ORIGINAL Galactica coming to DVD by Micronaut

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

ORIGINAL Galactica coming to DVD

POSTED BY: MICRONAUT
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 9, 2003 17:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4780
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, July 1, 2003 5:25 PM

Just caught this on www.cinescape.com...

Quote:

Universal Studios Home Video finally announced today that it will bring the entire first season of the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA to DVD this fall. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE COMPLETE EPIC SERIES will be a six-disc set scheduled for release on October 21, 2003. Additionally, the company will release the theatrical film on DVD with a preview of the new GALACTICA mini-series included.

Here's the link...

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Video+%26+D
VD&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270352&obj_id=39044

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 3:31 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave

woo hoo!!

I found the way, by the sound of your voice--so many things to say.
These are only words. Now I've only words. Once there was a choice.
David Sylvian

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 5:43 AM

SUCCATASH

Question: What's up with "Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming" ?? It's just a trailer?

Looking forward to the DVD's and the new B.G. coming soon, though I don't see why Starbuck is now female.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 5:02 PM

MICRONAUT

BG:TSC Was a promo trailer put together by Richard Hatch in order to get some momentum going about a possible Galactica resurrection (with some of the old cast). It never happened, and neither did Glen Larson's supposed kick at a Galactica reunion. What did happen was that the resulting hoopla led to Ronald Moore (of ST:TNG) somehow landing in the position of "rebuilding" the franchise (not my first choice, but what the hey... I'm not in charge). So, considering that the best actors of the previous show (Lorne Greene and John Calicos) were both dead, and the remainder (with the exception of the aforementioned Richard Hatch, and possibly Anne "Sheba" Lockhart) had little if any interest in revisiting the show, he and the Powers That Be decided on a "reimagining" (a la Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes). The plot is still gonna be the same, though... humanity get's its ass kicked by bad guys and end up running away until the day comes when they can turn the tables.

Personally, I'm looking forward to it. The original show had lots of great concepts but the execution of said concepts often left much to be desired (and most of said executions should be left permanently behind in the 70's, along with the Love Boat and Fantasy Island). As for Starbuck... well, Dirk Benedict's Starbuck was a carousing, sexually adventurous, brash but mostly brilliant pilot. So too will this one be. Who cares if the character is a he or a she... I want the same level of dialog and character interaction that Firefly had. If the new BG can have even half of what Firefly had, it will be far above and beyond what most of the crap on TV has. These days, high concept and brilliant SFX mean very, very little... I want good solid writing, with snappy dialog and lots of great plot surprises. Hopefully, Mr. Moore has learned a thing or two from Mr. Whedon's wondeful creations and will sculpt his vision of Galactica from the same clay.

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 5:17 PM

SUCCATASH

Okay, I'll buy into your enthusiasm. Changing history bothers me, though.

And if Firefly comes back on TV but Mal is a woman you might realize that you're pissed off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 6:59 PM

MICRONAUT

Actually, if Mal and Zoe switched genders in the Firefly remake of 2023, and the show maintained the high quality of writing that it is currently known for, I wouldn't have a problem. If the Firefly movie of 2004 has Mal as woman, and we are expected to carry on with the continuity without so much as blinking, then yes, that would be an issue.

In regards to BG, their effort is not a continuation of the original show... it's a remake. While the details of what went before might be violated, the spirit remains the same. Indeed, in this case there's no continuity to violate because as far as this show is concerned, there is no history - there is no direct connection to the original other than the core character concepts and the plot (and, yes, some of the designs). And for many people, especially for those too young to remember the original, this new BG might as well be the only BG that ever existed - the old show will be virtually irrelevant to new fans, other than an historical footnote.

As far as I'm concerned, stories are stories... there are very few - if any - that NEED to be gender specific. I mean really... what is the core concept of Frankenstein? The hubris of science acting as God and the consequences of those actions... not whether or not the monster was a guy. Same idea for Dracula... Jekyll and Hyde... Three Musketeers... and any number of classic stories that can be (and have been) retold with different genders in the key roles - the only losses to the story have been because of poor writing, not because the hero or villian suddenly has tits or a dick.

Remember the hoopla surrounding the casting of Kate Mulgrew as Janeway in Voyager? People (both fans and industry types) were up in arms about the casting of a female starship captain, both for and against. In the end, what did it really matter? A captain is a captain... The quality (or lack thereof) in that - or any character - comes from the writing and the portrayal, not the gender.

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 3, 2003 4:13 AM

SUCCATASH

"Remember the hoopla surrounding the casting of Kate Mulgrew as Janeway in Voyager? People (both fans and industry types) were up in arms about the casting of a female starship captain..."

You are missing my point if you compare this to Voyager. It's not about Male vs Female, it's about changing history. That's all.

I would be equally annoyed if Zoe became a man.

Let's change that character to female, add a token black guy and token chinese guy and now we've got us a hell of a show!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 3, 2003 9:42 AM

MICRONAUT

No, I got your point (and a good one it is). My logic follows thusly: if a TV/film movie follows a series sometime down the road, and it is to be a continuation of said series, then continuity should be maintained as much as possible (i.e. no female Mal, no male Zoe). If the TV/film movie is to be a remake, then continuity is not an issue and whatever changes are necessary to reflect the needs or sophistication (or lack thereof) of the audience of the time are certainly fair, so long as the spirit of the original is maintained. Should not only the characters be altered, but the spirit significantly changed too, then the potential remake is no longer even a revisionist take on an old story but something entirely new, and should no longer be allowed to have any connection to the original whatsoever.

I would have an issue with a movie that tells the story of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra with the key roles gender reversed, and purports to be an accurate historical portrayal. I would not, however, have an issue with a movie inspired by the circumstances and events of Caesar and Cleo, with gender reversed roles, so long as it is made clear that the story is the key, not the details of history.

The bottom line is, I am not a "purist" when it comes to the retelling of a story - indeed, I love seeing new twists on old ideas. I am also in full agreement with you in regards to the preservation of historical details when it is established that continuity is vital to the story. Star Trek has revised its history on several occasions (the biggest deal being the Klingons from the old series vs the turtle heads of the newer ones, specifically Kang, Koloth, and Kor). While entertaining, the glaring gap in continuity is shameful. Still, at the end of the day, it is only a TV show...

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 3, 2003 10:02 AM

SUCCATASH

Nice post, well said. All I can say is that I don't feel as old as I am (not that I'm old), but it doesn't feel like Battlestar Galactica was 20 years ago. I can still clearly remember Starbuck's face and he is still my hero.

I wish they had struggled to find the closest Dirk Bennedict lookalike possible. I say don't fix it if it ain't broken.

I view the switch as a cheap way to appeal to the masses (as you alluded to above). Somebody figured that 20% more females would watch it or something. I don't think the idea is artistic or creative.

Anyhow, I do appreciate your enthusiasm and I'm willing to give the new B.G. more than a fair chance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 3, 2003 4:17 PM

MICRONAUT

Quote:

I wish they had struggled to find the closest Dirk Bennedict lookalike possible. I say don't fix it if it ain't broken.

Well spoken and well intended, and I agree with you vis a vis the character of Starbuck, but I would only be concerned if what was "broken" is the spirit of the persona (hell, he/she could be an alien as well... makes little difference to the rogue concept which Starbuck represents).

Quote:

Anyhow, I do appreciate your enthusiasm and I'm willing to give the new B.G. more than a fair chance.

After this discussion, I truly hope that the "new" Galactica scribes do the concepts justice and do not fall prey - as you aptly suggest - to the whims of a marketing director.

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 3, 2003 5:15 PM

SUCCATASH

Chris the Cynic, where are you on this one, man?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 6, 2003 5:34 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

It's been quite a while since Star Trek: TOS.

Let's suppose they re-made the series today.

If Kirk was re-cast as a woman, I'd be upset.

So I can understand what fans of the original might be feeling.

But honestly, I feel that Battlestar Galactica was a big steamy heap of excrement that had a good premise and little else of value. Even the pilot movie was inherently flawed.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 1:58 PM

DYAIRVATREE

Battlestar Galactica was the most successful science fiction series of all time no other science fiction show has ever had higher ratings than Battlestar Galactica, with one exception The X-Files. The X-Files is only called Science Fiction because there is no other place to put it really.

There are many of us out their who still love the show from when we were kids many now with kids of their own. It seems like a no brainer to promote the original young cast members Apollo,Starbuck to command staff positions and put in new young cast for the piliots keeping old fans happy. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The old show had many great elements the new show sounds unlikely to have. It had a great family attmosphere Apollo loved and respected his father. The new show has Apollo in a dysfunctional relationship with his father. Do we really need more dysfuctional families on T.V.? I sure as hell don't. The old show explored the concept of human culture being seeded from space thus names like Apollo the new show does not. The old show showed a weak and decadent culture that would have self destructed 10 times over during the course of the series if not for Adama and others who still believed in there bible The Book of the Word. In fact the whole series had interesting biblical overtones the anti-christ "Count Ibley" from the episode "War of the Gods" to Judias in the form of "Baltar"

To me this show had a lot left to explore and one of the great things about it was the original cast they were three demensional people you really cared about.

You see the only reason Battlestar Galactica was cancelled was ABC wanted a number one or number two rating instead it ranked 24th out of a field of over 85. They cancelled it thinking well we can develop 20 shows for the price of this one and one of them is bound to be number one.No one by the way ever lost money on the series.

Now with science fiction bigger than ever the network people don't see what they have. What they should see is an opportunity to bring back the biggest space show of all time to a already built in audience.An audience of adults and kids they can sell spin off mechandice too.

