I am *very* dissapointed.

[Micheleh]

Hi, all!

I am reposting a segment from a recent Moore interview at G2003 which, I am sure, has been making the rounds. I wish to express my severe dissapointment- not in the fact that Moore has his own opinions and views, but in the fact that it seems impossible for anyone from the new series' representation to be capable of any sort of grace or manners in communication.

BG2003: Do you have any plans, aside from maybe the cameos, on winning some of the old fans over?

(*Note- cameos, is it?)

RM: Nothing concrete. I mean it would be nice to win them over, but you know, I think it's a case of they don't want to be won over. They're sort of set, certain members of that
community, are just in their ways and they're not interested in being won over. And so okay, whatever, I'm not interested in bringing them over [laughs]. And they're just such a small number, I mean, I hate to say that, but the truth is, it's a small number.

The miniseries was watched by, oh god I don't remember our ratings off the top of my head, but somewhere between 3 and 4 million viewers watched it. And the only way we have to sort of gauge the old fan reaction is by going to, you know, less than a half dozen web-sites, and the membership of those half dozen web-sites who are committed members of the boards, who weigh in on these issues, who are still gnashing their teeth, number in what, dozens?

(*Note- that's Don, too. Does he even think about what he says?)

Hundreds at the most? We're talking, a few hundred people?

I mean, I went to Galacticon and there were like 4 to 6 hundred people in the event, you know, total! We're not talking about tens of thousands of people, or hundreds of thousands of people who are upset and are like waging a campaign.

(*Note- this is my point of contention.)

We're talking about a very small bunch, and I'm sure that their first reaction will be to freak out [laughs], that I say there's not many of them. Well there aren't many of them! And that doesn't mean that they're not important, or that their opinion doesn't count, or that I'm dismissing them. It's just sort of a reality check. It's like how far are you willing to go to accommodate a small group of people who don't want to be accommodated, who will not be happy no matter what you can do. There's only so far that I'm gonna go.

Speaking as a coordinator of Galacticon, I deeply resent this remark. It implies a total lack of courtesy, and a complete disrespect for the enormous amount of work put out by those of us who did the show, Michael and Richard included. It was *not* a popular decision to invite him, and Richard took a great deal fo heat for it. It was decided, however, that it was up to us to be mature, to give everyone a chance to express their views and to speak for themselves, and to make it a convention which would welcome *all* fans.

I am highly dissapointed in Mr. Moore. It is extremely unprofessional to accept an invitation to an event as a guest, and to then speak in such a condescending manner after the fact. I, for one, would never invite him to speak his mind again.

If he truly saw Galacticon as nothing more thatn a few hundred implacable fans waging a war campaign, then he completely missed the point, and inviting him was a serious mistake, one which I, for one, now regret.

I sincerely hope you do beter in the future, Mr. Moore, at handling your own fan base, or you will alienate them. Among the concepts of humanity you wish to explore in the production of this series, I suggest you add courtesy.

[nccdee]

WARNING: May contain comments that may be viewed as hositle. Please read entire post before passing judgement.

I guess we all have our own ways of looking at things and the way I see it, he was talking about those who "hated" his vision long before it even when on the air and were not even open minded to even watch the mini.

I believe this group is very small in number but they were the most distructive and loudest voice in TOS group. You said yourself the invitation to RM was "not" popular. Clearly an indication that minds were made up, 5 months before the min even aired. This in no way justify's the small group of mini fan who have taken it upon themselve to engage in a fanwar during this time.

Yes, he should have expect negative feedback from TOS fans but I am sure it went beyond that (personal threats and the like). In reading the interview transcript (and if accurate), it sounds to me, he was uncomformable with the issue (nervous laugh?).

One thing I have noticed about writers...they are good at what they do, but lousy at doing interviews. Maybe they should be given the questions in advance, and have them write their answers. But is that being honest or just Public Relation?

Did RM provide a poor choice of words? Yes. His comment are not helping those fans of the new mini as we try to bridge a friendly relationship with those of TOS series. He should have known better, having come from the world of Star Trek and its following of fan conventions over the years.

I now ask you this...how was he recieved at the convention? How was his behavior? I did not attend but I heard it was favorable. If you and the fans had a great experience with wonderful memories, isn't that what matters? Certainly his remarks made many months later should not change that.

P.S. Having met with people who work at putting a Star Trek convention in my town, I have great appreciation for their dedication for puting it together. They are truly fans. I know you have made many wonderful friends and memories over the years. Your hard work help people find a place to have fun with others who share the same interest. Keep up the good work. It means a lot.

nccdee

[BST]

nccdee,

Nothing wrong with your remarks but, there is a lot of history that you may or may not be aware of. We did not just wake up one morning hating Ron Moore. In fact, we don't hate him at all, it's just the direction that he took BSG that we don't care for.


I'm enclosing a copy of a letter, by Ron Moore, posted in the 'old' SciFi forum (now the "BG-Archives" section which was closed April, 2003). The letter, written before filming even began, shows, in certain areas, as much 'arrogance' as the above post that Michele shared with us. To me, it doesn't seem like he was reaching out at all. He was saying "my way or the highway". (And no, he really didn't understand what we were asking for, at all. He still doesn't.)


BST


By Ronald D. Moore

February 24, 2003



Here lies a slumbering giant, its name known to many, its voice remembered by but a few. For a brief moment, it strode the Earth, telling tall tales of things that never were, then stumbled over a rating point and fell into a deep sleep.

I think there's life in that old giant. But I think that just poking him with a stick and expecting him to leap to his feet and resume his journey as if no time had passed would serve only to hasten his final death throes. He needs a makeover. Especially that '70s hair.

So we've set out to bring the old boy back to life and give him a new look and a new outlook on life. And we're going to ask him to tell his stories again, from the beginning. Tell them again, but this time go deeper. See, we were young once and when the old guy spun his tales of Apollo and Starbuck, we were satisfied with clear-cut heroes and nakedly evil villains. But we're older now. We've eaten a lot of popcorn over the years. We're ready for a bigger meal. Make the story more complicated. Make the people less black and white. Challenge us, provoke us, grab us by the throat with those massive hands and dare us to invest ourselves in flawed characters who face ambiguous choices in an imperfect world. Dare us to root for heroes with all-too-human weaknesses. See if we'll still embrace them if they fall prey to their imperfections.

Ask us to care for human beings instead of caricatures.

"Our goal is nothing less than the reinvention of the science-fiction television series."

With those words leading the way, I turned in the final draft of Battlestar Galactica. Bold words, perhaps. Arrogant even. But they accurately describe the ambition driving this project:

We believe you can explore adult themes with adult characters and still tell a ripping good yarn.

We believe that to portray human beings as flawed creations does not weaken them, it strengthens them.

We believe that bringing realism to science fiction is neither contradictory nor a fool's errand.

We believe that science fiction provides an opportunity to explore our own society, to provoke debate and to challenge our perceptions of ourselves and our fellow Man.

We believe science fiction can still be relevant.

We believe all these things and more.

If you agree with us, then this is the show for you. If not, then thanks for coming, but the popcorn is in a different aisle.

Over the course of the next year, this site will bring you news and updates on the Battlestar Galactica miniseries as it is shot and produced. Our aim is to provide you with unprecedented behind-the-scenes access to photos, storyboards, early story outlines, script pages, conceptual artwork, interviews, live Webcasts from the set, even preliminary cuts of scenes. You'll get to see things that are normally kept under tight lock and key — we're going to do this in an open, inclusive way. Let you see the process. See the mistakes and hopefully see the triumphs as well.

Stick around, it's going to be a helluva ride.

Ronald D. Moore
Executive Producer / Screenwriter

[nccdee]

BST, thank you for posting the letter. I have never see nor heard of it before. I only became aware of RM project last July. It was soon after that I had heard about the other projects (through cylon.org).

I would not say I was a huge fan of TOS but it was one of the few program that stuck with me from my childhood (along with Buck Rogers). I am not a believer that everything is set in stone. Simply put, they only thing Hollywood can asked of me is to watch their program or pay money to see their movies. Its my choice. Beyond that its their "business".

You proved to me that RM is an honest man, who right from the beginning told everyone what he plan to do. This was going to be a new ride and he asked if we wanted to come along. Once again, our choice. I did not see anything in letter that was untrue or unkind. But I guess when an individual's dreams does not come true, there's hurt feeling and bias is created against another dream. And when you read "the popcorn is in a different aisle" it seems as personal attack. It unfortunate you would feel this way.

For many RM Galactica is a beginning. To others, an expansion to the BGS universe. But to all, never an end. There will also be enthusiastic fans with story to tell, pictures to draw, and convention to attend. We are all part of the same club. Galactica lives on.

nccdee

[ViperTech]

Good thread!

Thanks for the Moore letter, BST. That helps me understand where Moore was coming from. He makes an interesting point about BG fans now being adults and maybe wanting a more adult version with more flawed human characters. I still think that they've been made so flawed that they're unlikable. But he's going for Sci-fi reality rather than Epic nature like Larson was in the '70's. I get that now.

Epic appeals more to younger audiences and reality more to older, I guess. I write children's plays, so I like the Epic nature over the realistic, so that's my bias. Reality stuff simply bores me. Which is why I don't look forward to the new series, even though I liked the Mini very much. It was a new twist, a novelty. As a series, it bores me.

I've been a vocal critic of Moore's attitude in other threads here recently, and now I can, at least, see where he's coming from.

nccdee makes a good point, too, about writers maybe not expressing themselves well verbally. As a writer myself, I can identify with that.

Good stuff!

[Antelope]

All I see over and over again is TOS only fans nit picking every word Moore says. He did what he thought best. If you don't like it hopefully someone will do another version more to your liking. Thus far I think we can all objectively say that the Moore version is better than the last battlestar incarnation done by Larson, BSG1980.

Moore repeatedly is met with hostility. You can read it here all the time. He has interviews where he reaches out to fans and the old cast and gets vitrial in return. He recently did a chat and those who hate him wonder why out of all the questions he can answer the ones he ignores often are a fancy way of saying, "Why do you suck?"

If you hate the guy don't try to chat with him. You aren't going to get an apology from him for doing what he thinks is best. When you say "I hate your show" don't wonder why in an interview he says "I can't make everyone happy".

When he reaches out to the old cast and they say "No, thanks" don't be offended if Moore says, "I offered them roles but they won't come. It's up to them."

Many of us may hate Moore but he is in the end a writer trying to do his best. The fact that his vision is not your vision just shows you are both human. From a business sense time will tell if Moore was right. Hostility however isn't going to make him anymore open to "fan input" than he already is.

Larson made an abomination to TOS (BSG1980) and damn near killed the franchise but I don't hate him and I bet you don't either.

[Micheleh]

Well, well. I recieved this at CA via Sandy:

Dear Micheleh,

I saw your posting and I just wanted to say that I never intended to offend you or anyone associated with Galacticon. I felt that I was treated well by all the people running the convention and certainly never intended to disparage either the event or the staff.

That particular interview was only one in a series of interviews that I've been conducting over the course of the last few weeks and, to be quite frank, I was getting tired of having to answer the "What about the fans of the old series who oppose your show?" question being asked over and over again. At some point, I just wanted to point out the facts regarding the actual numbers of people involved and I used Galacticon as an example because it was one of the only times where there were real bodies in a room that could be counted.

If that reference offended you, I apologize and hope that you'll accept this letter on behalf of everyone who worked on Galacticon.

Best Regards,
Ronald D. Moore

My reply:

Dear Mr. Moore,

Under the circumstances, I am pleased at this unexpected response, and thank you on behalf of myself and Galacticon. I hope this will be an example of how a misunderstanding can be resolved by a true willingness to communicate, to understand the other person's point of view, and to consider why they may feel the way they do. Agreement is not mandatory, but respect, from all parties, is essential.

I hope this communication continues in a positive manner.

Michelle

[Antelope]

I am sure Mr. Moore will take the back handed response in the spirit given.

He gave an apology and you gave him a lecture in respect.

This is exactly what I have been saying. The TOS only fans nit pick his interviews with a fine tooth comb. Reread you statement. EVERY sentence has an implication that:

1. Under the circumstances (implying Moore has made things bad). Unexpected (Implies he does not communicate with fans).
2.Misunderstanding (Moore doesn't understand) Willingness to communicate (Implies Moore is not willing to communicate) to understand the other's point of view (Implies Moore does not understand your point of view) Consider why they may feel (Implies Moore does consider how people feel).
3. Agreement is not mandatory (Drive home the point you don't agree with Moore) Respect from all parties (Implies Moore does not respect you)
4. Positive manner (Implies you fear Moore will not be positive)

A simple:

Thanks for the response. I am glad to see it was a misunderstanding on my part.

With responses from TOS-only fans like the above I continue to be amazed that Moore continues to reach out the hand of friendship.

I know you don't realize the way your words come off but you can sure find the hidden meaning of Moore's words in a large interview.

[Micheleh]

Nice interpretation, but you're wrong. Knock yourself out, though. ;)

[Antelope]

Nice interpretation, but you're wrong. Knock yourself out, though. ;)

I could say the same thing about your original post to start the thread. My point is if you expect to have an issue with someone it's easy to find one.

Moore is a fine writer doing his best. It may not be what we like but he genuinely is not out to hurt anyone. He is either genuinely reaching out to the fans or SCIFI is forcing him to. In either case that makes him or SCIFI better than the man or organization people paint.

[BST]

antelope,


Perhaps, if you placed yourself in the shoes of the ones "offended" by the remarks, you may realize why we were offended. Have you considered that if Moore had not made his own "back-handed" comments, in the interview, there would not have been an issue (this time).

[Antelope]

His "back handed" comment is as obvious or unobvious as Micheleh's.

You are offended by Moore but I bet don't even see Micheleh's comment as offensive. That is the point. No matter what he does he will be wrong. No matter what the fan says to him, they are right.

I see no obvious problem with Moore's statement unless I want to find a problem. I can say the same thing about Micheleh's. I can feel the anger in her's and the frustration in Moore's. Two sides of the same coin.

[Count Iblis]

His "back handed" comment is as obvious or unobvious as Micheleh's.

You are offended by Moore but I bet don't even see Micheleh's comment as offensive. That is the point. No matter what he does he will be wrong. No matter what the fan says to him, they are right.

I see no obvious problem with Moore's statement unless I want to find a problem. I can say the same thing about Micheleh's. I can feel the anger in her's and the frustration in Moore's. Two sides of the same coin.
I will reply wthout anger as someone who liked some of what I saw in the new production and without trying to "Poke Holes" in everything RM has done with his re-invisioned "Battlestar Galactica". Bottom line is this, (In My Humble Opinion) without making it a personal attack, it was perhaps, unwise not to make more of an attempt to "Bridge" old and new, so a majority of all fans could more easily embrace the new production. It's kind of like the Captian Of A Ship. The buck stops there. Only one person has the responsibility for how "Fans" of either side of the issue view the remake/re-invisioned production, and in this case it's the Producer.

I happen to think RM is a highly qualified, successful, and imaginative guy, but he didn't care to do enough homework with Galactica, and that's the cause of the rift in fandom we currentlt have. Could he have pleased everyone? NO WAY. Could he have worked on constructing a better fan bridge? YES. JMO. (Without Personal Anger toward RM). Cheers!

[Gemini1999]

Nice interpretation, but you're wrong. Knock yourself out, though. ;)

Michelle -

I thought that your reply was very carefully and thoughtfully worded. Backhanded, my foot....! Considering how it all got started, you handled it very professionaly. I never got the impression that you were lecturing anyone. I thought that it was great that your words reached the eyes of whom they were intended and you got a response so quickly.

I can understand how Mr. Moore's comments may affect you directly in ways that a lot of us could never understand. You put a lot of yourself into the convention, so any casual or somewhat unflattering mention of the event would seem very personal. I didn't get to go, but from what I heard you did a terrific job and I can't wait to see some of the results when the con DVDs are distributed.

Best always,
Bryan
________
Gm Foods (http://gmfoods.info/)

[larocque6689]

Antelope,

I see both sides in the issue.

On Michelle's side it can be summed up in one word: Galacticon.

On Moore's end of things, I see his vantagepoint as well . He says he's tired of being asked questions about the angry TOS people who don't like his project. I think that's fair and hope that the next batch of people who interview RDM stake out new territory.

[BST]

Antelope,

I see both sides in the issue.

On Michelle's side it can be summed up in one word: Galacticon.

On Moore's end of things, I see his vantagepoint as well . He says he's tired of being asked questions about the angry TOS people who don't like his project. I think that's fair and hope that the next batch of people who interview RDM stake out new territory.

Thank you, John!

antelope,

Just as Moore was not "wrong" to say what he said about "the angry TOS people", "the angry TOS people" were not "wrong" to react to it. In addition, with the particular reference to Galacticon, if you had any idea of the amount of time and effort that Michele poured into the Con, you would have realized that Moore's remarks about it were a slap in the face to her.

[shiningstar]

I am sure Mr. Moore will take the back handed response in the spirit given.

He gave an apology and you gave him a lecture in respect.

This is exactly what I have been saying. The TOS only fans nit pick his interviews with a fine tooth comb. Reread you statement. EVERY sentence has an implication that:

1. Under the circumstances (implying Moore has made things bad). Unexpected (Implies he does not communicate with fans).
2.Misunderstanding (Moore doesn't understand) Willingness to communicate (Implies Moore is not willing to communicate) to understand the other's point of view (Implies Moore does not understand your point of view) Consider why they may feel (Implies Moore does consider how people feel).
3. Agreement is not mandatory (Drive home the point you don't agree with Moore) Respect from all parties (Implies Moore does not respect you)
4. Positive manner (Implies you fear Moore will not be positive)

A simple:

Thanks for the response. I am glad to see it was a misunderstanding on my part.

With responses from TOS-only fans like the above I continue to be amazed that Moore continues to reach out the hand of friendship.

I know you don't realize the way your words come off but you can sure find the hidden meaning of Moore's words in a large interview.

IF we NITPICK each and every interview with a Fine TOOTHED comb it is
because he has lied so often to the fans of the Original BSG that it is
laughable.

And usually each time he reaches out the 'hand of friendship' he usually
has his fingers crossed behind his back with each PROMISE he makes.

So FORGIVE US if we really don't trust HIM ......as he has YET to EARN
our TRUST.

[larocque6689]

Ron may be a lot of things, but I've never thought of him as a liar. This kind of behavior characterizes some of his followers (and also, some of his adversaries), but as for Ron, he's been up front. He went through three very frank chats with TOS fans - two at the Alliance and one at BSG.com.

I appreciate that he read and responded to the points Michelle raised in this thread.

[nccdee]

Mecheleh,

Wow, I can't believe this. Ron Moore actual does pay attention to these websites. I am glad he wrote you the letter and explain himself. And I liked your response to him, it was very well written.

nccdee

[dvo47p]

TELL IT Michelleh!

Speaking as a coordinator of Galacticon, I deeply resent this remark. It implies a total lack of courtesy, and a complete disrespect for the enormous amount of work put out by those of us who did the show, Michael and Richard included. It was *not* a popular decision to invite him, and Richard took a great deal fo heat for it. It was decided, however, that it was up to us to be mature, to give everyone a chance to express their views and to speak for themselves, and to make it a convention which would welcome *all* fans.

Richard Hatch has class, Ron .............well let's not go MediaBlvd, 'eh?

I think Moore is worried about an MGM movie, with or without Hatch just think of the headlines the MGM PR people would churn out re: Starbuck, OUCH!

[shiningstar]

TELL IT Michelleh!



Richard Hatch has class, Ron .............well let's not go MediaBlvd, 'eh?

I think Moore is worried about an MGM movie, with or without Hatch just think of the headlines the MGM PR people would churn out re: Starbuck, OUCH!

Well said Dvo .............well said. ;)

[Antelope]

I hope no one took offense at my earlier statement. It was meant to provoke thought not throw mud. I know from the various post that Micheleh is a kind hearted and well meaning person.

As I became aware of the "ugly" past I have read every interview or article I find in reference to Ron Moore and Battlestar Galactica I can find. I expected to find hostility from Moore. I know some see him that way but all I ever find time and time again is an honest up front interview in which Ron Moore is repeatedly questioned about the fact that fans don't like him. I read post over and over how fans get frustrated when he doesn't answer them about various ways he harmed Galactica. The guy is like Rocky. He keeps getting hit over and over and yet keeps coming back for more. At this point you must admit he is either a masochist or is genuinely trying to reach out.

People say he doesn't know Galactica. I read his interviews and see a man who knows Galactica very well. I also see a man making a mystery story that doesn't want people to figure out the story before they see it. I bet if he wasn't covering what he was doing in the series we could have a fine TOS discussion with him. Look at the mini characters, not names and subplots and you will see he has pulled a lot from TOS and even from BSG1980.

If someone read this and other Battlestar Galactica sites and wanted to remake Saga of A Star World what would they have read on the fan postings:

The first half of the movie was great. Get rid of the Carillon half. That's just what Moore did.

If you watched all of TOS and wanted a new series that started where TOS ended how would you go from Saga of A Star World to the last episode of TOS in 4 hours? Moore did it.

If you liked one aspect of BSG1980 what would it be? How about the introduction of human-cylons? Moore did it.

Moore IS a Battlestar Galactica fan in particular TOS. He has a show to make however and can't afford to tip his hand and spoil everything before the audience can see his work.

I just think we should treat him as the person he appears to be: A good science fiction writer who is a fan of Battlestar Galactica and is doing his best to bring it back in a way he thinks will be popular, profitable, and keeping in the spirit of the original.

I think Moore, Desanto, and Hatch are all trying to do what they think is best for the modern audience and the franchise. I wish them all success and want none to fail. Right now at least Moore thankfully was given a chance. I don't plan to hit a gift horse in the mouth.

[Darth Marley]

For the record, RM's apology is at CA.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Ron Moore is a horse's ass. After reading that comment, knowing how gracious Richard was in inviting him to the "little get together" only reinforces my resentment towards his arrogance. Although he was given a set of directives by Sci-Fi that he could not do any kind of a continuation as opposed to the "re-imagining" agenda, his attitude is another slap in the face against fans of the original series, not just those who "hated" the idea without having an open mind about it.

JV

[warhammerdriver]

Moore has put steel on target. There IS a core group that wants TOS continued exactly where it left off with the same exact characters portrayed by the same exact actors wearing the same exact costurmes and they will accept nothing else. NOTHING he does will be accepted by this group because his name is not Glen Larson. How big is this group? 10K would be a high figure, IMHO.

As far as his comments regarding Galacticon, the man has publicly apologized for them. The way I understand the response to that apology can be translated as "go pound salt. Apology not accepted".

All of this is not good for Galactica fandom as a whole. Let's all go have a :beer: , I'm buyin'.

[Micheleh]

Moore has put steel on target. There IS a core group that wants TOS continued exactly where it left off with the same exact characters portrayed by the same exact actors wearing the same exact costurmes and they will accept nothing else. NOTHING he does will be accepted by this group because his name is not Glen Larson. How big is this group? 10K would be a high figure, IMHO.

THIS is where a great deal of the problem comes from. You basically are telling all of the original series fans, "Look, I've already decided you're narrow, fixated and impossible to please, Moore was just right about it." And you expect a thoughtful response? Gimme a break.

[warhammerdriver]

THIS is where a great deal of the problem comes from. You basically are telling all of the original series fans, "Look, I've already decided you're narrow, fixated and impossible to please, Moore was just right about it." And you expect a thoughtful response? Gimme a break.

I AM an original series fan. From the original airings.

That being said, I really do believe that there is a group of narrow, fixated, impossible to please fanatics out there. Does this group consist of ALL TOS fans? No way. Does it consist of ALL those who want a continuation? Again, no. I believe that this group of fanatics is very small when you consider the size of BSG fandom as a whole or even when you consider just those who want a continuation. (Thus my 10K figure)

Some people are just more willing to hear or see other ideas.

Is Moore right or wrong? I don't know. And frankly, I don't care.

[BST]

There IS a core group that wants TOS continued exactly where it left off with the same exact characters portrayed by the same exact actors wearing the same exact costurmes and they will accept nothing else.

If these are your thoughts then, how little you understand us. I won't go over what has been stated, ad infinitum. Suffice it to say that our wants, desires, hopes, and dreams for a continuation are contained within these forums.

NOTHING he does will be accepted by this group because his name is not Glen Larson. How big is this group? 10K would be a high figure, IMHO

Regarding Moore, he wants to re-write the story, supplanting the original chemistry with his own 'realistic' concoction. We should support that? Sorry, this is one 'experiment' that I do not want to be associated with.

On the numbers issue, I find it rather amusing that folks still feel a need to try marginalizing the original series proponents.

Oh well...

BST

[warhammerdriver]

BST,

Read my post above yours. I think it's #27.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

He's doing a backpedal to make sure P.R. stays good. He should have thought first before he made the comment. That's the problem. He doesn't think at the amount of people he would hurt before he opened his trap because of his arrogance. He apologized. Great. Let's see if it prevents him from making insensitive comments in the future. I'm betting it won't.

Yes, you are correct in saying that there is a core group of fans who would not accept anything other than a continuation of Larson's original series who are closed minded, and I myself don't agree with them. But I think there is a larger, more open minded audience, that would have been willing to accept ANYTHING that wasn't a bastardization of what they held dear, which is what I believe the new BSG IS. I don't even hold Moore responsible, because I do understand he was given a mandate he had to follow that dictated no continuation (like what DeSanto wanted to do) by the true culprit, Bonnie Hammer. I don't wish Moore any ill-will despite his arrogance. I just wish he would understand he is not the GOD of sci-fi he thinks he is (the swarmy "hey man, I KILLED Kirk" comment he likes to throw around all the time epitomizes the attitude) and recognize there would BE no Galactica for him to bastardize had it not been handed to him. It was legendary material to begin with, not by his perceived importance at making it more "mature" or re-inventing the wheel. By that line of thinking, could or would anyone expect or want to see the original "Star Wars" trilogy or original run of "Star Trek" episodes "re-imagined" with the characters recast and a great foundation laid waste for other people's egos who couldn't just create something original of their own with it's own name?

JV

P.S. to everyone that likes to point the finger at Larson for "Galactica: 1980" and think he "killed" Galactica... he was given a set of directives by ABC after they cancelled the original show, much like Moore was told by Hammer "this is how we want you to do it". Don't blame Larson, when he discovered "Galactica:1980" was being cancelled he did "Return of Starbuck" to make sure fans knew he didn't forget what the original was all about and it's an example of how he wished he COULD have been allowed to do "Galactica" had the network not pulled the plug first season or set the rules for "kid-friendly Galactica: 1980".

[BST]

BST,

Read my post above yours. I think it's #27.

Aha. Sorry. We, both, had our thoughts "in the mail" at the same time! :D

I do understand and agree with your thought about an "extreme" faction that would really want that. It makes sense.

[jewels]

Warhammerdriver,
the other thing about BG that I think especially Universal never understood:
This show possibly had one of the hugest casual fanbases of any sci-fi TV show ever. They tuned in faithfully every week it ran, even following it through pre-emptings (BG was pre-empted 8 times in the 17 episodes of the show). They weren't necessarily Trekkies or fans of other Sci-fi. They were there because it was a family show, or as close as they would get to another Star Wars until "The Empire Strikes Back". But they were the viewers that kept Galactica in the top 20 throughout it's run.

25 years later, it's not exactly the easiest thing to rate what the true fanbase is currently. Because the people that tuned in every week weren't necessarily fanatics about it. They loved it but to most of those tens of millions: it was a TV show they enjoyed and that was it. A story they wanted to see told.

If Universal had possessed a functioning market research brain cell, they would have used the DVD release (done a year earlier than they did, just as Tim Smith & crew planned) to test the market for what people would support. If the original concept sold like hot cakes--maybe a show with retro values and clear heroes and villains was marketable.

Instead, they went in blind, took the reins away from a solid storyteller that could have preserved the franchise without losing the fanbase or the casual fans (Tom D.), kept Glen happy with royalties and had much more avenues for marketing merchandizing goodies like toys.

Check the news channel here: the "toys" (figurines) being released later this year--TOS figures....25 years after the thing aired. And this is the 2nd time TOS based collectables/toys have been released with only comics or video from the original series--no new shows with those characters--to support the marketing.

There is something about the story in TOS BG that people want to see....still. I'm hoping Mr. Larson will give us that. I'm sorry Mr. Moore's hands were tied and yes I do think he has his foot in his mouth often, but I'm sorrier still that Ms. Hammer did an end run around DeSanto just to get a flash in the pan rating. Universal could have had "it all" as far as the rights are concerned: now they are relegated to sharing the profit with some other studio when Glen gets his project going.

[Ethan]

I have commented on the RM BSG type of topic before. I want to say now that I understand Micheleh's concerns about the Galacticon comments.

Micheleh, did RM's apology satisfy you as far as his Galacticon comments go?

As a writer, and possibly a fan of TOS to some extent, Moore has the freedom to write whatever story he wants, or so it seems. What I have said before is that I look at RM's BSG as . . . just . . . another peice of fan fiction. It is sort of like 'what would BSG be like if it took that angle?'. For me, I enjoyed TOS a lot more than the Mini, but that doesn't mean that I can't like the Mini either.

My main complaint with the Mini is that I can not share it with my 5-year-old son like my family shared TOS with me. That is truly regrettable. Even so, I hope that Moore's fan fiction fuels a greater interest in the viewing public, even to the point that some viewers can someday wonder what would this series be like if it were a family oriented show again.

In my opinion, what we should do with RM's BSG is relegate it to a sort of continuing, ongoing fan fiction type of status, let those that enjoy it do so, and move on to doing whatever we can do to help Richard Hatch, or Tom DeSanto, or whoever to create the kind of program that we as a group would like to watch.

Micheleh, protecting Galacticon like you do is a good thing in my opinion and I think you should be commended for it. I am not in a position to do very much about helping to create a new BSG series. I plan to buy a back up set of the DVD package and hope to be able to purchase the Galacticon Package if I can. Other than that I can only hope that signing petitions and posting comments here will help us to get a Hatch/DeSanto/Larson type of project made.

:cool: That would be cool.

Ethan

[shiningstar]

Warhammerdriver,
the other thing about BG that I think especially Universal never understood:
This show possibly had one of the hugest casual fanbases of any sci-fi TV show ever. They tuned in faithfully every week it ran, even following it through pre-emptings (BG was pre-empted 8 times in the 17 episodes of the show). They weren't necessarily Trekkies or fans of other Sci-fi. They were there because it was a family show, or as close as they would get to another Star Wars until "The Empire Strikes Back". But they were the viewers that kept Galactica in the top 20 throughout it's run.

25 years later, it's not exactly the easiest thing to rate what the true fanbase is currently. Because the people that tuned in every week weren't necessarily fanatics about it. They loved it but to most of those tens of millions: it was a TV show they enjoyed and that was it. A story they wanted to see told.

If Universal had possessed a functioning market research brain cell, they would have used the DVD release (done a year earlier than they did, just as Tim Smith & crew planned) to test the market for what people would support. If the original concept sold like hot cakes--maybe a show with retro values and clear heroes and villains was marketable.

Instead, they went in blind, took the reins away from a solid storyteller that could have preserved the franchise without losing the fanbase or the casual fans (Tom D.), kept Glen happy with royalties and had much more avenues for marketing merchandizing goodies like toys.

Check the news channel here: the "toys" (figurines) being released later this year--TOS figures....25 years after the thing aired. And this is the 2nd time TOS based collectables/toys have been released with only comics or video from the original series--no new shows with those characters--to support the marketing.

There is something about the story in TOS BG that people want to see....still. I'm hoping Mr. Larson will give us that. I'm sorry Mr. Moore's hands were tied and yes I do think he has his foot in his mouth often, but I'm sorrier still that Ms. Hammer did an end run around DeSanto just to get a flash in the pan rating. Universal could have had "it all" as far as the rights are concerned: now they are relegated to sharing the profit with some other studio when Glen gets his project going.

Well written. Thank you for the post. Keep posting.

[shiningstar]

He's doing a backpedal to make sure P.R. stays good. He should have thought first before he made the comment. That's the problem. He doesn't think at the amount of people he would hurt before he opened his trap because of his arrogance. He apologized. Great. Let's see if it prevents him from making insensitive comments in the future. I'm betting it won't.

Yes, you are correct in saying that there is a core group of fans who would not accept anything other than a continuation of Larson's original series who are closed minded, and I myself don't agree with them. But I think there is a larger, more open minded audience, that would have been willing to accept ANYTHING that wasn't a bastardization of what they held dear, which is what I believe the new BSG IS. I don't even hold Moore responsible, because I do understand he was given a mandate he had to follow that dictated no continuation (like what DeSanto wanted to do) by the true culprit, Bonnie Hammer. I don't wish Moore any ill-will despite his arrogance. I just wish he would understand he is not the GOD of sci-fi he thinks he is (the swarmy "hey man, I KILLED Kirk" comment he likes to throw around all the time epitomizes the attitude) and recognize there would BE no Galactica for him to bastardize had it not been handed to him. It was legendary material to begin with, not by his perceived importance at making it more "mature" or re-inventing the wheel. By that line of thinking, could or would anyone expect or want to see the original "Star Wars" trilogy or original run of "Star Trek" episodes "re-imagined" with the characters recast and a great foundation laid waste for other people's egos who couldn't just create something original of their own with it's own name?

JV

P.S. to everyone that likes to point the finger at Larson for "Galactica: 1980" and think he "killed" Galactica... he was given a set of directives by ABC after they cancelled the original show, much like Moore was told by Hammer "this is how we want you to do it". Don't blame Larson, when he discovered "Galactica:1980" was being cancelled he did "Return of Starbuck" to make sure fans knew he didn't forget what the original was all about and it's an example of how he wished he COULD have been allowed to do "Galactica" had the network not pulled the plug first season or set the rules for "kid-friendly Galactica: 1980".

Thank you for your thoughts. I agree that with the RESTRICTIONS that the
network and studio placed on BSG80 there was NO WAY that Larson could
have succeeded with it. I must admit that I loved the return of Starbuck.
That was the only episode that I liked about bsg80.

[shiningstar]

If these are your thoughts then, how little you understand us. I won't go over what has been stated, ad infinitum. Suffice it to say that our wants, desires, hopes, and dreams for a continuation are contained within these forums.



Regarding Moore, he wants to re-write the story, supplanting the original chemistry with his own 'realistic' concoction. We should support that? Sorry, this is one 'experiment' that I do not want to be associated with.

On the numbers issue, I find it rather amusing that folks still feel a need to try marginalizing the original series proponents.

Oh well...

BST

Bst you just said what I felt ............THanks. :thumbsup:

[shiningstar]

In the beginning I was willing to give the Mini a 'chance'.
That is UNTIL I read the script and saw the wanton violance and the
many, many, many USELESS sex scenes .........which deserverdly warranted
a TV14 rating.

I was appalled at Moore's and Hammer's lack of respect for Larson, Desanto,
or Hatch for that matter. The more I read Moore's and Hammer's interviews
the less I liked them. My opinion on them HAS NOT and most likely WILL NOT
change.

There is no need for the senseless violance and "ADULT THEMES" that
RDM and his ILK would push on us.

There are plenty of Scifi's out there .........SUCCESSFULL shows (at least
until the "SCIFI" channel gets their hands on it) that do not have
to resort to pandering to our WORST instincts and impulses.

Starwars, startrek, TNG, Deepspace9, B5, EFC, SG1.............and many
more .............have been successful with the success being in the
storyline .......... and not in what Other people would push on us
as "ADULT THEMES".

What Moore and Hammer tried to do ........was to REWRITE the STORY
altogether and then try to PUSH this AS ...........BSG .........................

It wasn't and it's NOT.

The only person who had the decency to tell the truth (and although
I disagree with his political beliefs I have to respect his INTEGRITY) is
JOHN OLMOS.

If it were not for me coming to this site and reading the reviews of the
script as well as the "LEAKED SCRIPT" which I am told was very TRUE
to the actual movie .............I would have watched this crud and I
would have been even MORE outraged then I am by some of the
people on this forum who have been trying to THREATEN me and
other ORIGINAL BSG FANS by saying that since we REFUSE to watch the
MINI and it's SPAWN that our OPINION doesn't count.

[Antelope]

P.S. to everyone that likes to point the finger at Larson for "Galactica: 1980" and think he "killed" Galactica... he was given a set of directives by ABC after they cancelled the original show, much like Moore was told by Hammer "this is how we want you to do it". Don't blame Larson, when he discovered "Galactica:1980" was being cancelled he did "Return of Starbuck" to make sure fans knew he didn't forget what the original was all about and it's an example of how he wished he COULD have been allowed to do "Galactica" had the network not pulled the plug first season or set the rules for "kid-friendly Galactica: 1980".

"Return of Starbuck" my favorite BSG1980 episode was a remake of "Hell in the Pacific". That's not my opinion but something I read from someone involved in BSG1980 production. It was made because it was easy to do on a shell of a budget compared to the other BSG1980 episodes. Since "Hell in the Pacific" was already a commercial success in its original version it was pretty much a guaranteed winner. "Hell in the Pacific" was later copied again in the SCIFI movie "Enemy Mine".

Read what Glen Larson really wanted to do in 1980 and you'll find a blue print for what Ron Moore is doing now. Glen Larson wanted to move Galactica to a later time slot and produce it for a more mature audience.

The comment in an earlier post about a certain segment of the fans wanting nothing but the same actors in the same clothes is very true. I personally would like to see TOS continued as if BSG1980 never happened. The TOS cast however would be too old to reprise their roles. I would like to see new actors playing the old roles as if TOS ended yesterday. It would probably need to be a bit darker and more mature but it would have made a better transition for the majority of older fans. I think in a way Moore is doing just that. Changing the names and some of the Egyptian memorabilla may have fired up a small segment of the current fan base but it also took the expectation monkey off the backs of the current actors.

[nccdee]

Sorry Shiningstar but take out the two sex scene with Baltar and #6 (the one where her spine glows and one the one on the Bridge) and the violent fight scene between Adama and Cylon-model on the Station, this would very tame and family friendly.

The baby killing scene was implied, nothing was ever seen. BTW: Ron Moore said there was reason for this scene which will unfold in the series. For this being a war theme show, very little destruction was ever seen, just implied (cities being destroyed, battlestar and viper blowing up in white light). There were some scenes of viper blowing up by a missile but not very graphic, I seen a lot worse.

As for "ADULT THEME", I see this in more and more Family shows. Have you watch 7th Heaven recently (former prostitution now live with the Camden; Peter threaten with child abuse; adultry and even issue about the Iraq war)? What about O.C.? Oh, but I guess if kids are really are doing it, then its no longer "ADULT THEME", right? Also, RM stated he did not want to go the route of the shows you mention. Leave It To Beaver, Father Know Best and other had winning formulas but someone decide to move away from that and found a new "dysfunctional" formula...All In the Family, Rosanne and others, which became hits.

"Pushing it"? Its called marketing. You either buy into it or not, your choice.

Is RM's vision Galactica? Your opinion is No. But it just your opinion. My opinion is Yes. Everything is there, the story, the concept, the characters and even the ships. Is it different? Of course (the "dysfunctioal formula" my theory). Thats the point RM is trying sell to a new generation. As a fan of the original, I see this as a positive step in keeping the fanchise alive. And if works, you better believe it will "spawn" a whole new Sci-Fi programming that will have darker and deeper overtones.

nccdee

[shiningstar]

Sorry Shiningstar but take out the two sex scene with Baltar and #6 (the one where her spine glows and one the one on the Bridge) and the violent fight scene between Adama and Cylon-model on the Station, this would very tame and family friendly.

The baby killing scene was implied, nothing was ever seen. BTW: Ron Moore said there was reason for this scene which will unfold in the series. For this being a war theme show, very little destruction was ever seen, just implied (cities being destroyed, battlestar and viper blowing up in white light). There were some scenes of viper blowing up by a missile but not very graphic, I seen a lot worse.

As for "ADULT THEME", I see this in more and more Family shows. Have you watch 7th Heaven recently (former prostitution now live with the Camden; Peter threaten with child abuse; adultry and even issue about the Iraq war)? What about O.C.? Oh, but I guess if kids are really are doing it, then its no longer "ADULT THEME", right? Also, RM stated he did not want to go the route of the shows you mention. Leave It To Beaver, Father Know Best and other had winning formulas but someone decide to move away from that and found a new "dysfunctional" formula...All In the Family, Rosanne and others, which became hits.

"Pushing it"? Its called marketing. You either buy into it or not, your choice.

Is RM's vision Galactica? Your opinion is No. But it just your opinion. My opinion is Yes. Everything is there, the story, the concept, the characters and even the ships. Is it different? Of course (the "dysfunctioal formula" my theory). Thats the point RM is trying sell to a new generation. As a fan of the original, I see this as a positive step in keeping the fanchise alive. And if works, you better believe it will "spawn" a whole new Sci-Fi programming that will have darker and deeper overtones.

nccdee

I 'STOPPED' watching Seventh Heaven for that very reason.

OHHHHHHHHH FOR THE RECORD ...........my kids AREN'T doing it ..........
and because I am a RESPONSIBLE parent ...........THEY will NOT be
doing it.

I don't think scifi has to be dysfunctional in order to be entertaining.

And as for my "OPINION" which you are so intent on ATTACKING at any opportunity; it is as VALID as ANYONE ELSES opinion on this site.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Read what Glen Larson really wanted to do in 1980 and you'll find a blue print for what Ron Moore is doing now. Glen Larson wanted to move Galactica to a later time slot and produce it for a more mature audience.

The comment in an earlier post about a certain segment of the fans wanting nothing but the same actors in the same clothes is very true. I personally would like to see TOS continued as if BSG1980 never happened. The TOS cast however would be too old to reprise their roles. I would like to see new actors playing the old roles as if TOS ended yesterday. It would probably need to be a bit darker and more mature but it would have made a better transition for the majority of older fans. I think in a way Moore is doing just that. Changing the names and some of the Egyptian memorabilla may have fired up a small segment of the current fan base but it also took the expectation monkey off the backs of the current actors.

And got my information about "Return of Starbuck" straight from him. Whether they were using the premise from "Hell in the Pacific" or not, Glen specifically wanted to end on an episode that was a return to the spirit of "Galactica" and what he wished it could have continued to be. He was not happy that Universal imposed a "dumbing down" to fit family hour and while the whole slant of "1980" and setting it on earth was to do it cheap, I really doubt that the thinking behind this episode had solely to doing something easy "in the desert". I doubt that mockup of the Raider ship and other effects in that episode were "cheap" to do. Glen's intention was to go out with a bang instead of a whimper, and I think he succeeded despite the failure of "1980"'s other content to many core fans.

I don't doubt that LArson wanted to go in a "darker" direction, I have heard rumors that the second season would have focused on the death of Sheba and Apollo's withdrawel from command from being wracked with guilt. But these are LOGICAL story progressions into "dark" territory, not forced stuff to be "edgy and controversial". What makes you think fans don't want to see "dark"? It's like the "Empire Strikes Back" - "dark" is great, as long as it serves the story and characters, and I think what DeSanto was planning was a more logical progression into mature themes than Moore's "Battlestar Craptacular".

JV

[shiningstar]

And got my information about "Return of Starbuck" straight from him. Whether they were using the premise from "Hell in the Pacific" or not, Glen specifically wanted to end on an episode that was a return to the spirit of "Galactica" and what he wished it could have continued to be. He was not happy that Universal imposed a "dumbing down" to fit family hour and while the whole slant of "1980" and setting it on earth was to do it cheap, I really doubt that the thinking behind this episode had solely to doing something easy "in the desert". I doubt that mockup of the Raider ship and other effects in that episode were "cheap" to do. Glen's intention was to go out with a bang instead of a whimper, and I think he succeeded despite the failure of "1980"'s other content to many core fans.

I don't doubt that LArson wanted to go in a "darker" direction, I have heard rumors that the second season would have focused on the death of Sheba and Apollo's withdrawel from command from being wracked with guilt. But these are LOGICAL story progressions into "dark" territory, not forced stuff to be "edgy and controversial". What makes you think fans don't want to see "dark"? It's like the "Empire Strikes Back" - "dark" is great, as long as it serves the story and characters, and I think what DeSanto was planning was a more logical progression into mature themes than Moore's "Battlestar Craptacular".

JV

excellent post JV .........Keep posting :thumbsup:

[Antelope]

I'm with you in supporting Larson. Yes he went out with a bang. Yes it was easy to do a remake of "Hell in the Pacific" since it was originally made as a radio play. Yes it was done with little remaining budget. Dirk Benedict was even doing Larson a personal favor.

And yes Larson wanted to do a later at night more mature version of Battlestar Galactica in 1980 and was stopped by the television executives. The version Larson would have given us would have more in common with Moore's version than TOS except we would still have one word names and Egyptian style flight helmets.

The episodes of BSG1980 were actually very expensive (with the exception of Return of Starbuck) which is part of the reason it was cancelled. It needed good rating just to break even.

[warhammerdriver]

shiningstar,

I think you need to go read post #27 as well. You missed something there.

[shiningstar]

I not only 'read' post #27 but I read your OTHER post as well.

[BarrymoreYorke]

Originally posted by Shiningstar:
many, many, many USELESS sex scenes

I'm sorry, this just confuses me. There's only ONE sex scene in the whole mini: The glowing spine scene with Number Six and Baltar, specifically. Anything else is either just kissing (Number Six and the Colonial officer at Armistice Station) or people starting to tear at each others' clothes (Chief Tyrol and Boomer). Tearing at clothes does not a sex scene make. There was more skin on display when Billy wandered into the shower room.

I mean, am I wrong here? How can I look at the mini and see only one sex scene, while someone else can look and see "many, many, many USELESS sex scenes"?

Besides, what WERE Starbuck and Cassiopea doing in that launch tube in "Saga of a Star World"?

[warhammerdriver]

I not only 'read' post #27 but I read your OTHER post as well.

Nevermind. You missed my point.

[larocque6689]

Baltimore

I would add in the Armistice station segment and Baltar's distraction on the command deck in Part II as two more Number Six entries. The latter was filmed rather well considering what was going on. I am reminded of the clone-infested "Sixth Day" with Arnold S. which had a similar scene between a virtual cyber-companion and Arnold's best friend (who was a clone). Michael Rhymer would have been proud.

[nccdee]

Shiningstar, the "opinion" was not an attack on you (or anyone else) but to point out that one person trash is another person treasure. My post was to use your post as a comparision to my view. It was not to say your opinion was wrong or any less valid. I agree with you on the "family" value of TOS BG being lost.

I grew up watching great family shows like "Little House" and "The Walton". Unfortunately those days are gone. I know that PAX TV attempted reviving the idea of family entertainment (with Pondarosa and Doc) but it just not the same.

The O.C comment was meant to be a bit of a sarcasm toward the "teen" soap opra programming since it suppose to be marketed to that age group.

We can be greatful for DVD so we can return to our youth and share them with families and friends (H.R. Puff N' Stuff, anyone?). :)

nccdee

[Rowan]

I loved H.R. Puff N' Stuff, I have the video of the first show:)

[Antelope]

I'm sorry, this just confuses me. There's only ONE sex scene in the whole mini: The glowing spine scene with Number Six and Baltar, specifically. Anything else is either just kissing (Number Six and the Colonial officer at Armistice Station) or people starting to tear at each others' clothes (Chief Tyrol and Boomer). Tearing at clothes does not a sex scene make. There was more skin on display when Billy wandered into the shower room.

I mean, am I wrong here? How can I look at the mini and see only one sex scene, while someone else can look and see "many, many, many USELESS sex scenes"?

Besides, what WERE Starbuck and Cassiopea doing in that launch tube in "Saga of a Star World"?

Great post. It surmised many of the frustrations you can have when talking with someone who doesn't like the mini. Most of the abominations they say happened never did.

On the sex the most we saw was one bare back. Yesterday I saw more of Alissa Milano on a rerun of Charmed where she was a mermaid.

The famous "handjob" scene in the mini was about as bad as the diner scene with Meg Ryan in "When Harry met Sally".

There are actually more minority characters in the mini than in TOS.

The weak female argumant seems to blow right past President Roslin.

Those who hate the arrogant female Starbuck forget how Sheba was introduced to us.

Those who hate President Roslin forget Siress Tinia.

No baby was showed killed in the mini. The first day or two after the mini aired there were even threads that asked whether the baby was really killed. Some people watched it and couldn't tell.

Only one person was actually SHOWN killed in the mini and he was a cylon. The lasar shot to Serena in TOS and her ensuing agony was far worse. Letting your children watch a show where the only child they can identify with gets to see his mother die is not exactly family viewing.

There are a bunch of things I don't like about the mini especially in areas dealing with Kara Thrace and COL Tigh but I don't need to imagine things are worse than they are.

If you think the story sucks that's fine but you don't need to invent things that never happened.

[Rowan]

I'm also confused, I've watched the mini over 20 times now and I keep reading this in many posts but I don't get it what hand job scene? Where is it in the movie I must be daft 'cause I have completely missed it and no I'm not joking or trying to be a brat I'm serious could someone explain?:)

[Dawg]

There are two places where the script placed very graphic "handjobs" - the very beginning sequence, immediately prior to the station being blown up, and Baltar on the bridge of Galactica, with the Six chip playing games in his mind.

They were edited for broadcast to be less graphic.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Antelope]

There was only one "handjob" in the actual mini and it was all in Baltar's mind late in the mini.

It is about as graphic as the fake orgasm scene at the diner in "When Harry met Sally"

[shiningstar]

There are two places where the script placed very graphic "handjobs" - the very beginning sequence, immediately prior to the station being blown up, and Baltar on the bridge of Galactica, with the Six chip playing games in his mind.

They were edited for broadcast to be less graphic.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

Well THANK GOD for THAT at least!

[Jerry Vasilatos]

I can only imagine the outcry from people if George Lucas decided to add "handjobs" to "Star Wars". Or maybe people would like to see classic "Star Trek" with CGI sex scenes of young William Shatner and the green alien dancing girl?

I guess I just don't understand why people willing to let so much be changed for the BG re-imagining don't consider it a betrayal of what BG was originally about, classic space fantasy adventure instead of modern WB style "angst in space". I also thought the "Lost in Space" movie was crap though. It seems whenever someone decides to "remake" something contemporary to instill their own "take" on it, they ruin what was great about it to begin with.

It's just too damn bad Ron Moore wasn't allowed to take his concepts, change a few things (like the BG names) and just introduce a new show with a new title that doesn't alienate fans of the old while serving fans of whatever it is he and Sci-Fi are peddling.

JV

[BST]

Great post. It surmised many of the frustrations you can have when talking with someone who doesn't like the mini. Most of the abominations they say happened never did.

On the sex the most we saw was one bare back. Yesterday I saw more of Alissa Milano on a rerun of Charmed where she was a mermaid.

The famous "handjob" scene in the mini was about as bad as the diner scene with Meg Ryan in "When Harry met Sally".

There are actually more minority characters in the mini than in TOS.

The weak female argumant seems to blow right past President Roslin.

Those who hate the arrogant female Starbuck forget how Sheba was introduced to us.

Those who hate President Roslin forget Siress Tinia.

No baby was showed killed in the mini. The first day or two after the mini aired there were even threads that asked whether the baby was really killed. Some people watched it and couldn't tell.

Only one person was actually SHOWN killed in the mini and he was a cylon. The lasar shot to Serena in TOS and her ensuing agony was far worse. Letting your children watch a show where the only child they can identify with gets to see his mother die is not exactly family viewing.

There are a bunch of things I don't like about the mini especially in areas dealing with Kara Thrace and COL Tigh but I don't need to imagine things are worse than they are.

If you think the story sucks that's fine but you don't need to invent things that never happened.

Nice misdirection, antelope. It still does not provide any insight, though, as to why some of those items were even necessary.

But then, again, I'm one of those supposedly 'stuck-in-the70s' types who thinks that the original concept and overall storyline was just fine and was very much deserving of being continued, not re-written.

[shiningstar]

I can only imagine the outcry from people if George Lucas decided to add "handjobs" to "Star Wars". Or maybe people would like to see classic "Star Trek" with CGI sex scenes of young William Shatner and the green alien dancing girl?

I guess I just don't understand why people willing to let so much be changed for the BG re-imagining don't consider it a betrayal of what BG was originally about, classic space fantasy adventure instead of modern WB style "angst in space". I also thought the "Lost in Space" movie was crap though. It seems whenever someone decides to "remake" something contemporary to instill their own "take" on it, they ruin what was great about it to begin with.

It's just too damn bad Ron Moore wasn't allowed to take his concepts, change a few things (like the BG names) and just introduce a new show with a new title that doesn't alienate fans of the old while serving fans of whatever it is he and Sci-Fi are peddling.

JV

I believe Richard Hatch said just about the same thing in a couple of interviews.

I so agree with what you just wrote :thumbsup:

[Rowan]

Ok I just went back and looked at those two scenes in slow motion about 8 times each and I’ve written down what I saw. Hope it helps for those who didn’t see the mini.

Armistice station

6 sits on the desk facing the colonial warrior. We see her face up close, she asks if he’s alive we see his face up close when he says “yes” then her face up close as she says “prove it” her rt. arm is on the back of his shoulder and her left is at her side touching the desk. Close up of the kiss, then explosion, we see him pull back from the kiss as he registers the explosion and becomes afraid, then close up on her face as she says “it has begun” the camera pulls back and we see him from the back as he struggles to rise out of the chair but 6 still in the same position and with apparent ease and strength holds him down with a casually draped left arm over his shoulder and her hand clasps his face. Then we see a close up of their faces and both her hands are clearly grasping his face she begins to kiss him again it’s obvious to me at this point he realizes he’s about to die and gives up the struggle just as the whole station explodes. Her hands never go below the waist in this scene.



Baltar in CIC

First, they are fully clothed. She is sitting on his lap her legs are crossed we see her hand go down towards his crotch but our view is completely blocked all we actually see is her legs, his chest and part of her arm. The camera pans right back up to their faces we see him lean back in the chair a little and he utters a little sound of pleasure that’s it. We don’t see the repeated motion of her arm indication anything more is happening or ongoing and then the scene is over, it’s all implied The most she could have done in that moment was to rub his crotch, that’s not a hand job not in my experience. :blush: ;)

[Gemini1999]

Ok I just went back and looked at those two scenes in slow motion about 8 times each and I?ve written down what I saw. Hope it helps for those who didn?t see the mini.

There were some that saw a rough cut of the mini before it was broadcast and I also remember a couple of reviews that said that the Armistice Station scene was a bit more graphic than the broadcast version. It's not like we are gonna see Six's hand around his "unit", but if she shoves her hand down the front of his drawers and he starts moaning, she definitely isn't giving the man a back rub.

The only ones that could verify what was edited were those that got to see the rough cut and the broadcast version as well.

Anyone....? Anyone...? Beuller...?

Bryan
________
Yamaha Srx (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_SRX)

[Rowan]

:light: ah rough cut, hadn't heard about that I was wondering why people had such a different impression but that would explain it. But can we count that? It's not what was actually in the final cut of the mini, she doesn't put her hand inside his pants.

[Dawg]

:light: ah rough cut, hadn't heard about that I was wondering why people had such a different impression but that would explain it. But can we count that? It's not what was actually in the final cut of the mini, she doesn't put her hand inside his pants.

Almost correct, Gaelen. The discussion about graphic sex in the mini began with the release of the script, was reinforced by the rough cut, both of which were apparently quite graphic. The discussion has continued not so much because you can see exactly what she's doing in the broadcast but because it's fairly obvious what she's doing. The sexual content is still there, just not as graphically visible.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Stray Viper]

And, thus, we get down to the real point. That's what she did, it was part of the story, and it doesn't matter how much was shown or how many seconds the cut lasted. Thank you, Dawg.

[larocque6689]

Antelope and Warhammer I have sent you both a PM.

[BarrymoreYorke]

All I can say, then, is that people who have read the script but not watched the mini should at least WATCH the mini so that they actually have an informed opinion. I can understand if someone hates the mini after having watched it. But hating the mini based on its script, well . . . that's like hating the adult that an unformed child will eventually become.

[Gemini1999]

All I can say, then, is that people who have read the script but not watched the mini should at least WATCH the mini so that they actually have an informed opinion. I can understand if someone hates the mini after having watched it. But hating the mini based on its script, well . . . that's like hating the adult that an unformed child will eventually become.

BYorke -

I think that is a very healthy statement to make. I will admit that I read the script and didn't think much of it, but I still felt the need to watch the mini, if nothing else to educate myself from a first-hand point of view. I know that when I go to a bookstore and read the inside cover of a book to see if I want to buy it, you're making a snap judgment based on a piece of the material. Or, when you cruise the TV Guide for something to watch and you read what an episode is about to see if you want to watch it, again - you are making a choice based on a tiny bit of material. Some will take a chance and buy that book or watch that show and others will pass them by. It's entertainment and not everyone is entertained by the same things - human nature in my book.

It isn't really wrong for some people to not like the mini based on what they read. The script is pretty close to the filmed version and people being people, they gravitate to what they like and shun what they don't. What works for you or me, or anyone else, you can't apply to another person - it just doesn't work that way. I will agree with you up to a point though, if they have only read the script and didn't like it and didn't watch it either, then whatever commentary offered is from a limited experience - but it's not up to you or me to marginalize those that made that choice not to watch. They are still entitled to an opnion on what they do know and the right to voice that opinion in an open forum like CF.

Best regards,
Bryan

P.S. - I hope that I didn't ramble too much and I'm glad to see you here at Fleets. Keep those posts going!
________
Uggs (http://uggstoreshop.com/)

[Rowan]

ok so I'm still confused are you guys saying you don't want any kind of sexual innuendo whatsoever in your BSG? :confused:

I watched BSG TOS when I was a 14 1/4 year old girl raging hormones and all and from that perspective I thought Starbuck dripped sex and he was all about sex to me almost every scene he was in with a woman he was flirting or coming on to them or making innuendos. I always thought he had sex on the brain, I even saw the cigar he always carried as being a symbol of it, what can I say I had a naughty mind even back then.:blush:


And you guys are totally messing with my mind :wtf:
I thought guys liked that kind of thing I thought if anyone was going to complain about it, it would be the women. Is it sex stuff in sci fi in general or BSG particularly
just curious:)

[Jerry Vasilatos]

I do think though, that in the old BSG, sex and raciness were handled with humor, and class.

Starbuck was a lady's man. Cassie was a socialator. They loved each other though and you got a sense of that deeper feeling. Ditto for Apollo and Serina.

The new BSG is populated by a bunch of hormone driven, seemingly unfeeling characters that cheapen any heart we would hope they have. Whether it's demonstrated by handjobs or people tearing other people's clothes off. I like the original BSG, where you got a sense of exactly WHO Starbuck and Cassie were as people BEFORE their little foray into the launch tubes rather than two characters we've just been introduced to in the mini (I think the newly castrated Boomer was one of them?) ripping each other's clothes off like animals without knowing anything about them. The mini seemed to throw "gritty sex" into everything to try and justify and prove it was being "real and gritty". In my opinion, it's LAZY STORYTELLING that just shows what was so great about the original.

We can argue semantics and motive back and forth ad infinitum. It all boils down to whether you like sex and raciness handled with humor and class and getting to know the characters involved with eacjh other first, or in the more indifferent, soulless, animalistic "real life grittiness" manner of the mini.

I'm a sucker for the old way, but then again I grew up on it ("Star Wars", "Star Trek", and "BSG" being great examples of how you can have sex, humor and some feeling lacing the characters.)

JV

[BarrymoreYorke]

Boomer and Chief Tyrol love each other . . . their reunion scene is highly romantic, sweet and passionate. Number Six seems to have pretty deep, albeit unhealthy, feelings for Baltar. There was no sex or physical contact without meaning on the mini, except for whatever the heck that was on Armistice Station.

The whole problem here, I think, is that "they just don't make 'em like they used to." When even Star Trek is showing us half-naked people leathering eath other up with blue gel, and Seventh Heaven is far racier than The Waltons, and Charmed shows acres and acres of flesh. it's pretty obvious that television has changed. The thing is, that change happened gradually, so it generally doesn't seem outrageous these days to most folks.

But the old BSG is from an era before that change happened, so the difference between it and the mini is highly pronounced. And I understand why some people have trouble with that, I really do. But the plain fact of the matter is that there was ONE SEX SCENE, some kissing and tearing at clothes, and what appeared to be a quick grope off camera.


I just feel there needs to be a little bit more perspective here. If you make it about "the kids," well, our children aren't going to be reading the script, so they won't have any idea that there was supposedly tons of S-E-X in it. They'll be watching the show, and what they'll be seeing is tamer than many other TV shows. NYPD Blue has been doing worse for a DECADE now!

[Antelope]

If TOS was remade with the exact same script today we would have seen Cassie naked from the back in the launch tube moving up and down on Starbuck just prior to their steam bath.

I think some of the sex stuff was unneeded in the mini, in particular the mind sex scene near the end. The cylon 6 scene in the beginning and the initial Boomer lust scene however is no worse than most anything else you can see on TV on one of the major networks on any given night. For better or for worse what is expected in televesion dramas has become a bit racier in the past 24 years.

I do say it is interesting what is cut from the original script. It can give you an idea of some concepts that aren't clear in a show. For example the COL Tigh cut scene gives the reason for his alcoholism and the cut Tyrol scene shows the crew does not like his affair. However things are cut for more reasons than time. Maybe the cut sex scenes were cut because they were considered gratuitous and unneeded. As such we the viewer were never meant to know they existed or to judge the movie as if they happened. I do suggest that those who have opinions on the movie at least watch the movie once. Seeing something is often a very different experience than reading or hearing something. Remember the case of the Nixon/Kennedy debates. Those who watched on TV had an entirely different opnion on who won the debate than those that only listened on the radio.

What did the movie actually have in the sex area: Only one naked back scene, one scene of a man pulling a womans jacket open who had a shirt on beneath, two bear hug scenes, and a woman sitting on a man's lap while he imagined something sexual not shown. Over the course of 4 hours that's not too bad today. How about we compromise. I'll have Moore take out the mind lap dance if you let me keep the naked back and the bear hugs!;)

[shiningstar]

Almost correct, Gaelen. The discussion about graphic sex in the mini began with the release of the script, was reinforced by the rough cut, both of which were apparently quite graphic. The discussion has continued not so much because you can see exactly what she's doing in the broadcast but because it's fairly obvious what she's doing. The sexual content is still there, just not as graphically visible.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

Thank you Dawg! :warrior:

[Rowan]

I think a very important element that I personally hadn't realized until now and which makes these two movies and their portrayal of sex different and perhaps explains why we feel like certain scenes of a sexual nature were “plunked down” is: on the original series Starbuck did not know Cassie until after the war began and they were fleeing they met because of this the same for Apollo and Serina they met under those circumstances as well and we followed the progression of their relationship over the following months /years. Where as in the mini we are dropped down into existing relationships. We know that 6 and Baltar have been together 2 years she tells him she loves him, the same for Boomer and Tyrol they are in a pre-existing relations ship we as the audience are dropped down into the middle of this. We are not at the beginning of their relationships watching them develop. These relationships have existed for years before we even meet them for the first time. I think this is the essential difference here between them and why it feels gratuitous it's because we aren’t' starting at the beginning and watching it grow and unfold and develop. Were picking up years later.:)

[BarrymoreYorke]

I think a very important element that I personally hadn't realized until now and which makes these two movies and their portrayal of sex different and perhaps explains why we feel like certain scenes of a sexual nature were “plunked down” is: on the original series Starbuck did not know Cassie until after the war began and they were fleeing they met because of this the same for Apollo and Serina they met under those circumstances as well and we followed the progression of their relationship over the following months /years. Where as in the mini we are dropped down into existing relationships. We know that 6 and Baltar have been together 2 years she tells him she loves him, the same for Boomer and Tyrol they are in a pre-existing relations ship we as the audience are dropped down into the middle of this. We are not at the beginning of their relationships watching them develop. These relationships have existed for years before we even meet them for the first time. I think this is the essential difference here between them and why it feels gratuitous it's because we aren’t' starting at the beginning and watching it grow and unfold and develop. Were picking up years later.:)

Excellent, excellent observation. This, of course, leads to the feeling of getting punked down in the middle, which creates the sense (at first) that these scenes are gratuitous, when they're plainly not.

[Treylon]

As someone who was at the Galacticon (and had a GREAT time!) I was looking forward to hearing what Mr. Moore had to say. Of course most people went with some anger, I mean this was a man who whas changing the feel of the program and seem to have little interest what anyone else had to say. I know, I know, SCIFI Channel already had decided the route the wanted to take. He uses them as a scapegoat. That's fine. After hearing his presentation and watching an almost unwatchable, cut and paste job of a preview trailer, I felt sick. the changes seemed unwarranted. This was the thinking that went into Gilligan's Planet, the Lost in Space remake and putting Scrappy Doo on our TV sets. Not enough people at GALACTICON? He doesn't mention the fires and transportation strikes that were going on. He must have thought there would be enough people there to explain his new effort so Why else would he have come? I felt he was treated respectfully as Richard Hatch stood up for Moore's right to have a vision. Mr. Moore was flippent and ready for a fight from us. I wasn't going to fight him, I felt sad.
It's many months later, the mini series aired and I watched it with hope. To me there was just way too much material lifted from Star Trek for me to be interested. But that's just me. I understand the series is quite expensive to make and will have to really be a ratings grabber right out of the gate, but not all the people who watched the miniseries will be returning for the series. Those rating numbers included fans of the original who watched for curiosity. Since the new series is so far removed from the interesting characters introduced in the original, I won't be watching, but I respect the people who will. I understand that Mr. Moore must be sick of the criticism. It must be a royal pain, but I am sure he knew that going in.





Hi, all!

I am reposting a segment from a recent Moore interview at G2003 which, I am sure, has been making the rounds. I wish to express my severe dissapointment- not in the fact that Moore has his own opinions and views, but in the fact that it seems impossible for anyone from the new series' representation to be capable of any sort of grace or manners in communication.



Speaking as a coordinator of Galacticon, I deeply resent this remark. It implies a total lack of courtesy, and a complete disrespect for the enormous amount of work put out by those of us who did the show, Michael and Richard included. It was *not* a popular decision to invite him, and Richard took a great deal fo heat for it. It was decided, however, that it was up to us to be mature, to give everyone a chance to express their views and to speak for themselves, and to make it a convention which would welcome *all* fans.

I am highly dissapointed in Mr. Moore. It is extremely unprofessional to accept an invitation to an event as a guest, and to then speak in such a condescending manner after the fact. I, for one, would never invite him to speak his mind again.

If he truly saw Galacticon as nothing more thatn a few hundred implacable fans waging a war campaign, then he completely missed the point, and inviting him was a serious mistake, one which I, for one, now regret.

I sincerely hope you do beter in the future, Mr. Moore, at handling your own fan base, or you will alienate them. Among the concepts of humanity you wish to explore in the production of this series, I suggest you add courtesy.

[The Rain]

It's just too damn bad Ron Moore wasn't allowed to take his concepts, change a few things (like the BG names) and just introduce a new show with a new title that doesn't alienate fans of the old while serving fans of whatever it is he and Sci-Fi are peddling.

JV

Baloney! If Moore had just changed the names, everybody would be griping about how Moore "ripped off the BG concept" and you would have hated it anyway.

There's no pleasing some people. That's why Moore says "who cares" about the core fanatics of BG in the first place.

:salute:

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Baloney! If Moore had just changed the names, everybody would be griping about how Moore "ripped off the BG concept" and you would have hated it anyway.

There's no pleasing some people. That's why Moore says "who cares" about the core fanatics of BG in the first place.

:salute:

Ron Moore ripped off something from just about every other recent sci-fi project anyway, I doubt it would have mattered. Overdeveloped female android Sexy 6 written into the story to attract pre-pubescent boys... does sexy 7 of 9 from "Star Trek: Voyager" ring a bell?

Mary McDonnell was practically re-playing her role as the first lady from "Independence Day"... something tells me Ron was watching ID4 when he had this brilliant idea to write the role for her.

I posted the following in an older thread and will repeat it here:

The Borg reimagined as the Cylons. Cylons looking like humans to infiltrate and destroy mankind like the entire "Terminator" series. Borrowing ship designs outright of the ragtag fleet didn't seem so much like homage as much as pandering. The Cylon Raider Fighters were ripoffs of the Trade Federation droid ships from "The Phantom Menace", and the ships from "Wing Commander" and "Stargate". The new Cylons looked like Trade Federation droids from "Attack of the Clones". The "Galactica" looked like a big Trojan condom, screwing fans and ribbed for no one's pleasure. The whole mini FELT like I was also watching "Independence Day".

Funny how people said Glen Larson "ripped off" "Star Wars" when in fact the original had nothing in common with "Star Wars" other than it took place in outer space. Would people say "Shane" ripped off "12 O'Clock High" because it took place in the old west? Of course not. Larson created an entire mythology for the series based in his spiritual beliefs, very different than what George Lucas did in "Star Wars". And he himself has admitted that the success of "Star Wars" got studios to consider something he had been developing for years in his "Adam's Ark" concept.

What we have in Moore's mini-series is more of a re-salvaging than a re-imagining. With this in mind he could have VERY EASILY named this new series he "created" borrowing from all these other sources something different. But Sci-Fi's mandate was to capitalize on the "Battlestar" brand name. Plain and simple. Even if it was to be a bastardization.

JV

[bsg1fan1975]

I can only imagine the outcry from people if George Lucas decided to add "handjobs" to "Star Wars". Or maybe people would like to see classic "Star Trek" with CGI sex scenes of young William Shatner and the green alien dancing girl?

I guess I just don't understand why people willing to let so much be changed for the BG re-imagining don't consider it a betrayal of what BG was originally about, classic space fantasy adventure instead of modern WB style "angst in space". I also thought the "Lost in Space" movie was crap though. It seems whenever someone decides to "remake" something contemporary to instill their own "take" on it, they ruin what was great about it to begin with.

It's just too damn bad Ron Moore wasn't allowed to take his concepts, change a few things (like the BG names) and just introduce a new show with a new title that doesn't alienate fans of the old while serving fans of whatever it is he and Sci-Fi are peddling.

JV

I so totally agree with this. Its been proven that if you take a quality show and change everything in that show in a short amount of time its going bomb! Great post Jerry! Lots of insight there! :thumbsup: :) :D :salute: :warrior:

[The Rain]

Ron Moore ripped off something from just about every other recent sci-fi project anyway, I doubt it would have mattered. Overdeveloped female android Sexy 6 written into the story to attract pre-pubescent boys... does sexy 7 of 9 from "Star Trek: Voyager" ring a bell?

Mary McDonnell was practically re-playing her role as the first lady from "Independence Day"... something tells me Ron was watching ID4 when he had this brilliant idea to write the role for her.

I posted the following in an older thread and will repeat it here:

The Borg reimagined as the Cylons. Cylons looking like humans to infiltrate and destroy mankind like the entire "Terminator" series. Borrowing ship designs outright of the ragtag fleet didn't seem so much like homage as much as pandering. The Cylon Raider Fighters were ripoffs of the Trade Federation droid ships from "The Phantom Menace", and the ships from "Wing Commander" and "Stargate". The new Cylons looked like Trade Federation droids from "Attack of the Clones". The "Galactica" looked like a big Trojan condom, screwing fans and ribbed for no one's pleasure. The whole mini FELT like I was also watching "Independence Day".

Funny how people said Glen Larson "ripped off" "Star Wars" when in fact the original had nothing in common with "Star Wars" other than it took place in outer space. Would people say "Shane" ripped off "12 O'Clock High" because it took place in the old west? Of course not. Larson created an entire mythology for the series based in his spiritual beliefs, very different than what George Lucas did in "Star Wars". And he himself has admitted that the success of "Star Wars" got studios to consider something he had been developing for years in his "Adam's Ark" concept.

What we have in Moore's mini-series is more of a re-salvaging than a re-imagining. With this in mind he could have VERY EASILY named this new series he "created" borrowing from all these other sources something different. But Sci-Fi's mandate was to capitalize on the "Battlestar" brand name. Plain and simple. Even if it was to be a bastardization.

JV

SIGH! :( Even when someone makes a solid logical point, a REAL fan has to try to find some holes to punch.


Better fix that aim, scooter!
Everything you're just said just proves my point.

[Gemini1999]

SIGH! :( Even when someone makes a solid logical point, a REAL fan has to try to find some holes to punch.


Better fix that aim, scooter!
Everything you're just said just proves my point.

Rain -

If you have something informative to add to the thread, that's fine. I would suggest that you try and avoid making it directly personal by making pointed and less that complimentary remarks to someone else's discussion. Personal arguements have no place here.

Regards,
Bryan
________
Glass Bubblers (http://glassgallery.tumblr.com/bubblers/)

[Jerry Vasilatos]

SIGH! :( Even when someone makes a solid logical point, a REAL fan has to try to find some holes to punch.


Better fix that aim, scooter!
Everything you're just said just proves my point.


Rain, what was your solid logical point and what holes did I punch?

I don't understand your response or your sarcastic remarks about fixing my aim and proving your point. Can you clarify? Or are you simply claiming I am a "core fanatic" that Moore says "who cares" to?

You seem to operate from a lot of presumptions. I've never said I "hated" what Moore did. What I "hate" is how what he did had to be labelled "Galactica" instead of something else. There were some interesting things in Moore's "Galactica". But they just weren't what "Galactica" was about. He took a premise (the destruction of mankind in space), borrrowed from a lot of other sources and then Sci-Fi labelled it "Battlestar Galactica". Gone was the mythology Larson incorporated into it, gone were the relationships and sense of family that existed in the original, gone was the fun, and the gone were the swashbuckling adventure aspects of it. What sci-fi broadcast was not "Galactica" and should never have been titled such.

:upchuck: "Angst in Space" is more appropriate. Or maybe "Handjobs in Space".

JV

[jewels]

Rain: not baloney! to many of us there is so little Galactica in there (and so much from other universes) that he would have had a better chance without the baggage of the Galactica name. Especially for starting a series.

Such was not the lot that Bonnie Hammer handed him. She'd rather he reinvented what she didn't understand in the first place ("reinventing science fiction"). From my POV, Joss Whedon was way more successful at developing a character-driven sci-fi universe from scratch (in Firefly) that gave you the "you are there" feel, that there simply is no comparison. I'm glad Uni. picked up his film option--that is something concrete to look forward to, and know it is still secure in the hands of it's creator.

[shiningstar]

I think a very important element that I personally hadn't realized until now and which makes these two movies and their portrayal of sex different and perhaps explains why we feel like certain scenes of a sexual nature were “plunked down” is: on the original series Starbuck did not know Cassie until after the war began and they were fleeing they met because of this the same for Apollo and Serina they met under those circumstances as well and we followed the progression of their relationship over the following months /years. Where as in the mini we are dropped down into existing relationships. We know that 6 and Baltar have been together 2 years she tells him she loves him, the same for Boomer and Tyrol they are in a pre-existing relations ship we as the audience are dropped down into the middle of this. We are not at the beginning of their relationships watching them develop. These relationships have existed for years before we even meet them for the first time. I think this is the essential difference here between them and why it feels gratuitous it's because we aren’t' starting at the beginning and watching it grow and unfold and develop. Were picking up years later.:)

You've made a good point there ..........still watching someone doing the
functional equivelant to a lap dance ..........is still not my idea of good TV no
matter HOW long they've known each other.

[shiningstar]

Rain: not baloney! to many of us there is so little Galactica in there (and so much from other universes) that he would have had a better chance without the baggage of the Galactica name. Especially for starting a series.

Such was not the lot that Bonnie Hammer handed him. She'd rather he reinvented what she didn't understand in the first place ("reinventing science fiction"). From my POV, Joss Whedon was way more successful at developing a character-driven sci-fi universe from scratch (in Firefly) that gave you the "you are there" feel, that there simply is no comparison. I'm glad Uni. picked up his film option--that is something concrete to look forward to, and know it is still secure in the hands of it's creator.

Excellent post Jewels. And you're right there's so little Galactica in there I also
think that had he not put the Galactica name on it .............the show might have
had a better chance of succeeding.

Yes I loved Firefly. And I'm looking forward to the film also. :thumbsup:

[shiningstar]

Ron Moore ripped off something from just about every other recent sci-fi project anyway, I doubt it would have mattered. Overdeveloped female android Sexy 6 written into the story to attract pre-pubescent boys... does sexy 7 of 9 from "Star Trek: Voyager" ring a bell?

Mary McDonnell was practically re-playing her role as the first lady from "Independence Day"... something tells me Ron was watching ID4 when he had this brilliant idea to write the role for her.

I posted the following in an older thread and will repeat it here:

The Borg reimagined as the Cylons. Cylons looking like humans to infiltrate and destroy mankind like the entire "Terminator" series. Borrowing ship designs outright of the ragtag fleet didn't seem so much like homage as much as pandering. The Cylon Raider Fighters were ripoffs of the Trade Federation droid ships from "The Phantom Menace", and the ships from "Wing Commander" and "Stargate". The new Cylons looked like Trade Federation droids from "Attack of the Clones". The "Galactica" looked like a big Trojan condom, screwing fans and ribbed for no one's pleasure. The whole mini FELT like I was also watching "Independence Day".

Funny how people said Glen Larson "ripped off" "Star Wars" when in fact the original had nothing in common with "Star Wars" other than it took place in outer space. Would people say "Shane" ripped off "12 O'Clock High" because it took place in the old west? Of course not. Larson created an entire mythology for the series based in his spiritual beliefs, very different than what George Lucas did in "Star Wars". And he himself has admitted that the success of "Star Wars" got studios to consider something he had been developing for years in his "Adam's Ark" concept.

What we have in Moore's mini-series is more of a re-salvaging than a re-imagining. With this in mind he could have VERY EASILY named this new series he "created" borrowing from all these other sources something different. But Sci-Fi's mandate was to capitalize on the "Battlestar" brand name. Plain and simple. Even if it was to be a bastardization.

JV

Well Written JV ........Keep POSTING. :thumbsup:

[Boomer65]

Funny how people said Glen Larson "ripped off" "Star Wars" when in fact the original had nothing in common with "Star Wars" other than it took place in outer space.
Hold on a sec – was it just me or did TOS Cylons look more than a little bit like Star Wars Stormtroopers? Maybe it wasn’t intentional but I certainly see a resemblance. So could we call TOS Cylons a rip-off of Star Wars Stormtroopers?

Look, just about anything you see on TV or the big screen can be called a rip-off of something else. It’s pretty commonly thought everything has been done before and all we can do now is implement old ideas in new ways. BSG TOS itself has been likened to an old western series (Wagontrains?) as well as having biblical origins. And the idea of alien-developed machines killing man wasn’t exactly original at the time of TOS either.

And before you blast the human-looking Cylons too loudly – remember that DeSantos, the champion of the continuation, has a version that has Apollo as a converted Cylon. Now is that a Borg ripoff?

[shiningstar]

Hold on a sec – was it just me or did TOS Cylons look more than a little bit like Star Wars Stormtroopers? Maybe it wasn’t intentional but I certainly see a resemblance. So could we call TOS Cylons a rip-off of Star Wars Stormtroopers?

Look, just about anything you see on TV or the big screen can be called a rip-off of something else. It’s pretty commonly thought everything has been done before and all we can do now is implement old ideas in new ways. BSG TOS itself has been likened to an old western series (Wagontrains?) as well as having biblical origins. And the idea of alien-developed machines killing man wasn’t exactly original at the time of TOS either.

And before you blast the human-looking Cylons too loudly – remember that DeSantos, the champion of the continuation, has a version that has Apollo as a converted Cylon. Now is that a Borg ripoff?

First of all Boomer ...........the issue of whether or not TOS was a rip off of
starwars was RESOLVED in a COURT OF LAW.

It was decided that there were enough DIFFERENCES in the script where TOS
was NOT in any way a RIP OFF or Plagurizing Starwars.

Anf for the RECORD Boomer if you look at BSG80 .............a CYLON/humaniod was
introduced into the series. THat was LONG, long BEFORE the BORG.

[Boomer65]

First of all Boomer ...........the issue of whether or not TOS was a rip off of starwars was RESOLVED in a COURT OF LAW.
Oh please! There is a huge difference between plagiarism and copying (ripping off) an idea. The COURTS have RULED that IDEAS can’t be COPYRIGHTED. That doesn’t mean that we can’t call the Apollo/Cylon a rip-off of the Borg, which was a rip-off of an episode of Star Trek TOS, which was a ripoff of … it goes on and on.

Let me make it clear for you – I can write a story about a colony of humans that comes under attack by a mechanical race (anybody read Saberhagen?) and goes on the run. Larson CAN’T touch me! He can hire all the lawyers in the world too. That is UNLESS I call the mechanical race Cylons and have the ship named Battlestar Galactica as well as the same characters. But if I don’t my story isn’t any less of a rip off. Do you understand this?

So tell me…do YOU think that the TOS Cylons look a little like the Star Wars Stormtroopers? And, since the Cylon/humanoid was done in BSG80 you OBVIOUSLY don’t have a problem with the Cylon/humanoid concept in BSG03.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Oh please! There is a huge difference between plagiarism and copying (ripping off) an idea. The COURTS have RULED that IDEAS can’t be COPYRIGHTED. That doesn’t mean that we can’t call the Apollo/Cylon a rip-off of the Borg, which was a rip-off of an episode of Star Trek TOS, which was a ripoff of … it goes on and on.

Let me make it clear for you – I can write a story about a colony of humans that comes under attack by a mechanical race (anybody read Saberhagen?) and goes on the run. Larson CAN’T touch me! He can hire all the lawyers in the world too. That is UNLESS I call the mechanical race Cylons and have the ship named Battlestar Galactica as well as the same characters. But if I don’t my story isn’t any less of a rip off. Do you understand this?

So tell me…do YOU think that the TOS Cylons look a little like the Star Wars Stormtroopers? And, since the Cylon/humanoid was done in BSG80 you OBVIOUSLY don’t have a problem with the Cylon/humanoid concept in BSG03.

Do stormtroopers look like Cylons?

http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/friendship/stormtrooper.jpg

http://iml.bu.edu/cmr/robots/cylon.jpg

Umm, no. Stormtroopers are cloned men in white armor. Cylons are chrome colored cyborgs.

And I don't think Larson would sue you. You are using a basic premise and I would assume you would then create original characters to tell that story not reliant on using BGT character names.

Your point?

I'm saying that Moore is a hack writer who borrowed from other specific movies to tell his story which are all a little familiar. Do you UNDERSTAND THAT?

And as far as the DeSanto Apollo/Cylon plot twist... to me it does sound a little too "Borg" for my liking. Wow! I bet your surprised I would say something like that huh? Maybe that will prove to you that I have a more open mind than you think.

JV

[Antelope]

I think the original point of The Rain is valid:

Even if Moore changed all the names of the characters so that none of them reflected TOS and the Battlestar was renamed anything other than Galactica or Pegasus a significant number of the hard core fan base would still be angry.

I am sure under the above scenario we would still hear the following things:

1. It's not the REAL Battlestar because every fan knows only the Galactica survived the halocaust and only the Pegasus survived the battle of Molacy and went into deep space.

2. The script sucks and Moore and SCIFI ruined our chance to see the REAL Desanto Continuation.

Everything old is new again:
I would expect Moore to "borrow" great storylines from the various SCIFI books and shows out there. That would be the intelligent thing to do. It is also the smart thing Glen Larson did. From TOS we have adaptations of "Midway", "Patton", "The Dirty Dozen", "The Guns of Navarone", adaptations of bible stories, the history of the cylons could be a continuation of the classic RUR (Rosum's Universal Robots), and themes pulled from current politics of the time (Soviet versus America). From BSG1980 Glen Larson adapted "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Hell in the Pacific" he also introduced the human cylon. Whether Star Trek copied a Larson concept with the Borg and then Moore copied Star Trek or reached back to Battlestar who knows.

At this point we can definitely say that Moore adapted Battlestar Galactica and "In Harm's Way". It may not be ALL (TOS) Battlestar Galactica but even a cursory view of the mini shows it has many if not a majority of original Battlestar themes and mythos. You might not like what he did but it is Galactica.

Battlestar Galactica was three television series and some books not a real historical event. We can all pick and chose what we want to watch and what we want to believe. We are even entitled to believe in two separate but similar stories if we want. Richard Hatch's books are the real Battlestar Galactica, so was BSG1980, as was TOS, as were the comic books, as is the mini, as is the fan fiction. What you as individual chose to believe or throw away in your mind is your decision.

Personally in my mind I have four separate Battlestar Galacticas in my mind. Two of them, TOS (and the prequel stuff I have read and agree with) are one Battlestar Galactica story and the mini universe another. The Hatch books and BSG1980 to me throw out interesting concepts but are not a story I want to hold in my mind as cannon.

There is no sense arguing about whether Moore's version or any version is real or not. It is all in the mind of the viewer or reader. No ones opinion in this area is any more valid than anyone elses.

[Boomer65]

Umm, no. Stormtroopers are cloned men in white armor. Cylons are chrome colored cyborgs.
Umm, yes. I asked do you see similarities. Stormtroopers, from the outside look like humans in armor that sound robotic, Cylons, from the outside look like humans in armor that sound robotic.
And I don't think Larson would sue you. You are using a basic premise and I would assume you would then create original characters to tell that story not reliant on using BGT character names.

Your point?
Thank you – I don’t know why Shiningstar brought up the whole Lucas/Larson suit – it had absolutely no bearing in the “rip-off” debate. There’s a huge difference between a rip-off and plagiarism.

I'm saying that Moore is a hack writer who borrowed from other specific movies to tell his story which are all a little familiar. Do you UNDERSTAND THAT?
Believe it or not I agree with you. IMHO, the BSG03 plot had so many contrived elements that it looked like a jr. high school student wrote it.

And as far as the DeSanto Apollo/Cylon plot twist... to me it does sound a little too "Borg" for my liking. Wow! I bet your surprised I would say something like that huh? Maybe that will prove to you that I have a more open mind than you think.
I never said you weren’t. All I’m saying is that before you start pointing out all the rip-offs realize that damn near everything you see in the movies or on TV today is a rip-off of something else.

[Rowan]

Excellent, excellent observation. This, of course, leads to the feeling of getting punked down in the middle, which creates the sense (at first) that these scenes are gratuitous, when they're plainly not.
Thanks Barrymore, but I think it got burried amidst a new discussion;)

[Lusitan]

Well there were many things i didn't like in the mini, but i don't see these so called sex scenes as offensive. It looked alot worst in the script, but the final work has nothing offensive IMHO. But i might have a different perspective as i'm from another country. I've seen many US famous people really surprised about what one can do and say in most european tv shows. Things that for the viewer are normal, but the guest star says it would never be possible to do in US in that time slot. Hell, why should i be shocked by the "naked back" scene when during commercials i can see those lady's breasts in some Nivea commercial, at any time slot. Kids see plenty of hakf naked woman at most of the beaches, because topless is not forbiden arround here.
I agree it could have been done differently, with more charm or something, but i don't think it's that offensive.

[bsg1fan1975]

Do stormtroopers look like Cylons?

http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/friendship/stormtrooper.jpg

http://iml.bu.edu/cmr/robots/cylon.jpg

Umm, no. Stormtroopers are cloned men in white armor. Cylons are chrome colored cyborgs.

And I don't think Larson would sue you. You are using a basic premise and I would assume you would then create original characters to tell that story not reliant on using BGT character names.

Your point?

I'm saying that Moore is a hack writer who borrowed from other specific movies to tell his story which are all a little familiar. Do you UNDERSTAND THAT?

And as far as the DeSanto Apollo/Cylon plot twist... to me it does sound a little too "Borg" for my liking. Wow! I bet your surprised I would say something like that huh? Maybe that will prove to you that I have a more open mind than you think.

JV


Exactly my point as well Jerry. Moore is nothing but a no talent hack who can't write for beans!

[shiningstar]

Do stormtroopers look like Cylons?

http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/friendship/stormtrooper.jpg

http://iml.bu.edu/cmr/robots/cylon.jpg

Umm, no. Stormtroopers are cloned men in white armor. Cylons are chrome colored cyborgs.

And I don't think Larson would sue you. You are using a basic premise and I would assume you would then create original characters to tell that story not reliant on using BGT character names.

Your point?

I'm saying that Moore is a hack writer who borrowed from other specific movies to tell his story which are all a little familiar. Do you UNDERSTAND THAT?

And as far as the DeSanto Apollo/Cylon plot twist... to me it does sound a little too "Borg" for my liking. Wow! I bet your surprised I would say something like that huh? Maybe that will prove to you that I have a more open mind than you think.

JV

Well written JV :thumbsup:

Keep posting :salute: :warrior: :salute:

[shiningstar]

Well there were many things i didn't like in the mini, but i don't see these so called sex scenes as offensive. It looked alot worst in the script, but the final work has nothing offensive IMHO. But i might have a different perspective as i'm from another country. I've seen many US famous people really surprised about what one can do and say in most european tv shows. Things that for the viewer are normal, but the guest star says it would never be possible to do in US in that time slot. Hell, why should i be shocked by the "naked back" scene when during commercials i can see those lady's breasts in some Nivea commercial, at any time slot. Kids see plenty of hakf naked woman at most of the beaches, because topless is not forbiden arround here.
I agree it could have been done differently, with more charm or something, but i don't think it's that offensive.

Lusitan you are right about the differences in culture. Because Topless is
forbidden here.

I hope you keep posting. :warrior:

It's always good to see things from some one elses point of view :star:

[shiningstar]

Exactly my point as well Jerry. Moore is nothing but a no talent hack who can't write for beans!

Well he 'CAN' write .....................IF he has a FORMULA to follow
that has a set of rules he's not allowed to VEER from as was
the case with Star trek and all of it's SPIN OFFS.

It's when he's ALLOWED to REIMAGINE something ....................
that's when the can of worms Opens.

[Antelope]

Love the pictures of the cylon and the storm trooper!

Yes, they do look similar! (I know that's not the answer most want to hear)

The main difference quoted was the color of the exterior. That's a pretty weak defense of the point. No one says cylons are storm troopers but you have to admit on the basis of looks a case can be made for inspiration.

[Rowan]

Well there were many things i didn't like in the mini, but i don't see these so called sex scenes as offensive. It looked alot worst in the script, but the final work has nothing offensive IMHO. But i might have a different perspective as i'm from another country. I've seen many US famous people really surprised about what one can do and say in most european tv shows. Things that for the viewer are normal, but the guest star says it would never be possible to do in US in that time slot. Hell, why should i be shocked by the "naked back" scene when during commercials i can see those lady's breasts in some Nivea commercial, at any time slot. Kids see plenty of hakf naked woman at most of the beaches, because topless is not forbiden arround here.
I agree it could have been done differently, with more charm or something, but i don't think it's that offensive.It's a little different in Canada too, In Quebec we have programs and movies on at all times of the day with graphinc sex and nudity, and in British Columbia we have wreck beach were people are completely naked kids and adults alike. So I was not offended by what I saw in the mini I'm just not interested in scenes like the one with 6 in a Sci fi program, I do enjoy it in a different type of programe, I just want my Sci fi to focus on battles in space etc.:)

[shiningstar]

It's a little different in Canada too, In Quebec we have programs and movies on at all times of the day with graphinc sex and nudity, and in British Columbia we have wreck beach were people are completely naked kids and adults alike. So I was not offended by what I saw in the mini I'm just not interested in scenes like the one with 6 in a Sci fi program, I do enjoy it in a different type of programe, I just want my Sci fi to focus on battles in space etc.:)\

That's what I want too .............for my Sci Fi to focus on the PLOT, and on
the battles, etc..................... :thumbsup:

[Ethan]

I just want my Sci fi to focus on battles in space etc.

Amen! I totally agree on that.

Ethan

[monolith21]

Hey!
I haven't been over here in a while and I guess I've missed a bit! Ya know, I do believe that Ron Moore has taken a lot of flack for this new show and some of it has been very personal. I'm almost apathetic about the whole thing. Do I blame Ron Moore? Not so much as I am dissapointed with the direction he went with the show. Do I blame any of the people who were in charge of the remake? Not so much that either. I'm sick of blaming people and I'm ready to put my support 100% behind a new Battlestar project. I think the mark was missed with the original audience simply because they tried to make it too modern.

I don't take much offense until someone tries to lump those of us who continue to support the original concept into one tidy little package to hide away in the corner. We won't be happy with anything he does? 100% Not true. If Ron Moore were to write an amazing script tomorrow that was closer to the original concept I'm sure he could win over the most skeptical fan.

I'm seeing a trend of dismissal amoungst fans of the new show. They seem to think that we won't be happy unless the show comes back exactly the way it was. I think something has been lost in the translation here. If these people think that we want nothing new....just the same 70's hair cuts and uniforms and ship designs transported twenty five years intot he future I think they haven't done their homework.

We had our hopes built up for something grand and what we were given was something far inferior. The DeSanto project was not a carbon copy of the old show, but it certainly was a logical progression of where it would have gone and it was certainly more true to the original than what we were presented with last December.

I don't think Ron Moore is the devil. At Galacticon Tom DeSanto said that Ron Moore was high on their list of people to write their version. He may have done an excellent job! Heck, part of me is still holding on to some foolish hope that the new show will find a way to reach out to the old fans and maybe even open the doors up for a contunuation of the original...but that hope is small.

One thing I am absolutely sure of is that discussing how much the new show sucks doesn't get us anywhere. We're not going to convince the new fans that their show sucks and it does nothing to further our cause. I'm estatic that the fan base is so full of zeal, but it's just being put to ill use! We, the fans of the original series that are putting our support behind a continuation are quite passionate about Battlestar Galactica.

Yes, as long as the new show remains so distanced from what Battlestar Galactica was we may never like it. There may be less of us than we like to believe, but there is definitely more of us than they think there is. There are the casual fans who remembered Battlestar and tuned in to the new show only to find something largely unrecognizable. Not all fans of the original are as passionate about it as we the core group. Not everyone could afford to fly out to L.A. for the convention.

I think that Miceleh's response to the interview was quite appropriate and I think that Ron Moores letter was also appropriate. We need to continue to be proactive I think if we're going to make our presence known. If they put us down, I think we should respond just like Miceleh did. We're not on the attack here...we're on the defense. Our "Offense" hasn't really begun yet...but it's looks like things are starting to change in that department. I hope I can speak for a lot of us when I say that our goal is not to bring down the new show, but rather to bring about a continuation of the original. The Mini Series is just a bump in the road along the way.

Sorry for being so long winded!

-Mark

[BST]

Mark/monolith,

Welcome to the Fleets!


We had our hopes built up for something grand and what we were given was something far inferior. The DeSanto project was not a carbon copy of the old show, but it certainly was a logical progression of where it would have gone and it was certainly more true to the original than what we were presented with last December.

"We had our hopes built up for something grand..." -- that is, quite probably, one of the truest statements that I have read, in ANY forum.

While I find the remainder of your remarks to be those of someone very enlightened and informed, I found the above quoted paragraph to be one that sums up the feelings of many of the folks who call Colonial Fleets home.


Enjoy yourself and again, welcome!!

BST

:)

[Mike Wright]

Forget it... Not even gonna go there.

[jewels]

First of all Boomer ...........the issue of whether or not TOS was a rip off of
starwars was RESOLVED in a COURT OF LAW.

It was decided that there were enough DIFFERENCES in the script where TOS
was NOT in any way a RIP OFF or Plagurizing Starwars.
Shiningstar: I remember there being a comment from the judge over the Fox/Universal lawsuit, that the writers of the Bible had more to complain about as far as "stealing concepts" than Lucas had. The actual quote was pretty funny.

[warhammerdriver]

Because Topless is
forbidden here.


Not everywhere here. In NYS it is legal for a woman to go topless as long as she isn't being lewd about it.

So any beach/park/etc. in NYS is a topless one.

Not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's legal.

[Antelope]

Hey!
I don't take much offense until someone tries to lump those of us who continue to support the original concept into one tidy little package to hide away in the corner. We won't be happy with anything he does? 100% Not true. If Ron Moore were to write an amazing script tomorrow that was closer to the original concept I'm sure he could win over the most skeptical fan.

I'm seeing a trend of dismissal amoungst fans of the new show. They seem to think that we won't be happy unless the show comes back exactly the way it was. I think something has been lost in the translation here. If these people think that we want nothing new....just the same 70's hair cuts and uniforms and ship designs transported twenty five years intot he future I think they haven't done their homework.

We had our hopes built up for something grand and what we were given was something far inferior. The DeSanto project was not a carbon copy of the old show, but it certainly was a logical progression of where it would have gone and it was certainly more true to the original than what we were presented with last December.

-Mark

I think you will find that 90% or more of the "minifans" support the original concept, TOS. Most also support a continuation.

Actually I am amazed that most "TOS only fans" seem to never voice any interest in continuing the original series. I would rather see a season 2 than any of the mentioned 20+ years in the future continuations. What is wrong with getting new actors to play the old characters? There does seem to be an element in the anti-mini crowd that wants to have nothing but the original actors (at least Hatch and/or Benedict) in a continuation only.

Thus far the only "hopes for something grand" out there was the Desanto version. We have no actual scripts. From what I see of Desanto we have kept the TOS mythos but changed the story to a Star Trek Borg war scenario. I would watch and support it but I don't see this version being a "better" Battlestar than what we are getting now with Moore.

Just because something keeps 100% of the mythos doesn't mean its any good...just look at BSG1980.


Just for grins: Since we only know a limited back story to the Moore version, who's not to say that his version is not set thousands of years into the future in the same 12 colonies after the cylon empire self destructed. The cylons and TOS are now just a myth. You could fit this into the TOS mythos if you wanted. If you want things to work or not work bad enough you could make or unmake anything. :salute:

[Boomer65]

Love the pictures of the cylon and the storm trooper!

Yes, they do look similar! (I know that's not the answer most want to hear)

The main difference quoted was the color of the exterior. That's a pretty weak defense of the point. No one says cylons are storm troopers but you have to admit on the basis of looks a case can be made for inspiration.
If you want a *really* arguable comparison look at the Starbuck/Hans Solo angle.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

If you want a *really* arguable comparison look at the Starbuck/Hans Solo angle.

Okay:

Han Solo-

Loner mercenary pilot with his own starship, the Millenium Falcon. Avoids conflicts unless he is well paid. Has a wookie co-pilot, Chewbacca. Cocky and arrogant until he becomes allied with Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance, a group fighting a Galactic Empire for control of the galaxy. Also wears his own gear.

Starbuck-

Enlisted fighter pilot with a military issue Viper fighter. Loyal and trustworthy, and follows orders even if he is vocal and unsure of the outcome. Partners with several human pilots who fly their own fighter ships, Apollo, Boomer and Jolly. Likes to smoke cigars and gamble. Cocky and loveable, a real ladies man. Fights against the Cylons, a cyborg empire whose goal is the eradication of the entire Colonial race. Also wears a fleet issued pilot's uniform.

So what's the big ripoff of Han Solo, that Starbuck is a pilot who is cocky?

Sorry, it's a universal archetype that wouldn't hold up in court.

And if you really believe the Cylons look like Stormtroopers, I could equally counter that Boba Fett's slit visored helmet ripped off the Cylon helmet design.

http://pezboy.hypermart.net/helmet.jpg

http://webhome.idirect.com/~tk421/cyhelm1.jpg

By that argument, should we then say C3P0 is a ripoff of Maria from Metropolis, or the cyborg design an inspiration?

http://users.stargate.net/~foberlit/c3po.jpg

http://members.aon.at/frankenstein/images/metropolis.jpg

Larson borrowed from Exodus and the flight of Moses and the Jews from Egypt and redressed it into a science fiction theme that was original in it's execution.

Moore simply borrowed existing concepts and cobbled them together from several sources like I cited in an earlier post.

I tend to cite how a specific concept is used and if it looks the same as a case for ripoff (the Cylon fighters being copies of the Droid Federation fighter shipr from "The Phantom Menace")

Your turn-

JV

[Boomer65]

Wow, Jerry you're really overlooking the obvious. Solo was the swaggering hotshot counterpart to stoic Luke. Starbuck was the swaggering hotshot counterpart to stoic Apollo. One reserved, one not. Both are “Cocky and loveable, and real ladies men”. Do you really claim to miss that? Really? (See the Time review at the end of this post.)

And if you really believe the Cylons look like Stormtroopers, I could equally counter that Boba Fett's slit visored helmet ripped off the Cylon helmet design.
Why not? And pointing out how Cylons are robots and Stormtroopers are clones is inane and besides the point. We’re talking about their outside appearances.

Larson borrowed from Exodus and the flight of Moses and the Jews from Egypt and redressed it into a science fiction theme that was original in it's execution.
Original in it’s execution? I can't say for sure. Human’s battles against robots has been around for quite some time. Fred Saberhagen had a relatively long running series regarding man’s war against robots. The concept of alien developed machinery threatening man was also not new in BSG. Someone also mentioned how BSG resembled Wagontrain Ho or some other western whose theme was similar to BSG’s. Larson could be accused of "borrowing" from a bunch of different sources - just like Moore.

Okay here’s something I dredged up from the web (trust me it’s not the only one either). I’m not posting it as proof that BSG was a rip-off of Star Wars but rather that comparisons are relatively easy to make – for anything. I’m sure there were people out there claiming Star Wars, Star Trek, Buck Rodger, et al were rip-offs of something or other. I’m not going to post the whole review but rather just post the beginning – you want the rest here’s the link
http://www.kobol.com/archives/time.html

[ Battlestar Galactica review in Time Magazine (September 18, 1978) ]
Small Screen Star Wars
Battlestar Galactica seems strangely familiar
by Bob Rich
What much-ballyhooed show has the following elements:
1. a wise old man whose mission is to save the human race;
2. an unusually nasty villain who wants to destroy the human race;
3. two handsome young bucks who trade good-humored gibes;
4. the most huggable little robot in the universe;
5. a bizarre bar-room populated by inhuman creatures on a desert planet;
6. lots of gray spaceships whishing around against a brilliant blue background?

The answer, as anyone knows who has been watching TV promotion spots lately, is ABC's new series Battlestar Galactica, perhaps the most blatant rip-off ever to appear on the small screen. The show ripped off, naturally, is Star Wars, which Galactica copies in nearly everything but wit and talent. As a result, even before the show premieres this Sunday, it has been caught up in legal controversy.

The plot differs from Star Wars only in detail: by some devilish mischief, a race of robots has zapped twelve of the 13 planets harboring the human race. Led by a human renegade called Count Baltar, a first cousin to Darth Vader, the robots take off in hot pursuit of the survivors of the dozen planets, who are manning a ragtag fleet hovering around the "battlestar" Galactica. The humans are desperately searching for the 13th planet, a lost, legendary human colony called Earth. Lorne Greene is the wise old man in charge, and Dirk Benedict and Richard Hatch play Han Solo and Luke Skywalker... oops. Lieut. Starbuck and Captain Apollo. Galactica's version of Artoo Detoo is a robot dog, a "daggit," named Muffit. Unfortunately, the duplicator at Universal Studios, which is producing the show, seems to have broken down before it could re-create the inimitable Threepio or Star Wars ' Wookie, the most famous Teddy bear since Winnie-the-Pooh.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Baltar is a first cousing to Darth Vader huh? The entire plot that this writer references as a ripoff of "Star Wars" is an entirely different narrative, the only things similar in what Dykstra says, in that both are "genre" pictures. Comparing "Star Wars" and "Galactica" is like comparing "Silverado" to "Unforgiven". Both contain archetypes and are set in the old west. The similarities end there. So is it the same with "Star Wars" and "Galactica". Moore's is just a bad remake.

It's funny. those of you who defend Moore's "Battlestar Craptacular" wouldn't even have the abomination to enjoy had it not been for the original. I can't remember a remake of a great classic I ever liked, although I have seen great remakes of mediocre movies. "Galactica" was great the way it was. Moore's remake didn't even come close to being as fun and entertaining.

I think we should just drop all pretense and call Moore's version what it is, a remake, instead of a "re-imagining". "Re-imagining" seems to absolve all parties involved of butchering the material.

Anyone want to see Moore "re-imagine" "Casablanca"?

JV

[Antelope]

Boomer65:

You are right on the money. It is also an issue you can never win because those that DON'T WANT to see the obvious never will. I don't think any of us are saying Battlestar Galactica IS Star Wars but Battlestar Galactica obviously draws inspiration from there and a host of other former movies.

I read that Lucas was inspired by various Japanese animes before making Star Wars. I am sure a Japanese film expert could point out the similarities there down to the samarai sword (light saber) and the obvious Asian dress of the non-machine characters. The "force" and the concept of balance is straight from the yin and yang of Japanese zen Budhism.

Battlestar Galactica is a great series as we all know. The fact that it took a lot of older stories and remade them into a great mythos does not detract from its greatness.

Star Wars is George Lucas's star saga based on Japanese society (It also supposedly is a warning about where Lucas sees our democracy going in the future) and Battlestar Galactica is Glen Larson's based on American society. What changed between the two:

13 colonies - We have 13 original American colonies.
guns instead of swords - American fighting has always been decided by bullets not sabers.
bible and the book of Mormon replace Budhism - Change the faith to Larson's. The trek from Missouri to Utah is the quest for "Earth"
Miltary stories based on America's wars not Japan's - We have stories based on Pearl Harbor(Saga of A Star World), Coral Sea(Living Legend), Midway(LL), Patton(LL), the Dirty Dozen(Ice Planet Zero), U.S.S. Ben Franklin(Fire in Space), Soviet Cold War (Terra episodes), Vietnam (1,000 yahrn war/Cylon back story), Hell in the Pacific (BSG1980-Return of Starbuck), In Harm's Way (mini), and 9/11 (mini)

It's OK to see the inspiration. A great writer is allowed to stand on the shoulders of giants and raise the bar to a new level.

[shiningstar]

Wow, Jerry you're really overlooking the obvious. Solo was the swaggering hotshot counterpart to stoic Luke. Starbuck was the swaggering hotshot counterpart to stoic Apollo. One reserved, one not. Both are “Cocky and loveable, and real ladies men”. Do you really claim to miss that? Really? (See the Time review at the end of this post.)


Why not? And pointing out how Cylons are robots and Stormtroopers are clones is inane and besides the point. We’re talking about their outside appearances.


Original in it’s execution? I can't say for sure. Human’s battles against robots has been around for quite some time. Fred Saberhagen had a relatively long running series regarding man’s war against robots. The concept of alien developed machinery threatening man was also not new in BSG. Someone also mentioned how BSG resembled Wagontrain Ho or some other western whose theme was similar to BSG’s. Larson could be accused of "borrowing" from a bunch of different sources - just like Moore.

Okay here’s something I dredged up from the web (trust me it’s not the only one either). I’m not posting it as proof that BSG was a rip-off of Star Wars but rather that comparisons are relatively easy to make – for anything. I’m sure there were people out there claiming Star Wars, Star Trek, Buck Rodger, et al were rip-offs of something or other. I’m not going to post the whole review but rather just post the beginning – you want the rest here’s the link
http://www.kobol.com/archives/time.html

Boomer .........I think if ANYONE is "overlooking" the OBVIOUS it's YOU.

According to the Court Case ........
of Lucas Sueing Larson/desanto because BSG was
a RIPOFF of Star Wars .......................
Lucas LOST .............

He LOST because he FAILED to PROVE his Case.

[shiningstar]

Baltar is a first cousing to Darth Vader huh? The entire plot that this writer references as a ripoff of "Star Wars" is an entirely different narrative, the only things similar in what Dykstra says, in that both are "genre" pictures. Comparing "Star Wars" and "Galactica" is like comparing "Silverado" to "Unforgiven". Both contain archetypes and are set in the old west. The similarities end there. So is it the same with "Star Wars" and "Galactica". Moore's is just a bad remake.

It's funny. those of you who defend Moore's "Battlestar Craptacular" wouldn't even have the abomination to enjoy had it not been for the original. I can't remember a remake of a great classic I ever liked, although I have seen great remakes of mediocre movies. "Galactica" was great the way it was. Moore's remake didn't even come close to being as fun and entertaining.

I think we should just drop all pretense and call Moore's version what it is, a remake, instead of a "re-imagining". "Re-imagining" seems to absolve all parties involved of butchering the material.

Anyone want to see Moore "re-imagine" "Casablanca"?

JV

Well said Jerry. :thumbsup:

[Boomer65]

Boomer .........I think if ANYONE is "overlooking" the OBVIOUS it's YOU.
According to the Court Case of Lucas Sueing Larson/desanto because BSG was
a RIPOFF of Star Wars
I’ll say it again because you either didn’t read my earlier response to you or you didn’t understand it (I’ll even caps it since you think that helps) – WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PLAGARISM IN THE LEGAL SENSE.

