# What I hate about Battlestar Galactica



## trausch (Jan 8, 2004)

BSG is one of the best new SciFi shows in a while. For me it and the 4400 fill the voids left in me when they ended X-Files and Star Trek. However, the following annoy me to no end

1) Sure we are the 13the colony so it makes sense that they look like us and share our cultural diversity. But why do they dress like we do. I hate it every time I see someone in a bad tie or a women in a power suit. At least Star Trek made the effort to try and be creative with the wardrobe of the cast. On BSG it look like they all shop at the Salvation Army.

2) Back on Caprica they drove around in a HUMMER and other old style Earth mobiles. If you have artificial gravity and all that technology why do you need an American made car?

3) On Kobal when they searched for the tomb of Athena they used a compass with a big N for north. The Earth's magnetic field is changing and cycles between the N and S poles every few thousand years. Some planets so not even have a magnetic pole. Instead of a compass just have the prop department make a little box that beeps and has lots of LEDs.

4) Bullets? You can do all these great things but you need bullets.

5) When Lee made the taped message to the fleet renouncing his father he recorded it on a run of the mill magnetic tape. Philips Electronics invented the tape and established the form factor decades ago. How is it plausible that a distant civilization invented the same technology and form factor. At least Star Trek had some futuristic devices.


----------



## whoknows55 (Jun 17, 2001)

trausch said:


> 2) Back on Caprica they drove around in a HUMMER and other old style Earth mobiles. If you have artificial gravity and all that technology why do you need an American made car?


I know. I expected starbuck to drive a civic.


----------



## WinBear (Aug 24, 2000)

Some of those things are jarring, but they do prove to illustrate that the colonists are voluntarily or necessarily restricting their technology to a certain level because of potential cylon infiltration.


----------



## ahartman (Dec 28, 2001)

whoknows55 said:


> I know. I expected starbuck to drive a civic.


I can't even imagine what gas costs in that timeline. Wonder if the new Viper model qualifies for the HOV FTL lane... brb, off to relisten to the podcast for my answers!


----------



## trausch (Jan 8, 2004)

WinBear said:


> Some of those things are jarring, but they do prove to illustrate that the colonists are voluntarily or necessarily restricting their technology to a certain level because of potential cylon infiltration.


I agree. The cylons could reprogram my IPOD to kill me buy not me 1970s Sony WalkMan so I use the WalkMan. Galatica was on the verge of being retired because it was outdated and the only ships that survived the original Cylon attack where old ones that did not depend on computers so the cylons could not reprogram them.

My issue is that why would a distant civilization even have stuff that looked remotely like our stuff. And it drive me nuts whenever I see something that is clearly developed on Earth. They writers take the time to think up games that we do not have but they all dress just like my mom and dad!


----------



## dtivouser (Feb 10, 2004)

Do you really HATE these things about BSG? *Hate*? I think the producers are trying to make BSG look less like Star Trek and more like a true-to-life show. So a compass looks like a compass, and a big f'n truck looks like a big f'n Hummer. The thing I don't want to see is a box with blinking lights when a compass would tell the story. Colonial Tigh said himself in a episode this season, "stop with the technobabble and tell me what's going on" or something like that. BSG is not a fashion show nor a show about gadgets.

I don't think this is a reason to HATE the show. There are, I'm sure, six million things in each episode one could point to that aren't "realistic", such as FTL and humanoid machines. That's not really the point though, is it?


----------



## kjnorman (Jun 21, 2002)

I get the impression that the producers are trying to focus on the characters and story rather than the technology and special effects. 

That is kind of refreshing and is about a 180 from most Hollywood fare...

I'm really enjoying he show now, though I must admit that I was ready to give up on it around episode 5 or so...


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

(Psssst! It's just a show.)


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

1) If they gave the characters outlandish futuristic or alien costumes, it would be even more jarring and even laugh inducing. Best to just modify current styles a bit to feel foreign yet familiar.

2) I somewhat agree. But remember how corny the flying motorcycles from Galactica: 1980 looked? Even though this was probably a budgetary issue, it probably served to keep a frame of reference for the viewer.

3) I didn't notice this, but your magnetic poles switching argument holds no water. It would have been better had they just used a magic box, though.

4) Eh, this doesn't bother me.

5) At first, I rolled my eyes, too. Until Lee stopped. I believe the tape was for dramatic effect. Otherwise, Lee couldn't eject it when his resolve failed. It would have been cumbersome to see him stop and sort thru the menus to erase the recording.


----------



## fergiej (Oct 9, 2002)

The thing I hate most about BSG? Only 2 Emmy noms for Special effects and no acting or writing noms. That was a bit dissapointing. IMHO, this show has some of the best ensemble acting on TV right now.

Another reason to hate the Emmy's (or any other award show, really).


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Heck, if I can suspend my belief for big killer robots, human-like cyborgs, spaceships and FTL technology, I don't see any problem with Starbuck driving a Hummer or Lee using a tape deck that was obsolete in 1980.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

fergiej said:


> The thing I hate most about BSG? Only 2 Emmy noms for Special effects and no acting or writing noms. That was a bit dissapointing. IMHO, this show has some of the best ensemble acting on TV right now.
> 
> Another reason to hate the Emmy's (or any other award show, really).


Very much agreed. James Callis' performance as Gaius Baltar in the first season is so perfect and nuanced that his lack of nomination just astounds me. Then again, considering that the Emmys seem to focus on the high profile shows on the Big 3 (and HBO), it doesn't come as too huge of a surprise for me.


----------



## digdug (Jan 13, 2004)

Actually, none of those things bother me. It just goes to show that they are like us, but different. 

Heh, the one thing that always bothered me about Star Trek was the need to always put prothetic foreheads, noses and body markings on 'alien' so we'd know that they are humanoid, but different and to dress them up in some sort of robes so they look like the Three freakin Wise Men.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

Yes...I think of it as The Rule of Parallel Development. The very proof that they are related to the tribe that came to Earth is the reality that they have come up with extremely similar trappings.

Or they could all have gimmicky props and silly "futuristic" costumes. You know...like the old show.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

SparkleMotion said:


> Or they could all have gimmicky props and silly "futuristic" costumes. You know...like the old show.


He looks like he is wearing a hotel bedspread!


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I have no problem with technical flaws in the new BSG. It seems to me that they could either have made a special effects driven show or a plot driven show. If they spent all their time on special effects, the stories would suffer.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

WinBear said:


> Some of those things are jarring, but they do prove to illustrate that the colonists are voluntarily or necessarily restricting their technology to a certain level because of potential cylon infiltration.


How does that explain cigarettes on the show? Not to mention the absurdity of smoking on a spaceship.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

I made the complaint way back when the show started about a civilization that has FTL and anti-radiation medication, but can't create their own water nor have a cure for cancer.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

latrobe7 said:


> He looks like he is wearing a hotel bedspread!


Dang, you should have said "Hey, Lorne! Holiday Inn called...they want their bedspread back".


----------



## EchoBravo (Apr 20, 2002)

> *2) Back on Caprica they drove around in a HUMMER and other old style Earth mobiles. If you have artificial gravity and all that technology why do you need an American made car?*


That one really pulled me out of the moment. As someone else pointed out, I'd rather have oversights like this than script problems. I'll take a compelling story over 100% accurate effects anyday.


----------



## Greg K. (Jun 28, 2005)

Every sheet of paper on the show has the corners cut off for some reason. That's the one that bugs me.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

Greg K. said:


> Every sheet of paper on the show has the corners cut off for some reason. That's the one that bugs me.


It's an inside joke from the original miniseries back in 2003. They had some budget issues, and that was the prop coordinator's tongue-in-cheek joke about cutting budget corners.

That, and it looks cool, which is what matters to me.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

Skittles said:


> That, and it looks cool, which is what matters to me.


I disagree on that one. My buddy and I mock all the paper on the show mercilessly. It makes zero sense.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

SparkleMotion said:


> I disagree on that one. My buddy and I mock all the paper on the show mercilessly. It makes zero sense.


You're just jealous because your sheets of paper have four corners. Admit it.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

I'm also bugged by all the stuff in the original post. Humans evolving on a different planet would not invent the exact same stuff as Earthlings. The neck tie, the cigarrette, the Hummer, etc. The Hummer especially was a big eye roller for me. It totally pulled me out of the moment and made me realize I was watching a TV show. I like this show a lot, but I think they are a bit lazy when it comes to props and wardrobe. It would be nice if they were a bit more creative. The silly octagon-like paper is a constant reminder that everything should be at least a little bit different.


----------



## TiVangelist (Aug 28, 2000)

I find these things refreshing. This is the anti-Star Trek. It is not a technology miracle show.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

DLiquid said:


> I'm also bugged by all the stuff in the original post. Humans evolving on a different planet would not invent the exact same stuff as Earthlings.


Well, one of the fundamental plot points in the show is that the humans _didn't_ evolve on a different planet.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I tried this show for a couple of episodes. I just couldn't get past the s-l-o-w moving dialouge, long dramatic pauses, and the bad acting. If its cheesy like the old show, you can get away with bad acting, it's campy. But not with a show that is dark wants to be taken seriously.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

DeDondeEs said:


> I tried this show for a couple of episodes. I just couldn't get past the s-l-o-w moving dialouge, long dramatic pauses, and the bad acting. If its cheesy like the old show, you can get away with bad acting, it's campy. But not with a show that is dark wants to be taken seriously.


Bad acting??!?!

Cylon! Out the airlock with 'im!


----------



## dgh (Jul 24, 2000)

It's funny but I like everything the OP hates. But then I frequently like Shakespearean plays in modern dress too. I think of BSG as being presented to the people of Caprica. Thus, normal things like trucks are just normal-looking. Of course, some things like spaceships can't be make to look normal to us but they take it as far as they can. 

I like the single sideband distortion on the radios too.

Likewise, it's nice to see a fleet commander who isn't wearing pajamas for a change.


----------



## chewbaccad (Feb 16, 2005)

I'd agree that I was bothered by Starbuck driving a Hummer. I mean, it just doesn't seem right. Not that there's a Hummer in the BSG universe, but that Starbuck doesn't strike me as a Hummer kind of girl (oh, I just know THAT one is getting pulled for replies). She strikes me as the kind of grease monkey girl that would have a *****in' Camaro... or at least some serious muscle car  

Ok, the compass thing bugged me a bit, but ther rest of the OP's points never bothered me. In fact, the only thing that's ever pained me is that everything is a dang octagon!! Picture frames, papers, etc... It made me wonder why that photo Starbuck keeps in her locker was a rectangle


----------



## oski87 (Dec 12, 2003)

dtle said:


> I made the complaint way back when the show started about a civilization that has FTL and anti-radiation medication, but can't create their own water nor have a cure for cancer.


Why do you assume its easier to cure cancer then travel FTL?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

oski87 said:


> Why do you assume its easier to cure cancer then travel FTL?


Because curing cancer is theoretically possible...


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Because curing cancer is theoretically possible...


I'd assume it was easier to cure cancer than to repair / prevent radiation damage through a injectable drug. (The other item the original post mentioned).

In the first case you are just killing off specific out of control cells, in the second you are attempting to repair replace ever bit of DNA broken by radiation, and quite possibly replace entire destroyed cells.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

madscientist said:


> Well, one of the fundamental plot points in the show is that the humans _didn't_ evolve on a different planet.


Okay, evolve is the wrong word, since we haven't biologically evolved much in the past few thousand years, but all of the examples I listed are things which are fairly recent developments on Earth. The Hummer certainly didn't originate on Kobol.


----------



## AngryPuppy (Jul 25, 2003)

I think it's budgetary for one thing. It's more expensive to design and build foreign looking props. It takes even more budget for any CG animation that might be required to put those props into action.

I also think they are trying to avoid coming off as campy. If to save money, they just disguise things to look other-worldly, they will still probably be recognized for what they are.

The Hummer did bother me, but after reading this thread and giving it more thought, I'm more willing to overlook it now.

Guns are more practical than energy-projectile weapons in my opinion. Likely to be simpler and more reliable in combat. I don't think guns are a stretch.


Terry


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I find it interesting that the things I notice that are accuracy errors, or continuity errors, or writing shortcuts, or simplifications for dramatic license, are very different from the items that other people notice. Not that any of it makes me dislike the show as a whole. I was never bothered one iota by the Hummer. But there are other things I immediately notice.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

WHy must everyone nitpick everyminor detail for every damn scifi show out there.? Its a tv show. Get over it, suspension of disbelief. What would you have them do?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Maybe I missed something about the Hummer. Did it have a "Hummer" label on it or something? If so, that is a little lame. I didn't notice anything like that though. I mean, I obviously recognized it as a Hummer but I don't think it's odd to imagine that humans on two different worlds would independantly come up with similar looking designs when they're trying to create a big, bad-ass military vehicle.

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, that don't really care about stuff like this. The only things that throw me out of the show are plot errors: I have a good memory for details and when something doesn't ring true or conflicts with or unreasonably stretches a plot point it really irks me. Much to my wife's annoyance


----------



## Crrink (Sep 3, 2002)

Skittles said:


> It's an inside joke from the original miniseries back in 2003. They had some budget issues, and that was the prop coordinator's tongue-in-cheek joke about cutting budget corners.
> 
> That, and it looks cool, which is what matters to me.


  Wasn't that a design carried over from the original series?....or am I mis-remembering?


----------



## bryan314 (Nov 17, 2004)

3) I see no problem with a compass. As long as the planet has a magnetic field and it's stable the compass will 'work'. It's only needed to maintain proper orientation. Whether magnetic north lines up with North is irrelevant. Magnetic North only needs to stay put. I would also think any planet with animals and plants would require the radiation protection a magnetic field provides.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> WHy must everyone nitpick everyminor detail for every damn scifi show out there.? Its a tv show. Get over it, suspension of disbelief.


Well it comes down to where you draw the line, I think. This is supposed to be a civilization that has developed technology, architecture, culture, and fashion styles in parallel with Earth. They obviously can't make every single thing different, but when there are things that are so obviously Earthly it tends to mess with my suspension of disbelief. If Starbuck drove a Toyota Prius with the labels removed would you still be okay with that? What about a PT Cruiser, a Mini Cooper, or a Volkswagen Beetle? 



DavidTigerFan said:


> What would you have them do?


Make more of an effort to differentiate props, costumes, sets, and cultural norms from 21st century Earth. I'm not expecting them to go all the way, live action sci fi TV and movies almost never do that. I just think things like a Hummer and cigarettes are too Earthly. Make the cigarette different. Make the truck different, give it hexagon wheels.


----------



## ovr8ted (Feb 27, 2005)

dtle said:


> I made the complaint way back when the show started about a civilization that has FTL and anti-radiation medication, but can't create their own water nor have a cure for cancer.


Why is that so hard to believe? We can fly a (wo)man to another planet (or moon) but can't cure the common cold, feed the world, or live in peace.

If you people can't get by the little things in this show, regular tv must kill you!  Seriously, how often do you tell a joke and you hear laughter from 100 people, when only you and a friend are present? How often have you gone to a coffee shop and always get the couch and chairs around it? How many times can you shift a vehicle before you finally stop going faster, or apparently are shown going 35 mph while in 10th gear? 

This show is one of the best of anything we have right now, and I personally believe one of the best shows there has been in a while. I plan on accepting that few TV shows, if any, can be completely correct week after week. I'm alright being a loyal fan.


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

The things I hated about BSG was the non stop sex and to much Dr. Bashir in season 1. The first season to me was a contest between star buck and crazy bashir to see who could score the most. I also hate the pregnancy story line it just feels like to much of a rip off of V the writers can do better than that. I also hate how Dr. Bashir can be crazy but people have not said a word and still trust him to do important work. I like the second season much much more than the first. I just hope that they don't go back to the having a sex scene every 5 minutes of the first season. I also wish that one of the male characters would grow a set and stops being dominated by the women. There is not 1 male character who has shown any stones what so ever. BSG is a good but it still has its flaws IMO.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I'm thinking that one of the flaws may be clearly pronouncing character names.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

hefe said:


> I'm thinking that one of the flaws may be clearly pronouncing character names.


BSG, DS9, it's all the same...


----------



## redrouteone (Jun 16, 2001)

chewbaccad said:


> She strikes me as the kind of grease monkey girl that would have a *****in' Camaro... or at least some serious muscle car


I think having her drive a Hummer was a good idea. The Hummer is clearly a military vehicle and one painted in camouflage just reenforces the thought.

Back in her apartment Starbuck was saying that unlike everyone else she is not fighting to get her home back. She is just fighting because it is what she does. Starbuck driving a Hummer just goes to show how much being a soldier is part of who she is.


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> BSG, DS9, it's all the same...


If you are talking to me the actor who plays baltar is a spitting image of the guy who played Dr. Bashir on DS9.


----------



## RoundBoy (Feb 10, 2005)

ok... ONE theory is that it isn't present day earth they are talking about.. it could be a future earth... somewhat near future....

Bullets.. nothing really stacks up to the awsome power of kinetic energy. Gun powder provides its own materials for cumbustion (oxygen) and with no gravity / atmosphere, makes a great way to destroy something. Bullets vs the 'energy' weapons developed is probably a no brainer.. especially if the engery needed requored a large power source. 

Plus.. bullets are damn cheap.

North? North? Lots of planets have a north. 

Hummer? Sure.. it resembled a hummer... but how would you design a big vehicle to stomp around in. They never were under the hood.. it could have been hydrogen or that fuel they use...


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

It's fantastic that BSG doesn't use all futuristic technology to do every little thing... the compass is a perfect example. What works better in that instance than a compass? The right tool for the right job. It also is a perfect quick storytelling device. Whip out a compass, everyone knows exactly what it is, and exactly what they're doing with it. Whip out a blinky little box, and they have to explain that the blinky little box is a compass. Otherwise the could be testing for radiation, scanning for cylons, or doing any other number of things. It's a waste of valuable dialog time that could be spent with character or plot development. 

The rest of the stuff is a matter of budget. I'm sure the producers would loved nothing more to have Starbuck in a land speeder or hover bike or something else really cool. The don't and they don't want something cardboard to replace it or look cheesy. I'd make the same choice. Choose something that immediately evokes the feeling they're after, a huge ass military like vehicle.

Costuming I'd have done a bit differently for civie clothing... like no ties for one. But I wouldn't make it too outlandish. But I feel that's an incredibly minor nitpick. The military costumes I really like.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

vikingguy said:


> If you are talking to me the actor who plays baltar is a spitting image of the guy who played Dr. Bashir on DS9.


While there is a similarity, I wouldn't say "spitting image".


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

By the way, when I saw the thread title, I tried to imagine what it could be about, and the only thing I could come up with is having to wait two weeks for the next episode.

Different strokes, I guess!


----------



## tbone526 (Dec 2, 2004)

Jonathan_S said:


> I'd assume it was easier to cure cancer than to repair / prevent radiation damage through a injectable drug. (The other item the original post mentioned).
> 
> In the first case you are just killing off specific out of control cells, in the second you are attempting to repair replace ever bit of DNA broken by radiation, and quite possibly replace entire destroyed cells.


Actually, we already have "anti-radiation pills." I believe it's potassium iodide. Short non-technical explanation: radioactive fallout is inhaled and injested and travels through the blood stream to certain organs (such as the thyroid), then wreaks havoc. The potassium iodide prevents the radioactive material from gathering in those organs, so it's passed back out of the body, minimizing the damage.


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> By the way, when I saw the thread title, I tried to imagine what it could be about, and the only thing I could come up with is having to wait two weeks for the next episode.
> 
> Different strokes, I guess!


WHAT?!?!?  
No BSG this week? That makes me very angry!! 
'Scuse me gotta go now...


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

The no cure for cancer thing has been addressed. The doctor already told her in the mini-series that if they had access to the proper medical facilities, she could be treated. But that's out of the question now.

Also for the Hummer and things of the nature, it's either because it's our future or the fact this show already has a paper thin budget and I think for the budget that's like 1/10th that of an episode of CSI, it looks damn good.


----------



## Talon (Dec 5, 2001)

Well, I don't hate anything from the show that I can think of, but I do love the scenes in space. I love the quietness and the visuals are fantastic.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

NoThru22 said:


> The doctor already told her in the mini-series that if they had access to the proper medical facilities, she could be treated.


Actually, that's not entirely true.

In the miniseries, the first time we see Laura Roslin is in the doctor's office on Caprica. The doctor tells her that her cancer is untreatable and inoperable.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

NoThru22 said:


> The no cure for cancer thing has been addressed. The doctor already told her in the mini-series that if they had access to the proper medical facilities, she could be treated. But that's out of the question now.


Treatment for cancer is quite a different thing that a cure for cancer.

After all, we have many treatments for cancer. Surgery, radiation, certain drugs, or a mixture of the three.

Hardly a cure though. (Even though it does save many people's lives)


----------



## marrone (Oct 11, 2001)

I just wish they'd invest in a tripod!

-Mike


----------



## Charlutz (Apr 7, 2005)

The show is a drama, set in space. The point of it is the writing and the plot. If they spent all their time coming up with different costumes, it would distract from all of the subtle foreshadowing, dialogue and unspoken expression. They made a conscious decision to use bullets and nukes so they would not be tempted to bail themselves out of plot issues with "super weapons" and such. It's supposed to feel more "real" because it is like what we have. It's not supposed to be a vision of the future. It's supposed to show how people deal with despair and adversity -- just set in space. It kills me how even after 2 seasons people still want it to be like the old BSG or Star Trek. It won't. It's trying something different, and that is a good thing.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Charlutz said:


> It's trying something different, and that is a good thing.


So say we all!


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> So say we all!


SO SAY WE ALL!

/clap


----------



## robpickles (May 19, 2005)

DavidTigerFan said:


> WHy must everyone nitpick everyminor detail for every damn scifi show out there.? Its a tv show. Get over it, suspension of disbelief. What would you have them do?


Thank you!

Rob


----------



## robpickles (May 19, 2005)

Talon said:


> I do love the scenes in space. I love the quietness and the visuals are fantastic.


In space, no one can hear you scream.

Rob


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

I'm a fan of the original series,and after viewing maybe one or two of the ''reimagined'' episodes,I have sworn off the new one totally.
Especially after I saw that Richard Hatch,the original Apollo,had finally thrown in his lot with this insult to the original.
To many people in the Galactica Original fan community,this man is nothing short of a traitor.Including myself.
What is it about Hollyweird anyway,that they cant' resist the impulse to take great old TV and movies,and screw around with them until it actually offends people that used to love these very programs?
Apparently they get off on torturing the loyal fans just to raise up a crop of fans that WILL watch their crap,because they don't know any better.
I know that I'm on my soapbox,but my God,when will they get the idea that with some things,it's just the right strategy to leave well enough alone;
unless it pleases the old-school viewers?

Look at what happened with the ''new''version of Kolchak,the Night Stalker.
Failed miserably,due to viewer disintrest,and outright boycotting over the 'net by hardcore,old-school fans.
WE sank that piece of crap.
We saw that it was NOT what we wanted in that show,and it failed.
Rightly so.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Yeah, next thing you know they'll do remakes of The Hardy Boys and Land of The Lost, and actually make them into gritty, dark, great shows. How dare they!


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

My point is that these shows were NOT originally designed to be that way,nor should they.
They were examples of great drama,sweeping epics that used archetypal imagery instead of spelling it out for you,like they do so much of today.

Do they really have to show you a sex scene in order to illustrate that two of the characters might be involved that way?
It's the'' itching ears'' syndrome:
Give us what we want,even though it might be wrong or objectionable to the greater percentage of consumers.We want it!''

Say for instance, that someone took one of your favorite shows from when you were a child,and then not only switched all the characters around,made some of them switch gender,and then inserted a pornographic thread into the storyline.
Tell me; how would you react?
I do not think you would be very pleased at all.

I mean if the program in question was geared for CHILDREN,like Land of the Lost,or the Hardy boys,or even Nancy Drew.
What would you have them do to HER in this PC culture that we live in?
Make her a lesbian,just to satisfy the more questionable viewer demographics?

Being ABLE to tamper with things does not make it right,no matter how much money or creativity is behind the effort.
It is still tampering.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

Yeah ,sure....
But giving what is supposed to be a more advanced culture than ours friggin' slug-throwers as weaponry?
Conventional hand-guns that fire BULLETS?
Really stupid.
I prefer the original Colonial Blaster pistols.
Made bigger,more impressive holes.


----------



## Sherminator (Nov 24, 2004)

RoundBoy said:


> ....North? North? Lots of planets have a north....


Spoilerize that, RoundBoy, the show that quote came from hasn't been shown in the US ... Yet .


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

Disease was practically unknown in the Original Series universe,with few exceptions.

Some sicknesses were the result of environmental disasters,infections brought aboard ship,or radiation damage.
You never hear about anything as hum-drum as cancer,and if you had ,the level of colonial medicine that existed could well have made that an archaic term.
Not that I'm saying that everyone was always in perfect health.
Just that the state of the medical arts was such that if cancer was one of the morbidities that afflicted the Colonies and it's people,it could have been eradicated from the disease spectrum eons ago.
And that if someone did have it they gave you a pill for it,and that was that .
No more invasive surgery,or radical radiation or chemo that made you sicker than the disease.
That one little tablet got rid of it.
Add to that the longer life-spans of the Colonials,Adama being something less than 200 yahrens old.
With lifespans like that,they would HAVE the time it takes to really research and perfect 
actual ,one-use cures for threats to health,life and limb.
And since most diseases shorten life,the more you get rid of the longer that lifespan becomes.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

Hell,it just bothers me that Starbuck's been turned into a chick.
Just don't work for me at all.......


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Easy solution. Don't watch it.

Frankly, I've tried to go back and watch some of the original series, and find now that it's utterly unwatchable. I guess when I was 11 it held some interest, but now I see how ridiculous it was.

This is NOT the original BSG. It is a different show, and it stands on its own. Get the old show and watch it over and over and be happy. That's fine and dandy. More power to you.



> Say for instance, that someone took one of your favorite shows from when you were a child,and then not only switched all the characters around,made some of them switch gender,and then inserted a pornographic thread into the storyline.
> Tell me; how would you react?


If I didn't like it, I wouldn't watch it. But really, they didn't do ANYTHING to the original. They made something new. The original is there to be watched in its unadulterated glory.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I love both shows, but to suggest that the original was better written, better acted or had better effects is absurd, IMO. I will say I prefer laser-blasters to bullets, though.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

To us fans of the Original ,this crap on Sci-fi isn't BSG.
Some people will accept ANYTHING just on the ''merit'' that it's ''new.''
That means that they will accept anything,whether it's really good or not;
just different and not connected in the proper fashion to the original that it's purporting to be connected to.
It's laziness on the part of the people that made it,and deliberately offensive to the people that love and cherish the parent show. 
It's creative elitism for them to say that they want to make something called BSG and then have the attitude that the show it came from is different altogether,and then say that it's ridiculous absurd to expect them to heel to the show of origin.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

In trying to be so different,this show along with traitor Richard Hatch, have alienated the original series fans.Hatch has basically turned around and offered his ass to the highest bidder.
The man is nothing but a whore to most originalBSG fans now as a result. 
The same opinion will hold true if ANY of the Original series actors cross the line as well.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Stop diluting words. Traitor means something, and you demean yourself and your position by using it in this fashion.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

Well then, what in your infinite wisdom would you ****ing call him?
And I will use whatever words that seem appropriate to me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I think we're in "Do Not Feed the Troll" territory here...


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

It seems that anyone that doesn't kiss PC butt is branded a ''troll''.
I'm speaking my mind.
Get over it.
Everybody's opinion is accepted but the ones that go against popular acclaim.
If I choose to point out that I think something is crap to me and others,I WILL.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

I do like your idea about that lesbian Nancy Drew series.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

Sicko.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

R.J.MacReady said:


> To us fans of the Original ,this crap on Sci-fi isn't BSG.
> Some people will accept ANYTHING just on the ''merit'' that it's ''new.''
> That means that they will accept anything,whether it's really good or not;
> just different and not connected in the proper fashion to the original that it's purporting to be connected to.


Good. You're entitled not to like it. No problem there. And others are entitled to like it. So there's no need for you to analyze other people's reasons for liking it. Accept _because _it's new??? That's ridiculous. There's plenty of new stuff that sucks. We watch what we do because we like it. Doesn't matter if it's old, new, borrowed or blue...



> It seems that anyone that doesn't kiss PC butt is branded a ''troll''.
> I'm speaking my mind.
> Get over it.
> Everybody's opinion is accepted but the ones that go against popular acclaim.
> If I choose to point out that I think something is crap to me and others,I WILL.


Well, seeing as you went on about how the rest of us will accept anything and why, and told us how we like something even though it's no good...whose opinion are _you _accepting. 

But, that being said, I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

What i'm saying is that if you like BSG at all you should not be liking this poor imitation.then again there's no accounting for taste....or lack of it.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

R.J.MacReady said:


> Sicko.


You're the one who thought of it, not me.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

R.J.MacReady said:


> What i'm saying is that if you like BSG at all you should not be liking this poor imitation.then again there's no accounting for taste....or lack of it.


I liked it when I was 11. Not so much now.

My tastes are not so narrow. I actually enjoy things from quite a large range of genres, moods, types...


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

Well,some people just don't know a good thing when it comes along.
i however,do not welcome such broad variety.
It enables too much abuse.


----------



## bryan314 (Nov 17, 2004)

Think of most of it as the visual equivalent of when Germans spoke English back in the old WWII movies. We're seeing the earthly equivalent of their speech, dress, ties, chairs, eye glasses, turns of speech, cigars, etc

As for the FTL and mix of technologies, it's internally consistent with the logic of show. The original colonists came from an advanced civilization with FTL that experienced some sort civilizations ending disaster. They were forced to restart on 13 new worlds. Those new colonies would start from ground zero and have to rebuild an entire infrastructure. Even if you have the knowledge of FTL drives, cars, radios, laser guns, you can't build them without factories. Can't have factories, mines, etc without people. Can't have people without houses, farms etc. 

Rebuilding from that would take generations.

Then, they advanced far enough to creat AI. Which revolted and kicked them down again. Giving them mild technophobia. 

Then again for the third time the AI's come back and nuked their entire civiliation. 



Or as someone else said. Its just a show.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

I will have no respect for the Sci Fi Channel until they make the monkey dog their official mascot!


----------



## Uncle Briggs (Sep 11, 2004)

Just keep repeating. It's only TV. It's only TV. It's only TV. It's only TV. It's only TV.


----------



## chewbaccad (Feb 16, 2005)

I believe it was the great George Carlin who once said... one knob adjusts the volume, and the other changes the #*&@ing channel!

I liked the old series, and will still watch a few of the episodes to this day (many were pure feldercarb though). The new show is light years better, to me at least (and no, not because it's "new"... that's just moronic). But who knows, will there still be rabid fans of it 20 years from now like there is for the original series?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

R.J.MacReady said:


> i however,do not welcome such broad variety.
> It enables too much abuse.


OK, now you're just _trying _to make me laugh.


----------



## Sherminator (Nov 24, 2004)

Shhh. Listen, Hear the keys?

It's the moderators coming to lock this thread.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

What would I have them do.eh?
Do the show right,for one thing.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm catching up on nuBSG via DVD (I don't get Sci-Fi channel, burn in Hell, Adelphia)
I've watched through Final Cut as of this time.

Many of you may remember me from the Enterprise threads, mercilessly pounded on the inconsistantcies and plot holes there.

I think that trausch has vaild nits to pick.
And the doctor constantly smoking does make me roll me eyes a bit.
But none of this really bothers me when watching this show.
It's compelling drama with three dimensional characters.
(Note to self: never get Commander Adama mad at you)

I can see why people rave about this show.
Certainly worth watching unless you insist that Starbuck has to be a man...


----------



## Vito the TiVo (Oct 27, 2003)

Is this whole thread some sort of cosmic joke? Am I in 2003? I fully expected to find people *****ing about the finale or the direction the show seems to be moving, not still debating whether or not this BSG has merit.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

Seriously doubtful,unless the I.Q. level of most of the culture has dropped that far by then.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Vito the TiVo said:


> Is this whole thread some sort of cosmic joke? Am I in 2003? I fully expected to find people *****ing about the finale or the direction the show seems to be moving, not still debating whether or not this BSG has merit.


Naww, just one poster.....


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

No joke,sorry.Yes,dead serious.


----------



## R.J.MacReady (Mar 11, 2006)

And i'm not debating the issue either.
I am saying flat-out that it has none compared to the original.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

The original was cheesy cornball fluff for kids. This is the same baseline story, but for adults. End of story.


----------



## BillyT2002 (Oct 19, 2002)

Well, I far prefer the original BSG to the new one. However, I still like the new one a lot and in my opinion having any form of BSG on television is better than having no BSG at all. I guess I was just able to adapt to the changes in the show.

The Tim Burton Planet of the Apes movie was terrible though. I hated it. Give me the original Planet of the Apes movies over that drivel any day. Heck, I'll take the Planet of the Apes series over Tim Burton's version. 

As per Lost In Space, one of my all-time favorite sci-fi shows, I did like the new movie enough. It wasn't as good as the original series, but I liked it just the same.


----------



## cwerdna (Feb 22, 2001)

vikingguy said:


> The things I hated about BSG was the non stop sex and to much Dr. Bashir in season 1. The first season to me was a contest between star buck and crazy bashir to see who could score the most. I also hate the pregnancy story line it just feels like to much of a rip off of V the writers can do better than that. I also hate how Dr. Bashir can be crazy but people have not said a word and still trust him to do important work.


Yeah, I too felt that for a sci-fi show, there was just way too much sex. As for pregnancy, hey, at least they haven't had the "star child" stop a ship's self destruct sequence (yet). 

I totally agree w/your comments about Baltar. There are also so many other plot holes, like how can Adama keep up his charade about heading in the right direction towards Earth?


----------



## lowepg (Sep 21, 2005)

anyone who has time/energy/desire to nitpik about starbucks hummer..... well, has prolly never had one.....


----------



## Warren (Oct 18, 2001)

dtle said:


> I made the complaint way back when the show started about a civilization that has FTL and anti-radiation medication, but can't create their own water nor have a cure for cancer.


this might have already been said but.

They can recycle their old water to make clean water. See episode "Water" from season one.

also just because they are advanced means they are supposted to have a cure for cancer? Stop looking at this like Star Trek. (i refer to the doc giving the lady a pill to cure some liver problem she has in on of the movies)


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

Until the season finale the only thing I did not like about the show was way to much sex in season 1. Season 2.0 got rid of most of the sex and the show was much better.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Comparing this to the original is like comparing Batman Begins to the Batman TV show with Adam West. It's not trying to be the same thing or appeal to the same demographic.


----------



## nedthelab (Oct 4, 2002)

dtivouser said:


> a big f'n truck looks like a big f'n Hummer. ?


