How would you title a new BG movie?

[jewels]

This is totally a "what if" thread. Brainstorming time, there are no wrong answers.

The suits claim having 2 "battlestar galacticas" concurrently is too confusing for fans. (reality is, it's too confusing for them and potentially confusing to casual TV viewers/moviegoers.)

How would you title a movie to alleviate this issue?

You can also tell us how you'd differentiate it promotionally.

Jewels

[ernie90125]

I would add a line after it, like was done with Star Trek :The Next Generation. In an ideal world the re-imagining would have that, and we couyld just be Battlestar Galactica like always were...

Another idea that has been done before, that springs to mind, would be to call it The Real Battlestar Galactica as was done with the Ghostbusters cartoon....

Or would that stir things up too much ? :duck:


It should be promoted like Star Trek VI was. Kirk speaking and pictured, narrating an ad that this is the Original crew. Accompanied with pictures of the original ship designs. Perhaps showing 'then and now' montages....

[BST]

Hmm, it's amazing that I can speak volumes about how much and why I want to see a continuation movie but, dang if I can think of a good title, to avoid any confusion with the new show.


Yoda: "Have to think about this, you will."

BST: "Jedi Master, how do you know what I'm thinking, before I say it?"

Yoda: "Years of practice."

:)

[kingfish]

Battlestar Galactica: The Journey Continues.

[Sept17th]

BST, really it would depend alot on the story. The Rag-Tag fleet meeting Sponge Bob would generate one title, coming across the Serenity another.

A poster akin to the CFF ad is a great start!

[BST]

BST, really it would depend alot on the story. The Rag-Tag fleet meeting Sponge Bob would generate one title, coming across the Serenity another.

A poster akin to the CFF ad is a great start!

Ah, I see -- "Warriors in Square Pants", eh?

:D

Sorry, Jewels, after that lead-in, I couldn't resist.

;)

[David Kerin]

Maybe just go with "Galactica". Without the Battlestar on front, it may help separate the two.

Fans will know what it is, but non-fans may look at it on it's own without thinking it's directly linked to the current new SciFi series.

[jewels]

Good point, David: maybe the ol' simpler is better/less is more approach. ;)

[martok2112]

Welll...we could always title the continuation movie: (beware...shameless plug) :D

Battlestar Galactica: Dark Exodus :D j/k

If I were to retitle the new series, I would retitle it:

Galactica: BSG-75

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[ernie90125]

Forgive my ignorance here...but why I have noticed this term BSG75 on the crest of the new series ? What is the 75 for ? The 75th Battlestar of the fleet ?

I would worry that the fan might think that BSG75 was the original series because they would remember it from the 70s ??? They would probably not remember which year though...

[repcisg]

Childeren of Caprica.

[martok2112]

Ernie, I have started a new thread at this location, so that this discussion can stay on topic:

I offerred a speculative answer here:

http://colonialfleets.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8639

Respecfully,
Martok2112

[gmd3d]

Battlestar Galactica: The Chronicles / BSG: THE CHRONICLES
Battlestar Galactica: The Odyssey / BSG: THE ODESSEY

[Haveke]

Forgive my ignorance here...but why I have noticed this term BSG75 on the crest of the new series ? What is the 75 for ? The 75th Battlestar of the fleet ?

I would worry that the fan might think that BSG75 was the original series because they would remember it from the 70s ??? They would probably not remember which year though...

The # 75 is the Galactia's Ship Number... In the US Navy, the Aircraft Carrier Nimitz is Number 65 I think... Haven't thought about that Ship for a While Now...

Haveke
:bg04:

[repcisg]

CVN 65 ENTERPRISE
CV 66 AMERICA
CV 67 JOHN F. KENNEDY
CVN 68 NIMITZ
CVN 69 DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
CVN 70 CARL VINSON
CVN 71 THEODORE ROOSEVELT
CVN 72 ABRAHAM LINCOLN
CVN 73 GEORGE WASHINGTON
CVN 74 JOHN C. STENNIS
CVN 75 HARRY S. TRUMAN
CVN 76 RONALD REAGAN
CVN 77 GEORGE H. W. BUSH

Can't help my self,
check out the last one.

[repcisg]

Exodus of Caprica

The Rout of Humanity

[Haveke]

CVN 65 ENTERPRISE
CV 66 AMERICA
CV 67 JOHN F. KENNEDY
CVN 68 NIMITZ
CVN 69 DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
CVN 70 CARL VINSON
CVN 71 THEODORE ROOSEVELT
CVN 72 ABRAHAM LINCOLN
CVN 73 GEORGE WASHINGTON
CVN 74 JOHN C. STENNIS
CVN 75 HARRY S. TRUMAN
CVN 76 RONALD REAGAN
CVN 77 GEORGE H. W. BUSH

Can't help my self,
check out the last one.

Thanks for Your Post!! I Couldn't Remember if the Nimitz was 65 or 68... When I was Back in High School, We got to Visit the Nimitz Muesum in Fredricks Berg, TX... Was VERY Cool!! :cool:

The Japanese Gardens were Very Beautiful!! :thumbsup:

Haveke :bg04:

[repcisg]

Glad to be of help,
if your curious you might check out these two sites:

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/index.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/

there is buss loads of info to wade through with new stuff is being added all the time.

xmasmuffit

[cobrastrikelead]

How 'bout; Battlestar Galactica: The Unauthorized Chronicles.

[jewels]

Galactica: Quest for Earth

Seeking the Shinning Planet

Galactica: Wandering Exodus

eh, maybe later I'll have some better ones

[BST]

Classic Galactica: The Search for Earth Continues

[Eric Paddon]

The name "Battlestar Galactica" must be contained within the title of any continuation effort from my standpoint, because I see little reason why the series responsible for the name should be forced to give it up altogether. There are plenty of ways to make a distinction within TNS without having to lose the two key words.

[Gemini1999]

The name "Battlestar Galactica" must be contained within the title of any continuation effort from my standpoint, because I see little reason why the series responsible for the name should be forced to give it up altogether. There are plenty of ways to make a distinction within TNS without having to lose the two key words.

Eric -

I agree with you... I think any film title that didn't have the words "Battlestar Galactica" in it, would just seem watered down in a way. All of the Trek films have "Star Trek" in the title, as do all the Star Wars films.

Why mess with a formula that works?

Best,
Bryan

[Muffit]

How about:

Battlestar Galactica: FINALLY!!

:D :D :D

[bsg1fan1975]

"Battlestar Galactica: Journey of the Rag Tag Fleet"

[thomas7g]

Battlestar Galactica: Better Late than Never!

[BST]

The name "Battlestar Galactica" must be contained within the title of any continuation effort from my standpoint, because I see little reason why the series responsible for the name should be forced to give it up altogether. There are plenty of ways to make a distinction within TNS without having to lose the two key words.

Hopes and desires aside, initially, the show must distance itself from the "new production, i.e., Moore's BG". It's all a matter of perception. For folks that did not care for BG03, seeing a movie with the same name will turn them off. Not everyone will do the leg work, to see that it's the original. Folks may just see the name and go "ugh, not that". While I agree with the assessment that the Original show should not have to give up the full title, I also think that it would be best if it "re-acquired" the full title over a period of time - first, "Classic Galactica" then, "Classic Battlestar Galactica" then, "Battlestar Galactica". Do it in stages.

[bsg1fan1975]

"Battlestar Galactica: Flight of the Colonials"

[Fragmentary]

I've got to go with David Kerin on this one. "Galactica"
Adding a secondary title make it sound like this is a sequel to something, which of course it is, but you don't want to market it that way. Who's going to see a movie that seems like its a sequel to something they aren't familiar with - and the movie absolutely must attract a wide range of mainstream movie goers to be successful.

"Galactica" is epic in its simplicity, if you will. Can't you imagine sitting in a dark theater, the music swelling and swelling, a beautiful vista of endless space and glorious nebulae... and the word Galactica fades in just as the music hits it crescendo!

[Krystal]

I agree with Eric, it is based in the original so Battlestar Galactica have to be there, they're the original ones to make some distance from the new production they just have to add something after that to it.

Oh Thomas, that is so cruel. Never Late than Never. :rotf:

Krystal:rose: