Slashdot Mirror


Battlestar Galactica Resurrection Effort Described

MistGhost writes "A background story of the effort, both by Richard Hatch, and Ron Moore to resurrect Battlestar Galactica (NYT link so remember to lie on their free registration). Now that the show has started it's second season (at least here in the States) this article appears. " I sat down with the Tivo last night and really enjoyed the premiere. I think the SG-1 retooling as real potential too- that show has been stale for a long time.

18 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. expensive to produce? by matt21811 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article "The most expensive-to-produce program of its day, at $1 million per episode" Thats funny. My strongest memory of the original BSG was how, in nearly every episode, there was a fire on board the ship and they reused the exact same footage of firefighters putting it out every week. Even at 8 years old I knew that was the producers being cheap. The only other program that I recall doing this so much was Astro Boy. I think there was a Simpsons episode that satirized the technique. Anyone know which one?

    1. Re:expensive to produce? by OS24Ever · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or the same viper shot peeling away to the left or right just by reversing the footage.

      Or the uses of the Apollo command module seperating from the third stage as a missle launch

      My Dad insisted there was some footage from an old disaster movie or two tossed in there

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  2. Re:Battlestar Ponderosa by nabil_IQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do rememeber the original BSG. Although it had some "cheap" production shortcuts and somewhat sloppy story line, I enjoyed it back then, I still rememebr having nightmeres about the Cylons (remember the old Cylon roboots, they were cool :P) attacking me!.

    The new series is AMAZING, it's the best show on TV today. I watched season one like 1000 time (I have downloaded the episodes after giving up on the DVD release anytime soon) on laptop on my daily commute, and still can watch it more.

    season 2 seems like it's going to be just as good as the first season. Friday's episode was pretty damn good. Loved it!

    To sum it up, the new BSG is something very well worth watching. And I recommend it to any and everyone. Cool visuals, smart story, sexy charcters. what else a geek would ask for ?

    --

    Won't somebody please think of the Karma!
  3. The best thing about BG by strider44 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The one thing I love about BG is that the spaceships are physically accurate. They have thrusters all over the ships in different directions to subtly change course and they conserve momentum. When an enemy is behind them they just use the thrusters to flip around and shoot backwards.

    I remember cringing in Stargate when they expressed a ship's top speed in miles per hour.

    1. Re:The best thing about BG by Quack1701 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The thrusters my be realistic, however, any pilot with those bright lights shining in their face would be blind to the dog fight! Also, how many vipers can they lose from week to week before they start having a major resource issue?

    2. Re:The best thing about BG by drxray · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Einstein disagrees with you ;)"

      A spaceship can accelerate forever, and the stuff outside the windows will keep going past faster if you keep accelerating. When you get near light speed stuff comes at you at just under the speed of light, but the more accelerating you do the more length contraction occurs so you can i.e. cross the galaxy in less subjective time. It's just that for someone on Earth you'll take the same time to cross the galaxy whether it takes 500 subjective years or 500 subjective seconds.

      --
      Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
    3. Re:The best thing about BG by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think it's pretty clear that, except for the "jumps," the BSG universe is Newtonian -- i.e., no starship battles at "Warp 2.3" or whatever. And I rather like that the writers seem to have at least some idea of the sheer scale of interstellar space. (As opposed to the old series; I still remember the line, "Sir, the Galactica hasn't been pushed to light speed for some time," after they'd been hopping around various star systems.) The "we've lost the fleet!" subplot in the season 2 premiere was a bit contrived from a plotting POV, IMO, but believable and scary in and of itself.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:The best thing about BG by magarity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, it's because space ships don't have a top speed! There's no friction to slow them down

      You seem to be mistaking space for something that's perfectly empty. The practical top speed of a spaceship is the max speed at which it can ward off the miscellaney particles floating around in space. A hydrogen atom at 150kmps relative velocity is a dangerous thing. If a spaceship can't deal with that, its top speed is less than 150kmps.

      As for friction, perhaps you missed the article a couple of months back about Voyager slowing down because it exited the sol system's bowshock and was in interstellar space being slowed by all the particles therein?

  4. I love the new BG, but... by jockm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And for that matter Carnivale (one of Moore's other recent efforts). But if left with a free hand, do Moore's projects always have to have a messiah?

    --

    What do you know I wrote a novel
  5. SG Atlantis and Bstar Galactica by Danathar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After being disappointed when Babylon-5 and Farscape went away I remember wondering if there was EVER going to be another Sci-fi series like those two.

    The BEST scifi (and fantasy) explores the human condition in situations that cannot or do not exist today. In this way an author is able to explore aspects of emotion and dichotomy by creating situations which bring seemingly unrelated ideas into conflict. Even in sci-fi with Aliens there will always be a "human" anthromorphic undertone or the Alien will have characteristics of Terran life (mental or physical since currently humans have no real evidence of what a REAL alien would look or think like). Ron Moore Understands this.

    If you take out exploring the human condition...then you get a show with lots of cool equipment and places but is easily forgettable.

    This is why I think sci-fi/fantasy is a VERY interesting genre. They are limited only by imagination...but are ALWAYS about humans (US) because they come from human imagination.

    On a different track....I'm particularly impressed with SG Atlantis. Usually it takes a season or two for me to become "comfortable" with the characters (case in point...Voyager took 3 seasons)..but after just one season the characters on Atlantis have "jelled" and are interesting. This is a GOOD thing! I'm conflicted about them contacting earth so soon though it might have been more interesting if they had kept them back for a couple of seasons.

    Its to be seen if the addition of the stars from Farscape will breath new life into Stargate SG-1...but I'm hopeful since both actors have shown they know their craft from Farscape. Remember that Law and Order has shown that a show can go on indefinitely if you rotate actors in over time that are good. I would not be surprised if SG-1 tries for this (or Atlantis).

  6. Re:Most sci fi is stale right now by 0xC0FFEE · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I've said it several times, once the Star Wars saga is over and the Studio have finished their soul searching (seeing as they can't effectively go directly to the bank with past brands) we'll start getting amazing sci-fi.

    Blockbuster sci-fi has gone the "more realistic special effects" direction for some time now at the expense of storylines and actual character development. (As a side, am I the only one to have been completely blown away at the initial scene of the latest Star Wars?) Spielberg has done a great disservice by not being bold enough but just so. Maybe he doesn't want to risk his emerging production company yet? Nobody else stepped up to the plate. Matrix was probably the last film that wowed audiences just by the special effects (and the music). Special effects are so good now that you won't see them as a good enough reason to head to the theatre for that 12$ ticket and 16$ soda/pop-corn combo.

    I've missed the first season of Galactica and catched up by downloading the episodes on the net. The 2 special episodes are truly fantastic. The first season has the making of a good series. Unfortunately, since I've watched the first season back-to-back, I could see how diluted the content is compared to the special episodes. This must be the Studio wanting to milk to good ideas as much as they can. This is the Star-Trek disease and honestly I'll probably put up with it as I don't have better options.

    What I am longing for is self-contained, one-time features. I don't mind spending 3 hours or more (whatever is needed to finish the story, don't do the Revolutions gimmick). I don't want to invoke past cliches like BladeRunner and 2001, but there need to be more exploration of genres. Spielberg is kinda trying to try, ,but always settle for the good ending. Good sci-fi is intrinsically watched multiple time and is a natural DVD bestseller. As is usually the case in our society, good investment leads more surely to profits. So take that to heart Studios!

    As to whether I'd like to see a movie version of Galactica. I don't know, the rebirth of Galactica clearly show how the fans are not the best judges and that the green light shouldn't be given according to fan's opinions.

  7. SG-1 Stale? by Blitzenn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I loved Richard Dean Anderson in Star Gate. If anything, I think they are going to have to pull off some briliant writing to save the show now. I do like that they stole the Farscape cast for the sho and that is a plus, but without that Anderson humor, well, it won't be the same.

    I also don't put an once of credit into anything that blowhard Richard Hatch has to say. What a dork he is.

  8. Re:Battlestar Ponderosa by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That is why Enterprise failed. It was a good idea, but horribly executed, like an axemen who hits the guy in the back instead of hard on the neck when he's on the block.

    Actually, it was at least two different good ideas, and they jumped back and forth too much.

    A series about the first Warp 5 starship would have been cool.

    A series about the temporal cold war told from a little guy's perspective would have been cool.

    Trying to be both was just foolish.

  9. Re:New SG-1 by cbreaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought the last couple seasons of SG-1 were really good.

    We know the characters. They've developed them all very well. So, they were able to concentrate on the story more instead of character development.

    I've always liked how they continue to bring back the re-occuring characters. It really gives you a feeling that the show is "bigger" in a way.

    But I like Ben Brower and I like Claudia Black, so I definately think they will bring new life into the show, keeping it going.

    The show has definately changed though. Although it's always been a Science Fiction show, it has kept it's feet on the ground of viability. However, now there's spaceships, shields, and super space guns. It's fully engulfed in the SciFi space drama now.

    It does make sense though; they've aquired technologies and made friends enough to build space ships and such.

    It's a good progession of the show.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  10. Re:Battlestar Ponderosa by JordanH · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I really really enjoyed how Enterprise attempted to tie up what I saw were loose ends with regard to the Vulcans.

    How do you explain the Vulcans? They apparently had space flight for a very long time (thousands of years?) - because of the existence of the Romulans which was lost to all memory. They are physically very robust (long lived, super strong, acute senses), extremely intelligent, highly focused, yet they were only marginally advanced from humans at the time of Cochrane? It just doesn't make sense.

    Enterprise grapples with this head-on and satisfyingly, I think. Vulcans are unbelievably arrogant and not particularly curious all leading up to extreme calcification.

    I also liked the "Enterprising" way they dealt with the tech they had at hand. I love the grappling hook and the annoying squeek in the Captain's floor.

    But... it suffered with a lot of painful extended plotlines and bad writing. I only watched the first few years and then they kept moving it's time around in my market, I lost track of when it was on and didn't care anyway...

  11. computer network on BSG? by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Overall, I enjoyed the first episode of BSG season 2. But I can't seem to understand the writer's logic of how the cylons could infiltrate the computer network that Lt. Cmdr. Gata set up for solving the hyperspace problem and locating the fleet. It seems to me like they just set up a simple network with small amount of PCs, connected by wires (no "wi-fi", or the BSG equivalent). If that's the case, then how the frack would the cylons even know that there was a network to hack into?!?!



    Perhaps they were able to detect some type of electromagnetic signature of the computers connected to it and break in from there, but if they were able to do that, why couldn't they just attack each one of the galactica's computers separately, several episodes ago during the original battle?



    Maybe Boomer put some kind of bug in the computer system? Or perhaps the cylons are just super Xc3113n7 l337 h4Xor5! ;-)

  12. BSG RAWKES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've read most of the posts and here's my observations:

    1) I hated the new BSG when I first saw it - mostly due to the fact it is NOT "Battlestar Galactica" - it just has the same name. Now I love it because it stands on it's own - I just wish it didn't carry the name BSG.

    2) Comments about reuse in shots for the original BSG... didn't you guys ever watch The A-Team? That same damn jeep flipped over 2000 times! Not to mention there's a "B" Sci-Fi movie from the 80's that actually bought all the original space dogfight footage from the original BSG and reused it for their own story line... I wish I could remember the name.

    3) You have to realize, the original BSG was a fictional excursion in a religious universe. It was reportedly also based largely (and loosely) on the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS / Mormon's)... I'll let you do your own research into how much and in what way. I guess you could say it's based on Mormon doctrine in much the same way that the Alvin Maker series by Orson Scott Card is...

    4) The new version still carries the religious theme, but in a current pop culture scientology sort of way if you ask me.

    5) I'm an idiot for numbering my thoughts.

  13. Re:Battlestar Ponderosa by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Having lived through the 70's I can tell you with onitoligical certitude that US television at the time was a vast, vile, steaming heap of crap.

    Got your back on that one. I wish my young brain had not been subjected to Charlies Angels, The Love Boat (ouch), Fantasy Island, Wonder Woman, The Bionic Woman, or The 6 Million Dollar Man. And what was with that whole 70s Bigfoot obsession? Lots of movies and TV shows about it including an episode from The 6 Million Dollar Man and The Night Stalker. Maybe it had something to do with the 70s fascination with supernatural horror (based on Christian mythology). Remember In Search Of with Leonard Nimoy? For me that symbolizes that decades fascination with stuff like that.

    Doctor Who with Tom Baker, ST:TOS, and those campy Roger Corman-esque and Japanese (Toho Studios etc.) guy-in-rubber-suit Saturday afternoon monster movies (late 70s) were the high points of that TV era for me. Even cartoons like Speed Racer and Felix the Cat seem less embarrassing than 70s network TV. And the 'good' shows like Night Gallery and Night Stalker would be considered unwatcheable by modern standards. I have heard that there is one TV movie from that era, an ABC Movie of the Week about witches called Crowhaven Farm that stands out as the best television of that era. But it is impossible to find a copy. So I can't confirm it.

    I can still remember coming home from school and flipping on my old telly that took more than a minute to 'warm up'. The so called remote had big rectangular buttons that seemed to use a loud clicking sound to turn it on and change the channels. I think simulating the clicking sound could shut the TV off.

    Luckily I had a friend with a DEC PDP-11 by the late 70s. So that offered some degree of entertainment in the form of early computer games like Super Star Trek and Adventure (Collosal Cave).

    Perhaps the biggest mind-rape of that era was the music and the hideous clothes (which ironically young girls of the current era seem to have copied). A decade that includes the Bee Gees and Barry Manilow playing on 8-track tapes, The Hardy Boys, platform shoes, bell bottoms, velour v-neck and button down shirts with those long pointy lapels, truly is (or should be) an embarrassment for everyone who had to live through it.

    Even the feathered hair, skin-tight Jordache jeans, leg warmers (remember Flash Dance?) and synth-pop of the early 80s were a huge step up the evolutionary ladder for western culture. I don't know if it was a worldwide phenomenon or just in North America and Western Europe. I have to wonder what East Asian or South American culture, for instance, was like at that time.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.