This was in the responses to the prequel poll on scifi. It's long, but it has a lot of non-fan insight.
http://www.stikfigure.com/willmartin/bsg.htm
Here's the text.
To Universal Studios regarding Battlestar Galactica -
Hi! I'll start this by saying something that may set me apart from many of the letter writers you've heard from on this subject. I am not in league with the fans you have apparently been hearing of/from for a while, have actually not watched the show at all since it first aired, though back then (when I was a kid) I did watch every episode and had fun doing so, as I did with almost all science fiction films and TV shows back then. Up to the point of writing and sending out this letter I have never communicated with the BSG fan base. (I have not even gone to a sci-fi convention since the mid 80's.) I'm not a friend, relative, etc. of anyone who will gain in some way by your studio doing what I recommend below. I am just a generic sci-fi TV series/film fan, more of a former one actually as I find most newer, "fresh" sci-fi to be too empty and/or contrived for my tastes. I am also a model builder, and it was through my looking at a modeling web site that I came across this whole issue, one that prompted me to throw in my two cents on the subject...
I'm going to start off talking about a franchise other than BSG for a moment--one that is quickly losing ground--because I believe its decline illustrates well a point that I will soon make relevant to the topic at hand. I imagine that the studio "suits" involved with producing Star Trek:Nemesis believed that it was going to do very well. "It has all the required elements," they surely believed. So what happened at the box office? Why did it drop off the top ten by its third week? No *that* many movies were coming out. Where were the millions of Trek fans and general sci-fi lovers who were supposed to be watching (five times over) the neat compilation of the surefire "draw elements" that was ST:N, the first Star Trek movie in four years? I saw it once, yes, and had a passable time, but there was no way I was going to sit through it again, let alone watch it six times as I did ST:TWOK. I looked on a few web sites after I watched ST:N and saw that I wasn't alone in finding it greater lacking when compared to most older Trek films. How is it that the much higher-budgeted, more time in the making, much slicker-looking ST:Nemesis could be declared by so many people to be inferior to the twenty-year old ST:TWOK (some going as far as to declare it worse than Star Trek V)? Also, I used to watch ST:TNG religiously; even got called to Paramount to pitch stories to Star Trek because of a script I sent in. Yet I gave up watching Enterprise after three episodes...and, again, I'm apparently not the only one to lose such interest.
What does all this have to do with BSG? Well, what has happened to these franchises is systematic of what's wrong with much film/TV sci-fi these days, I believe, and is something that CAN BE AVOIDED with a new Battlestar Galactica series...*as long as Richard Hatch is involved* (as more than only an actor.) I'll explain...
What Hollywood doesn't seem to get is that REAL heart sells (and sells better than the phony stuff). There are many examples to prove this, in both directions. Many of the old franchises are dying, and new ones suffering from the gate because they are now "assembled" rather than created, the producers and writers putting together their shows and their show's stories more through the route of having studied formulas based on Neilson ratings reactions rather than having sat down for a few hours to really immerse themselves into the vastness of their (fictional) universe's possibilities, their characters' possible journeys and adventures. With so much sci-fi entertainment these days, you get the feeling that you are merely looking at product, the result of some people's combined work in their day at the office to earn their paycheck, all shut down with the turning off of their office lights at the end of the day.
Richard Hatch was an actor on a TV show. That was his job. But his TV show got cancelled (after one season I believe). Most actors who lose their jobs move on to the next job and leave the old one behind, especially if there's little chance of it returning (and after watching BSG '80 from the sidelines, I'm sure he lost any hope that he'd be on ABC fighting Cylons again). But Mr. Hatch did not leave Battlestar Galactica behind. He went on to write novels that helped that show's universe live on (five novels I've heard--and he earned a bit of my respect just from my hearing that) and he eventually produced, surely through much sweat and blood, a 4-1/2 minute teaser-short which apparently impressed fans greatly, to the point of helping to create the situation you have now. Given these very basic facts, it's hard to argue with what seems the case, that Richard Hatch is trying, personally, to revive a franchise--a universe--that he not only was an important part of but that *he has long felt and still feels passionate about.*
Am I off base giving Mr. Hatch all this credit? I admit I haven't looked into anything he's done (beyond his acting way back when). I haven't read his novels and haven't seen his trailer. Maybe there is no heart in his work. Perhaps the reality is that Mr. Hatch never really had any genuine feelings for Battlestar Galactica, was just an out-of-work actor with time on his hands who just took advantage of an easy way to make some quick dough (writing some books that would sell because they were written by the guy who starred in the show). Though whether or not this cynical (unrealistically so) view is actually the case--and I sincerely doubt it is the case--the reality is that *the impression that the general facts give is that he cares for the material, has passion for it, and would give 110% to a new Battlestar Galactica that was even partially his baby.* And, again, that heart is what I believe many of the hardcore fans, and even some non-hardcore-fans, have latched onto with the continuation idea, myself included (here *I* am taking time out to write this, my first letter of this kind!). Why have we latched onto this? For many reasons, but primarily because such examples of heart when it comes to visual sci-fi these days are RARE. And because of this rareness *this heart is valuable!* And surely, if your studio plays its cards right, this can be mined in the form a great viewer response, an accomplishment that virtually none of your competition--not even Star Trek--is presently able to pull off worth a damn it seems.
Aaand if you add Dirk Benedict to the mix (as I've heard is a possibility if R.H. is involved) then you get the additional behind-the-scenes magic of re-union, of real history, something that the nostalgic portions of the audience will love to be in place even if it is something they never "see" with their own eyes on the TV screen. You should have some inkling as to the power of this type of (reunion) thing: is it not a high point for the audience of any remake film to see one of the original film's stars doing a cameo? Well, it seems you have that ten-fold with a BSG continuation with Richard Hatch at the creative reigns. Again, this is something valuable and rare, and in this respect *you are very lucky!* You have something in your corner that cannot be bought, cannot be constructed from scratch by even the highest-level producers. Yet it appears that you are considering throwing all this away?
If you do an update without Richard Hatch, I personally won't bother giving it a chance unless I hear from my super critical friends' (after a few episodes have aired) that it's ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. I feel I've been unimpressed (to put it mildly) with too many other recent pure-remake updates (Lost In Space, The Avengers, Gone In 60 Seconds, The Haunting to name a few). But a former actor of BSG who's done all R.H. has done on his own with BSG since it went off the air... if I'd heard he'd been given a chance to present a bit of what he's been pondering with the BSG universe for the last twenty-five years, I'd definitely be curious to see that, would be there parked in front of my TV (with some friends) to watch the pilot episode, even if some advanced review I might have caught a glimpse of said it stunk. To throw Richard Hatch out of a new Battlestar Galactica series after all he's done is, I believe, to throw out something that is a *big* draw--but if that's the way you guys want to go, it's your time and money. Just seems like a waste to me. Not that you asked me, but I say give the guy the money and resources he needs to do his thing and step back, take a seat in your big leather chairs and get ready to watch the green start rolling in. People like nostalgia and they like heart--and *you've just had both magically handed to you on a silver platter.* That doesn't happen too often.
One last thing. Believe it not, most folks can see through it when they are offered something that was aimed primarily at 14-year-old boys. Those boys will watch almost anything sci-fi related anyway (I remember when) so why no get the parents to want to watch with their kids rather than the kids watching alone (and the parents taking a peek but walking away after two minutes, shaking their heads?. And as you're doing something for TV, you want returning audiences, right? So going for quality is the better route than pursuing a one-shot, straight for the brain-dead-teenage-idiot blow-chunker (Lost in Space the Movie) which might work for a theatrical release.
But maybe that's all just me, and maybe my opinion isn't worth much, and isn't even representative of anyone beyond my own self. Regardless, it's my two cents, and there you have it.
- W.M.
You've got to read this letter
