If the original was "utter crap", then why did he/they call the new one Battlestar Galactica? Seems that it would be a better idea to make a derivative product under a different name to differentiate the two.
Yep, two actually. Tia Carrere starred in one of those bad syndicated rip-offs a couple years ago, but at least they had the decency to call it Relic Hunter instead.
Yes the original BG wasn't all that wonderful. It was a made-for-TV Star Wars rip-off, the plots were frequently lame or ripped-off from classics (The Gun on Ice Planet Navaronne?), the science was more fiction than fact, and there wasn't a whole lot of backstory. Yes it was a parable for the Conservative nightmares of the early Reagan era in the same way Star Trek: Undiscovered Country paralleled political events of the early 1990's. But for TV it wasn't that bad, for 1978-79 the effects were cutting edge (especially for TV), it had an actual musical score instead of some cheesy intro music hammered out by a Mike Post or Jan Hammer wannabe, and it had established characters who interacted in a consistent storyline. As a space opera TV show it was good enough to watch once a week every week for an hour.
When I first heard that Sci-Fi Channel was remaking BG I was thrilled. I hoped that Richard Hatch had finally convinced someone to remake the original series with updated special effects, costuming and technology and a few nods to modern culture (I always thought it was logical and kinda cool that the original eventually included female Viper pilots and hoped the new cast would be updated as such). But then I found out that Starbuck was a woman, and Boomer was a woman, and Cylons weren't really Cylons (they're humanish androids), and the main Cylon is a Terminatrix rip-off from Gov. Arnie's latest movie, and there is no mythological "Lost 13th Tribe" or quest to find Earth etc etc etc and completely lost ALL interest in watching this show. If the previous sentence wasn't blatant enough: I will not watch the new Battlestar Galactica for any reason, period. It is obvious that the new Battlestar Galactica is NOT Battlestar Galactica, just a different show using the BG name.
Some of you may wonder why I won't give it a chance. I have done so in the past, beginning years ago with that God-awful Robin Hood ripoff starring Kevin Costner that included new main characters that NEVER appeared in any of the legends and reinterpreted characters that were either far beneath the originals (Little John) or WAY over-the-top (Sheriff of Nottingham). I won't go into excessive detail about the string of film and TV "remakes" that have occurred since then, except to point out that remakes/reinterpretations have been common for the last 15+ years and almost ALL of them have been bad. Those who make them are almost always interested only in cashing in on name recognition (series title or author's name) to sell their product, because that's what these are...products.
If you've studied marketing/business and communications at the collegiate level, one of the first things you learn is that the business model of media is: the "media" (show, film, magazine, etc) is "bait" (a term actually used) to lure the audience towards the advertising, from which those who present the media (producers, et al) derive their profit. Those presenting the media frequently don't care about the "artistic integrity" of the media as long as it attracts potential consumers to the advertising; if the crappiest show on TV gets stellar ratings it will remain in the line-up season after season until no one watches it anymore (or it becomes unprofitable for other reasons, ie. too expensive to produce). Thus, the only answer is to not watch the show at all and make it clear that you will not be watching. Nielsen (sp?) ratings are determined by even partial viewing...an hour-long show still gets points even if the viewer watches 10-15 minutes of it, thinks it sucks, and turns it off.
It angers me that we "consumers" have been fed a steady diet of tripe and drivel for so long. But the only way to stop it is to not watch and make it clear that you aren't watching. Otherwise Star Trek will continue to be devalued by Voyager and Enterprise quality versions, Star Wars will become even more of a big screen non-interactive video game for 10 year olds, Matrix will spawn even lamer sequel/spin-offs than Reloaded and Revolutions, Anne Rice's Vampire chronicles will have more bad movies and Broadway musicals made in her name, and all your favorite classic books and movies will be raped by media producers in search of the next big buck.
Just Say No, folks.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
If the original was "utter crap", then why did he/they call the new one Battlestar Galactica? Seems that it would be a better idea to make a derivative product under a different name to differentiate the two.
Yep, two actually. Tia Carrere starred in one of those bad syndicated rip-offs a couple years ago, but at least they had the decency to call it Relic Hunter instead.
Well, in the text box it was split into 4-5 paragraphs. Apparently the text box isn't WYSIWYG.
Yes the original BG wasn't all that wonderful. It was a made-for-TV Star Wars rip-off, the plots were frequently lame or ripped-off from classics (The Gun on Ice Planet Navaronne?), the science was more fiction than fact, and there wasn't a whole lot of backstory. Yes it was a parable for the Conservative nightmares of the early Reagan era in the same way Star Trek: Undiscovered Country paralleled political events of the early 1990's. But for TV it wasn't that bad, for 1978-79 the effects were cutting edge (especially for TV), it had an actual musical score instead of some cheesy intro music hammered out by a Mike Post or Jan Hammer wannabe, and it had established characters who interacted in a consistent storyline. As a space opera TV show it was good enough to watch once a week every week for an hour. When I first heard that Sci-Fi Channel was remaking BG I was thrilled. I hoped that Richard Hatch had finally convinced someone to remake the original series with updated special effects, costuming and technology and a few nods to modern culture (I always thought it was logical and kinda cool that the original eventually included female Viper pilots and hoped the new cast would be updated as such). But then I found out that Starbuck was a woman, and Boomer was a woman, and Cylons weren't really Cylons (they're humanish androids), and the main Cylon is a Terminatrix rip-off from Gov. Arnie's latest movie, and there is no mythological "Lost 13th Tribe" or quest to find Earth etc etc etc and completely lost ALL interest in watching this show. If the previous sentence wasn't blatant enough: I will not watch the new Battlestar Galactica for any reason, period. It is obvious that the new Battlestar Galactica is NOT Battlestar Galactica, just a different show using the BG name. Some of you may wonder why I won't give it a chance. I have done so in the past, beginning years ago with that God-awful Robin Hood ripoff starring Kevin Costner that included new main characters that NEVER appeared in any of the legends and reinterpreted characters that were either far beneath the originals (Little John) or WAY over-the-top (Sheriff of Nottingham). I won't go into excessive detail about the string of film and TV "remakes" that have occurred since then, except to point out that remakes/reinterpretations have been common for the last 15+ years and almost ALL of them have been bad. Those who make them are almost always interested only in cashing in on name recognition (series title or author's name) to sell their product, because that's what these are...products. If you've studied marketing/business and communications at the collegiate level, one of the first things you learn is that the business model of media is: the "media" (show, film, magazine, etc) is "bait" (a term actually used) to lure the audience towards the advertising, from which those who present the media (producers, et al) derive their profit. Those presenting the media frequently don't care about the "artistic integrity" of the media as long as it attracts potential consumers to the advertising; if the crappiest show on TV gets stellar ratings it will remain in the line-up season after season until no one watches it anymore (or it becomes unprofitable for other reasons, ie. too expensive to produce). Thus, the only answer is to not watch the show at all and make it clear that you will not be watching. Nielsen (sp?) ratings are determined by even partial viewing...an hour-long show still gets points even if the viewer watches 10-15 minutes of it, thinks it sucks, and turns it off. It angers me that we "consumers" have been fed a steady diet of tripe and drivel for so long. But the only way to stop it is to not watch and make it clear that you aren't watching. Otherwise Star Trek will continue to be devalued by Voyager and Enterprise quality versions, Star Wars will become even more of a big screen non-interactive video game for 10 year olds, Matrix will spawn even lamer sequel/spin-offs than Reloaded and Revolutions, Anne Rice's Vampire chronicles will have more bad movies and Broadway musicals made in her name, and all your favorite classic books and movies will be raped by media producers in search of the next big buck. Just Say No, folks. :-)