.

The only problem with that, is that it doesn't put the viewer first.

The true shame of remaking is the fact that Hollywood releases something and they do there best to get you to fall in love with it. They promote it from an emotional side, from an action side or from any side to make you connect with it, then when a group of people do become loyal to it, Hollywood turns around and thanks them by bringing back the name of the show they are loyal too but they changed most of the things they worked so hard to get you to connect too.

And why ? Because there are ego's much too inflated for anyone in charge to put the fans first.

You can put the fans first and reach out to the new fans.
It's like fixing up a classic car. Sure the original fans of the car might have some complaints but as long as the car looks somewhat the same and most of the aspects of the car that made them fall in love with it in the first place are still there, they will want this car again.

Plus all the things like the new paint job, the upgraded engine and others, will attract new fans for the car.

If your the one who is upgrading this car and you loved it in it's original state, your gona want to keep most of the things that made you love it, familiar.

My opinion from everything I read. Ronald D. Moore isn't a fan of Battlestar Galactica. When you are always finding fault with something, it doesn't make sense to say that you dislike most of it but you are still a fan.

We can color this any way we like but the fact is, the fans are the reason the Galactica name became feasable, The message from the fans was ignored, most of Battlestar Galactica was changed and now the fans are pi$$t
It's really that simple. :)
OWD

[malachi42]

First, I would like to thank everyone for answering my questions and doing so with such openess. I have watched this drama unfold and have been puzzled by much of it. Not everyones dissapointment in the major changes to a beloved show, but the conspiracy theories and the attributing of some very nefarious motives on the part of the writers and producers. It's great to actualy be able to discuss this with you guys hwo are the heart of it.


"Ron said him self that he was aiming his Galactica at the casual fan like him that might remember it a bit."

I see that this is distressing if you want the show to remain true to TOS, but I don't see it as an example of contempt. The goal of any network, writer or producer is to bring in millions of viewers, which they did. The casual fan or even those who have never seen the show will represent much greater numbers than those who watched the original. So wasn't he doing his job? How is that contemptuous or arrogant?
I truly understand the view that it is not true to TOS, that RDM may not be a fan of TOS, the studio decided to "re imagine" the series ignoring TOS, and the history behind it, DeSanto, Hatch et al. It is not so much ignorance on my part of the history, as much as bewilderment as to why this is seen as personal decisions designed to insult fans of BG instead of a business decision based as always on numbers not on people, as in my Wal Mart example.
I don't want to wear out my welcome on this topic. You have all been very gracious. Please let me know when my questions cross the annoyance line. I know that feelings are tender.

[Dawg]

Originally posted by malachi42
It is unfortunate but true that 17,000 viewers is not enough to green light a series. It may be enough to puit out a DVD collection because that costs them virtually nothing since all the footage is sitting in a vault. Any profit matterscompared to nothing.
But as an example, when a studio does a release of say, Wild Wild West, it costs them considerably less than an original project that they don't own and have to develop, eliminating an entire tier of costs. And they don't market it to the original viewers because they wouldn't account for a big enough demographic and their demographicdoesn't go to the movies or watch tv in numbers comparable to a younger audience. Which is who they then market the remake to. An audience who never saw the original.
It may be crappy, but most business is.

Forgive me for jumping in here so late, but I've got the flu and was out of it completely for a few days.

Malachi, one point I see didn't get made was that the 17,000 figure is particularly impressive when you consider the fact we're talking about an internet petition. How many households are wired to the internet world-wide - 8 - 10%, or something like that? Obviously, it's a bit higher in the US and the rest of the "west", but it represents only a small fraction of those households who own televisions.

Imagine what kind of representative sample of the total number of fans that is, then. It's a factor totally disregarded as they conceived and wrote this mini. Still more mismanagement of the franchise.

I'll say that I really think BSG could have been as big as Star Trek if they'd handled it right; they haven't yet, and I don't think the mini has the stuff to do it. The original concept does - I'm prepping my letters to go out 1/2, and I hope everyone else is, too.

I am
Dawg

[malachi42]

Malachi, one point I see didn't get made was that the 17,000 figure is particularly impressive when you consider the fact we're talking about an internet petition. How many households are wired to the internet world-wide - 8 - 10%, or something like that? Obviously, it's a bit higher in the US and the rest of the "west", but it represents only a small fraction of those households who own televisions.

Imagine what kind of representative sample of the total number of fans that is, then. It's a factor totally disregarded as they conceived and wrote this mini. Still more mismanagement of the franchise.

I'll say that I really think BSG could have been as big as Star Trek if they'd handled it right; they haven't yet, and I don't think the mini has the stuff to do it. The original concept does - I'm prepping my letters to go out 1/2, and I hope everyone else is, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But can a studio measure that number and do they care enough to do so. You may be absolutely correct in your estimates, but from the studio point of view they can get the numbers they need without taking that path, so why would they, based on the assumption that they, the studio, does not have the emotional commitment to TOS that those 17,000 fans do. They don't care about staying true TOS or honoring the years that people have invested in it, they care about making profit for their shareholders. Period. And they have fulfilled their goal. The numbers were better than they ever expected. It did better the 2nd night than the first, which is unheard of. Close to 4 MILLION viewers tuned in. From where they sit, this show is absolutely positioned properly to be another Star Trek, they even have the "Star Trek guy" as their exec producer and show runner. In their eyes they are in the perfect position. Universal will put up all the money, where are the drawbacks?
Because of this great discussion I think I am honing in on the answer to my own question.
The bottom line here is the expectation that the studio would care about TOS because of it's fan base. Boy I wish this town worked on those kinds of principals, but it just doesn't. I have learned that lesson the hard way. When I arrived I thought I was creating art, I have learned that I am making corporate product. If I'm lucky it will be on something of some quality. It is a compromise that most of us in this business make.
It works like every other business, it is based on the bottom line. It is not personal, no one is out to insult anyone or make any great attempts to bring harm to anyone who supports TOS. It may sting even more, but it just doesn't register as an issue for them. Bonnie Hammer loses no sleep over TOS, only the mini and how it does.
I agree with the position many have taken here, to move on and hope for the best with the movie possibility, enjoy the DVD's, the conventions and the wonderful community that all of you have created because of TOS, which you will always have and no one can take away from you. It is quite amazing that a show that was on for one season could engender this kind of response for such a long time. You all are very lucky, many people go through there entire lives never finding something they care about with such passion.

[DCRabbit]

You know, you are absolutely right. It got numbers. Up against nothing. It also got better the second night.. cos everyone that missed it the first night took it in the second night full length due to rebreadcasting the first ep again Very smart move that..

And again, you are right.. it's a business. And the big question now is.. sustainable audience. The this was watched by everyone.. including those that are against it, those that were curious and those that checked it out due to all the hype. Now.. how many of those are you going to lose? The ones that are against it.. the ones that checked it out cos of the hype and the generally curious that didn't like it.

I don't see how this thing can get weekly ratings even up to Enterprise level. It's wayyyyyy too 90210ish to cater to anything other than that audience.. and the amount of scifi fnas in that audience isn't huge.. then you cut out the ones that just don't like it out of that audience and you have another Farscape situation.

Personally I hate the gender changes. It was an insult, yes.. and Moore crowed about doing it. Then we got some lame excuse to cover it. It was a politically correct thing.. Eick gave him carte blanche and that's the first thing he did. If money was the only consideration, it would not have been done cos it was known to seriously annoy a good portion of possible viewship.. who would then do their best efforts to turn away everyone they knew from possibly viewing the weekly.

Seriously.. these people have been fighting 2o plus years.. it isn't gonna stop. And where is the business sense in going to war with *ANY* potential viewers? If this were done strictly to make money, it would have been a far superior product and most everyone would be happy. But a network head, a producer and a writer got the idea they could take an established name and dictate what they thought it should be in hopes of joining the Reddenberry's and Larsen's of the world. The media business is full of those who are full of themselves. This is unfortunately obvious when it comes to Sci-Fi.

DC

[DCRabbit]

You know, you are absolutely right. It got numbers. Up against nothing. It also got better the second night.. cos everyone that missed it the first night took it in the second night full length due to rebreadcasting the first ep again Very smart move that..

And again, you are right.. it's a business. And the big question now is.. sustainable audience. The this was watched by everyone.. including those that are against it, those that were curious and those that checked it out due to all the hype. Now.. how many of those are you going to lose? The ones that are against it.. the ones that checked it out cos of the hype and the generally curious that didn't like it.

I don't see how this thing can get weekly ratings even up to Enterprise level. It's wayyyyyy too 90210ish to cater to anything other than that audience.. and the amount of scifi fnas in that audience isn't huge.. then you cut out the ones that just don't like it out of that audience and you have another Farscape situation.

Personally I hate the gender changes. It was an insult, yes.. and Moore crowed about doing it. Then we got some lame excuse to cover it. It was a politically correct thing.. Eick gave him carte blanche and that's the first thing he did. If money was the only consideration, it would not have been done cos it was known to seriously annoy a good portion of possible viewship.. who would then do their best efforts to turn away everyone they knew from possibly viewing the weekly.

Seriously.. these people have been fighting 2o plus years.. it isn't gonna stop. And where is the business sense in going to war with *ANY* potential viewers? If this were done strictly to make money, it would have been a far superior product and most everyone would be happy. But a network head, a producer and a writer got the idea they could take an established name and dictate what they thought it should be in hopes of joining the Reddenberry's and Larsen's of the world. The media business is full of those who are full of themselves. This is unfortunately obvious when it comes to Sci-Fi.

DC

[malachi42]

Seriously.. these people have been fighting 2o plus years.. it isn't gonna stop. And where is the business sense in going to war with *ANY* potential viewers? If this were done strictly to make money, it would have been a far superior product and most everyone would be happy. But a network head, a producer and a writer got the idea they could take an established name and dictate what they thought it should be in hopes of joining the Reddenberry's and Larsen's of the world. The media business is full of those who are full of themselves. This is unfortunately obvious when it comes to Sci-Fi.

So they made it to piss people off??? That just doesn't make sense on any level. Let's take another example. The Cat In The Hat. To many people it was a piece of crap. Critics HATED it, long time fans of Seuss were horrified. But it made a fortune. YOU hate the mini, you think it is a lousy production and won't hold viewers. But that is a subjective opinion, one that is not neccesarily held by the folks who made it. Just like 3/4 of what gets made in Hollywood. They don't see a war, nor do they consider themselves involved in a war. The "controversy" has been good for them. It has created a buzz, given the show a high profile, created more newspaper and magazine articles and piqued curiosity. The message boards runneth over. My guess is that Sci Fi would be thrilled if people marched in the streets about their TV series. It helps raise audience awareness of their nework. They couldn't afford to but this kind of publicity.
A studio owned a property. They hired producers and writers to develope it. that's it. They dictated what they thought it should be, because they could, it was their property.
As to whether or not people will watch the series, there will only be one way to tell. Other than that it's all speculation.

[Dawg]

Originally posted by malachi42
So they made it to piss people off???

No, they made it to make a profit. What pissed off so many people was that it could have been so easy to make it in such a way that everyone could have been happy. The choice was made to ignore a long-standing, vocal segment of the audience.

That hardly seems wise business - unless you've got such an ego that you're convinced you know best, and thousands of other people who have a quarter century into the subject don't know squat.

Granted, Hollywood doesn't work in the same exact way as a retailer does, thanks to the creative element still there (even though that creative element is now more of a corporate product).

The voices were out there, and they spoke clearly. Sci-Fi and Universal - Hammer & Eick and Moore - chose to ignore them.

Originally posted by malachi42 A studio owned a property. They hired producers and writers to develope it. that's it. They dictated what they thought it should be, because they could, it was their property.
As to whether or not people will watch the series, there will only be one way to tell. Other than that it's all speculation.

Very true - no argument there. But it only goes to show what kind of management the franchise - and the fans - have had to endure for the past 25 years. BSG could have been as big as Star Trek ever was if it was handled the way Paramount handled their property; with respect.

In retrospect, I don't think we should have been surprised that the eventual "revival" of BSG came out this way.

Malachi, I'm a great admirer of your uncle's work; I even met him once, several years ago (although there's no way he'd remember). I beleive, though, that his approach to this particular franchise was badly flawed; he missed the boat big-time, and I fault the "suits" that continued to green-light the thing as much (or more) than him.

That is not to say I fault anyone who enjoyed the mini. I know that a good many people did enjoy the performances of several of the actors, and did not find the content objectionable. I'm glad, actually, I really am. But forgive me if I maintain that this production wasn't BSG, and would have been so much better if it hadn't tried to be.

I am
Dawg
:cool:

[malachi42]

He's not my uncle.I've actually never met the man. My daughter is a school friend of his niece (which is how we got tickets to the premiere).
Yesterday the two of them were on my computer and went to the board to talk to Tyrol. So it showed up with my name on the board. They were promptly banned from the board in order to keep me from looking like a complete idiot! I can only hope that my posting style is a BIT more sophisticated than a 13 year olds. LOL

ANYWAY....

"No, they made it to make a profit. What pissed off so many people was that it could have been so easy to make it in such a way that everyone could have been happy. The choice was made to ignore a long-standing, vocal segment of the audience."

As I've said before, you're absolutely right Dawg, they made that choice. I understand that it is upsetting to so many who have cared so deeply about TOS for 25 years, but it is not inherently a bad business decision. No studio I have ever worked for would give a whit about making everyone happy, there would have to be millions of existing fans for them to consider their wishes. It's a pretty harsh business.



" That hardly seems wise business - unless you've got such an ego that you're convinced you know best, and thousands of other people who have a quarter century into the subject don't know squat.

"Granted, Hollywood doesn't work in the same exact way as a retailer does, thanks to the creative element still there (even though that creative element is now more of a corporate product).

The voices were out there, and they spoke clearly. Sci-Fi and Universal - Hammer & Eick and Moore - chose to ignore them."


Again, I think that is absolutely correct. But it is not remotely a personal decision based on a goal to destroy BSG. Nor a matter of ego. They made a decision based on part on demographics, which resulted in millions of viewers. So from their view they absolutely made the correct choice. Maybe they would have had a similar turnout if they had done it the way of TOS fans, but financially they didn't make mistake by doing it their way.



"Very true - no argument there. But it only goes to show what kind of management the franchise - and the fans - have had to endure for the past 25 years. BSG could have been as big as Star Trek ever was if it was handled the way Paramount handled their property; with respect."

How can we know that BSG won't be as big as Trek. (allthough the fact that it is on cable will probably eliminate the possibility because of the number of subscribers). Millions watched the pilot. Millions may continue to watch it, and millions may never tune in. We'll have to wait and see.
thanks Dawg for your willingness to have this discussion. I watched TOS, and enjoyed it. I knew people who worked on the show, and came by tickets to the premere through my daughters classmate, which was really my introduction to the mini. I was impressed and hearing about the reaction of fans of TOS was curious as to the issues. I was amazed by some of what I read. It seemed long on emotion and short on fact. I really apreciate the discussion that posters here have been willing to engage in, It has really helped me to understand. As I said before you guys have created an amazing community.

[Corwwyn]

Originally posted by malachi42
The numbers were better than they ever expected. It did better the 2nd night than the first, which is unheard of. Close to 4 MILLION viewers tuned in.
The overnights might agree, but the weeklies seem to tell a different (and much less flattering) tale.

From where they sit, this show is absolutely positioned properly to be another Star Trek, they even have the "Star Trek guy" as their exec producer and show runner. In their eyes they are in the perfect position. Universal will put up all the money, where are the drawbacks?
And then they'll all be shaking their heads in bewilderment when it all falls apart and fails to deliver.


Because of this great discussion I think I am honing in on the answer to my own question.
The bottom line here is the expectation that the studio would care about TOS because of it's fan base.
Perhaps, but caring about the fan base for its numbers is only part of it. What is more important about caring for the fanbase is to work out the formula. That is, to nut out what worked so well to create that fanbase and learn to go with that, because going against that will not only alienate existing fans, but will be unlikely to find/capture the lightning in a bottle that is the holy grail of BIG franchise seekers and results in enormous and enduring profits.


Boy I wish this town worked on those kinds of principals, but it just doesn't. I have learned that lesson the hard way. When I arrived I thought I was creating art, I have learned that I am making corporate product. If I'm lucky it will be on something of some quality. It is a compromise that most of us in this business make.
If you are "the creative individual" as in all business you need to realize that TPTB are after the bottom line. You need to convince them that what you plan will achieve their goals (be it corporate or individual). If you do this successfully they will support you (for their own self-interest if nothing more).

[Corwwyn]

Originally posted by malachi42
" That hardly seems wise business - unless you've got such an ego that you're convinced you know best, and thousands of other people who have a quarter century into the subject don't know squat.

"Granted, Hollywood doesn't work in the same exact way as a retailer does, thanks to the creative element still there (even though that creative element is now more of a corporate product).

The voices were out there, and they spoke clearly. Sci-Fi and Universal - Hammer & Eick and Moore - chose to ignore them."


Again, I think that is absolutely correct. But it is not remotely a personal decision based on a goal to destroy BSG. Nor a matter of ego. They made a decision based on part on demographics, which resulted in millions of viewers. So from their view they absolutely made the correct choice. Maybe they would have had a similar turnout if they had done it the way of TOS fans, but financially they didn't make mistake by doing it their way.
I disagree. It is a personal decision. There are/were a number of potentially successful business models.

TPTB at the top might be distanced enough for corporate dispassion, but the lesser PTB that pitched and steered the product in question (I'm thinking primarily of Bonnie Hammer, Michael Jackson(not the performer), David Eick and Ron Moore) have/had their own agendas and "visions" of what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it (eg the Skiffy programming changes , Scare Tactics, John Edwards, ad nauseum).

Folks tend to forget that while TPTB at the top may have corporate dispassion by not having direct involvement, the active participants who make the product are arguably real people (often extremely ambitious people) with the related foibles and often self-serving callousness, unafraid to pull strings (eg Bonnie's close friendship with Barry Diller) to get their way.


How can we know that BSG won't be as big as Trek.
If you mean G2003, well, without "the remake being remade" it can't be. It is "small", introspective, angsty, and lacking broad appeal. It has no massive, epic quality to it, little charm and no ageless, timeless tapestry. It doesn't show, it tells. It doesn't take you into the action, it has you hearing reports from the sidelines. It doesn't feed the imagination, it presents no intriguing puzzle, and it doesn't grow. It is imo essentially existentialist "Waiting for Godot" kind of stuff. Noone comes, noone goes, nothing happens, nothing matters. Just go through the motions.

Millions watched the pilot.
Yes, probably. A few millions.

Millions may continue to watch it,
Maybe.

and millions may never tune in.
I have no doubt of this.

I was amazed by some of what I read.
It seemed long on emotion and short on fact.
Why? The facts exist, and are available for analysis.

Some very hard-working posters have dredged up loads of information that imo Bonnie would love to bury in the backyard under a ton of concrete.

[Pagz]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Corwwyn
I disagree. It is a personal decision. There are/were a number of potentially successful business models.

It's hard to take such an accusation seriously without any evidence. My time watching the BSG boards has shown me that the "purists" (and please forgive the label, it's not meant in a derogatory sense) take *personal* offence at the decissions being made, and it is this that makes them interpret the actions of TPTB as being maliciously motivated. While there were certainly several viable business models for the come-back of Galactica, the fact that they chose one the purists don't like does not make them arrogant, nor does it show contempt for the fan base.

TPTB at the top might be distanced enough for corporate dispassion, but the lesser PTB that pitched and steered the product in question (I'm thinking primarily of Bonnie Hammer, Michael Jackson(not the performer), David Eick and Ron Moore) have/had their own agendas and "visions" of what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it (eg the Skiffy programming changes , Scare Tactics, John Edwards, ad nauseum).

Bonnie Hammer is a "lesser" PTB? I thought she was the head of the network? In regards to the creative team having their own agendas, well of course they do. That does not mean they're arrogant or hold the fan base in contempt. They felt the series was better served by going the route they did. Some agree, some do not, but it's not a decision made to anger the fans. I would wager dollars to pesos that they were hoping that their reimagining of the series would win over the doubters on its own merits. Whether it did or not is not a question that can be answered really.

If you mean G2003, well, without "the remake being remade" it can't be.

A purely subjective opinion.

It is "small", introspective, angsty, and lacking broad appeal.

Again, purely subjective.

It has no massive, epic quality to it, little charm and no ageless, timeless tapestry.

I could level those same assesments at TOS. The fact that you personally didn't enjoy the series does not make it a failure. A lot of people see TOS through rose colored glasses. That's not to say you can't like it, however, liking it does not make it good. TOS was often campy, goofy, and even bordered on or crossed over into the realm of absolutely ridiculous on occasion. I watch it now with a mix of amusement and nostalgia, but I don't for a second fool myself into thinking the series is anything other than some good, clean, goofy fun.

Personally, I loved the mini. I also love the original. I've loved the original since I was a child. When I discovered the fan community online some years ago I was happy to see I wasn't alone. When Hatch began his campaign to bring the series back, I was initially excited, until I learned more about his efforts, at which point my enthusiasm cooled considerably. I wrote the effort off, my personal feeling of it being that, if it did ever materialize, it would be just as short lived as the original. When the Desanto/Singer effort emerged I was once more excited, until it disappeared as quickly as it arose. Having now seen what they were planning, I'm very happy they never got hold of the series.

My honest assesment was that, while I love the original for it's goofy charm and camp value, it just wasn't solid enough to be the basis for a continuation, IMO. The core was strong, the ideas and the base story, but the execution of the original just didn't realize the potential of the concept. I was all for a remake, and that's what I got. Lucky for me, it was everything I hoped a serious adaption of the story could be.

I haven't seen anything remotely direspectful from either Eick or Moore on this production (Hammer is another issue) and I've felt they've gotten a hard time from the purists upset that they didn't get what they wanted. The often brought up "popcorn" line from moore, in which he suggests that those who dislike his take on the story would be best to find their popcorn in another aisle, I think has been blown completely out of proportion and taken completely the wrong way. It's a lighthearted, joking way of saying "if this isn't for you, then you'll just have to look elsewhere for what you want" There's nothing insulting about that, it's a truism. You can't please evryone, it's impossible. So often I see people say "They could have pleased everybody if..." and I always think to myself "If what? they had done it your way?" Honestly, had they made a continuation, I don't know if I would have been interested in watching. Seems to me that's not pleasing everyone.

Nope, they made their decission, they stuck with it, and good on 'em. Art by committee is never good, and bowing to pressure from fans when you have a distinct vision of what you want to do with a story is a sure fire way to produce garbage. It's not going to please everybody, but nothing will. All I know is that if it goes to series, I'll be watching. Maybe I'll be alone, like I was when I watched the live action Tick, maybe I won't be. Only time will tell.

On a final note, the "Starbuck" issue. To my mind, you can't top Benedict, no one can. He was way to iconic in that role. As such, Moore decided not to compete with the established Starbuck. By making Starbuck a girl, he breaks the mold and allows the character the freedom to establish itself without the ever present shadow of Benedict. Forget the PC arguement, or the supposed sexual tension (I never saw any of that from Starbuck, but what do I know) If Starbuck had been a guy, they would never escape the comparisons.

[Raymar3d]

"Battlestar Galactica Quote of 2003:

"Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction." -- David Eick, Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series producer, when asked about the baby killing scene where the skull of a Colonial infant is crushed by a Cylon robot. SciFi.com Chat on December 4, 2003 at 9 PM."

THIS IS SICK. IT IS EVIL, AND EVIL IS ALL ABOUT CLOUDING MORALITY. EVIL NEEDS GREY TO THRIVE. WELL, HERE IT COMES.

That is how I define the answer to your question.

I am sick that I had anything to do with making this.

Ken

:rage: :rage: :rage: :rage:

[larocque6689]

Ken

For the record, I liked Number Six's character, probably my favorite for the entire piece. I would have said Tyrol, but the bad guy's always get my full-on support. Verily Helfer provided much amusement. "Oh look at how much weight the neck supports - SNAP!" "Oh my god, she's not breathing - EEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!"

The music for those segments was completely inappropriate for those segmentss, they should have played it up for laughs. Baltar/James Callis was the perfect foil for her mischief and I laughed out loud during the segment when Cylon-spy catches Baltar in the act with his holo-fantasy about to blow his load. Helfer and Callis made a great team.

I loved Harry's description of the opening scene:

She goes over to the human representative, asks if he’s alive… begins Frenching him with extra tongue and dick massage (no kidding) then as the guy is about to blow his load, this Cylon Star Base thingee sends a missile to destroy the space station.

God, if I had known my harmless, little babykilling question to Eick would provide so much grist for the "purist" mill, I would have thought up a few more.

[Raymar3d]

John,

The scene isn't the problem for me. It's the philosophy behind it. "Who's to say killing a baby is evil?"

That's what disgusts me, personally.

I say it's evil. That's one person. Who else thinks so?

Ken

[jewels]

Ken,
You had no control of that part, bro., and the draft script didn't even have the scene, you had no warning it would be there before you worked on your ship(s). Eick's statement is that of an idiot to boot.

Ken, what you said about grey is exactly what "feels" so wrong about Moore's vision of the show though. And what makes it so treacherous. There are things that cannot be grey. How is it merciful of Six to make the baby's mother spend her last hours alive mourning her child? There is no mercy in that.

Husker's lie about Earth makes the least sense to me. That's a grey area that makes me crazy too. It shouldn't be grey. Even Abram knew there was some land promised to him when he left Ur. Items of faith may be "unseen" but they are never "grey".

[jewels]

For the record: babykilling is evil.

[Darth Marley]

Originally posted by jewels
Husker's lie about Earth makes the least sense to me. That's a grey area that makes me crazy too. It shouldn't be grey. Even Abram knew there was some land promised to him when he left Ur. Items of faith may be "unseen" but they are never "grey". [/B]

Well,I understand your sentiment.

I know a few people that do not believe in the existance of a god,but support the prevalence of that belief to keep "society" in line.Straussian philosophers on the right on the policitcal spectrum hold these views.Though I find it a hypocracy.

Your mileage may vary,and this applies to faith as well.Many believers have moments of doubt.And matters of faith are by their nature things that cannot be proved objectively.

To me,it seems the mini-Adama is charting a practical course,and gave his defense of this to the prez in the final scene of the mini.
We KNOW earth exists,but to the mini-Colonials,it cannot be proved,and falls to faith and belief.

Sure,baby killing is evil,but note that is was one of the "bad guys" that did it.

[malachi42]

"Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction." -- David Eick, Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series producer, when asked about the baby killing scene where the skull of a Colonial infant is crushed by a Cylon robot. SciFi.com Chat on December 4, 2003 at 9 PM."

THIS IS SICK. IT IS EVIL, AND EVIL IS ALL ABOUT CLOUDING MORALITY. EVIL NEEDS GREY TO THRIVE. WELL, HERE IT COMES.

That is how I define the answer to your question.

I am sick that I had anything to do with making this.

Ken




Ken, if it morally reprehensible to you, "sick and evil", then how on earth could you work on it? I'm in the business too, and there are many projects I turn down because they would mean compromising my values and principles. That meant both financial and career advancement loss. But my beliefs were more important to me than either. I really don't mean to be snarky, but it seems a bit disengenuous to trash the show and the writers/ producers while collecting a paycheck and advancing your career on the same project. Couldn't they make the same claim/ the studio hired them specificaly to come up with a NEW vision of BSG, they have families to support and careers to advance, how are they held to a different standard to not propogate evil than you are??

[Dawg]

Originally posted by malachi42
"Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction." -- David Eick, Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series producer, when asked about the baby killing scene where the skull of a Colonial infant is crushed by a Cylon robot. SciFi.com Chat on December 4, 2003 at 9 PM."

THIS IS SICK. IT IS EVIL, AND EVIL IS ALL ABOUT CLOUDING MORALITY. EVIL NEEDS GREY TO THRIVE. WELL, HERE IT COMES.

That is how I define the answer to your question.

I am sick that I had anything to do with making this.

Ken




Ken, if it morally reprehensible to you, "sick and evil", then how on earth could you work on it? I'm in the business too, and there are many projects I turn down because they would mean compromising my values and principles. That meant both financial and career advancement loss. But my beliefs were more important to me than either. I really don't mean to be snarky, but it seems a bit disengenuous to trash the show and the writers/ producers while collecting a paycheck and advancing your career on the same project. Couldn't they make the same claim/ the studio hired them specificaly to come up with a NEW vision of BSG, they have families to support and careers to advance, how are they held to a different standard to not propogate evil than you are??

The baby-killing scene was added later.

I'm not going to try to explain how and why Ken was involved in this; you weren't here to share Ken's dilemma as a pro-continuation fan being offered a chance to do what he loves to do on a project he didn't think much of. His decision was to do the work he loves; had he known about the babykilling issue, his decision might have been different.

He did a good job, too. With luck, this will open the door to more - and happier - projects for him. We support him in this.

We also don't beat up on him over his involvement. We know Ken, we know where his heart is. Besides, he beats himself up enough over it that he doesn't need you or anyone else helping him do it.

OK?

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Darth Marley]

Yep,slamming Ken is poor form.Perhaps he didn't see the posts that would have clarified this.I would have hated to have been blindsided with this.

I did see several forms of his post in various threads.I forget which ones I replied to.

[Pagz]

I would suggest that there's an issue of semmantics to be considered in Mr.Eick's answer to the baby killing question. No where does he defend the morality of killing babies. The fact is, evil is a product of intent, not action. Evil is a human construct that we apply to things, often to things outside ourselves that can not be labelled as such. If an animal finds an unprotected litre and proceeds to kill the babies, that is not an act of evil. The question to be asked is, what was the intent behind 6's action. Cylon's are not human, and as such, applying our morality to them is much like applying it to an animal. The difference being that the Cylons are aware of our conceptions of what encompasses good and evil. So, did 6 kill the baby as an act of evil, or was it something else. Was it curiousity about the strength of the childs neck? Was it a mercy killing to spare the child the pain of nuclear incineration? There's much to be made of the pained expression on 6's face after having done the deed. Why is it there and what is she thinking?

What it comes down to is Eick is not defending killing babies, nor arguing that killing babies is not wrong. He is saying that it was not neccessarily an evil act on the part of the cylon. When we put a dog down, that's not evil, and the mentality behind this for 6 could be much the same.

I don't care for the scene myself, it makes me uncomfortable, but it's there, and I think it's definitely getting a lot more attention than it trully deserves.

[malachi42]

Please know that I was not slamming Ken. I was asking a legitimate question. The two are not inherently the same.

[Darth Marley]

Fair enough malachi42.Perhaps I read too much into your question.

Ken has posted this message in several topics,and it is a stretch for me to keep track of the responses.

The scene seemed to have hit a nerve with him,as well as others.While I have no issue with it.

It starts to drift into realms that are touchy for many to discuss,such as personally held religious beliefs.

[Raymar3d]

Originally posted by malachi42

Ken, if it morally reprehensible to you, "sick and evil", then how on earth could you work on it? I'm in the business too, and there are many projects I turn down because they would mean compromising my values and principles. That meant both financial and career advancement loss. But my beliefs were more important to me than either. I really don't mean to be snarky, but it seems a bit disengenuous to trash the show and the writers/ producers while collecting a paycheck and advancing your career on the same project. Couldn't they make the same claim/ the studio hired them specificaly to come up with a NEW vision of BSG, they have families to support and careers to advance, how are they held to a different standard to not propogate evil than you are??

Is this Jim? LOL, your post is very familiar.

Well, my quarrel is with the comments behind the scenes, not in front of the camera. Ever since I signed on, their commentary has continued to make me feel physically ill. (I debated a lot of things with Ron Moore, which I may be able to post excepts later.) All I am saying is that I don't like the muddying of right and wrong here, and the apparent disregard for moral values most people hold to be true.

I had enough trouble justifying working on it, but in point of fact, when I went for the gig, it was still up in the air to be a prequel, and many signs had pointed to it. I committed to doing it when there was at least a chance it would be a prequel. Regardless, I didn't sign on to this out of agreement with the philosophy of what I'm seeing now. Maybe I am over-reacting. But, I don't think so. I have two sons and a daughter on the way. I've watched the media do everything to slam my religious beliefs, and I am sick of it.

I wish I hadn't worked on it. Call me disengenuous if you want to. I tried to convince Ron Moore to not destroy the original to do his. It didn't help. I failed. Not gonna shut up about how I feel about the BS coming down from the top, though. I don't believe what they seem to, and I want that on the record. That is all.

This is more than just the mini, it's my feelings about a lot of the crap on television nowadays. This is just icing on the cake for me.

Ken

[malachi42]

Not Jim, wrong gender...
I am sorry if I came off as accusatory in my post, Ken, I did not intend to insult you. I wasn't accusing you, I was asking.
I do understand a strong moral code, I try to live by one, as i said I have turned down many shows because they went against my personal beliefs.
Where we differ perhaps is that I feel that my personal beliefs are exactly that, personal. I choose to not work on a show, or I choose to turn the channel, or even to boycott advertisers. I do not believe however that my personal view of what is right or wrong should dictate what anyone else watches. Right and wrong are very muddy issues, each of us has to determine what is right and wrong for ourselves based on our own belief system. No one I know, nor did I, have any moral issues with the mini, had they - they could have turned it off.
And no you should not shut up, you should absolutely stand up for what you believe. I am glad to hear that you are not just trashing the producers and writers on message boards but not speaking to them direcly about your concerns if you have the opportunity. It is especially difficult in this business to speak out when your livliehood is in question and I respect anyone who holds their values higher than a paycheck. I have just worked on so many projects where crew members have trashed a show for its content while happily cashing the checks. I find that hypocrytical at best.
I hope I've made my point a little more succinctly this time.
All the best-

[Raymar3d]

No offense taken.

I just want to re-clarify, my problem isn't with the script (though I don't care much for it) it's with the statements and spin-doctoring of TPTB that everyone will love it, and the continuing condescension toward fans of the original, and to the black and white nature of the good and evil of the first show.

The whole "popcorn fare, seventies hair," etc. stuff, all came after I signed on. Each was like a knife in my back. A bitter pill to swallow. And then this comment I read today. Just makes me ill.

Ken

[Corwwyn]

Originally posted by Pagz
Originally posted by Corwwyn
I disagree. It is a personal decision. There are/were a number of potentially successful business models.[/b]

It's hard to take such an accusation seriously without any evidence.
Without evidence?

My time watching the BSG boards has shown me that the "purists" (and please forgive the label, it's not meant in a derogatory sense)take *personal* offence at the decissions being made, and it is this that makes them interpret the actions of TPTB as being maliciously motivated.While there were certainly several viable business models for the come-back of Galactica, the fact that they chose one the purists don't like does not make them arrogant, nor does it show contempt for the fan base.
Sure it does, particularly when you also take into account the supporting comments and attitudes of those that made this thing.

arrogance
: noun
: a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims.

contempt
: noun
: lack of respect or reverence for something

Bonnie Hammer is a "lesser" PTB? I thought she was the head of the network?
Bonnie is president of Scifi Channel, but she is a lesser PTB. The greater PTB are in Universal (it holds the rights, not SciFi Channel). And of course now NBC is the top PTB.

In regards to the creative team having their own agendas, well of course they do. That does not mean they're arrogant or hold the fan base in contempt. They felt the series was better served by going the route they did. Some agree, some do not, but it's not a decision made to anger the fans.
I think they felt they would be better served, not the series. How could it be better served by being overwritten and attemptedly marginalized? How could it do ought but anger the fans when the mini is trying to say that BSG never existed while usurping many of its trappings?

I would wager dollars to pesos that they were hoping that their reimagining of the series would win over the doubters on its own merits.
You might well win that wager.

Whether it did or not is not a question that can be answered really.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "doubters".

If you mean G2003, well, without "the remake being remade" it can't be.

A purely subjective opinion.
A subjective opinion, but a reasoned one.

It is "small", introspective, angsty, and lacking broad appeal.

Again, purely subjective.
It is "small" (and given the likely budget of a series, and the proclivities of the makers, I don't see how the scale could become grand, but that's a question for the future, if the thing even gets picked up in the first place).

It is angsty, very angsty. You may claim that to be only subjective, but I'd like to see how you can defend such a position.

"Lacking broad appeal". I may turn out to be incorrect in my assessment here, but I do not see how it can be anything but without a major rewrite (should it go to series that is). The whole tone seems to me to be far to niched.

It has no massive, epic quality to it, little charm and no ageless, timeless tapestry.

I could level those same assesments at TOS.
And yet the BSG DVDs are selling like hotcakes...

The fact that you personally didn't enjoy the series does not make it a failure.
Quite true.

A lot of people see TOS through rose colored glasses.
To me, TOS is Star Trek, which has several sequel series and one reimaging (speciously advertised as a prequel). BSG has no true sequel series, so I feel that TOS is an unnecessary appellative.

As for rose coloured glasses, well, in my case I rewatch my BSG episodes roughly as often as rewatch my various trek episodes, SG1 episodes, Blake's Seven episodes, Farscape episodes and other shows that stand the test of rewatchability for me.

That's not to say you can't like it, however, liking it does not make it good.
It does if part of the reason you like it is because it is good though.

TOS was often campy, goofy, and even bordered on or crossed over into the realm of absolutely ridiculous on occasion.
So did Star Trek. So did Farscape. So did/does SG1. Your point?

I watch it now with a mix of amusement and nostalgia, but I don't for a second fool myself into thinking the series is anything other than some good, clean, goofy fun.
Is that also how you watch Star Wars?

If all you think BSG is is some good, clean, goofy fun, I doubt you have really watched it. I mean really watched it. I mean beyond the good, clean, goofy fun. I mean the evolving story of the Colonials, the development of the characters, the chemistry of the characters, the mysteries of Count Iblis, the Cylons, the moral messages, the so much more than good, clean, goofy fun. It addresses so many mature issues, and the few issues it shares with the mini it addresses so much better.

Personally, I loved the mini. I also love the original.
But you only "love" the original for good, clean, goofy fun...

When the Desanto/Singer effort <snip> Having now seen what they were planning, I'm very happy they never got hold of the series.
Why?

My honest assesment was that, while I love the original for it's goofy charm and camp value, it just wasn't solid enough to be the basis for a continuation, IMO.
I recommend you rewatch the series through the eyes of an adult, and look past the surface goof/charm/etc

I believe that if Ron had actually watched the series (beyond his one and half eps) seriously, if he had cared at all for the show, if he got past his own ego, he would have seen the well developed relationships and could have written a kicka$$ faithful contintuation easily. He is a talented writer when he wants to be.

Then, it would only have needed a good editor to pace the mini well, and it would imo have been a huge hit.

The core was strong, the ideas and the base story, but the execution of the original just didn't realize the potential of the concept.
Neither did Star Wars or LOTR. I don't think the best movie or tv series ever made (whatever that is) realized the potential of the concept. Pretty much anything you name could have been better, no?

I was all for a remake, and that's what I got. Lucky for me, it was everything I hoped a serious adaption of the story could be.
Well good for you. I hope you will forgive my crocodile tears at what I see as a lack of sympathy for the kneecapped BSG fans strewn in the wake of the jackboots of the production you like.

I haven't seen anything remotely direspectful from either Eick or Moore on this production (Hammer is another issue)
You haven't read Ron's "popcorn" letter then I take it? How about the Eick comments some of which have been quoted on this board even recently?

and I've felt they've gotten a hard time from the purists upset that they didn't get what they wanted. The often brought up "popcorn" line from moore, in which he suggests that those who dislike his take on the story would be best to find their popcorn in another aisle, I think has been blown completely out of proportion and taken completely the wrong way. It's a lighthearted, joking way of saying "if this isn't for you, then you'll just have to look elsewhere for what you want" There's nothing insulting about that, it's a truism.
Read the rest of the letter. It puts that part in a less favourable context.

You can't please evryone, it's impossible. So often I see people say "They could have pleased everybody if..." and I always think to myself "If what? they had done it your way?" Honestly, had they made a continuation, I don't know if I would have been interested in watching. Seems to me that's not pleasing everyone./quote]
You can seldom if ever please everyone. Correct.
So you have to decide who you want to please. Do you want to please a built-in fanbase-plus and attract their money or do you want to reject them and please someone else?

If you please the fanbase, the someone elses will or will not get involved depending on how broad the appeal is beyond the core aspects that created the fanbase initially.

If you try to please the someone elses, while rejecting the fanbase, the fanbase rejects you, vocally. Will there be enough someone elses to make up for lack of fans?

Someone elses are a fickle public. Fanbases are famously/notoriously loyal.

[quote]Nope, they made their decission, they stuck with it, and good on 'em. Art by committee is never good,
Non sequitur.

and bowing to pressure from fans when you have a distinct vision of what you want to do with a story is a sure fire way to produce garbage.Only if you don't understand the material. If you don't understand what made the fans fans you risk making garbage.

For instance, if a continuation maker saw the original as you seem to (ie goofy, camp, etc) that's what they would think the fans want, and would spew out tripe, because they wouldn't have seen any of the depth that won hearts in the first place.

On a final note, the "Starbuck" issue. To my mind, you can't top Benedict, no one can. He was way to iconic in that role. As such, Moore decided not to compete with the established Starbuck. By making Starbuck a girl,
Why call someone Starbuck at all then?

he breaks the mold and allows the character the freedom to establish itself without the ever present shadow of Benedict.
Dirk's Starbuck casts a mighty shadow. I'm not sure if the screaming heebeejeebee even has a reflection. (Note: Subjective opinion.) :p

[Pagz]

Originally posted by Corwwyn

Without evidence?

Indeed. Beyond the indignation people feel on account of not getting what they want, some actual instances of those involved being willfully disrespectfull to the purists. They chose a business model you don't like, this does not make them arrogant or disrespectful.


Sure it does, particularly when you also take into account the supporting comments and attitudes of those that made this thing.

arrogance
: noun
: a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims.

How about some examples. Something a little more concrete than their conviction with their take on the series. Remember, they are entitled to their opinions, and if the remake is how they felt it should be done, that's not arrogance. Also, lets avoid examples where they're defending themselves from purist venom, they have the right to defend their views too, especially in the particularly nasty wake of the backlash they received.


contempt
: noun
: lack of respect or reverence for something

Just because you dislike their take on Galactica does not make it disrespectful. Try to be objective about this and not let your personal feelings for TOS to cloud your judgement. Had this mini come out using different names as some purists have wished, the BSG fan community would be crucifying them for stealing BSG. Fact is, this is BSG done differently, but it's still BSG.


I think they felt they would be better served, not the series. How could it be better served by being overwritten and attemptedly marginalized? How could it do ought but anger the fans when the mini is trying to say that BSG never existed while usurping many of its trappings?

That's just silly. They made a show but wrote to serve themselves and not the show? If that were the case the show wouldn't succeed and that wouldn't serve their interests at all. They want the show to succeed. They make their decisions based on what they feel would be best for the series.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "doubters".

I mean those who took an active interest in hating this show without having seen it and those who were on the fence wondering if it would be worthwhile.


A subjective opinion, but a reasoned one.

Maybe, I haven't seen proof of that but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'd remind you, however, that the TOS hardly holds up to scrutiny itself. Level a critically eyed review at the TOS and it's in trouble.


It is "small" (and given the likely budget of a series, and the proclivities of the makers, I don't see how the scale could become grand, but that's a question for the future, if the thing even gets picked up in the first place).

I wouldn't say it's any smaller than the pilot of the original series. As a matter of comparison, I'd say it was more expansive in its scope than "Saga of a Starworld".


It is angsty, very angsty. You may claim that to be only subjective, but I'd like to see how you can defend such a position.

Angst seems entirely appropriate to the situation. There was plenty of angst in the original pilot too.

angst
: Noun
: a feeling of anxiety, apprehension, or insecurity

Tell me, why should a show which deals with the genocide of the human race not ber "very angsty" ?

"Lacking broad appeal". I may turn out to be incorrect in my assessment here, but I do not see how it can be anything but without a major rewrite (should it go to series that is). The whole tone seems to me to be far to niched.

I disagree, but like I've said, this is all subjective. I'd postulate that, if TOS was released today as opposed to 78, it would fail for the same reasons you cite above.


And yet the BSG DVDs are selling like hotcakes...

The qualities you cite are not neccessary for DVD sales. I own the DVDs, yet I don't find the series epic, nor timeless. That doesn't mean the series isn't good, but I do firmly believe the purists have inflated TOS into something it is most definitely not and that any critical review of the series would reveal.

As for rose coloured glasses, well, in my case I rewatch my BSG episodes roughly as often as rewatch my various trek episodes, SG1 episodes, Blake's Seven episodes, Farscape episodes and other shows that stand the test of rewatchability for me.

This, however, does not make the show great. I have a number of shows or films that I watch and love, but I know they aren't really that good.


So did Star Trek. So did Farscape. So did/does SG1. Your point?

My point is that people are building TOS into something it is not. It is not an example of excellent writing, or even great writing. It is stuffed with absolutely ridiculous episodes such as "The Young Lords" "Gun on Ice Planet Zero" "The Magnificent Warriors" "War of the Gods" and many more. The original Star Trek suffers from much of the same. I have never been able to stomach a full episode of Farscape, so I'm in no position to speak of its quality. SG-1, from what I've seen of it, certainly holds itself to a higher standard of writing than the original BSG did.

Now, don't confuse this with me not liking TOS, I do, I just don't think it's the epic the purists do.

Is that also how you watch Star Wars?

ANH and ESB certainly hold themselves to a much higher order of quality than TOS. ROTJ, TPM and AOTC are not terribly good in my estimation. I watch ROTJ and I can forgive some of its failings, but I certainly don't fool myself into thinking it's great, it is merely good. the prequels have, thus far, been mediocre.

If all you think BSG is is some good, clean, goofy fun, I doubt you have really watched it. I mean really watched it. I mean beyond the good, clean, goofy fun. I mean the evolving story of the Colonials, the development of the characters, the chemistry of the characters, the mysteries of Count Iblis, the Cylons, the moral messages, the so much more than good, clean, goofy fun. It addresses so many mature issues, and the few issues it shares with the mini it addresses so much better.

You can force all the deeper meaning you like into TOS, but it won't make it true. TOS had its moments, but those moments are far outweighed by the copious amounts of camp and ridiculousness.

The Lost Warrior
Gun on Ice Planet Zero
The Magnificent Warriors
The Young Lords
War of the Gods
The Man with 9 Lives
Experiment in Terra
Hand of God

All of these episodes run the gammit from marginally goof to totally ridiculous. I'm not saying that there isn't more to BSG than the camp, but it's mired in so much of the camp that it can hardly be taken as seriously as the purists are choosing to do.

I recommend you rewatch the series through the eyes of an adult, and look past the surface goof/charm/etc

That's the problem, that's exactly what I've done. I watched the series as a child and loved it, I watch it as an adult and wonder what I was thinking. I would suggest that you need to rewatch the series objectively, putting aside your love of the series and make an honest assesment of the quality of the acting and writing.


I believe that if Ron had actually watched the series (beyond his one and half eps) seriously, if he had cared at all for the show, if he got past his own ego, he would have seen the well developed relationships and could have written a kicka$$ faithful contintuation easily. He is a talented writer when he wants to be.

That's not a terribly fair assesment. Ron watched the series when it originally aired. When the opportunity arose to do work on BSG, he came to the conclusion that a remake would serve the property best. I had come to that same conclusion before he was even involved. That's not ego, it's just one way of looking at things. So many people expect RM to cram into the mini series everything they loved about TOS, forgetting compeltely that it took TOS the better part of a full season to build up evrything the fans loved. The strong female characters, the mysticism, all came about later in the series. To expect the Mini to encompass all of these things is totally unfair. Saga of a Starworld, taken on its own, is missing a lot of the things the purists point to when they cry foul about the mini.

Well good for you. I hope you will forgive my crocodile tears at what I see as a lack of sympathy for the kneecapped BSG fans strewn in the wake of the jackboots of the production you like.

It is tragic when the purists don't get what they want, even when they cuss and moan about it.


You haven't read Ron's "popcorn" letter then I take it? How about the Eick comments some of which have been quoted on this board even recently?

I've read the "popcorn" letter, and it baffles me that any moderately intelligent adult can read it and consider it insulting. As for Eick, the only quote I've been privy to of late is his baby killing quote, which I discussed earlier in the thread.

For instance, if a continuation maker saw the original as you seem to (ie goofy, camp, etc) that's what they would think the fans want, and would spew out tripe, because they wouldn't have seen any of the depth that won hearts in the first place.

That doesn't really make sense. The purists keep complaining that RM and co. saw TOS exactly the way I saw it, hence the major changes. You're suggesting that if they saw it the way I did, they would try to emulate that, which they didn't.


Why call someone Starbuck at all then?

As a nod to the original I suspect. It's still BSG afterall.

[Raymar3d]

Originally posted by Pagz
Indeed. Beyond the indignation people feel on account of not getting what they want, some actual instances of those involved being willfully disrespectfull to the purists. They chose a business model you don't like, this does not make them arrogant or disrespectful.

Disrespect was not shown all the time by all the parties. I have dealt with Ron Moore personally on several occasions. While we disagree on many things, and occasionally had some confrontations, I would say he was respectful to me personally for the most part, and I to him on an equal part. Just because we did not agree or see things the same way, did not mean we could not debate an issues respectfully.

On the other hand, I did personally call him to issue on the popcorn comment and some other things. I took it to him, we talked about it. Essentially, I feel it was more a lack of tact than an overt attempt to offend anyone.

I also questioned many of Bonnie Hammer's statements in her press conferences, with TV guide and others, saying that "everyone was for the reimagination." That was the most serious slap in the face to the fans, who have been very vocally opposed to it. That is where I personally see the spin-doctoring and disrespect, and the source of the fan's frustration and anger. It was a lie.

Originally posted by Pagz
How about some examples. Something a little more concrete than their conviction with their take on the series. Remember, they are entitled to their opinions, and if the remake is how they felt it should be done, that's not arrogance. Also, lets avoid examples where they're defending themselves from purist venom, they have the right to defend their views too, especially in the particularly nasty wake of the backlash they received.

I would be very happy to post a full transcript of my emails with Ron Moore in the future, but I will not do so without his permission, or without editing out some things said in confidence.

Originally posted by Pagz
Just because you dislike their take on Galactica does not make it disrespectful. Try to be objective about this and not let your personal feelings for TOS to cloud your judgement. Had this mini come out using different names as some purists have wished, the BSG fan community would be crucifying them for stealing BSG. Fact is, this is BSG done differently, but it's still BSG.

Some might have. But, I proposed to Ron to make it a prequel, or a side story so that it could coexist with the original, just as the other Star Trek series coexist with Star Trek. He fully understood this, and even told me he and David Eick would discuss it. I respect that. I wish they would have done so, they could have been heroes. IMHO.

Originally posted by Pagz
That's just silly. They made a show but wrote to serve themselves and not the show? If that were the case the show wouldn't succeed and that wouldn't serve their interests at all. They want the show to succeed. They make their decisions based on what they feel would be best for the series.

It's not silly for a production team to want ownership of an idea. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that they put their take over the fan's take, and in many ways it was arbitrary. There was a policy at the Star Trek offices on writing for Trek. It goes something like this: "You can play in our sandbox, but leave it like you found it when you're done." This was on Star Trek: Voyager, as I pitched for it, I know. In fact, I think that was a bad policy, because they rebooted every interesting thing they did on that show, but that's another debate. I think the root of that statement is still valid, because it means to hold to what has come before, for continuity. They forgot the meaning of that over the years, I think, but Star Trek, though the effects are now dated, is still the core of the franchise. All things Star Trek point to Kirk, Spock, and McCoy's series, as well they should. Ron Moore had a bad experience on Voyager, and in my speculation, I suspect he wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater and be able to start over, instead of taking the Star Trek route. But, IMHO, he threw out the soul of the series. He and they made a decision. They stuck to their guns and did it their way, and it may succeed, but at what price? That is the core of the argument that they followed thier own agenda as I see it. It doesn't make them evil. It doesn't mean it was the right choice, but they did have the power to make it, so it is done.


Originally posted by Pagz
I mean those who took an active interest in hating this show without having seen it and those who were on the fence wondering if it would be worthwhile.

I had the luxury of reading the script very early at the behest of someone to give it a fair reading. And I did. My review is on my BattlestarGalacticaNewslink page. (see link below). I had no problem visualizing what they had in mind from reading the script. The final product is almost identical to the script I read.


Continued....

[Raymar3d]

Originally posted by Pagz
Maybe, I haven't seen proof of that but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'd remind you, however, that the TOS hardly holds up to scrutiny itself. Level a critically eyed review at the TOS and it's in trouble.

There are plenty of things that could have been better about the original series. For many years, we discussed things we would have improved on it with, we discussed a special edition treatment to address some of the apparent flaws. An example: "The Gun on Ice Planet Zero" had a little logic error, in that the fleet should have been able to just fly on the other side of the planet and be safe. Our idea was to follow the novelization more closely, and put that system in an asteroid field, with Cylon basestars and raiders at the outskirts looking for the fleet, and as Adama says in the show, 'herding them to that safe passage'. But we see ways to fix shortcomings, not destroy a valiant effort. And there was a very interesting discussion on Baltar's Battlestar, mentioned in the episode "Lost Planet of the Gods" that we found gave clues to a whole backstory for the ambush of the fleet. There were hints, and if you dig deeply and use your imagination, there was so much potential to let it grow and become something really epic. We have the love, we took the time.

Originally posted by Pagz
I wouldn't say it's any smaller than the pilot of the original series. As a matter of comparison, I'd say it was more expansive in its scope than "Saga of a Starworld".

I would say that both had strong points and weak points. The weaknesses of the mini are actually pretty equal to the original pilot. For the lofty ambitions of really showing the backstory, and doing it right this time, it didn't show any of the fleet ambush, just a wrecked ship. It felt far smaller to me than the original. BOTH pilots would be helped by showing different POVs of a truly epic destruction of mankind. BOTH pilots had the reality of too small a budget to really do that story justice.

Originally posted by Pagz
I disagree, but like I've said, this is all subjective. I'd postulate that, if TOS was released today as opposed to 78, it would fail for the same reasons you cite above.

If the original were done the same way today, it wouldn't have had to face the censors it did in 1978, and could have been a little more mature. But it didn't have to go to the extreme it did in this mini in the name of 'maturity.'


Originally posted by Pagz
The qualities you cite are not neccessary for DVD sales. I own the DVDs, yet I don't find the series epic, nor timeless. That doesn't mean the series isn't good, but I do firmly believe the purists have inflated TOS into something it is most definitely not and that any critical review of the series would reveal.

