I love the reimagined series. I'm watching the dvd's all over again and thoroughly enjoying them. I will definitely see the movie. Can't tell if it will have the same cast or some of the same cast, though. Could be something totally new.
‘Battlestar Galactica’ movie writer: 'I’m not gonna frak it up' | Hero Complex – movies, comics, fanboy fare – latimes.com
Bryan Singer's movie will have nothing to do with either the original series or the reimagined series.
http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/fil...-underway.html
That's a good thing. And if it can do as well or better than Moore's creation, well then that's also a good thing. As much as I enjoyed the campy original series and absolutely love the new, reimagined series, I'm open to another interpretation. It won't taint my affinity for the old man and his crew. And it certainly won't taint my childhood fondness for the series that got me deeper in love with space fantasy. I'll probably just have to get used to yet another Starbuck.
I just hope Appolo and Starbuck are both guys.
I hope it is a better newer version of the old ORIGINAL.
Never got into the new one. Though Edward J Olmos was a GREAT Adama. Very Lorne Greene like... the rest I couldn't get into...
I DID love the RAZOR mini series. And wish the new show woulda stuck with that look and feel. Create NEW NAMES for your main characters. You want your ace pilot to be a chinese girl? COOL! Call her something else!
I really really enjoyed the reimagined series, and the thought of this movie has me a bit concerned. I like Singer's work, but just personally feel that it is to close to the end of Moore's series for yet another reboot/reimagining.
is this a made for scifi movie or a theatrical release? I for one would love to see a great BSG made for theaters.
Never got into the Moore version, so I hope, whichever way this new movie goes, is nothing like his.
Don't see it then.
Singer's version was in the works before the Series
babroseker said:
I adored the Moore series and sort of enjoyed the original. I remember seeing it on Scifi went it first started. I'll check it out though.
Still Olmos is my Adama.
What does that have to do with the price of apples? Regardless of how long it was in development Hades, we just had a vastly popular BSG series end and comparisons are inevitable. He's waited this long, why not give it a few more years to reduce that likelihood?apollo said:
I'm not flat-out saying I won't see it, but he's gonna have to really wow me to get my money before it comes out on dvd.
Me too. I actually would love to see this movie happen.OldKen said:
I don't even consider the "new" show Galactica, so yeah bring it on.
Never could get into the new version. I'll give this one a go.
I enjoyed the original series, but loved the reimagined series even more, WHY?
BSG TOS was 25 plus years old from a time when there was no conflict or chance for character development, where as BSG RI kept it real. BSG RI is gritty, people die, have fights, hold grudges, where as BSG TOS, things changed form one week to another.
And the SFX in BSG RI are frakking fantastic, god love CGI
okay Lee Adama changed sides more times than needed, but, it was more real the BSG TOS.
Remember what television was like back in the 70's and 80's, it was great, but when you buy the dvd sets of your favorite series, and watch it, you gringe( well I do, especially Space 1999)
The memory is better than the reality.
As for another BSG, bring it on, and I will watch it
Ummm because there are a TON of old school fans who think that new Series was a poorly written, lazily done, abomination.
If you don't want to see it because it's, "To Soon" for you, don't go simple as that.
There are plenty others who will go see it and want it done
firesprite said:
Last edited by Apollo; Oct 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM.
My question was always, why couldn't they come up with their own character names and main plot around all that "drama".
Why basically steal the history of something else then make it something completely different?
Because it is not really Battlestar Galactica.
We have no idea how or where the original show and it's values and lessons would have taken us, simply because it was the most expensive show ever made at the time and had to face NETWORK ratings.
If the nuBSG had to face the same thing it wouldn't have made it 6 episodes.
Bryan Singer
I’m a huge fan of the original series and of the second show, too. But I always thought the first show was a little too heavily reliant on ‘Star Wars,’ you know? Whereas I think the second show was really original and really cool. And I think I’ve come up with a way to write this movie that won’t **** any of that up. I’m not sure how much they want me to talk about it. Let’s just say it’s not what you expect. It will all work in the universe that exists. It will not conflict with anything Ron Moore has done. I don’t think you can compete with what he’s done.
-John Orloff
writer of Singer's BSG
I still think this is needless remake. The series is still way too recent and was way too good... although that quote definitely has me interested. Bring Ron Moore on as a producer, writer, something and I'll buy it.
As a kid growing up in the 70's I loved the original series but when I look at it now as an adult you see it as a cheesey , and a way for the T.V. execs to cash in on the "Star Wars" Craze at the time. They never even found earth and cancelled the show and then created that Galactica in the 80's which was right up there with the "Ford Pinto". The new series was pretty good and at least it didn't leave you hanging. I don't know about a Galactica movie after this guy Jacked up the last Superman movie.
Because NBC/Universal wanted to make money off the BSG name. Thankfully we got a truly original show out of the deal and not remakes of old BSG scripts with CG ships tossed in. In the end, the only thing the two share is the basic concept and a few names (Although most of those names became callsigns). That's how these things work, studios don't want to take a chance anymore so they go with established brands.
So we might as well sit back and hope for something good every now and then. Because there is going to be a lot more of it in the future.
micdavis said:
I'm with you all the way.micdavis said:
To be fair, I tried to watch the new BSG and I just couldn't get into it. It was like a completely new show with very vague remnants of the original. It was too serious and you had to stay on top of it to know what was going on.
The original, though dated, was fun with cool effects. I think if you took the same characters with all the same props and improve the effects a bit it could most certainly work today. Sure improve the story for todays standards but still keep it fun.
Ive never seen the original, but I loved Moore's reimagining (atleast I did until the last season where the show dropped the simple human drama and drowned itself in its own bloated and confusing mythology).
It just seems way too soon for a remake. Say what you want about remakes but atleast they waited a quarter century before creating the new series. But Moore's series has been off the air for only a couple years and its already time for a new franchise?
Really? Lazy? Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.apollo said:
Lucas won his lawsuit against the producers, IIRC.
Agree. This is going to cause confusion and audience expectations will be all over the place. And as Blade Runner, or The Fifth Element demonstrated, audiences just love it when they get something that doesn't match their preconceptions.ShadowX81 said:
A TON!?!?apollo said:
Sure, There's a small group of "old school fans" and an even smaller group of vocal "old school fans" who didn't like the the new series.
What's very true is that the new series was very highly lauded in the press. The series won the very prestigious Peabody Award and was named Time magazine's Best television programs.
From the wiki page:You can try to downplay the reception to the new BSG series from a loud-but-small group. But, facts are facts... the series was at the very least a critical success. ... and that from professionals, not a bunch of fanboys pissed off that there's no daggit named Muffet. Heck, even Richard Hatch came around.Throughout its run, the series earned critical acclaim from Time, National Review, Rolling Stone, Newsday, The New York Times, The New Yorker, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, and Entertainment Weekly.
Diane Werts of Newsday wrote: "You can look at this saga any way you want—as political drama, religious debate, psychological suspenser, sci-fi adventure, deep metaphor or just plain fun—and it's scintillating from every angle." Robert Bianco of USA Today commented: "Driven by violence and rage, Galactica is perhaps the darkest space opera American TV has ever produced. In Galactica's future, humans are on the run, and if external enemies don't get us, internal divisions will... You'll understand them [the characters], their conflicts and their desires, because they're recognizable humans in all their glorious complexity. And that's what makes Galactica a great TV series."[42] Peter Suderman of National Review stated that the series is "arguably the most potent, dramatically vibrant series on television. ...[I]t packs the power of a gut punch on screen. For that, much credit is due to the immensely compelling cast of characters... Battlestar Galactica burns with a combustive mixture of political turmoil and human drama that is as achingly real and relevant as anything on television.Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly wrote that the show "has distinguished itself as one of television's very best dramas — on a par with 24, The Wire, and Lost — because it so utterly transcends both its genre and its source material. ...[The] series' sophisticated stories have also attracted a distinctively new breed of fan, one who's not necessarily a sci-fi buff."
Mary McNamara of the Los Angeles Times praises the show's ability to "anchor fantasy with vivid and recognizable human psychology" and declares that the series is "not just a cult hit but a significant piece of television." Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune describes it as a "sprawling, enthralling tale of human survival" that is "full of political allegories and fascinating, multifaceted characters." She finds, "Like Deadwood, Battlestar Galactica is interested in exploring how a society on the edge decides to govern itself. What rights and actions are sacrosanct, which are outlawed, when most of the human race is eliminated? ... Thanks to a stellar cast and brave writing, Battlestar soars." Throughout its run, the series has often surprised reviewers with its many twists and turns. Ryan comments: "There’s nothing like a good Battlestar plot twist to make your head spin, but the “holy cow” moments aren’t the main point (though they’re one heck of a tasty side dish). The show and its twists and turns are grounded in deep curiosity about human nature, and how contradictory and confounding it can be."
Matt Soergel of The Florida Times-Union states: "Its propulsive and complex storytelling is matched by, at best, just a handful of theatrical movies a year." Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle opines, "Battlestar Galactica transcends the sci-fi genre; it competes, creatively, on the same level as any other top-tier drama." Mark Perigard of the Boston Herald states: "A drama this gripping comes ’round rarely."[52] James Poniewozik of Time Magazine named it one of the 100 best TV shows of all time. Time magazine also wrote in the spring of 2005 that the new show was one of the six best drama programs on television. It would proclaim the program the best show on television in December of the same year. Television Without Pity describes Battlestar Galactica as "one of the finest, most beautifully written, expertly acted shows on television."[54] Alan Sepinwall of The Star-Ledger writes: "[W]hat makes Galactica so gripping is its emphasis on character over hardware. The explosions and the killer robots are cool, but they don't stack up to seeing fully-drawn people - brought to life by a great writing staff led by producer Ron Moore and an astonishing cast led by Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell - grapple with these life-or-death, genocide-level decisions." Joshua Alston of Newsweek declares that the show "captures better than any other TV drama of the past eight years the fear, uncertainty and moral ambiguity of the post-9/11 world" and "always finds ways to challenge the audience's beliefs."
The series also draws praise for having many strong and complex female characters. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Melanie McFarland notes, "[Starbuck], played with a tomboyish swagger by Katee Sackhoff, is fast becoming the latest in a long line of feminist television icons."
The series has also received favorable reviews from other writers. Stephen King wrote, "This is a beautifully written show, driven by character rather than effects...but the effects are damn good. And there's not a better acting troupe at work on television." Joss Whedon commented: "I think it's so passionate, textured, complex, subversive and challenging that it dwarfs everything on TV."
Which one? TOS and the new one are not in the same universe.It will all work in the universe that exists.
Interesting point. While on a first read it sure seems to imply he's refering to the new series - but, if you really read it it's kind of ambiguous as to what series the movie could fit into.Treadwell said:
Reply with Quote