Sci-Fi is making a Battlestar Galactica weekly series
Troy Heagy
I never liked the original Battlestar Galactica. Yes, the pilot movie
was entertaining, but the followup episodes were incredibly boring. I
can't figure out why this show still has fans 25 years later. To me
Galactica = Sexx er,Lexx -or- Sliders -or- V The Weekly Series in
terms of entertainment. Subpar.
I watched the Original Galactica once in Sci-Fi Channel reruns, and
then promptly concluded I would never watch it again.
Troy
S John M-M
wrote:
>I never liked the original Battlestar Galactica. Yes, the pilot movie
>was entertaining, but the followup episodes were incredibly boring. I
>can't figure out why this show still has fans 25 years later. To me
>Galactica = Sexx er,Lexx -or- Sliders -or- V The Weekly Series in
>terms of entertainment. Subpar.
Sliders was conceived as a series to begin with... and actually the
first few seasons (or maybe two) were actually very, very intelligent.
TPTB at FOX however thought they needed something with a more broad
appeal to kids and more full of "great action" (with which to make
teaser commercials with) and it just went bad.
>I watched the Original Galactica once in Sci-Fi Channel reruns, and
>then promptly concluded I would never watch it again.
Actually I did that too. I figured I'd just Tivoed a lame episode, but
from what I understand that was about par for the course.
--S. John
Patrick Joseph Mc Namara
"Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:abf84c3c.04071...@posting.google.com...
The first season of Galactica was good but the second was notoriously bad.
It was popular because it came out only a couple years after Star Wars first
aired and it was the most advanced sci-fi show on TV at the time (during a
time of few sci-fi shows on TV). They spent about a million an episode which
for 1979 was an incredible sum. (Hence the repeated fighter shots.)
--
Patrick Joseph McNamara
writer...@yahoo.com
---
Come visit Patrick McNamara's Internet Emporium
at http://www.geocities.com/pat_mc_7
Featuring the largest list of (American) television preview special
information available on the Internet!
Ken from Chicago
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was Star Wars: The TV Series--at least that was the
hope back in the prehistoric days of the 1970s. The year was 1978, a year
after the movie STAR WARS wowwed audiences, natch, imitation being the
sincerest form of shobizness, you had tv shows trying to mimic Star Wars'
success. BG, like SW, was a space-oriented sf series NOT based on Earth
(technically, since they were heading toward Earth). Also remember in 1978,
there was no Star Trek (then-currently on tv), Babylon 5, Quantum Leap,
X-Files, etc. BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25TH CENTURY starring Gil Gerard and Erin
Gray was a year away from airing. If you were a science fiction fan, this
was The Thing.
A lot of hope and wishes overlooked BG's many flaws, altho it had many
strengths. For its time it had some really good episodes, many of which
still hold up. Looking back . . . well, like many remakes and many
retrospectives, nostalgia covers a multitude of sins.
-- Ken from Chicago (who liked both the original and the remake)
P.S. I still argue that . . . yes, I will bring up the phrase dreaded by
many BG fans . . . GALACTICA 1980 . . . (I pause now to allow many of the BG
fans to apply towels and direct pressure on their now-bleeding ears) . . .
could made "in-canon" in that it was all just a dream by delirious Apollo
who was stranded on a deserted planet, before and after the events of the
one good G1980 episode, "The Last Starbuck Story". Just before launching on
his unbeknownst to him, final mission, Starbuck could have been introduced
to a new batch of cadet colonial pilots, that he thinks of as "children", to
which Apollo retorts that they may be the ones who find Earth after the
veteran colonial warriors are dead and gone.
Ar Q
The first two seasons of Sliders might be the best Sci Fi on TV until they
met Fox executives' demands in exchange for renewal.
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>I don't know if that's good or bad?
The original Galactica wasn't that bad. Certainly nothing to brag
about, but mildly entertaining with a hint that it might have become a
classic, had ABC given it more time to mature.
It was an odd beast. You look at it and want to laugh at the silly
language and costumes, that damned robot mutt, and the endlessly
reused stock special effects. But if you pay attention to the little
details and the overall storyline, it had just enough to make you say
"Hmm, this isn't as bad as I thought." But there were a lot of bumps
along the way, and it just never quite gelled into a good series (the
way ST:TNG did after a first season that was barely better than
Galactica's.)
The pilot (3-hour "Saga of a Star World") and two-part followup ("Lost
Planet of the Gods") were pretty good, save for a very bad ripoff of
the Star Wars bar scene. That's probably because they had the most
time to be written, since they were long intended to be an ABC
miniseries, not a weekly series. It helped to have Jane Seymour in the
cast for those episodes, and the big payoff of Baltar's death (a plot
point ridiculously ignored when ABC decided to go weekly.)
The subsequent episodes were rushed, since Larson & Co. had very
little notice to prepare for a weekly run, and it shows. We got silly
space cowboy, ice planet, and planet-of-children stories. By mid-year,
they were finally catching up with the writing, resulting in such fan
favorites as "Fire In Space" and "The Living Legend" (with the return
of the Battlestar Pegasus), and the ambitious but less successful "War
of the Gods" (perhaps the darkest Galactica story, with its Satanic
themes.) "Living Legend" also added Anne Lockhart to the cast, finally
giving the show a strong female character to replace the departed
Seymour. The show had been embarrassingly chauvanistic to that point.
By the end of the first season, Galactica was leaving the Cylons
behind in its flight, and Season 2 would have been much more of a
"strange new worlds" type series as Galactica searched for Earth, with
little if any of the "target practice" Cylons around. The finale, "The
Hand of God", is perhaps the best Galactica episode (written by future
Quantum Leap and JAG writer/creator Donald Bellisario.) In it,
Galactica finally turns and fights, taking on a lone Cylon warship.
That was something the show really needed, after a year of running.
Brian
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>The first two seasons of Sliders might be the best Sci Fi on TV until they
>met Fox executives' demands in exchange for renewal.
The first three seasons of QUANTUM LEAP blow it away.
Brian
D
In article <abf84c3c.04071...@posting.google.com>,
hondain...@yahoo.com (Troy Heagy) wrote:
Er, you do realize that the miniseries that they showed in December was an
entirely different version, don't you? Much better.
D
Nonymous
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3ca1f0hcvidqouc5d...@4ax.com...
Except for the first 15 seconds where he lept to a new point in time, and a
few debates on getting back 'home', I never saw all that much "Sci-Fi" in
Quantum Leap.
Mac Breck
in message
news:820Ic.55323$JG5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> The first season of Galactica was good but the second was
notoriously bad.
> It was popular because it came out only a couple years
after Star Wars first
> aired
OK, but I never liked it, even when it was first aired. The
cheese factor was just too much to bear.
>... and it was the most advanced sci-fi show on TV at the
time (during a
> time of few sci-fi shows on TV). They spent about a
million an episode which
> for 1979 was an incredible sum. (Hence the repeated
fighter shots.)
"Hence the repeated fighter shots." does not seem to follow
from "They spent about a million an episode which for 1979
was an incredible sum." unless you add something else like
saying that doing the effects was incredibly expensive back
then.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN) - from the desktop PC
-------------------------------
http://www.scifi.com/babylon5/
http://www.scifi.com/crusade/
http://www.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/1521 (Brimstone)
Mac Breck
liked the 1970's/1980's episodes, to tune in to see if, by
some *miracle*, Sci-Fi could have done better. I'm not
insinuating that the original was good and that Sci-Fi would
have a hard time topping it, but rather that Sci-Fi has a
hard time topping *anything*. Usually they turn a silk
purse into a sow's ear, or a sow's ear into a decomposing
sow's ear. Anyway, miraculously enough, Sci-Fi *did* do a
better job, at least with their Battlestar Galactica
miniseries (really a 3-hour TV movie). Let's hope they can
maintain that level for awhile in their Battlestar Galactica
weekly series. The odds are against that, though because
Sci-Fi will probably give them peanuts for a budget..
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>> >The first two seasons of Sliders might be the best Sci Fi on TV until
>they
>> >met Fox executives' demands in exchange for renewal.
>>
>> The first three seasons of QUANTUM LEAP blow it away.
>
>Except for the first 15 seconds where he lept to a new point in time, and a
>few debates on getting back 'home', I never saw all that much "Sci-Fi" in
>Quantum Leap.
And that differs from "Sliders", how exactly?
Brian
Jonathan Blum
> >... and it was the most advanced sci-fi show on TV at the time (during a
> >time of few sci-fi shows on TV). They spent about a million an episode which
> >for 1979 was an incredible sum. (Hence the repeated fighter shots.)
> "Hence the repeated fighter shots." does not seem to follow
> from "They spent about a million an episode which for 1979
> was an incredible sum." unless you add something else like
> saying that doing the effects was incredibly expensive back
> then.
I think it's more that, after spending vast amounts of money on the
initial TV movies (which got turned into two-part episodes within the
season), they had to do other episodes on a comparative shoestring to
get the average *down* to $1M. (The production on those first shows
was mindboggling -- I mean, heck, not even Star Trek: The Motionless
Picture was sending a second-unit crew to Egypt to show their
characters wandering around the pyramids...)
And even the comparative cheapies were still often fairly elaborate,
but the money went on sets rather than modelwork. There are only a
couple of episodes which could qualify as good old-fashioned bottle
shows...
Cheers,
Jon Blum
The Babaloughesian
I never watched Quantum Leap, so I'm not sure about whether that show had
any episodes that were about things like killer asteroids, global pandemics,
dystopias, utopias, dinosaurs, psychics, time moving in reverse, or
Kromaggs. If it did, I'd say it had about the same amount of sci-fi as
Sliders. Otherwise, I guess those'd be some examples of differences.
Ken from Chicago
"The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2lerpkF...@uni-berlin.de...
Oh you should have seen the episode where Sam where an overload on a nuclear
sub caused Sam to "leap" past his lifespan back into the "aura" of a T-Rex.
It was hilarious. Al was floating around Sam's head since as a dino,
everything was much smaller, so Al sees giant Sam stomping around.
Priceless.
-- Ken from Chicago
D
In article <75d9a022.04071...@posting.google.com>,
jb...@zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum) wrote:
> I think it's more that, after spending vast amounts of money on the
> initial TV movies (which got turned into two-part episodes within the
> season), they had to do other episodes on a comparative shoestring to
> get the average *down* to $1M. (The production on those first shows
> was mindboggling -- I mean, heck, not even Star Trek: The Motionless
> Picture was sending a second-unit crew to Egypt to show their
> characters wandering around the pyramids...)
>
> And even the comparative cheapies were still often fairly elaborate,
> but the money went on sets rather than modelwork. There are only a
> couple of episodes which could qualify as good old-fashioned bottle
> shows...
I suspect that once the sets were built, they were still expensive. I
remember reading once that filming a battle scene on the bridge of the
Galactica was an enormous pain in the butt because they had to spend a lot
of time getting all the video in synch. And lighting must have been
difficult as well. My guess is that this meant that they spent extra hours
shooting on the bridge and extra hours means extra money.
D
William December Starr
a.t...@intrex.net said:
> Sliders was conceived as a series to begin with... and actually
> the first few seasons (or maybe two) were actually very, very
> intelligent. TPTB at FOX however thought they needed something
> with a more broad appeal
So they added Kari Wuhrer.
> to kids
Oh. Never mind then.
-- wds
Patrick Joseph Mc Namara
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 06:08:46 -0400, "Nonymous" <no...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
> And that differs from "Sliders", how exactly?
>
Sliders traveled to different dimensions but kept roughly about the same
time. Quantum Leap traveled through time.
Quantum Leap was also more of a dramatic show. The sci-fi element was used
as a way to setup the dramatic story. It wasn't so much about Sam was going
to get home but in trying to fix the personal problems he encountered. QL
was more mainstream than Sliders.
Paul Vader
>sow's ear. Anyway, miraculously enough, Sci-Fi *did* do a
>better job, at least with their Battlestar Galactica
>miniseries (really a 3-hour TV movie). Let's hope they can
Well, they did *half* a better job. The first night was suctacular beyone
belief. I watched the second night for the sole purpose of goofing on it
here, and was surprised that it was actually enjoyable.
I'm still not convinced that the series is going to be any good, but I'll
probably tune in for an episode or two to find out. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Mac Breck
news:10f5adg...@news.supernews.com...
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >sow's ear. Anyway, miraculously enough, Sci-Fi *did* do
a
> >better job, at least with their Battlestar Galactica
> >miniseries (really a 3-hour TV movie). Let's hope they
can
>
> Well, they did *half* a better job. The first night was
suctacular beyone
> belief. I watched the second night for the sole purpose of
goofing on it
> here, and was surprised that it was actually enjoyable.
