Research = Success

[Count Iblis]

It takes a lot of research and consideration to really do a "Re-make" of anything original, if your "Honest" desire is to indeed "Remake" it.

I understand how difficult and time consuming it can be to undertake such a project in Hollywood. I also understand how difficult it can be to sell a re-make idea to the industry as a whole.

My question is this: How important do you think it is to "Research" a previous show in "Detail" before undertaking a serious "Remake" effort? What areas of "Research" are the most important to consider and possibly improve/change etc? Finally.....Do you think RM and his associates did their homework as best at it should/could have been done?

What would you have done differently? What would you have left the same as TOS? Why? I would very much like to read and consider other and all views on this.

Thanks everyone: :)

[ViperTech]

As a writer of plays for children's theatre, I research every fairy tale I make into a script.
I think significant research is essential. For BG, that would include talking with past
BG-TOS writers, hopefully, Glen himself. I'd try and find any BG "Bible" that might have existed back in the '70's for the writers. I might even talk with Richard and Dirk about their approaches to their characters. But many writers have big egos and want to do their own thing. I'm not sure what Moore did when he first approached this whole new thing.

Slapping a 'Re-imagining' label on a project is interesting. It could mean that it's exactly that...a reimagining, or it could be a lazy excuse for not doing enough research. To me, it doesn't look like Moore and his people did enough research. Actually, it doesn't look like they really intended to. Who knows.

[Soulmage]

That's the difference between a "remake" and a reimagining."

A remake is just that - basically redoing the original movie just using a new cast, updated special effects, and minor plot changes as necessary.

A "reimagining" is radically different, as we saw. In a reimagining, you're just lifting core concepts - cylons, humanity destroyed, rag-tag fleet - and doing another movie based on those concepts.

In the first one, research is essential. In the second, not so much.

[Darth Marley]

The rewriting of faerie tales for modern children's theatre is an interesting bit.

If I were a Grimm's purist, I would be aghast at the dumbing down, and leaving out the violence and gore, and references to magical themes that have plagued the "retelling" of children's stories.

I like Soulmage's point about "reimagining" and recently posted elsewhere that just having the Cylon surprise attack and the "rag-tag fleet" is enough for me to think of the new show as BSG.

I hope that 100 years from now there are enough different versions and retellings for the argument over which is "best" or best liked by any one in particular will have more than TOS and RM's BSG to argue about.

[Antelope]

Darth Marley:
You need to post that cylon.org address here that you pointed me to in reference to G80 it had a lot of things germaine to this discussion.

It's funny to read this thread because I recently read the thread I referenced above at cylon.org that goes into great depth on many of the issues with BSG1980. What's funny is that if you read the words of those involved in BSG1980 what Glen Larson really wanted to do seems pretty much like what Moore is doing. Larsen wanted to change the time slot of BSG1980 and change Galactica's plot to something more for a mature audience. To a large extent it seems Larson and crew blame the failure of Battlestar Galactica (BSG1980) on the fact that it was forced to continue to be targeted at kids and not allowed to develope.

As I say in other places, read Moore's interviews. Look at ALL of Galactica. Don't get hung up on names but look at characters and plot lines. It looks to me that Moore (although he is very coy on the subject) exhaustively reviewed all past Galactica episodes (TOS and BSG1980). He appears to have read and taken the advice of Glen Larson on why Galactica failed and where it should have went.

Moore has done his research and he is giving us what he believes he learned. I know some don't want to hear it but it looks like Moore is doing what Glen Larson wished he could do back in 1980!

[Dawg]

Sorry, antelope. Moore didn't research Battlestar Galactica. He watched the theatrical release of "Saga", then wrote the script.

He said so.

Now that they have said it's going to series, he's reviewing TOS episodes to see if elements can be brought over to his show.

He said so.

So please don't ascribe to him this noble purpose, this infallibility of extensive research.

Didn't happen.

He said so.

:salute:

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Antelope]

Dawg: You're like the refined city slicker falling for the words of the hayseed. The hayseed pretends to be a simple country guy and that's how he sneaks past you. Read those Moore interviews and assume he's smart instead of an idiot. In one interview I read he was asked about something that pertained to TOS and his response was and I paraphrase, "I need to look at those episodes AGAIN". Believe me he has seen them all.

I don't believe for one minute he wrote the mini, waited for it to be successful, and then decided to look at TOS for story ideas. The mini is a complex story with many subplots. He knows what he wants to do with the series. He has already foreshadowed the series episodes and it will become clear when they are released.

It is not a coincidence that the characters (not names) and relationships reflect TOS at the end of season 1 more than the characters at the end of Saga of A Star World. In order to do this you would have to have a knowledge of the character change and development of TOS. You can't get this unless you watched all TOS episodes.

Moore says he would like to do "Living Legend" and would like to include elements of the ships of light. He refers to them as the "better episodes". How would he know what was better unless he has seen them.

Human cylons are straight out of BSG1980 something most fans don't even realize. Yet Moore knows.

I read a recent thread on cylon.org talking about all the issues with BSG1980. It went on to describe what Larson wishes he could have done. It reads like a description of Moore's mini.

No one is going to get the project Moore did unless he made a pitch to the money people. Believe me anyone in his shoes would be grilled and had to be prepared for any questions. Moore may have you fooled but he doesn't have me fooled. Can you imagine going into a meeting about a potential Battlestar Galactica remake and telling the executives you actually haven't seen the original. That is just patently ridiculous.

He knows exactly what TOS was. He knows exactly what he did. He knows exactly where he is going. Whether we like it or not is another story.

[Boomer65]

My question is this: How important do you think it is to "Research" a previous show in "Detail" before undertaking a serious "Remake" effort? What areas of "Research" are the most important to consider and possibly improve/change etc? Finally.....Do you think RM and his associates did their homework as best at it should/could have been done?

What would you have done differently? What would you have left the same as TOS? Why? I would very much like to read and consider other and all views on this.
1. I think it is very important to research the original series. I wouldn’t be surprised if the writers/directors/et al of Spiderman, Batman, Superman, Hulk, et al read each and ever comic book of said series before production began.
2. I think the people should be researched most thoroughly. Costumes, episodes, etc might not work from one generation to the next – people seem to be fairly constant.
3. I think RM & Co did as little/much research as they thought necessary. Hey, they go all the names right.
4. What would I have done differently? I hate the corded phones. I hate the rampant sex. Bullets? Nukes? Bad! Humanoid Cylons that can only be differentiated in an autopsy? Baaaaaad! Boomer a Cylon? Doooh!
5. Personally, I don’t think that a lot of the cheesiness of TOS would work for today’s audiences. I would have left the lasers in for sure.

In one interview I read he was asked about something that pertained to TOS and his response was and I paraphrase, "I need to look at those episodes AGAIN". Believe me he has seen them all.

I don't believe for one minute he wrote the mini, waited for it to be successful, and then decided to look at TOS for story ideas.
I agree with antelope here Dawg. I think that you might be letting your hatred for Moore filter anything positive he says. Do you really believe that he only saw the theatrical release of BSG before writing the mini? Try stepping back for a minute and think about what you’re saying – he never say an episode? I’m quite willing to believe that he didn’t review each and every episode 50 times but come on! He never watched any of the episodes? Please!

[BST]

antelope,

Please refer to the following snippet from the Cylon Alliance-Ron Moore interview, from May, 2003:

CA 17. We understand that you only watched an edited version of the BSG pilot on DVD. By comparison, Tom DeSanto watched the entire series and explored the background, including the speculative theories of Eric Von Daniken, Zacharia Sitchen, etc. On the surface, there seems to a be a serious mismatch of effort to recognize the merits of the original. Is this a misconception or were you intent on heading in a new direction with this property all along?

I was writing a new pilot, so it made sense for me to watch the original pilot. Tom DeSanto was working on a continuation so it was important that he be fluent in the entire series. I was familiar with the original series and felt comfortable that I knew enough about it to do the work I was doing. I was also familiar enough with "Chariots of the Gods" and other influences present in the original to incorporate the basics into the script. The fundamental notion on which the original series was grounded -- "Life here, began out there..." -- the idea that Earth is a lost 13th colony or tribe of a parent civilization springing from another planet (Kobol, in the final draft) is still present in the mini.

http://www.cylon.org/bsg/bsg03QA-RDM01.html


My understanding of Moore's response is that he concentrated on the pilot episode, in writing the screenplay for the mini-series. Since he was re-defining the show, it was not necessary to familiarize himself with each and every episode. He was, in effect, starting with a clean slate, creating his own BG universe.


Thus, from Moore's own words, comes our understanding of his preparation for producing the mini-series. From this point forward, the book is open and the pages are blank, waiting for him to fill them with 'his story'.

BST

[shiningstar]

Sorry, antelope. Moore didn't research Battlestar Galactica. He watched the theatrical release of "Saga", then wrote the script.

He said so.

Now that they have said it's going to series, he's reviewing TOS episodes to see if elements can be brought over to his show.

He said so.

So please don't ascribe to him this noble purpose, this infallibility of extensive research.

Didn't happen.

He said so.

:salute:

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

Thank you for posting Dawg.

You hit the nail on the head. :salute:

[Antelope]

antelope,


Thus, from Moore's own words, comes our understanding of his preparation for producing the mini-series. From this point forward, the book is open and the pages are blank, waiting for him to fill them with 'his story'.

BST

You see "familiar" and say he is unfamiliar.

I see "familiar" and see he is familiar.

That he doesn't do what you want does not mean he is not familiar with all of TOS, BSG1980, and the continuation efforts.

He is secretive about what his plot is. It is a mystery show to some extend. His coyness is based on secrecy not unfamiliarity.

[Dawg]

OK.

1. I don't hate Ron Moore. I think he's done superlative work in the past, primarily during his tenure at Star Trek. I disagree with his treatment of BSG, but I don't hate the man. I'll even go so far as to say I'd sit down with him over a couple of beers to talk writing and Hollywood (as long as he's buying).

2. Early on, RDM said he dimly recalled the original series, watched all or part of the theatrical cut of Saga, then sat down and wrote the script. This is what he said. I take him at his word, rather than embellishing his meaning. Whether or not he watched more during preproduction of the mini is unknown (he certainly is now). His looking at the episodes "again" could as easily refer to his seeing them the first time years ago. Edit: Thanks, BST - you made that clearer than I did.

3. Character placement or development is immaterial, so I'm not going to talk about it any more. It doesn't matter if Lee and Kara are at the same point in thier relationship at the end of the mini that Apollo and Sheba were at the end of Hand of God; we're talking about two different couples in two different universes who went through different traumas to bring them to where they are. It's comparing apples to oranges. Period.

4. No, Boomer, they did not get the names right. Adama's name is not William, his son is not Lee. These are the names of characters in RDM's production, not TOS.

5. Ron Moore had an idea for a project he was able to superimpose over the BSG nameplate. Antelope, you proved that in your excellent analysis about In Harms Way. He didn't have to do research on BSG because he had no intention of using anything from TOS except two instantly recognizable items: the Viper and the name. The themes of escaping holocaust and travel to a 'promised land' has been around for thousands of years; it was Larson and company who added unique and compelling backstory and mythos that made it BSG - the same components RDM ignored.

Gentlemen, these are the facts as I see them; I realize full well that you see more BSG in the RDM universe than I do. More power to you, and I truly hope that, if the series really does go into production and air, that you enjoy it. In fact, even I may feel compelled to watch at some point, but don't hold your breath.

That's all. Thanks for letting me rant. :salute:

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[shiningstar]

OK.

1. I don't hate Ron Moore. I think he's done superlative work in the past, primarily during his tenure at Star Trek. I disagree with his treatment of BSG, but I don't hate the man. I'll even go so far as to say I'd sit down with him over a couple of beers to talk writing and Hollywood (as long as he's buying).

2. Early on, RDM said he dimly recalled the original series, watched all or part of the theatrical cut of Saga, then sat down and wrote the script. This is what he said. I take him at his word, rather than embellishing his meaning. Whether or not he watched more during preproduction of the mini is unknown (he certainly is now). His looking at the episodes "again" could as easily refer to his seeing them the first time years ago. Edit: Thanks, BST - you made that clearer than I did.

3. Character placement or development is immaterial, so I'm not going to talk about it any more. It doesn't matter if Lee and Kara are at the same point in thier relationship at the end of the mini that Apollo and Sheba were at the end of Hand of God; we're talking about two different couples in two different universes who went through different traumas to bring them to where they are. It's comparing apples to oranges. Period.

4. No, Boomer, they did not get the names right. Adama's name is not William, his son is not Lee. These are the names of characters in RDM's production, not TOS.

5. Ron Moore had an idea for a project he was able to superimpose over the BSG nameplate. Antelope, you proved that in your excellent analysis about In Harms Way. He didn't have to do research on BSG because he had no intention of using anything from TOS except two instantly recognizable items: the Viper and the name. The themes of escaping holocaust and travel to a 'promised land' has been around for thousands of years; it was Larson and company who added unique and compelling backstory and mythos that made it BSG - the same components RDM ignored.

Gentlemen, these are the facts as I see them; I realize full well that you see more BSG in the RDM universe than I do. More power to you, and I truly hope that, if the series really does go into production and air, that you enjoy it. In fact, even I may feel compelled to watch at some point, but don't hold your breath.

That's all. Thanks for letting me rant. :salute:

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

Thank you for posting Dawg.
You said it RIGHT the first time ...........and you said it RIGHT just now too :star:

[Boomer65]

Okay, maybe I had you wrong Dawg. I thought you were trying to imply that RM had not seen an episode of TOS. As BST’s post pointed out he clearly has. Now when and how often is unknown at this point. RM apparently was “comfortable” with his knowledge of the series but I infer from his statement that he was in no way shape or form an expert on TOS.

4. No, Boomer, they did not get the names right. Adama's name is not William, his son is not Lee. These are the names of characters in RDM's production, not TOS.
He got them right enough for me. I only knew them as Adama, Starbuck, Boomer, et al.

He didn't have to do research on BSG because he had no intention of using anything from TOS except two instantly recognizable items: the Viper and the name.
To one person, watching the end of a single episode is research. To another watching the episode 50 times and playing it while you sleep is research. Research is subjective. However, I’ll bet that in a war of trivia most people on this board (myself NOT included) would beat him on subject of TOS. But as we’ve established – he wasn’t making this in the form of TOS.

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by Dawg
4. No, Boomer, they did not get the names right. Adama's name is not William, his son is not Lee. These are the names of characters in RDM's production, not TOS.

He got them right enough for me. I only knew them as Adama, Starbuck, Boomer, et al.

Boomer, may I ask how old you are? And, how much of TOS have you seen?

Those were the character's names. Lorne Green played Adama, Dirk Benedict played Starbuck, Herb Jefferson Jr. played Boomer, etc. There was no "Lee Adama". There was no "Shannon Valeri" (or the male equivalent). These are the names of the characters in the RDM production.

Your last sentence is dead-on right, though: He wasn't making this in the form of TOS.

[warhammerdriver]

I think that research is critical to success. It doesn't matter what you're doing--remaking a TV show or changing the engine in a car, if you don't research it, you simply aren't going to do it right.

Right is a subjective word. If the engine runs when you're done, you did it right. If not, you did it wrong. How do you judge right and wrong when you're talking about remaking a TV show? Good/poor ratings? Make/lose money? Fans of TOS (generically applied here) happy/unhappy?

[Boomer65]

Boomer, may I ask how old you are? And, how much of TOS have you seen?
I'm 38. I watched TOS faithfully until it was pulled. I next saw it during the BSG80 debacle and thought it pretty weak - only watched one episode. Didn't give the series much thought until the mini.

Those were the character's names. Lorne Green played Adama, Dirk Benedict played Starbuck, Herb Jefferson Jr. played Boomer, etc. There was no "Lee Adama". There was no "Shannon Valeri" (or the male equivalent). These are the names of the characters in the RDM production.
What's your point? There was an Adama, Starbuck, Boomer, and Apollo. RDM gave them first names? As I said, he got the names right. What did Adama, Boomer, Apollo, and Starbuck go by in the mini? Adama, Boomer, Apollo, and Starbuck. So they also had first names? Are we going to get bent out of shape over that too?

[Gemini1999]

Okay, maybe I had you wrong Dawg. I thought you were trying to imply that RM had not seen an episode of TOS. As BST?s post pointed out he clearly has. Now when and how often is unknown at this point. RM apparently was ?comfortable? with his knowledge of the series but I infer from his statement that he was in no way shape or form an expert on TOS.

Boomer -

There was a Ron Moore piece in the Miniseries magazine that came out right before the mini aired in December. I recall that Mr. Moore said that he had seen the series when it aired the first time around in '78. I got the impression that was when he last saw the entire series - this may have been the foundation of the "being familiar with the series" statement. A lot can be forgotten in 25 years - I was 18 when TOS premiered and I didn't really become "familiar" with it again until watching the recent re-runs on Skiffy and when I bought the DVD set - now I pretty much remember it all just by thinking about it.

I don't know exactly how old Ron Moore is, but I'm guessing in his mid to late thirties at the most, which would make him almost 10 years younger than me. If he was say 10 at the time, how well would he remember the series - I suppose that might depend on how much he liked it or not....

In any case, I do know that he said that he re-watched the pilot episode before re-writing it. He may have not considered it necessary to watch the rest until he knew that this was going to be more than a one-shot deal.

I really loved TOS and still do, but I had hoped that if Mr. Moore wanted his version to be truly different from the original, that it should stay that way. I don't see the point in looking over TOS for elements to cannibalize or "re-imagine" to give the new show a broader appeal. I do respect the majority of his work - I liked what he contributed to Trek and I liked his work on HBO's Carnivale - I just don't think that he should base his new work on the backs of someone else's previous works. I could respect him more if he continued his own course with the newer version of BSG - I really think that it's "too little, too late" to try and court those he ignored the first time around. If he really wanted our support, he should have tried back then, not after the fact.

In a small way, the tact that he's taking is like he's saying that the TOS fans were right about what they were asking for. I know that some would disagree, but that's how I feel about it.

Best regards,
Bryan
________
WEED VAPORIZER (http://weedvaporizers.org/)

[Dawg]

What's your point? There was an Adama, Starbuck, Boomer, and Apollo. RDM gave them first names? As I said, he got the names right. What did Adama, Boomer, Apollo, and Starbuck go by in the mini? Adama, Boomer, Apollo, and Starbuck. So they also had first names? Are we going to get bent out of shape over that too?

My point is that the TOS names were used as callsigns in the mini (with the exception of "Adama", which was used as a surname). Apollo in TOS was Apollo. It was his name. In the mini, Lee Adama's callsign was "Apollo". It's not his name. Just like Tom Cruise's callsign in Top Gun was Maverick, and he was called Maverick all through the movie - but that wasn't his name.

The name issue is a symptom, Boomer, of a deeper issue, the way a runny nose is a symptom of pneumonia. That deeper issue is the Americanization of the colonials of the mini. In Battlestar Galaactica, I want to see an extraterrestrial human culture. I don't want to see Billy "Husker" Adama, or Lee "Apollo" Adama, who could have been pulled off of any 2nd-rate US Navy ship. I want to see Adama, the seasoned warrior-priest, and his son Apollo, who has risen through the ranks to a position of responsibility, who are part of a culture both alien and vaguely familiar, as if their ancestors and mine came from the same ancient roots but diverged millenea ago.

Do you understand now?

Gotta go. 'Later, and thanks.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[shiningstar]

Boomer -

There was a Ron Moore piece in the Miniseries magazine that came out right before the mini aired in December. I recall that Mr. Moore said that he had seen the series when it aired the first time around in '78. I got the impression that was when he last saw the entire series - this may have been the foundation of the "being familiar with the series" statement. A lot can be forgotten in 25 years - I was 18 when TOS premiered and I didn't really become "familiar" with it again until watching the recent re-runs on Skiffy and when I bought the DVD set - now I pretty much remember it all just by thinking about it.

I don't know exactly how old Ron Moore is, but I'm guessing in his mid to late thirties at the most, which would make him almost 10 years younger than me. If he was say 10 at the time, how well would he remember the series - I suppose that might depend on how much he liked it or not....

In any case, I do know that he said that he re-watched the pilot episode before re-writing it. He may have not considered it necessary to watch the rest until he knew that this was going to be more than a one-shot deal.

I really loved TOS and still do, but I had hoped that if Mr. Moore wanted his version to be truly different from the original, that it should stay that way. I don't see the point in looking over TOS for elements to cannibalize or "re-imagine" to give the new show a broader appeal. I do respect the majority of his work - I liked what he contributed to Trek and I liked his work on HBO's Carnivale - I just don't think that he should base his new work on the backs of someone else's previous works. I could respect him more if he continued his own course with the newer version of BSG - I really think that it's "too little, too late" to try and court those he ignored the first time around. If he really wanted our support, he should have tried back then, not after the fact.

In a small way, the tact that he's taking is like he's saying that the TOS fans were right about what they were asking for. I know that some would disagree, but that's how I feel about it.

Best regards,
Bryan

I like what he contributed to Star trek as well .........but what he did to BSG
was Horrible ............as far as I'm concerned I will NEVER ever WATCH it
not the MINI and Most assuradly NOT the 'series'.

[shiningstar]

My point is that the TOS names were used as callsigns in the mini (with the exception of "Adama", which was used as a surname). Apollo in TOS was Apollo. It was his name. In the mini, Lee Adama's callsign was "Apollo". It's not his name. Just like Tom Cruise's callsign in Top Gun was Maverick, and he was called Maverick all through the movie - but that wasn't his name.

The name issue is a symptom, Boomer, of a deeper issue, the way a runny nose is a symptom of pneumonia. That deeper issue is the Americanization of the colonials of the mini. In Battlestar Galaactica, I want to see an extraterrestrial human culture. I don't want to see Billy "Husker" Adama, or Lee "Apollo" Adama, who could have been pulled off of any 2nd-rate US Navy ship. I want to see Adama, the seasoned warrior-priest, and his son Apollo, who has risen through the ranks to a position of responsibility, who are part of a culture both alien and vaguely familiar, as if their ancestors and mine came from the same ancient roots but diverged millenea ago.

Do you understand now?

Gotta go. 'Later, and thanks.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

As usual Dawg ....................you hit the nail on the head.
Keep posting. :thumbsup:

[Boomer65]

I don't want to see Billy "Husker" Adama, or Lee "Apollo" Adama, who could have been pulled off of any 2nd-rate US Navy ship.
Wow, of all the problems with the mini… well I’ll be honest, I never considered their names in TOS. To me Boomer was Boomer. Starbuck was Starbuck. Apollo was Apollo.

Okay, I’ll amend my statement from, “He got the names right” to “He used the names/characters from TOS”.

Honestly, I’m willing to overlook a lot of a director’s creative license. Spiderman, as an example, didn’t stay absolutely true to the comic book (e.g. Spidey’s webslingers were mechanical not biological).
I don't see the point in looking over TOS for elements to cannibalize or "re-imagine" to give the new show a broader appeal.

I could respect him more if he continued his own course with the newer version of BSG - I really think that it's "too little, too late" to try and court those he ignored the first time around.
The only reason I would see to re-imagine previous episodes would be for ideas – not to please TOS fans. There were some very good storylines in the series. Some not so good too.

[Dawg]

Okay, I’ll amend my statement from, “He got the names right” to “He used the names/characters from TOS”.

Hmmm. Not quite right again, I'm afraid, Boomer, but it's not necessarily your fault. People are trying like crazy to form links with TOS that just aren't there, and this is one of those points, minor though it might be.

RDM took the TOS names and made them callsigns. He did not utilize any of the characters from TOS for the mini. As our mutual friend Antelope so ably pointed out, he used characters and composits from "In Harms Way" for the mini.

The reason he took the familiar names from TOS at all is because he was himself looking for a way to link TOS with the mini - something familiar to the casual fan. As he used the Viper design.

Which is not to say I would deny anyone the artistic license you speak of. I point to the DeSanto production as a prime example of taking some license with the franchise while still staying true to its core. That's something RDM did not do, IMO. I'll be the first to say that there are elements to the DeSanto version that I didn't like - but at least he stayed true to what BSG was and is; a pity RDM opted not to.

Your last statement is correct, though. And I doubt it would occur to RDM to even try to court us now.

;) :salute:

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[shiningstar]

Wow, of all the problems with the mini… well I’ll be honest, I never considered their names in TOS. To me Boomer was Boomer. Starbuck was Starbuck. Apollo was Apollo.

Okay, I’ll amend my statement from, “He got the names right” to “He used the names/characters from TOS”.

Honestly, I’m willing to overlook a lot of a director’s creative license. Spiderman, as an example, didn’t stay absolutely true to the comic book (e.g. Spidey’s webslingers were mechanical not biological).

The only reason I would see to re-imagine previous episodes would be for ideas – not to please TOS fans. There were some very good storylines in the series. Some not so good too.


I know that the movie wasn't absolutely true to the comic book .........that's
why I didn't watch it. And that's why I'm not watching the mini or it's spinoff
either.

[Boomer65]

RDM took the TOS names and made them callsigns. He did not utilize any of the characters from TOS for the mini.
Am I losing my mind or what? You said yourself that he used “familiar names from TOS.” TOS/MINI had ADAMA commander of a military ship. TOS/MINI had APOLLO son of Adama – a pilot. TOS/MINI had STARBUCK – rebel pilot. No they weren’t carbon copies of the originals but… My God man – they were there! If you want to say that mini-Adama showed little resemblance to TOS-Adama, fine. But you act like RDM gave the ship janitor the name Adama and Starbuck was the court jester.

I know that the movie wasn't absolutely true to the comic book .........that's why I didn't watch it.
That seems a bit closed-minded - the movie was actually pretty good.

[shiningstar]

Am I losing my mind or what? You said yourself that he used “familiar names from TOS.” TOS/MINI had ADAMA commander of a military ship. TOS/MINI had APOLLO son of Adama – a pilot. TOS/MINI had STARBUCK – rebel pilot. No they weren’t carbon copies of the originals but… My God man – they were there! If you want to say that mini-Adama showed little resemblance to TOS-Adama, fine. But you act like RDM gave the ship janitor the name Adama and Starbuck was the court jester.


That seems a bit closed-minded - the movie was actually pretty good.

Boomer ..................NAMES may have been the same .....(.WAIT they weren't
in TOS they were THEIR names .........in the MINI ...............they were nothing
more then call signs ............... ) But the characters using the names in
the mini were very different ................. their motivations were changed so drastically that the fact they had those 'call signs' was little more then
a marketing ploy in order to get people to watch the show.

As for being close minded .........I have EVERY right to watch what I like.
I'm close minded if I deny YOU your right to watch the shows you like.
If I don't like a show ...............veering from what I and others
have expected the story to be like ..... then I have the right not to watch it if I choose. That hardly seems to be CLOSE MINDED to me.

[Antelope]

This is like the argument that George W Bush is dumb. He got an SAT score that put him in the top 3-5% of the country when he took it. He graduated from Yale and was accepted and completed a Harvard MBA. He passed and became an Air Force fighter pilot. Guess what... People that want to believe he is stupid will convience themselves he is.

The Ron Moore thing is pretty much the same story. Many fans can't believe that Ron Moore could watch the same Battlestar Galactica they did and do what he did. Well unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view that is just what he did. Now that I have read many articles and interviews I see a man well versed in Battlestar Galactica and very familiar with why it failed and what those involved back in 1980 thought needed to be done to save it. Glen Larson wanted to move Battlestar to a later night time slot and make it for a more mature audience. The network wouldn't let him do it. Glen Larson had problems working inside a budget. Moore is designing his series specifically to handle that issue, more inside stories.

The ugliest thing people don't see or don't want to see:
Almost all the best Battlestar Galactica episodes are remakes of previously popular movies. My favorite "Living Legend" is a remake/reimagination of "Midway" and "Patton". The Ice Planet episode is a remake of "The Dirty Dozen" and "The Guns of Navarrone". The only BSG1980 episode fans like was "The Return of Starbuck" which was a remake/reimagination of "Hell in the Pacific". Moore learned from Larson. For the mini he remade two movies, "Saga of A Star World " and "In Harm's Way".

I understand that many fans don't like what Moore did but don't imagine if only he had watched TOS more times or listened to the fans anything would have been different. The argument is an old debating contest argument for those who can't challenge the basic premise. You impune the messenger not the message.

It is obvious from the totality of Ron Moore's interviews and articles written on him that he is very familiar with the Battlestar Galactica storylines and the financial and production history of all previous efforts. Parsing a word here or there doesn't change that fact.

On the character end state of the mini:
If Moore is not entirely familiar with the character end state of TOS he is the recipient of the biggest fortunate coincidence in television history. As I said in another thread every character at the end of the mini has a version of themselves at the end of TOS. The obvious one that does not come from watching Saga of A Star World is President Roslin. There was no female Leader of the Council of 12 in Saga of A Star World. There is one at the end of TOS, Siress Tinia. The issues between Adama and Tinia are being used for the characters of William Adama and President Roslin. Is this a coincidence or just one of many obvious examples that Moore is well versed in the original TOS storyline.

Moore wants to fool the audience and fan base. It plays into their marketing plan. From what I read the coy Moore is doing exactly what he seems to want.

[Dawg]

I don't buy it, antelope, because of the arrogant attitude he's shown since Day One hasn't changed since the series got a green light. This guy has blinders on - or did, and it's too late to turn back now.

Will you please stop trying to tell us how the characters in the mini are so much like the TOS characters? They're not. The Adama portrayed in TOS is nothing like the EJO character in the mini. Same for each and every one of the other characters. We have a drunk white guy as XO instead of a stand-up, command-capable warrior. No, there is no comparison between the characters of TOS and the mini.

The situations the characters find themselves in might lend themselves better to the grasping at straws, trying to find links to TOS, but those links are tenuous at best. You said yourself that the mini is a remake of In Harms Way, and so it is just as valid to point to the character relationships and situations as linked to that movie rather than Saga. If there is a similarity to TOS there, it is in that the relationships and situations are intended to continue and develop over time, rather than resolve at the end of the broadcast. Every single series out there, movie or TV or radio or anime, uses this device. It's not unique.

Ronald D. Moore did not have to be at all familiar with BSG, not more than superficially, to pen the mini.

Period.

What has happened since is immaterial, since he's now locked into this vision. Which he apparently likes, by the way. So if he does use inspiration from TOS episodes, only the names are likely to be recognizable.

That's my take. Thank you for listening.

:salute:

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[shiningstar]

I don't buy it, antelope, because of the arrogant attitude he's shown since Day One hasn't changed since the series got a green light. This guy has blinders on - or did, and it's too late to turn back now.

Will you please stop trying to tell us how the characters in the mini are so much like the TOS characters? They're not. The Adama portrayed in TOS is nothing like the EJO character in the mini. Same for each and every one of the other characters. We have a drunk white guy as XO instead of a stand-up, command-capable warrior. No, there is no comparison between the characters of TOS and the mini.

The situations the characters find themselves in might lend themselves better to the grasping at straws, trying to find links to TOS, but those links are tenuous at best. You said yourself that the mini is a remake of In Harms Way, and so it is just as valid to point to the character relationships and situations as linked to that movie rather than Saga. If there is a similarity to TOS there, it is in that the relationships and situations are intended to continue and develop over time, rather than resolve at the end of the broadcast. Every single series out there, movie or TV or radio or anime, uses this device. It's not unique.

Ronald D. Moore did not have to be at all familiar with BSG, not more than superficially, to pen the mini.

Period.

What has happened since is immaterial, since he's now locked into this vision. Which he apparently likes, by the way. So if he does use inspiration from TOS episodes, only the names are likely to be recognizable.

That's my take. Thank you for listening.

:salute:

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

Thank YOU DAWG :salute:

[Antelope]

I don't buy it, antelope, because of the arrogant attitude he's shown since Day One hasn't changed since the series got a green light. This guy has blinders on - or did, and it's too late to turn back now.

:

I read the same interviews and articles you do and have never seen an arrogant man. That arrogant man just apologized to Micheleh for something she took out of context and he didn't mean. That arrogant man is the butt of attacks at every Galactica event (Galacticon or internet) he attends. He keeps reaching out anyway.

I am not trying to convience anyone what he did is great. That is up to everyone who actually watches his show to judge for themselves. Over time I have followed your advice and read articles on Galactica at other sites. I did some individual research on Moore interviews when I did my "In Harm's Way" thread.

I learned a lot about the history of Galactica production in the past few weeks, especially about why BSG1980 was made the way it was, why it failed, and what people involved wished they could have done.

With an open mind I have come to believe that for better or for worse Ron Moore came to AGREE with Glen Larson's thoughts from 1980 that Battlestar Galactica had no future unless the plot was changed to something more mature audiences would enjoy and watch. That's not to say TOS was bad. Remember I loved TOS and still do. :) It just means that TOS if Larson had his way would have moved to something a bit more dark, maybe violent, and with more adult sexual tension.

Ron Moore is doing nothing more than doing what Glen Larson spoke of doing. Unless Ron Moore came up with this all on his own you have to think he researched the views and storylines of Larson and the original Galactica production crew.

If TOS had a season 2 and it was on at 9 PM and had an adult theme what do you think Larson would have done? I am sure it wouldn't be the same but it would probably move in a similar direction. You would have your one word names and the Egyptian style flight helmets but the characters and stories would probably be similar.

It's OK to hate what Ron Moore did. I understand it and feel your pain. :cry: It is however in the spirit of what Galactica was meant to be if it continued in 1980 and wasn't destroyed by television executives who mistakenly believed it was a kids/family show only.

You can always find things to point out that aren't the "same" and you'd be right. TOS was a great show but for the franchise to survive it needed to change according to Larson and Moore. The people who made TOS knew that in 1980. If you can't get over the changes that's OK but attacking Moore for not listening or viewing enough is just the anger of a person not getting what they wanted not the reality of what has happened.

[Dawg]

Well, it's clear we don't see this issue the same way, antelope, and that's fine. You think Moore is intimately familiar with TOS, I think he gave it a passing glance at best. You insist on links between the two productions I just can't see.

I disagree with you on Larson and Moore thinking similarly, though; are you aware of what Mr. Larson said at Galacticon about the Moore production? He was not complimentary.

With G80, Larson was hamstrung by the network. If he and his production team had been left alone, no doubt we would have seen a higher quality show, aimed at an older demographic. But it would have been set within the same universe as TOS; as with ST:TNG, it would have been different, but it would have been Battlestar Galactica.

I will say it again: the Moore production lacks the BSG universe. It lacks the mythology. It lacks the characters. It lacks nearly everything that made TOS "Battlestar Galactica" instead of "Exodus". Moore did not have to know BSG to write a show that doesn't take place in the BSG universe.

That's why I think as I do about this.

Like I said, though, you see things I can't seem to, no matter how objective I try to be. It's a shame, too; if he'd not called this "Battlestar Galactica" I might be one of his bigger supporters.

'Later.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Antelope]

Dawg:
If Moore changed the names back to one word, Starbuck was a man, and they wore an Egyptian style helmet you would find something else.

If Larson wanted to move Galactica in 1980 to a later time slot and make it for a mature audience exactly what is it other than the one word names and Egyptian style helmet that would have been so different?

I don't worry about which one doesn't like which version. Hatch isn't exactly kind to Desanto's version. Everyone wants THEIR version.

If you wrote a list of all things unique to Battlestar Galactica versus let's say Star Trek I think it would be pretty obvious that Moore's show is in the Galactica universe. BSG1980 is in the Galactica universe also. Be honest what is a better representation of Battlestar Galactica: the Moore version or Larson's BSG1980. Most would pick Moore's version even though BSG1980 has the one word names, some old TOS actors, the word frack, and Egyptian style helmets.

I know you'll never see things my way but at least I wish you can come around to seeing that Moore is not a disinterested party who was ignorant of the franchise. You don't have to like what he did to realize he knows what he did.

[shiningstar]

Dawg:
If Moore changed the names back to one word, Starbuck was a man, and they wore an Egyptian style helmet you would find something else.

If Larson wanted to move Galactica in 1980 to a later time slot and make it for a mature audience exactly what is it other than the one word names and Egyptian style helmet that would have been so different?

I don't worry about which one doesn't like which version. Hatch isn't exactly kind to Desanto's version. Everyone wants THEIR version.

If you wrote a list of all things unique to Battlestar Galactica versus let's say Star Trek I think it would be pretty obvious that Moore's show is in the Galactica universe. BSG1980 is in the Galactica universe also. Be honest what is a better representation of Battlestar Galactica: the Moore version or Larson's BSG1980. Most would pick Moore's version even though BSG1980 has the one word names, some old TOS actors, the word frack, and Egyptian style helmets.

I know you'll never see things my way but at least I wish you can come around to seeing that Moore is not a disinterested party who was ignorant of the franchise. You don't have to like what he did to realize he knows what he did.

Antelope .............. instead of biting the hand that feeds you ...........perhaps
you should be thanking Dawg, Tom and the other moderators for giving you
a place where as a fan of the MINI you are free to post your views how you
see fit.

The fact is whether or not YOU like it. Alot of us here will never Like the way
RDM treated the fans of TOS. Nor should we.

[Antelope]

Moore never did anything to the fans. Some of the fans don't like what he did and have personified their frustration.

[Dawg]

OK, let's put the brakes on this right now.

I apologize for adding fuel to this; antelope and I don't see eye to eye on this, and probably never will. I'd like to make him understand why I feel the way I do, and I'm sure he feels the same way - like butting heads against a brick wall, right, antelope?

Well, I just got a phone call that a guy I've known over a year (a client), a real nice guy about my age who's had a rough time of it, collapsed and died last Thursday. Heart gave out. He left a young family.

Kind of makes an argument over a TV show kind of lame, doesn't it?

I'm not going to argue about it any more.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[shiningstar]

OK, let's put the brakes on this right now.

I apologize for adding fuel to this; antelope and I don't see eye to eye on this, and probably never will. I'd like to make him understand why I feel the way I do, and I'm sure he feels the same way - like butting heads against a brick wall, right, antelope?

Well, I just got a phone call that a guy I've known over a year (a client), a real nice guy about my age who's had a rough time of it, collapsed and died last Thursday. Heart gave out. He left a young family.

Kind of makes an argument over a TV show kind of lame, doesn't it?

I'm not going to argue about it any more.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

I'll keep your friend's family in my prayers Dawg. :rose:

[warhammerdriver]

:...: Sigh--another thread twisted into a Moore & Co. slamfest. :(

I thought this thread was supposed to be about research, not bashing someone.

[warhammerdriver]

I'll keep your friend's family in my prayers Dawg. :rose:

Same here, Dawg.

[Antelope]

Dawg:
I understand your points even though I often disagree. Good luck to you as always! I never take things as seriously as they sound in print. I enjoy your post and always know the spirit they are meant. Thanks for your thoughts again. I look forward to your post when your back.
:salute:
Your friend,
T.J. aka Antelope

[Boomer65]

Shiningstar – I just want to clear something up.

As for being close minded .........I have EVERY right to watch what I like.
I'm close minded if I deny YOU your right to watch the shows you like.

Close-minded isn’t denying someone else their right to watch a show. Yes, you do have every right to watch what you like. However, closed-minded is not defined as you suggest:

close-mind•ed (klsmndd, klz-) or closed-mind•ed (klzd-)
adj.
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

close-minded
adj : not ready to receive to new ideas [syn: closed-minded]
I can’t think of a single movie translation of a comic book that stayed absolutely true to the original. However, some are actually very good – X-Men, Spiderman, etc. IMHO, you’re missing out if you chose not to watch something just because it isn’t 100% true to the original. That’s my 2 cents.

Dawg – I’m sorry to hear of your loss.

[Dawg]

Thank you, all. The call yesterday took me by surprise, the kind of surprise that kind of knocks the wind out of you for a couple of minutes and helps you put things into perspective. Makes you aware of your own mortality.

The sad part of the whole thing is that everything was swinging back in his favor, after a couple of years of really hard times. I'm saddest for his family, of course.

But back to the subject at hand:

Boomer, nobody's asking for 100% compliance with how TOS was portrayed, just like nobody's asking for Richard Hatch to play a 30 year old again. It's a convenient fiction to cite how "many TOS fans" want to pick up where Hand of God left off. That's not what TOS fans asked for.

The overwhelming preference is for a continuation - bring back as many of the original actors in their original roles as possible, elevate them to positions of responsibility (Commander Apollo, for example), and have them mentoring a new generation of warriors; a new generation of central characters. This is what the vast majority of TOS fans would prefer.

However, that same vast majority would have gladly accepted a remake of Saga of a Star World; not a word-for-word, scene-for-scene remake, but one updated for a 2003 audience that also corrects the more glaring errors made in the original. It could have drawn the new audience they were looking for and kept us happy, too.

Kind of like X-men and Spiderman.

I hope that makes it clearer for you.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Boomer65]

Boomer, nobody's asking for 100% compliance with how TOS was portrayed, just like nobody's asking for Richard Hatch to play a 30 year old again. It's a convenient fiction to cite how "many TOS fans" want to pick up where Hand of God left off. That's not what TOS fans asked for.
Actually I was not referring to TOS/BSG03 but rather shiningstar’s refusal to see Spiderman simply because “the movie wasn't absolutely true to the comic book”.

I can actually more understand a TOS fan’s refusal to see the mini because it is, largely, 0% complaint with TOS. However, if RDM manages to bring the new BSG up to a level of quality that meets or exceeds some of the better sci-fi in recent memory I think that there are still going to be a lot of people that won’t watch it simply because they have a grudge. And that’s kind of unfortunate.

[Antelope]

Just my opinion but I think the mini is 50 % "In Harm's Way", 30% "Saga of a Star World", 5% the BSG1980 Episode where they introduce human-cylons, and the remaining 15% original Ron Moore ideas. This is obviously a general statement but it is a window into how I see the mini.

The character end state of the mini to me is 60% the end of season 1 TOS, 10% the end of of BSG1980, and about 30% original Ron Moore ideas.

As you can see from the way I look at things I need to give it a chance. Yes it is not the original Battlestar version but it has more than enough to intrigue me and not discard it out of hand.

I have issues with the mini, especially with Kara Thrace and COL Tigh. At this early point however I think they may take their characters in a positive direction. About 4 episodes from now I might have another opinion.

I watched all of BSG1980 when it first ran. I was disappointed but did manage to enjoy three of its episodes. I guess at a minimum I am giving Moore and SCIFI the same opportunity I gave ABC and Larson in 1980. I hope I am not let down again. Thus far the mini though far from perfect was a very positive Galactica experience to me.

Yesterday I read a great post by Aeneas about the history of Baltar not in TOS as presented in various written formats. His post was very thought provoking and I thought, "Man, I wish they did a prequel based on that." His post does not make that the Galactica reality but it sure was a great what if scenario. I look at the mini the same way. It may not be everyones cup of tea and I understand that. I for one actually looked forward to BSG1980 each week and hoped it would move to what I wanted and not be cancelled. I guess its like the old saying about seeing a cup half empty or half full. To me BSG1980 was a cup a quarter full and the mini is three quarters full. I wish they were both full to the top but a thirsty man still takes the cup!

[shiningstar]

Thank you, all. The call yesterday took me by surprise, the kind of surprise that kind of knocks the wind out of you for a couple of minutes and helps you put things into perspective. Makes you aware of your own mortality.

The sad part of the whole thing is that everything was swinging back in his favor, after a couple of years of really hard times. I'm saddest for his family, of course.

But back to the subject at hand:

Boomer, nobody's asking for 100% compliance with how TOS was portrayed, just like nobody's asking for Richard Hatch to play a 30 year old again. It's a convenient fiction to cite how "many TOS fans" want to pick up where Hand of God left off. That's not what TOS fans asked for.

The overwhelming preference is for a continuation - bring back as many of the original actors in their original roles as possible, elevate them to positions of responsibility (Commander Apollo, for example), and have them mentoring a new generation of warriors; a new generation of central characters. This is what the vast majority of TOS fans would prefer.

However, that same vast majority would have gladly accepted a remake of Saga of a Star World; not a word-for-word, scene-for-scene remake, but one updated for a 2003 audience that also corrects the more glaring errors made in the original. It could have drawn the new audience they were looking for and kept us happy, too.

Kind of like X-men and Spiderman.

I hope that makes it clearer for you.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:


Thank you Dawg. You said it. :thumbsup: