info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Just got done watching original BSG on DVD.
4 views
Skip to first unread message
The Void Era Man
Sep 15, 2012, 3:44:20 PM9/15/12
to
In hindsight with the new series someway behind us and all of its
offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original
better.
maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi
of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.
yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel
of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not
just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.
i kind of see that roland ð. moore sold his premise clothed in BSG
because it was much more likely to be picked up as a series if it had an
established name on it already, given the current climate of recycling
going on in hollywood. also he had a big basic framework already in
place. all he did was totally erase Larsaon's details and put his own in
there.
I would have like to seen moore's opus without it being piggybacked on
BSG backstory and character names.
it kind of turned BSG from a pleasant memory that was really only cared
about by its devotees and rebranded, hijacked actually, into a situation
in it will be the reimagined show that in the future will automatically
be called 'battlestar galactica' and the original will be little more
than a footnote held up to even more ridicule than it had gotten before
the new series even came out.
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' Fuck /' ')
\ You' /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
CRIPES A'MIGHTY 3RD!
SHORTBUS O'REETEE STICKLER.
BEWARE OF OL' JEEZL PETE.
2012: YEAR OF THE ROBBY.
offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original
better.
maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi
of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.
yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel
of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not
just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.
i kind of see that roland ð. moore sold his premise clothed in BSG
because it was much more likely to be picked up as a series if it had an
established name on it already, given the current climate of recycling
going on in hollywood. also he had a big basic framework already in
place. all he did was totally erase Larsaon's details and put his own in
there.
I would have like to seen moore's opus without it being piggybacked on
BSG backstory and character names.
it kind of turned BSG from a pleasant memory that was really only cared
about by its devotees and rebranded, hijacked actually, into a situation
in it will be the reimagined show that in the future will automatically
be called 'battlestar galactica' and the original will be little more
than a footnote held up to even more ridicule than it had gotten before
the new series even came out.
_
/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' Fuck /' ')
\ You' /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \
CRIPES A'MIGHTY 3RD!
SHORTBUS O'REETEE STICKLER.
BEWARE OF OL' JEEZL PETE.
2012: YEAR OF THE ROBBY.
Your Name
Sep 15, 2012, 6:32:58 PM9/15/12
to
In article <507-5054...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>,
> because ...
The revival of Battlestar Galactica wasn't even remotely Ron Moore's idea.
It was started long before he was recruited to the job, but originally the
new series was going to be a proper sequel to the original Glen Larson
series, and at one stage it was helmed by Bryan Singer who unfortunately
had to pull out due to commitments with the X-men movie and other things.
He did much of the ground work, including getting many of the CGI models
created that Ron Moore than later took over.
I'm not even sure it was actually Ron Moore's idea to do a remake /
reimagining, or whether that was (partly) forced by the idiots in studio
management. It wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to make his own, likely
hopeless, show and just like his mentors (Star Trek's Beavis & Butthead
twins: Berman and Braga) got pushed into doing something he didn't really
want to do OR if he agreed to do it simply to get a big name on his resume
so he could then do his own show.
> it was much more likely to be picked up as a series if it had an
> established name on it already.
The problem is that that makes no sense at all. If the original Battlestar
Galactica was supposedly so bad, why would they reuse the name? Anyone
with a micro-milligram of common sense isn't going to watch something
called "Battlestar Galactica" if they didn't like the original show called
Battlestar Galactica ... that would be like going into a restaurant to
order spinach soup when you know you don't like spinach soup, but are
stupidly hoping / expecting it's not actually spinach soup. :-\
It would make FAR more sense to use a totally new name for their very
different show. People who didn't like the original Battlestar Galactica
*SHOULD* be much more likely to give a new show a chance if it had no
obvious link to the original ... unfortunately the vast majority of the
human race are apparently lacking in any "common" sense and are stupid
enough to watch any old crap simply because it's the latest new toy on the
block or it's "what we do every Friday night", regardless of it's name or
what it's about. :-(
Bill...@webtv.net (The Void Era Man) wrote:
>
> In hindsight with the new series someway behind us and all of its
> offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original
> better.
> maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi
> of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.
> yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel
> of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not
> just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.
> i kind of see that roland moore sold his premise clothed in BSG
>
> In hindsight with the new series someway behind us and all of its
> offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original
> better.
> maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi
> of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.
> yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel
> of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not
> just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.
> because ...
The revival of Battlestar Galactica wasn't even remotely Ron Moore's idea.
It was started long before he was recruited to the job, but originally the
new series was going to be a proper sequel to the original Glen Larson
series, and at one stage it was helmed by Bryan Singer who unfortunately
had to pull out due to commitments with the X-men movie and other things.
He did much of the ground work, including getting many of the CGI models
created that Ron Moore than later took over.
I'm not even sure it was actually Ron Moore's idea to do a remake /
reimagining, or whether that was (partly) forced by the idiots in studio
management. It wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to make his own, likely
hopeless, show and just like his mentors (Star Trek's Beavis & Butthead
twins: Berman and Braga) got pushed into doing something he didn't really
want to do OR if he agreed to do it simply to get a big name on his resume
so he could then do his own show.
> it was much more likely to be picked up as a series if it had an
The problem is that that makes no sense at all. If the original Battlestar
Galactica was supposedly so bad, why would they reuse the name? Anyone
with a micro-milligram of common sense isn't going to watch something
called "Battlestar Galactica" if they didn't like the original show called
Battlestar Galactica ... that would be like going into a restaurant to
order spinach soup when you know you don't like spinach soup, but are
stupidly hoping / expecting it's not actually spinach soup. :-\
It would make FAR more sense to use a totally new name for their very
different show. People who didn't like the original Battlestar Galactica
*SHOULD* be much more likely to give a new show a chance if it had no
obvious link to the original ... unfortunately the vast majority of the
human race are apparently lacking in any "common" sense and are stupid
enough to watch any old crap simply because it's the latest new toy on the
block or it's "what we do every Friday night", regardless of it's name or
what it's about. :-(
RT
Oct 3, 2012, 10:53:09 AM10/3/12
to
The Void Era Man wrote:
>
> In hindsight with the new series someway behind us and all of its
> offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original
> better.
> maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi
> of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.
> yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel
> of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not
> just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.
> i kind of see that roland �. moore sold his premise clothed in BSG
>
> In hindsight with the new series someway behind us and all of its
> offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original
> better.
> maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi
> of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.
> yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel
> of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not
> just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.
> because it was much more likely to be picked up as a series if it had an
> established name on it already, given the current climate of recycling
> going on in hollywood. also he had a big basic framework already in
> place. all he did was totally erase Larsaon's details and put his own in
> there.
> I would have like to seen moore's opus without it being piggybacked on
> BSG backstory and character names.
It would hardly be a re-imagining then.
> established name on it already, given the current climate of recycling
> going on in hollywood. also he had a big basic framework already in
> place. all he did was totally erase Larsaon's details and put his own in
> there.
> I would have like to seen moore's opus without it being piggybacked on
> BSG backstory and character names.
RT
Oct 3, 2012, 11:11:46 AM10/3/12
to
Your Name wrote:
>
> In article <507-5054...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>,
> Bill...@webtv.net (The Void Era Man) wrote:
> >
> > In hindsight with the new series someway behind us and all of its
> > offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original
> > better.
> > maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi
> > of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.
> > yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel
> > of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not
> > just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.
> > i kind of see that roland moore sold his premise clothed in BSG
> > because ...
>
> The revival of Battlestar Galactica wasn't even remotely Ron Moore's idea.
>
> It was started long before he was recruited to the job, but originally the
> new series was going to be a proper sequel to the original Glen Larson
> series, and at one stage it was helmed by Bryan Singer who unfortunately
> had to pull out due to commitments with the X-men movie and other things.
> He did much of the ground work, including getting many of the CGI models
> created that Ron Moore than later took over.
>
> I'm not even sure it was actually Ron Moore's idea to do a remake /
> reimagining, or whether that was (partly) forced by the idiots in studio
See
>
> In article <507-5054...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>,
> Bill...@webtv.net (The Void Era Man) wrote:
> >
> > In hindsight with the new series someway behind us and all of its
> > offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original
> > better.
> > maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi
> > of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.
> > yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel
> > of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not
> > just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.
> > i kind of see that roland moore sold his premise clothed in BSG
> > because ...
>
> The revival of Battlestar Galactica wasn't even remotely Ron Moore's idea.
>
> It was started long before he was recruited to the job, but originally the
> new series was going to be a proper sequel to the original Glen Larson
> series, and at one stage it was helmed by Bryan Singer who unfortunately
> had to pull out due to commitments with the X-men movie and other things.
> He did much of the ground work, including getting many of the CGI models
> created that Ron Moore than later took over.
>
> I'm not even sure it was actually Ron Moore's idea to do a remake /
> reimagining, or whether that was (partly) forced by the idiots in studio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica#Attempted_revivals
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica#2003_reimagining
> management. It wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to make his own, likely
> hopeless, show and just like his mentors (Star Trek's Beavis & Butthead
> twins: Berman and Braga) got pushed into doing something he didn't really
> want to do OR if he agreed to do it simply to get a big name on his resume
> so he could then do his own show.
>
> > it was much more likely to be picked up as a series if it had an
> > established name on it already.
>
> The problem is that that makes no sense at all. If the original Battlestar
> Galactica was supposedly so bad, why would they reuse the name? Anyone
> with a micro-milligram of common sense isn't going to watch something
> called "Battlestar Galactica" if they didn't like the original show called
> Battlestar Galactica ... that would be like going into a restaurant to
> order spinach soup when you know you don't like spinach soup, but are
> stupidly hoping / expecting it's not actually spinach soup. :-\
>
> It would make FAR more sense to use a totally new name for their very
> different show. People who didn't like the original Battlestar Galactica
> *SHOULD* be much more likely to give a new show a chance if it had no
> obvious link to the original ... unfortunately the vast majority of the
Your Name
Oct 3, 2012, 4:58:01 PM10/3/12
to
In article <506C55B2...@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvE...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If you don't know, then there's zero point even attempting to explain it
... as I said,the vast majority of the human race are apparently lacking
in any "common" sense.
wrote:
... as I said,the vast majority of the human race are apparently lacking
in any "common" sense.
RT
Oct 14, 2012, 1:20:32 PM10/14/12
to
The story line is that Galactica is supposed to be the last battlestar. What
else would you call the show????
Your Name
Oct 14, 2012, 3:50:44 PM10/14/12
to
In article <507AF460...@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvE...@hotmail.com>
I've already explained it, and those too dumb to understand it will never
understand it.
understand it.
RT
Oct 31, 2012, 11:17:11 PM10/31/12
to
Your Name wrote:
> In article <507AF460...@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvE...@hotmail.com>
No, you haven't, because otherwise you aren't following the storyline.
You want a last battlestar named, oh, Battlestar Fred? Or something about
battlestars and no attack on the colonies???
> In article <507AF460...@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvE...@hotmail.com>
You want a last battlestar named, oh, Battlestar Fred? Or something about
battlestars and no attack on the colonies???
Your Name
Nov 1, 2012, 1:10:01 AM11/1/12
to
sticker "remove brain before use" should REALLY be taken off modems. :-\
RT
Nov 19, 2012, 7:25:02 PM11/19/12
to
include the Battlestar Galactica...
Your Name
Nov 20, 2012, 12:39:31 AM11/20/12
to
In article <50AACDDE...@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvE...@hotmail.com>
Oh, yippee! More proof of my last statement about dumbasses. :-\
The entire point was that Ron Moore's show shouldn't have been called
"Battlestar Galactica" because it was almot nothing like the original ...
that means it was a new show, and therefore should have had a new name. Of
course, such common sense goes right over the top of the heads of the
dumbasses, so you won't understand it either.
The entire point was that Ron Moore's show shouldn't have been called
"Battlestar Galactica" because it was almot nothing like the original ...
that means it was a new show, and therefore should have had a new name. Of
course, such common sense goes right over the top of the heads of the
dumbasses, so you won't understand it either.
RT
Nov 30, 2012, 9:59:06 AM11/30/12
to
genocide, surivors fleeing, same characters like Adama, Starbuck, Baltar,
etc...
Yup, nothing like the first one...
Still waiting for your synopsis of a Battlestar Galactica show that didn't
include the Battlestar Galactica...
Your Name
Nov 30, 2012, 3:30:48 PM11/30/12
to
In article <50B8C9BA...@hotmail.com>, RT <traRvE...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> Nothing like the original.... Let's see, 12 colonies, cylons, battlestars,
> genocide, surivors fleeing, same characters like Adama, Starbuck, Baltar,
> etc...
>
> Yup, nothing like the first one...
>
> Still waiting for your synopsis of a Battlestar Galactica show that didn't
> include the Battlestar Galactica...
Goody, another brainless moronic idiot who can't read to ingore. :-\
> genocide, surivors fleeing, same characters like Adama, Starbuck, Baltar,
> etc...
>
> Yup, nothing like the first one...
>
> Still waiting for your synopsis of a Battlestar Galactica show that didn't
> include the Battlestar Galactica...
RT
Dec 21, 2012, 3:52:53 PM12/21/12
to
Still waiting to see your synopsis of a Battlestar Galactica show that didn't
include the Battlestar Galactica...
The entire point was that Ron Moore's show shouldn't have been called
"Battlestar Galactica" because it was almot nothing like the original ...
even though it had elements like 12 colonies, cylons, battlestars,
Wiseguy
Jan 2, 2013, 12:25:58 PM1/2/13
to
RT <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:50D4CC25...@hotmail.com:
We on the Star Trek-TOS newsgroup already know that "Your Name" is an idiot
who thinks his opinion is the only one and everyone who disagrees with said
opinion is "brainless." He should be ignored.
news:50D4CC25...@hotmail.com:
who thinks his opinion is the only one and everyone who disagrees with said
opinion is "brainless." He should be ignored.
0 new messages