Re: Just got done watching original BSG on DVD. [message #22217 is a reply to message #19761] |
Wed, 31 October 2012 23:17 |
RT
Messages: 42 Registered: August 2012
Karma:
|
Member |
|
|
Your Name wrote:
> In article <507AF460.89488CDD@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvEskyMOVE@hotmail.com>
>> Your Name wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <506C55B2.565E634A@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvEskyMOVE@hotmail.com>
>>>> Your Name wrote:
>>>> > 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.
No, you haven't, because otherwise you aren't following the storyline.
You want a last battlestar named, oh, Battlestar Fred? Or something about
battlestars and no attack on the colonies???
|
|
|