Baltar is a first cousing to Darth Vader huh? The entire plot that this writer references as a ripoff of "Star Wars" is an entirely different narrative, the only things similar in what Dykstra says, in that both are "genre" pictures. Comparing "Star Wars" and "Galactica" is like comparing "Silverado" to "Unforgiven". Both contain archetypes and are set in the old west. The similarities end there. So is it the same with "Star Wars" and "Galactica". Moore's is just a bad remake.

I guess these people are off too (who is Isaac Asimov anyway):

Star Wars was fun and I enjoyed it. But Battlestar Galactica was Star Wars all over again and I couldn't enjoy it without amnesia. -Isaac Asimov, "Science Fiction is more than a Space-Age Western," Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Spetember 17, 1978.

A strange mix of the flight of the Israelites from Egypt, the Wagon Train teleseries and the views of Von Daeniken [sic] whose "God is an Astronaut" slogan the film literalizes... the superior special effects notwithstanding, make for a charmless clone of George Lucas' paen to the innocent delights of gee-whizz heroics. - Phil Hardy, The Film Encyclopedia: Science Fiction, William & Morrow Company, page 339.

Perhaps the least likable of all TV SF in its ineptness, its cynicism, its sentimentality and its contempt for and ignorance of science. BG was devised by Glen Larson (who went on to do a similar job on Buck Rogers in the 25th Century) in the wake of the successful film Star Wars which it resembles closely in many respects. Space battles, the raison d'etre of BG, were carried out by planes apparently designed for flying in atmosphere, with fiery exhausts which, Larson is quoted as saying, "make Space more acceptable to the Midwest." The casting of Western star Lorne Greene as the patriarchal leader, Adama, emphasized the obvious subtext of wagon trains rolling west under constant attack by Indians. Other cast members were Dirk Benedict as Starbuck (ne' Solo), Richard Hatch as Apollo (ne' Skywalker), Maren Jensen as Athena and Noah Hathaway as the cute boy, Boxey, whose nauseating robot dog (ne' R2D2) may have been the low point. Ratings began well but soon fell off and since each episode cost three times as much as a conventional one-hour drama, the series was terminated ...The film (Saga Of A Star World) is poor. Mission Galactica: The Cylon Attack is more cardboard still. - John Clute & Peter Nichols, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, St. Martins Press, 1993, page 97.

Battlestar Galactica proved to be a resounding dud... The borrowing from Star Wars in every detail became so painfully obvious that not even the four-year-old minds for which the series apparently aimed could fail to notice the resemblance. - Harry and Michael Medved, The Golden Turkey Awards, Perigee Books, 1980, page 108.

Look, I’m not trying to knock TOS – all I’m saying is that comparisons are going to be made to ANYTHING. So please, please, don’t try to convince me how “original” TOS was.

"Galactica" was great the way it was. Moore's remake didn't even come close to being as fun and entertaining.
It wasn’t great – I readily admit that. But it wasn’t *as bad* as a lot of sci-fi I’ve seen lately – Supernova, Wing Commander, et al. Bleagh.

[Antelope]

It's funny. those of you who defend Moore's "Battlestar Craptacular" wouldn't even have the abomination to enjoy had it not been for the original. I can't remember a remake of a great classic I ever liked, although I have seen great remakes of mediocre movies. "Galactica" was great the way it was. Moore's remake didn't even come close to being as fun and entertaining.

Anyone want to see Moore "re-imagine" "Casablanca"?

JV

I bet you enjoyed Glen Larson's cut and paste remake of Midway and Patton called affectionately by us Battlestar Galactica fans as "Living Legend".

I bet you enjoyed Glen' Larson's cut and paste remake of The Gun's of Navarrone, The Dirty Dozen, and Ice Station Zebra (So that's where he got the title :wtf: ) called Gun on Ice Planet Zero.

I bet you enjoyed Glen Larson's remake of the Victory at Sea episode of the U.S. S. Ben Franklin called Fire in Space.

I bet you enjoyed Glen Larson's remake of Hell in the Pacific entitled The Return of Starbuck.

I bet you didn't like but I enjoyed Glen Larson's remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still that became the first episode of BSG1980.

I am sad to hear you didn't enjoy Ron Moore's cut and paste remake of Saga of A Star World and In Harm's Way. :cry:

Casablanca might make a good story to remake in the Galactica mythos although I think the Maltese Falcon might be better. :salute:

[Dawg]

Dawg is not in a good mood.

Dawg is having a bad day at the office, in fact.

Could we tone down the attitude here, just a bit? We can all make our points without being condescending to opposing views.

For the record, everyone, inspirations do not, necessarily, mean copies. The rogue with a heart of gold is as old as storytelling. Being inspired by Moses' 40 year trek or Brigham Young's oddysey across North America does not mean BSG is a retelling of either tale.

Some of the episodes of BSG were rushed into production, which meant rushed scripts. That meant grabbing at concepts and inspirations that were popular at the time. Gun, Lost Warrior, Celestra, all of those and more are examples of this.

There's no need to get hot and bothered over recognizable themes and concepts that gave rise to TOS episodes. I'd bet real money that, in the upcoming series, Moore does exactly the same thing.

So let's keep it to a dull roar, OK? We don't want to make Dawg angry - you know what they say about Mad Dawgs.

;)

Thanks, guys.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[monolith21]

Those stories paid homage to the stories that came before them...they weren't remakes or reimaginings. To pay homage to a story is one thing...but with Battlestar there was enough existing story to work with.

Moore can be accused of borrowing, so can Larson. There's not a single writer alive today that couldn't be accused of that. I think where most people are dissapointed is that the new Galactica was a shadow of so many stories including Battlestar Galactica itself. It didn't quite commit to the Battlestar mythos.

As far as the characters resembling characters from Star Wars or whatever else, or the stormtrooper and cylons or whatver...of course they all reseble each other...they were designed by the same person! Does that make Battlestar a cheap imitation of Star Wars?

No.

I mean the whole Stoic and wise character and his swaggering sidekick thing had been used a million times before BSG and Star Wars. Watch some westerns. None of those things cheapen Galactica at all.

-Mark

[Antelope]

There's no need to get hot and bothered over recognizable themes and concepts that gave rise to TOS episodes. I'd bet real money that, in the upcoming series, Moore does exactly the same thing.
:warrior:

Thank you Dawg for repeating the point I have been trying to make. Retelling an old story in a new setting simply tells us the power and relevance of the source theme. Many stories are universal for all time.

The easy answer is "Yes it is similar but it is not the same".

If you step back I think we can all see that West Side story was very original but it was still inspired by Romeo and Juliet. I think the same can be said for Battlestar Galactica and most other scifi and stories in general.

Hell in the Pacific may have inspired The Return of Starbuck but the relevance of the theme also meant that a few years later it was made into another scifi classic, Enemy Mine. I think they all have a similar theme, very different settings, and yet were all great in their own right! :salute:

[Boomer65]

Moore can be accused of borrowing, so can Larson. There's not a single writer alive today that couldn't be accused of that.

As far as the characters resembling characters from Star Wars or whatever else, or the stormtrooper and cylons or whatver...of course they all reseble each other...they were designed by the same person!

I mean the whole Stoic and wise character and his swaggering sidekick thing had been used a million times before BSG and Star Wars. Watch some westerns. None of those things cheapen Galactica at all.
Thanks to you too monolith. You, Dawg, and antelope said it perfectly. This is all I've been trying to say. Although I didn’t know that the Stormtroopers and Cylons were designed by the same person.

[monolith21]

No prob Boomer!
I've seen a lot of people coming down on both the original BSG and the new one about rip offs and it kinda bums me out a bit. I mean, I'm no big fan of the new show, but it's more because I didn't think it was true enough to the BSG mythos. I hate that people always bring up the rip off issue. Anyone poised to call Battlestar a rip off of Star Wars better go watch a few Akira Kurosawa films. Try The Hidden Fortress on for size and then we'll talk! That movie is pretty much "A New Hope" in Japan! The new BSG "borrowed" just as much from other films as the old.

I understand what Jerry was saying totally. Its ok to write a story that borrows from Casablanca...but if ya remake it (why?) don't give all the characters a sex change and screw around with the lexicon of that story.

And to make sure I don't step on anyone's toes....Ralph McQuarrie did the original designs (which in my opinion looked even more like stormtroopers!) but they were altered to more of what we saw on screen later on by Andrew Probert. At least that much I know, but I'm sure a ton more people were involved.



-Mark

P.S. Unless I'm mistaken, The Return of Starbuck was inspired by the short story "Enemy Mine" and not vice versa. The movie didn't come out until the mid 80's but the story came out in '79.

[repcisg]

Glen has studied a bit of history as well as the classics.

Parallels

In 1940 the German army launched an all out assault against France with stunning swiftness. As the onslaught reached deep into France, panic set in and those who could, sought escape routs out of the country. The French Navy had at that time two new Battleships of the Richelieu class, in the harbors of St. Nazaire and Brest. Of these ships, one was almost fully operational (Richelieu at Brest) and one about 60% complete (Jean Bart at St. Nazaire). Realizing the danger of staying in harbor, the French commanders organized all the transport ships they could into convoys and evacuated the cities of St.Nazaire and Brest into these transports. As the Germans entered the city of Brest the last ship slipped down the channel and out to sea; German units moving onto the hills overlooking the harbor were treated to the sight of a large rag tag fleet of ships, lead by a single large warship, heading west.

Sound familiar?

The Jean Bart’s story is even more note worthy. She lay in a building basin isolated from the main harbor by an earthen dam, this prevented the water level in the basin from changing with the tides. As the Germans approached, dredges were brought in to tear down the dam and deepen the channel leading to the main bay. On June 19, 1940, as the Germans were entering the city, the Jean Bart cleared the channel and headed into the main bay and the open sea; German bombers tried to stop her but scored only one light hit. The Germans could only watch helplessly, as Jean Bart and a convoy of transports slipped over the horizon.

Both ships survived the war and served as the core of the French navy until 1956, when they were retired.
:salute:

[jewels]

Thanks to you too monolith. You, Dawg, and antelope said it perfectly. This is all I've been trying to say. Although I didn’t know that the Stormtroopers and Cylons were designed by the same person.
The veritable Ralph McQuarrie, check the links page off the home page, he has (or someone has put up for him) a gallery of his design concepts. Look for the blue eye light cyclon and Bobba Fett might haunt you a bit. :wtf:

The original BSG viper design actually became the Buck Rogers Starfighter.

Jewels

[Darth Marley]

The veritable Ralph McQuarrie, check the links page off the home page, he has (or someone has put up for him) a gallery of his design concepts. Look for the blue eye light cyclon and Bobba Fett might haunt you a bit. :wtf:

The original BSG viper design actually became the Buck Rogers Starfighter.

Jewels

So was Ralph McQuarrie responsible for them both having such poor aim?

[jewels]

So was Ralph McQuarrie responsible for them both having such poor aim?
:laugh: Well if you put men in suits...you expect their aim to be good?

Stormtroopers have good aim? I seem to remember Han & Luke being better. ;)

Way to lighten this up, Darth!

[Boomer65]

I've seen a lot of people coming down on both the original BSG and the new one about rip offs and it kinda bums me out a bit.
One man’s “rip-off” is another’s “inspiration”.

:)

[Antelope]

No prob Boomer!
P.S. Unless I'm mistaken, The Return of Starbuck was inspired by the short story "Enemy Mine" and not vice versa. The movie didn't come out until the mid 80's but the story came out in '79.

A great example of similar shows with similar inspiration all of which were great. On cylon.org I read part of an interview from someone that worked on BSG1980 that said The Return of Starbuck was based on Hell in the Pacific. I also read somewhere that the movie Hell in the Pacific was based on a radio play. I don't know the varacity of any of these stories but they all make the same point. Good stories can be retold in new settings over and over again and will continue to gain relevance to new audiences.

I will say however that the concept of the baby needing to get away is unique to The Return of Starbuck and Enemy Mine, not Hell in the Pacific. If both got original inspiration from Hell in the Pacific they both show that it's possible to update and improve aspects of a classic in a remake also.

[LadyImmortal]

RE: "Enemy Mine" as someone pointed out was actually based off of a short story that was posted in one of those sci-fi anthology things and was written way back when (I couldn't tell you the date, I don't actually remember it). It might have been written after the movie you talked about... "Hell in the Pacific" or whatever... but just saying that I read the short story long, long, long before the movie ever came out =).

Just FYI!
--Rhonda

[dvo47p]

According to the Court Case ........
of Lucas Sueing Larson/desanto because BSG was
a RIPOFF of Star Wars .......................
Lucas LOST .............

He LOST because he FAILED to PROVE his Case.

After TOS was canceled, the lawsuit was mute, ergo Lucas was sued a defunk show, all charges where dropped.

[repcisg]

A couple of points here,

1) Lucas did NOT sue Universal, NBC did.
2) The judge ruled against NBC.

* big smile *

[Jerry Vasilatos]

A couple of points here,

1) Lucas did NOT sue Universal, NBC did.
2) The judge ruled against NBC.

* big smile *


Okaaaaaaay. This is a new one. Can you explain to me why NBC would sue Universal on Lucas's behalf for alleged copyright infringement of "Star Wars" by "Galactica"? What exactly is the source for your allegation?

Do a Google search on Lucas, lawsuit and Galactica. I didn't see NBC come up anywhere in my search.

This did however. From: www.battlestarfanclub.com. I think it puts everything into perspective, especially for lovers of the Moore remake intent on tearing apart the original in defense of his hack job.

JV

***************************************************

Battlestar Galactica

By Walter Garrison

For SF buffs, Battlestar Galactica promises to be the television event of the decade-the best thing to happen to the small since Star Trek. Larger than two aircraft carriers combined, the mighty, impregnable battlestar-spaceship soared into view last September in a special three-hour episode, and has since conquered a majority of the viewing audience. All the ingredients for a great fantasy trip are there. The appealing crew includes two ace starfighter pilots. Lt. Starbuck and Captain Apollo, a cool beauty named Athena, and a Moses-like leader, Commander Adama, whose awesome duty is to lead mankind to the promised land called Earth. For comedy relief there is Muffet II, a cute mechanical replica of the original "dogget" who bit the dust when the planet Caprica-one of the original 12 colonies of man-was destroyed. The real scene-stealers of the series however, turn out to be the Cylon Centurions, chrome, non-rusting, self replicating robots whose "heads" contain malevolent red scanners that move continually as they monitor man's progress in the Universe. So far, they have not accomplished their self-ordained mission-to annihilate that emotional, unpredictable and wasteful creature known as man.

The show received a gigantic publicity boost weeks before its debut when 20th Century-Fox accused the producers of Galactica of ripping off its multi-million dollar property, Star Wars. Since Lucas had planned a series of Luke Skywalker sequels, Fox officials were burning mad when Galactica producer Glen Larsen came out with a television spin-off. Lucas, busying himself with the script of the first sequel, failed to notice what was happening until it was too late. By then Larsen had also walked off with Star Wars special effects man John Dykstra. Universal had evidently changed its corporate mind. They had turned down Star Wars when Lucas presented it after his success at that studio with American Graffiti several years ago.

As of this writing the cross-fire is beginning to resemble a tempest in a teapot. To be sure, Battlestar Galactica bears more than a passing resemblance to Star Wars. But it is certainly not the first time-or the last-that Hollywood studios have cloned each other's movies. Several years ago, when United Artists had a smash hit with the James Bond series, Columbia responded with Matt Helm, 20th Century-Fox came out with Our Man Flint. Every studio seemed to have its own version of a hot box office genre-the superstud superspy. But this time there was a lawsuit. Fox didn't seem to think that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery. The studio tried to take the show off the air on the grounds of copyright infringement and unfair competition and trade practices. Meanwhile, the Battlestar sails on. The case will not be heard in court until next spring.

Is Galactica plagiarism? True, there are Cylon robots who resemble Galactic Storm Troopers and a robot dog named Muffet II, who is every bit as cute and lovable as R2-D2. The cynically macho Lieutenant Starbuck could be Han Solo, who vies for the hand of Princess Leia/Athena. And the spectacular laser-blasting spaceships and menagerie of interplanetary creatures could be from either film. "The law suit will probably be settled amicably," an inside source recently told Super Star Heroes. "It's Hollywood's way of saying "back off a little, you're starting to tread a little too closely on my turf>" The law suit is primarily a warning." In fact, when Newsweek ran a Galactica cover story and called the show "Son of Star Wars," Studio execs were delighted. "You couldn't buy that kind of publicity." a production staffer remarked.

Fortunately, Galactica possesses enough merits of its own to make the series work-even though it owes a debt of gratitude to its movie prototype. While cynics call it more of a rip-off than a gamble, Universal's roll of the dice has paid off. "We're a little panicky about keeping up the quality," producer Glen Larsen admits. "So far the ratings have been stratospheric." The most expensive series ever produced for television, Galactica has already cost a phenomenal $7 million for the first seven hours alone. The final budget will eventually dwarf Star Wars' $9 million production cost, but it remains to be seen if it will top that film's $250 million profit-which is still growing. Still, ABC-TV is selling ad time on Galactica for $300 per second If the series fulfills its promise and runs-and reruns-as long as Star Trek, fortunes will be made.

As Adama, Commander of the battlestar and leader of the human race's odyssey through space, Lorne Greene is the show's anchorman, an unlikely choice for the role. Greene is also its most experienced actor. "We got Greene," says a Universal spokesman, "because of his drawing power with the TV viewing public. They remember him from Bonanza, and even it they don't like science fiction they'll watch the show because he's in it." Greene, who left the Ponderosa five years ago and is now a Hollywood millionaire, describes his role as "the Moses of outer space. On Bonanza I gave orders, then went out to help do them. Here I only give orders, I don't get to help out with the fighting." Other than Greene, the only big names on the show belong to guest stars. "We signed mostly relative unknowns," explains a studio source, "because they didn't cost as much, even though they are very talented. We decided to give the initial budget to spectacular special effects."

Richard Hatch, late of TV's The Streets of San Francisco, rose to his present position through the soap opera ranks. Known for his temperament ("I'm impatient"), Hatch initially turned down the role of Captain Apollo because "the part seemed too limited and narrow." But Hatch even Star Wars "fell short of what it might have been, it had no sense of truth." Eventually the script was revised, more money was offered, and Hatch climbed aboard as the gung-ho Captain Apollo, Adama's son. Right now Hatch is worried about the effect this has on his private life. "Ladies don't really see me," he recently told a reporter. "They see an image of what they want me to be. It's gotten so I can't go anywhere without people pulling at me, wanting this, wanting that." Dirk Benedict, cast as Lieutenant Starbuck, the happ-go-lucky ace fighter pilot who has a taste for women and gambling, is more stoic about Galactica's success. "I may end up as the Bruce Springsteen of television," he says, referring o the superhyped rock star whose stardom never quite lived up to his publicity.

Plucked from near-obscurity on a Montana farm-where he had gone after a previous assault on Hollywood Dirk Benedict is the show's male sex symbol. "People don't understand Starbuck," Benedict claims. "He's not really a male chauvinist. He truly loves them but women always get the better of him, It's just like my personal life. Women are always just a step ahead of me.

For his part, Larsen has covered all bases in order to grab a primetime audience with plot devices and characters that are instantly recognizable. The inhuman Cylon Centurions can easily be interpreted as the Communist threat to the American way of life, and their dastardly sneak attack on the planets of mankind brings to mind the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Adama and company are presented as the original Ancient Astronauts on their way to bring wisdom and knowledge to the primitive tribes of earth. Their helmets will later be copied by Egyptian pharaohs-the same headdresses currently on display in the crowd-drawing King Tut exhibit-a neat double tie-in. From the contemporary computer "language" of Cobal comes the name of the planet Kobal, a temporary stop on the trip to earth. Nor has the Bible been overlooked as sours material, The first Show's council of twelve-representatives of the mankind's original planets-looked remarkably like a depiction of the Last Supper. The double-dealing bad angel Lucifer is also present, as are Mary Magdalene (Laurette Spang) and Judas Iscariot (John Colicos).

Like every successful science fiction entertainment, Galactica is amply imbued with what social critic Susana Sontag calls "the imagination of disaster." To producer Larsen, however, the show is "a giant toy. It's been great fun with the public's reception. While the battles and effects are very important, so are the people and story. Maybe we've done something new in science fiction."

[repcisg]

A lot of propaganda was produced during this period. Very big money was seen in after market toys and other products. Battlestar Galactica was seen as major competitor that would cut deeply into the anticipated profits and had to be stopped. NBC and Fox as major investors in Star Wars wanted Universal to shut down Battlestar Galactica.

One piece of false information stated in the article above is that Larson walked off with John Dykstra. By Dyksta's own words, the star Wars project was done and he was looking for another project. His new camera methods needed further development and Battlestar provided the funding for him to go forward. While filming Battlestar Galactica he remained under contract to do another Star Wars movie if one was planned. He left Universal to do The Empire Strikes Back.

Through out this period NBC and Fox put out tons of misinformation about Battlestar in order to kill it. You need to remember most writers who do reviews are dependent on the major studios for their income. Writers who routinely did work for NBC and Fox put out tons of biting reviews, taking every opportunity to trash Battlestar Galactica. We still see some of this today as “common knowledge.”

You only need to look at the intense visceral negativity from the counter publicity that has been put out about Battlestar to realize there is more there than just a writers dislike for the show. Bad shows die and disappear, but in the case of Battlestar, writers and reviewers have gone out of their way to do harm and have said things that were proven in court to be untrue.

[Boomer65]

From: www.battlestarfanclub.com. I think it puts everything into perspective, especially for lovers of the Moore remake intent on tearing apart the original in defense of his hack job.
Jerry – It’s funny, the passage that you posted remarked on the very similarities between the two shows that you so adamantly rejected earlier(Solo/Starbuck, Cylon/Stormtrooper, etc).

Is Galactica plagiarism? True, there are Cylon robots who resemble Galactic Storm Troopers and a robot dog named Muffet II, who is every bit as cute and lovable as R2-D2. The cynically macho Lieutenant Starbuck could be Han Solo, who vies for the hand of Princess Leia/Athena.

I don’t think anyone here is “tearing apart” TOS – only pointing out how rip-off accusations could be leveled at damn near anything. BTW, remarks like “lovers of the Moore remake” don’t come off as especially respectful of other’s opinions. This isn’t really worth getting all fired up about.

Bad shows die and disappear, but in the case of Battlestar, writers and reviewers have gone out of their way to do harm and have said things that were proven in court to be untrue.
Surely you’re not suggesting that all the bad reviews were motivated by something other than the writer’s/reviewer’s opinion? Look, I liked TOS, don’t get me wrong. But it had flaws just like any other show. I’m not going to deify it. And I’ve been equally critical of the mini.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

A lot of propaganda was produced during this period. Very big money was seen in after market toys and other products. Battlestar Galactica was seen as major competitor that would cut deeply into the anticipated profits and had to be stopped. NBC and Fox as major investors in Star Wars wanted Universal to shut down Battlestar Galactica.

Once again, where did you get this information that NBC was an investor in "Star Wars"?

JV

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Jerry – It’s funny, the passage that you posted remarked on the very similarities between the two shows that you so adamantly rejected earlier(Solo/Starbuck, Cylon/Stormtrooper, etc).

Boomer, it's funny, you ignore the sentance following your focus on "similarities" that I have already debated as common "archetypes" in all fiction:

"Fortunately, Galactica possesses enough merits of its own to make the series work-even though it owes a debt of gratitude to its movie prototype."

I do not look at Starbuck and think of Han Solo. They are two completely diffferent characters. Nor do I look at Cylons and think stormtroopers, aside from the surface issue that they both wear armor.

JV

[Antelope]

Richard Hatch, late of TV's The Streets of San Francisco, rose to his present position through the soap opera ranks. Known for his temperament ("I'm impatient"), Hatch initially turned down the role of Captain Apollo because "the part seemed too limited and narrow." But Hatch even Star Wars "fell short of what it might have been, it had no sense of truth." Eventually the script was revised, more money was offered, and Hatch climbed aboard as the gung-ho Captain Apollo, Adama's son. Right now Hatch is worried about the effect this has on his private life. "Ladies don't really see me," he recently told a reporter. "They see an image of what they want me to be. It's gotten so I can't go anywhere without people pulling at me, wanting this, wanting that." Dirk Benedict, cast as Lieutenant Starbuck, the happ-go-lucky ace fighter pilot who has a taste for women and gambling, is more stoic about Galactica's success. "I may end up as the Bruce Springsteen of television," he says, referring o the superhyped rock star whose stardom never quite lived up to his publicity.



A little off subject but Jerry picked a gem into seeing the mind set of Richard Hatch. Here is something from the early days of Galactica and what do we see:

Richard Hatch was known even then for his temperment. I think we all know what the "I'm impatient" quote implies. Hatch thought the role of Apollo was too limited and narrow and had a similar opinion of Staw Wars. It looks like he only came around because of money not the role.

At the time Hatch was a fairly successful proven actor coming off Streets of San Francisco and near the peak of his career. It appears at that time he was more concerned that parts were not good enough for him and that fans were a burden. Definitely someone with a big (inflated) ego.

What does this mean today:

If Richard Hatch is the same man, nothing Moore or anyone else (like Desanto) will offer will be good enough for him unless he is definitely the star!

If on the other hand Richard Hatch has a big ego that suffered from deflation (which his book series, continuation efforts, and convention appearances may imply---reaching for his past glory) he may be wanting very badly to be back on television in something more than a cameo but too proud to admit it.

Bottomline: Definitely no cameo but maybe (long shot) Commander Caine.

P.S. I like the Benedict quote. It shows that Benedict for one has had his feet and ego on the ground all along. I bet Dirk Benedict sleeps a lot better at night than Richard Hatch. I think it also explains why Dirk Benedict was on "The Lowdown" and Richard Hatch wasn't.

I would look for Benedict to be offered any major role on the Moore series before Hatch. It sounds like Benedict is easier to work with and has an open mind. In addition SCIFI did a movie with Benedict in the past when his career had pretty much ended. Benedict also did Larson a favor making Return of Starbuck. If whoever at SCIFI got Benedict the role in their SCIFI original movie a few years back maybe he might do them a favor, especially if he got a nice paycheck.

[shiningstar]

A lot of propaganda was produced during this period. Very big money was seen in after market toys and other products. Battlestar Galactica was seen as major competitor that would cut deeply into the anticipated profits and had to be stopped. NBC and Fox as major investors in Star Wars wanted Universal to shut down Battlestar Galactica.

One piece of false information stated in the article above is that Larson walked off with John Dykstra. By Dyksta's own words, the star Wars project was done and he was looking for another project. His new camera methods needed further development and Battlestar provided the funding for him to go forward. While filming Battlestar Galactica he remained under contract to do another Star Wars movie if one was planned. He left Universal to do The Empire Strikes Back.

Through out this period NBC and Fox put out tons of misinformation about Battlestar in order to kill it. You need to remember most writers who do reviews are dependent on the major studios for their income. Writers who routinely did work for NBC and Fox put out tons of biting reviews, taking every opportunity to trash Battlestar Galactica. We still see some of this today as “common knowledge.”

You only need to look at the intense visceral negativity from the counter publicity that has been put out about Battlestar to realize there is more there than just a writers dislike for the show. Bad shows die and disappear, but in the case of Battlestar, writers and reviewers have gone out of their way to do harm and have said things that were proven in court to be untrue.

Thank you so much for saying that. I think it's sad that people were and
still are so dishonest that they need to destroy a show with the CLASS of
BSG. I can't say I'm surprised though.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

A little off subject but Jerry picked a gem into seeing the mind set of Richard Hatch. Here is something from the early days of Galactica and what do we see:

Richard Hatch was known even then for his temperment. I think we all know what the "I'm impatient" quote implies. Hatch thought the role of Apollo was too limited and narrow and had a similar opinion of Staw Wars. It looks like he only came around because of money not the role.

At the time Hatch was a fairly successful proven actor coming off Streets of San Francisco and near the peak of his career. It appears at that time he was more concerned that parts were not good enough for him and that fans were a burden. Definitely someone with a big (inflated) ego.

What does this mean today:

If Richard Hatch is the same man, nothing Moore or anyone else (like Desanto) will offer will be good enough for him unless he is definitely the star!

If on the other hand Richard Hatch has a big ego that suffered from deflation (which his book series, continuation efforts, and convention appearances may imply---reaching for his past glory) he may be wanting very badly to be back on television in something more than a cameo but too proud to admit it.

Ummmm..... Antelope?

You couldn't be farther from the truth, and your choosing to mine little nuggets of information like this to suit your agenda says volumes.

"Fans a burden?" Now you are REALLY talking out of your ass. I know Richard personally, and he has done more to connect with fans than most actors I know. He coordinated Galacticon because NO ONE ELSE WAS DOING ANYTHING to celebrate the 25th anniversary. And you have the nerve to malign him in this way? "Impatient?" Not from my experience. He's a perfectionist, that's for certain. In my opinion that's the mark not only of an artist, but of a highly talented individual.

Richard's agenda has nothing to do with his own ego or demands. As one who knows the details and stories firsthand from having the benefit of being friends with him, his "agenda", if that's what anyone can call it, has been to serve the fans because he too, is a fan himself. When "Galactica" lay stagnant and dormant, he put up his own money to produce a trailer that would show the powers that be that "Galactica" still had life in it. In many ways, I don't think "Galactica" would ever have been bastardized the way it has been had it not been for his sincere efforts to get the franchise back up on it's feet, at which point other forces (Bonnie Hammer at Sci-Fi) decided to to remake it in a way that the majority of fans of the original show could not understand when it was so clear how it should have proceeded with the benefit of Richard's, Glen's and Tom DeSanto's vision. Richard is friends with Tom and was going to be a part of his CONTINUATION before the plug got pulled. Quit maligning Richard to serve your agenda. Those of us here who know him personally laugh at what you "think" you know or perceive. Quite frankly, I myself am getting sick and tired of people like you trashing him. Here's a newsflash: Richard INVITED Moore to Galacticon out of respect for him an artist, against the wishes of many hardcore fans who felt what Moore was doing was a slap in the face of what the original series was. Richard has also stated he'd be happy to entertain offers to appear on the new Galactica, but not in some lame "walk-on" part designed to lure in old fans with stunt casting. He'd like to play something that challenged him as an actor and was well written. I doubt he'll get that chance given what Moore's done with it, and personally given the lack of respect Moore has for fans of the original series and the contempt he seems to have for anyone from the original, he doesn't deserve for Richard or Dirk or anyone to grace his program with their talents.

Your bashing my friend is offensive. Quit it. All you are doing is showcasing your own inflated ego and quite frankly, I'm not impressed.

JV

[Boomer65]

Boomer, it's funny, you ignore the sentance following your focus on "similarities" that I have already debated as common "archetypes" in all fiction:
Not at all – I agreed with it in fact – I don’t respond to everything that I agree with. I didn’t find anything in the article that I disagreed with to be honest. Also, believe it or not, I never understood how BSG could be accused of ripping off SWs. Sure they had similarities but then SW had similarities to a score of familiar themes – e.g. the stormtroopers can easily be compared to the WWII German soldiers, with the imperial guard being the Nazi’s SS troops.

I do not look at Starbuck and think of Han Solo. They are two completely diffferent characters. Nor do I look at Cylons and think stormtroopers, aside from the surface issue that they both wear armor.
That’s great. But realize that others do see the similarities than they aren’t just “lovers of the mini” nor are they necessarily “tearing apart” TOS.


At the time Hatch was a fairly successful proven actor coming off Streets of San Francisco and near the peak of his career. It appears at that time he was more concerned that parts were not good enough for him and that fans were a burden. Definitely someone with a big (inflated) ego.
I can’t say whether he had a big ego or not but I definitely think he has talent to act. I thought he was great in Dead Man’s Curve. It’s a shame we haven’t seen him and Benedict on screen more often. Actually, I think he had the best shot of breaking out of the BSG stereotype of the two.

[Gemini1999]

One piece of false information stated in the article above is that Larson walked off with John Dykstra. By Dyksta's own words, the star Wars project was done and he was looking for another project. His new camera methods needed further development and Battlestar provided the funding for him to go forward. While filming Battlestar Galactica he remained under contract to do another Star Wars movie if one was planned. He left Universal to do The Empire Strikes Back.

Repisg -

Sorry, this is a glaring error.... John Dykstra did not do the special effects for The Empire Strikes Back. That job was given to Brian Johnson - who was also responsible for the wonderful SFX that were seen in the British Sci-Fi TV series Space:1999 and who also worked on SFX for the 60's Anderson TV series Thuderbirds under the name of Brian Johncock.

I just thought that you should know...

Respectfully,
Bryan
________
Penny Stock (http://pennystockpicks.net/)

[shiningstar]

Ummmm..... Antelope?

You couldn't be farther from the truth, and your choosing to mine little nuggets of information like this to suit your agenda says volumes.

"Fans a burden?" Now you are REALLY talking out of your ass. I know Richard personally, and he has done more to connect with fans than most actors I know. He coordinated Galacticon because NO ONE ELSE WAS DOING ANYTHING to celebrate the 25th anniversary. And you have the nerve to malign him in this way? "Impatient?" Not from my experience. He's a perfectionist, that's for certain. In my opinion that's the mark not only of an artist, but of a highly talented individual.

Richard's agenda has nothing to do with his own ego or demands. As one who knows the details and stories firsthand from having the benefit of being friends with him, his "agenda", if that's what anyone can call it, has been to serve the fans because he too, is a fan himself. When "Galactica" lay stagnant and dormant, he put up his own money to produce a trailer that would show the powers that be that "Galactica" still had life in it. In many ways, I don't think "Galactica" would ever have been bastardized the way it has been had it not been for his sincere efforts to get the franchise back up on it's feet, at which point other forces (Bonnie Hammer at Sci-Fi) decided to to remake it in a way that the majority of fans of the original show could not understand when it was so clear how it should have proceeded with the benefit of Richard's, Glen's and Tom DeSanto's vision. Richard is friends with Tom and was going to be a part of his CONTINUATION before the plug got pulled. Quit maligning Richard to serve your agenda. Those of us here who know him personally laugh at what you "think" you know or perceive. Quite frankly, I myself am getting sick and tired of people like you trashing him. Here's a newsflash: Richard INVITED Moore to Galacticon out of respect for him an artist, against the wishes of many hardcore fans who felt what Moore was doing was a slap in the face of what the original series was. Richard has also stated he'd be happy to entertain offers to appear on the new Galactica, but not in some lame "walk-on" part designed to lure in old fans with stunt casting. He'd like to play something that challenged him as an actor and was well written. I doubt he'll get that chance given what Moore's done with it, and personally given the lack of respect Moore has for fans of the original series and the contempt he seems to have for anyone from the original, he doesn't deserve for Richard or Dirk or anyone to grace his program with their talents.

Your bashing my friend is offensive. Quit it. All you are doing is showcasing your own inflated ego and quite frankly, I'm not impressed.

JV

JV thank you for your thoughts. I think you are right on the money with
your thoughts on Richard Hatch. How sad that some people who CLAIM
to be a fan of the original BSG ..........are so intent on sabatoging it with
these attacks.

[Boomer65]

Your bashing my friend is offensive. Quit it. All you are doing is showcasing your own inflated ego and quite frankly, I'm not impressed.
And your open hostility is equally as offensive and sad. It’s a TV show! Or are you that far gone?!?!

thank you for your thoughts. I think you are right on the money with
your thoughts on Richard Hatch. How sad that some people who CLAIM to be a fan of the original BSG ..........are so intent on sabatoging it with these attacks.
Oh and Thank You shiningstar – I’m so glad that you’ve established that the only “true” fans are those that say nothing negative about the series and its actors. That’s pathetic and sad. Oh, and thanks for leveling oblique criticisms by way of other’s posts - very creative. It’s a TV show!

It’s funny how when pro-mini people start to get angry with TOS folks that we get posts like, “Let’s respect other people’s opinions…” and “Hey now, none of that here…” But when TOS folks (and I know this isn’t everyone) post openly hostile messages like Jerry’s and indirect attacks like shiningstars it’s “<silence>”. What? Is it only okay to say that the mini is unmitigated trash but saying that TOS had major problems is tantamount to a crime punishable by burning (to some, not all)? What’s the double standard here?

I don’t normally make posts like this but your condescending, sarcastic, and downright juvenile behavior *over a TV show* is pathetic.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

And your open hostility is equally as offensive and sad. It’s a TV show! Or are you that far gone?!?!


Oh and Thank You shiningstar – I’m so glad that you’ve established that the only “true” fans are those that say nothing negative about the series and its actors. That’s pathetic and sad. Oh, and thanks for leveling oblique criticisms by way of other’s posts - very creative. It’s a TV show!

It’s funny how when pro-mini people start to get angry with TOS folks that we get posts like, “Let’s respect other people’s opinions…” and “Hey now, none of that here…” But when TOS folks (and I know this isn’t everyone) post openly hostile messages like Jerry’s and indirect attacks like shiningstars it’s “<silence>”. What? Is it only okay to say that the mini is unmitigated trash but saying that TOS had major problems is tantamount to a crime punishable by burning (to some, not all)? What’s the double standard here?

I don’t normally make posts like this but your condescending, sarcastic, and downright juvenile behavior *over a TV show* is pathetic.

Boomer-

Condescending and sarcastic? What have I said that is hostile? I'm not expressing an opinion in my post to Antelope about Richard. I'm setting him or her straight on something they know nothing about and defending a friend from a personal attack.

As far as the remake goes and everyone needing to point out the "major problems" the original had to defend what Moore and Sci-Fi have done as well as maligning one of the principal actors of the original is what I find juvenile and pathetic behavior.

JV

[Antelope]

Apollo played by Richard Hatch was my favorite character from TOS. I am sure the acting ability of Richard Hatch was no small part of that.

Frankly I was surprised by your original post I referenced. I do not know Richard Hatch personally. I had NO opinion or knowledge of him as a person until I started reading articles and interviews by or about him during the last few months.

After reading the interviews and articles on him I saw in my opinion a man angry at the current situation, something I believe can be said for a large percentage of all the Battlestar Galactica fan base. I also read of a man who is not happy with the Desanto continuation primarily because of its minimization of the TOS characters. I read of a successful author who focuses his efforts on his most successful series. I read of a man who goes to convention after scifi convention and is an organizing force in some. This person loves/needs the adoration of fans.

Your quote was like a bolt of lightning hitting me on him. Now it all made sense:

Richard Hatch was a reluctant Apollo. He really was not impressed with the Galactica theme or it appears scifi in general. He thought he was too good to play the role or the genre. He was offered a higher salary than he expected so he took the role anyway. He was already a star and woman loved him thanks to his soap opera roles and The Streets of San Fransisco. He was hounded by people telling him how great he was. Battlestar Galactica did better than his wildest dreams. He became a superstar. The fan adorment of him went to the stratosphere. He couldn't go to a restaurant without being bothered. He really wished to get his normal life back. Normal meant -- people do what I want, I get what I want, and I can still roam around at least halfway free.

Then suddenly Battlestar Galactica ended after just one season. At first he was probably happy. At first he was probably too good for the next roles he was offered. As a little time passed suddenly he wasn't offered any roles. He was a former star known to be abrasive. He started to live life like everyone else and realized...he didn't like it. He wanted to be "Apollo" again. So he devoted himself to writing some Battlestar books to get the concept and his name back in the public eye. He missed the fan adoration once it dissappeared so he started going to scifi conventions and became an organizer in things Galactica. Of course all these appearances helped to sell more of his books. To some extent he was able to recapture a little of what he lost.

He still hoped to return as Apollo to television. He even mortgaged his home to pay for the trailer in the hope of coming back. Finally someone was willing to make Battlestar again but they did not want him. That was like a kick in the gut. Richard Hatch sees his star's shine slowly disappearing. I am sure the quote on his site that used to say that he is not Richard Hatch from Survivor is killing him.

I hope this is not the man Richard Hatch is but it is the man I see in the articles. It is for this very reason I am very happy he appears to be letting go...finally...of Battlestar Galactica. The best thing he could do is make his War of Magellan. I hope it will make him into a successful producer of film. If it does he will finally be able to refocus his life in a direction that is positive for him. His continued reach for Battlestar will only leave him frustrated. I want nothing but the best for everyone I know. I think if he had a successful one episode appearance on the new series with a character that can't come back Richard Hatch may excise these issues from his life and help him to move on.

This is just my opinion so I don't want to argue it. I am sure everyone has their own. I know this is rough so I don't plan to respond to any arguments on this subject although I will be happy to read them. I was just surprised to read the original quote and it seemed to finally clear my thoughts on the man.

[shiningstar]

And your open hostility is equally as offensive and sad. It’s a TV show! Or are you that far gone?!?!


Oh and Thank You shiningstar – I’m so glad that you’ve established that the only “true” fans are those that say nothing negative about the series and its actors. That’s pathetic and sad. Oh, and thanks for leveling oblique criticisms by way of other’s posts - very creative. It’s a TV show!

It’s funny how when pro-mini people start to get angry with TOS folks that we get posts like, “Let’s respect other people’s opinions…” and “Hey now, none of that here…” But when TOS folks (and I know this isn’t everyone) post openly hostile messages like Jerry’s and indirect attacks like shiningstars it’s “<silence>”. What? Is it only okay to say that the mini is unmitigated trash but saying that TOS had major problems is tantamount to a crime punishable by burning (to some, not all)? What’s the double standard here?

I don’t normally make posts like this but your condescending, sarcastic, and downright juvenile behavior *over a TV show* is pathetic.

First of all I have ALWAY defended EVERYONE'S right to be here.
I agree with some posts and disagree with others and have Always
posted my opinion. If I happen to AGREE with someone else's post as
I DO with JV's I respond.

I do not like the mini. However I have NEVER said that the people who
like the MINI don't have the right to be here. I do however draw the line
when people LIE and attack the major stars of TOS as People have done
Here. JV who (unlike me) knows Hatch personally beat me to the punch
of defending him and YES I backed him UP and will continue to back up
anyone who is responding to the vicious attacks against the stars of
Tos.

WHile I do not like the mini ....... I have never said that the people
who do like the mini have no right to be here. As I have said in
NUMEROUS posts ............................I disagreed with their opinion
but said they had a right to it.

And for the record the LIES that you just posted about ME on this board
qualify as what you just SAID YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU 'don't' do.

[Micheleh]

This is just my opinion so I don't want to argue it. I am sure everyone has their own. I know this is rough so I don't plan to respond to any arguments on this subject although I will be happy to read them. I was just surprised to read the original quote and it seemed to finally clear my thoughts on the man.

Well, your opinion is solid, well thought out, and totally inaccuarte, btw. ;)

Really, though, if you are so interested in getting a take on the real man and his motives, go to a convention, walk up to him, and ask him. I have been to cons with him, and have never once seen him refuse to talk to anyone, even when he's exhausted or in a hurry.

What I'm saying is, see for yourself. Don't listen to the media or form an opinion based on articles- about anyone, really. I've posted a list of his appearances, so you can see when he'll be in your area. Until you meet the man, and can form your own opinion, all this declaration is insightful, and shows that you have a keen mind and can extrapolate a profile from scattered information, but from one who knows him personally, it's very off base. Give yourself the chance to find that out. (PS - I reccommend Dragoncon- it's a helluva party, oh boy!) :D

[warhammerdriver]

go to a convention,

I'd love to go, but the problem with conventions is that they never seem to be held where a plane ticket and hotel reservations (not to mention using vacation time) are not required to attend. I, and I think that the vast majority of fandom, have more important things to spend my hard earned money and use my limited vacation time on.

Please don't take this personally, Michelle (you said that you're a convention organizer somewhere on this board). Too big a country, too few convention sites.

[larocque6689]

People

Some of your comments are valid, including discussion of Glen Larson's TV career, and speculating on the personal costs or motivations of Richard Hatch's investment in Galactica or his acting career.

All the same, cut Richard some slack.

