Now that BSG season 3 has befuddled us...which is better, the Original or the new?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, April 28, 2008 06:36
VIEWED: 7665
PAGE 6 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
Is grittier a word?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The writers Larson employed on the original, were TV hacks, with no concept of sci-fi or good storytelling. The concept of the show was great, but the execution was horrible.
The re-tooled western episode, where Apollo has a High Noon standoff with a defective Cylon, is a prime example of a stroy written by a TV hack writer.
The Original BSG had cool sets, and cool costumes. Compared to that, the original Star Trek was cheesy looking. The costumes were downright silly, and the effects were so dated Paramount has replaced them with CGI. So, why is the original Star Trek more respected than the original BSG? The writing! Yes, Trek had some really bad ones too, but the good ones are far superior to any episode of the original BSG. Larson got hacks and got what he paid for. Roddenberry got sci-fi writers like Theodore Sturgeon and Harlin Ellison, who knew sci-fi, and ended up with stories that stand the test of time.
The new BSG may have had a few missteps along the way, but it's still far superior to the original, and years from now, it will be the version the gets the most notice, and critical respect! Ron and company are good writers, and more often than not, they have written good stories, that like the original Trek, will stand the test of time.
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME