David cgc wrote:
Did anyone else in this thread watch the new Battlestar Galactica? They were remaking episodes of the original show all the way up to the last season, often in considerably greater scope and wildly different execution. Compare "The Return of Starbuck" to "You Can't Go Home Again", "Lost Planet of the Gods" to the "Kobol's Last Gleaming" nine-parter, "The Living Legend" to "Pegasus"/"Resurrection Ship", and, most surprisingly...
I very much doubt this is just going to be a photonovel of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" with Chris Pine's face pasted over William Shatner's. I'd be the only commonalities will be a big pink blob at the edge of the galaxy, and the fact that some folks get psychic powers from the same. After that, I fully expect things to go in a wildly divergent direction. I'll be shocked (albeit pleasantly) if Gary Mitchell even shows up.
And I don't see how this premise can be used to judge the ability of the writers. As the authors in this forum have stressed over and over and over, premises and ideas are a dime a dozen. It's the execution that matters. "The Galactica crew finds the legendary homeworld of humanity, Kobol, and discovers a vital clue towards the location of Earth" describes plots in the original and new BSGs, but I doubt anyone would say they were identical, or interchangeable, or a sign of lack of talent among the remake's writers (unless they were going to say that about the concept of remaking BSG as a whole, of course).
For that matter, "A planet-destroying menace is eating it's way through the galaxy, and only the Enterprise
stands in its way" describes "The Doomsday Machine" and "The Immunity Syndrome."
This is pretty much what I said in a parallel version of this thread, in the ST Movies section of the forum. The new Galactica vs. the old Galactica is a beautiful example of taking the seed of an idea, and doing something similar, yet at the same time totally different. To suggest offhandedly that redoing old stories in new ways is unimaginative, with the above evidence in mind, strikes me as highly ironic.
The purpose of the new Star Trek movie's timeline was to enable the possibility of both types of approaches. All new stories, or old stories that will have to unfold in a totally different manner. The new stories give new life to the original crew (as does what we've been shown about their new character dynamics), which is something that some fans want to see; and the reimagined versions of old stories gives other fans an expanded look at how the new history impacts and changes what we know.
Guys, please. We are basically being given two different cakes, and we are going to get to eat both of them, okay?! All you guys can do is complain? Seriously?
It would be nice if they would work with the Pocket Books and the novelists to bring those cancelled books in line with whatever it is they think they need to be synched. As a courtesy
, you know.