I watched the complete original Battlestar Galactica...

Battlestar Galactica TOS-Watched the complete series from "Saga of a Star World" to "Hand of God". And it caused me to reevaluate my opinion of the show yet again, especially after watching the supplementary material as well. Yes, the cheesy, family friendly elements are there still, but at the same time, there was a serious attempt with this show to do something yet unheard of in prime time science fiction. To create a fictional universe with underlying threads that hint at a much bigger tapestry going on. Yes, it was mostly episodic, but they dropped little things here and there that got carried through. And little drops of items that fleshed out the characters, both in the writings and in the way the actors portrayed them, as well as the universes themselves. To the point that I thought that some of the criticism leveled at the show after Ron Moore's show showed up was a little unfair.

1. The Disco Planet-Yes, very much an artifact of the 70s, the planet itself. But first, they didn't come to this planet with the intention of hitting a resort. One just happened to be there, and apparently had been there for awhile, to trap unwary humans (the humans there before the fleet arrived weren't even aware of the betrayal and annihilation of the Colonies). And that the Colonials would want to seek release and relief from their circumstances IS understandable.

2. Fleet politics and resource shortages. These ARE dealt with. Just not as heavily as in RDM's show, and give BSG TOS a break, as it only had one season. Now, the politics are somewhat weak, as they are of the "the military is right//civilians are clueless" variety at times. But sometimes, it was more interesting.

3. Simplistic, cartoonish characterization. Again, on the surface. The show could be saccharin and a bit too cheerful, considering. Which is why RDM did some of what he did with his version. But again, you could see where, at points, the writing and acting was reaching for more.

Bottom line, this show brimmed with promise. And if it had gotten a REAL second season (rumor has it that Isaac Asimov was coming on board as a writer), we would have seen something special. There is a reason why the show has refused to go away and die after all these years, like so many others have. There is a reason why it resurfaces. And with that promise, I do understand the disappointment of some TOS fans and why they feel ripped off, why RDMs show wasn't to their liking.

Now, I LOVE RDM's show. It is one of my favorite science fiction series of all time. It did get a chance to tell a version of this story to completion, and there is more to tell, with possibly more TV movies as well as Caprica. The Galactica-U is rich with potential and possibility and much could be done. TOS fans are looking to finally get their due as well, with Singer's coming film.

I'm a fan of both shows. And I've observed unbecoming behavior from the die hards of both camps. The TOS fans can be hostile (some almost violently so) and paranoid. The TNS fans can be a little condescending and lacking in empathy, and appreciatioin for the original show making RDM's show possible.

But Galactica endures and the old girl sails on, and there is much to come for both camps, it would seem.

I, as a fan of both, am glad.

 

I loved TOS from when I was a kid, and still do to this day. I was blown away by the SciFi channel version and think it stands as a great show on its own. I was not aware that there was some sort of pissing match going on, but I probably should have. There usually is whenever something is remade. I wish TOS had lasted longer but alas, it was not to be. There is a new movie being released pretty soon. I think it covers the attack on the colonies from the Cylon POV. Should be interesting.

 

RDM's Galactica continues twofold, in "The Plan", the TV movie you just referenced, AND "Caprica", a show about the events in the Colonies when the Cylons were first created, and I hear it will end with the beginning of the first Cylon War.

Oh, and olde skewlers are getting something, too. With the success of "Star Trek", Abram's movie, it looks like a movie version of BSG is being fasttracked, which is supposed to hearken more to the original show. Done right, that could be great!

 

Good points..

I really enjoyed the upbeat, "we can bootstrap ourselves out of this" space opera 'tude of TOS. When I first saw the new BSG miniseries, my reaction was it was good, but so relentlessly down I didn't feel it should have been labeled BSG. I sat out most of the first season of the new BSG , and only started watching it after some friends said to give it another shot. I did, and I am glad I did.

Given my reaction, I can see how the rabid fans of BSG TOS would still be up in arms. That said, both shows are great in their own way, and are best appreciated on their own merits without comparison to each other. TOS is old school space opera, the new series was what I'd call postmodern scifi - more focussed on human nature, deconstructing sci fi tropes and indirect commentary on current events.

Andy

 

Too right across the board.

 

Caprica is out. I have the DVD but have yet to watch it. That's pretty cool if they are going to do a BSG movie for the big screen. I would think that it would have to play to the desires of the old school fans to attract more people.

 

I tried to enjoy the "re-imagining" of BSG. The further I got into the series, the less I liked it... and I didn't make it much past the second season. I did see the final episode, the big so-called payoff, which was more than a letdown.

 

QFT. I still like both series, just as I appreciate ST:TOS vs. Enterprise vs. TNG. Each brings their own vision of the universe - each has a different message to deliver.

 

Really? It did drag for a while there in the middle, but I thought the "full circle" ending was pretty good. I wasn't expecting it, anyway. I suppose if it had ended with everyone sitting around the poker table laughing as the camera pauses it would have been more like TOS, but I always thought that was pretty cheesy.

 

Theres like an undercurrent that Ron Moore's anti-fans like myself have some kind of secret plot to get him for no apparent reason but the prior work speaks for itself plus new Star Trek doesn't necessarily have to suck as seen with the recent redo film. So he's his own worst enemy. Rubber faced aliens and human robots? Take that shit to the dump! TOS ST had the Gorn and the Mugatu TOS BG had the physically real presence of humanoid robots every episode. You can't beat that shit with "high brow" chatty kathy BS which is the hub of Moore's work. Its like that pretensious twaddle seen in 1979's STALKER where you wait three hours for nothing science fiction except what you came in with. BLARF!!! Give me a robot crossed with a giant gorilla who gets onboard and eats all the "chick robots" and rubber-faces! Not this "save a dime" on effects "high brow" crap!

 

The new BSG lost me when it became about love triangles instead of the hard vacuum of space and shit that goes **BOOM**.

 

LOL... Tell me how you really feel. :lol:

 

The nature of sci-fi is to explore the question of power from the standpoint of whether one should do a thing just because he is able to. The late-70s/early-80s were about the excesses and shortages of the post-WWII economy. The feel-good attitude of the original series reflected the optimism of a society that had no doubts that it would overcome anything. After all, we survived the oil shortages with little to no damage.

Moore's version of BSG reflected not just a post-modern worldview, but that of a post-9/11 fear where anything, no matter how innocuous, can be made into a weapon. The question of power is one in which the focus is on how one person can wreak untold devastation with commonly available items. Who do you trust when the knowledge, resources, and willpower for such carnage is in everyone's hands? Why did the cylons look like humans? Anyone remember Oklahoma City?

 

Good points.. The issues of asymmetric warfare (suitcase nukes, biowarfare, internet warfare, planes flying into buildings) and the "surveillance society" did not exist in the way they do now when the original series was created.

That said, there was a lot of dystopian sci fi in the 60's and 70's - just addressing films, you had Soylent Green, Logan's Run, Silent Running and others. In that sense, I think BSG TOS (as well as Star Wars) was a direct reaction to the dystopian mood of the time. BSG TOS tapped back into the optimistic, triumphalist sci fi of the 40's and 50's where heroes could perservere even against seemingly impossible odds and win.

Moore's BSG was to some degree the same only in reverse - following the relatively shiny happy late 90's, Moore's BSG was the reverse - a dark, flawed future in which humanity is nearly exterminated and the survivors can do little more than fight over the scraps.

Each version spoke to its fans on an emotional level in this respect, which I think accounts both for the strength of their fan bases and the occasional venom between fans of the two versions.

Andy

 

***SPOILER*** in blue!

I will add that I have had about enough of the pessimistic, dark, ugly movies/tv shows. I used to view them as "more realistic", but I have come to enjoy the simple pleasure of a happy ending, as long as it isn't forced or fake.

I really liked how the new BSG centered on the circle of life. And I thought finally arriving at Earth and finding it was just the beginning of Man's time here an interesting nod to the "Alien Seeding" theory. I was a little unclear on the numbers of people that actually survived to spread out around the planet, though. Doesn't it take something on order of 10,000 people to create a viable gene pool? If everybody spread out and became the foundation of the new Earth "tribes", I guess some serious intermingling with the locals would have to occur.

 

Scifi as an analogy has been baked to death and its gone nowhere what did the Bajorans do for real religion except annoy the living shit out of everybody?

Seriously, I know it sounds ridiculous but "Moore-Fi" is just out to fatten his paycheck by repackaging sci-fi into his corner-cutting production tricks. "I can see it a man walks into a room and says he's a blood cell....SHOCK." I can just imagine thats how he thinks he comes off but after watching all that fouling of Star Trek it doesn't work on me at all. The reason why the grab for "Galactica"? Its fairly obvious that Galactica had problems with a big a production and they tried to revive it with a small production (GALACTICA 1980) so "mini-production boy" probably used that as leverage in his pitches to the networks. Unfortunately, "1980" sucked as well because it had nothing without the original series. As does the new Galactica, it doesn't even register on my grid. Its like that late 80's War of the Worlds show with the martians becoming human. LAME!

 

I won't defend that series, but it was better than Nu-BSG.

I still don't quite buy the analogy of sci-fi (and I use that term with all it's Ellison-inspired vitriol) being a sign of the times. Some series, movies, books, stories, etc. *may* have analogies to work off of but I don't think this was anything more than a cheap way to make money through remake.

I won't assault the series -- I like things some people despise -- but if you stick me in a room with a bunch of Nu-BSG people, I will poke fun at them. Relentlessly.

 

Other than just opinions, I don't see how Gene and Jon should be taken with anything other than a grain of salt. It's all well-and-good that you have your opinions on a subject; however, it is quite another to make claims without logic. Sorry, but opinions aren't logical, they're emotional. Regardless of one's feelings on religion or whether sci-fi is a reflection of its time, it doesn't help support your position to say something isn't all that great without explaining why.

I would really like to hear how sci-fi isn't a product of it's environment whereas other genres of story (literary or otherwise) are.

 

Ok...and some wonder why the "anti-fans" seem out to get "Moore".

This "fatten paycheck" and "cash grab" crap has been leveled agains Glen Larson as well and frankly I'm tired of it. You don't know this about the man. And you can't get that from h is storytelling alone. It's one thing to say it's not to your tastes. It's another to make moral judgements against him.

For the record, I think the guy is a GREAT storyteller, and the Trek he was involved with the most (DS9) is my favorite. You are entitled to your opinion, but can we keep the baseless personal speculation out, please?

 

And if they are lackng in the same class, they would return the favor, and with easy ammo.