The new Battlestar

[Olive]

Either that is a joke or something that I cannot answer. Does it have to be ... err, Mormon-influenced?

The original show was filled with religious references to do with lost tribes etc. I thought it was Seventh Day Adventists myself, but it could have been Mormons.
I just did a google on Battlestar Galactica +mormon and got heaps of info.

 

[William Ronald]

The original show was filled with religious references to do with lost tribes etc. I thought it was Seventh Day Adventists myself, but it could have been Mormons.
I just did a google on Battlestar Galactica +mormon and got heaps of info.

Olive, as I recall Glen A. Larson, the producer of the original series, was a Mormon. The original series had some Biblical references, but I am not familiar enough with Mormonism to comment on any specific references.

Unfortunately, I do not have cable so I do not know whether to be glad that I am missing this or not. (Ironically, I don't have time for a miniseries this week.)

 

[trancejeremy]

Hmmm. I always thought it was more something of a copy of "Chariots of the Gods" which was sort of popular back then.

You know, the Pyramids were built by aliens.

The show sort of had an Egyptian theme to it.

(Not unlike Stargate, actually)

 

[jdavis]

...you know, in all truthfullness, while I LOVE the original and such...it doesn't deserve a chance either.

In the 70's it was really something else, but it didn't really hold up to the test of time that well. (sort of like the Ford Pinto and my lower back )

As far as the new one goes I'm just getting tired of all the quotes I see from the producers where they basically say "were making all sci fi better here and if you don't get it that's your fault." That may not be what they are meaning to say but that's the way the quotes are sounding, they seem to be very defensive to the criticism they are getting and come accross as very arrogant in interviews (and to some extents even in the Lowdown special). They had to expect some flack with all the changes they made and lets face it in general remakes normally have a big hill to get over with the original audience. They would of been better served if they had changed the character names, changed some of the ship designs and called it something else. It will get lots of flack just because it's called Battlestar Galactica, the core fans of the show have a preconcieved notion of what the show was and should be that they will have to overcome. Were they suprised with all the flack they got for the changes they made? Sci Fi fans are a fickle and unforgiving bunch (just ask George Lucas ).

 

[Darrin Drader]

As far as the new one goes I'm just getting tired of all the quotes I see from the producers where they basically say "were making all sci fi better here and if you don't get it that's your fault." That may not be what they are meaning to say but that's the way the quotes are sounding....

I think they knew that they were going to alienate a good number of the fans, and I don't think they care so much. As far as I'm concerned there are two ways that a franchise can go. You can start making it for the fans, or you can keep the control in some other place. In BSGs case, I think the control is spread out a mile wide and two inches deep, but they are insisting that that's where the control is. The producers aren't as interested in making the TOS fans happy as they are in drawing new viewers into the fold. With this miniseries, they're targetting the B5 fans, the Farscape fans, yes the Star Wars fans, and then the fans of the other minor space operas like Andromeda, etc. They're baiting the hook with a known brand name (Battlestar Galactica), and the promise that this is going to be some really kick butt, action packed science fiction. They're definitely more interested in making money that satisfying the few die-hard loyal fans that are out there

Now, I really don't see that as all that bad, to be honest. The fact is that if you made a series (mini-series, movie, whatever) designed to appeal only to the loyal fans of the original, it would be a ratings flop. In order for this to succeed, it has to find a new audience, and that involves changing some things. Did they change too many things? Possibly, but I'm still willing to give it a chance, Ultimately it all comes down to business, and this is the business of entertainment in the 21st century. Love it or leave it (hmm, why is it that I don't watch much TV anymore???)

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The thing that struck me most in the Lowdown show was when the writers(?) stated that they had no problems changing everything around. Their rationalization was that the important thing was in the concepts, not in the details. They then went on to compare this to Shakespeare saying that the Bards works have be changed and reinterpreted over and over and that they had seen some wonderful reinterpretations of his material.

While I feel that they have something of a point I disagree with it too. Yes there have been many good interpretations of Shakespeare but this is not the same thing. This is changing such things as the sex of Ophilia or making MacBeth English. When these kinds of details are changed it often confuses or alienates viewers. Sure you can keep the concepts but change things radically but then you normally rename the play/movie as well. West Side Story is a great reinterpretation of Romeo and Juliet but it would not have been nearly as well recieved if they hadn't changed the name(s). How many of these radical reinterpretations but keeping the name have worked? (And no I didn't like Romeo + Juliet with Leonardo).

 

[Ranger REG]

I admit I am an unforgiving Trek fan since Braga keep producing less-than-impressive episodes. Then again, the Trek franchise have been the longest running entertainment venture with 400-plus episodes/stories and at least 10 films, so the chances that you'll revisit a story already told in an original format is higher than trying to make a completely original story.

Of course, when our criticism grow, Braga at one point defended his works and accused us of being "continuity pornographer."

At least Ron D. Moore was upfront and honest when he says he is doing a re-imagination of BSG, not a continuation nor a re-telling of the original (with just updating the props and stage elements more appealing to today's audience).

Any BSG fans, devoted or not, should at least give the series a chance before criticizing it, already knowing it is a re-imagined story. After all, even a Trek critic like me have to do the homework (the one painful hour every week just to re-iterate Braga's sub-par leadership).

The same goes for the Tolkien fans, regarding Peter Jackson's adaptation of LOTR.

 

[Darrin Drader]

They then went on to compare this to Shakespeare saying that the Bards works have be changed and reinterpreted over and over and that they had seen some wonderful reinterpretations of his material.

Actually I think that what they were saying is that Shakespeare himself would re-interpret other stories of the time or even make changes to history on his historical plays. In many cases when he took existing plays by other playwrites and changed them, his version became the "definitive" versions.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I think they knew that they were going to alienate a good number of the fans, and I don't think they care so much. As far as I'm concerned there are two ways that a franchise can go. You can start making it for the fans, or you can keep the control in some other place.

Now, I really don't see that as all that bad, to be honest. The fact is that if you made a series (mini-series, movie, whatever) designed to appeal only to the loyal fans of the original, it would be a ratings flop. In order for this to succeed, it has to find a new audience, and that involves changing some things. Did they change too many things? Possibly, but I'm still willing to give it a chance, Ultimately it all comes down to business, and this is the business of entertainment in the 21st century. Love it or leave it (hmm, why is it that I don't watch much TV anymore???)

Man, I think I agree with you 100%.

Sci-Fi fans also tend to believe that they are the center of the entertainment world, and the fact is that they're a very small minority. For all that Star Wars is a cultural phenomena and LotR is kicking butt in the box office right now, the number of people that have watched even Star Trek is abysmally low in comparison. The fact is (unfortunately) that sci-fi shows cost a lot to make, and need good numbers to make back money spent on the show. The original BSG probably would not have brought in those numbers.

Do I think they changed too much? Yeah, I do. Do I have high hopes? No, I don't. I like Ron Moore's work a lot (especially on Carnivale), but fembots? Come on. I agree with a lot of what he's said in interviews, but I don't think you need to make the Cylons look human to make them seem human.

Then there's another point no one's mentioned here (and I apologize if you did and I missed it). Moore's probably working with an extremely small budget - hence human-looking Cylons. SFC has been known to "request" changes to appeal to the rapidly shrinking male 18-35 audience. And as someone did mention above, there's too many fingers in the pie. So blaming this on Moore or the writers may be pointing the finger at the wrong place. Maybe they thought they were going to have the opportunity to make the show they wanted to make, and it got lost in the shuffle.

 

[jdavis]

I think you are drawing too close of a line between Battlestar Galactica fans and Sci Fi fans here, I mean lets face it Galactica started as a Star Wars rip off, it's not all that different a beast from Sci Fi in general, matter of fact it is space opera science fiction. They aren't trying to broaden their audience from the Galactica fanatics they are trying to pull in the 18-35 male demographic by using a Victoria Secrets underware model as a Cylon. I mean do you really think there is all that much difference between somebody who likes Galactica and somebody who likes Babalon 5? The only reason to call it Battlestar Galactica is to get publicity from the name, then you turn around and upset the people that the name recognition would draw in. I really think they would of done much better if they had just called it something different instead of playing off that name. I'm not going to call it good or bad (at least not in the next 15 minutes here, It's about to start) but I was just pointing out the name may bite them in the ass.

One thing I will call stupid right off was the decision to air this show on a Monday night. Good grief your going up against Monday Night Football and WWE Raw for a piece of the 18-35 male demographic? They have cut their own throats with the scheduling here for that demographic.