| Re: Just got done watching original BSG on DVD. [message #17998 is a reply to message #16177] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 11:11   |
RT
Messages: 42
Registered: August 2012
Karma:
|
Member |
|
|
Your Name wrote:
>
> In article <507-5054DA94-150@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>,
> BillV2320@webtv.net (The Void Era Man) wrote:
>>
>> In hindsight with the new series someway behind us and all of its
>> offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original
>> better.
>> maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi
>> of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.
>> yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel
>> of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not
>> just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.
>> i kind of see that roland moore sold his premise clothed in BSG
>> because ...
>
> The revival of Battlestar Galactica wasn't even remotely Ron Moore's idea.
>
> It was started long before he was recruited to the job, but originally the
> new series was going to be a proper sequel to the original Glen Larson
> series, and at one stage it was helmed by Bryan Singer who unfortunately
> had to pull out due to commitments with the X-men movie and other things.
> He did much of the ground work, including getting many of the CGI models
> created that Ron Moore than later took over.
>
> I'm not even sure it was actually Ron Moore's idea to do a remake /
> reimagining, or whether that was (partly) forced by the idiots in studio
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica#Attempted_ revivals
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica#2003_reima gining
> management. It wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to make his own, likely
> hopeless, show and just like his mentors (Star Trek's Beavis & Butthead
> twins: Berman and Braga) got pushed into doing something he didn't really
> want to do OR if he agreed to do it simply to get a big name on his resume
> so he could then do his own show.
>
>> it was much more likely to be picked up as a series if it had an
>> established name on it already.
>
> The problem is that that makes no sense at all. If the original Battlestar
> Galactica was supposedly so bad, why would they reuse the name? Anyone
> with a micro-milligram of common sense isn't going to watch something
> called "Battlestar Galactica" if they didn't like the original show called
> Battlestar Galactica ... that would be like going into a restaurant to
> order spinach soup when you know you don't like spinach soup, but are
> stupidly hoping / expecting it's not actually spinach soup. :-\
>
> It would make FAR more sense to use a totally new name for their very
Why would it make sense?
> different show. People who didn't like the original Battlestar Galactica
> *SHOULD* be much more likely to give a new show a chance if it had no
> obvious link to the original ... unfortunately the vast majority of the
It would be a totally different show then. What would be the point?
> human race are apparently lacking in any "common" sense and are stupid
> enough to watch any old crap simply because it's the latest new toy on the
> block or it's "what we do every Friday night", regardless of it's name or
> what it's about. :-(
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
