Jump to content


Kitty Kitty

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Biography
    Ask me. These boxes are never enough. ;)
  • Location
    Wisconsin, USA
  • Interests
    See Biography
  • Occupation
    I do stuff. Ask me for a quote.
  • Current Game
    KotOR series (yet again)
  • Web Browser
    Usually Chrome
  • Favorite LucasArts Game
    MM 2: Day of the Tentacle
  • Resolution
  • Height in cm

Contact Information

  • Xbox Live GamerTag
    oOxX Toni XxOo
  • PlayStation Network ID
  • Steam ID
  • Homepage
  • ICQ

Kitty Kitty's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Try This. (Wow. Longest link ever. Anyways.. give it a try. I dug it up on the Before you make a thread looking for a missing mod... thread over on Deadly Stream, down at the bottom of the post. Credit to: Sith Holocron. -Kitt
  2. Yeah, I saw things were going that way. As hard as it always is to say goodbye, I'll just keep my crying to myself and enjoy both worlds for however long I can. Thanks for nudge though. -Kitt
  3. So yeah, it's me. The reports of my untimely demise... blah blah blah. Figured this was as good a place as any to pop in and say, "I'm back!", although perhaps, given the theme around here, "I have returned!" might be slightly more appropriate. In any case, figured I'd say hello, and while I was at it, see if anyone's still monitoring this channel, as like most places, the majority of the dates are a bit... well, dated. Oh, and for any of the 'younglings' who are all probably going, "who the hell is this person??" A recap of sorts, or whatever have you. Headings blatantly copied from someone else's info... Name: Antonia, but call me Toni if you're gonna use that. Sex: Yes please? Oh, wait.. Female. I meant female. Really... Current Age: Ha. Haha.. Hahahaha! Er, no. Let's just say "old enough" and leave it at that. Location: (Currently frozen) Wisconsin, USA Interests: Gaming, Anime , Netflix, Music, Coding, Reading, Driving, more music, stuff I can't say without being slapped by a moderator, pen and paper gaming, miniature painting, camping, hiking, world travel (ask me where - too many places to list here), boating, SCUBA diving, um... hell. Let's face it. I like lots of stuff. If I haven't listed it, it's probable I either just haven't gotten around to trying it yet, or I forgot about it for the moment. Favorite games: This is a really hard one. There's a lot of good ones, and I've been at it for a very long time. Some that hit the list for sure though would obviously include the KotOR games, also Fallout 1 & 2, the OLD XCOM games, 7th Guest, the Nancy Drew series (hey, I love mysteries, and decent mystery games aren't exactly in great supply, so meh), Hitman series (though I haven't even loaded Absolution yet), Red Dead Redemption (man that's a fun romp), GTA series (mainly 3 and Vice City, but all have been fun), Arkham games (though I didn't care for Origins as much as the first two, and once again, haven't even gotten to the "new" one yet...) Ah hell, this is another category I could go on and on and on with. There's a lot, and I like them for different reasons. Choosing real favorites is tricky. Occupation: I do stuff. Ask me for a quote. (Also been called a general contractor at times, but my way sounds more fun.) Pets: Formerly, just about everything at one time or another. Currently 1 daughter (hey, she qualifies), and our 3 cats. We refer to them affectionately as "Sid" (which is the only one of them we usually use his actual name for), "Fatty" and "Crazy". Personality: Hmm.. being as I only copied this little "form letter", I wasn't really prepared for that. Honestly, I think other people's description of our traits and personality are generally more accurate than our own, but let's say "verbose" is probably fair... I'd probably also go with analytical, introspective, sometimes combative (I love a good debate), and more often than not, generally playful and fun-loving. Anything else, you guys tell me. Languages: As Bruce Willis once said, "English, and bad English". Though I've picked up tiny bits of lots of languages (German, French, Russian, Japanese, Spanish...) but sadly, none of them worth even enough to usually hold a basic conversation. I'm working on it, but life gets busy, and I have no natural linguistic talents, so progress is... rather poor. Now as for the *other* kind of languages... Fair background in basic (several varieties), as well as C/C++ (though it's been a while since I used any of them seriously), I've worked relatively successfully in tons of small projects using various scripting languages (NWScript, Python, Perl, Java, probably others) -usually when no one made a mod for a game I wanted, so I hacked one myself. Though I'm by no means "fluent" in most of those, in general, if I can lay hands on even rudimentary docs and maybe a snippet or three of source to look at before I start, I can usually make them do what I want at least. Embarrassing fact: Hmm. Another good one, though sadly, again, most anything I can come up with that actually caused me real embarrassment probably isn't appropriate on this open forum either. If you just can't stand my not really answering this question, you know how to find my PM box. Meh. Good enough for now. As said above, if I missed something important, gimme a jab in the ribs (PM Box) and we'll see what we can do. -Kitt
  4. That's actually very common in most games with sequels. I've been gaming since essentially the dawn of the home computer era, and I've seen this same thing happen time and time again. One of the more prominent examples would be the Fallout series. I think I'll always love the first the most, but most people I knew who jumped in with Fallout 2 tend to like it better. I won't even go into my opinions on Fallout 3 (and beyond), but suffice to say the same sort of phenomenon tends to apply, if anything in an even more pronounced sense due to the vast differences in style and feel between the "early" Fallout titles and the more modern FPS-styled ones. The point to this little trip down Fallout lane is that, even though when I've participated in similar discussions regarding that series, the fans of Fallout 1 generally admit that Fallout 2 was a larger, longer, and more "advanced" game in terms of features and whatnot, yet Fallout 1 seemed to have a "better" story in some way they couldn't always even put their finger on. Fans of the second tend to have a similar view, where they can freely admit the merits of the first, yet they almost universally hold the second as ultimately superior, and from what I've seen of the fans who came in at Fallout 3 or New Vegas, the trend is much the same, though often with a much wider margin of opinion due again to the vast differences in feel and game style. I guess when it comes right down to it, there's something to the old adage of "There's nothing like the first time." -Kitty
  5. The idea as presented would indeed be a lot of work. You'd have to edit quite a lot of DLG files at a bare minimum, and of course if you want the NPCs to have new replies, you'd either have to edit together or record new sound files, or live with those replies being "silent" text-only. Furthermore, you may even need to do a bit of scripting before you get everything working exactly as intended. If you're looking for a simple hack-style mod that would allow you to essentially play either as light or as dark as you want and NEVER (or at least very very rarely -I'd have to look into a bunch of files to be certain) lose influence for it with anyone, you could simply extract a copy of a_influence_inc.ncs (from scripts.bif) and drop it in your override folder. Using plain old windows explorer, change the name to a_influence_dec.ncs instead. What this will do is to ADD influence to an NPC whenever the game would usually subtract it, meaning you could be doing evil things that would have normally made your light-side friends angry (and lose influence), and even though they'll still appear to complain about it in the game, they'll gain influence instead. It would also work for doing acts of good with NPCs that tend towards evil. It's far from perfect, and not quite what was being asked for, but it would be a partial work-around that would at least partially solve the problem while you busy people look into just how much editing you'd need to do to actually pull off such a mod. -Kitt
  6. Far from it, but forgive me if I don't do any back flips about it just yet. As you probably know, die hard fans of the series have been promised a Fallout 3 ever since Fallout 2 shipped, but so far no one has delivered. Admittedly, it's looking more and more like Bethesda may actually come through (eventually), but at this point, the gaming industry had gone through so many changes that I'm only really able to remain cautiously optimistic. If all we get is some kind of Morrowind/Oblivion hybrid set in a post-apocalyptic world with ray-guns, IMO it will fall horribly short of anything that deserves the name Fallout. I've also been hearing some disturbing reports about Bethesda's ethics and practices as we move out of their "Morrowind era" and into the "Oblivion age", which again gives me pause, though somehow I do still retain just enough hope that perhaps I'll get the game I've been waiting and hoping for since 1998. You never know.. Every now and then the game companies still toss you a solid curve ball and pleasantly surprise you. -Kitt
  7. Good choice. Used to listen to that tape (yes, tape) over and over on auto-reverse back in the day. Way to Mandalay - Blackmore's Night here. Quite a change from Joe, but I still love it. -Kitt
  8. ^^-- Erm, no you didn't. That's the same reply I already replied to on the last page with only a few minor differences in wording, is it not? Look back on page 2 at my last post. I already replied to this. -Kitt
  9. He's not twisting it from what I can see, I'd say he's quite correct. Yes, there were similar complaints when TNG came out and I've not heard anyone deny that. The fact however that "some people" complained about it with TNG doesn't detract from the point of people like Mace and myself. You could drive around town throwing money at people and *someone* would find a way to complain about it, which was pretty much my reaction to the people who whined about TNG, because their objection was largely baseless. It was a new show with new characters on a new ship with new enemies. The basic premise of exploration, and the fact that it was set in the Star Trek universe was about all that was retained from TOS -aside of course the namesake: Enterprise and the occasional character cameo from the original cast. That's not what they've done here with BSG, and I agree with Mace.. It's just not the same at all, so I fail to see why they opted to try to *tell us* it's the same by using the same characters, timeline, etc etc instead of just stepping it up to a new generation. Bad decision IMO, since had they done it as a "TNG" effort, the fans who love the new BG would have still loved it, and a lot more of the old die-hards that loved (for whatever reason) the original series would have probably found a lot more to love as well. But, I'm not a TV producer, so my opinion counts as precisely that, and little else. -Kitt
  10. O_o Hehe.. Had that come from anywhere *BUT* New Zealand, I might have been surprised. As it stands however, I know all too well their penchant for all things so strange and bizarre that the words themselves no longer provide adequate description. Dead Alive / Brain Dead anyone? -Kitt
  11. [Note: It yelled at me for using too many smileys, so you'll need to use your imagination. ] [Note to the staff: I realize I'm pretty long-winded, and apparently both InSidious and I enjoy debate for debate's sake. If this gets annoying, say the word and we can take it to PMs. ] Well no, it doesn't excuse it, but in order to judge something as fairly as possible, you have to judge it in context. I mean, that's just how things were done in those days, so in order to be fair you sort of have to "forget" that we've learned better ways in the last 20+ years. It's akin to how everyone back in the 70's was wearing plaid, flower prints carried over from the end of the 60s and those horrible wide butterfly collars on everything. Sure, it was a fashion nightmare, but it was the sign of the times, so no one noticed until a decade or so later when they looked back and shook their heads in shame for having ever worn such a thing. A fair question, though unfortunately I can't give you a completely solid answer. In part it was because while still suffering from the "happy ending" syndrome, the show was still far grittier than most anything on TV at the time. While perhaps superficial and shallow, there was a distinct element of suspense and drama, and week by week you just wanted to tune in and see what they'd be dealing with this time, and whether they'd be any closer to home than before. Another aspect that figured pretty heavily I think was the fact that the 60s gave those of us here in the 'States Lost In Space (arguably far more cheesy than almost any other show of its time, though I still loved the re-runs as a kid all the same) and Star Trek, which ended with the close of the decade. The majority of the 70s was a period virtually devoid of science fiction on US Television, and all we really had available to us were re-runs of both the shows of the 60s. By the time Battlestar Galactica hit in 1978, followed a year later by Buck Rogers in 1979, everyone over here who had any interest in the genre (which was most of us due to the impact of Star Wars in spring of '77) had seen every episode of Star Trek 10 times, and had only these two shows as far as any "fresh" content was concerned. Of course, the second season of Buck Rogers essentially became Battlestar Galactica with a different cast, and neither of the shows was tremendously innovative or particularly deep, but they were still new, prime-time episodes to look forward to each week rather than tuning in for yet more re-runs or worse yet, those empty and devoid sitcoms which were somehow even worse than the crap they shovel out today in the genre. I suppose therefore, for me at least it was a simple combination of being the right age to be fully captivated even by relatively weak scripts and shallow characters (since you notice those things a lot less when you're not even 10 yet) and a starvation for anything "Star Wars like", which back then pretty much meant anything that was set in space with ships and blasters and lasers and robots and stuff. That's why I say a large part of my fondness for the original show is based on nostalgia, and while it may not be one of the points you'd find on a critic's check-list of show quality, I still think it's quite valid in this sort of context. Were I to instead make a simple point for point comparison of the two shows, I would have to reject such criteria and simply look at each of the facets in turn, but again, I don't really feel you can compare two versions of the same show with a 20+ year separation in a clean point for point manner and expect any kind of fair comparison. Hmm. After you mentioned them previously, in a context that seemed to suggest they were at least slightly "more solid" shows of that era and genre, I'd planned to try to see if I could find them someplace. Given my ability to forgive the cheesy factor and dated issues of the 70's and 80's, would you think I should go ahead and dig around, or just forget about them? Except indeed. While my favorite of the Doctors would have to be Tom Baker (probably largely because those were the ones I saw most growing up, coupled with the fact that he had a far longer run than any other actor), I can't really comment on the reincarnation of the series since frankly, I've yet to see it. Equal parts my being a bit resistant to the idea and it simply not airing here at times that lent well to my being able to catch it I would say, though one of these days I do plan to at least check it out either when the re-runs hit or by borrowing the DVDs from someone. I'll have to get back to you once I've had a look-see. In some cases certainly, but I've heard lots of actors say the same even when they didn't name the character or show they were speaking of. For example, the cast of M*A*S*H recently got together for a 30 year reunion special sort of thing, and Mike Farrell (Capt. B.J. Hunnicut) said that while it was fairly common to have no time to really develop a character until well after a show began runs, M*A*S*H had been a welcome change, since they had given him more than adequate time to reflect and develop some personality and depth for his role before he ever had to show up for filming. So a little from column A and a little from column B, I'd say. Oh, certainly. I'm sure you would agree however that truly "timeless" examples of media are far far more rare than the more common "cookie cutter" or "trendy" ones. It's not often you can tune something in from 2+ decades back and not fairly quickly date exactly where it came from, or at least, it's always been that way for me. Interestingly though, that cheesy and dated factor can often become an aspect that adds to, rather than detracts from the charm of something -particularly if it's achieved any sense of cult classic status. Take Star Trek: TOS for example. How many times have you heard someone say, "It's worse than that, he's DEAD Jim!", or "Beam me up, Scotty!" or any of a thousand other references? I suspect they're probably less pervasive over there across the pond than here, but the point is that fans of the old series know very well it's terribly corny and over-dramatized, we just don't care since it's so fun to laugh at situations which were, at the time, supposed to be terribly tense and dramatic. Great fun, and wonderful memories. Agreed, though my point wasn't that the producers themselves would improve the show, but that had they opted to keep it, chances are it would have evolved and at least marginally improved, since the cast and writers would get better as they went and it would only be in the producers' best interest to try to bring quality people into the fold whenever possible, since they'd made the commitment. In for a penny, in for a pound and all that. Well I was really speaking in a more sweeping classification of (at least US) culture overall as opposed to merely what was on TV at the time, though even there if you look at our programming of the day and compare it to what was going on in the States at the same time, it could well be argued that BSG and Buck Rogers were more the beginning of the 80s than the end of the 70s, since they took things in a very different direction than we'd been used to for the last 8 or 10 years. There were a lot of other aspects to that point, but frankly it would go way beyond the scope here. I've seen lots of those "walk down memory lane" type shows, which go through a given period in history and talk about all sorts of cultural influences and changes, and any that I've seen tend to agree that the 80's really began somewhere around 1978 or 1979. Probably because the 80's here was sort of the decade of self-indulgence and decadence and everyone was racing headlong to personal gratification. Either way though, it was an odd period in history to be sure, regardless which decade you want to attribute the '78 - '81 years to. We're in complete agreement there, though I'd take it one step further and say that frankly I find *most* stuff on TV sucks -regardless of era, regardless if it's a remake, spin-off, new show, what have you. Simply stated, it's a vast sea of crap, crap loosely (or closely) based off crap, and yet more crap, with an occasional pearl sparking somewhere beneath the waves. Usually though, the stupid surf is so high and everyone's splashing around so much in their typical sheep-like fashion that before you can really appreciate the pearl, it gets washed away and forgotten somewhere in the deep waters of really late and awkward time-slotted re-runs. Neet analogy, no? I liked some of the early years of SG1 pretty well, though I agree that essentially any surviving incarnation of that is pretty much crap now. Honestly, I haven't seen very much of the other 'modern' sci-fi, since what little I have seen hasn't impressed me, so I'd have to agree that on the show's own merits, it's probably quite a bit better than most of its genre today. Though by the same token that you say because everything was done badly at the time doesn't excuse BSG from being done equally badly in many ways, I don't see that because the genre is pretty crappy right now really makes this show anything special, other than it's better than much of the other tripe in its genre at least. But then, we're living in the era of Cop/Court drama and "reality shows" (which oddly enough almost never bear any resemblance to reality whatsoever), and a day when "Music Television" airs anything BUT music, so really, what can one expect where quality programming is concerned? Amusingly enough, a while after having posted this, I thought about Voyager and how oddly similar it actually was to BSG, though for some reason I'd forgotten about it at the time. Where that show goes, I marginally enjoyed it, but as I've said elsewhere, mainly because I got a kick out of how far they'd go to have Jeri Ryan bouncing around for no apparent reason in tight bodysuits, not to mention wondering if this week's "uniform" would be even more tight and sheer than the last. It was pretty funny. My point though wasn't that the Trek writers would do such a thing, simply that the aspects you listed, while obviously central to the story of the show, weren't actually what *made* it BSG. You could re-do that same concept almost in an identical manner, but with a new cast of characters and a few other simply cosmetic changes, you have a different show entirely. Case in point, season 2 of Buck Rogers or Voyager. Either arguably merely a (poor) BSG clone with different names. I can't really comment, since I stopped watching with any degree of frequency some time ago, but I guess the actual point I was getting at was... With the way the characters were presented in the first incarnation of BSG, had either Apollo or Starbuck been female, it was virtually a guarantee they'd have had to be scripted as a couple (with issues). They probably would have beat to death the "no honey, it's too dangerous!" schtick, where inevitably the guy gives up and shakes his head and the woman demonstrates (again and again and again) just how capable she was and so forth (ad nauseum), but while I'm very happy to see more women in viable, potent roles rather than the "eek! Oh won't some brave man please save me!" crap of the old days, this simply wasn't one of the places I wanted to see it. My mind simply can't wrap itself around Starbuck as a female. Partly because he and Apollo were one of those "mismatched bookend" pairs we saw so much back then that I just can't really reconcile with the massive changes to the character dynamic with the change. Sure, it adds a lot of potential for different directions and new ideas, but there's a huge difference between the "male buddies" scenario and the "we're just good friends" male/female pair. Having been something of a tom boy myself, and having more male than female friends most of my life I have some knowledge of this first hand. No matter how close you are to a guy you're just friends with, there's always a massive difference from that type of friendship to the one he'll share with his close male buddies. Neither is "better" or "worse", but they are always very different, no matter what TV tries to tell you. Personally, I just really don't like the added complications and lost aspects that such decisions caused, but I realize not everyone shares that opinion here, which is of course, fine by me. See above. Good thing perhaps in theory, but in my eyes, they broke more than they fixed with it, even though I do applaud the theory, and the effort writers have been making lately to balance things out a bit more. Eh, here again it's not that I think this was exactly a bad idea, just that it changes the dynamic so much that it's actually pretty ridiculous. Had the original series seen these cylon-humans, everyone on the Galactica would have died, plain and simple. It's another point of contention where I think such a concept could have been brilliantly presented as a "next generation" evolution, but trying to redo history with it is too hard to swallow. It'd be like doing a remake of Braveheart, but have all the English be storm troopers or something. Besides the fact that it would feel ridiculously silly, Can you say dead highlanders? Yeah, I was pretty sure ya could. Well they always were, though they did sort of draw the whole dynamic out to (IMO) kind of silly proportions in the new version, where in the old it was more of a "yeah, well... man made these guys, but that was a long time ago and look what happened.. now we're in deep" aspect, which to me, worked a lot better. That's a fair summary, though in fairness, fighting it isn't going to change anything. They'll still make and air it, and there will always be people who are going to prefer it over the old one -particularly the "younger generations" from my own. I'm ok with that, since I'd probably feel much the same as they do were I 20 years younger. So did I pass the test? Most people tend to find that while I admit I've got plenty of faults and failings, my conviction doesn't usually tend to be one of them. True, but to portray the whole thing with the same characters (at least in name), and to come right out and say, "Oh, wait.. it wasn't like *that*, it was like *this*!" to me, feels a bit insulting. It's the very fact itself that there really never had been a great deal of resolution of exact times or dates that lent the series so open to sequel/prequel generations, and in my mind, that would have been a far better way to go here. Alas, I'm neither a writer nor a producer, thus my opinion doesn't really count for a lot. -Kitt
  12. Hmm... Not quite sure about this one yet myself... I played the old game on the C-64 and it was all kinds of fun, even if it was pretty cheesy -especially by today's standards, but what I saw here looked too much like "yet another semi-FPS with a shiny new wrapper" for my tastes, though admittedly it's a very early build so who knows. I'll be keeping an eye on it, since I always thought a more modern version of the game could be a lot of fun if done well, but if it winds up essentially Half Life with a car, I'll be a sad, sad kitty... Just hoping for something with a little more substance and maybe a bit of thinking required I guess. If anyone's curious or wants to wander down nostalgia lane, here's a moby link to the old one with some screens and junk from the various platforms. Talk about memories. Ghostbusters (Activision, 1984) - MobyGames -Kitt
  13. A nickel and a quarter. You said one of them wasn't a quarter, but you said nothing of whether or not the other one was. -Kitt
  14. Again, this was perfectly normal and par for the course in those days -at least over here in the states. About the only show that really tried to break the standing rule whereby you could have a little conflict, so long as everyone was happy and laughing about it at the end was M*A*S*H. The US viewing audience back then wanted levity and anything but reality when they turned on their set. While a few shows would occasionally toss in a "deep issue" (All in the Family comes to mind), even these were few and far between, and the bulk of programming was dull, repetitive sit-coms filled with carbon-copy characters and sketchy plots at best. As you've already stated, that may well be true of that time in the UK. It certainly was not so however over here. I've never seen any of those shows save for the good Doctor, and even that was many years later in syndicated re-runs on cable TV. Again, we're trying to compare apples to oranges, which everyone knows always comes out bananas. Actually no, it's typically a flaw in production. Quite often, a show was selected and details sorted but no allowance was given to the time required for the actors to feel out and define the roles they were supposed to be playing. I don't care how good the writing is, it still takes time and reflection to turn yourself convincingly into someone else. I've seen many interviews with various actors who were part of many "classic shows" where time and again they said they really were flying completely by the seat of their pants. Not because the writers weren't doing a good job, but because until you've had the time to make the character breathe, it's all merely words on a page. This argument largely depends on perspective. For many of us who were children in the 70's and teens through much of the 80's, we can admit in retrospect that certainly the 80's were rather tacky and cheesy, but we didn't notice at the time. Back then, it seemed quite normal to us all. None of that was the point however, but rather that a show that stays on the air does so because someone thinks it's going to be profitable. For it to be profitable, logic dictates that it needs to improve, rather than regress over time. Likewise, as the people involved (actors, writers, director, etc) make the show more their own, all those facets of the show tend to grow and improve rather than to be shaky and thin. Again, there's no guarantee this would have happened, but it's the more likely assumption, regardless of how tacky anything was. Incidentally, it's worth note that over here in the states, it's pretty universally agreed that "the 80s" is the period between mid 1978 and 1989, simply because pretty much all the decadence and tackyness that trademarked them was already very pervasive by the close of the 70s and those last couple years while transitional, had far more in common with 1980 than they did with 1977 as people seemed to be in a race to get rid of the 70s. No, of course not. I never said that, so it isn't my argument. In fairness though, that's probably a fair part of why very few shows ever get "remade", but instead they get spin-offs, next generation incarnations and so forth. It's not an easy thing to remake a running series, and to do it in a way that will please both new and old fans alike. Now it's my turn to disagree. Head and shoulders above everything else? Frankly, I fail to see it. On its own merits, it's a decent show certainly, but there's been plenty of others I'd consider just as good and I must reject the idea that it's some 'shining paragon of modern television' as opinion, rather than fact. Also, I didn't say BG was average, I said that the flaws it suffered were fairly average and par for the times. There's a difference, because despite its flaws, the show was still quite entertaining and captivated viewers in its day. Since the function of a fictional TV show is to entertain, it was doing its job where many others failed. Congratulations. You just described just about any of dozens of shows, with the possible exception being the gods which was always merely a minor flavor element rather than any real plot or story hook. My point is that with the above formula, you could take the crew of the original Enterprise (or any incarnation of it really) and have the Borg blow up earth and decimate the rest of the federation worlds, and send them all off looking for Eden (or whatever name you want to give it), and you'd have the show you just described. Would it still be Battlestar Galactica? Not to me. The sex/species changes drive me nuts. I'm sorry, but they do. Regardless of what was originally intended, what was originally presented is the basis we as an audience had available, so that's what we know. The very idea that the universe could even allow the remote possibility of a romance between say Starbuck and Apollo is just utterly and horribly wrong. It changes a major dynamic of the entire show, and is but one small example of facets that when stacked together make it nearly unrecognizable. People as Cylons, Cylons as people, males and females randomly reassigned, and characters who were virtually re-defined from the ground up just pushes my tolerance past the point of acceptance. In the end though, what does it really matter? You enjoy the new show, I'll fondly remember the old. I don't see how my opinion detracts in any way from your own, nor do I see why both can't be valid, since both are born from a rather different base perspective. While I freely admit that my standpoint is largely born of nostalgic reasons, that doesn't make it wrong. You seem quite determined to sway me to the idea that the new show is somehow superior to the old, which frankly isn't going to happen. In my eyes, it was never a question of which show has a better team of writers, nor which has more interesting, convincing characters or better more dazzling effects or a million other possible questions, but which one *I* prefer. In my (admittedly not-so humble) opinion, it would have been a far better idea to graduate the new series to a new generation, which would have probably pleased everyone, rather than to attempt to re-define the fond memories of two generations of fans who are still out here watching TV. It's really that simple. -Kitt
  15. Not necessarily. You have to bear in mind that when the original series was new, everyone on TV sounded pretty much like that. We didn't see the glaring flaws in the often thin scripts and cheesy acting because it was pretty standard fare. Watch virtually any show of that era and my point here should be fairly self-evident. It's also worth remembering that the original series aired for only a single season across 1978 - 1979, and was cancelled due to many factors, though lack of viewers wasn't among them, as it was still quite popular. Why it was cancelled really isn't important to the point at hand, though the fact that it ran for such a short period is. It's fairly common even with the shows of today for the first season to be rather less than stellar where the scripts and acting are concerned, as the show hasn't really found its stride yet and actors are still struggling to define the characters they portray. While there isn't any way to spin back the clock and know for sure, it bears merit to assume had the original BG run longer, it likely would have improved in many areas (such as scripts and acting) rather than (or at least prior to) a decline. So to again address your question more directly, to me it depends on a lot of factors. While I agree that a good story, dialogue, and deep interesting characters are all important, I don't believe any of them are a justification of sacrificing core aspects of something that has an established pattern to follow. Is the new series a better show? If you merely compare the two shows point for point, almost certainly. But you can't really compare them in a direct point for point light because of all the things 20+ years have done for television. You have to apply some degree of a 'sliding scale' of sorts, making allowances for things that, while "poor" by today's standards, were either average or superior to what you generally saw at the end of the 1970s. When you apply a fair comparison, really the two shows come out fairly even when all the pros and cons are weighed, which then brings us back to the actual question at hand. That question wasn't "which is a 'better show', but whether you prefer the original or the new series, and again, the "re-imagined" version either corrupted (or in many cases simply ignored) so much of the original concept and dynamic that to me, it just isn't BG anymore. Had it been presented as a spin-off or a "next generation" I'd probably love it, but in my eyes they've simply drifted so far from the story and the core fundamentals that I just can't accept it as the same show, nor sadly am I able to enjoy it when it's portrayed in that light regardless. -Kitt
  • Create New...