Galactica Skeptic Becomes A Believer
was 12 years old when Battlestar Galactica first aired in 1978. Though it only lasted one season, it quickly became a show near and dear to me. News and rumors of a revival by either Glen Larson or Richard Hatch left me skeptical. Leave it alone, and let the fans remember just how good it was.
When Richard Hatch first published his books, I read them. There were parts I liked, and parts I didn't like. I did not think he could do justice to the fond memories I had of Galactica, and was truly believing that Galactica should probably be left alone.
Last weekend I had the opportunity to go to a convention in Ft. Washington, Pa., where Hatch would be showing his trailer. All I can say is that I walked in skeptical and walked out completely blown away. Universal will be missing out on what could be one of the most successful resurrections of a TV show if they don't work with Hatch. Anyone who has the opportunity should see this trailer before making any negative comments. The effects were awesome, the plot that you could grasp from the 3-1/2 minutes was good, and you could see there was an effort to embrace the history of Galactica.
Hatch answered questions at the convention, and he would like to do another show. I always thought Galactica worked better on the small screen anyway, and I would love to see a new series based on this concept.
Patti Aliventi
AliventiAsylum@worldnet.att.net
Battlestar Galactica Never Died
In his Issue No. 124 letter "Battlestar Galactica Should Stay Dead," Ronald Garrett stated that Battlestar Galactica should stay dead. That would be very difficult, since it never really died in the first place. True, it was cancelled after one season, but it has continued on all these years in novels, comics, collectable cards, toys, Web sites, fan fiction, and most importantly in the hearts of millions of fans.
Garrett questions Richard Hatch's motives. Richard Hatch started working on his Battlestar Galactica revival because the fans want it to come back. As far as billing himself as "the star of Battlestar Galactica," that's true, that's what he is. Actors are associated with their best remembered roles, and the character of Apollo made quite an impact on people. It doesn't mean that it's the only role he's ever had. People will always think of him as Apollo.
On the question of money, Richard Hatch has financed his trailer out of his own pocket. A lot of people donated their time, because they believe in what he's doing. He has backers as well, having raised between $40 and $60 million for his version of the revival.
If Garrett doesn't like space battles, he doesn't have to watch the new project. If he doesn't like theology he can stay home on Sundays. I've seen Richard Hatch's trailer, and I support him in the revival. Long live Battlestar Galactica!
Paula Kennedy
galacticafan@hotmail.com
A New Galactica Is Worth the Battle
I was very disappointed to read Tim Dykema's words in his letter ("Battlestar Should Not Be Reborn").
Battlestar Galactica was one of those things that I just missed growing up, though I'd heard people talk about it, I never got into it. Even after I got older and was more interested in the classic sci-fi of my youth, I still did not look up Galactica.
Two years ago, I attended a local convention whose guests included several people from the Galactica cast. That was when I discovered how much one of my friends was into it. I made a vague promise that I would maybe watch it, and kept an eye out for news on the series. Last year, we attended the same convention again, and she dragged me to meet the guest of honor, Richard Hatch.
I had not watched a single episode of Galactica, nor did I really even know the plot. But then a huge screen showed me all I needed: Hatch's trailer for his proposed remake/revival. I was hooked, and Hatch himself only helped me along. He was a funny, inviting, interesting and an extremely friendly guy. I had a chance to talk to him afterwards about what he went through to make the trailer, and he was more than willing to help a simple film student.
It was at this convention that I noticed something that is common before a revival: adamant fans. Dozens of people hung around after the talk to simply offer Hatch their support, saying they would love to see more of Galactica. They would love to see more of the premise that grabbed their attention in the late '70s. They wanted something that wasn't Galactica 1980.
Since that day, I have watched plenty of Battlestar Galactica, and gotten involved with a lot more people who loved it. I don't understand how someone could call it a blatant rip-off of Star Wars. There was no force, no Jedi Knights ... the only thing they seemed to have in common were space fighters, maybe the dog fights if you wanted to stretch. How could you have a science-fiction show that takes place in outer space which focuses on a last-ditch effort to save mankind and not have dog-fights and fighter pilots?
Battlestar Galactica is likely being brought back for two reasons: yes, there is a market for science fiction and for remakes and revivals. They're making a live action Scooby Doo movie, for goodness sakes. There's money to be made and somebody is going to want to make it.
The second reason is the most important one: Fans. The fans have brought back shows on the verge of cancellation, have caused shows to go into syndication so that they can rewatch their favorite episodes over and over again. Fans came to Richard Hatch in droves to appear as extras, provide props and costumes and offer support. They wanted the remake, they wanted more Galactica.
And I for one am ecstatic they are going to get it, because it means I'll be getting more myself. They deserve their shot.
Chang Meiran
chang_meiran@hotmail.com
The Golden Age of SF TV is Now
With Battlestar Galactica now in preproduction for a return to the screen, both sides are starting to come out of the wall: Side One saying, "Great! We've been waiting over 20 years!" and Side Two saying, "Why?"
Battlestar Galactica sits in a rather unique spot in the history of sci-fi television, believe it or not. If you look back the the 1960's, it was almost a golden age of televised science fiction. With The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, Voyage To The Bottom of The Sea, Lost In Space, The Invaders, Star Trek, The Time Tunnel and Land Of The Giants, not to mention the plethora of children's shows on Saturday mornings, there was plenty of sci-fi to go around the entire decade.
Move into the 1970's. Aside from reruns of the series from the 1960's, there were five sci-fi series I can remember: Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's excellent UFO, their rather more popular Space: 1999, the ill-fated NBC comedy Quark (starring Richard Benjamin), the dismal Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and Battlestar Galactica.
Call me dense, but aside from the special effects which were obviously cloned from Star Wars, I've never made the connection between the two. Star Wars followed the exploits of Luke, Han and Princess Leia and the Rebellion against the Evil Empire. In Battlestar Galactica, the crew of a space-going battleship/aircraft carrier combo and a fleet of mismatched, raggedy ships are fleeing extermination by a bunch of xenophobic robots who outlived their creators. Okay, the Vipers could have been prototypes for the X-wing fighters--yeah, yeah, members of Galactica's production team came from the same team that made Star Wars, but you've got to admit, it was business. Even the copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Glen Larson by Lucas didn't take Galactica off the air.
Galactica has aged badly, worse than many of the classics from the 1960's, yet when you put it next to other shows of the same period, like Starsky & Hutch or Baretta, it falls into place. The quality of the filming, the quality of the scripts are in accord with the quality the networks passed onto us, the public, during the 1970s.
Should Battlestar Galactica be brought back? I think the point is moot: It looks to be coming whether we want it or not. The question should be: Will it be done right? I had read several accounts that no one from the original series would be included, the Cylons wouldn't be included and that the Galactica would have a "different" mission this time? This filled me with dread. This past week, however; I read in "The Sci-Fi Wire" that the Cylons would be included and that Richard Hatch would at least be consulted and that Glen Larson was to be creative consultant. This is a hopeful sign. If done right, the new version of Battlestar Galactica could be what Star Trek: The Next Generation was to the Star Trek franchise. One can hope. I know that I will at least watch the pilot and one or two episodes in an attempt to give it a chance. If I like it, of course, I'll watch it as long as it's on. That only makes sense.
Still, we are in yet another golden age of sci-fi on television, one that far surpasses that of the 1960s. While a reworked version of Battlestar Galactica is coming, what we need are more ground-breaking series like Farscape and First Wave. Series that take us where we haven't been before, like when we first walked onto the bridge of the Enterprise or watched the Jupiter 2 lift off. That is where the adventure is.
Keith Kitchen
BoyoKlaatu@aol.com
