Battlestar Galactica: Old vs. New

[Darth InSidious]

I can easily understand why most who didn't grow up with the originals would prefer the new show, and I can even understand why a lot of people who did know the first show might feel that way. It depends on where you place most of your emphasis for sci-fi, which for many has always been the effects and the "ooooh, shiny!" factor. I can appreciate that, but for me, the key factor for a remake has always been how true it is to the original vision, and in that regard the new BG just failed utterly.

 

-Kitt

 

Being true the original vision is a good and valid point, and one I frequently use myself.

 

But surely good, intelligent storytelling, un-cringeworthy dialogue, and fleshed-out characters override even that?

[Reclaimer]

What my opinion is, and also from what I've seen, is that re-makes of series' (like Battlestar) leave out alot of key elements from the original series. If you look at it, The Original and the Remake are two different shows. The Original was designed and made for the technology they had at that time, and the Remake was designed for the technology of this time. Transfering the Original to the Remake might sound easy, but in contrast, its quite hard.

 

So, in my opinion, I think the remake should have been maybe more planned out? I don't know exactly, it all ranges from personal opinion.

[Kitty Kitty]

Being true the original vision is a good and valid point, and one I frequently use myself.

 

But surely good, intelligent storytelling, un-cringeworthy dialogue, and fleshed-out characters override even that?

 

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

[Darth InSidious]

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.

True to a certain extent, but BSG 1978 really did suffer from what I call the 'Star Trek syndrome' quite badly. To explain, everyone was happy and never argued, there was perfect harmony and everyone got along just fine, and it was all laughs at the end. Certainly that was the impression I got.

 

It's also not entirely true. Blake's 7 would seem to offer a (equally ill-lasting) foil to this argument. Doctor Who, too, was doing fairly solid stories at the time. This was also around the time of Sapphire And Steel's debut...So I would have to disagree.

 

How things looked from across the pond, I don't know, but certainly that was all on offer over here over 1978-1980...

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.

I'd say it is common ESPECIALLY with the shows of today...Back then, you HAD to get it right first time...Yes, there can be problems, but surely having difficulty defining the characters is a flaw in the writing?

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.

I disagree...The 1980's were a time of uber-tackyness, IMO...Look at the direction used on Encounter At Farpoint, for example...*shudders at the close-ups of Q's eyes...*

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.

Would you rather have painting-by-numbers episodes, all the same? By this argument, no television show could evolve at all.

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.

I disagree. By your own admission, BSG in the late 70's and early 80's was pretty average. The new BSG is head and shoulders above everything else. This doesn't, of course, make it much better, and indeed rather reflects on the quality of everything else, but nonetheless it is true. It is, I believe, showing us which way sci-fi is likely to go in years to come. I think that puts it quite a way above a programme that was pretty standard, myself...

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

I take your points, but which core fundamentals do you refer to? Of humanity in a desperate struggle to survive? Battling against all the odds? Coming through against a relentless and unstoppable enemy? Racing across the galaxy to reach a legendary home? Believing in the Greco-Roman gods as the Lords of Kobol?

 

Or do you mean the shape and number of Battlestars, the nature of the characters and their respective sexes, the clothes etc?

[RedHawke]

I don't want to distance myself from the original. I like the original.

Well Jae, I get that you like the original, so did I, but you missed my whole point.

 

I may just have a serious case of Auld Pharte disease, too.

From your post, I'm going to have to go with this one. Sorry.

 

Jae! Don't look at me like that! Put that hatchet down!

 

[Darkkender]

I'm going to throw in here. I was a long time fan of the Original BSG and have become a convert to the new BSG for many of the reasons mentioned. I like many find the Frack usage over the top to the point of cheesy, you can almost time a new episode to how soon frack is used. There are many things I do hate about the new BSG and that was there first season with characters in the fleet and characters back at Caprica. It made it hard to follow and was absolutely annoying.

 

I find many people disliking the new Baltar however his character isn't that much different from the original. The silent betrayer/madman.

 

Sharon "Boomer" as a cylon was a twist that I have enjoyed even though I was a sceptic at first.

 

I also hate to say this. I'm a big fan of the Original "Starbuck" being a guy factor. When I watched one of those interviews with the creator of the new BSG prior to it's Pilot Mini-series I had a "WTF" moment. In the interviews with the original creator of BSG "Starbuck & Boomer" were supposed to be women. However the Late 70's early 80's mentality was not ready yet for women in leading roles of a military nature. It wasn't untill the mid-80's with ST:NG that the audiences of that time became more accepting as women characters in a role greater than eye-candy for guys. The interview went on to talk about how exciting it was to have a 2nd chance at BSG as it was meant to be. Also of note with the exception of Star Trek politics was a major hollywood taboo for a weekly TV series. If people notice it really wasn't untill the late 90's when Hollywood decided to use indepth stories and politics in there shows.

 

So giving these factors I entered into the New BSG with an open mind and determined not to compare it to the original to the best of my ability. Since doing so I have been rewarded with an excellent Sci-Fi TV series. Now if only Fox would sell the Firefly rights to Sci-Fi so that Firefly could be continued.

[Kitty Kitty]

True to a certain extent, but BSG 1978 really did suffer from what I call the 'Star Trek syndrome' quite badly. To explain, everyone was happy and never argued, there was perfect harmony and everyone got along just fine, and it was all laughs at the end. Certainly that was the impression I got.

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.

 

It's also not entirely true. Blake's 7 would seem to offer a (equally ill-lasting) foil to this argument. Doctor Who, too, was doing fairly solid stories at the time. This was also around the time of Sapphire And Steel's debut...So I would have to disagree.

 

How things looked from across the pond, I don't know, but certainly that was all on offer over here over 1978-1980...

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.

 

I'd say it is common ESPECIALLY with the shows of today...Back then, you HAD to get it right first time...Yes, there can be problems, but surely having difficulty defining the characters is a flaw in the writing?

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.

 

I disagree...The 1980's were a time of uber-tackyness, IMO...Look at the direction used on Encounter At Farpoint, for example...*shudders at the close-ups of Q's eyes...*

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.

 

Would you rather have painting-by-numbers episodes, all the same? By this argument, no television show could evolve at all.

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.

 

I disagree. By your own admission, BSG in the late 70's and early 80's was pretty average. The new BSG is head and shoulders above everything else. This doesn't, of course, make it much better, and indeed rather reflects on the quality of everything else, but nonetheless it is true. It is, I believe, showing us which way sci-fi is likely to go in years to come. I think that puts it quite a way above a programme that was pretty standard, myself...

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.

 

I take your points, but which core fundamentals do you refer to? Of humanity in a desperate struggle to survive? Battling against all the odds? Coming through against a relentless and unstoppable enemy? Racing across the galaxy to reach a legendary home? Believing in the Greco-Roman gods as the Lords of Kobol?

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.

 

Or do you mean the shape and number of Battlestars, the nature of the characters and their respective sexes, the clothes etc?

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

[CountVerilucus]

Now if only Fox would sell the Firefly rights to Sci-Fi so that Firefly could be continued.

 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! If they don't continue that show eventually that would be a shame. No, it would be criminal! It would be an act of crime. All they need to do is advertise it more.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

"Let's bring back Little House on the Prairie, only with a Quentin Tarantino edge!"

Hmmmmmmmmmm....*lightbulb starts to flicker*

 

I didn't grow up with the original, but I've seen most of it.

 

I love both, but....

 

I absolutely hate that the characters all had sex changes, but.....

The new characters are actually interesting!!! The original characters (while having a certain nostalgic charm) were not nearly as complex or fleshed out. I do enjoy the fact that most of the story in BSG3 (I didn't see much of it, but there was an absolutely horrible sequel of the fleets finding of earth, so I call this the 3rd series) is governed by the process of character exploration rather than "what's the next thing that happens at this point on the A to B to C journey to earth".

 

New Baltar Waaaaaaaay more awesome than old baltar. The new baltar actually has internal conflicts and moral challenges, as opposed to the original cookie cutter archvillain.

 

Seeing as how I have to go to the doctor I don't have time to give a lengthy analysis, but I wanted to throw something out there.

 

P.S. New Battlestar theme music is just beautiful:D

[Jae Onasi]

It's like, "Let's bring back Little House on the Prairie, only with a Quentin Tarantino edge!".

 

I just can't see Mary Ingalls saying "But Ma! Nellie Olsen is an f***ing b****!"

[Darkkender]

 

I just can't see Mary Ingalls saying "But Ma! Nellie Olsen is an f***ing b****!"

 

I could especially after watching that pilot mini-series of a remake of Little house on the prairie about a year and half ago that disney did. It had like 6 episodes or so. It was okay however Laura was much harder and outspoken.

[Darth InSidious]

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.

Fair enough. It still doesn't excuse it, though

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.

OK. So what made BSG so good? If all the shows were pretty much the same, why did you watch it? I'm just curious as to why...

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.

Fair enough. You didn't miss much, TBQH.

 

Except for Who, obviously

 

I'd be interested to know your opinions on that reincarnation, too...

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.

I may just be a cynic, but the words 'arse-covering' spring to my mind...?

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.

Oh, yes.

 

Nonetheless, there's stuff from the '60's and '70's that just hasn't aged. It does seem peculiar that the '80's branded itself almost indelibly onto TV, but the evidence is all there...

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.

Yes, but they have no creative control...

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.

The downside is, one shoddy Producer/ExecProd and you're in major problems...See also This guy...

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.

Can't say I noticed it. Then again, I was two/three/four at the time...Looking back at my TV DVD collection, though, the transition here seems to have happened with the arrival of 1980...Although most of that is taken up with Doctor Who DVDs, where the Producer changed exactly at 1980. And then changed nearly everything within a year.

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.

Nope.

 

It does seem to be very easy to muck it up badly, though...

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.

Perhaps not of modern television, but certainly of modern sci-fi. Frankly, almost nothing measures up, IMO. Stargate is formulaic and pretty well out of the running now, Atlantis...at the moment isn't doing IT, IMO...The 4400 is good but is more a drama, IMO. Don't even start me on the 'new series' of Doctor Who or we'll be here 'till January 2247. Eureka I haven't seen but sounds...ehh. Have I forgotten anything?

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.

Yep. Not denying it.

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.

Yes, but it wouldn't occur to Star Trek writers, because of Star Trek's premise...

 

Sure, anyone *could* have done it, but no-one else *did*. Voyager tried it, but mucked up badly, IMO.

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.

Actually, that one relationship rather spooked me. They seem totally incompatible to my mind...And their characters are becoming somewhat stuck in a rut, IMO...

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.

I can understand why the gender changes would annoy you...I'd guess it was to balance the cast more equally between men and women, in order not to seem prejudiced...

 

As for the Cylons as people...Partially it's a commentary on terrorism, though I guess you worked that out...Partially it makes the show more interesting, IMO...It adds a certain level of necessary desperation... And I think is more believable than people just betraying their own race to a thoroughly evil menace...And I like the new Baltar. He's so sickeningly craven. He reminds me of Tony Blair

 

The fact that the Cylons were created by man this time seems like frivolous embellishment to me, though...

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.

No, but if I'm wrong, and you're right, and this whole thing is masquerading as BSG but isn't...If this is a horrid departure, a blasphemy against the original, you have every right to be annoyed. If this is an abomination against one of your favourite shows, personally I think you are entitled, nay, obligated to fight it...

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

Not particularly. I'm just testing your conviction

 

Seriously, I suppose I might be...But at the same time, I'm trying to test your conviction...

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

Weeeell, the generational question seems to be a moot point...I refer you to the 'book of Pythia' stuff in series one: "All of this has happened before; all of this will happen again."...Also, there was a Cylon war previously, which lasted 'till 40 yrs previous...It isn't mentioned how long it lasted, IIRC...

[Darkkender]

The fact that the Cylons were created by man this time seems like frivolous embellishment to me, though...

 

The original Cylons were also man made who had turned on there creators in the Original BSG just like the new Galactica series. This has held true in the story. They did change the cylons in respects to other things such as the space fighters are now sentient cylons themselves rather than being operated by 3 cylon warriors. The skiny Brain cylons were removed for the human like cylons as the manipulating and dominate cylons. Balter well what can we say he didn't actively jump to betray the survors quite as quickly as the original.

[Totenkopf]

I actually preferred the old theme as well as Starbuck being a guy. The cylon voices were pretty cool too (the centurions). On it's own merits, the "remake" is not a bad show. Baltar is no longer merely one dimensional, the cylons have a humanoid fifth column operating among the humans (nice twist) and the effects are naturally better. Having said that, I've also not grown too attached to it either. Missed 1st season, saw 2nd, and have only watched a few of current season. Will watch it if channel surfing and haven't seen that episode, but don't make a point of catching it every week.

[Kitty Kitty]

[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. ]

 

Fair enough. It still doesn't excuse it, though

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.

 

OK. So what made BSG so good? If all the shows were pretty much the same, why did you watch it? I'm just curious as to why...

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.

 

 

Fair enough. You didn't miss much, TBQH.

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 for Who, obviously

 

I'd be interested to know your opinions on that reincarnation, too...

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.

 

I may just be a cynic, but the words 'arse-covering' spring to my mind...?

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, yes.

 

Nonetheless, there's stuff from the '60's and '70's that just hasn't aged. It does seem peculiar that the '80's branded itself almost indelibly onto TV, but the evidence is all there...

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.

 

Yes, but they have no creative control...

 

The downside is, one shoddy Producer/ExecProd and you're in major problems...

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.

 

Can't say I noticed it. Then again, I was two/three/four at the time...Looking back at my TV DVD collection, though, the transition here seems to have happened with the arrival of 1980...Although most of that is taken up with Doctor Who DVDs, where the Producer changed exactly at 1980. And then changed nearly everything within a year.

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.

 

Nope.

 

It does seem to be very easy to muck it up badly, though...

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?

 

Perhaps not of modern television, but certainly of modern sci-fi. Frankly, almost nothing measures up, IMO. Stargate is formulaic and pretty well out of the running now, Atlantis...at the moment isn't doing IT, IMO...The 4400 is good but is more a drama, IMO. Don't even start me on the 'new series' of Doctor Who or we'll be here 'till January 2247. Eureka I haven't seen but sounds...ehh. Have I forgotten anything?

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?

 

Yes, but it wouldn't occur to Star Trek writers, because of Star Trek's premise...

 

Sure, anyone *could* have done it, but no-one else *did*. Voyager tried it, but mucked up badly, IMO.

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.

 

Actually, that one relationship rather spooked me. They seem totally incompatible to my mind...And their characters are becoming somewhat stuck in a rut, IMO...

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.

 

I can understand why the gender changes would annoy you...I'd guess it was to balance the cast more equally between men and women, in order not to seem prejudiced...

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.

 

As for the Cylons as people...Partially it's a commentary on terrorism, though I guess you worked that out...Partially it makes the show more interesting, IMO...It adds a certain level of necessary desperation... And I think is more believable than people just betraying their own race to a thoroughly evil menace...And I like the new Baltar. He's so sickeningly craven. He reminds me of Tony Blair

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.

 

The fact that the Cylons were created by man this time seems like frivolous embellishment to me, though...

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.

 

No, but if I'm wrong, and you're right, and this whole thing is masquerading as BSG but isn't...If this is a horrid departure, a blasphemy against the original, you have every right to be annoyed. If this is an abomination against one of your favourite shows, personally I think you are entitled, nay, obligated to fight it...

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.

 

Not particularly. I'm just testing your conviction

 

Seriously, I suppose I might be...But at the same time, I'm trying to test your conviction...

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.

 

Weeeell, the generational question seems to be a moot point...I refer you to the 'book of Pythia' stuff in series one: "All of this has happened before; all of this will happen again."...Also, there was a Cylon war previously, which lasted 'till 40 yrs previous...It isn't mentioned how long it lasted, IIRC...

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

[HerbieZ]

We need a publisher in here, stat! I need to just add (although it maybe irrelevent) that i think of old BSG and new BSG as completely different and unrelated. Mainly the reason people are annoyed with the newer one is that it is not a continuation of the old one. People also appear to be comparing Sci-fi shows which i believe is irrelevant. It has always been my view that all Sci-fi films/shows/literature are not mindless entertainment even if it is the worst episode of the worst show. I always see Sci-fi as something positive and a goal that we at the current state of evolution can work towards. The difference between Star Trek and BSG is so big i don't think it's worth comparing them as they are both in their own different leagues.

 

I think what im boiling it down to is it's in the third season now. If there are people watching the new BSG and still having difficulty dealing with Starbuck's gender or Adama's tash then your watching the wrong show. Because from the first episode you should have just forget about old BSG as it's completely different. :/

 

Somewhat unrelated is my comment on an episode i watched last night. I have noticed in BSG that any shred of hope and happyness in an episode is quickly dashed by adding a new depressing element. Made me want to scream.

[Mace MacLeod]

The original Cylons were also man made who had turned on there creators in the Original BSG just like the new Galactica series. This has held true in the story.

Nope nope nope.

 

The Cylons were originally a race of reptiles who were jealous of human form, so they constructed a series of bipedal humanoid robots, only stronger and longer-lived than humans. They of course followed sci-fi's most cherished rule of intelligent machines; they promptly wiped out their creators, though they retained the name "Cylon". The war on humans continued for thousands of yahrens until humans collectively got really really stupid one day, and listened to the traitorous intermediary Baltar who said on behalf of the Cylon Empire: "We're sick of all this war stuff, we'd like a peace treaty, and would you send out all your Battlestars single file without launching fighter support pretty please?"

 

The rest is history.

 

The new Battlestar Galactica is an AMAZING show, and to deny yourself of it for those reasons is pretty weak tea.

It's not that I'm boycotting the show or just refusing to watch it; I've tried to watch it on numerous occasions. It's just that within about 60 seconds, I'm ready to throw the remote through the tv screen. It's just not the same.

 

This type of argument was also used when Star Trek: The Next Generation came out.

Star Trek: TNG was kept in the same universe though. It followed a timeline and gave the original show its due; it didn't just stomp all over the first series. Imagine TNG if they'd done it like: "Okay, we'll make James T. Kirk into a gay black guy, Chekov and Sulu will be siamese twins, Uhura we'll make an old Armenain guy, and we'll just tape a bunch of cats together to make Spock!"

 

To a few people such as Darth Insidious who champion the new BG: it's not that the old Battlestar Galactica was a great show or anything. Yes, it was totally cheesy. Yes, it was kinda grade 5-level prudish due to Donald Bellisario's basing BG on the Book of Mormon. (yes, the Galacticans were Mormons. Betcha didn't know that...) No, it's not some great landmark sci-fi show of its era or anything. Yes, a lot of it was just plain dumb, and aside from Cassiopeia (who I had the hugest crush on when I was 7 years old) all the female characters had heads full of nacho cheese. Remember Sheba when Count Iblis came along?

The problem is that it's just not the same. If you're not going to keep the spirit of the first series, just do something else entirely. If all they're keeping from the first show is the names and basic premise, why keep the names at all? Just take that extra creative baby-step and just do something original.

 

And hey, Jae and Kitty Kitty? Just to let you know, something far more depressing than new BG is going on; Dirk Benedict is in the current cast of Celebrity Big Brother. On the plus side, he's remarkably well preserved for his age, and he's currently romancing the luscious East Indian Bollywood star who's also there. I know. I just went to the store a while ago, and Celebrity Big Brother is front-page news in no less than 3 Irish newspapers. How sad is that...?

 

PS: There are a couple of personal things that ruin the "magic" of the new show for me. First, in the pilot, there was a scene where they went down into the Galactica's "engine room". It was the car deck of a BC ferry. It's a bit hard to believe they're in outer space when you're thinking: "Hey, I parked my Chevy Blazer right over there when I went to Galiano Island last year...!"

Second, have any of you ever wondered what the new Adama is reading when he leafs through one of those books with the edges sliced off at 45 degree angles? Well, he's looking at old telephone directories, out of date atlases and obsolete college textbooks. I know. I used to work in the bindery that sliced off the ends of those books to create those weird 45 degree angles. it sort of spoils the mood.

[RedHawke]

Star Trek: TNG was kept in the same universe though. It followed a timeline and gave the original show its due; it didn't just stomp all over the first series. Imagine TNG if they'd done it like: "Okay, we'll make James T. Kirk into a gay black guy, Chekov and Sulu will be siamese twins, Uhura we'll make an old Armenain guy, and we'll just tape a bunch of cats together to make Spock!"

People did in fact state similar things to what I was referring to when TNG came out. I give you props for trying to twist it to enhance your argument though.

 

And recognising things used in a shows production isn't new, nor should it take away anything from the show. They have things called budgets and if you want to have all those pretty space scenes you need to save some money somewhere. All series use things/places as sets or props that someone familiar with them can and will recognise, it is the nature of the beast.

[Kitty Kitty]

People did in fact state similar things to what I was referring to when TNG came out. I give you props for trying to twist it to enhance your argument though.

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

[Darth InSidious]

(Forgot to post this before >.<)

 

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.

Fair enough. It still doesn't excuse it, though

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.

OK. So what made BSG so good? If all the shows were pretty much the same, why did you watch it? I'm just curious as to why...

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.

Fair enough. You didn't miss much, TBQH.

 

Except for Who, obviously

 

I'd be interested to know your opinions on that reincarnation, too...

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.

I may just be a cynic, but the words 'arse-covering' spring to my mind...?

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.

Oh, yes.

 

Nonetheless, there's stuff from the '60's and '70's that just hasn't aged. It does seem peculiar that the '80's branded itself almost indelibly onto TV, but the evidence is all there...

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.

Yes, but they have no creative control...

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.

The downside is, one shoddy Producer/ExecProd and you're in major problems...See also This guy...

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.

Can't say I noticed it. Then again, I was two/three/four at the time...Looking back at my TV DVD collection, though, the transition here seems to have happened with the arrival of 1980...Although most of that is taken up with Doctor Who DVDs, where the Producer changed exactly at 1980. And then changed nearly everything within a year.

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.

Nope.

 

It does seem to be very easy to muck it up badly, though...

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.

Perhaps not of modern television, but certainly of modern sci-fi. Frankly, almost nothing measures up, IMO. Stargate is formulaic and pretty well out of the running now, Atlantis...at the moment isn't doing IT, IMO...The 4400 is good but is more a drama, IMO. Don't even start me on the 'new series' of Doctor Who or we'll be here 'till January 2247. Eureka I haven't seen but sounds...ehh. Have I forgotten anything?

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.

Yep. Not denying it.

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.

Yes, but it wouldn't occur to Star Trek writers, because of Star Trek's premise...

 

Sure, anyone *could* have done it, but no-one else *did*. Voyager tried it, but mucked up badly, IMO.

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.

Actually, that one relationship rather spooked me. They seem totally incompatible to my mind...And their characters are becoming somewhat stuck in a rut, IMO...

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.

I can understand why the gender changes would annoy you...I'd guess it was to balance the cast more equally between men and women, in order not to seem prejudiced...

 

As for the Cylons as people...Partially it's a commentary on terrorism, though I guess you worked that out...Partially it makes the show more interesting, IMO...It adds a certain level of necessary desperation... And I think is more believable than people just betraying their own race to a thoroughly evil menace...And I like the new Baltar. He's so sickeningly craven. He reminds me of Tony Blair

 

The fact that the Cylons were created by man this time seems like frivolous embellishment to me, though...

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.

No, but if I'm wrong, and you're right, and this whole thing is masquerading as BSG but isn't...If this is a horrid departure, a blasphemy against the original, you have every right to be annoyed. If this is an abomination against one of your favourite shows, personally I think you are entitled, nay, obligated to fight it...

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that that was rather the point of an argument

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

Weeeell, the generational question seems to be a moot point...I refer you to the 'book of Pythia' stuff in series one: "All of this has happened before; all of this will happen again."...Also, there was a Cylon war previously, which lasted 'till 40 yrs previous...It isn't mentioned how long it lasted, IIRC...

[Kitty Kitty]

^^-- 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

[RedHawke]

He's not twisting it from what I can see, I'd say he's quite correct.

There definitely is some twisting going on, either way. Yes his point is valid, but so is mine.

[Darth InSidious]

I did?!

 

O_o

 

Note to self: buy a new brain...

[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. ]

[Agreed.]

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.

True.

 

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.

Or the ski-wear obsession...

 

It's a fair cop, you've got me...

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.

So...desperation for new material being a major factor?

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.

POINT. TAKEN!

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?

I'd say it's worth giving them a go...In truth it's been a while since I watched much of either, but I felt you should probably be warned that they haven't stood the test of time very well, IIRC...

 

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.

You've been saved, believe me...Oh, and you may want to avoid all mentions of 'Torchwood' like the plague

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.

It's worth checking out, 'though I'd warn you that it isn't the show the old series was, and I don't just mean that times have changed...Even factoring that in, it's not in the same league.

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.

OK.

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.

Very true.

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.

Sometimes, though then you tend to get people who say 'oh, it's just a bit of silliness' who seem to deliberately set out to make their chosen programme look utterly rubbish, and the fans thereof as stupid as possible...

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.

"MyGod! Spock! My! 'Acting'! IsEven! Worse! ThanUsual!"

 

I suppose...

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.

It is a possibility.

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.

See above...

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.

In their own decade - The Sighties! Or possibly, The Eeventies!

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.

Heck, what about most films now? I swear I haven't seen an original new film since...about 2002.

Neet analogy, no?

Beautiful

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.

That, and it was cancelled...

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?

Absolutely.

 

But OTOH, it does make me watch it more

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.

ROFL.

 

I'd imagine they're both based in concept on the Odyssey, which would explain the similar natures.

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.

True, I suppose. But that brings us full circle to the question of why you used to watch it

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.

Yup.

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.

Excuse me?

 

Have you ever, in all the films, the games, the books, seen a stormtrooper actually *hit* something?

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.

IIRC, the Cylons were created by...The Cylons - reptilians. Then the Cylon robots killed their masters, took over their empire and continued to pursue a war against humanity...And managed to destroy entire Battlestars with just fighters (I'm sorry, but that *is* dumb)

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? Doesn't mean you're any less right...

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.

Did I *write* that?! O_o

 

Truth is I'm just a contrary bugger

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

Hey, they aren't giving *any* answers at this point...I can see why you'd find it insulting, but at least at this stage there is an option to see it as other than a total remake. And if it is a remake, it's not canon, so there's nothing to worry about there

[CountVerilucus]

well, new episode tonight, you all excited or what?

[swphreak]

well, new episode tonight, you all excited or what?

 

I'm currently watching it now. In honor of the series resuming, I'm changing my avatar!

 

I'm wetting myself from excitement.