Old series vs New series?
tanhks
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
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
AC
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
Your Name
<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
"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.
Bruce Burden
:
: "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.
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
Burden) wrote:
> 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.
QN
turned into luddites.
Joseph S. Powell, III
"Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:your.name-110...@203-118-185-129.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
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).
Your Name
<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
<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.
Bruce Burden
: The original was, while admittedly entertaining in the same way one would
: 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
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.
:
: Moore is far from "talentless" as you say, otherwise the show would never
Yeah, B5 garnered a lot of recognition as well. Color me not
too impressed. Popularity awards aren't very impressive.
:
: with
: were shown in the storyline
Really? I couldn't get past the "oh shit, we pressed the BIG RED
BUTTON!!!!".
:
: ...surely nothing one would have ever seen on the
: best acting as Tom Zarek than he ever did as the original Apollo.
Setting the bar pretty high there, aren't you? Careful, you may
trip over it. I would have been seriously disappointed if Hatch
hadn't done better. I suppose he could have mailed it in, but that
too would have been a poor reflection of Hatch and his devotion to
his craft. I'm glad he did a better job. But, I don't see that as
important to the problems of Moore Ron's BSG.
:
: I agree that it should have been planned a little better, like JMS did with
I have to differ. The New Crapica arc is where many of those
"intricate plotlines" went out the airlock. That is where the show
made a fundamental change - from refugees fleeing their suddenly
nasty creations, to a show about divisions within those nasty
creations, and the refugees reduced to pawns.
:
: with
: today; although the "Final Five" aspect did seem a little contrived,
Thank you for admitting the "final five" were "contrived". As
for "3-dimensional characters that brought it a depth", okay, I
can agree that the potential as there.
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.
Your Name
Burden) wrote:
> 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.
AC
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
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
Mr. B-o-B
> Hi, I am a fun of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica series.
> but i haven't watch the new Battlestar Galactica.
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.
RT
>
> In article <isu34a$2l8e$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, tanhks
> <tan...@freenewsnetfront.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi, I am a fun of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica series.
> > but i haven't watch the new Battlestar Galactica.
> >
> > Anyone here have watch both the old series and the new series?
> > do you like the old series or the new series better?
> > Thanks
>
> "Better" is simply a matter of opinion. Basically, if you like fairly
> simple, family-friendly sci-fi like Star Wars then the original
"fairly simple" didn't last long, did it?
RT
> "Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote in message
And reflected modern issues.
RT
> In article <%FQJp.42210$Vp.3...@newsfe14.iad>, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
> <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > "Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote in message
They apparently liked it for only one season...
RT
> In article <it9hg5$i5v$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, bru...@austin.rr.com (Bruce
> Burden) wrote:
> > 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
Hopeless and stinking Galactica 1980...
RT
>
> On 6/11/2011 4:40 AM, tanhks cried from the depths of the abyss:
> > Hi, I am a fun of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica series.
> > but i haven't watch the new Battlestar Galactica.
>
> 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
I think more would agree the new it was better. Robot dogs - please...
Your Name
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> 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. :-(
Your Name
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
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.
Tim McGaughy
> 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
Personally, I thought the new series was much better.
RT
>
> In article <4DFEAD35...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RT
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
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.
RT
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?
RT
Copy that, Galactica.
Clu
> 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
Clu
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.
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
'|_\ '
Clu
> 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."
Clu
> 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.
RT
>
> On 6/15/11 11:05 AM, AC wrote:
>
> > 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."
RT
>
> On 6/11/11 3:45 AM, Your Name wrote:
>
> > 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!)
RT
>
> Joseph S Powell III:
> 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.
>
> 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.
Your Name
up" version of Barney and Sesame Street in a few years time too. The idea
that established TV shows, books, movies, etc. should "grow up" just
because the fans supposedly have is quite simply complete and utter
idiocy. :-\
Not to mention that "grown up" usually means shovelling in loads of
pointless over-sexed scenes which aren't really "grown up" at all, but are
instead just "immature teen pervert fantasy". :-(
RT
you consider the old BSG to be pre-school fare...
> that established TV shows, books, movies, etc. should "grow up" just
> because the fans supposedly have is quite simply complete and utter
> idiocy. :-\
>
> Not to mention that "grown up" usually means shovelling in loads of
> pointless over-sexed scenes which aren't really "grown up" at all, but are
> instead just "immature teen pervert fantasy". :-(
Your Name
just like the Star Wars movie is was basically created to cash-in on.
But that's largely irrelveant to the point - why should an established TV
show, movie, book, etc. "grow up" because the original fans supposedly
grew up?!?! It's moronically insane to think they should.
catpandaddy
"Your Name" <your...@yourisp.com> wrote in message
news:yourname-151...@203-118-185-238.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
blow a gasket over this.
Your Name
are also waiting for their adult diapers (yes, I know they already exist),
adult pacifier, and adult blankee and night-lite to keep them safe from
the adult boogey monster under the bed. :-\
catpandaddy
Your Name
in charge to change their ways. The unfortunate problem with many
franchises is that there are few people who are actually fans, just lots
of people jumping on the latest toy on the block and not giving a damn ...
and that's why we end up with so much garbage. :-(
catpandaddy
RT
effects?
> just like the Star Wars movie is was basically created to cash-in on.
Galactica in 1978...
> But that's largely irrelveant to the point - why should an established TV
> show, movie, book, etc. "grow up" because the original fans supposedly
> grew up?!?! It's moronically insane to think they should.
esp because of 911...
catpandaddy
"RT" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4EC53EDD...@hotmail.com...
aimed at kids, just like the Star Wars movie [which] it was basically
created to cash-in on." On the other hand, he could have expressed it more
clearly, given his vast mental superiority and all.
Your Name
Your Name
> >
> > But that's largely irrelveant to the point - why should an established TV
> > show, movie, book, etc. "grow up" because the original fans supposedly
> > grew up?!?! It's moronically insane to think they should.
>
> Why should it NOT be updated? People are a bit more sophisticated 20 years
> later, esp because of 911...
bother starting the same idiotic circle, just like the morons in
Hollyweird, you will never understand simple common sense concepts. I'm
not wasting any more time on even trying to explain common sense to you.
Believe whatever utter garbage and nonsense you want to delude yourself
with. :-\
catpandaddy
> wrote:
>> Your Name wrote:
>> >
>> > But that's largely irrelveant to the point - why should an established
>> > TV
>> > show, movie, book, etc. "grow up" because the original fans supposedly
>> > grew up?!?! It's moronically insane to think they should.
>>
>> Why should it NOT be updated? People are a bit more sophisticated 20
>> years
>> later, esp because of 911...
>
> WOOSH!!! Straight over the top of your head, as usual. I'm not going to
> bother starting the same idiotic circle, just like the morons in
> Hollyweird, you will never understand simple common sense concepts. I'm
> not wasting any more time on even trying to explain common sense to you.
RT
today. Was the new BSG too complicated for you? Too many big words?
Your Name
as usual. You don't get it, you'll never ever get it - it req uires some
intelligence and common sense ... two things that are almost non-existant
on this planet, and even rarer on the Internet. :-(