There is love for it, and we see it with that love, I won't deny it. But it's no more inflated than Star Trek was, and it succeeded in a continuation and then sequel series.

Originally posted by Pagz
This, however, does not make the show great. I have a number of shows or films that I watch and love, but I know they aren't really that good.

Greatness is like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder. I think it is great. I think it had soul and honor and good common sense (aside from the initial mistake that got them defeated).


Originally posted by Pagz
My point is that people are building TOS into something it is not. It is not an example of excellent writing, or even great writing. It is stuffed with absolutely ridiculous episodes such as "The Young Lords" "Gun on Ice Planet Zero" "The Magnificent Warriors" "War of the Gods" and many more. The original Star Trek suffers from much of the same. I have never been able to stomach a full episode of Farscape, so I'm in no position to speak of its quality. SG-1, from what I've seen of it, certainly holds itself to a higher standard of writing than the original BSG did.

Now, don't confuse this with me not liking TOS, I do, I just don't think it's the epic the purists do.

Your opinion. But "War of the Gods" was one of the best episodes. But as a religious person, I find the idea of angels and demons good material, fully fitting within the realm of being cast out of Eden. I personally don't believe that mankind originated elsewhere in the universe. But, it's just a 'what if' story. I like what-if stories. I liked the approach they took. And, this is a core philosophy of mine: If there is a war between God and Satan and there is life on other worlds, that war will exist there as well, not just on Earth.


Originally posted by Pagz
ANH and ESB certainly hold themselves to a much higher order of quality than TOS. ROTJ, TPM and AOTC are not terribly good in my estimation. I watch ROTJ and I can forgive some of its failings, but I certainly don't fool myself into thinking it's great, it is merely good. the prequels have, thus far, been mediocre.

I agree with that. Empire is the strongest (at least my favorite) of all of them, as a film, though with the cliffhanger ending it can't quite stand on it's own.


Originally posted by Pagz
You can force all the deeper meaning you like into TOS, but it won't make it true. TOS had its moments, but those moments are far outweighed by the copious amounts of camp and ridiculousness.

The Lost Warrior


If it weren't an old west town with Boss Hogg running it, it would've been okay, but I am forced to agree on this one. It's the "Spock's Brain" of BSG.

Originally posted by Pagz
Gun on Ice Planet Zero


Some flaws, but it was not bad if it were to recieve the special edition treatment I proposed above. There were good performances in it, and other than the logistical problem, it was fine.

Originally posted by Pagz
The Magnificent Warriors


It's just an episode. The new series will have it's own version of "just an episode," mark my words. :)

Originally posted by Pagz
The Young Lords


I think it was not the best, but it was also kind of cool. The Spectre/Lucifer/Baltar interchange was interesting. Starbuck as always was well done, and aside from the singing, it works pretty well. The older boy was goofy.

Originally posted by Pagz
War of the Gods


I can't understand why this is on your list. One of my favorite episodes, clearly defining important aspects of the mythos of the premise of the show, and establishing a hint toward the motivations of the cylons. In fact, the MYSTERY of the cylons is one of the main reasons to do a continuation, and one of the biggest disappointments of the mini. "The Cylons Were Created By Man" pretty well killed any and all suspense and interest for me. It's like sleeping with someone on the first date, where do you go from there? That's a far departure from the core of the original premise. Now, if Count Iblis had been human, and accellerated to the powers of the Lords Of Kobol, but been the corrupt leader of the 13th tribe that was cast out of Eden and sent into exile on Earth, he might have had the opportunity to create cyborg intelligence from, say, and evolved version of a velociraptor.... But, too bad. That won't get made.

Continued....

[Raymar3d]

Originally posted by Pagz
The Man with 9 Lives


Nothing wrong with this episode. We get to learn about Starbuck's dad, and it was just fine the way it was. What did you not like about it? In fact, the Borellian Nomen are the original movie era Klingons. This aired Pre-Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The borellian nomen are more klingon than the original series klingons, and they came before the klingon forehead reinvention.

Originally posted by Pagz
Experiment in Terra


No different from a LOT of ST:TNG episodes. It was fine for me.

Originally posted by Pagz
Hand of God


Do you just object to "God" being in the titles of episodes? It was a great episode. We get our first glimpse of a message from Earth, and they get to blow the smithereens out of a Cylon baseship after having to run away from them for so long. What did you hate about this one?

Originally posted by Pagz
All of these episodes run the gammit from marginally goof to totally ridiculous. I'm not saying that there isn't more to BSG than the camp, but it's mired in so much of the camp that it can hardly be taken as seriously as the purists are choosing to do.

Battlestar Galactica clearly holds up to its peers, namely Star Trek. In that regard, you have no case to stand on.

Originally posted by Pagz
That's the problem, that's exactly what I've done. I watched the series as a child and loved it, I watch it as an adult and wonder what I was thinking. I would suggest that you need to rewatch the series objectively, putting aside your love of the series and make an honest assesment of the quality of the acting and writing.

The acting is great, with very few exceptions. You personally may not like the actors, but I do, and I like the performances. It is in the eye of the beholder. You know what they say about opinions. :)

Originally posted by Pagz
That's not a terribly fair assesment. Ron watched the series when it originally aired. When the opportunity arose to do work on BSG, he came to the conclusion that a remake would serve the property best. I had come to that same conclusion before he was even involved. That's not ego, it's just one way of looking at things. So many people expect RM to cram into the mini series everything they loved about TOS, forgetting compeltely that it took TOS the better part of a full season to build up evrything the fans loved. The strong female characters, the mysticism, all came about later in the series. To expect the Mini to encompass all of these things is totally unfair. Saga of a Starworld, taken on its own, is missing a lot of the things the purists point to when they cry foul about the mini.

That's true, but Serina was a main character that became a pilot in the second episode. In fact, Laura Roslin evolved from the character Lyra (Serina) who had cancer in the original shooting script. Jane Seymour didn't want to do a series, so they had to kill her off. Sheba was brought in to fill that role. They had a few episodes until "The Living Legend" brought her in. Realities of production. Both productions have to live with that, neither should be held accountable for facts of life. If you want the mini to get special consideration, extend it to the original and I'll meet you halfway. :)


Originally posted by Pagz
It is tragic when the purists don't get what they want, even when they cuss and moan about it.

It's tragic that that's the way you see it. I did the best I could to take this debate to the source, in a reasonable way, and to his credit, Ron Moore debated with me and heard me out. In the end we had to agree to disagree, but I appreciate that he listened.


Originally posted by Pagz
I've read the "popcorn" letter, and it baffles me that any moderately intelligent adult can read it and consider it insulting. As for Eick, the only quote I've been privy to of late is his baby killing quote, which I discussed earlier in the thread.

It's still condescending. When you have to degrade something to build up something else, it's not really letting it succeed or fail on it's own merits, is it? The baby killing quote is just been discussed to death. See above and elsewhere on this forum for my thoughts on that.


Originally posted by Pagz
That doesn't really make sense. The purists keep complaining that RM and co. saw TOS exactly the way I saw it, hence the major changes. You're suggesting that if they saw it the way I did, they would try to emulate that, which they didn't.

I would not say that. Obviously you missed something. I see the subtle, but perhaps I look for it harder. Enjoyed the debate, Merry Christmas!

Ken :)

[Corwwyn]

Originally posted by Pagz
They chose a business model you don't like, this does not make them arrogant or disrespectful.
I think this is a "sliding slope" comment. Whether I like or dislike whatever business model is irrelevant of itself.

They chose a business model a business model that disrespects BSG actively. They deliberately chose to go "alternate universe". Then they deliberately chose to call it Battlestar Galactica (as if it were in fact BSG with nothing added to suggest it was different in the title). They took the names from BSG but ostensibly called them callsigns, yet used them as if they were names. Then they went all out to advertise familiar aspects (eg the Cylon eye). Bait and switch. And don't forget the "70's hair" rubbishing of BSG. Darnit I'm starting to ramble. Sorry.


Just because you dislike their take on Galactica does not make it disrespectful.
Correct.

Try to be objective about this and not let your personal feelings for TOS to cloud your judgement. Had this mini come out using different names as some purists have wished, the BSG fan community would be crucifying them for stealing BSG.
I don't know. We'd still be crying out for a continuation, but there wouldn't be the added anger against them trying to pass this off as BSG.

Fact is, this is BSG done differently, but it's still BSG.
It is not. It is something else. The only thing BSG-like about it is the title, some of the names, a couple of themes and some other of the most superficial elements. It's more like a gloomy and angsty version of Enterprise (with a soft porn sheen) than BSG.

I'd remind you, however, that the TOS hardly holds up to scrutiny itself. Level a critically eyed review at the TOS and it's in trouble.
What? Star Trek? ST:TOS is still incredibly popular, as is BSG. Surely there is no disputing that. BSG only suffers in having so few episodes, so doesn't stay on the air for nearly as long at a time in any syndication run.

Both TOS and BSG have less than excellent episodes scattered about, but overall both stand up amazingly well for series which are 30+ and 20+ years old respectively.


I wouldn't say it's any smaller than the pilot of the original series. As a matter of comparison, I'd say it was more expansive in its scope than "Saga of a Starworld".
You are quite entitled to that view. I don't see it however.


Angst seems entirely appropriate to the situation. There was plenty of angst in the original pilot too.

angst
: Noun
: a feeling of anxiety, apprehension, or insecurity

Tell me, why should a show which deals with the genocide of the human race not ber "very angsty" ?

Good point. I erred in my use of the term. I intended it in the colloquial sense that gets bandied about in Buffy and like shows rather than its more correct meaning.

This is to say that I meant it as the hormone-driven teen anxiety/apprehension/insecurity and the social groping for answers and pointless bickering that clutters so many teen-aimed soapies.

I'd postulate that, if TOS was released today as opposed to 78, it would fail for the same reasons you cite above.
An interesting postulate. I see three ways to read this.

1. If it was released "as is" with its 20+ year old SFX and accepted norms.

As a big screen release (assuming it hadn't been seen before?), I don't know. I suppose it would have to be advertised as a "lost classic" or some such. It might do well. If it's anything to go by, at least most (and I think all) the video/dvd stores which I visit (admittedly that's only about a dozen or so, so a miniscule sample size) carry the movie version of Saga of a Star World.

If it was re-released today as an "anticipation" screening (just before a BSG big screen continuation movie) akin to Star Wars on the big screen just before TPM was released I think it would do wonderfully.

2. If it was re-released today with ZOIC level SFX
or ILM, I think it would make a nice profit. I don't think it would be truly huge without the hype of a continuation sequel coming though.

3. If it had been made today with today's equivalent level of SFX and accepted norms.

I think it would have rocked the house (ie. a massive hit).

continued...

[Corwwyn]

It is not an example of excellent writing, or even great writing.
I disagree, except in the sense that it is not excellent unfailingly. As with the best of other series it has its truly great moments and its low points. Given the rushed nature of the series I find it amazing that it achieved this.

It is stuffed with absolutely ridiculous episodes such as "The Young Lords" "Gun on Ice Planet Zero" "The Magnificent Warriors" "War of the Gods" and many more.
Excuse me? War of the Gods? Ridiculous? That's like saying City on the Edge of Forever was a ridiculous Star Trek episode! Sure CotEoF had its plotholes (the very concept of being able to change one's past), but it was still a magnificent episode, as was BSG's WotG!

For that matter GoIPZ was an excellent episode too. So it was a ripoff of Guns of Navarone. Big deal.

The original Star Trek suffers from much of the same. I have never been able to stomach a full episode of Farscape, so I'm in no position to speak of its quality. SG-1, from what I've seen of it, certainly holds itself to a higher standard of writing than the original BSG did.
Curious and interesting.


ANH and ESB certainly hold themselves to a much higher order of quality than TOS.
Do you also think this of ANH and ESB compared with BSG?
If so, in what way? SFX I'll grant you. Anything else?



You can force all the deeper meaning you like into TOS, but it won't make it true.
But it is true, for both ST:TOS and BSG.

TOS had its moments, but those moments are far outweighed by the copious amounts of camp and ridiculousness.
No offence intended, but I have to say...that's rubbish.


The Lost Warrior
Gun on Ice Planet Zero
The Magnificent Warriors
The Young Lords
War of the Gods
The Man with 9 Lives
Experiment in Terra
Hand of God

All of these episodes run the gammit from marginally goof to totally ridiculous.

I think Ken addressed this one rather well.

I'm starting to wonder if there was anything you found actually good about any episode of BSG.


I'm not saying that there isn't more to BSG than the camp, but it's mired in so much of the camp that it can hardly be taken as seriously as the purists are choosing to do.
I put it to you that it is more likely that some casual viewers (I assume you'd consider yourself one?) don't easily see subtle depth unless its battered home with a sledgehammer (and therefore not at all subtle). It's not like one has to look hard either. There are lots of fans perfectly willing to point out where to look if one wishes to see.


That's the problem, that's exactly what I've done.
And yet your previous comment suggests that you aren't looking (or can't see?) past the surface.

I watched the series as a child and loved it, I watch it as an adult and wonder what I was thinking. I would suggest that you need to rewatch the series objectively, putting aside your love of the series and make an honest assesment of the quality of the acting and writing.
I first saw it when I was young, and wasn't impressed. The reused stock footage and the Cylons strafing Caprica seemed as unconvincing to me as the mini's whiteout and reports of events but no actually portrayed events.

I rediscovered BSG in reruns and grew to appreciate it as I saw the themes and complex interactions underlying the suface elements. There are still aspects and visuals which aren't overly appealing, but the story is immense and deeply interesting. I care about the characters. I want to learn more about the Cylons and Count Iblis.



That's not a terribly fair assesment. Ron watched the series when it originally aired.
No he didn't.

In the (I think it was the IGN interview) he admitted to only having seen one and half episodes (of which the one full one was SoaSW). He knew basically zip about the characters beyond Saga. He did not watch the series as prep for his writing. I don't know if he's even watched the whole series even now.

When the opportunity arose to do work on BSG, he came to the conclusion that a remake would serve the property best. I had come to that same conclusion before he was even involved. That's not ego, it's just one way of looking at things.
I better apply the golden rule here. The only adequate responses that come to mind at the moment contain an unwanted amount of venom.


So many people expect RM to cram into the mini series everything they loved about TOS, forgetting compeltely that it took TOS the better part of a full season to build up evrything the fans loved.
Not sure how to answer this.

If you're referring to continuation fans, I think the one overlying thing that we expect is...a continuation (one faithful to BSG).

Beyond this, cramming everything in is imo not at all what is expected. Focusing on the main themes and introducing/hinting at some of the other aspects is plenty. Some questions must be answered, some hinted at, some merely acknowledged, some can be left completely for later revisitation.


To expect the Mini to encompass all of these things is totally unfair.
Agreed.

I think you miss a prime point though. Some continuation fans want the characters, some don't overly mind. Some want The Galactica (as she appeared in BSG), others don't mind. Some want the mythos, others don't mind. Some want assorted aspects, others don't mind.

The one crucial thing all continuation fans want (dare I say need) is A CONTINUATION.

That is the single critical error the makers of the mini made.

We've already seen Saga. We've seen the series. We don't need to see it reimagined. We can watch the DVDs.

We want to see WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.


I've read the "popcorn" letter, and it baffles me that any moderately intelligent adult can read it and consider it insulting.
It baffles me that you don't.


That doesn't really make sense. The purists keep complaining that RM and co. saw TOS exactly the way I saw it, hence the major changes. You're suggesting that if they saw it the way I did, they would try to emulate that, which they didn't.
No. No. I was saying if a continuation-maker saw it as you state you do they would try to emulate those aspects that you saw in it, and it would probably be lousy.

The continuation-maker would have to be able to see the aspects that continuation fans see in BSG to do any justice to a continuation.

"RM and co." aren't continuation-makers. Ron and Bonnie chose to reimage.

It's still BSG afterall.
Not in the slightest.

[Edited to correct a couple of typos. - Cor]

[shiningstar]

The script is BOTH contemptious and INSULTING.

It's insulting that Bonnie Hammer and Ron Moore still
believe that the show they are trying to pass off as
a remake of BSG .......is "APPROPIATE" for an eleven
year old child. It's insulting that they completely
scrubbed a "GREAT" storyline for their 'SOAP OPERA"
one.

It's contempteous in the fact that there were a
number of MAJOR minority and WOMAN strong
characters and that's been reduced to practically
NOTHING. Save a cylon spy, a cylon tramp,
a cigar smoking-swearing - undisciplined
and impatiant warrior who is almost incapable
of controlling her temper and fists as well as
ONE female president who has all the 'appeal'
of a cardboard cut out.

Not to mention the LIBERAL propeganda
that these "PEOPLE" are trying to SHOVE down
our THROATS in the Blame America speech and
the fact they would have us believe that this is
a 'MILITARY STRUCTURED" show,

Officers jumping into Closets and making out,
Officers getting into slug fests over a card game
THAT is NOT a military structured show.

For example: IF starbuck had slugged it out
with Colonel Tigh at the VERY LEAST she would
have gotten an article 15 and a dishonorable
discharge for Conduct unbecoming of a soldier.

Instead ........... she's allowed back ON DUTY
with hardly a hair out of place. The same would
have been done for Colonel Tigh's Boozing.

I know about Military structure. I am a veteren
of the armed forces and reading the script alone
was enough to get my 'ire' up.

[Senmut]

I agree with you. I don't see contempt EXCEPT in making a female Starbuck. At the very least there is a lack of respect for TOS fans.




How about making Tigh a dysfunctional drunk? The original Tigh was a man of integrity and honesty, who was someone every member of the crew from Adama to the greenest recruit could count on. Here, he's a lushed-out jerk, with marital problems. How reliable is someone like that, or what sort of role model?
No way.

[Gemini1999]

How about making Tigh a dysfunctional drunk? The original Tigh was a man of integrity and honesty, who was someone every member of the crew from Adama to the greenest recruit could count on. Here, he's a lushed-out jerk, with marital problems. How reliable is someone like that, or what sort of role model?
No way.

Senmut -

Not to sound snarky, but you must be bored with current discussion topics to respond to a thread that is over 7 years old. I'm sure that you're well aware that discussing TNS or the 2003 Miniseries is not allowed per current CF guidelines and rules. Please discontinue this course of discussion.

Regards,

Gemini1999
Colonial Fleets Moderator

[peter noble]

It's called trolling and he's been doing a lot of it.