You are allowed to say "Frackin"


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

DLiquid said:


> Comparing this to the original is like comparing Batman Begins to the Batman TV show with Adam West. It's not trying to be the same thing or appeal to the same demographic.


Exactly.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

It's like comparing Star Wars to Phantom Menace... oh, wait...


----------



## Sherminator (Nov 24, 2004)

I think that it was honest (not only a ploy to get an instant audience) for RDM & Larson to name this series "Battlestar Galactica", after all, if it had a different name, different character, ship & location names, there would still be enough similarities to the original BSG for people to say "Hey, this is just Battlestar Galactica set in a dark universe!!"


----------



## bryan314 (Nov 17, 2004)

cwerdna said:


> I totally agree w/your comments about Baltar. There are also so many other plot holes, like how can Adama keep up his charade about heading in the right direction towards Earth?


Didn't they find the map to Earth back in the Kobol episodes?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bryan314 said:


> Didn't they find the map to Earth back in the Kobol episodes?


They found out what the stars look like from Earth. Not quite a map!


----------



## chewbaccad (Feb 16, 2005)

DLiquid said:


> Comparing this to the original is like comparing Batman Begins to the Batman TV show with Adam West. It's not trying to be the same thing or appeal to the same demographic.


Exactly. Each has its place and each has its similarities, but they're just not the same thing.


----------



## ironchef (Dec 27, 2002)

Skittles said:


> It's an inside joke from the original miniseries back in 2003. They had some budget issues, and that was the prop coordinator's tongue-in-cheek joke about cutting budget corners.
> 
> That, and it looks cool, which is what matters to me.


I was watching a scene in the infirmary and thought the ultimately geeky detail would have been to leave one corner on the xrays uncut.


----------



## ironchef (Dec 27, 2002)

DLiquid said:


> I'm also bugged by all the stuff in the original post. Humans evolving on a different planet would not invent the exact same stuff as Earthlings. The neck tie, the cigarrette, the Hummer, etc. The Hummer especially was a big eye roller for me. It totally pulled me out of the moment and made me realize I was watching a TV show. I like this show a lot, but I think they are a bit lazy when it comes to props and wardrobe. It would be nice if they were a bit more creative. The silly octagon-like paper is a constant reminder that everything should be at least a little bit different.


Did you catch the other cars parked in the underground garage that got blown up?


----------



## ironchef (Dec 27, 2002)

R.J.MacReady said:


> Yeah ,sure....
> But giving what is supposed to be a more advanced culture than ours friggin' slug-throwers as weaponry?
> Conventional hand-guns that fire BULLETS?
> Really stupid.
> ...


Blasters in the hands of the orig Cylons pretty much solidified the "bad guys, bad shots" cliche. Slug throwers make a lot of sense, with a theatrical high rate of fire and quick reloadability. The Battlestar Ponderosa blasters seemed to have a limited rate of fire and not that much of an effect.

Your love for the the orig series is puzzling considering the lamentably bad acting and plotlines that were apparent in the first 30 seconds of the episode. I've tried to rewatch some of the old series lately and frankly they are worse than I remembered.


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

How dare they use Grundig 'Wireless' sets to listen to the election results!


----------



## voripteth (Apr 9, 2003)

trausch said:


> 4) Bullets? You can do all these great things but you need bullets.


Kinetic force is still something that is darned hard to defend against. Slug throwers are lightweight and quite effective. 

I always thought it was odd in the original BSG they used lasers against the chrome Cylons. Wouldn't you think it should reflect?


----------



## TreborPugly (May 2, 2002)

No one has mentioned that a cylon said "nucular" bomb, instead of nuclear. Now that pulled me out of context.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TreborPugly said:


> No one has mentioned that a cylon said "nucular" bomb, instead of nuclear. Now that pulled me out of context.


They're just trying to appear like authentic humans. If the leader of the free world in real life can say nucular, why can't a Cylon?


----------



## Sherminator (Nov 24, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They found out what the stars look like from Earth. Not quite a map!


If you know what the constellations are and what they look like from Earth, then it wouldn't take a computer program long to extrapolate there positions after rotating the viewpoint from where they are to make them look like the "cartouche" (sorry, wrong show, I know).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Sherminator said:


> If you know what the constellations are and what they look like from Earth, then it wouldn't take a computer program long to extrapolate there positions after rotating the viewpoint from where they are to make them look like the "cartouche" (sorry, wrong show, I know).


The fact that they don't know the distance to the individual stars makes it a far, far more difficult task.

There are, after all, 100,000,000,000 stars in the galaxy! Thier computer would have to have the position and relative magnitude of each of them in order to perform such a calculation, unless they are very, very close to begin with.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The fact that they don't know the doistance to the individual stars makes it a far, far more difficult task.


It soytanly does! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Oh damn, you ninja edited! But my kung fu is stronger.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> It soytanly does! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.


Thunder stoylen!

Woo woo woo...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah yeah, make fun of my chemotherapy-induced numbness of the fingers... 

Seriously, typing has become a major problem. It's probably been months since I've been able to type as much as a sentence without having to go back and delete extra characters, and there are so many of them, sometimes they slip through. And they only told me AFTER the chemo had ended that the damage might be permanent.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Damn, sorry to hear that, Rob.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Don't blame chemo, it's just becomming a geezer like some of us folks


----------



## Sherminator (Nov 24, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The fact that they don't know the distance to the individual stars makes it a far, far more difficult task.
> 
> There are, after all, 100,000,000,000 stars in the galaxy! Thier computer would have to have the position and relative magnitude of each of them in order to perform such a calculation, unless they are very, very close to begin with.


They did recognize most of the constellations there. Even so, If they could correctly identify just one constellation and travel to it's vicinity, all you would have to do, is once you have one constellation looking like the image on Kobol in your rear view mirror, and keep travelling, eventually you will find yourself in an area of space where more of the constellations are more recognizable and then triangulate a course to the solar system.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Sherminator said:


> They did recognize most of the constellations there.


I don't believe they recognized them as constellations, but rather as symbols of the 12 colonies...


----------



## Trent Bates (Dec 17, 2001)

I can't believe that there is anyone that has such a strong opinion about this show (which is a reimaging of a child/teen oriented show that was on 27 years ago) after watching less than 2 episodes of the current version.

On top of that, the same person is acting like Richard Hatch sold his soul to get a small part on this new series. 
How about mentioning that Richard Hatch tried for literally YEARS to bring back his own version of Battlestar Galactica! Glen Larson would not allow him to do it! 
They offered him the Tom Zeric part in this version and he accepted it as a chance to be part of someone's remake of BSG as opposed to being left out entirely. 

Instead, Richard Hatch who is an actor and public speaker by trade should have held his ground and demanded that his version of BSG be done instead. After all, he was one of the stars of the original series for nearly a year. He had much more of a right to the story than Glen Larson (who wrote the story in the early 70's) does! 
If Richard Hatch was really a strong believer in the original series, he should have done everything that he could have to sabotage this version of BSG. Maybe he could have succeeded in killing the project off permanently! That would keep all of us "sheep" from believing that we enjoy the current BSG while fondly remembering the "different" BSG of our youth.

At the age of 11, that trained chimp was so realistic that I swore it was a real daggitt! 

I just knew that Vipers really existed and made noise in the vacuum of space. They always flew the exact same formations in them so as to confuse those slow moving/menacing cylons. (Everyone always claims it was the frequent reuse of stock footage, but I know better!)

Everyone I know wants to be named after a constellation or a Greek/Egyptian god.

In the real world, our brothers of the 12 tribes really do use confusing and occasionally changing measurements of time. (I'll get back to that in a centon!)

Does anyone know where I can get one of those Egyptian looking helmets with the light up electronic face shield? I need it to comply with the new helmet laws when I ride my flying motorcycle that disguised like a regular motorcycle when it's wings are down. The police are kind of picky that way.

I could go on for at least a few more sentences but I want to make it clear that I appreciate the 1979 BSG for what it was and I don't enjoy pointing out it's shortcomings. 
I have worn out countless cassette tapes and VHS tapes over the years recording those old episodes and listening to/watching them many times over. (Only to be replaced by my current DVD set with the special Cylon helmet box) I've spent days of my youth trying to make sense of the timeline and the broadcast order of those shows. I've collected a modest amount of memorabilia over the years. (How many of you have a "Backwards-J" cubit replica?)

Still, with all of my past devotion to the 1979 BSG, it's not really that good by today's standards. It really is cheesy. It is juvenile. It has been a guilty pleasure of mine because it's not really good enough that I feel comfortable mentioning it in public.
I feel it was better than Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and maybe about the same caliber as Knight Rider. We also can't forget Airwolf belongs in there somewhere as well.

The 2003-Present BSG is substantially different as others have noted. (Repeatedly for about 3 years actually.) There is much more real life, accurate drama even though the premise is still purely fantasy. The visual and audio effects were groundbreaking for a show in 2003.
This is a mature BSG that holds our attention in a way that the 1979 BSG cannot any longer.
This is not BSG made for children and early teens. It's BSG geared for adults!

IMO, saying that the 2003 BSG pales in comparison to the 1979 BSG is nuts. That's like comparing Jazz to the music on Sesame Street. Both are good for their intended audience. 

Most of us that remember the original BSG now have adult intellect and taste. The old BSG just doesn't cut it anymore.

BTW, That darn Richard Hatch should never show his face on BSG again. He's too convincing as Zeric and I hardly remember at times that he used to be Apollo. That's not normal!


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Don't forget _Galactica 1980_ where the kids from Galactica get to earth and have super powers that enable them to crush other kids in Little League.

Such wonderful writing.


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

Reading about the original series and the one from 1980 makes me glad that I never watched it. I was alive at the time (6 in 1980) but still, I am glad this show is the one that I will remember and not the one with the guy wearing the Holiday Inn bedspread. To go all the way back to the OP, the only thing that bothered me originally was the use of earth-made vehicles and then Ron Moore told me to deal with it in the podcast. So I did.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

BSG 1980 was crap, but the Original series was good. Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that, otherwise they would have created something original rather than turning Starbuck into Stardoe (among other gripes). Personnally, I think that if they are going to change as much as they did with this new series, they shouldn't call it BSG, they shouldn't call the characters Cmdr Adama, Capt. Apollo, etc. Because the fact is, this show is NOT BSG!


----------



## Trent Bates (Dec 17, 2001)

I see your point and raise with a simplistic, "It's about the Battlestar Galactica".

I haven't been too happy with the gender changes myself. Starbuck's just not the same as Dirk Benedict's character. Boomer as a Cylon instead of a technically adept viper pilot is also too much of a departure. Nearly every character is sufficiently different that you can't really waste time trying to make the old and the new match.

I would have liked to have seen more of Richard Hatch's closer-to-the-original vision of a contemporary BSG but it wasn't going to happen.
(In all honestly, I'd like to hear someone mention a wholly Glen Larson production that wasn't juvenile oriented fluff. I can't think of any in all of these years.)

IMO, A new BSG closely based on the original would never have survived past the miniseries if it was shown at all! The original, whether you think it was great or not, just wouldn't draw in the viewers these days. 
Some of the most intense stories from the original such as "Fire in Space" and "War of the Gods" are pretty tame by today's standards. Stories like "The Young Lords" would get the show cancelled. 

Perhaps if it was called "Battlestar Atlantia" people would grasp the concept that this is intended to be a different show! I bet that would open a whole new can of worms!


----------



## Sirius Black (Dec 26, 2001)

Trent Bates said:


> (In all honestly, I'd like to hear someone mention a wholly Glen Larson production that wasn't juvenile oriented fluff. I can't think of any in all of these years.)


Magnum P.I.

Just my opinion. I didn't think it was "fluff" like "Knight Rider" was fluff.


----------



## Trent Bates (Dec 17, 2001)

Sirius Black said:


> Magnum P.I.
> 
> Just my opinion. I didn't think it was "fluff" like "Knight Rider" was fluff.


I'll agree with that! Of course, it seemed to be more Bellisario than Larson.

After looking at IMDB, it occurs to me that there really wasn't too much that can be credited to Glen Larson alone. I know that BSG was originally his creation and was originally titled "Adam's Ark". (Adam became Adama, and so on.)

How about Manimal, Automan and Chameleons!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Sirius Black said:


> Magnum P.I.
> 
> Just my opinion. I didn't think it was "fluff" like "Knight Rider" was fluff.


You're looking at the wrong entry. If you look at this one, you'll see that Larsen only got the Executive Producer credit for the first season.
Bellisario was the showrunner there......



Trent Bates said:


> After looking at IMDB, it occurs to me that there really wasn't too much that can be credited to Glen Larson alone. I know that BSG was originally his creation and was originally titled "Adam's Ark". (Adam became Adama, and so on.)


To be fair to Larsen though, the original intent was to make BSG more adult in tone (e.g. Cassiopea and Starbuck were supposed to be naked in the launch tube instead of just kissing and her "socialator" pasat was played up more).
ABC dictated that BSG had to be strict family fare (although I believe that Larsen had no problems slathering on extra cheese).


----------



## Trent Bates (Dec 17, 2001)

Actually, I remember the first run of the pilot episode had more "skin" in it than reruns usually did. There was a scene with Maren Jensen in a silver bodysuit in the locker room that I never saw again on broadcast TV. It was on the VHS releases. I believe that it's also on the DVD set but I haven't checked.

I seem to remember some other scenes but I have no idea what they were now.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

No, I remember that scene as well.

Also, in the first production episode, The Lost Planet of the Gods, you might remember that all of the regular Viper pilots get sick and Apollo and Starbuck have to train the (mostly female) shuttle pilots to fill (including Maren {Athena} Jensen and Jane {Serina} Seymour).
There was a fair amount of footage shot of the women in their very revealing "G-Suits" that didn't make it into the final cut of the episode.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

All I remembered about the original BSG was that I never watched it, which was strange because I was 17 at the time and really liked Star Wars. My TiVo suggestions folder picked up a couple episodes and the mystery is solved: it was a really really lame show. The new series, while far from perfect, is a way better production.


----------



## Trent Bates (Dec 17, 2001)

A little off topic here, but I missed a lot of shows between the ages of 16 and 19 because I was out with my friends. I'm always shocked when I see a rerun of something good and can't believe that I've never seen it before!

Perhaps one of the best things that can be said about Glen Larson shows is that they are good concepts that are often executed poorly. 
I was about to say that it was good enough for TV at the time but would never make it to the big screen. That's not the case though. The Battlestar Galactica feature film did make it to the big screen.  I have no idea how well it did, a friend and I went to see it though. I now have the DVD.
BSG did have some pretty popular stars at the time!

*JYoung*, That's an interesting bit of info. I don't know if I ever knew about that or not. Are you saying that the initial showing of that episode featured those scenes and they were cut from subsequent scenes by chance? Or are you saying you learned the info somewhere else?


----------



## Tsiehta (Jul 22, 2002)

vikingguy said:


> to much Dr. Bashir in season 1.


huh?


----------



## Trent Bates (Dec 17, 2001)

Tsiehta said:


> huh?


I had to go back and look at that post again! He was calling Gaius Baltar Dr. Bashir. Even though they are not the same actor, I'd bet most of us can see a resemblance. I don't even think they are the same nationality. They do have a similar accent I suppose.

Character-wise, Dr. Bashir and Gaius Baltar are quite a bit different. Gaius is the "whipped" and out-of-control unintentional (unless he's a Cylon) traitor to the human race, and Dr. Bashir was the genetically enhanced medical doctor on DS9. (He didn't really betray anyone that I can think of.)
It might be worth mentioning that the original Baltar (Made famous by actor John Colicos) from the 1979 series was a power-hungry traitor that knew he was collaborating with the Cylons and still was only concerned for his own well being.

I do agree that too much sex-on-TV has a detrimental effect to our society. Many can't support the weight! 
Joking aside, I'm not for corrupting our youth or innocent, but sex is part of life. The show is rated appropriately, isn't it?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Trent Bates said:


> Perhaps one of the best things that can be said about Glen Larson shows is that they are good concepts that are often executed poorly.
> I was about to say that it was good enough for TV at the time but would never make it to the big screen. That's not the case though. The Battlestar Galactica feature film did make it to the big screen.  I have no idea how well it did, a friend and I went to see it though. I now have the DVD.
> BSG did have some pretty popular stars at the time!
> 
> *JYoung*, That's an interesting bit of info. I don't know if I ever knew about that or not. Are you saying that the initial showing of that episode featured those scenes and they were cut from subsequent scenes by chance? Or are you saying you learned the info somewhere else?


The thing you have to remember is that there are multiple versions of the pilot floating around.
When BSG premiered in 1978, ABC ran it in a three hour time slot.
Without commercials, the running length would have been just under 2.5 hours.
The pilot was then edited down to about 2 hours and release theatrically in the second run theaters and the foreign markets as a feature.
One scene they might have cut down or out would be the scene with Athena undressing in the locker room and Starbuck walking in on her.

The "G-Suit" footage was mostly cut from the episode before it aired. By this time, ABC had decried that BSG was to be strictly family fare.
Source of some of this information is an interview with Maren Jensen published in Starlog in 1978.
(Maren Jensen was a hottie then. I never understood why Starbuck preferred Cassieopia over Athena)


----------



## Trent Bates (Dec 17, 2001)

I totally agree about Maren Jensen!

I think I might have to go back and look at my DVDs to get my facts straight. For a long time, I was under the impression that the feature film was not just a cut down version of the Pilot but had parts of other episodes in it as well. That impression was formed back in the days when you couldn't buy DVDs or even VHS 6 months later and watch it again.

At some point I might have known that the feature film was just a cut version of the pilot, but now I can't remember which I thought it was. It's been nearly 27 years since I've seen the feature film. Who knows what I remember!

Getting back to the original topic: What I hate about Battlestar Galactica is that there's no Athena character in it anymore! And what about Bree? Is Dualla supposed to replace Bree?


----------



## chewbaccad (Feb 16, 2005)

We might get an Athena character in the new season, as it seems they'll be forced to introduce more to us. At least with a name like Athena there shouldn't be a character sex change


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Maren Jensen = teh r0x0rs!

Or at least she did.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

From imdb.com
Runtime: 148 min / Canada:122 min (Ontario) / Canada:125 min (Québec) / USA:125 min (theatrical version)



chewbaccad said:


> We might get an Athena character in the new season, as it seems they'll be forced to introduce more to us. At least with a name like Athena there shouldn't be a character sex change


Soooo, you're saying you wouldn't mind nuAthena making out with Stardoe?


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

5thcrewman said:


> How dare they use Grundig 'Wireless' sets to listen to the election results!


That was cheesy. My son said "Hey dad that's our RadioShack shortwave radio" $39.99


----------



## Greg K. (Jun 28, 2005)

but it fits, the speaker opening has the corners cut off. 

One difference with the original BSG feature film vs. the TV pilot is that the Cylons kill Baltar at the end of the feature.


----------



## Trent Bates (Dec 17, 2001)

And yet, the radio was still less "cheesy" than what you might find in a Glen Larson show. It would have had flashing lights all over it and a rotating antenna at least! It would probably also have that reflective prism tape all over it to remind us that it was futuristic!


I'm going to go out on a limb and state that I remember Baltar appearing to get executed by the Cylons in the three part TV pilot as well. Does anyone remember actually seeing him die or anything. In the TV version they cut away right before he gets it as I remember.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

Trent Bates said:


> And yet, the radio was still less "cheesy" than what you might find in a Glen Larson show. It would have had flashing lights all over it and a rotating antenna at least! It would probably also have that reflective prism tape all over it to remind us that it was futuristic!
> 
> .


Oh for sure, Larson's BSG had extra Cheese all over it  
But as a teenager I never notice that or frequent reuse of stock footage. But my kids however picked right up on the stock footage by episode 4 or 5 of the DVD


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jones07 said:


> Oh for sure, Larson's BSG had extra Cheese all over it


And since it was often half-baked, much of the cheese never even melted.

But there WERE a few good episodes in there, that seemed to live up to at least some of the original, more serious concept.

And then the wheels fell off...


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Trent Bates said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and state that I remember Baltar appearing to get executed by the Cylons in the three part TV pilot as well. Does anyone remember actually seeing him die or anything. In the TV version they cut away right before he gets it as I remember.


I believe that Baltar was killed in the theatrical release.
In the pilot that was shown on ABC, they didn't show him getting killed but implied that he was going to be.
Then at the end, when the new Imperious Leader is talking to him, he gets his chance to go after the fleet.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I watched the original as a college student and loved it because it was campy. We made fun of it all the time. (Cylons were dumber and easier to get away from than Daleks!)

The only part of the show that appealed to me from a story standpoint was that there was some mystery about the Imperious Leader that they never explored. Instead, they made the show more and more like Sid and Marty Kroft were making it.

Then they got to Earth. Yuck!

The new show moves too slowly and is a bit darker than it needs to be but it is much better.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Instead, they made the show more and more like Sid and Marty Kroft were making it.


Ha ha! Well put!


----------

