ORIGINAL Galactica coming to DVD

POSTED BY: Micronaut
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 03:46
VIEWED: 5643
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

MICRONAUT

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 3:25 AM

Just caught this on www.cinescape.com...

Quote:

Universal Studios Home Video finally announced today that it will bring the entire first season of the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA to DVD this fall. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE COMPLETE EPIC SERIES will be a six-disc set scheduled for release on October 21, 2003. Additionally, the company will release the theatrical film on DVD with a preview of the new GALACTICA mini-series included.

Here's the link...

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Video+%26+D
VD&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270352&obj_id=39044

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

CHANNAIN

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 1:31 PM

woo hoo!!

I found the way, by the sound of your voice--so many things to say.
These are only words. Now I've only words. Once there was a choice.
David Sylvian

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 3:43 PM

Question: What's up with "Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming" ?? It's just a trailer?

Looking forward to the DVD's and the new B.G. coming soon, though I don't see why Starbuck is now female.

MICRONAUT

Thursday, July 3, 2003 3:02 AM

BG:TSC Was a promo trailer put together by Richard Hatch in order to get some momentum going about a possible Galactica resurrection (with some of the old cast). It never happened, and neither did Glen Larson's supposed kick at a Galactica reunion. What did happen was that the resulting hoopla led to Ronald Moore (of ST:TNG) somehow landing in the position of "rebuilding" the franchise (not my first choice, but what the hey... I'm not in charge). So, considering that the best actors of the previous show (Lorne Greene and John Calicos) were both dead, and the remainder (with the exception of the aforementioned Richard Hatch, and possibly Anne "Sheba" Lockhart) had little if any interest in revisiting the show, he and the Powers That Be decided on a "reimagining" (a la Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes). The plot is still gonna be the same, though... humanity get's its ass kicked by bad guys and end up running away until the day comes when they can turn the tables.

Personally, I'm looking forward to it. The original show had lots of great concepts but the execution of said concepts often left much to be desired (and most of said executions should be left permanently behind in the 70's, along with the Love Boat and Fantasy Island). As for Starbuck... well, Dirk Benedict's Starbuck was a carousing, sexually adventurous, brash but mostly brilliant pilot. So too will this one be. Who cares if the character is a he or a she... I want the same level of dialog and character interaction that Firefly had. If the new BG can have even half of what Firefly had, it will be far above and beyond what most of the crap on TV has. These days, high concept and brilliant SFX mean very, very little... I want good solid writing, with snappy dialog and lots of great plot surprises. Hopefully, Mr. Moore has learned a thing or two from Mr. Whedon's wondeful creations and will sculpt his vision of Galactica from the same clay.

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

SUCCATASH

Thursday, July 3, 2003 3:17 AM

Okay, I'll buy into your enthusiasm. Changing history bothers me, though.

And if Firefly comes back on TV but Mal is a woman you might realize that you're pissed off.

MICRONAUT

Thursday, July 3, 2003 4:59 AM

Actually, if Mal and Zoe switched genders in the Firefly remake of 2023, and the show maintained the high quality of writing that it is currently known for, I wouldn't have a problem. If the Firefly movie of 2004 has Mal as woman, and we are expected to carry on with the continuity without so much as blinking, then yes, that would be an issue.

In regards to BG, their effort is not a continuation of the original show... it's a remake. While the details of what went before might be violated, the spirit remains the same. Indeed, in this case there's no continuity to violate because as far as this show is concerned, there is no history - there is no direct connection to the original other than the core character concepts and the plot (and, yes, some of the designs). And for many people, especially for those too young to remember the original, this new BG might as well be the only BG that ever existed - the old show will be virtually irrelevant to new fans, other than an historical footnote.

As far as I'm concerned, stories are stories... there are very few - if any - that NEED to be gender specific. I mean really... what is the core concept of Frankenstein? The hubris of science acting as God and the consequences of those actions... not whether or not the monster was a guy. Same idea for Dracula... Jekyll and Hyde... Three Musketeers... and any number of classic stories that can be (and have been) retold with different genders in the key roles - the only losses to the story have been because of poor writing, not because the hero or villian suddenly has tits or a dick.

Remember the hoopla surrounding the casting of Kate Mulgrew as Janeway in Voyager? People (both fans and industry types) were up in arms about the casting of a female starship captain, both for and against. In the end, what did it really matter? A captain is a captain... The quality (or lack thereof) in that - or any character - comes from the writing and the portrayal, not the gender.

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

SUCCATASH

Thursday, July 3, 2003 2:13 PM

"Remember the hoopla surrounding the casting of Kate Mulgrew as Janeway in Voyager? People (both fans and industry types) were up in arms about the casting of a female starship captain..."

You are missing my point if you compare this to Voyager. It's not about Male vs Female, it's about changing history. That's all.

I would be equally annoyed if Zoe became a man.

Let's change that character to female, add a token black guy and token chinese guy and now we've got us a hell of a show!

MICRONAUT

Thursday, July 3, 2003 7:42 PM

No, I got your point (and a good one it is). My logic follows thusly: if a TV/film movie follows a series sometime down the road, and it is to be a continuation of said series, then continuity should be maintained as much as possible (i.e. no female Mal, no male Zoe). If the TV/film movie is to be a remake, then continuity is not an issue and whatever changes are necessary to reflect the needs or sophistication (or lack thereof) of the audience of the time are certainly fair, so long as the spirit of the original is maintained. Should not only the characters be altered, but the spirit significantly changed too, then the potential remake is no longer even a revisionist take on an old story but something entirely new, and should no longer be allowed to have any connection to the original whatsoever.

I would have an issue with a movie that tells the story of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra with the key roles gender reversed, and purports to be an accurate historical portrayal. I would not, however, have an issue with a movie inspired by the circumstances and events of Caesar and Cleo, with gender reversed roles, so long as it is made clear that the story is the key, not the details of history.

The bottom line is, I am not a "purist" when it comes to the retelling of a story - indeed, I love seeing new twists on old ideas. I am also in full agreement with you in regards to the preservation of historical details when it is established that continuity is vital to the story. Star Trek has revised its history on several occasions (the biggest deal being the Klingons from the old series vs the turtle heads of the newer ones, specifically Kang, Koloth, and Kor). While entertaining, the glaring gap in continuity is shameful. Still, at the end of the day, it is only a TV show...

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

SUCCATASH

Thursday, July 3, 2003 8:02 PM

Nice post, well said. All I can say is that I don't feel as old as I am (not that I'm old), but it doesn't feel like Battlestar Galactica was 20 years ago. I can still clearly remember Starbuck's face and he is still my hero.

I wish they had struggled to find the closest Dirk Bennedict lookalike possible. I say don't fix it if it ain't broken.

I view the switch as a cheap way to appeal to the masses (as you alluded to above). Somebody figured that 20% more females would watch it or something. I don't think the idea is artistic or creative.

Anyhow, I do appreciate your enthusiasm and I'm willing to give the new B.G. more than a fair chance.

MICRONAUT

Friday, July 4, 2003 2:17 AM

Quote:

I wish they had struggled to find the closest Dirk Bennedict lookalike possible. I say don't fix it if it ain't broken.

Well spoken and well intended, and I agree with you vis a vis the character of Starbuck, but I would only be concerned if what was "broken" is the spirit of the persona (hell, he/she could be an alien as well... makes little difference to the rogue concept which Starbuck represents).

Quote:

Anyhow, I do appreciate your enthusiasm and I'm willing to give the new B.G. more than a fair chance.

After this discussion, I truly hope that the "new" Galactica scribes do the concepts justice and do not fall prey - as you aptly suggest - to the whims of a marketing director.

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE