"Stealth Continuation?"-No Thank You!

[thomas7g]

oh I agree with you.

I was just saying this is so extreme a change, its practically at the point where we can't call it "reimagining"

[jewels]

It has something to do with another thread that was talked about 3 pages ago....in the first post. ::edit: as usual got distracted with the family and Martok answered whoever's question while I was collecting my rather scattered thoughts::

For TOS I see many references to Earth's ancient religions, a journey that parallels Exodus with the remnant wandering in search of the "promised land" (something I'm told that plays well with Mormon theology too.) I see references to ancient pagan religion, most notably the Otori sect of the Gemonese in Saga. I do think, because the Capricans were most prominent in the series that the show did evidence J/C values and that in the 1970's that all of these things were a way to give the audience the feeling of "these people might really be brothers of man in space". For me every aspect portrayed enhanced that otherwordly but not unlike us premise which the episode prologue so eloquently encapsulated.

To Eric's criticism that this could be yet another attack on J/C values by Hollywood. I do think you have a valid concern. J/C values are not well-protrayed in general in Hollywood, this production is led by a Trek alum, and Trek is notoriously unfriendly to religion and Christianity more specifically. The likelyhood that this will be yet another insult to those that liked the respect that faith was given in TOS, is definitely something we could be concerned about. I don't think they could have as much sex as was in the mini and pull off indicating these were anything but Epicureans (the "Party today for tomorrow we die" philosophy folks, if I didn't get the label correct) which permeate so much of TV. I see the value difference rub in that the characters started off much more amoral than most of the TOS characters. (Some would say that Starbuck was amoral in TOS but he does still value the lives of other humans, take responsibility for those younger, less skilled warriors under him and watch out for the feelings or safety of children (Boxey, the YL kids), all values that could trace back to J/C belief systems.)

I can't predict whether this will go good or badly but I do think TNS is going to fall into line with the more pluralistic beliefs that permeate our current society, not so much out of slamming J/C beliefs intentionally. I think that the pluralism will be part of it because the underlying intent of the show is to mirror Moore's and Hollywood's view of our society in this fictious society in space. Eric's correct on current Hollywood's unease about handling anything of J/C values well. (I do think Joan of Arcadia takes some steps the right way, with dramatic license of course. But it's the only example I can think of currently. Touched by an Angel was probably as close as anyone on network TV will ever get, but Martha Williamson still gets my kudos for some of the truths she snuck under the PC radar.)

Someone said some interesting stuff about what archeologists think about the original Greek gods' origin in this thread. It will be interesting to see how the tidbits dropped by Zarek will play out in light of some of the hints that are coming over from across the pond about ep. 12 and 13.

[nextceo]

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon

"It just really pisses me off that people can make all kinds of comments and suggestions about a show they have never even WATCHED."

This has to do with my comments on what someone else shared about a potential direction TNS was going in, and that made it fair game for me to offer my views on that comment in the "Stealth" thread. Am I supposed to sit on my hands and not say anything when that description of where this series is potentially going is made fair game for all of us to read?

No you don't have to sit on your hands, but to me its the same as some TNS fans who rip on TOS based on their recolections or watching one episode and applying that to the entire production. If you watched the show you'd see its not "buddhist". I personally just get very irritated by people who have to make all these opinions known on something when they personally have not experienced it themselves.

Again, the shows are in the eyes of the beholders as when I watch TOS, I see it no more judeo - christian than TNS, and never did.

BTW, in regards to my statement about it being a reimagining, well that is what it is. A reimaging not a complete change. If it was a complete change it wouldn't be called BSG, thus the production staff are going to take some things and ideas from TOS, it would be stupid if they didn't. If they didn't go back to TOS for anything you wouldn't call it BSG, which is what they are being PAID to do, reimagine BSG not eliminate it. Take the best in their opinion and leave the rest. What don't people understand about that???

[Fragmentary]

This thread really demonstrates the myopic view people create for something that they’ve seen again and again. It’s so clear that some people have picked this show apart in every way, down to the smallest details and then reassembled it to suit their own ideals and perceptions. I’m sure that’s what diehard fans of everything do, but that’s where the diehards diverge from the rest of fandom. And understand, I’m fine with that. The show is something they enjoy, its been around for almost thirty years, it makes since that they would turn it into something reflective of their personality. The thing that blows my mind is the way so much in this thread is discussed in absolutes. Like this is how it was, how it really really was and all you have to do is watch the show and its right there. But it's not. This is the end result of pouring into the show, not taking out of it.

Discuss your interpretations, share your own re-imagenings if you want, that’s what a message board for a TV show is all about. But don’t phrase it as though all of this is anything more than your own opinion. It becomes more and more apparent that no continuation of the original series is going to make everyone happy, and the reason is that no matter how true anybody tries to be with it, it will always lack that extra layer. It will always lack what has been filled in by each person. And threads like this one show just how extensive that information can be. It also shows how what some people see so clearly, the rest of us just shake our heads at.

Some people have criticized Hatch’s novels more and more as each one comes out. Grumbling that he’s getting things wrong, and changing this and that, and continuing the wrong things. The real problem is that he’s not keeping what they want kept, and he’s not changing what they would change. The same would happen for a filmed continuation as well.

My point is just that the original show was actually very very simple. The more depth you put to it, the more of your beliefs and desires are being mixed in. Again, that’s fine, but don’t lose sight of it when you do it.

[nextceo]

Originally Posted by Fragmentary

...It becomes more and more apparent that no continuation of the original series is going to make everyone happy, and the reason is that no matter how true anybody tries to be with it, it will always lack that extra layer. It will always lack what has been filled in by each person. And threads like this one show just how extensive that information can be. It also shows how what some people see so clearly, the rest of us just shake our heads at.

My point is just that the original show was actually very very simple. The more depth you put to it, the more of your beliefs and desires are being mixed in. Again, that’s fine, but don’t lose sight of it when you do it.

Fragmentary, you are my hero! You're post couldn't have said it any better. Thanks for your insight!

[Eric Paddon]

"If you watched the show you'd see its not "buddhist". "

I'm afraid you missed the whole point of what I was commenting on in the first place. THere was a thread on this board in the 2003 section about a "Stealth continuation" possibility, and in that thread is a direct commentary on how if this were to happen in TNS (and I am not denying it's not based on anything that's aired) it would be as a result of integrating a religous subtext rooted in Buddhist concepts. *That* is what I was specifically objecting to as something that I would (#1) not approve of as a means of trying to tie TNS into TOS and (#2) would offend me personally on the grounds that it would represent tampering with the religious subtexts of TOS. My comments were entirely based on my feelings about this as a possibility, which in the original thread was being heralded as something for TOS fans to take hope in with regard to TNS, and as a result that was fair game for me to comment on because it has *nothing* to do with watching an episode at all.

"Again, the shows are in the eyes of the beholders as when I watch TOS, I see it no more judeo - christian than TNS, and never did. "

I'm sorry but there comes a point where one has to look at a specific set of factual points about what was established in TOS and realize that ultimately, irregardless of one's own perspective, a distinct subtext as it relates to Judeo-Christian traditions starts to emerge. When I watch Star Trek, I can't let an "eye of the beholder" perspective make me form the conclusion that I can find Judeo-Christian subtexts in that show because that runs contrary to the facts of what that show establises, and when one throws in the clearly stated views of its creator, that has to tip things in one way ultimately in saying that Star Trek is subtly to blatantly sympathetic to the anti-religious perspective of secularism and that traditional forms of religion are for the uneducated masses. But in Galactica you have a show where the internals that point to a worldview that favors the traditional general Judeo-Christian framework of Western Civilization religion can not just be ignored to say that TOS can be seen in "any" particular religious lens.

"A reimaging not a complete change. If it was a complete change it wouldn't be called BSG, thus the production staff are going to take some things and ideas from TOS, it would be stupid if they didn't."

It would have been better if they'd taken nothing and given it a different name and then there would be none of the bitterness that fills so much of our ranks today in BG fandom. And what they kept of TOS is hardly what I would call the "best" of it, especially since they threw out the entire philosophical/religious subtext of the original, as well as the dynamics of the characters and their relationships. All I'm left with is something that shares a name and a few character names and just enough to maddeningly remind me of what I wanted to see continued in its original form for the last 25 years.

[Eric Paddon]

"Discuss your interpretations, share your own re-imagenings if you want, that’s what a message board for a TV show is all about. But don’t phrase it as though all of this is anything more than your own opinion."

I'm sorry but when you have a relevant body of facts to support an interpretation, that's when you have to start thinking seriously about the possibility that there's a definitive answer to all of this. When I can cite a number of specifics in the series that point to the prevailing religious subtext of TOS being one that ties in to key concepts of the Western Civilization Judeo-Christian tradition, then as far as I'm concerned if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck. A duck is not an eagle to someone else just because it's in the "eye of the beholder" to that person, it's still a duck, and Galactica in its original format is a show that did things in a way that was sympathetic to those of a Judeo-Christian perspective.

"Some people have criticized Hatch’s novels more and more as each one comes out. Grumbling that he’s getting things wrong, and changing this and that, and continuing the wrong things. The real problem is that he’s not keeping what they want kept"

No, the problem is that he doesn't take the time to do his homework about some basic premises of the series as it was established in the episodes. Galactica is not a show where the stories were self-contained like Star Trek and you could conveniently forget about what happened in one story for purposes of writing a new one. It was a continuing *storyline* in which the characters learned from things, changed in response to things that happened previously etc. That means when you write a story set in that universe, you have to get your details right before you proceed. That means you do not get such obvious things wrong like Rigel's gender, nor does it mean you forget all about the most critical plot point of "War Of The Gods" which is the Ship Of Lights revealing the general coordinates for Earth at the end of the episode (even "Galactica 1980" remembered that plot point in "Return Of Starbuck" for heaven's sake!). I've been writing fanfic stories for the last 12 years and have read many more written by others and while I have seen a diverse number of approaches in what kind of stories to tell, what always remains constant is a simple respect for CONTINUITY with what was established. And Richard Hatch's failures as a novelist is because he failed that first basic test of writing a story.

[Darth Marley]

I thought the best thing about the "ship of lights" was the notion that humanity might attain a godlike status through our own efforts.
A kind of Gnostic apotheosis, if you will.

The notion that we need not rely on the sacrifice of others, yet might attain wisdom through our own questions and actions.

[nextceo]

One last word on Moore and how he developed the religion for the new Galactica, and this is by his own words as stated in his most recent Q&A blog at sci-fi:

"in what sense religion (particularly as it relates to current events) has informed the inspiration behind the series and to what extent, if any, this relates back to how it informed Glen Larson's series."

The religious angle was something that evolved after the first draft of the miniseries. In that draft, I had mentioned, almost in passing, that Number Six believed in God and that really intrigued Michael Jackson (the executive, not the singer) who was working at the studio at the time. He suggested making it a bigger part of the show and also to more strongly play the Al-Queada/Cylon parallels. Both comments surprised and delighted me and I was more than happy to go in both those directions. The Colonials in the original were always mentioning the "Lords of Kobol" and I decided to make that literal rather than figurative and give them a polytheistic religion and the Cylons a monotheistic belief system. I found the clash of those two belief systems to be fascinating in our own history and thought it would be an interesting conflict in the show.

[Eric Paddon]

"He suggested making it a bigger part of the show and also to more strongly play the Al-Queada/Cylon parallels. Both comments surprised and delighted me and I was more than happy to go in both those directions. The Colonials in the original were always mentioning the "Lords of Kobol" and I decided to make that literal rather than figurative and give them a polytheistic religion"

Giving the Cylons the religion that parallels more closely the one that resembles something from Western civilization and a polytheistic one for the Colonials only proves my point as to why I object to everything about TNS for tampering with TOS's religious subtext.

Moore is simply revealing again how little he knows about TOS (but then again he also admitted he only watched 1 and a half episodes in a 25 year span) because "The Lords Of Kobol" does not refer to the deities they worship.

The bottom line for a show called "Battlestar Galactica" with me. No continuance of the religious subtexts as established by the original = no sale. And in this instance it leaves me with a same-old, same-old from the Hollywood religion perspective.

[Darrell Lawrence]

"Lords of Kobol" as used in osBG is = to Religious Leaders, ie Popes, Cardinals, etc as well as regular type leaders such as Presidents, Govenors, Mayors, Pharoes, Dictators, etc etc.

[larocque6689]

Originally Posted by Warrior

nuBG isn't a remake (that'd follow the SAME story)
nuBG is a re-imagining, thus is something enterily new. A different version.

I view this as a symantic game. To me they signify the same thing. All remakes alter elements of the source material but more or less tell the same story. With the new series they're telling the same story with different characters. The function of the characters is (more or less) the same.

For example, Adama's split off into three characters in the new series. TNS Adama is the military persona, and with surprise, Laura is taking on TOS Adama's religious persona in addition to the civilian role.

[Darrell Lawrence]

The "Cylons created by man, return to destroy man because man is faulty" is not the same story as "Cylons created by Cylon Lizards, exterminate mankind for helping a neighbor (the Hassari)".

If your trying to say "We gotta find Earth" is the same story, well... toss in "Lost In Space" and "Star Trek- Voyager" as being the same story.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Warrior

"Lords of Kobol" as used in osBG is = to Religious Leaders, ie Popes, Cardinals, etc as well as regular type leaders such as Presidents, Govenors, Mayors, Pharoes, Dictators, etc etc.

I never viewed the Lords of Kobol as deities, merely as the revered leaders of the mother world, Kobol. Maybe there was more to the picture and I just missed it.

[Darrell Lawrence]

Originally Posted by BST

I never viewed the Lords of Kobol as deities, merely as the revered leaders of the mother world, Kobol.

That's what I said

[BST]

Originally Posted by Warrior

That's what I said

Ye gods! You DID say that. I'm hopeless.

[larocque6689]

In TOS, the Lizard Cylons created the Robotic Cylons. The Robotic Cylons rebelled against their masters and created an Imperious Leader, who may be patterned/modelled after Count Iblis. The Lizard Cylons gave over their free will to Iblis and were "overcome by their technology" and hunted to extinction. The Cylon order spread throughout the universe and went to war with Man (who had been guided over the millenia by Iblis' angelic brothers aboard the Ship of Lights. The thing that always got to me is that the robot Cylons were not patterend after the lizards - but MAN. The Lizard Cylons and Man were ultimately in the identical predicament - at the mercy of these robots, caught in a war between the greater powers, between "Good and Evil".

The Human/Cylon war in Galactica was "The Berzerkers" with Pearl Harbor and Mormon theology thrown into the blender. Prior to War of the Gods, the Cylons were these robots who couldn't shoot straight but somehow managed to wipe out the human race. With War of the Gods it was part of something larger (and to me at least, more interesting than the "Saga" premise).

In TNS - they short-circuited the war. The Lizard Cylons are gone. Or rather, the humans ARE the TOS Lizard Cylons in addition to the TOS human role. It's a simplification of the original story, in the same way some wrtiers create composite characters rather than recreate half a dozen separate roles. We don't know much about the religion in the new series aside from RDM's monotheist/polytheist blog comments. The Cylons and humans are approaching things from two different philosophies or worldviews. There ARE connections between the two worldviews - suggesting the ultimate source is the same. (Parellel to TOS: Iblis and Ship of Lights)

I won't accept that TOS was not polytheistic. It was a polytheism overlaid wtih monotheistic overtones. (Which in a weird way, parellels its LDS sources). There definitely were several religious belief systems in TOS including Cassiopeia's famous Otori sect as well as the Klingon-like honor-systems of the Borellians. The Colonials believed in a lot of things.

Look - you can deconstruct this to death. There are a hell of a lot of common elements betwen both series. To call it anything other than Battlestar Galactica doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. I stand by the statment: two different takes on the same story, with different characters but the characters more or less playing the same function. Or to parellel this with the thread - "everything that has happened before will happen again." I'm not going to be distracted by the thought that they've shuffled a few cards in the deck in the process.

Perhaps if you are twisted you could refer to this as the "Bizarro" BSG or the Federation/Empire of Star Trek. If it means anything, I think you could have a heydey with Lost in Space and Voyager. Look, I'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking on this.

Hey, whatever floats your boat.

[Fragmentary]

Originally Posted by larocque6689

Look - you can deconstruct this to death. There are a hell of a lot of common elements betwen both series. To call it anything other than Battlestar Galactica doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. I stand by the statment: two different takes on the same story, with different characters but the characters more or less playing the same function. Or to parellel this with the thread - "everything that has happened before will happen again." I'm not going to be distracted by the thought that they've shuffled a few cards in the deck in the process.

I agree with this statement totally. A lot of this might come down to what each of us thought were the "key" elements of the original series. It seems for some it was the integration of certain religious dogma, and from that point of view the new show is widely different… I guess. For me, all of that is just setting. None of that is what the show is actually about, nor is it the show’s tone. The show is about mankind looking for Earth to survive and it’s told thru the eyes of an extended family, both literal and figuratively. Both of those things are alive and well in the new show. Re-imaging or re-make, we’re talking about the same thing. There both just short hand terms for something that writers, artists, and now producers have been doing forever. Maybe it isn’t enough like the old show, but it certainly bears a lot more in common than just the name.

[julix]

Eric sorry to stray from your thread but wanted to just let you know something...you stated as I also heard that RDM had originally said he only watched about 1 episode of TOS.....or very little. Well now in an article just out he claims he watched TOS religiously and knows it well. Interesting huh? Antelope commented back to me on a different thread about the article in the Chronicle that RDM was being"coy" and it was a marketing ploy.......you can read all his comments because I don't want to leave it out of context(but don't know how to do a link to the thread....sorry)


Nextceo......
You mentioned why are people upset when TNS takes things from TOS? I think it is because they all kind of made it clear how cheesy the old show was and how "great" the new show was and they didn't need anything from TOS....they had all this original gritty ideas that were better......then little by little we see more and more taken from TOS and RDM changing his mind on lots of things....note comment above. It makes for bad feelings and doesn't make me trust what he says. I think that is where soome of it comes from....just my opinion, can't speak for everyone. There could be other reasons known only to him that he does this....perhaps. I am sure people in Hollywood do it all the time....




Sorry to stray off topic all

[Eric Paddon]

Julix, I know about Moore saying he watched it "religously" and I think the difference though is he's saying he watched it "religiously" when it first aired but that since 1979, his viewing experience has been 1 and a half episodes. And when he was making his decisions on how to reinvent Galactica, that was a matter of just watching the cut down pilot and nothing else. Whatever fuzzy recollections he has of Galactica is based on 25 year memories and not the continued exposure through the years that most of us have.

[julix]

Originally Posted by Eric Paddon

Julix, I know about Moore saying he watched it "religously" and I think the difference though is he's saying he watched it "religiously" when it first aired but that since 1979, his viewing experience has been 1 and a half episodes. And when he was making his decisions on how to reinvent Galactica, that was a matter of just watching the cut down pilot and nothing else. Whatever fuzzy recollections he has of Galactica is based on 25 year memories and not the continued exposure through the years that most of us have.

AHHHH...I see the difference...thanks for clearing that up....

[Eric Paddon]

"A lot of this might come down to what each of us thought were the "key" elements of the original series. It seems for some it was the integration of certain religious dogma, and from that point of view the new show is widely different… I guess. For me, all of that is just setting."

I think it's okay to say that the matter of TOS showing its sympathy for the Judeo-Christian perspective is not important to you personally as to why you like the show, but that is a far cry from trying to argue that the Judeo-Christian presence itself in the series is only an "eye of the beholder" matter as has been the case in this thread. For me, the fact that I like Star Trek is because I see enough to let me look past the subtle to blatant secularism that exists in it and focus on what about original Trek impresses me more, but it doesn't mean I try to argue that the secularlist sentiment doesn't exist in Trek.

I have no problem with the argument that these religious subexts of TOS aren't important to some TOS fans, but when we get to the level of trying to argue that that particular subtext isn't there and it's only a matter of "eye of the beholder" and not based on the specifics of what is clearly established, that's when the dynamic of the argument changes completely, it seems to me.

[martok2112]

To his credit, Ronald D. Moore stated that what he saw in TOS Battlestar Galactica was the potential for a very powerful story, with a dark premise. RDM is playing upon the dark premise aspect of "humanity's destruction and exodus".

As much as I love TOS (and I really do), you don't get the dark premise with the casino in space and other elements that were used to lighten up the original show. I am fully aware that this was 1978 television, and that it was the dictates of the networks that Larson had to lighten up his premise. It had to go from a tragedy to a feel good family hour show.

As far as the networks were concerned, the general public obviously wasn't ready for something more concretely rooted in the darker aspects of the show. Just like back in the sixties, when the networks felt that the general public wasn't ready to accept a female as a first officer in another sci-fi television show.

The stupidity of the networks has been a historical laugh riot.

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[BST]

There was an acknowledgement of Moore's preparation, for the Mini-Series, by Ron Moore, himself. Sandy / TwoBrainedCylon had posted an interview that he had done with RDM and when Sandy asked a question regarding the preparation DeSanto had done and that Moore had done, Moore stated

(paraphrased)

"...Tom's work involved continuing the original story so, it made sense for him to be familiar with the ENTIRE show. In my case, since the show was being re-imagined from the beginning, I had only watched Saga of a Space World, to get a feel for it. I didn't need to be familiar with all of the tie-ins from subsequent episodes"


This is from memory but, that was the gist of the statement.


Now, if we only had a copy of the interview!

BST

[nextceo]

Julix, no offense, because I appreciate your open mind about TNS, I really do, but that is the way business is, of course they are going to play up their new series, because they want people to watch it. Look I love TOS, but it has some classicly 70's cheesiness to it, but that is what makes it an endearing show to me, becuase I grew up with it. However, when looking to reach a broader audience they wanted to get rid of a lot of the "cheese" or whatever people want to call it. Unfortunately that has turned a number of TOS fans against it. I have a lot of friends (especially younger than me) I tried to get to watch classic BSG, and they just thought it was too "cheesy" because it didn't reach their sensibilities, but love the look and feel of the new show. This is why significant changes were made, in order to reach a newer and wider demographic the powers that be decided to make changes. They like the premise of the old show but wanted to update and reimagine it. The way it was gone about was not good, I'll certainly agree with that, but that is the way many business decisions are made (unfortunately), how they think they can get the most demographics. Again, I don't agree with the tactics but we have to deal with the hand that was dealt, and after a certain point as Richard Hatch has said (and I don't beleive anyone did anymore than him to bring back the original characters), you get to a certain point and you have to play with the cards you are dealt and go forward. We can continue to cry what if, but it doesn't help change what we already have. And you know what after seeing later eps of TNS, it does go back more towards its TOS roots and I'm glad RDM has decided to take it that direction. I'm not attempting to condone anything that anybody did to tick people off, unfortunately in this situation that is what happened.

I was also actively pushing a continuation before Sci-Fi made their annoucements, so I was there during the time and know how things went down. Not really well, but on the other hand I think a lot of TOS fans blew things out of proportion and it only inflamed both sides and made people dig in their heels more. I'm not trying to blame, its just the way things worked out.

Again nothing personal to anyone on the thread, just my thoughts of how I see things! I appreciate all of your passion for both the new show and the old, more people need to have the passion about their beleifs that people on this board show.

[martok2112]

Howdy, nextceo,

Nice post. Well stated.

I am not entirely sure, without meaning to sound disrespectful, that a lot of fans blew things out of proportion. (I am aware that you stated that you don't know all of the ins and outs about how this new show came about). Many TOS Traditionalists do feel though that the existence of the new show was brought about in a very underhanded way.

Especially when one considers that a continuation show/movie was merely weeks away from actual shooting, with sets constructed, or at least partially constructed, and actors ready to go. I think some people have posted a sort of timeline as to what went down, but I don't know the links here.

After 9/11. things radically changed for the future of Battlestar Galactica. Those changes left a lot of fans sour (to say the least)

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[larocque6689]

I've got a bunch of links here:

http://www.mortalstorm.com/rdmbgintro.html

RDM Web Chats
9/2/2002 - http://www.battlestargalactica.com/d...ept2002qa.html
5/10/2003 - http://www.cylon.org/bsg/bsg03QA-RDM01.html
11/5/2003 - http://www.cylon.org/bsg/bsg03QA-RDM02.html

[BST]

Good post, nextceo.

A couple of points I'd like to discuss, though:

A wider demographic? If I recall, TNS is actually directed toward a narrower demographic than TOS, the 18-25 age group, and their location at the 10:00 PM timeslot is indicative of that. TOS, on the other hand, was more widely directed toward the entire family, i.e., prime-time.

***

You were around when "things went down" ... "think a lot of TOS fans blew things out of proportion..."? I agree that there are no angels on either side of the fence but, give me a break. The first salvos of the Clone Wars were set off by the "new show" proponents. Our reaction may have been less than stellar, in some cases, but I don't fault people for their reaction. When the perpetrator of the Clone Wars was exposed, it was found to be one or two people having created multiple handles which gave the impression of nothing but, undying love for the new show. Combined with Sci-Fi's hard-core moderation of their bboard which, in some cases, meant total censorship of any post EXCEPT ones that praised the new show, and you have the seeds for animosity in full bloom.

Yeah, it happened. We dealt with it and many of us are not proud of that time period but, as you can see, many of us have not forgotten it, either. It was a defining moment of sorts for this fandom and it began the schism that has developed amongst TOS and TNS fans.

***

..."they just thought it was too "cheesy" because it didn't reach their sensibilities"

One of the more reviled elements, indicated by many of the new show fans, is about the "kid and the daggit". To me, that was one of the more heart-warming parts of the show. Does anyone know why the daggit became part of the show? Go back to Saga when Serina confronts Apollo and explains how 'down-hearted' Boxey is, due to the loss of his pet - his best friend. The subsequent scene has Apollo befriending Boxey and giving him one of his lapel pins. (Later, Apollo works with Dr. Wilker, to develop a mechanical daggit for Boxey, trying to replace the one lost on Caprica.) After the scene with Boxey, Apollo and Serina talk again and Apollo remarks, "What's a warrior to do after losing the big one, .... win a few of the little ones."

That scene epitomized, for me, the love that one person has for another. It's this type of message that endeared TOS to me. It was a quite sensible message, even for a 17/18 year old, to grasp.

But, apparently that type of message is not favored any longer. Now, it appears that each and every person has to have an inner struggle from which to overcome, in order to make things interesting.

Do people, in general and in real life, think that our existence is really that bad? Is there nothing good that people can see, about life?
Do we always have to view the glass as being half-empty? Can it not be viewed as being half-full?


BST

[BST]

Larocque,

THANK YOU ... THANK YOU ... THANK YOU !!!!!




BST

[Darth Marley]

Originally Posted by BST

Do we always have to view the glass as being half-empty? Can it not be viewed as being half-full?


BST

The one, true, correct answer to this age old question: the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.