Instead they see a show with a famous name that didn't work that needs help and fixing. They are taking a family show in the best sense of the word something all ages can watch and turning it into a dark oversexed dysfunctional family pile of gossa.

And when it fails because the old fans hate it the network execs. will go well I guess the show was unworkable. Instead of thinking hey maybe we should have just continued the story and made everyone happy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 2:21 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Wow. I had no idea Galactica had the best ratings of any Sci-Fi show. I am appalled.

Do you actually have figures comparing Galactica ratings to those of other sci-fi shows?

I only say this because the show seemed to be rather poorly written. I mean, I was only a child when they were re-running the series on UHF, but I thought it was pretty lame back then.

I hate to 'bash' a show that you seem so keen on, but other than an FX budget and an interesting premise, I can't think of what else the show had going for it.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 3:25 PM

DYAIRVATREE

I get my info on the ratings of Battlestar Galactica from "An Analytical Guide to Televisions Battlestar Galactica." by John Kenneth Muir. And no it doesn't have ratings for all sci-fi shows but it does say outside of the X-Files no science fiction show has ever had higher ratings including Star Trek the Next Generation wich is generally considered the most successful space science fiction show of all time.

I think what Battlestar Galactica had going for it was it was alot of fun and had an excellent cast. Yes many of the stories were bad but always enjoyable.And some were actually quite good and well written. The trick to reviving the show to me is keeping what was good about it the cast the spirt of the show along with some of the concepts I mentioned before while making sure the writting was always top notch.

If you didn't see much worth while in the show all I can say is I did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 5:46 PM

MICRONAUT

Jumping back into this now long-running thread, I just want to return the starting point, that while the concept of Galactica was quite solid, the execution of the show was far less so. While it is a viable Hollywood tactic to bring back some of the old cast into senior roles, and introduce younger actors to the junior roles, my argument was that the new series, as a "re-imagining", does not need to follow the specific conventions established in the original series.

As an example, Shakespeare's works have been re-interpreted many times in many different formats - while the degrees of success have varied, the important core to all the re-workings was the story, not the stage, not the players, not even the specific characters.

Battlestar Galactica could be considered a show of greatness because of the symbolism of the elements, not because the script had snappy dialogue, or Richard Hatch delivered his lines in a particulary wonderful manner. The ship was the ark of Noah fame, Adama represented Noah (obviously), but was also a strong father figure, a force of goodness and light in the dark times. Apollo represented the perspective of a younger generation, as well as the sword wielded by the leader's arm. He was also the son struggling to distinguish himself in the shadow of his legenary father. Starbuck represented bravery and rashness, while providing stark contrast to the maturity of Apollo, his lifelong friend. And so on...

Some people have complained that the current filmmakers will destroy this core concept with their new version, and that is a valid fear. Others have expressed disappointment that the original show (and its values), for which they have fond memories, will not be continued. My perspective is that while the original show had some good points, there was nothing (beyond the core concept, of course, and perhaps some of the designs) worth resurrecting. Nothing. With only a frail original framework to start with, trying to maintain some semblance of continuity that would satisfy the fans would be nearly impossible.

I feel that the filmmakers had no choice but to create a re-imagining of the show, which certainly included the possibility of some specific elements being changed (the big one being a female Starbuck). While I have no idea if their work will fail or succeed on its own merits or if the bais of the fans will undermine its chances, but that is not my concern.

As a writer myself, I'll be looking for concept continuity. In the original, Starbuck represented many things... bravery, foolishness, immaturity, and so on, while also serving as a foil to Apollo. He also served as a friend, a confidant, a blood brother and a fellow warrior. While it might seem a little odd to the misogynists in the crowd that such a male-female bond could happen, I say "why not?" Not too many years ago, women were treated as inferiors, and some of that predjudice still exists today. I believe that as society grows more mature, such male-female relationships will develop and even grow to become the norm.

So let the filmmakers have their crack at the story. So long as the essence remains and a good tale is told, who cares if Starbuck has boobs? Who cares if the Cylons suddenly have to perm their hair? The Cylons represented technology gone awry - they weren't just bad guys. In some ways, it's far more poetic (albeit a bit cliche) that they now represent our own technology turning against us, than a nebulous, undefined external force of evil. If the remake fails, let it fail because the filmmakers did a crappy job, not because they re-imagined someone's favourite childhood hero. And if it succeeds, let it succeed because it's a great film, not because it reminds us of fond memories.

PS In regards to an earlier post by AnthonyT who mentioned being upset if there was a remake of original Trek with a female Captain Kirk, I will simply refer that writer to the earlier parts of this post... concepts win over details every time, at least in the larger scheme of things. In twenty years, maybe Captain Jane T. Kirk will command the Enterprise NCC-1701 and as long as the tale is told well, I will be happy.

"Just remember... all success is illusion: what has really been accomplished is the displacement of an area of specific failure to somewhere else... or is it the other way around?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE