Battlestar Galactica Movie Back On.

It gets so very, very tiresome to see so many fans making up so many excuses to hate things they haven't even seen yet. It's always just the same tired arguments about every new interpretation of anything, and it never has any bearing on what actually happens -- the most acclaimed and beloved reinventions get just as much pre-emptive hate ahead of time as the most disappointing and awful ones. It's just a manifestation of the reflexive fear of the unknown. And fear is not a good principle to live your life by.

 

So, you can't re-imagine the re-imagination?!

Also, please use paragraphs in the future, especially with a long text like that. Makes it much easier to read.

 

It's not impossible, but I'm very sure it will. As for Hollywood being in it for profit, of course, nothing new but it's been taken to such an unbalanced extreme at this stage, to the point where I basically have zero interest in anything that's put out. The new Star Wars film had cardboard cut out characters and generic action scenes, it was perfunctory. It has even less heart if you take into account Disney's projected 40 year plan for it, churning out Star Wars after Star Wars film every year, each one more or less the same as with most Marvel based superhero films. It's depressing to think about. I'm for the new, so why remake a reimagining? I'm not totally against new versions but when you get one so right and when you factor in what Hollywood/big business does, then you get generica more or less. My skepticism would be more to do with who is behind it and the current times we live in which are fairly conservative and unimaginative. I can expect it to be shit, I mean look at new Total Recall or new Robocop, absolute scheiser. Furthermore, I want to see new ideas coming through that aren't beholden to 10 action scenes a minute etc. I want to see a return to thoughtful story telling with compelling, 3 dimensional characters and adult themes.

 

Ohh, cool b-story... President Roslin needs to produce his birth certificate to prove he's Caprican.

All I want out of the new Battlestar is capes and moon boots. Then I'll be happy.

 

(So much for paragraphs.)

They are not remaking a reimagining. They are remaking the original show as a movie. The Ron Moore show and the upcoming movie are only connected by the same source material.

And as much as you liked the Ron Moore show, it was far from a definitive version.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the show portraying people to whom Earth is a myth with a culture that is basically the same as modern America and calling that realism, always bugged me (and I'm surely not alone in this) troughout the series.

As much as I like the show, as great as it was in other aspects, this thing alone keeps it from being any definitive version.

It's great that you liked Ron Moore's version so much, but that does not make any future re-telling redundant. I mean, should they have stopped making any further live action version of Superman after 1986, just because Christopher Reeve was the "definitive" Superman? Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy has been hailed by many as pretty much not only the best Batman, but the best superhero movies of all time. Does that mean there should never be another Batman - or even superhero - movie?

 

Lots of words in the dictionary have multiple definitions. So why can't there be more than one "definitive" version of a fictional idea? I consider Adam West and Kevin Conroy to be equally definitive versions of Batman, because they're definitive for different approaches to the character. The difference between original and Moore Galactica is comparable -- one more light and campy, the other more dark and gritty. They're radically different variations on the theme, they occupy different conceptual and cultural spaces, so it hardly makes sense to treat them as competitors.

 

Here's the prediction I made of how a new BSG movie would play out the last time this discussion was active a couple of years ago:

 

I'm not saying there can't be two definitive version for their particular niches. However the actual underlying story of BSG is about as dark as it gets, hence why the Ron Moore version was so much better than the original. Remaking the original on the big screen with a few adjustments for modern tastes is going to pale in comparison, and hey I'd love to be proven wrong so if it turns out to be as good as or better than nuBSG by all means let it be so but I doubt it very much. As for realism, the nuts and bolts end of it didn't concern me but I'm not a details focused person, the atmosphere and mood were realistic enough for me, someone made a good point on here that the show was fearless, that's a great way of describing it. If they made another BSG series that was superior to the Ron Moore version then that would be the definitive version but again, I think it's highly unlikely. So yeah, I don't think the new Superman movies are as good as the Christopher Reeve ones, Superman 2 will always be the greatest Superman film in my opinion, dark Superman and probably the direction just didn't work. As for Batman, Nolan's version exists alongside as Burton's, each are as good in their own right, though Burton was the first to really amp up the dark factor, before that Batman was a cheese fest (a great cheese fest, but a cheese fest nonetheless).

This pretty much.

 

No, the reason the Moore version was better (in many respects) is because it had better writers and a more supportive network. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing a light story based on a dark premise. There are plenty of stories that have really dark underpinnings but are told in a light way; after all, as they say, comedy is tragedy from a distance. Think of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, say, or iZombie. Or Brazil or Heathers or just about any Hitchcock comedy. There have even been more than a few comedies about the destruction of humanity or the end of civilization -- Dr. Strangelove, The World's End, The Last Man on Earth. Even the darkest subject matter can validly be told in a light way. Often it's the contrast between the dark and the light elements that makes it interesting. (In fact, I felt Moore-Eick BSG was at its weakest when it forgot to leaven the darkness with humor and warmth and humanity. The episodes Moore himself wrote had plenty of lighter bits that made them richer and more textured, but other writers often went for more one-dimensional awfulness in a way that got pretty tedious.)

