The whole V remake pissed me off. It was a soulless exercise with no inspiration behind it beyond "We need a new genre property to fill the void now that Lost is ending," it totally failed to live up to the allegorical and philosophical underpinnings of the original, and it was just very badly written. It didn't deserve to exist at all, so I'm certainly not sad that it ended.
Reading your comments about the V remake reminds me of that that's pretty much exactly the way I feel about Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica remake.
Well, I don't think that's defensible even on a factual level. BSG certainly wasn't a soulless, mercenary creation. Let me be absolutely clear -- I am not saying the
V remake didn't deserve to exist simply because I personally disliked it. That would be petty, stupid, egocentric, and contemptible. I can strongly dislike something yet still respect the sincere creativity and talent that went into it. So if there'd been any sincere creativity or passion behind the
V remake, I might still have disliked it but I would never have said it was soulless or didn't deserve to exist. The problem is that the people assigned to remake
V had no idea what they wanted the point of the exercise to be, beyond churning out something to fill an hour of airtime per week. There was no vision driving the story, and so it was just a pointless mess.
There is an incarnation of
Galactica that you could say much the same about, and that's
Galactica 1980. Much like the
V remake, it was commissioned by ABC for mercenary reasons -- they wanted to try to recoup the expense of the sets and FX from the original BSG by recycling them in a cheaper, Earthbound show. Nobody making G80 actually wanted to do it, there was no creative purpose driving it, and so it was a hollow, directionless exercise.
But that is obviously not true of Moore's
Galactica. Like it or not (and there's a lot I don't like about it, though a fair amount that I do), there's no question that Ron Moore and his collaborators had a very definite creative vision motivating their work. Indeed, it was clearly a very personal project for Moore, his vehicle for doing all the stuff he wasn't able to do while on
Star Trek. It was clearly the show he'd wanted to make for a long time, though he had to graft it onto the skeleton of Glen Larson's creation. So it certainly can't be said to be a shallow exercise done only to fill airtime. There was a very strong central vision driving it throughout, and I acknowledge that even if I didn't always find that vision appealing.
And you certainly can't say that Moore's BSG had
less allegorical or philosophical substance than Larson's BSG. Larson's started out as sort of a space-opera retelling of the Book of Mormon, and it did have a recurring, proto-Reagan-Era philosophy of hawkishness in several storylines (in that every character who favored making peace with an enemy was always either a fool or a traitor), but all in all it didn't have much of a driving message or much in the way of allegorical depth. Moore's BSG, on the other hand, was deeply allegorical, loaded with social commentary and philosophical themes.
So there's really no comparison between the two shows. I can understand disliking Moore's BSG, but it's completely dishonest to say it was without a driving vision or a philosophical underpinning. Whether you liked those things about it is a completely separate matter from whether they existed at all.