The case for a re-imagining

[Darth Marley]

I was born in 1966.The Adam West Batman was on the air, and I guess my parents left me in front of the screen too long. The third word out of my mouth was " Matman ! "
Talk about campy,cheesy show, this one defines them. But throughout my childhood, I loved it,and still do.
In 1984,I became aware of Frank Miller's reimagining of the Batman story.I was thouroughly impressed.This writer had taken a comic book legend,and elevated it beyond anything I had hoped for. Adult themes. Contemporary political commentary. Violence and death that had been banned by the Comics Code Authority. The legend was rescued from the comedy of the 60's.

In my copy of The Complete Frank Miller Batman, there is a forward by Alan Moore,who wrote many good comics in that same late 80's time period. This forward can be viewed at http://www.teako170.com/knight.html
and I will be quoting from this forward to compare the Miller reimagining of Batman with the RDM reimagining of BSG.I find many of the "problems" of TOS are similar to the problems of the Batman franchise.

The opening paragraph meshes well with how many would describe TOS viewed through 21st century eyes:
"As anyone involved in fiction and its crafting over the past fifteen or so years would be delighted to tell you, heroes are starting to become rather a problem. They aren't what they used to be...or rather they are, and therein lies the heart of the difficulty. "

The maturing audience and increasing sophistication of youth is examined in terms of this artistic probem next:
"The world about us has changed and is continually changing at an ever-accelerating pace. So have we. With the increase in media coverage and information technology, we see more of the world, comprehend its workings a little more clearly, and as a result our perception of ourselves and the society surrounding us has been modified. Consequently, we begin to make different demands upon the art and culture that is meant to reflect the constantly shifting landscape we find ourselves in. We demand new themes, new insights, new dramatic situations.

We demand new heroes.

The fictional heroes of the past, while still retaining all of their charm and power and magic, have had some of their credibility stripped away forever as a result of the new sophistication in their audience. With the benefit of hindsight and a greater understanding of anthropoid behavior patterns, science fiction author Philip Jose Farmer was able to demonstrate quite credibly that the young Tarzan would almost certainly have indulged in sexual experimentation with chimpanzees and that he would just surely have had none of the aversion to eating human flesh that Edgar Rice Burroughs attributed to him. As our political and social consciousness continues to evolve, Alan Quartermain stands revealed as just another white imperialist out to exploit the natives and we begin to see that the overriding factor in James Bond's psychological makeup is his utter hatred and contempt for women. Whether most of us would prefer to enjoy the above-mentioned gentlemen's adventures without spoiling things by considering the social implications is beside the point. The fact remains that we have changed, along with our society, and that were such characters created today they would be subject to the most extreme suspicion and criticism. "

Think for a moment how contemporary audiences would react if TOS never aired in '78 but was dumped whole and unrevised into todays television markets. Certainly some of its themes would still be relevant. And forget for a moment the difference in special effects technology.
Would it be as compelling today as it was back then?

Perhaps my enjoyment of seeing Batman successfully reimagined allows to to accept the RDM mini more readily than other long time fans of BSG.

And certainly,not all of the reimagining has been to my taste. We as fans had a perfect script in Miller's Batman:Year One. When movie time came around,WB gave us something much less majestic. A horrible film plagued with rewrites, and misguided input from actors during filming. A wonderful working script had been tossed aside,does that sound familiar?

Still,the fatally flawed movies did provide the fan base with a few services. The comic versions were revitalized. Animated series were created with arguably more artistic merit than the live action, big budget movies. Merchandising dollars proved to the studio that they had a money maker on their hands. We got more Batman, even if all of it wasn't better Batman. We may yet get our movie made right. Without the exposure of somewhat successful reimagining, we likely never would.
For us hardcore Darkknight Detective fans,the general public just doesn't get it. Studios are to cowardly and shortsighted to understand that we really know what the best Batman is.

I find only quibbling faults with the RDM remake. But my frustrations with my beloved Batman maps well onto the frustrations of those of you that hate it, or hate the idea of it.

For those in opposition to RDM's effort,take heart. You, like the REAL Batman fans may some day get what you really want. From your point of view, we who disagree just don't get it. But our support of the current incarnation may give you the ashes for your phoenix to rise.

Those of us that enjoy and embrace this newest incarnation of the Galactica myth,it is given for us to celebrate. To keep the franchise alive. And to realize that for the great stories, there is never a final version.

Here endeth the Marley Manifesto.

[Sept17th]

I was born in 1967.The Adam West Batman was on the air, and I guess my parents left me in front of the screen too long.

"Damn it sh#t Jon you know how to tell time when Batman is on", my dear mother Freda

Talk about campy,cheesy show, this one defines them. But throughout my childhood, I loved it,and still do.
In 1984,I became aware of Frank Miller's reimagining of the Batman story.I was thouroughly impressed.This writer had taken a comic book legend,and elevated it beyond anything I had hoped for. Adult themes. Contemporary political commentary. Violence and death that had been banned by the Comics Code Authority. The legend was rescued from the comedy of the 60's.

Sept17th: Here you I separate. I don’t think Batman is good example because the comic books where never as campy as the TV show. The later films where closer to there source material. Battlestar Galactica was never “camp” he did play a little humor now and then. Tom DeSanto clearly shows how Battlestar Galactica could be great television for todays audience


http://www.cylon.org/bsg/bsg-desanto-01.html

http://www.battlestarpegasus.com/


Marley asks

Think for a moment how contemporary audiences would react if TOS never aired in '78 but was dumped whole and unrevised into todays television markets. Certainly some of its themes would still be relevant. And forget for a moment the difference in special effects technology.
Would it be as compelling today as it was back then?

Yes, that’s why many us believe a continuation is sound for the franchise. I think people would find it nostalgic, some hokey a bit because the writing reflects the standards and practices of the network at the time. Standards and Practices at the networks change with the changing morays of society. TOS characters can be made relevant and sophisticated today with out complete re-imagination.

[peter noble]

Ah, the flawed Batman defence, new year same old schtick.

Batman: created in 1940 (not sure, might be '39), a comic book character adapted for two serials, numerous cartoon shows, a TV series and a series of films. Throughout all Batman remains Bruce Wayne, millionaire playboy by day, dark avenger of the night when the sun goes down, aided by Robin, the Boy Wonder etc, that remains constant over 60 odd years.

Battlestar Galactica created for television, aired 1978-79, Cylons are robots created by alien race, Starbuck is a Maverick-style space-pilot, and a man, he has a friend called Boomer who is also a space pilot and a man! The family Adama consists of Commander Adam, his son Captain Apollo, and his daughter lieutenant Athena. They and the last survivors of the 12 colonies of man head off across the stars in search of Earth that Adama implicitly believes exists.

Ron Moore comes along remakes Battlestar Galactica, getting rid of the established status quo of Battlestar Galactica, which was created by Glen Larson for TV in 1978, just 25 years ago.

Now, if you're talking about the tone of Batman stories through 60 odd years, then you've got a point, they change through the decades, I'd expect the tone of a continuation of Battlestar Galactica, I wouldn't expect it to have the same tone as the decade of the eight track and lava lamp. Time after all marches on.

In the end your statement is flawed because you're saying the sensibilities of 1978 won't work today, everbody knows this, Richard Hatch knew, this, Tom DeSanto knew this, Glen A. Larson knows this, we fans know this.

We want a continuation/faithful remake of Battlestar Galactica as established in 1978 but made with 21st century sensibilities. We don't want half-baked Battlestar Galactica as in Galactica 1980, Battlestar Galactica 2003, whoever does Battlestar Galactica, we want them to respect the show, the creator and the fans.

'Nuff Said,

Peter

[Dogface]

Remember, folks, miniseries bad, old series good. No matter what.

[larocque6689]

Originally posted by Dogface
Remember, folks, miniseries bad, old series good. No matter what.

Is that your opinion or merely your put-down of other people's opinions.

For the record, I loved what Miller did to the Batman character. Some people thought it was a bit extreme. In some respects he had gone even further than Neal Adams and Marshall Rogers in their 1970's work on the Dark Knight Avenger. I liked the fact that Superman and Batman were no longer best frieinds, but often on the opposite sides of the issue, with Batman clearly defined as a vigilante outside of the law.

Was Frank Miller's Batman a successful "remake" and "revamping"? Yes. DC's Batbooks became popular again for a while (at one point there were four, maybe fiuve monthly Batbooks).

It's too bad that both Alan Moore and Frank Miller moved on. In their wake, imitators glutted the market with violent, dark and gritty characters, all copying what they perceived as the success of Watchman and Dark Knight. In mid-1990s interviews in the Comics Journal, Alan Moore lamented his role in creating this market. Some of his later efforts such as 1963 were an attempt to make comic books fun again.

Current sales figures for comic books are roughly 25% of what they were in the mid-1980s. The decline has been significant and I envision a day when the comic book will be nearly extinct, having gone the way of the pulp magazine and the "penny dreadfrul".

[jewels]

Originally posted by Dogface
Remember, folks, miniseries bad, old series good. No matter what.
No dogface that's miniseries: state your opinion :), old series treat with respect: there would be no miniseries without it's name marketability ;).

Do watch the snide comments though--we like our island to be peaceful with the only flames coming from the Tiki torches by the beachfront bar.
:maitai::colada:

[Mike Wright]

Marley-

Thought that was probably one of the best and most insightful arguments on behalf of the miniseries I've ever read. Thank you for that.

One comment that I'm repeatedly annoyed with is that the original series was a "Cheesy, campy 70's show." Batman, in a way you could say it was cheesy. But hell, I watched it in syndication back in the 80's when I was a kid, and I loved it. There was a parody of that series on the Simpsons where they filmed some Batman-like movie and everyone was fighting, and the next thing you know they all broke out into a dance. Funny as hell, but I felt like that wasn't far off from what we saw in the original Batman series. I think it explored some themes and was mature in some respects, but no where near as mature by todays standards.

BSG only had one single element that to me made it cheesy. The robotic dog. Thats it. That series explored so many elements that I felt would probably still hold up even by todays standards. It was a mature show. Not cheesy or campy at all. I can name a number of episodes of Star Trek that were a complete joke, yet there have been five fairly successful incarnations of it that translated well into todays society.

And I think Star Trek is probably a good example of what *not* to do with BSG. In my opinion, you just couldn't do a continuation of BSG like you could with Trek. With Star Trek you had the ability to start off with totally new cast members, make references to previous series that the old fans would enjoy, and change concepts to garner new fans. And you can do this because its a story about humanities exploration of the cosmos. It has no dire elements. Everyone lives. BSG is about the LAST REMAINING HUMANS. This convoy is all thats left of the human race. And like Ron Moore said, its very difficult to have BSG without Adama and Baltar... Its a back story that you can't fill into a new series. The best they could do is make a show about the Pegasus.

Now I'm not saying a continuation wouldn't work at all, in fact I'm a big supporter of it. Its just to me, it wouldn't make a good long running series. To me it would feel like a reunion episode, or a miniseries, or something like that. You gotta remember, the original series only lasted a year. Thats not even a full series... Its like a 24 episode mini series. An awesome, epic miniseries, but a miniseries nonetheless. With Star Trek you had three years to work with. And probably the only reason they continued it was because Paramount wanted to cash in on Star Wars in the late 70's. (Which I believe was also why BSG was made)

Speaking of, look at Star Wars too. It started off around the same time as BSG, has very similar elements. Yet they are still making movies about it. It seems silly to me that they are making Prequels, (not that I'm complaining) because not only has the technology to do the movies changed, but the themes that Star Wars is exploring are much darker and more mature than the original trilogy. And when you look at it on the whole, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I guess in the end it doesn't matter, cause Lucas had an original idea and now he's a billionaire. Lucky him.

Anyway, I'm not saying "no we can't have a continuation," quite the opposite, I want to see one. And I think that once we have this new series on the air and it proves to be successful, and we see more and more fans of it and they start watching the original and find our pleas for a continuation, the voice will grow stronger and eventually we'll get the continuation.

It's just that I think the re-imagining has more marketable value for the time being.

[Darth Marley]

I might find a few more elements of cheese in TOS.Hector and Vector as Teletubbie prototypes for one example.Some of the Von Daniken references would cause some to oohhh and aahhhh,while others would roll on the floor.

No BSG was not campy by design like Batman.I do argue that the maturation of the audience,both in terms of kids growing up,and a new generation of kids growing up more worldly, does make TOS look quite different viewed through a modern filter.

If BSG did not have elements that still hold up,then we would not have a remake.

St & SW both have vibrant creations following the start of their franchises. Continuity freaks (and I am sometimes one) point out every misstep in the newer products. With the comic heroes, and now with Galactica, these issues are brushed aside by the fiat of "it is a fresh start."

When the Batman movie was in production,Adam West made please to actually play the main character.I do not know if he had any fan support,but assume he had some. I do not think it would have been a good thing for his view to prevail,as it would have contaminated a fresh start.

I imagine I would enjoy an original cast continuation. Even so,I feel the remake infuses the myth with fresh blood the will make it more healthy.

[Darth Marley]

Originally posted by peter noble
Ah, the flawed Batman defence, new year same old schtick.

...

In the end your statement is flawed because you're saying the sensibilities of 1978 won't work today, everbody knows this, Richard Hatch knew, this, Tom DeSanto knew this, Glen A. Larson knows this, we fans know this.

We want a continuation/faithful remake of Battlestar Galactica as established in 1978 but made with 21st century sensibilities. We don't want half-baked Battlestar Galactica as in Galactica 1980, Battlestar Galactica 2003, whoever does Battlestar Galactica, we want them to respect the show, the creator and the fans.

'Nuff Said,

Peter

Ah,I should have scrolled up sooner,I thought I only had one reply.

How is the Blake's 7 website going?

I find Moore's words on heroes have great relevance to the Galactica debate.
Sure,there is a difference in comics and TV shows,there is even a difference in the kind and quality of heroes across media. I am pleased to see that Noble and Larocque have such an extensive knowledge of the Batman mythos.

My statement is flawed because I'm right and everyone knows this? I think I understand you as saying the "mistakes" of the past would not be repeated in a continuation.Maybe so.

A continuation may still happen,and I would watch it and enjoy. Even a flawed continuation would be a good thing.

Even with that,I am glad the remake happenned. I find it appealing on many of the same levels that Miller's treatment of the Batman mythos was appealing to me.

[larocque6689]

A continuation may still happen,and I would watch it and enjoy. Even a flawed continuation would be a good thing. Even with that,I am glad the remake happenned. I find it appealing on many of the same levels that Miller's treatment of the Batman mythos was appealing to me.

I enjoyed the mini and I'm looking forward to a continuation (done right of course!). Tom would have done a great job and hopefully still can. You will find few original series fans who are looking forward to a return of Hector and Vector.

[Darth Marley]

Originally posted by Sept17th
I don’t think Batman is good example because the comic books where never as campy as the TV show.


Standards and Practices at the networks change with the changing morays of society. TOS characters can be made relevant and sophisticated today with out complete re-imagination.

The comics did mimic the tone of the TV show for a time. Oversize props did make it from the TV show to the comic.

Sure,it is not an exact comparison to BSG. Neither is Star Wars. But just because things aren't exactly these same doesn't make comparing them worthless.

And about the changing mores of society.I see a lot of traffic about the "adult thme" nature of the RDM product.Many posts humorous in thier extremity from both ends of the spectrum. If a BSG continuation uses modern standards and practices guidlines, how will this sit with those wanting to share a new BSG product with their young children?

Without a diversity of products in the BSG stable,there will always be some faction the doesn't get what they want,and will be downright pissed off about it.

[Darth Marley]

Originally posted by larocque6689
You will find few original series fans who are looking forward to a return of Hector and Vector.

H/V are for me a symbol of what I would most like to see updated from TOS. I do find them quite amusing,but I like one poster's comment wishing Apollo had demonstrated the power of his weapon on the 'droids rather than the barrels.

I love BSG original. I also love the RDM product. And if I didn't enjoy the debate, I would have left long ago for a more monochrome board.

[jewels]

monochrome in essence of opinions or in board color scheme?

*jumps back into converting photoshop files*

[Dawg]

I think Peter hit it on the head, but that's not going to stop me from adding my two cubits to this discussion.

:D

While your "case for re-imagining" is well thought-out, Darth (and I compliment you on articulating it so well), if you look at your argument you will see your basic premise is flawed, because each of your examples are either not products of reimaginging, or are characters created at different times which reflect that era's sensibilities and have not been changed since.

If you look at Batman from his comic-book creation through the George "I Killed The Franchise" Clooney movie, you see that the core, what makes Batman Batman, doesn't change. Presentation styles changed, some more tongue-in-cheek (West), some darker (Keaton, the animated series), but the basic premises, relationships, and characters are the same. When you watch a Batman story, you get a Batman story - whether it makes you laugh or sit on the edge of your seat. (BTW, I watched the Batman series first-run; I thought it was a poor representation of the characters, even then, but I could recognize Batman. I thought the more recent efforts were much closer to what the creators intended.)

In other words, Batman wasn't "re-imagined" after the TV series. The TV series was an aberration, if you will, in presentation (storytelling), but the basic character was the same as the first comic strip he appeared in to the last movie made.

The same cannot be said of Moore's mini. None of the characters were recognizable when compared to the source material. There was little of the original BSG "backstory", there were too many influences from other sources (In Harm's Way, SAAB, Abyss, etc.). I will say it flat out: Moore's mini was not Battlestar Galactica.

I know - I know, to my bones - that a continuation could have been done that would have appealed to both groups - those of us who despised the mini and those of you who enjoyed it. The characters could have retained the core of their creation and still have been updated for a 2003 audience. In thier wisdom, or lack of it, TPTB have muddied the BSG waters by taking the direction they took.

But a continuation that everyone can enjoy can still happen - the majesty and epic quality and everything that is missing from the mini can still happen, if we show the right people we're interesting in seeing the real Battlestar Galactica. It's not too late to write letters of support to Glen Larson and Tom DeSanto - and to NBC to let them know what a gold mine a proper revival of BSG could be, once they assume control of Universal.

That's my take on the subject, anyway.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Antelope]

I think the original Galactica viewers grew up. As a result THEY expect a more grown up show. Some like the "purist" (No offense meant) want nothing changed because of nostalgia. The kids who are today the age we were in 1978 would rather watch TOS than the mini. My daughter doesn't watch the new darker batman but "teeny titans" which is just as "campy" and "cheesy" as the old batmans ever were. Kids still want what they wanted 30 years ago. Unfortunately adults are less willing to make it. Watch the cartoon channel with your kids. There used to be a lot more "grown up" themed cartoons. They continue to get canceled and replaced with more old fashioned style shows. This explains the success of Rugrats, Spongebob, Wild Thornberries, and Teeny Titans. All are goofy, cheesy, right is right, wrong is wrong and good old fashioned fun entertainment.

As mentioned above the mini is mostly a remake of "In Harm's Way", another dark, sexually charged naval war movie. This movie is black and white and I believe released in the early to mid 1960's. The mini is nothing new or reimagined. The real difference is they hope to sell products to us 30 somethings and not lunch pails and models to 12 year olds this time around.

The best selling movies continue to be rated G. We changed and technology changed. People however have not.

[larocque6689]

Dawg

I'm not going to rehash the argument whether this was or wasn't BSG except that I disagree. There's enough recognizable elements and situations from the original series, plus the fact that it's a remake of the pilot episode, that calling it something other than Battlestar Galactica would be a mistake. In the larger picture, you have humanity on the run, being chased by a group of genocidal robots called Cylons, in pursuit of Earth.

Obviously a big difference between the two series is the characters. They are very different from the originals, even though they sort of function the same. I thought Baltar's role was probably one of the few real improvements. I loved Colicos and thought he was one of the best actors in the original series, but his character was rarely credible to me in the latter episodes. He seemed like a stock villain out an old Republic serial, who had the best lines in the episode. Personally I thought Baltar should have been given a better and stronger role in the original series. Perhaps this time around he will. I have always believed Baltar should have spent more time with humans than machines - now he can.

Taking the religious aspect away from Adama was a huge shift. And Katee's Starbuck nowhere carried the appeal of Dirk Benedict.

I enjoyed the miniseries. It was NOT the re-invention of SciFi. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: they wimped out. This Galactica was supposed to be more 2001 than Star Wars, but we had (muted) sound in space, proof that the public was stupid and would rather follow George Lucas than Harlan Ellison or Stanley Kubrick.

[Antelope]

Watch the movie "In Harm's Way" then "Saga of a Star World" then tell me what was remade. The mini is "In Harm's Way". EVERY character in the mini has a version in "In Harm's Way". EVERY Galactica battle comes straight from "In Harm's Way". If you changed the names of the characters back to their original names in "In Harm's Way", changed the word colonial to American, and made the Galactica a cruiser instead of a Battlestar it would be like a sledgehammer. Some of the deleted scenes in the mini are real scenes in "In Harm's Way" for example Tighs cheating wife (Eddigton's cheating wife). Changing the names to the Battlestar Galactica mythos was a great marketing tool but the mini is what it is and it is not "Saga of a Star World".

I like the mini for what it is: A great remake of the naval classic. Now let's make a BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series.

[peter noble]

Thank God no one came up with a Superman analogy, I don't want to have to explain Crisis on Infinite Earths again!

larocque6689 is hereby sentenced to actually watch all of TOS again, just to remind himself what Battlestar Galactica actually is! ;)

Peter

[Dogface]

Originally posted by jewels
No dogface that's miniseries: state your opinion :), old series treat with respect: there would be no miniseries without it's name marketability ;).

Do watch the snide comments though--we like our island to be peaceful with the only flames coming from the Tiki torches by the beachfront bar.
:maitai::colada:

So, things like "Ah, the flawed Batman defence, new year same old schtick.", are perfectly peaceful and respectful.

[BST]

Originally posted by Dogface

Originally posted by Jewels

No dogface that's miniseries: state your opinion , old series treat with respect: there would be no miniseries without it's name marketability .

Do watch the snide comments though--we like our island to be peaceful with the only flames coming from the Tiki torches by the beachfront bar.

So, things like "Ah, the flawed Batman defence, new year same old schtick.", are perfectly peaceful and respectful.

Yes, Dogface, they are. The reason is that Peter elaborated, to a great degree, to explain his opening remark.

Opinions should be respected even if one disagrees with said opinion. Your remark may have been perfectly acceptable if you had elaborated and explained the reasoning behind the statement: "Remember, folks, miniseries bad, old series good. No matter what."


BST

[Dogface]

Originally posted by antelope526
[B]I think the original Galactica viewers grew up. As a result THEY expect a more grown up show.

Exactly. I can watch the DVD to relive my childhood. My kids have their own shows and I'm fine with that. I don't need to inflict my childhood on them (or at least not the fashions--puh-leeze, I look like an honors graduate of Queer Eye compared to the old series Colonials). The original series was great in its day, and it's still my choice before most fictional offerings of present-day broadcast TV. The new opus suits me better now.

Likewise, I have decided that there are actually TWO miniseries out there. There is the miniseries that I watched and the one that the antis watched. They obviously were two completely different productions. I do not see the "old core values" of Galactica abandoned. There is still the desperate flight from an implacable foe. There is still the theme of betrayal from within as the means whereby a great society is brought down. There is still the theme of the leader. There is still a great deal of religion in the series, and far more RESPECT for religion than one finds in the vast majority of science fiction. There is still the theme of family sticking together when everything falls apart. The difference is that these themes are not treated simplistically. They are treated in ways that will engage me where and who I am now, not where and who I was in elementary school.

watch TOS than the mini. My daughter doesn't watch the new darker batman but "teeny titans" which is just as "campy" and "cheesy" as the old batmans ever were.

And that's great, because it's HER (and my sons') childhood camp and cheese, not Dad's recycled cheese. That can wait until they turn 30 and decide to go "retro" (being defined as "hooked on stuff too old for you to be honestly nostalgic about").

Kids still want what they wanted 30 years ago. Unfortunately adults are less willing to make it. Watch the cartoon channel with your kids.

I do--it's remarkable how deliciously subversive those "cheesy" cartoons actually are...

[BST]

Darth,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Even though I disagree with some of the items in your post and others, I appreciate the time you took to thoughtfully express your opinion.

I will apologize, in advance, for structure of my response, as it is really best summarized by a long-ago post from the old SciFi board and by a more recent post from here:

http://bboard.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/3315/320296

“…I was there when BSG premiered; I lived in that era (as a young adult); I had a very good idea of what was going on in the world around me; I knew what could and could not be shown on TV, especially at 8:00 PM, which was and still is Prime-time, i.e., family time.

Without getting into a political debate, suffice it to say that we were 4 years removed from having our President resign in disgrace, 3 years removed from escaping Vietnam having lost the only war in which the USA ever fought. We suffered from double digit interest rates, double digit inflation, high unemployment rates. Needless to say, we weren't doing very well, collectively. Then, along comes a sci-fi show that tells of a human holocaust at the hands of machines. It's a wonder that we sat through the entire 3 hours! It was only because there was a glimmer of hope given, that the humans portrayed in the show would live to see another day, possibly to avenge the destruction that had been wrought on them. We needed an escape from reality and for those of us that enjoy the science-fiction genre, this show did that.

We were somewhat forgiving, at that time, of the screenwriting, the special effects, the limits that the network sensors set on what could and could not be shown/said on TV during the prime-time hours. We had many reasons for watching the show, maybe Patrick Macnee's prologue especially appealed to us, maybe it was the theme song, maybe it was the physical appearance of the actors/actresses or their interaction that appealed to us, maybe it was the design of the Galactica, maybe just maybe, it was the storyline. The list could go on and on.

Without succumbing to blind devotion, I will yield to the statements that the story did have its 'cheesy' moments. I will yield to the fact that entirely too much stock footage was used in the battle scenes. I will yield to the fact that too much of the (Colonial) history is vague at best. This show, for reasons stated in this forum and possibly for other reasons, was rushed and was not given any type of commitment that it would be more than a 1 season filler.

There was, however, something about the show that has touched millions of us (and I do not exaggerate that number). It touched us to the point that we actively campaigned to 'revive' it. Letters were written, forums created, ideas and opinions posted to said forums. All of this for a show that aired over 25 years ago and lasted for 1 season. Amazing.”

The second post represents my thoughts about the remarks regarding the "cheesy" factor of the original show. While I can agree about a certain campiness toward the escapades of "Muffit the daggit", I was very moved by the way he was introduced and felt that that scene epitomized the very elements of the original show that I would like to see return.

http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4032

A very poignant moment, for me, was when Apollo was asked by Serina, to talk to Boxey. Boxey had just lost his daggit, in the attack on Caprica, and was feeling the same as any little boy would feel, having just lost his favorite pet. Apollo figuratively stepped out of Warrior boots and into civilian shoes and talked with Boxey, giving him one of his rank insignia. Afterward, as Serina was thanking him, in the hallway, Apollo stated, "What's a warrior to do after losing the big one (Zac and his mother), win a few of the little ones."


BST

[CmdrCain]

First off, I make these comments as a dedicated fan of the original BG who watched the new series with serious reservations - but was pleasantly surprised by the obvious effort that went into making it.

When I first learned that Galactica was going to be remade, and saw some of the mini-series preview footage, I had two immediate thoughts:

1. The Sci-Fi Channel is making this - oh, crap.
2. They're making an obvious attempt to sex this thing up, a factor which usually results in weak-to-non-existent storylines and characters.

Like many fans, I wanted a continuation, of course. Still, I realized that this was not likely given that many of TOS stars have done little to nothing since 1979, and few TV execs are going to invest time and effort in a project with the older and now somewhat obscure cast of a show that was cancelled after one season. The current emphasis is on younger actors and actresses that can draw an audience, if for no other reason, with sex-appeal.

Think back that even TOS was mostly carried on the backs of - then - youthful, appealing stars. I was very young at the time that Galactica aired, but the beauty of Maren Jensen, Anne Lockhart, and Loretta Spang was not lost on this viewer! :D They tended to hold my attention when they were on screen, and still do. :salute: Of course, the great Lorne Greene was also very much at the heart of the story, so these comments shouldn't be construed as denying Adama his central role. It's just to say that most of the focus in the show fell to the younger actors.

Things haven't changed all that much since, although I think our society is now much more obsessed with blatant sexuality, and that the overall quality and depth of our entertainment has diminished as a result. Your mileage may vary here, of course. This is just my opinion.

All of that to say that I didn't think a series revival was likely. At the very least, the roles of Adama and Baltar would have to be re-cast since Lorne Green and John Colicos were no longer with us. So, I wasn't surprised when the powers-that-be decided to go with a total re-imagining of the show, although I was disappointed.

A re-imagining does give you certain advantages:

1. It gives you a blank slate from which to work, thereby potentially avoiding some of the pitfalls of the original work that could otherwise limit your audience. As much as some of us love the old Galactica, there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't watch a continuation because they don't share that feeling toward the old show.

2. It allows you to "free-up" the story by removing old limitations that were essential to the original work, while, at the same time, keeping the basic concept: a group of people fleeing the destruction of their civilization, led by "the last battlestar", and still pursued by their ancient enemies.

They did some things with the mini-series that I had to shake my head at. Starbuck's character was the worst, I thought, because they changed it sooo much, even aside from the sex change. Starbuck is now basically an abrasive, reckless, insubordinate time-bomb. In TOS, Starbuck was a happy-go-lucky rogue, but not abrasive, reckless, or insubordinate. IMO, they created an entirely new character with these changes, and they might as well have changed the name, too.

I could have even handled a situation where they made Starbuck and Apollo hot-shot pilot rivals who grow into friends over time, but this new relationship is really skewed - again, aside from just the sex change, which is difficult to ask fans to accept anyway. Creating a new character would have been the better way to go. But I'm just a fan, what do I know? ;)

They did some good things with the mini-series: the F/X and attention to detail were good, as was the explanation for how the Cylons were able to achieve such a complete victory. I liked the updated jump technology, as this was one of the weaker science points of TOS (moving even at light speed, Galactica wouldn't get anywhere fast).

The new Adama (can't remember the actor's name at the moment) is no Lorne Greene (then again, Lorne Greene was a different sort of Adama than the Adama of TOS novels), but he's got good potential. Tigh and the new president of the Council of Twelve also seem to have promise, although making Tigh's character a drunk didn't set well with me. I'm also a bit leery of the new Apollo, and I hope that they intend for his character to mature over time. He's no Richard Hatch, but then I guess he's not meant to be. Still, Richard Hatch set my concept of Apollo just as Dirk Benedict did for Starbuck.

If a series is produced, I'll watch it as long as they don't do something outrageously stupid with it. As it stands, I think it would have potential to be the best sci-fi on TV today. I'm just not sure it's something I could watch with the family, but that remains to be seen. The biggest issue I have with TV today, aside from the emphasis on sexuality over story, is the tendency these writers and producers have to preach on their pet issues. Galactica was never a social commentary. Yet, it still managed to explore the timeless subjects of loyalty, friendship, love, faith, courage, and hope. For me, this created something far more enduring than any dated social/political commentary might have managed. So, if a new series is produced, I, for one, hope that sticks to such themes and avoids the temptation to step into the pulpit.

I'm sorry that this is long, and I realize that I've strayed off into a critique of the mini-series, as opposed to just sticking with the topic of re-imagining itself, but I hope some of these comments make sense.

[Mike Wright]

This morning I caught Sept17th's post and checked out the description of the Desanto continuation on Cylon.org. All I can say is wow. No wonder so many of you guys were against the mini.

Thats not to say I'm against the mini now... The description given on the continuation sounds really freaking awesome, I don't see how any hardened Galactica fan wouldn't cream their pants to see that on the air. And when you compare stories with the Mini, they don't compare... The continuation rocks.

Unfortunately I have the distinct feeling that now that a full description has been released to the net, and Desanto has gone so far as to explain the last few minutes of the pilot, that more than likely it won't happen... "The Return" by William Shatner would have made one hell of a movie, but instead we got First Contact, and it paled by comparison.

I still think its far more likely that the mini will make series. And I still think its a great deal possible that once the RDM series has been on the air for a while and has good enough ratings, the PTB will be able to cash in and go for the continuation in some respects. And while I think its probably not likely we'll see the Desanto version ever hit the air (which is sad, because honestly, it really does kick ass) I think its probably more likely they'll attach a different idiot to run it, and we'll get some other stupid Galactica 1980 type of thing. Thats just how hollywood works.

Anyway, sorry, I guess this post is just all opinion and not very articulate, but I gotta get to work, and I just wanted to express my frustration that two days back from vacation Scifiwire is still saying nothing about this.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by Mike Wright
Its just to me, it wouldn't make a good long running series. To me it would feel like a reunion episode, or a miniseries, or something like that. You gotta remember, the original series only lasted a year. Thats not even a full series... Its like a 24 episode mini series. An awesome, epic miniseries, but a miniseries nonetheless.

How much of the original's power comes from that one simple fact? I'd say a great deal. Would there be so much vehement adoration if it had become yet another episodic slog that ultimately betrayed its artistic vision in the cause of "one more season at any cost"? One thing that I HATED with a purple passion about the whole "Terra" thing was that it was a cop-out. It was a cheap, sleazy bait-and-switch. At first, in my naivete, I thought that Larson really WAS a genius. He was going to break the cardinal rule of mediocre episodic TV: He was actually going to FINISH a major story arc!!! Then I learned the truth. BG was acting like just another conventional TV series. Art violated.

We had to wait until JR Strznksy came along (forgive bad spelling) to see that happen in TV science fiction--and rumor was that he had to fight to get it done.

Finally, I also get the taste of "reunion show" after this much time were the original to simply be "picked up". Who were the acting powerhouses of the original? Greene and Colicos. They pretty much carried the entire show. How would a reunion work without them?

If you're going to do a "reunion show", put it on the big screen, and make the entire re-union Galactica larger than life. Leave the small screen for the Galactica with flawed characters and complex themes. The big screen is for the matinee idols and swashbuckling heroes.

[larocque6689]

larocque6689 is hereby sentenced to actually watch all of TOS again, just to remind himself what Battlestar Galactica actually is! ;)

Please... no.... not another viewing of the pilot episode (which Í've seen at least 40 times). (with the DVD's you see Baltar beheaded from several angles!)

[jewels]

Terra, a cop-out?

I saw it as a chance to "what-if" about what state earth would be in when the Colonials arrived. Would we be ready for them? It was also a way to tackle some thorny socio-polictical issues of the day by mirroring them in another society. Hmmmm: basic sci-fi technique, yes, but isn't that where the dreamers and the problem solvers postulate the future of society? Isn't that part of the point of science fiction?

Just some thoughts....

[Antelope]

After leaving Terra I figured if the Galactica ever found Earth (assuming the story took place in 1979) they would have wished they stopped earlier. I also think the majority of people in the rag tag fleet would have been happier to start anew on Terra than stay in the holds of the ships. Terra means Earth anyway.

[larocque6689]

Originally posted by antelope526
After leaving Terra I figured if the Galactica ever found Earth (assuming the story took place in 1979) they would have wished they stopped earlier. I also think the majority of people in the rag tag fleet would have been happier to start anew on Terra than stay in the holds of the ships. Terra means Earth anyway.

I view this episode as a Glen Larson tease. ABC had been pushing for the Galacticans to find Earth as early as possible. Dramatically speaking, this was a dumb idea. Glen compromised and gave them a note-quite-Earth. Officially, the Rag-Tag Fleet didn't stop on any of these planets because the Cylons were still a threat (Apollo's reasoning), but the religious/scriptural side of the equation was always in the picture since Adama had promised that they should seek Earth.

John the man in white said - this isn't Earth or the place you're looking for" - so they were back in space the next week, still searching.

I think the series was kind of in a limbo after War of the Gods. They had done some good character-oriented pieces, but the Eastern Alliance were a disappointing replacement villains for the Cylons (as flawed as they were, they kicked astrums over the Nazi/Soviet clones). The last episode was in many people's eyes a promise of what would come.

Then ABC convinced Glen to find Earth again - this time for good. So obligingly he gave them Galactcia 1980...

[Darth Marley]

Terra,if not a cop out,was for me a tease.

Crisis,yep I was there for that.I have many fanzine and RPG background articles on that subject. It was a necessary thing for a shared universe with a continuity obsessed fanbase.

I'll work on the Superman analogy, but Batman worked for me more so because of the A. Moore forward than the events of Crisis.

With the first Burton Batman film,the fans had a script by Sam Hamm which was largely trashed in production.Rewrite just didn't measure up by my standards.Many of you feel a similar way about the Desanto script,and wish it had been used instead.

I read the summary at CA,and it would certainly work.I do not like the Borgification of the Cylons.I do love the use of Apollo as a minion of evil.

Dawg,I do find enough in the RDM product to call it BSG remade.The Batman was reimagined even before I was born,and indeed,various incarnations of many of the comic worlds heroes have happened over the years.That this is the first effort at treating BSG in that manner,I understand there are those that will not accept it.I just don't fit into that market segment.

"In Harm's Way" is a fact that RDM admits to in at least one interview I have read.Should Lucas go back and make a REAL SW:ANH because he lifted so much from Kurasawa? I think that would be extreme.These things happen often in art through the ages.

And though many will undoubtedly object to yet another Star Trek comparison; if the RDM product is commercially viable then TPTB will know that new BSG products that are not original cast reunions will be marketable.Some efforts down the road may be more to your liking.If it fails,then who knows what BSG will be produced in the future?

[Dogface]

Originally posted by jewels
Terra, a cop-out?


Absolutely. It was bait-and-switch. It betrayed art for the sake of maintaining the lowest convention of 1970s episodic TV shows--that nothing is allowed to really change, everything must remain static in order to churn out one more season at any cost. What would have been true GENIUS instead of merely yet another (after another after another after another) thin SF rehash of "commies and USA on another planet" would have been for Larsen to have shown some major backbone and required that the Terra arc REALLY be Earth--a major plot point actually gets RESOLVED in what was expected to be an ongoing prime-time TV series! Imagine that! That sort of stuff hadn't happened since The Fugitive aired. That would have been true genius: Gie the audience a true climax and denoument at the end of a season--real drama in primetime US TV, and science fiction would have led the way, but we got nothing better than same-old same-old in slightly "futuristic" clothing.


The "commies and USA, ooh, ooh, we're all gonna kill ourselves if we don't make nice" theme had been done better elsewhere. What would have really been groundbreaking is if this relatiely primitive planet had been found, turned out really to be Earth, and the Cylons were a-comin, Martha! Think about it, Galactica, Earth and no super-scouts!

[Dogface]

Originally posted by larocque6689
[B]I view this episode as a Glen Larson tease. ABC had been pushing for the Galacticans to find Earth as early as possible. Dramatically speaking, this was a dumb idea. Glen compromised and gave them a note-quite-Earth.

Early as possible would have been a dramatic mistake, but slogging on interminably with no real resolution is a far worse mistake. This is one reason I've come to have far less taste for the vast majority of episodic science fiction television than I used to. RESOLVE something, already! Get over that plot point and stop dangling it around. Ending the first season with a real plot arc resolution would have been far superior.

[larocque6689]

Originally posted by Dogface
Early as possible would have been a dramatic mistake, but slogging on interminably with no real resolution is a far worse mistake. This is one reason I've come to have far less taste for the vast majority of episodic science fiction television than I used to. RESOLVE something, already!

This is precisely the reason why I've placed Babylon 5 as the be-all and end-all of SciFi episodic programming. Joe sat down and mapped out an entire five-year story-arch (with pre-planned resolutions) before the series even started. He had to take some Year 5 stories and transport them to Year 4, and there were changes in the series when Sheridan replaced Sinclair, but on the whole, what you got was what Joe wanted.

Not everybody who helms a TV show is a creative genius - but Babylon 5 is precisely the reason why I agreed with Bonnie Hammer on why shows should not be "fan-driven". I believe that science fiction shows should be creator-driven and infused with a strong vision and focus on what that show is and where they want the story to go. A show with focus and vision will create its own audience. It doesn't work the other way around.

( The downside of my creative argument is that the people who write, produce or more often than not finance TV shows are often idiots - the other side of the equation).

[jeditemple]

Originally posted by Dogface
Who were the acting powerhouses of the original? Greene and Colicos. They pretty much carried the entire show. How would a reunion work without them?

The same could have been said back when "Star Trek: The Next Generation" first aired and it's technically a continuation.

I think a lot of people would disagree that Green and Colicos carried the entire show. There were plenty of big characters that held my attention...like Starbuck and Apollo.

[jeditemple]

Originally posted by Dogface
Early as possible would have been a dramatic mistake, but slogging on interminably with no real resolution is a far worse mistake. Ending the first season with a real plot arc resolution would have been far superior.

Keep in mind we only had one complete season of BSG. Then we had the unfortunate 1980 season where they found Earth. So technically, they did have a resolution of sorts, albeit a poorly written one. This was one of the first big casualties of network politics (for sci-fi).

Regarding Babylon 5... Petty politics ruined the ending of what was a great series. The ending of the Shadow War was pretty lackluster and left me wanting for something more. Then MJS had problems with Season 5, "Crusade" and "Legend of the Rangers" (the latter being another Sci-Fi fiasco greeted by lukewarm reviews). And don't get me wrong...I loved B5 at it's height.