The reason the original show wasn't that good is because Glen A. Larson was a crappy writer who made schlocky TV shows. BSG was the most creative and interesting thing he ever came up with, but his talent level just wasn't up to giving it the execution it deserved, and the network it was on didn't know what to make of it and kept trying to force ill-conceived changes on it. So it was a good idea made by people who didn't have the qualifications or experience to do it well. And so I have to disagree with you. A new take on the original approach, done by people who actually know what they're doing, could be quite effective.

Why does it have to be a competition? Why does everything have to be ranked on a scale of better or worse? Those are subjective assessments. Different people have different tastes and preferences, and what's better for one will be worse for another. So what's wrong with having multiple versions of a concept that are aimed at different audiences? The makers of this movie just need it to be something that attracts a large audience. It doesn't have to be the same audience that liked the Moore version. It doesn't even have to be the same audience that liked the Larson version. Ideally, it would be something that appeals to all three audiences -- the classic fans, the Moore fans, and the people who never cared about BSG at all before. It's always a good idea to try to attract a wide range of different audiences rather than pandering to just one. But the priority would be to make it something that works on its own terms, regardless of what came before.

 

I just want a good BSG movie for the big screen. I now I'm simple.

 

Me too. Maybe they can take Larson's original idea and make the TV movies he'd originally wanted for the big screen this time around.

 

Well, the movies he wanted did get made as the 2-part episodes of the show, didn't they?

 

They did try to make things look a bit more alien/futuristic in the mini series but the show itself dropped a lot of that for budgetary reasons and I think it worked out great. The contemporary style set BSG apart from other shows that default to spandex jumpsuits and the like, and it made some of us question what was going on. If they're from a distant world, why does their culture look so much like ours? It piques your interest. Moore's been good at making things work on the fly and I think he did very well here. The show even developed an entire mythology around it. "This all happened before and will happen again."

 

Oh were they? I didn't know that. I just assumed those were written after ABC ordered the weekly series. All I ever heard on the subject was that they originally wanted to do a series of two hour TV movies, but ABC changed the plan to a weekly series, and the only movie that was written or got made was "Saga of a Star World".

 

Also the use of more contemporary fashion and aesthetics means the audience is less distracted by funky jumpsuits and what not that scream "the Future!" and is focused on the characters and story.

 

I don't accept the idea that such things are distractions. Is it hard to focus on the characters and story if you watch a version of Julius Caesar or Antony and Cleopatra that uses period Roman costumes instead of modern business suits? Or what about a Sherlock Holmes movie in Victorian-era clothes and settings, or a gangster movie set in the 1920s, or a Kurosawa film set in medieval Japan? Why should the trappings of the future be any more distracting than those of the past? It takes a serious lack of faith in the intelligence and adaptability of the audience to assume they'd be alienated by anything outside their narrow range of everyday experience.

 

Because they are.

The assumptions are different. Period clothing/trappings are just shorthand to establish a known setting. Even if the setting is just Hollywood history or geography, it's still known. Future clothing or trappings cannot — the creators have to create the world from scratch. Often they don't do it well. Either they go cartoonishly over-the-top, or their presentation doesn't date well, or they have to do it on the cheap, or they just didn't put that much thought into it in the first place. Frequently all of the above. It's not that they can't create convincing worlds, it's just that often they don't.

I don't have a problem with seeing fantastical trappings. I don't always have a problem even with the unconvincing trappings. But I also think it's cool that Moore went a different route. Like Chekov's Phaser said: do away with the distractions and get to the story you want to tell.

 

Aesthetics can be a tricky formula to get right. Costumes of a specific era are more accepted because of historical fact, yet costumes of the future take the viewer a small time to adjust to something that is unknown.

I think there is a point where it can be distracting if not done well. It's why I think more modern scifi shows tend to err on the side of caution and have their actors in outfits that are more recognizable. You're right that it can limit imaginations, but I think studios are absolutely afraid that the viewer will reject something they see as goofy or weird. Not saying it's right, it is what it is.

edit: Ninja'd by Silvercrest.

 

I think we're saying just about the same thing.

 

Which probably would have worked better if they had waited at least a few episodes to do so the audience could see the difficulties they have to live with before they get tempted. Instead of it coming off as they get going for five minutes and then give up.