I didn't notice such a big difference in quality between the
first and second halves. What did you find most
objectionable in the first half? When I tuned in, I was
*expecting* to dislike the *entire* thing, and was
pleasantly surprised at how good it was. I haven't watched
it since it first aired, but did go to the bother to archive
it on DVD-R (sans commercials), even though it aired in my
area with that awful crawl about Sci-Fi moving to Digital
Cable (which was on the screen almost constantly, and caused
static in the sound).
> I'm still not convinced that the series is going to be any
good, but I'll
> probably tune in for an episode or two to find out.
Same here, except I'll probably watch a full season, *if*
it's anywhere near as good as the miniseries.
Eric Edwards
>I didn't notice such a big difference in quality between the
>first and second halves. What did you find most
>objectionable in the first half? When I tuned in, I was
>*expecting* to dislike the *entire* thing, and was
>pleasantly surprised at how good it was. I haven't watched
>it since it first aired, but did go to the bother to archive
>it on DVD-R (sans commercials), even though it aired in my
>area with that awful crawl about Sci-Fi moving to Digital
>Cable (which was on the screen almost constantly, and caused
>static in the sound).
For me, the difference is that the second half wasn't nearly as boring.
They had a chance to show the audience the hopes and aspirations of a
great civilization. They could have given us a reason to reason to
feel. Instead we get a slow, plodding exploration of the personal
hangups of characters we know are going to survive. When the attack
finally came, it was still dull! How could they have made the end of
the world boring?
The second half was more straight forward action. I think they had a
better idea of how to handle that.
--
Photos and travelogues from Africa and Southeast Asia: http://www.exile.org
Botch
Edwards) wrote:
>For me, the difference is that the second half wasn't nearly as boring.
>They had a chance to show the audience the hopes and aspirations of a
>great civilization. They could have given us a reason to reason to
>feel. Instead we get a slow, plodding exploration of the personal
>hangups of characters we know are going to survive. When the attack
>finally came, it was still dull! How could they have made the end of
>the world boring?
>
>The second half was more straight forward action. I think they had a
>better idea of how to handle that.
I liked that they fleshed out the characters, the biggest complaint
that is made about most sci-fi and action movies is they are just full
of action and special effects, characters and plot are secondary.
I do feel they glossed over, a little too much the devistation that
would be felt if twelve worlds and billions of people were destroyed.
Botch
The Babaloughesian
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:guOdncPQBuz...@comcast.com...
No thanks. I get nauseous if I look at Scott Bakula's face for more than a
few seconds.
Revolting Peasant
Even without having seen the original BG, I can say with confidence
that the new show is like a totally different show, so give it half a
chance. Everything is changed except a few conceptual details and some
names. I thought the 2003 mini-series was surprisingly good;
absolutely pure sci-fi/space opera, believable, interesting, very good
action, commendable SFX, etc. It was, if I can be allowed the
comparison, as good as the very, very best of Star Trek episodes, only
without the stupid, magical "anomalies".
Some of the characters were a bit cardboard, but one grew into them.
The cool thing about the mini-series is that it is a coherent,
potentially self-contained story, and it got better and better as it
went on, culminating in a really good ending.
I'm immensely looking forward to the weekly continuation.
~RP
Tirya
news:81afba4e.04071...@posting.google.com...
> Even without having seen the original BG, I can say with confidence
> that the new show is like a totally different show, so give it half a
> chance. Everything is changed except a few conceptual details and some
> names.
Then why didn't they just give it a new title and let it stand on its own two
feet, instead of trying to ride the coattails of the original series'
(in)famy? That's what frustrates me the most about it.
Tirya
D
In article <HpQIc.44681$WX.674@attbi_s51>, "Tirya" <Ti...@spamfree.addy>
wrote:
>> Even without having seen the original BG, I can say with confidence
>> that the new show is like a totally different show, so give it half a
>> chance. Everything is changed except a few conceptual details and some
>> names.
>
> Then why didn't they just give it a new title and let it stand on its own two
> feet, instead of trying to ride the coattails of the original series'
> (in)famy? That's what frustrates me the most about it.
Whenever someone performs "Hamlet" they change lots of things, but they keep
the name. So why is it so hard to accept that they did the same with BG?
The miniseries actually kept the fundamentals of the plot--a sudden attack
by a robot army that nearly wipes out humanity, leaving the survivors along
with the last warship to flee. It's the BG story and the BG characters.
And it's considerably better than the original.
D
William December Starr
"Tirya" <Ti...@spamfree.addy> said:
>> Even without having seen the original BG, I can say with
>> confidence that the new show is like a totally different show, so
>> give it half a chance. Everything is changed except a few
>> conceptual details and some names. [Revolting Peasant]
>
> Then why didn't they just give it a new title and let it stand on
> its own two feet, instead of trying to ride the coattails of the
> original series' (in)famy? That's what frustrates me the most
> about it.
<opinion> You get frustrated about weird things. </opinion>
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Troy Heagy
> little notice to prepare for a weekly run, and it shows.
I didn't realize that. I suppose when you rush, you get poor quality
stories and that's what happened with Galactica. Larson did a better
job with Buck Rogers. Well, season 1 anyway. ;-)
Troy
Botch
wrote:
>Brian Thorn <btho...@cox.net>
All of Larson's sci-fi shows suffered from the same soft milk toast
quality. The programs were representative of the time. One of his
shows that should be remade is the mini-series " V ".
Botch
Richard B
One of his shows that should be remade is the mini-series " V ".
Glen Larson had nothing to do with the "V" mini-series. That was from
writer/director Kenneth Johnson. Who also worked on the "Alien Nation"
TV series and "The Incredible Hulk" series.
Currently, Johnson is in pre-production with a new mini-series
titled "V: The Second Generation".
Glen Larson is a hack of epic proportions. Nearly all of his series
are rip-offs of films that were a hit a year or two earlier. For
example:
"Coogans Bluff" (1968), Larson's version, "McCloud" (1970)
"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), Larson's version "Alias
Smith and Jones" (1971)
"The Sting" (1973), Larson's version, "Switch" (1975)
Star Wars (1977), Larson's version , "Battlestar Galactica" (1978). To
be fair,the premise isn't similar, But the look and characters are
certainly based on "Star Wars" . Even the premise is suspect. It's well
known that Roddenberry used the description "Wagon Train to the stars"
to sell "Star Trek" to TV execs who seemed to be only interested in
westerns. The premise of BG is closer to "Wagon Train" than Trek ever
was.
"Smokie and the Bandit" (1977), Larson's version, "B J and the Bear"
(1978).
"Hooper" (1978), Larson's version, "The Fall Guy" (1981)
Now this one's a little different. Instead of copying a particular
film, Larson based his next series on a film trend. In 1981, we had the
films "The Howling" and "An American Werewolf in London". Both films
featured make-up transformations using air bladder effects. In 1983.
Larson based the series "Manimal" on that effect technique.
Finally, "Tron" (1982), Larson's version, "Automan" (1983).
Larson has been involved in some decent shows. "It Takes a Thief" is
still a favorite of mine. But even that one may be influenced by a
number of heist films from a few years earlier. He also produced "Magnum
P I". But that show's quality was more likely the product of
writer/creator, Donald Belasarius who went on to create "Quantum Leap",
"Airwolf", and "JAG".
Botch
wrote:
I stand corrected, when the original BG was on I was in highschool so
I was around for all those other shows to,and to be honest I never
really made the connection between the movies and the shows, except
for BG. I always was more focused on sci fi.
Regardless, ' V ' still, by today's standards was too light weight.
Botch
Dillon Pyron
wrote:
>Botch wrote:
> One of his shows that should be remade is the mini-series " V ".
>
> Glen Larson had nothing to do with the "V" mini-series. That was from
>writer/director Kenneth Johnson. Who also worked on the "Alien Nation"
>TV series and "The Incredible Hulk" series.
> Currently, Johnson is in pre-production with a new mini-series
>titled "V: The Second Generation".
>
> Glen Larson is a hack of epic proportions. Nearly all of his series
>are rip-offs of films that were a hit a year or two earlier. For
>example:
>
<snip>
> Larson has been involved in some decent shows. "It Takes a Thief" is
>still a favorite of mine. But even that one may be influenced by a
>number of heist films from a few years earlier.
Larson played a relatively minor role as one of many directors and as
an occasional associate producer. I'd say "involved" may be too
strong a word.
I think the concept of a thief "gone straight" and working for someone
else might be from the Hitchcock film "To Catch a Thief".
>He also produced "Magnum
>P I". But that show's quality was more likely the product of
>writer/creator, Donald Belasarius who went on to create "Quantum Leap",
>"Airwolf", and "JAG".
Again, I don't think he was allowed to let his "magic touch" affect
the show too much.
--
dillon
When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.
George Avalos
"Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>Sci-Fi is making a Battlestar Galactica weekly series
News traveled slowly?
news:abf84c3c.04071...@posting.google.com...
> I don't know if that's good or bad?
It's good. More sci-fi, not less, is better. Or at least the *chance* to
demonstrate quality and perhaps become a regular series. Too many skiffy
series (Firefly, Wonderfalls, Brimstone, etc.) are getting yanked virtually
before they can get off the ground.
-George
Botch
went and dug through some of my old sci fi mags, and I do mean old.
Anyone remember a now defunct mag called 'Fantastic Films'?
In any case I looked far enough back to the original BG, it's funny,
in every interview with the people involved, they go out of their way
NOT to mention Star Wars, especially Larson.
In Larsons 3page interview he mentions Star Trek ,Space 1999 , Close
Encounters, Buck Rogers ,even Silent Running. He uses the effects guy
responsible for Star Wars and talks about how great his work was in
Silent Running instead. Larson only mentions Star Wars once, and even
then as a throw away, in connection with Ralph McQuarrie saying he did
some great work for CBS during the NASA launches...and oh yeah...his
work on Star Wars.
Never the less I'll give Larson credit for producing sci-fi when no
one else was.
The old mags are interesting, pre-internet, pre-Blockbuster. Home
vcr's were few and expensive, some had remotes connected by a cable
and were top loading. The particular mag I was looking at had an ad
on the back cover, where you could buy an 8 minute snippet of Star
Wars on Super 8 film, $8.95 for silent B&W, 17.95 for silent in color,
and 29.95 for color and sound.
I'm feeling very old at the moment.
Botch
Richard B
"Never the less I'll give Larson credit for producing sci-fi when no one
else was."
Larson was just the first to jump on the bandwagon (something he
excelled at). In the next few years, there were a number of network
attempts to make a SF series. NBC had "Project UFO" in '78 and later
Larson's "Buck Rogers". "81 brought "The Greatest American Hero" on ABC.
In '82, NBC launched "The Powers of Matthew Star". Later in the 80's we
had the underrated "Twilight Zone" remake, "Misfits of Science", and
"Something is Out There". Not to mention the "V" mini-series.
TV networks would have loved to cash in on the SF craze that ruled
the movies. They just couldn't afford the special FX. That's one good
thing about CGI. It gave TV the chance to do the stuff that could
previously be seen only on the big screen. I've seen space battles on
B5, DS9, and Stargate that rivaled anything I've seen at the movies.
In regards to old SF magazines like "Fantastic Films". I still have
a complete collection of that title. Along with collections of Starlog,
Fangoria, Cinefantastique, Questar, Gorezone, Future, and a few more
(mainly because I don't want to throw them away and no one wants to buy
them). Those old mags were often the best way to get a hard copy of some
FX scene from a movie.
Now with DVD, any scene can be frozen to admire. Now the internet
provides any bit of of info we might need. magazines are becoming
obselete. But there still something about flipping through the pages in
the comfort of a big recliner. I haven't given up on mags yet.
Botch
wrote:
>Botch wrote:
>"Never the less I'll give Larson credit for producing sci-fi when no one
>else was."
>
> Larson was just the first to jump on the bandwagon (something he
>excelled at). In the next few years, there were a number of network
>attempts to make a SF series. NBC had "Project UFO" in '78 and later
>Larson's "Buck Rogers". "81 brought "The Greatest American Hero" on ABC.
>In '82, NBC launched "The Powers of Matthew Star". Later in the 80's we
>had the underrated "Twilight Zone" remake, "Misfits of Science", and
>"Something is Out There". Not to mention the "V" mini-series.
Let's not forget " Quark " not the DS9 character but the show about an
intergalactic garbage man. Saturday morning tv had some live action
stuff, "Jason of Star Command" , "Far out space nuts".
I would put "The Greatest American Hero" in a different catagory than
the others. Original concept, it's one I wouldn't mind see being
remade, and I can't resist a show that has one of the main characters
snacking on dog biscuts during the run of the series.
>
> In regards to old SF magazines like "Fantastic Films". I still have
>a complete collection of that title. Along with collections of Starlog,
>Fangoria, Cinefantastique, Questar, Gorezone, Future, and a few more
>(mainly because I don't want to throw them away and no one wants to buy
>them). Those old mags were often the best way to get a hard copy of some
>FX scene from a movie.
> Now with DVD, any scene can be frozen to admire. Now the internet
>provides any bit of of info we might need. magazines are becoming
>obselete. But there still something about flipping through the pages in
>the comfort of a big recliner. I haven't given up on mags yet.
I have collections of all those except Questar and Cinefantastique,
two other ones I have are Comic Scene and Cinemagic. The only one I
still buy on a regular basis is one called Cinefx, which is stirctly a
special effects mag.
Magazines aren't becoming obselete, inspite of DVD, tape or
intertnet, at least in the near future. They still have material you
can't get online and like you said, there is something about having a
hard copy in your hand. I quit buying many magazines because they
became wayyyyyy over priced, Starlog being a prime example.
Botch
Troy Heagy
> >Sci-Fi is making a Battlestar Galactica weekly series
>
> News traveled slowly?
Keep your wise-ass comments to yourself. Not everyone drools over the
Sci-Fi Channel and hangs on every piece-of-shit news coming from SFC.
Troy
stace
The thing was on TV six months ago...series plans announced about the same
time...
don't be so touchy. It's only the internet.
Lio Convoy
news:e2f8f05p8u4idbn5d...@4ax.com:
> All of Larson's sci-fi shows suffered from the same soft milk toast
> quality. The programs were representative of the time. One of his
> shows that should be remade is the mini-series " V ".
Larson had NOTHING to do with "V". You can tell, because the First 2 mini-
series were well-written and had excellent effects for a TV show.
If Larson would have done V, we would have had to put up with some stupid
kid or sidekick robot.
--
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change
the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has".- Margaret Mead
Jim Trejo
Chicago, IL
George Avalos
> "George Avalos" <gav...@mindspring.com>
> > "Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >Sci-Fi is making a Battlestar Galactica weekly series
> >
> > News traveled slowly?
> Keep your wise-ass comments to yourself.
Not gonna happen, Troy. Over-sensitive much?
>Not everyone drools over the Sci-Fi Channel
And not everyone still drools over J. Michael Straczynski and Babylon 5 (as
fine a show as it was) more than five years after its final episode.
>and hangs on every piece-of-shit news coming from SFC.
Or is so poorly informed about sci fi TV news as to appear completely silly
when being indignant.
-George
-- thinking that Usenet might have entertainment value yet this coming
season, what with Troy still having access to a phone line, modem and a
computer, all at the same time.
(Although judging from your inability to watch 'Farscape' episodes because
you don't know how and/or are too lazy to program a VCR, it's possible you
had to convince somebody to operate the PC and modem for you)
Ken from Chicago
"Tirya" <Ti...@spamfree.addy> wrote in message
news:HpQIc.44681$WX.674@attbi_s51...
Ah, but there's the irony. If it had been simply a series set in Earth's
future, say the 22nd century, with Venus, Mars, some of the moons of
Jupiter, Saturan and Uranus (let's be mature, people) terraformed and
colonized and having the Cylons simply be androids that got out of
control--then sf fans would be railing that it was "ripping off" BATTLESTAR
GALACTICA.
-- Ken from Chicago
Patrick Joseph Mc Namara
>
> Ah, but there's the irony. If it had been simply a series set in Earth's
> future, say the 22nd century, with Venus, Mars, some of the moons of
> Jupiter, Saturan and Uranus (let's be mature, people) terraformed and
> colonized and having the Cylons simply be androids that got out of
> control--then sf fans would be railing that it was "ripping off"
> BATTLESTAR
> GALACTICA.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
Not necessarily. The Buck Rogers character precedes BG. When BG first came
out many fans were already familiar with the old B&W serials. It's likely
set recycling and the times in which they were made which makes the shows
look similar.
Grainne Gillespie
>hope back in the prehistoric days of the 1970s. The year was >1978, a year
>after the movie STAR WARS wowwed audiences, natch, >imitation being the
>sincerest form of shobizness, you had tv shows trying to mimic >Star Wars'
>success. BG, like SW, was a space-oriented sf series NOT based >on Earth
>(technically, since they were heading toward Earth).
Didn't Lucas try to sue the producers of BSG, claiming it was a SW rip-off?
stace
"Grainne Gillespie" <demo...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:o5kLc.5109$Z14....@news.indigo.ie...
He was mad because his FX guy went over to work.
Visually, the FX were similar for that reason.
Story wise, there's no similarity, really.
And considering Lucas heavily ripped off Kurasawa's body of work for Star
Wars, along with a lot of Campbell, he really didn't have a leg to stand on.
Richard B
<<<Story wise, there's no similarity, really.
And considering Lucas heavily ripped off Kurasawa's body of work for
Star Wars, along with a lot of Campbell, he really didn't have a leg to
stand on. >>>>
Lucas freely admits that the story structure and some characters
were based on Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress". He also credited
Campbell's "The Power of Myth" as an inspiration. In fact, Lucas was
friends with both Campbell and Kurosawa. Lucas appears in Bill Moyers
PBS special about Campbell where he clearly states that the book had a
huge influence on SW.. Lucas's ILM did work on one of Kurosawa's last
films, "Dreams". When Kurosawa was given a lifetime acheivement Oscar,
he called Lucas and Spielberg on stage to share the moment with him.
On the other hand, Larson continues to claim that BG had nothing to
do with SW and that he had been working on the project for years.The
story of BG wasn't that original. The premise is obviously based on the
story of Moses leading his people out of Egypt. There are also tons of
Star Wars references. Starbuck is Han Solo, the robot daggit is R2 D2
(however, R2D2 is clearly based on the drones from "Silent Running"),
the Cylons armored appearance is very similar to the SW stormtroopers,
the Vipers sport the same red stripes that were on the X-Wings. The
hiring of Dykstra for FX and Ralph McQuarrie as preduction designer
clearly showed a desire to make the series look like Star Wars. Also,
given Larson's history of creating series that were thinly diguised
versions of hit films, it's obvious that BG was a blatant rip-off of SW.
Ken from Chicago
He sued Paramount for STAR TREK II: THE REVENGE OF KHAN for similarity to
STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE JEDI--until Paramount gave in and then he realized
or someone notified him, uh, dude, George, a true jedi would not be
vengeful.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jim Cooke
Star Trek 2 was called 'The WRATH of Khan'
and StarWars 3 (episode 6) was called 'The RETURN of the Jedi'
How could they get sued over that?
Jim
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker_era...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:KoadnZHNu7m...@comcast.com...
stace
"Jim Cooke" <jim...@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:rBwLc.464$KF....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> But Ken,
>
> Star Trek 2 was called 'The WRATH of Khan'
>
> and StarWars 3 (episode 6) was called 'The RETURN of the Jedi'
>
> How could they get sued over that?
>
> Jim
>
Return was originally called Revenge...a kid wrote Lucas and told him that a
Jedi would never seek revenge. Lucas said the kid was right. So the story
goes.
Can't speak to the ST:WOK reference....
Ken from Chicago
"stace" <amp_c...@hotmail.corm> wrote in message
news:40ff2125$1...@news3.accesscomm.ca...
Vengeance of Khan / Revenge of Khan ... poTAYto / poTAHto.
-- Ken from Chicago (who wants to call the whole thing off)
Da Man Here
--
--
Looking for other swingers? Just need to find someone for sex?
Check us out!
http://acc17901.com/public/swingers/index.htm
"Troy Heagy" <hondain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:abf84c3c.04071...@posting.google.com...
> I don't know if that's good or bad?
>
> I never liked the original Battlestar Galactica. Yes, the pilot movie
> was entertaining, but the followup episodes were incredibly boring. I
> can't figure out why this show still has fans 25 years later. To me
> Galactica = Sexx er,Lexx -or- Sliders -or- V The Weekly Series in
> terms of entertainment. Subpar.
>
> I watched the Original Galactica once in Sci-Fi Channel reruns, and
> then promptly concluded I would never watch it again.
>
> Troy