I don't know Richard Hatch. Although I supported Richard's efforts to bring back Galactica, I was never a full-blown Hatch supporter, and respectfully disagreed with those who wanted to base a BSG upon his novels (Commander Apollo doesn't hold a lot appeal to me). But I think the broad outline of Richard's vision is something shared by a great many fans of the original series. I've learned over the years to give the guy a lot of respect, and found his remark poignant in a recent interview that he was in love with "somebody else's woman" (BSG). Never develop a passion for something that is not yours because the loss will hurt you even harder when it slips away.

I really feel for him. I don't think anybody has raised the Galactican profile higher in the past decade than Richard Hatch, and he's received the reluctant acknowledgement from the other main players in the revival drama. In some respects, Richard has functioned as a "voice of conscience", reminding them of what Galactica was, is and could be. I sometimes wonder if Richard is forcing us to envision Galactica as someting better than what it originally was.

Hatch was not the only player in the BSG revival saga of the past ten years, but his was one of the most important because his was the most connected with the actual fans. I watched this relationship evolve over the years, from reluctant acceptance to that of generous support.

There were other players. I've always related to the more stoic and philosophical Dirk Benedict. For him it was a great blessing as well as another acting gig. One of Galactica's number one "fanboys" Tom Desanto very nearly pulled it off several years ago. Glen Larson still holds a few cards in the deck and he will be a key player if Desanto gets a second turn at bat or another new player emerges.

You'll find at ColonialFleets many people who have worked with, or have known, Richard Hatch, over the years. He has inspired loyalty in the friends he has made. I've read their comments, and it's impacted my own opinion of Richard Hatch - both the man, the actor and the Battlestar Galactica fan.

There's nothing which says that you have to agree with the "Richard Hatch" vision of Battlestar. But I think he deserves some respect all the same.

[monolith21]

I've never heard that Richard didn't like the show...where did you get that antelope? I've met the man a few times now and seen his presentations at Comic Con and he's quite passionate about BSG. He's also one of the most approachable people you'll ever meet. I mean it seems unlikely that the person you described would write books, fund his own trailer, and attend as many conventions as Richard Hatch does. I think you're way off base here and maybe even a bit out of line. I don't mean to come down on ya man, but Richard has done more for BSG than just about anyone.

Also, I think it's important throgh all of these "Star Wars" comparisons to point out that anything beyond the look of BSG being similar is kind of a moot point. Larson had the idea for BSG as far back as the 60's. Star Wars just cleared the way. Not to many networks were going for Sci Fi programming back then. I guess I'm missing the whole point here...

What is the point? Do similarities cheapen the original or somehow elevate the mini? Is this a "Why Battlestar Galactica sucks" conversation? It seems that people are really tearing each other down with little or no reason. We're fans aren't we? If not...why come here?

-Mark

[Dawg]

Exactly, Mark, we're all fans and that's why we're here.

Obviously, we all owe a debt of thanks to Richard Hatch - and I for one am extremely grateful for the posts by the people who know him personally to put our minds at ease about his motivations regarding BSG. Through his efforts (his trailer, his books, his personal appearances), he has been a big factor in keeping BSG alive, enough so that we have the mini, and a chance at a TOS-based movie.

:salute: Richard!

And :salute: to the folks here, too.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[LadyImmortal]

OK, let me give my opinion on Richard here.

I think he's fantastic. And no, I'm not a personal friend of his either.

I've seen Richard (counts mentally) at three different conventions now. Two Dragoncons and at Galaticon. He was nothing but nice, graceful (funny!) and kind. There were two times he was very nice to me, personally.

The first time I went to Dragoncon I had one hell of a day with flights. My flight leaving from Chicago got cancelled (without any notice to me, btw and no, there was no weather - at all). It took me six hours to get to Atlanta when it should have only taken two at the most.

I got to the convention about fifteen minutes before the Exhibition Hall closed - but I HAD to meet Richard. It took me all fifteen minutes to find his booth and he was VERY nice to me. He signed a book, some pictures, and got the organizers of the convention to give him an extra five minutes with me - simply because I'd had a very bad day already and he wanted to make it better. I went to ALL of his talks - this was before he thought of doing his own trailer, in fact (but the first book was out).

Everytime I went by his booth he was nice to me, especially. Considerate. Not at all what I consider to be 'starlike'. He was very much 'just a guy'.

I met him the next year too - this was the year of the 20th Reunion and he was only there for two days but those were two great days. (Oh at Dragoncon - I couldn't go to the 20th). I was at the mall across from the convention getting lunch with my friends (there were six of us) and we met him there. He talked to us - he remembered me from the year before. He was nice again, took pictures (teased me horribly, lol - and jokingly called me his 'Stalker').

Everytime I met him then he was gracious. I KNOW when he had his first panel that he was completely blown away by the fact that it was standing room only... you could see it on his face that he was shocked there were so many people there...

Everything he's done he's done for us. His fans. Sure he might get something out of in the end but he KNOWS he wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it weren't the fans and, as a voice at Dragoncon, we told him what we wanted - the show to come back with the original cast and themes of the show. (Remember, this was 1998).

Anyway, I consider Richard to be a truly awesome guy who puts the fans first. I always will.

--Rhonda

[shiningstar]

I've never heard that Richard didn't like the show...where did you get that antelope? I've met the man a few times now and seen his presentations at Comic Con and he's quite passionate about BSG. He's also one of the most approachable people you'll ever meet. I mean it seems unlikely that the person you described would write books, fund his own trailer, and attend as many conventions as Richard Hatch does. I think you're way off base here and maybe even a bit out of line. I don't mean to come down on ya man, but Richard has done more for BSG than just about anyone.

Also, I think it's important throgh all of these "Star Wars" comparisons to point out that anything beyond the look of BSG being similar is kind of a moot point. Larson had the idea for BSG as far back as the 60's. Star Wars just cleared the way. Not to many networks were going for Sci Fi programming back then. I guess I'm missing the whole point here...

What is the point? Do similarities cheapen the original or somehow elevate the mini? Is this a "Why Battlestar Galactica sucks" conversation? It seems that people are really tearing each other down with little or no reason. We're fans aren't we? If not...why come here?

-Mark

Mark welcome to the fleet. Thank you for posting your thoughts.
I really appreciate the people who've actually met Richard Hatch
posting here.

Again Mark ........thank you for posting. :thumbsup:

[shiningstar]

OK, let me give my opinion on Richard here.

I think he's fantastic. And no, I'm not a personal friend of his either.

I've seen Richard (counts mentally) at three different conventions now. Two Dragoncons and at Galaticon. He was nothing but nice, graceful (funny!) and kind. There were two times he was very nice to me, personally.

The first time I went to Dragoncon I had one hell of a day with flights. My flight leaving from Chicago got cancelled (without any notice to me, btw and no, there was no weather - at all). It took me six hours to get to Atlanta when it should have only taken two at the most.

I got to the convention about fifteen minutes before the Exhibition Hall closed - but I HAD to meet Richard. It took me all fifteen minutes to find his booth and he was VERY nice to me. He signed a book, some pictures, and got the organizers of the convention to give him an extra five minutes with me - simply because I'd had a very bad day already and he wanted to make it better. I went to ALL of his talks - this was before he thought of doing his own trailer, in fact (but the first book was out).

Everytime I went by his booth he was nice to me, especially. Considerate. Not at all what I consider to be 'starlike'. He was very much 'just a guy'.

I met him the next year too - this was the year of the 20th Reunion and he was only there for two days but those were two great days. (Oh at Dragoncon - I couldn't go to the 20th). I was at the mall across from the convention getting lunch with my friends (there were six of us) and we met him there. He talked to us - he remembered me from the year before. He was nice again, took pictures (teased me horribly, lol - and jokingly called me his 'Stalker').

Everytime I met him then he was gracious. I KNOW when he had his first panel that he was completely blown away by the fact that it was standing room only... you could see it on his face that he was shocked there were so many people there...

Everything he's done he's done for us. His fans. Sure he might get something out of in the end but he KNOWS he wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it weren't the fans and, as a voice at Dragoncon, we told him what we wanted - the show to come back with the original cast and themes of the show. (Remember, this was 1998).

Anyway, I consider Richard to be a truly awesome guy who puts the fans first. I always will.

--Rhonda

Rhonda thankyou so much for sharing your experiences on meeting Richard.
It sounds like you had a fantastic time at the convention! And I think you're
right that EVERYTHING he has done .......has been done for US. I hope one
day I'll be able to go to one of those conventions. It truelly sounds like a
very 'positive' experience for anyone who can go. :thumbsup:

[LadyImmortal]

It was my pleasure, SS...

=)

--Rhonda

[Antelope]

Just so people don't take my remarks out of contexts:

On the question of where did I get the idea Richard Hatch didn't like Battlestar Galactica.
Please look at my original reply where I quoted the article Jerry posted. It says Richard Hatch originally did not want to do either Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica. He did not think highly of either theme. It goes on to state that after certain things were changed and Richard Hatch was offered more money he finally came on board Battlestar Galactica.

I do believe Richard Hatch is a good person and has done a lot for the franchise and the fans other than simply being the actor that played "Apollo". I do distinguish between the man and the character.

What I may not have said well is that the end of Battlestar Galactica seems to be a transforming effect in Richard Hatch's life. Prior to Battlestar Galactica he did not appreciate the scifi vision of Larson or Lucas. His star was so bright during Galactica that fans had become a burden instead of something he appreciated. At some point after Battlestar ended Hatch appears to have realized that the fans were important. They cared about him and what he did. At some point he felt the need to connect with them. Whether this was out of thanks or a longing for what he once had who knows. The botom line is that he was like the proverbial rich kid who loses everything. The basic personality may be the same (articles then and now still mention his harsh tongue!) but his values and understanding of life were changed. Richard Hatch today seems to be a much better person than the Richard Hatch described in 1979.

I only wish that he can focus himself on something he can effect, like his Magellan War show. He will always have the friendship of the Battlestar fans. He doesn't need to do anything more to keep that.

I think if I met the Richard Hatch many of you describe today at a convention he would probably be very friendly, shake my hand, and give me an autograph if I asked. I think if I met Richard Hatch in 1979 as descibed he probably was forced by the studio to go to the event and would be annoyed I bothered him.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Just so people don't take my remarks out of contexts:

On the question of where did I get the idea Richard Hatch didn't like Battlestar Galactica.
Please look at my original reply where I quoted the article Jerry posted. It says Richard Hatch originally did not want to do either Star Wars or Battlestar Galactica. He did not think highly of either theme. It goes on to state that after certain things were changed and Richard Hatch was offered more money he finally came on board Battlestar Galactica.

I don't know the details of how that author got all his information for that article, but what you are hanging on to as some sort of vindication for your theory is incorrect. Hatch didn't do "Galactica" for the money. Hatch originally avoided "Galactica" because he was an idealistic young actor who was selective of the roles he wanted to play, and he was concerned that "Galactica" might be nothing more than a "Star Wars" knock off when he was originally approached as he was a big fan OF "Star Wars" (and a HUGE science fiction fan as well). When he read the script and saw the pre-production art by Ralph McQuarrie, and spoke with Glen Larson at great length regarding the themes (most notably, of the sense of family prevelent in the script between Adama, Apollo and Athena and the extended family of Serina and Boxey) he saw much of the heart and soul behind the story and decided to sign on. His caution had everything to do with making sure he was going to be doing something he would be proud of, which to this day, he is. How do I know? I've had the opportunity to have many discussions with Richard about the original series and his involvement and he never speaks of it with anything less than the joy of someone who loved what he did. Which is why he's been so fiercely protective of the legacy he, Glen Larson, Dirk Benedict, and the rest of the cast and crew helped create.

What I may not have said well is that the end of Battlestar Galactica seems to be a transforming effect in Richard Hatch's life. Prior to Battlestar Galactica he did not appreciate the scifi vision of Larson or Lucas. His star was so bright during Galactica that fans had become a burden instead of something he appreciated. At some point after Battlestar ended Hatch appears to have realized that the fans were important. They cared about him and what he did. At some point he felt the need to connect with them. Whether this was out of thanks or a longing for what he once had who knows. The botom line is that he was like the proverbial rich kid who loses everything. The basic personality may be the same (articles then and now still mention his harsh tongue!) but his values and understanding of life were changed. Richard Hatch today seems to be a much better person than the Richard Hatch described in 1979.

I think if I met the Richard Hatch many of you describe today at a convention he would probably be very friendly, shake my hand, and give me an autograph if I asked. I think if I met Richard Hatch in 1979 as descibed he probably was forced by the studio to go to the event and would be annoyed I bothered him.

Wrong again on ALL counts. It's really a shame that you feel the need to try and prove your point having no access to any of the true facts and continue to try and advance some fantasy theory about who Richard is. A lot of us here have had the chance to meet, work, and be friends with Richard. What you "claim" is true about Richard in 1979 isn't. Plain and simple. How do I know? Not from an article with some information in it that may or may not have been fact checked that you are grasping on to as a way to assert your belief.

I produced the retrospective documentary that was shown at Galacticon 2003, and had the opportunity to interview Glen Larson, Laurette Spang, and Anne Lockhart. The Richard they described from working with him was pretty consistant across the board. A great actor to work with, extremely intense and deep on one hand and on the other, a man with the heart and playfullness of a child who has been both up and down throughout his career but always positive and embracing of everyone who he's crossed paths with.

I'm not going to continue to defend him here anymore, because quite franky, he doesn't need me to because people who've met him know what he is like. I just wish people like you who don't know the facts would quit trying to advance a theory to save face instead of just bowing out and admitting you don't know what you are talking about.

JV

[BST]

I only wish that he can focus himself on something he can effect, like his Magellan War show. He will always have the friendship of the Battlestar fans. He doesn't need to do anything more to keep that.

I could respond to this but, I won't. I'll just leave it here and look at it every now and then.

[larocque6689]

http://members.tripod.com/john_larocque/bsg.html

My meeting with Richard Hatch at Toronto Trek in 1998 is linked here:
http://members.tripod.com/john_larocque/tortrek.html

[Antelope]

I don't know the details of how that author got all his information for that article, but what you are hanging on to as some sort of vindication for your theory is incorrect. Hatch didn't do "Galactica" for the money. Hatch originally avoided "Galactica" because he was an idealistic young actor who was selective of the roles he wanted to play.


Wrong again on ALL counts. It's really a shame that you feel the need to try and prove your point having no access to any of the true facts and continue to try and advance some fantasy theory about who Richard is. A lot of us here have had the chance to meet, work, and be friends with Richard. What you "claim" is true about Richard in 1979 isn't. Plain and simple. How do I know? Not from an article with some information in it that may or may not have been fact checked that you are grasping on to as a way to assert your belief.

I produced the retrospective documentary that was shown at Galacticon 2003, and had the opportunity to interview Glen Larson, Laurette Spang, and Anne Lockhart. The Richard they described from working with him was pretty consistant across the board. A great actor to work with, extremely intense and deep on one hand and on the other, a man with the heart and playfullness of a child who has been both up and down throughout his career but always positive and embracing of everyone who he's crossed paths with.


JV

I am sure you are a nice guy. I have no axe to grind against anyone.

I read the articles that YOU and people who also say they are familiar with Richard Hatch post. I say again I do not know him personally. YOU are the one that posted the article that stated that Richard Hatch was not thrilled with the Galcatica concept prior to coming on board. YOU are the one that posted the article that implied Richard took the role because of an offer of extra money. YOU are the one that posted the article that said Richard was known for having an "impatient" personality in 1979. YOU are the one that posted an article that said Richard viewed fans as a burden in 1979 and that Dirk Benedict advised him to see things better.

I read the article YOU posted. Prior to that time I had read many articles about Richard Hatch today but saw nothing that referenced Richard Hatch then. YOUR posted article that referenced Richard Hatch then showed a person very different from the Richard Hatch we know today (other than many more current references to his "impatient and sharp tongued personality").

Did you know Richard Hatch prior to 1979? Have you spoken to anyone who knew him in the business before Galactica that doesn't have to deal with him at Galactica conventions etc.? (Like maybe people that worked with him in "The Streets of San Francisco).

The bottomline is that YOUR posting is the one that gave me the impression I currently have of Richard Hatch prior to 1979. If the article does not represent what Richard Hatch is like I would suggest that in the future you review what your posting and delete such things if you do not believe they are true. As a person who claims to be a friend of Richard Hatch and obviously has a wealth of Battlestar Galactica data available I assumed the article YOU posted was representative of YOUR friend.

I am sorry if I have the wrong impression of your friend. As I read more articles on him over time I may change my mind. As a person who does not know him personally and will never know him personally prior to 1979 I have only the words of you and the others that post to build my impression on.

It is also not a crime for a person to grow in life. YOUR posted article implied to me that Richard Hatch has faced his own internal demons and is today a much better PERSON than he was prior to his experience with Battlestar Galactica. I want him and everyone for that matter to be happy. I see much of his effort to restart Galactica in the last few years as a personal frustration. I wish him the best and hope his War of Magellan project is a success.

[shiningstar]

http://members.tripod.com/john_larocque/bsg.html

My meeting with Richard Hatch at Toronto Trek in 1998 is linked here:
http://members.tripod.com/john_larocque/tortrek.html

Thank you for posting the links Larocque! I really loved the
review you did about meeting Richard Hatch :thumbsup:

[Jerry Vasilatos]

I am sure you are a nice guy. I have no axe to grind against anyone.

I read the articles that YOU and people who also say they are familiar with Richard Hatch post. I say again I do not know him personally. YOU are the one that posted the article that stated that Richard Hatch was not thrilled with the Galcatica concept prior to coming on board. YOU are the one that posted the article that implied Richard took the role because of an offer of extra money. YOU are the one that posted the article that said Richard was known for having an "impatient" personality in 1979. YOU are the one that posted an article that said Richard viewed fans as a burden in 1979 and that Dirk Benedict advised him to see things better.

I read the article YOU posted. Prior to that time I had read many articles about Richard Hatch today but saw nothing that referenced Richard Hatch then. YOUR posted article that referenced Richard Hatch then showed a person very different from the Richard Hatch we know today (other than many more current references to his "impatient and sharp tongued personality").

Did you know Richard Hatch prior to 1979? Have you spoken to anyone who knew him in the business before Galactica that doesn't have to deal with him at Galactica conventions etc.? (Like maybe people that worked with him in "The Streets of San Francisco)
.
The bottomline is that YOUR posting is the one that gave me the impression I currently have of Richard Hatch prior to 1979. If the article does not represent what Richard Hatch is like I would suggest that in the future you review what your posting and delete such things if you do not believe they are true. As a person who claims to be a friend of Richard Hatch and obviously has a wealth of Battlestar Galactica data available I assumed the article YOU posted was representative of YOUR friend.

I am sorry if I have the wrong impression of your friend. As I read more articles on him over time I may change my mind. As a person who does not know him personally and will never know him personally prior to 1979 I have only the words of you and the others that post to build my impression on.

It is also not a crime for a person to grow in life. YOUR posted article implied to me that Richard Hatch has faced his own internal demons and is today a much better PERSON than he was prior to his experience with Battlestar Galactica. I want him and everyone for that matter to be happy. I see much of his effort to restart Galactica in the last few years as a personal frustration. I wish him the best and hope his War of Magellan project is a success.

For everyone to see. This is the paragraph verbatim from the article I posted a few days back. This is what Antelope bases his entire perception on.

"Richard Hatch, late of TV's The Streets of San Francisco, rose to his present position through the soap opera ranks. Known for his temperament ("I'm impatient"), Hatch initially turned down the role of Captain Apollo because "the part seemed too limited and narrow." But Hatch even Star Wars "fell short of what it might have been, it had no sense of truth." Eventually the script was revised, more money was offered, and Hatch climbed aboard as the gung-ho Captain Apollo, Adama's son. Right now Hatch is worried about the effect this has on his private life. "Ladies don't really see me," he recently told a reporter. "They see an image of what they want me to be. It's gotten so I can't go anywhere without people pulling at me, wanting this, wanting that." Dirk Benedict, cast as Lieutenant Starbuck, the happ-go-lucky ace fighter pilot who has a taste for women and gambling, is more stoic about Galactica's success. "I may end up as the Bruce Springsteen of television," he says, referring o the superhyped rock star whose stardom never quite lived up to his publicity.

I think it's very interesting how a few days later, Antelope manufactures other facts he claims are in this article, that are not there:

Antelope-"YOU are the one that posted an article that said Richard viewed fans as a burden in 1979 and that Dirk Benedict advised him to see things better."

What in the hell are you talking about? I posted no such statement and it does not exist in that article or in ANYTHING I have posted. Get your FACTS straight mister.

Antelope-"Did you know Richard Hatch prior to 1979? Have you spoken to anyone who knew him in the business before Galactica that doesn't have to deal with him at Galactica conventions etc.? (Like maybe people that worked with him in "The Streets of San Francisco)"

Glen Larson doesn't have to deal with Richard at conventions and I have heard his opinions on Richard at that time and they were nothing short of sterling. Everyone I have spoken to, and every fan here who knows Richard has testified to his character.

Antelope-"The bottomline is that YOUR posting is the one that gave me the impression I currently have of Richard Hatch prior to 1979. If the article does not represent what Richard Hatch is like I would suggest that in the future you review what your posting and delete such things if you do not believe they are true. As a person who claims to be a friend of Richard Hatch and obviously has a wealth of Battlestar Galactica data available I assumed the article YOU posted was representative of YOUR friend."

The article I posted had to do with the discussion regarding "Galactica" itself, not Richard Hatch. You took that paragraph and turned it into a crusade. You do have an axe to grind, and it is very obvious.

It's also obvious YOU are a complete idiot.

I am a nice guy. Except when it comes to dealing with fools in over their heads.

JV

[BST]

Well folks, it looks like it's time to take a little breather.

Please keep in mind that the debate needs to keep with the ISSUE. Disparaging remarks toward another member aren't very nice AND aren't going to be tolerated.


Take a deep breath. Too much carbon dioxide is not a good thing. :D


BST