BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (1978) - Ship Of The Week #8 1/9/2015

[J.T.B.]

I liked the show a lot as a kid, it has a high nostalgia factor even though I personally don't find it holds up that well now. But Galactica itself, for some reason, never connected with me. The design just seemed kind of uninspired, not much personality. Kind of just a slab with some outriggers, and looks like it's covered with greebles just for the sake of greebly-ness.

One thing I never noticed until this thread, though:

I assume those are the Viper launch tubes? That's probably old news, but not for me; for these 35 years I never knew quite where those tubes were. Shows the level of attention I paid to BSG, I guess. But it's cool to see.

Point of order: TOS did have a high concept message. Count Iblis, John, The Ship of Lights and the Lost Planet of The Gods two-parter are all indicative of a message of faith. Adama's search for Earth is nothing if not a religious quest.

Well... I don't know if I'd go as afar as "high concept" -- not something ABC was known for at the time. It was just kind of a hodge-podge of Mormon and '70s new-agey ideas and buzzwords. "Ancient astronauts," twelve colonies with "What's your sign?" names... makes me think of Angels Flight pants and mood rings. Iblis and the Ships of Lights (and the Eastern Alliance) stuff seemed like late in the game attempts to change the focus of the show, but that didn't really go anywhere.

The Ralph McQuarrie BSG art is every bit as amazing as his art for Star Wars.

What's really impressive is that he gives the BSG stuff a whole different feel. A casual viewer might think it was two different artists.

 

[RandyS]

I liked the show a lot as a kid, it has a high nostalgia factor even though I personally don't find it holds up that well now. But Galactica itself, for some reason, never connected with me. The design just seemed kind of uninspired, not much personality. Kind of just a slab with some outriggers, and looks like it's covered with greebles just for the sake of greebly-ness.

One thing I never noticed until this thread, though:

I assume those are the Viper launch tubes? That's probably old news, but not for me; for these 35 years I never knew quite where those tubes were. Shows the level of attention I paid to BSG, I guess. But it's cool to see.

I'm pretty sure that's what those are supposed to be, yeah. Particularly because in the show, we saw the Vipers launch from right about there, but it was shown from the top.

Also, that shot looks more like the recent CGI redo we had in another thread here, more than it does from the old 1978 shots. I looked, but can't find it now.

 

[Admiral2]

I liked the show a lot as a kid, it has a high nostalgia factor even though I personally don't find it holds up that well now. But Galactica itself, for some reason, never connected with me. The design just seemed kind of uninspired, not much personality. Kind of just a slab with some outriggers, and looks like it's covered with greebles just for the sake of greebly-ness.

You're slamming Galactica for something that was pretty much a staple of 70s spaceship design, thanks to Star Wars.

So yeah, ships in BSG had greeblies. The ships in the Black Hole had 'em too. The story goes that Ridley Scott kept adding greeblies to the Nostromo well into the production of Alien just because he wanted assloads of greebliness. Enterprise in TMP escaped that fate, but not the Klingon cruisers, which had a bunch of greeblies. It's like you're condemning one particular cherry for being red.

And Galactica didn't need "personality." She had something better: distinction. She's the first - and best - space carrier created for science fiction. No other sci-fi ship can make that claim.

One thing I never noticed until this thread, though:

I assume those are the Viper launch tubes? That's probably old news, but not for me; for these 35 years I never knew quite where those tubes were. Shows the level of attention I paid to BSG, I guess. But it's cool to see.

Yup. Them's be the launch tube openings.

Point of order: TOS did have a high concept message. Count Iblis, John, The Ship of Lights and the Lost Planet of The Gods two-parter are all indicative of a message of faith. Adama's search for Earth is nothing if not a religious quest.

Well... I don't know if I'd go as afar as "high concept" -- not something ABC was known for at the time. It was just kind of a hodge-podge of Mormon and '70s new-agey ideas and buzzwords. "Ancient astronauts," twelve colonies with "What's your sign?" names... makes me think of Angels Flight pants and mood rings. Iblis and the Ships of Lights (and the Eastern Alliance) stuff seemed like late in the game attempts to change the focus of the show, but that didn't really go anywhere.

It was high concept all right. Glen's high concept. I doubt ABC even noticed he inserted it, but it was there. The article Locutus linked to is great circumstantial evidence:

Glen Larson's Mormon Beliefs

 

[publiusr]

Nice art
http://www.galactica.tv/battlestar-galactica-1978/battlestar-galactica-1978-concept-art.html

Galactica is actually rather flat, as in Ralphs paintings--although not that much.

We've been ruined by the popular model.

Compare
http://www.the-blueprints.com/bluep...ssels/28655/view/nova_prototype_(battlestar)/
http://users.sisna.com/roguewing1/schematics/galactica/bg.html

Alternate version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INVqgpSyPgg

 

[J.T.B.]

I'm pretty sure that's what those are supposed to be, yeah. Particularly because in the show, we saw the Vipers launch from right about there, but it was shown from the top.

Also, that shot looks more like the recent CGI redo we had in another thread here, more than it does from the old 1978 shots. I looked, but can't find it now.

Interesting, thanks, I had forgotten about the CGI treatment.

One other question: Were the launch/landing sections originally supposed to extend/retract from the main hull? I'm thinking it was in the novelization, but I may just be mis-remembering.

You're slamming Galactica for something that was pretty much a staple of 70s spaceship design, thanks to Star Wars.

So yeah, ships in BSG had greeblies. The ships in the Black Hole had 'em too. The story goes that Ridley Scott kept adding greeblies to the Nostromo well into the production of Alien just because he wanted assloads of greebliness. Enterprise in TMP escaped that fate, but not the Klingon cruisers, which had a bunch of greeblies. It's like you're condemning one particular cherry for being red.

Yeah, well, the design just didn't work for me overall. It's an opinion poll, right?

She's the first - and best - space carrier created for science fiction. No other sci-fi ship can make that claim.

Space Battleship Yamato came before that. Star destroyers, maybe, too.

 

[Admiral2]

One other question: Were the launch/landing sections originally supposed to extend/retract from the main hull? I'm thinking it was in the novelization, but I may just be mis-remembering.

Not on TV. The struts were rigid.

You're slamming Galactica for something that was pretty much a staple of 70s spaceship design, thanks to Star Wars.

So yeah, ships in BSG had greeblies. The ships in the Black Hole had 'em too. The story goes that Ridley Scott kept adding greeblies to the Nostromo well into the production of Alien just because he wanted assloads of greebliness. Enterprise in TMP escaped that fate, but not the Klingon cruisers, which had a bunch of greeblies. It's like you're condemning one particular cherry for being red.

Yeah, well, the design just didn't work for me overall. It's an opinion poll, right?

O-kay!

She's the first - and best - space carrier created for science fiction. No other sci-fi ship can make that claim.

Space Battleship Yamato came before that.

Not a carrier. Hence the name Space BATTLESHIP Yamato. Her main offensive weapon is a giant GUN.

Star destroyers, maybe, too.

Not carriers. They didn't even exhibit the ability to deploy fighters until ESB, in 1980, two years after Galactica demonstrated the ability.

Like I said...

 

[J.T.B.]

Space Battleship Yamato came before that.

Not a carrier. Hence the name Space BATTLESHIP Yamato. Her main offensive weapon is a giant GUN.

A "battleship" that carried at least a squadron of fighters. And aside from that, the enemy Gamilas/Gamilons had several different types of carriers: One star shaped, and a couple types with layered flight decks. In one episode of the first series (1974-75), they assemble a task force of carriers, each equipped with a different type of attack craft. In the second series, 1978, Earth forces space carriers are shown, too.

Like Yamato, OS Galactica seems more like a battleship-carrier hybrid. The Vipers seem to scout and engage enemy fighters, but don't seem to have a capital ship-killing weapon. In "The Living Legend" is is implied that the battlestars have the big anti-ship missiles required to take out a basestar. Tactically, it seems more like a 1920s concept of carrier warfare, with aircraft locating the enemy, fighting for control of the airspace, and guiding in the big guns for the kill. Which, in space, should be much easier to combine in one big ship, without the need to devote so much area to huge, flat launch/landing decks.

Star destroyers, maybe, too.

Not carriers. They didn't even exhibit the ability to deploy fighters until ESB, in 1980, two years after Galactica demonstrated the ability.

Yeah, fair point, that's why I said "maybe."

 

[Orphalesion]

Oh my, saw the original Battle Star Galactica.

My appreciation of the series has fluctuated over time. The most difficult thing about the old series for me to stomach is the blatant 70s style hedonism and sleaze displayed so often.
However beyond that, the first few episodes are very well written and display a culture and universe that is far more exotic and interesting than the remake.

They had those insect aliens and unicorns and Variant-human subcultures within the fleet and the uniforms simply looked cool.
Let alone that the old series didn't just dress its actors in bloody ties and pinstripes .

Never liked the new one, boring/unpleasant to look at and too depressing.
The thing is the old series had about the same amount of dark elements (though often conveyed in dialogue rather than shown) but somehow still managed to show that there's still hope and that the colonists can come through their troubles. The new one made you question if it was even worth trying to survive for them.

 

[Marc]

The thing is the old series had about the same amount of dark elements (though often conveyed in dialogue rather than shown) but somehow still managed to show that there's still hope and that the colonists can come through their troubles. The new one made you question if it was even worth trying to survive for them.

To me the original never really converyed the darkness that would follow a civilisation beng wiped out.

Other than the pilot, we never saw conditions for those outside the Military and not living aboard the Galactica.

Never saw the struggles having to deal with food and fuel shortages, loss of ships etc.

Though I will concede some of that might well have been due to budget constraints and the era in which it was made.

 

[Admiral2]

Space Battleship Yamato came before that.

Not a carrier. Hence the name Space BATTLESHIP Yamato. Her main offensive weapon is a giant GUN.

A "battleship" that carried at least a squadron of fighters.

Which doesn't make it a carrier. Almost every surface combatant in the US Navy is capable of carrying and deploying at least one combat aircraft. That doesn't mean they all get to be called "aircraft carriers."

And aside from that, the enemy Gamilas/Gamilons had several different types of carriers: One star shaped, and a couple types with layered flight decks. In one episode of the first series (1974-75), they assemble a task force of carriers, each equipped with a different type of attack craft. In the second series, 1978, Earth forces space carriers are shown, too.

Fine, then Galactica's the first and best live-action sci-fi carrier.

Like Yamato, OS Galactica seems more like a battleship-carrier hybrid. The Vipers seem to scout and engage enemy fighters, but don't seem to have a capital ship-killing weapon. In "The Living Legend" is is implied that the battlestars have the big anti-ship missiles required to take out a basestar. Tactically, it seems more like a 1920s concept of carrier warfare, with aircraft locating the enemy, fighting for control of the airspace, and guiding in the big guns for the kill. Which, in space, should be much easier to combine in one big ship, without the need to devote so much area to huge, flat launch/landing decks.

Yet, nine times out of ten throughout the series the Vipers do most of the combat work. Battlestars only went toe-to-toe with base stars twice. The rest of the time, fighters on both sides did the bulk of the dirty work. That's carrier warfare in the 40s, not as imagined in the 20s, and that kind of carrier warfare requires big decks.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

While I did watch Battlestar Galactica as a kid, that Galactica was never a favorite ship of mine. It always looked a bit chunky/blocky to me, especially when compared to the Trek ships I really liked. For nostalgic reasons, it has a place in my heart, but I do prefer the Galactica as envisioned in the new series.

I also think that the new Galactica has an admittedly unfair advantage in that the current-day special affects abilities make the movements of the new ship and the close-ups of the new ship more interesting and detailed. The original Galactica -for me- seemed to just lumber along, except when she was banking at 1/4 light speed (I think that was the move). I also like the 'jump' technology and how the jumps were depicted on screen. The new ship feels more 'dynamic' to me.

I am not going to state that one version is better than the other, but I do personally prefer the new Galactica. I would place Galactica 1978 not quite Awesome, but better than 'Meh'.

 

[J.T.B.]

Which doesn't make it a carrier. Almost every surface combatant in the US Navy is capable of carrying and deploying at least one combat aircraft. That doesn't mean they all get to be called "aircraft carriers."

No real-world ship has operated a whole squadron of aircraft at sea but a carrier.

Yet, nine times out of ten throughout the series the Vipers do most of the combat work. Battlestars only went toe-to-toe with base stars twice. The rest of the time, fighters on both sides did the bulk of the dirty work. That's carrier warfare in the 40s, not as imagined in the 20s, and that kind of carrier warfare requires big decks.

As I remember it, what we saw was scouting/patrolling fighters tangling with other patrols and screens of fighters fighting off waves of attacking fighters. IIRC the only time Vipers took out a basestar was in the pilot movie when they tricked it into getting too close to the exploding planet, and the only time a Raider came close to mission-kill on the battlestar was by suicide ramming.

That's not a 1940s model, nor the "classic" WW2 carrier configuration with fighter, dive bomber and torpedo squadrons. It wasn't until the late '20s that carrier-based aircraft had engines sufficiently powerful to carry bombs or torpedoes big enough to potentially put a capital ship out of action with one hit. Neither the Vipers nor the Raiders seem to have comparable capability. That's why I said it seems like an earlier model, before carrier aircraft were effective ship-killers.

 

[Zaku]

Why this thread is in "TV & Media" forum...?

 

[Maurice]

There are those who believe that life here began out there, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans...that they may have been the architects of the Great Pyramids, or the civilizations of Lemuria, or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens…

In a distant star system, the Twelve Colonies of Kobol, a civilization of human beings, were engaged in conflict with the Cylon race. ...

Battlestar Galactica is the name of the original science fiction series created by legendary TV producer Glen A. Larson for ABC Television...

When quoting it's customary to cite the source. For the record much of this text is copied and pasted from Wikipedia.

Anyway, the show never was what it could have been. For those not in the know, it was intended to be a miniseries or series of TV movies, but ABC put in a series order while the initlal movie was shooting and decided to air the show during the Family Hour, so a lot of the more adult content got removed, including a whole subplot about Serina dying of "pluton poisoning". So what we got was a kiddie friendly series. Since the show runners weren't expecting to do a series, they got caught flat footed and had to scramble to get scrips, which is why you get this run of real clunkers from after "The Gun on Ice Planet Zero" til they regained their footing late in the season.

 

[Admiral2]

Which doesn't make it a carrier. Almost every surface combatant in the US Navy is capable of carrying and deploying at least one combat aircraft. That doesn't mean they all get to be called "aircraft carriers."

No real-world ship has operated a whole squadron of aircraft at sea but a carrier.

Except Helicopter Assault Ships, which carry a whole wing of rotary and fixed wing aircraft dedicated to supporting the Marines they transport to the beach...and are not called "aircraft carriers."

Yet, nine times out of ten throughout the series the Vipers do most of the combat work. Battlestars only went toe-to-toe with base stars twice. The rest of the time, fighters on both sides did the bulk of the dirty work. That's carrier warfare in the 40s, not as imagined in the 20s, and that kind of carrier warfare requires big decks.

As I remember it, what we saw was scouting/patrolling fighters tangling with other patrols and screens of fighters fighting off waves of attacking fighters. IIRC the only time Vipers took out a basestar was in the pilot movie when they tricked it into getting too close to the exploding planet, and the only time a Raider came close to mission-kill on the battlestar was by suicide ramming.

That's not a 1940s model, nor the "classic" WW2 carrier configuration with fighter, dive bomber and torpedo squadrons. It wasn't until the late '20s that carrier-based aircraft had engines sufficiently powerful to carry bombs or torpedoes big enough to potentially put a capital ship out of action with one hit. Neither the Vipers nor the Raiders seem to have comparable capability. That's why I said it seems like an earlier model, before carrier aircraft were effective ship-killers.

So you completely forgot the opening attack of the series where nothing but in-flight refueled Raiders destroyed the Colonial Fleet and the Colonies themselves? Or the two battles in "The Living Legend" (The ones you conveniently skipped over to cite the battlestar/basestar tangle) where the Colonials' primary offensive weapons for attacking the fuel ships and Gamorray were Vipers?

Just because neither side's attackers have anything as conventional as bombs or torpedoes doesn't mean they can't be used against capital ships, and we know this because they have been. We've seen it. It's canon. The fact those vipers you mentioned used trickery to destroy the basestar and not a torpedo or bomb doesn't make the basestar any less dead or the vipers any less responsible. And again: In-flight refueled raiders beat down Entire Colonial Fleet.

Tactical craft as primary offensive weapons. 1940s carrier warfare.

Why this thread is in "TV & Media" forum...?

Because it's a series of threads and not all the ships have been or will be science fiction ships.

When quoting it's customary to cite the source. For the record much of this text is copied and pasted from Wikipedia.

Oh, thank god for you, Maurice! Thank you for forcing me not to live with this shameful secret any longer!

 

[137th Gebirg]

Ah...my all-time favorite design, w/ the Enterprise-refit coming in at a close second. Love every inch of this ship.

Much better looking that bucket of bolts in the remake.

Agreed. The remake version always struck me as a bunch of bubbles on a stick. The original actually looks like an aircraft carrier.

Also agreed - but I do take solace in the fact that it could have been much worse than what we got. At least the final production version preserved some semblance and primitive shapes that comprised the original. Then there's this conceptual version, seen most recently in the new "Battlestar Galactica Vault" book, that looks like a completely amorphous and random collection of ribbed blobs without any thought given to aesthetic form.

The "Vault" is also a really good book, BTW. A real fan-pleaser, IMO.

 

[RandyS]

Ah...my all-time favorite design, w/ the Enterprise-refit coming in at a close second. Love every inch of this ship.

Much better looking that bucket of bolts in the remake.

Agreed. The remake version always struck me as a bunch of bubbles on a stick. The original actually looks like an aircraft carrier.

Also agreed - but I do take solace in the fact that it could have been much worse than what we got. At least the final production version preserved some semblance and primitive shapes that comprised the original. Then there's this conceptual version, seen most recently in the new "Battlestar Galactica Vault" book, that looks like a completely amorphous and random collection of ribbed blobs without any thought given to aesthetic form.

The "Vault" is also a really good book, BTW. A real fan-pleaser, IMO.

Thanks, I'll have to check out that book when I can afford to.

And you're right, that conceptual version looks really weird. It might have been fine for one of the other ships of the fleet though.

 

[J.T.B.]

For those not in the know, it was intended to be a miniseries or series of TV movies, but ABC put in a series order while the initlal movie was shooting and decided to air the show during the Family Hour, so a lot of the more adult content got removed, including a whole subplot about Serina dying of "pluton poisoning". So what we got was a kiddie friendly series.

That was interesting to know, thanks. And I suppose that's why the hooker with the heart of gold became the nurse with no skin showing below the neck?

Except Helicopter Assault Ships, which carry a whole wing of rotary and fixed wing aircraft dedicated to supporting the Marines they transport to the beach...and are not called "aircraft carriers."

Those are considered carriers, too, just not fast fleet carriers. They are the descendants of the WW2 escort carriers that covered amphibious operations, and the first was a converted CVE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_carrier

So you completely forgot the opening attack of the series where nothing but in-flight refueled Raiders destroyed the Colonial Fleet and the Colonies themselves? Or the two battles in "The Living Legend" (The ones you conveniently skipped over to cite the battlestar/basestar tangle) where the Colonials' primary offensive weapons for attacking the fuel ships and Gamorray were Vipers?

OK, you're right, I readily admit my familiarity with the series is going back a ways. IIRC the original fleet was overwhelmed by waves of Raiders attacking with the same weapons they use against the Vipers. That's not how carrier warfare worked in WW2, again it's more like the early '20s when attempting to knock out a capital ship with carrier aircraft would mean many, many hits with 100 pound bombs.

In "The Living Legend" Cain said something like "Vipers against a base ship?!" as if they had no business there. Why did Pegasus have the big missiles, if they weren't intended for that kind of anti-capital ship mission? And if the Raiders had effective ship-killing weapons, why did they load them with explosives for suicide attacks? It doesn't quite add up to me.

Just because neither side's attackers have anything as conventional as bombs or torpedoes doesn't mean they can't be used against capital ships, and we know this because they have been. We've seen it. It's canon. The fact those vipers you mentioned used trickery to destroy the basestar and not a torpedo or bomb doesn't make the basestar any less dead or the vipers any less responsible. And again: In-flight refueled raiders beat down Entire Colonial Fleet.

Tactical craft as primary offensive weapons. 1940s carrier warfare.

Well, I just disagree that it's parallel to WW2; in terms of a WW2 fleet or even warship vs. warship action, carrier-borne fighters were defensive, not offensive. They may have intended it to be like WW2, but if it was really parallel there would be specific ship-killing weapons and tactics. In WW2 Wildcats did not take out enemy carriers; Swordfish did not get into dogfights.

All of which is getting away from my original point, which was that the battlestars were more like a combination of battleship and carrier than anything from real life. Pegasus attacking the basestars is ample proof: Getting in range of battleship or even cruiser guns was one of a WW2 carrier's worst fears, see HMS Glorious or the Taffy 3 CVEs.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

For those not in the know, it was intended to be a miniseries or series of TV movies, but ABC put in a series order while the initlal movie was shooting and decided to air the show during the Family Hour, so a lot of the more adult content got removed, including a whole subplot about Serina dying of "pluton poisoning". So what we got was a kiddie friendly series.

That was interesting to know, thanks. And I suppose that's why the hooker with the heart of gold became the nurse with no skin showing below the neck?

Cassiopeia (Laurette Spang) was the socialator who became the medtech. Serina (Jane Seymour) was Boxey's mother, and was suddenly killed by a Cylon on Kobol.

From Wikipedia:

In early drafts of Battlestar Galactica scripts, the character of Serina was actually named Lyra, and was a member of the Quorum of Twelve, rather than a journalist. She was intended to be an ongoing character. When Jane Seymour was chosen for the part, she wanted to be free to do films. The script was rewritten to have her die of pluton poisoning (the same poisoning that had destroyed a large part of the refugees's food supplies) in the pilot. Scenes to this effect were filmed and included in the first version of the pilot; however, after this was shown to test audiences, it was deemed too depressing. All scenes with Serina being weak, or ill, or her diagnosis, even the original ending scene in which she slipped out during a performance of the Colonial Anthem, presumably to die, were later edited out. Instead, Serina died in the second episode, "Lost Planet of the Gods."

This is interesting, also from Wikipedia:

Jane Seymour was asked to play the role of Admiral Cain in the new series in 2005, but declined the part.

 

[Richard Baker]

I would have loved it if they had been able to do the Battlestar fleet as originally intended- each ship had the same general configuration but had different details. As this Ralph McQuarrie painting shows the fleet with different engines:
http://www.galactica.tv/images/stories/gallery/rmcq-art/ralph-mcquarrie-52.jpg

The holographic landing targets (with hardware grabbing claw) would have been cool if they could have done them back then...

I really liked the show- it was cliche and hoky at times but it had a certain charm about it. The NuBSG had some neat designs, but the jiggle cam and soap opera drama was too distracting.