Slashdot Mirror
New Battlestar Galactica Spin-off Series Announced
An anonymous reader writes "The Sci-Fi Channel's hit series Battlestar Galactica may soon be joined by a 50-year-prior prequel series, called Caprica. To be co-exec produced by Ron Moore and David Eick, the new series will follow the tale of the creation of the Cylons."
I'd turn up. More power to ya, Ron.
BG has gone from strength to strength. Who'd have thought it, for a remake of such a camp piece o'crap. I went in with EXCEEDINGLY low expectations. Maybe that's the secret.
Anyway, Ron can tell a story. I'll be there.
I am a leaf on the wind
I for one welcome our new Cylon Overlords.
The original series started back in 1954 and was called Paprika.
http://religiousfreaks.com/I'm not interested in a series whose name is an anagram of "I C A CRAP!"
I just really hope that this doesn't hurt the quality of BSG by spreading writing/producing talent as well as budgets too thin. I mean, I think Stargate might be suffering from that right now, having two complete series to do.
I also think that having a prequel could hurt a bit, because I feel like a strength of BSG is its unpredictability. I mean, it changes so much (season finale anyone?) that I feel that knowing the ending (Cylons created, rebel, we fight to a draw, Galactica survives to the present day, none of the Colonies get totally destroyed, etc) kind of hurts it.
You know adama wont die but thats about it.
Also regarding the prequel issue, lots of movies come about
world war II and are quite good despite people knowing
how world war II turned out they still seem to have good plots.
Boomer loves Chachi
Col. Tigh's Place
Laverne and Dualla
Caprica City 90210
A Different World
Law and Order: Special Cylon Unit
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I was hoping it would be ADAMA: The College Years.
Maybe in one episode, Adama has the sorority girls from Caprica Caprica Caprica over for a game of Strip Pyramid.
So, after finally getting around to watching "Tooth and Claw" (Doctor Who 28x2), I am reminded of Gregg Easterbrook's discussion of (someone's, I forget whose) theory of the sci-fi "idiot plot," a plot which can only carry on forward motion if everyone involved is an idiot. BSG has been full of them, especially of late, with fantastic "should we ask him if he still has that bomb we know was ours yet is the only one unaccounted for? Naaaaaah."-related activities.
Why do I mention Doctor Who? Because it, quite simply, is not that. Star Trek (at least TNG) likewise rarely ran into this problem, so it's not just an american thing. But why do we buy into these plots? They're ridiculous on their face, yet we keep watching more sci-fi full of them. Are we that impressed by apocalyptic stories and high technology that we ignore the whole reason we're watching the show?
I just don't get it.
I'm not interested in a series whose name is an anagram of "I C A CRAP!"
That may be a valid point, but I can't trust any comments by One Butch Orgy.
There are only twelve types of BG spinoffs.
Well, they clearly can't do a sequel, because the series isn't over yet. And in a fleet of 45 thousand people (ignoring "Lay Down Your Burdens II for a minute) there aren't really enough interesting things going on to have a a co-existing series. I mean, unless the fleet splinters for good along Pegasus/Galactica lines or something (in which case, it'd be two pretty much identical series).
Therefore, a prequel is really your only shot. And considering BSG started with the near total destruction of an entire civilization that looked pretty darn cool in its own right...
What is it with Hollywood's fascination with prequels anyway?
First there was Star Wars with Eps I-III, then there was Star Trek with Enterprise and the new proposed movie on when Kirk/Spock were in the Academy. And, now this.
I feel doing prequels is a bad idea and will never produce great entertainment.
There are three main reasons:
(1) Future is Known: Since the audience already knows what will happen to the characters in the future based on earlier movies, there is never that subconscious element of suprise. For example, no matter how much the main characters are in jeopardy, we know they will survive to justify their existence later in history. Writers basically paint themselves in a corner since they are bounded by the events that are supposed to come later.
(2) Risk to Established Canon: Sometimes the writers try to inject novelty by doing things that meses up the canon. They introduce things that no longer justifies what was established in the earlier movies. This leaves a bad taste in the audience's mouth because it invalidates everything they have come to believe. For example, the appearance of Borg on Star Trek Enterprise before the time of Kirk.
(3) Anachronistic Special Effects: Since prequels get made with special-effects technology that has evolved much beyond when the earlier movies were made, we end up seeing special effects and the general look of the movie not being in line with what we would expect how things would look in the past. For example, some of the consoles and user interface screens used by the cast in Star Trek Enterprise looked more advanced than the ones on Star Trek : DS9. This anachronistic anomaly again leaves a bad taste in the audience's mouths.
I feel Hollywood should abandon this fad of making prequels and just start making more novel sequels where what they can do is only limited by a good writer's imagination.
That didn't stop Lucas from making his prequels.
That didn't stop the people who knew what was going to happen from seeing them anyway...:P
That being said, sometimes know what the results will be can drive suspense, especially if things seem to be going in an direction away from whats *SUPPOSE* to happen.
Still need to end up with expected results anyway, otherwise people will complain, like when a certain character says she remembers he real mother when she was very young, but in a prequel we find out the woman died in childbirth?
If it's anything like the "re-imagining" of this show, count me out. No idea why so many people fall for this show. The new BG is below par in just about every aspect of production....
Dad? I didn't know you read slashdot!
Adobe After Effects for one. You'll want to get the Pro version, I think, and use an image stabilization filter.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I'm most excited about meeting the first Cylon. In the series, the Cylons a sophisticated belief structure and a strange confidence in those beliefs (although we know they sometimes change their minds). We get to see a little of how Cylon society is structured in the second season, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. How did an artificial intelligence creat a monotheistic belief system? How did it come to believe anything at all? Why do Cylons believe they're God's chosen species?
In the director's commentary for the first-season episode "You Can't Go Home Again," Moore and Eick say that they think the key to a great BG episode is to give away secrets. There's a lot of secrets left.
I'm still waiting for the book before Genesis on the origin of God, It should make quite the prequel.
You think that BSG is bad? Did you see the Lord of the Rings? Product placement all over the place! Pipeweed this, pipeweed that. Sheeesh! It's a good thing not that many people saw Lord of the Rings, or we might be facing a sequel.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
On the way I passed my boss, who had overheard the request. He gave me a nod, and directed me to Humor, where he'd shelved the von Daniken books. I do recall someone once complaining about the von Daniken's being in that section, Les's comment was we were a science library and they'd be shelved there or nowhere.
I really wish the Scifi Channel would stop with the psuedoscience-as-science bs, talking-from-the-dead scam, and big-bug-o-the-week movies, and get on with telling some really good SF: Strong stories with powerful ideas. Stargate et al is nice light comedy in the SF genre, but von Daniken presented as legitimate, well, give me a snarky G'aould any day.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
I actually read something in a magazine a few months ago, and basically the reason Sci-Fi does the monster of the week movies is because they're so low budget but still bring in advertising. They cost under a million dollars a piece to make, and they run them a few times and probably break even pretty fast. I guess that's basically the bread and butter of Sci-Fi, it's version of "reality TV".
It'd be interesting if they did kill off all the Adama line in the prequel. It'd certainly add fuel to the speculation that Adama's a cylon...
Thinking back to the miniseries, the schematic the guy in the space station had for the cylons were the centurions we knew from the 1978 series.
Does this mean the new series will have to go back to men in suits to maintain that canon? Or will there be new CGI-tastic cylons that are supposedly created for more mundane tasks that humans origonally used them for?
i.e. this show will be set before the cylons split off and created the centurions?
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
ST:TNG has a pegasus, and an episode named after it
SG1/Atlantis has an entire pegasus galaxy
Therefore BSG had to have a pegasus!
Uh, hello? The original BSG had a Battlestar Pegasus, and its Admiral Kane was played by Lloyd Bridges (thus providing karmic balance: Katee Sackoff > Dirk Benedict, but Lloyd Bridges >> a PMSed Ensign Ro). Therefore, TNG and Stargate ripped off BSG. This is something that only a slight amount of research could have informed you of.
Those who don't research their history are doomed to end up looking like a fool on /..
If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
"Bad casting choices, terrible acting,"
Terrible acting?! Bad casting choices?! Are you kidding or just being a mindless troll? This is one of the best elements of the show, bar none.
"cheesy sets,"
I hope you're not an Star Trek fan...
"barely acceptable lighting, "
"herky-jerky camera work, "
The camera work -- with its sudden pans and zooms -- tries to be realistic and convey the feeling of iminent attack. It feels just as the nervous cameras depicting the attack and fall of the Two Towers... It was a novelty back then and is still a very powerful instrument of dramatization...
"exceedingly shallow politically correct plotlines and characters,"
politically correct?! gimme i break, will ya! Boomer and cast are all but politically correct. Adama lies to the tripulation. There is a scientist with a moral dillema. There are alcoohol adicts... gimme a break!
"not to mention the barely concealed pro-USA anti-terrorism propaganda agenda in the writing."
while i agree the show depicts this "anti-terrorism propaganda agenda", i don't believe it's a weakness. In fact, it's one of its strong points.
In conclusion, i believe you're just trolling against what is one of the best shows -- SciFi or not -- to ever grace TV. If i had any moderation points left, your Insightful +5 would be history...
"If the original plan to do a continuation of the original series created by Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto [battlestargalactica.com] had gone forward, the show, and subsequent spin-offs probably would have been very watchable and entertaining."
yeah, Cylons would be mutants in a soap opera setting... gimme a break!
I don't feel like it...
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question. htm (the story)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question (about the story)
Vuja De: That sinking feeling that this is going to happen again. Often occurs in meetings with Product Managers.