Re: Just got done watching original BSG on DVD. [message #19761 is a reply to message #19745] |
Sun, 14 October 2012 15:50   |
YourName
Messages: 366 Registered: January 2012
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <507AF460.89488CDD@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvEskyMOVE@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>>
>> In article <506C55B2.565E634A@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvEskyMOVE@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> If you don't know, then there's zero point even attempting to explain it
>> ... as I said,the vast majority of the human race are apparently lacking
>> in any "common" sense.
>
> This means you can't explain it.
>
> The story line is that Galactica is supposed to be the last battlestar. What
> else would you call the show????
I've already explained it, and those too dumb to understand it will never
understand it.
|
|
|