Anyone here have watch both the old series and the new series?
do you like the old series or the new series better?
Thanks
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Yup, seen both.
They are two completely different things.
One is great late 70's cheese, the other is superb style over substance.
If you watch the new one, know that its was made up as they went along,
there was no plan and they did write themselves in to a few corners. If
you watch and take all that in to account, ie, don't expect a well
crafted 4 year arc, then there is much to enjoy about it. It is a good
series, it just could have been a lot better with a little planning.
--
AC
> Hi, I am a fun of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica series.
> but i haven't watch the new Battlestar Galactica.
>
> Anyone here have watch both the old series and the new series?
> do you like the old series or the new series better?
> Thanks
"Better" is simply a matter of opinion. Basically, if you like fairly
simple, family-friendly sci-fi like Star Wars then the original
"Battlestar Galacica" is most likely "better", while if you like
over-complicated / realistic sci-fi like Babylon 5, then the Ron Moore's
"remake" is likely "better".
The fact is that they are two VERY different series that have little in
common other then the name and basic core idea - one is the true
"Battlestar Galactica" as created by the actual person who came up with
the idea, Glen Larson, while the other is a pretender hiding behind the
same name created by a typical "new Hollyweird" which can't come up with
their own ideas.
I really liked new Cattlecar Gallactica, until the New
Crapica arc. At that point, I felt that the writers/Moore Ron
had chucked the first two seasons out the airlock, and hit
the big red button. Once the Chief at. al. decided they were
cylons, I hit the eject button, and never went back.
My greatest complaint with the new Cattlecar was that the
"second tier" of characters, Bamber, Stackoff, Park, et. al,
were very inconsistently written, especially Bambers' character.
I, to this day, don't understand how you can insist you "have
an angle" (yes, cue Capitan Lincoln F. Sternn) when the writing
is so inconsistent for these important characters. It was
obvious (to me, at any rate) that there was no plan, and the
writers were making it up as they went along. Combine that
with the use of the big red button at New Crapica, and well,
what plan? More to the point, why bother?
The original Cattlecar was, well, what it was. I doubt I
could watch it today any more than I can stand to watch "Buck
Rogers in the 25th Century" today, Ms. Gray not withstanding.
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
> Your Name <your...@isp.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Better" is simply a matter of opinion.
> :
> I can't say either version is "better". They are too
> different, and too widely seperated in time for me to say
> I like one over the other.
> :
> : while if you like
> : over-complicated / realistic sci-fi like Babylon 5, then the Ron Moore's
> : "remake" is likely "better".
> :
> Well, perhaps the first couple of seasons. I really liked
> B5 (well, aside from the final season on SciFi, because the
> show was compromised when PETN decided to drop it, but be that
> as it may...)
>
> I really liked new Cattlecar Gallactica, until the New
> Crapica arc. At that point, I felt that the writers/Moore Ron
> had chucked the first two seasons out the airlock, and hit
> the big red button. Once the Chief at. al. decided they were
> cylons, I hit the eject button, and never went back.
After butchering the original Glen Larson series for ideas, the talentless
hack Ron Moore probably didn't have any real clue what to do.
The original was, while admittedly entertaining in the same way one would
watch old-school episodes of CHIPS or the Dukes of Hazzard, a 2-dimensional
show aimed primarily at children; RDM's BSG was created for adults, in a
more naturalistic style.
Re-imagining BSG was not actually Moore's idea - he had pitched a space
drama show, but the execs pushed the idea of a BSG redo.
Moore is far from "talentless" as you say, otherwise the show would never
have come close to being the award-winning, "Best show on Television"; with
regard to the New Caprica arc, there were some really brilliant aspects that
were shown in the storyline...surely nothing one would have ever seen on the
old-school BSG, although both did feature Richard Hatch, who really did his
best acting as Tom Zarek than he ever did as the original Apollo.
I agree that it should have been planned a little better, like JMS did with
B5, but RDM still made it work, creating intricate plotlines with
3-dimensional characters that brought it a depth that few shows have even
today; although the "Final Five" aspect did seem a little contrived, I was
still blown away by the revelation scene in Crossroads part 2; I will never
be the same whenever I hear All Along the Watchtower (whether it's Bear
McCreary's cover, or the Hedrix or Dylan ones).
The next day at work (it was aired on Sundays back then), I couldnt' get
that tune out of my head, I was humming it at my desk all day long (at low
volume so the girl sitting next to me wouldn't think I was crazy;).
I even enjoyed the Finale, and while I can see the reasons behind some of
the complaints, overall I think it worked out pretty well (although I still
think it would have been kind of interesting to see them end up on
modern-day Earth rather than 150,000 years ago).
<snip>
Things have names for a reason. "Battlestar Galactica" was created by Glen
Larson to be what it was (Star Wars for TV) and that's how the fans of it
liked it.
Ron Moore's "version" isn't and never will be "Battlestar Galactica" in
anything but stolen name. The simple fact is that it should have had a
different name, but most of the current generation in Hollyweird (as well
as the comic book and toy industries) haven't even got enough talent to
come up with a new name, let alone a new show.
Again, I was disappointed by the lack of consistency in the
"second tier" actors. I don't blame the actors for this, although
I will always wonder how much they cared about the issue. To me,
the problem was with the writers, directors and producer.
If Moore Ron had a vision, a plan, and I am not saying he did
not, I would have expected he would have had the characters motivations
down, and not allowed the writers and/or directors to significantly
deviate from those motivations. I thought this was a particularly
egregious problem with Lee Adama/Bamber. I thought that characters
motivations spun like a compass in an iron mine.
And, as for the "final five", as Decker so pointedly put it:
"How could it not know what it was?"
Another character I had problems with was Baltar. I could never
believe that he wasn't off'd simply because he had made too many
enemies, and/or was too "strange". Yeah, I understand it wasn't in
the show's best interest that he be taken out, but, in real life,
"stuff happens", and "best interest" doesn't really enter into it.
:
: (although I still
: think it would have been kind of interesting to see them end up on
: modern-day Earth rather than 150,000 years ago).
:
Assuming that they did. :-) I had quite watching by then,
but I read the "yes they did/no they did not" wars in this group.
Much of it seemed to revolve around how much credibility you
gave to Moore Ron, and that is unfortunate. The show's producer
should never be a topic of heated discussion. Which is why I
have reservations that "BSG" wasn't "his" - he invested a lot
to "face time" to a show that you contend wasn't "his" show.
> Joseph S. Powell, III <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> :
> : The original was, while admittedly entertaining in the same way one would
> : watch old-school episodes of CHIPS or the Dukes of Hazzard, a 2-dimensional
> : show aimed primarily at children;
> :
> As I said: It was what it was.
> :
> : RDM's BSG was created for adults, in a
> : more naturalistic style.
> :
> Shrug.
> :
> : Re-imagining BSG was not actually Moore's idea - he had pitched a space
> : drama show, but the execs pushed the idea of a BSG redo.
> :
> I understand Hatch pushed a BSG series many times. It wasn't a
> redo, it was a "oh crap, the Cylons found us on Earth", according
> to the trailer that I saw.
Before Ron Moore was brought in there was multiple attempts to get a
proper new Battlestar Galactica series or movie going over the years.
Richard Hatch has been trying to get one made for decades (almost since
the hopeless Galactica 1980 show was made), but the studios weren't
interested. He's also kept the books and comic books going to some degree,
as well as the various conventions and trying to get his own sci-fi movie
/ show off the ground (which from the trailer looked rather hopeless).
Then the studio suddenly decided it was a good idea to bring back a
follow-on "Battlestar Galactica" series themselves (no doubt simply to
protect their copyright and/or jump on the nostalgia fad bandwagon of
bringing back old shows). They brought in at least two people to do it, as
well as changing it through various ideas of a cinema movie, a TV movie,
or a TV series. At one point it was almost ready to go as a proper
follow-on movie / series (ignoring Galactica 1980) with a script and 3D
models of the Galactica, etc. created, and some of the original cast back
on-board ... BUT then of course the morons in management and the
bean-counters stuck thier noses in and it got delayed, at which point the
guy they had could no longer stay due to other commitments (Spider-man 2,
I think from memory). It was then that Ron Moore was brought in and the
whole thing changed into a silly in-name-only "reimaginging" (not sure if
that was his idea or the management morons) - he even used some of the
work already done by the previous people.
In one of the commentary podcasts of Season 1, Ron Moore stated that he
preferred to write on the fly, and there for had no plan. This BSG was
never going to work out well. He was too used to writing startrek.
Resets, retcons and character inconsistency were always going to happen
in a show that presented its self as a serial arced show written by an
"on the fly" guy.
I thought this was common knowledge. However, most fans seemed to ignore
that and still expected something coherent.
That said, if new viewers know all that and accept BSG for what it is,
then its quite a good show in every other way.
--
AC
Mad comparison. Compare it to B5, Firefly, Buffy, Blakes 7 etc. Those
shows you list are different beasts.
> Re-imagining BSG was not actually Moore's idea - he had pitched a space
> drama show, but the execs pushed the idea of a BSG redo.
Fascinating. Didnt know that. Shame he didn't get to do his own thing.
> Moore is far from "talentless" as you say, otherwise the show would never
> have come close to being the award-winning, "Best show on Television";
That's merely comparative. At the time, fair enough. Over all? Amusing.
> with
> regard to the New Caprica arc, there were some really brilliant aspects that
> were shown in the storyline...surely nothing one would have ever seen on the
> old-school BSG, although both did feature Richard Hatch, who really did his
> best acting as Tom Zarek than he ever did as the original Apollo.
> I agree that it should have been planned a little better, like JMS did with
> B5, but RDM still made it work,
No he didn't, that is the main complaint.
>creating intricate plotlines with
> 3-dimensional characters that brought it a depth that few shows have even
> today; although the "Final Five" aspect did seem a little contrived, I was
> still blown away by the revelation scene in Crossroads part 2; I will never
> be the same whenever I hear All Along the Watchtower (whether it's Bear
> McCreary's cover, or the Hedrix or Dylan ones).
> The next day at work (it was aired on Sundays back then), I couldnt' get
> that tune out of my head, I was humming it at my desk all day long (at low
> volume so the girl sitting next to me wouldn't think I was crazy;).
> I even enjoyed the Finale, and while I can see the reasons behind some of
> the complaints, overall I think it worked out pretty well (although I still
> think it would have been kind of interesting to see them end up on
> modern-day Earth rather than 150,000 years ago).
>
>
>
>
I can't understand how any one who watched B5 could suggest that BSG had
3D characters and intricate plot lines.
--
AC
Watch the new one. You'll love it.
>
> Anyone here have watch both the old series and the new series?
> do you like the old series or the new series better?
I personally grew to like the new one much better than the old. Many on
this list disagree, but it was a great show. Just know that it is not a
remake of the classic. It is a new show with an old name. Character
names are the same, and Starbuck now has a vagina.
Get the DVD's. You will love it.
"fairly simple" didn't last long, did it?
And reflected modern issues.
They apparently liked it for only one season...
Hopeless and stinking Galactica 1980...
I think more would agree the new it was better. Robot dogs - please...
> Your Name wrote:
> >
> > In article <isu34a$2l8e$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, tanhks
> > <tan...@freenewsnetfront.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, I am a fun of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica series.
> > > but i haven't watch the new Battlestar Galactica.
> > >
> > > Anyone here have watch both the old series and the new series?
> > > do you like the old series or the new series better?
> > > Thanks
> >
> > "Better" is simply a matter of opinion. Basically, if you like fairly
> > simple, family-friendly sci-fi like Star Wars then the original
>
> "fairly simple" didn't last long, did it?
Most of that blame goes to the usual management morons and bean counters
that forced it to turn into the garbage "Galactica 1980". The same morons
screwed up Buck Rogers second season too. :-(
Yep, "they" being the management morons and bean counters. The actual fans
liked it, but as usual the morons in charge were too bust chasing the
almighty $ to fill their own pockets and beleiving the misinformation
supplied by the likes of Nielsen.
Personally, I thought the new series was much better.
That tends to happen when the RATINGS aren't there.
> screwed up Buck Rogers second season too. :-(
Oh.
Dear.
Gods.
You also liked that piece of crap? Explains a lot.
Apparently there weren't enough of them to keep the ratings up...
> almighty $ to fill their own pockets and beleiving the misinformation
> supplied by the likes of Nielsen.
Then what was the TRUE viewership?
Copy that, Galactica.
> The fact is that they are two VERY different series that have little in
> common other then the name and basic core idea - one is the true
> "Battlestar Galactica" as created by the actual person who came up with
> the idea, Glen Larson, while the other is a pretender hiding behind the
> same name created by a typical "new Hollyweird" which can't come up with
> their own ideas.
(applauds!)
. _ . Doctor Clu (of...)
/{_}{} =PRISON BOARD BBS=
/(- _O) 972-329-0781
( \____ ) telnet://rdfig.net
Your Name:
> Ron Moore's "version" isn't and never will be "Battlestar Galactica" in
> anything but stolen name. The simple fact is that it should have had a
> different name, but most of the current generation in Hollyweird (as well
> as the comic book and toy industries) haven't even got enough talent to
> come up with a new name, let alone a new show.
It's obvious that Moore has talent. I am one of those classic BSG fans
that love the unique style of the show, and to me BSG was one of a kind.
New BSG to me was one fun show in one sense. Always keeping you
wondering who not to trust next to the point even the writers did not
know. :) I REALLY try to see the characters as Bill, Lee, and Kara
rather than Adama, Apollo and Starbuck.
Seriously, Moore had the talent to make a show stand on it's own, and
many times I really wish he had been given that chance.
Because of the old name on this new idea, it's hard for me to fully
embrace.
-^P^-
/=\__/= JUBAL - Colonial Pilot & Poet
|=(- _O)= Classic BSG forum.. fly with us:
|=\____)= http://www.colonialfleets.com
'|_\ '
> In one of the commentary podcasts of Season 1, Ron Moore stated that he
> preferred to write on the fly, and there for had no plan. This BSG was
> never going to work out well. He was too used to writing startrek.
> Resets, retcons and character inconsistency were always going to happen
> in a show that presented its self as a serial arced show written by an
> "on the fly" guy.
>
> I thought this was common knowledge. However, most fans seemed to ignore
> that and still expected something coherent.
You ever see Ron Moore's cameo on "Robot Chicken" where Seth Green asked
if he could help Ron write for Battlestar Galactica? Ron was like
"Nope, I got this..." and throws darts at a dartboard with pictures of
the characters tacked to it.
"Cylon, Cylon, Cylon... see, there! Not so hard."
> Most of that blame goes to the usual management morons and bean counters
> that forced it to turn into the garbage "Galactica 1980". The same morons
> screwed up Buck Rogers second season too. :-(
You know, if you watch season 2 THEN season 1, the show gets better.