ORIGINAL Galactica coming to DVD
POSTED BY: Micronaut
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 03:46
VIEWED: 5643
PAGE 2 of 2
Chris the Cynic, where are you on this one, man?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's been quite a while since Star Trek: TOS.
Let's suppose they re-made the series today.
If Kirk was re-cast as a woman, I'd be upset.
So I can understand what fans of the original might be feeling.
But honestly, I feel that Battlestar Galactica was a big steamy heap of excrement that had a good premise and little else of value. Even the pilot movie was inherently flawed.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Battlestar Galactica was the most successful science fiction series of all time no other science fiction show has ever had higher ratings than Battlestar Galactica, with one exception The X-Files. The X-Files is only called Science Fiction because there is no other place to put it really.
There are many of us out their who still love the show from when we were kids many now with kids of their own. It seems like a no brainer to promote the original young cast members Apollo,Starbuck to command staff positions and put in new young cast for the piliots keeping old fans happy. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
The old show had many great elements the new show sounds unlikely to have. It had a great family attmosphere Apollo loved and respected his father. The new show has Apollo in a dysfunctional relationship with his father. Do we really need more dysfuctional families on T.V.? I sure as hell don't. The old show explored the concept of human culture being seeded from space thus names like Apollo the new show does not. The old show showed a weak and decadent culture that would have self destructed 10 times over during the course of the series if not for Adama and others who still believed in there bible The Book of the Word. In fact the whole series had interesting biblical overtones the anti-christ "Count Ibley" from the episode "War of the Gods" to Judias in the form of "Baltar"
To me this show had a lot left to explore and one of the great things about it was the original cast they were three demensional people you really cared about.
You see the only reason Battlestar Galactica was cancelled was ABC wanted a number one or number two rating instead it ranked 24th out of a field of over 85. They cancelled it thinking well we can develop 20 shows for the price of this one and one of them is bound to be number one.No one by the way ever lost money on the series.
Now with science fiction bigger than ever the network people don't see what they have. What they should see is an opportunity to bring back the biggest space show of all time to a already built in audience.An audience of adults and kids they can sell spin off mechandice too.
Instead they see a show with a famous name that didn't work that needs help and fixing. They are taking a family show in the best sense of the word something all ages can watch and turning it into a dark oversexed dysfunctional family pile of gossa.
And when it fails because the old fans hate it the network execs. will go well I guess the show was unworkable. Instead of thinking hey maybe we should have just continued the story and made everyone happy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. I had no idea Galactica had the best ratings of any Sci-Fi show. I am appalled.
Do you actually have figures comparing Galactica ratings to those of other sci-fi shows?
I only say this because the show seemed to be rather poorly written. I mean, I was only a child when they were re-running the series on UHF, but I thought it was pretty lame back then.
I hate to 'bash' a show that you seem so keen on, but other than an FX budget and an interesting premise, I can't think of what else the show had going for it.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I get my info on the ratings of Battlestar Galactica from "An Analytical Guide to Televisions Battlestar Galactica." by John Kenneth Muir. And no it doesn't have ratings for all sci-fi shows but it does say outside of the X-Files no science fiction show has ever had higher ratings including Star Trek the Next Generation wich is generally considered the most successful space science fiction show of all time.
I think what Battlestar Galactica had going for it was it was alot of fun and had an excellent cast. Yes many of the stories were bad but always enjoyable.And some were actually quite good and well written. The trick to reviving the show to me is keeping what was good about it the cast the spirt of the show along with some of the concepts I mentioned before while making sure the writting was always top notch.
If you didn't see much worth while in the show all I can say is I did.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jumping back into this now long-running thread, I just want to return the starting point, that while the concept of Galactica was quite solid, the execution of the show was far less so. While it is a viable Hollywood tactic to bring back some of the old cast into senior roles, and introduce younger actors to the junior roles, my argument was that the new series, as a "re-imagining", does not need to follow the specific conventions established in the original series.
As an example, Shakespeare's works have been re-interpreted many times in many different formats - while the degrees of success have varied, the important core to all the re-workings was the story, not the stage, not the players, not even the specific characters.
Battlestar Galactica could be considered a show of greatness because of the symbolism of the elements, not because the script had snappy dialogue, or Richard Hatch delivered his lines in a particulary wonderful manner. The ship was the ark of Noah fame, Adama represented Noah (obviously), but was also a strong father figure, a force of goodness and light in the dark times. Apollo represented the perspective of a younger generation, as well as the sword wielded by the leader's arm. He was also the son struggling to distinguish himself in the shadow of his legenary father. Starbuck represented bravery and rashness, while providing stark contrast to the maturity of Apollo, his lifelong friend. And so on...
Some people have complained that the current filmmakers will destroy this core concept with their new version, and that is a valid fear. Others have expressed disappointment that the original show (and its values), for which they have fond memories, will not be continued. My perspective is that while the original show had some good points, there was nothing (beyond the core concept, of course, and perhaps some of the designs) worth resurrecting. Nothing. With only a frail original framework to start with, trying to maintain some semblance of continuity that would satisfy the fans would be nearly impossible.
I feel that the filmmakers had no choice but to create a re-imagining of the show, which certainly included the possibility of some specific elements being changed (the big one being a female Starbuck). While I have no idea if their work will fail or succeed on its own merits or if the bais of the fans will undermine its chances, but that is not my concern.
As a writer myself, I'll be looking for concept continuity. In the original, Starbuck represented many things... bravery, foolishness, immaturity, and so on, while also serving as a foil to Apollo. He also served as a friend, a confidant, a blood brother and a fellow warrior. While it might seem a little odd to the misogynists in the crowd that such a male-female bond could happen, I say "why not?" Not too many years ago, women were treated as inferiors, and some of that predjudice still exists today. I believe that as society grows more mature, such male-female relationships will develop and even grow to become the norm.
So let the filmmakers have their crack at the story. So long as the essence remains and a good tale is told, who cares if Starbuck has boobs? Who cares if the Cylons suddenly have to perm their hair? The Cylons represented technology gone awry - they weren't just bad guys. In some ways, it's far more poetic (albeit a bit cliche) that they now represent our own technology turning against us, than a nebulous, undefined external force of evil. If the remake fails, let it fail because the filmmakers did a crappy job, not because they re-imagined someone's favourite childhood hero. And if it succeeds, let it succeed because it's a great film, not because it reminds us of fond memories.
PS In regards to an earlier post by AnthonyT who mentioned being upset if there was a remake of original Trek with a female Captain Kirk, I will simply refer that writer to the earlier parts of this post... concepts win over details every time, at least in the larger scheme of things. In twenty years, maybe Captain Jane T. Kirk
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME