Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?

[Ray Hardgrit]

To be fair "No, not like that!" is a fair way to respond to most Snyder franchise movies. He's good at adapting stories with striking visuals and a lot of violence, but when it comes to heroes who don't kill he doesn't seem to be able to get his head around that concept.

 

[Timewalker]

It would depend on the reasoning.

Specify. Preferably without treating this as a discussion in a different forum, since some of your comments to/about me are inching awfully close to a line.

Disliking gender swapped characters just because a person of a different gender has been cast in a role in a remake or as a new doctor or whatever, and taking all other factors out of the discussion, is bigoted.

Taking what other factors out?

I gave up on Doctor Who prior to Capaldi's final season. I never watched Jodie Whittaker's stories, not because she's a woman, but because I finally had enough of Clara and the dumbed-down writing.

I disagree. It's extremely subjective why we develop an attachment and fondness for a fictional character, and sometimes, the gender of that character plays a role in it. Nothing wrong with that, imo.

When then, a remake gender swaps an established character, it's perfectly legitimate to hate that decision, merely for the subjective reasons the gender of that original character play for a fan, imo.

I would absolutely HATE it if they remade TOS by turning Kirk or Spock female. They wouldn't just be the same characters for me anymore, and it would feel like a slap in the face when they abused the familiar names for NEW characters just to make money, instead of being honest and introduce really new characters.

It's something different with shows like Doctor Who where it's established for almost 60 years that the Doctor becomes a totally different type of character every couple of years. A female Doctor was not any more distespectful towards the earlier Doctors than any other new Doctor. Likewise, Star Trek, before 2009 at least, had proven it's larger than just one original crew, so when you want great female characters, it's easy to just create them without swapping anything. And I'm glad that's what they did.

Exactly. Denis Villeneuve's excuse for making Liet-Kynes female was that he claimed there "weren't enough strong women" in Dune.

That's utter BS. There is no female character in Dune who is NOT strong, in some way or another. If he wanted that specific actress, all he had to do would be to cast her as Harah. Harah is actually a rather significant character in the first three Dune books, even without being one of the main characters.

Oh, wait... he opted to omit Alia's birth and toddlerhood, so Harah (who basically took over raising her when Jessica proved to not have a maternal bone in her body when it came to a Pre-Born daughter) didn't have that reason to be part of it.

If one hates it every time it is done, without giving the benefit of the doubt to the new actor, then, to me, it would be problematic. Katee Sackoff as Starbuck? I thought I would absolutely hate it. She ended up being my favorite character in the 2004 Battlestar remake.

You don't see me mocking you for that opinion, do you? It's your right to like that character. For me, Starbuck is a male character. I don't care which actress might have been hired. And I actually did try to like nuBSG. It failed to entertain me, so I stopped watching it.

Changing character genders--specifically from male to female--is a creative choice aimed at correcting systemic racism and bigotry. You can say you disagree, but you would be wrong.

I said it was bigoted to disagree with the concept as that was the question asked--which is why I added in bold "and taking all other factors out of the discussion".

In your response, you seemed to have missed that caveat as you brought specific situations into the discussion. Each specific situation needs to be weighed by each person based on its unique merits.



The original person who has the question multiple times implied they wanted a straightforward response that wasn't sugar coated. I gave it to them. If they don't understand the definition of the word I chose, they can look it up.

My pronouns are "she" and "her". That should be inferred by my usertitle.

It's your opinion that I'm wrong, btw. I don't get where racism comes into this, unless you're suggesting that men and women are different races.

I'm thinking that adding a couple of extra hot chicks in Starbuck and Boomer didn't hurt among the 18-35 male demographic that broadcasters shoot for.

In that case, why not create more female characters?

Are there even people who disagree with the abstract concept of genderswapping in general, rather than with particular cases when that happened?

I will admit to one case of genderswapping I don't mind, but then that particular one was something that became fanon, and was never canon. TPTB stated the character was male, and never changed that. The fans, on the other hand, include people who prefer to think of the character as female, and have written numerous stories portraying that character as female.

The character to whom I refer is Aithusa, the baby dragon in BBC Merlin. So in this case, Aithusa is a nonhuman character who isn't voiced by anyone because there are in-universe reasons why Aithusa doesn't speak. There are numerous fanfiction writers who prefer to portray Aithusa as female, for whatever reasons they have that preference.

When it comes to other nonhuman characters, it's dizzying to try to keep up with Spot, on TNG. Is Spot male or female? Or is he a male cat who got pregnant and had kittens? Did Data just have multiple cats and named all of them Spot? I don't recall that the show or movies ever clarified that.

That was the question Timewalker asked--I responded twice because the first time seemed to have confused them so they asked for clarification, and I stand by that response. The answer to your question is "YES".

I wasn't commenting about your post in any way, although if you thought I was when I answered your question--then I apologize if I came off as flippant toward you.

If you don't know someone's pronouns, it's okay to ask. Or just notice the usertitle.

So, then. It's "illegitimate" for me to prefer that male characters are male and female characters are female when remaking a series or movie, even when there are sound reasons to keep them as written in the source material.

O-kayyy...

Thanks, and sorry if I got heated for a moment. No harm done, and I didn't intend any, either.

I wasn't aware of your past experiences with that poster, but I agree, there ARE real bigots, quite a few I think, especially within the "anti-woke" faction.

"That poster" is in the room. And you had better not be referring to me as a "real bigot."

Liet-Kynes in Dune is… awkward. Because the gender of that character *is* relevant, but more much much later on in the overall Dune stories (not that the post-Frank stuff is much cop…) and it didn’t really add anything of use. Gender is also something pretty thematic in the whole Dune set-up as well. Did it bother me? Not particularly. But I can see why it would bother someone without it being because of some ‘ot ‘ist ‘obe prejudices.

Starbuck? Meh. She was pretty cool in how much she *was* like the original, and maybe someone really attached to the earlier one might be bothered.

Here's the thing about Dune. I first read it over 40 years ago, and have read it many times since. I saw the Lynch movie in the theatre (whole different experience to just seeing it on a little TV screen), and I really have to laugh at the numerous people who have claimed that there's no evidence of any relationship between Chani and Liet-Kynes, so it doesn't matter if Liet-Kynes is male or female.

Except... "I am Chani, daughter of Liet" is a line that's in Frank Herbert's novel, and it's in the Lynch movie. So I call BS for that reason alone in Villeneuve's boastful claims of being "faithful" to the novel. There are many more reasons why it's obvious that he wasn't faithful to the novel, some related to why Liet-Kynes is a man rather than a woman, but I won't go into those here (and yes, I know Lynch got some things wrong as well, but at least he never did pointless genderswapping that proved he didn't think too hard about the actual background of the story).

Thanks--to clarify though I didn't call anyone a bigot. I did say that a certain opinion was bigoted (there is a difference) and only after the poster asked for a more direct answer.

There's not a lot of difference between calling a specific person's opinion bigoted and calling the person bigoted.

One of those things where, if one likes everything they hear about something, except for a gender flipped character, and one refuses to watch on that basis alone, I would see them as a bigot.

Well, since there are numerous things I didn't like about nuBSG and nuDune, I guess this isn't directed at me, right?

I think though that if a person tends towards wanting their adaptations as *pure* as possible, as *close* as possible to their source (which is the case for TimeLady when it comes to Dune in particular as I remember from other discussions) or if an individual has sat through repeated gender-bent or otherwise flip-flopped recycled fiction and never really left with a good impression with any of it — I can see why they would get fed up of otherwise incensed when it looks like it’s happening to something they care about. Possibly *again*. And for that not to be bigotry, even if they have reached the point where they just reject any of it out of hand by that point.

It’s an extreme position, wanting pure adaptation, but perfectly within the bounds of fan behaviour — whether it be Stars War and Trek, or Writers Tolkien and Austen. Pure History nuts may have a cause for rejecting Sophie Okenedo as Queen of England (and indeed whoever ended up in that Cleopatra thing as Cleo) whereas fans of Shakespeare would or should likely have far less of an issue. That the rejection can then be thrown on the fires, to stoke anger and derision, is the real problem. Especially when a lot of people who don’t give a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys about either suddenly decide to go to war over it (on keyboards, naturally) and often on behalf of some imagined other.
The problem is, a lot of people can’t seem to tell the difference between a drama and documentary these days, and that includes the people making the bloody things. Especially at Netflix.
(Okenedo was great, incidentally.)

When a major SF literary work is adapted, yes, I do prefer that it be as close to the original as possible. Same with Shakespeare. There have been numerous homages to Romeo and Juliet, for instance (West Side Story is one), and that's a different situation from just lifting Shakespeare's dialogue and setting it in some other place and time where it makes no sense.

As for "extreme"... nope, not extreme. I know there can never be a "pure" adaptation of Dune, simply because we don't live in that universe and there are some things that can't be reproduced on a stage or studio. A pure adaptation would (for example) be everyone speaking either Galach or Chakobsa or any other languages mentioned in the novels. There hasn't been a single adaptation of Dune that didn't get something noticeably wrong, including Lynch (the stillsuit design, weirding modules, making it rain at the end), the miniseries casting issues (William Hurt made a flat, boring Duke Leto, and Susan Sarandon was several decades too old for the part she was cast in), and Villeneuve's bizarre choices in casting and how he portrayed the Harkonnens, etc.

There is never a reason to get incensed over fiction you don't like, for whatever reason. That is the behavior of a child.

It rather depends on if the person who adapts the fiction is honest about making the changes and doesn't just hit the audience with a "GOTCHA!" and makes excuses that don't make sense. At least fanfic authors tag their stories as to whether they're canon-compliant or not and how they differ from canon (if they do), so the readers can decide if they want to continue.

My take on it is there's never a reason to get incensed if someone else doesn't like the same fiction you like. That is the behavior of a child.

Example: There are some people on this forum who, even 15 years later, have never forgiven me for not liking the nuTrek movies, and have yet to let that go. They still bring it up. On the flip side, there's a Doctor Who fan who profoundly disagrees with me about a story I really enjoy, yet he loathes. Guess what - we've agreed to disagree, and get along fine.

If one is to that point, then they should back off. The people they are talking to are humans, the cast and crew of any given production are humans. We shouldn't excuse someone being an ass because they are passionate about something.

This is so hypocritical.

 

[Timby]

To be fair "No, not like that!" is a fair way to respond to most Snyder franchise movies. He's good at adapting stories with striking visuals and a lot of violence, but when it comes to heroes who don't kill he doesn't seem to be able to get his head around that concept.

Speak for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, Snyder's four for four when it comes to adaptations; the director's cut of Watchmen and the ultimate edition of Batman v. Superman are nearly unimpeachable.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Speak for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, Snyder's four for four when it comes to adaptations; the director's cut of Watchmen and the ultimate edition of Batman v. Superman are nearly unimpeachable.

It's also fair to like them! I'm a big fan of Watchmen, I think that comic was a good fit for him.

But from the interviews I've seen, the dude really doesn't seem to click with the concept of Superman and Batman as they are in the comics and most media. He basically tells people who think Batman doesn't kill to grow up iirc.

 

[The Realist]

I enjoy Man of Steel a lot, and I was a huge fan of Cavill's take on the character.

I just laugh sometimes at the visceral hatred that Zack Snyder gets.

Fans: "God, Superman Returns SUCKED! Superman didn't punch anything!"

Zack Snyder: "Here's Man of Steel."

Fans: "NO NOT LIKE THAT"

FWIW, I have never once complained about Superman not punching anything. It was an incredibly stupid complaint a complaint with which I respectfully and non-toxically disagreed regarding Superman Returns. (He didn't punch anything in Superman '78 either.)

 

[Anwar]

"Past mistakes"?

Yes, the overabundance of male characters (especially Forced White Male ones) was a problem.

Do you think it's valid to dislike genderswapped characters?

You can't ask for a Yes/No to this because it's subjective from series to series.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

My own thoughts are, if you're going to include an iconic character which has an iconic appearance, it's probably best to stick with it unless your whole project is based on a concept that would benefit from them being changed. Like if someone's making an all-female adaptation of 12 Angry Men, obviously everyone should be female. But if Clark Kent or James Bond or Blade shows up in a blockbuster movie, I want to be able to recognise them instantly. I would generally not be impressed by gender swapped characters.

The Battlestar Galactica remake doesn't quite count though, as the original characters weren't exactly pop culture icons, and the new characters are so different half of them don't even have the same names. New Starbuck is really Kara Thrace, new Apollo is Lee Adama, new Boomer is Sharon Valerii. And they added extra main characters with no equivalents in the original show. I can sympathise with people who wanted it to be more faithful to the original series, but what we got was so much its own thing that the protagonists are basically new people instead of gender swapped or race swapped versions.

 

[theenglish]

I never complained about Superman Returns no-punching plot either. My complaint with that film came down to Superman using his powers to spy into the private lives of Lois' family. Other than that, I quite enjoyed the movie.

I also liked Man of Steel quite a bit. At the time, it was most reflective of the Superman from the comics, and it was the first time we got some realistic super-action fight scenes that looked like they were from the comics as well. My difficulty watching that movie came from how long the final fight went on and I couldn't take my mind off all the civilians who were being killed. I also had an issue with Superman's solution for Zod. But I acknowledge that those are my own personal issues and that different people reacted differently.

 

[BillJ]

This is so hypocritical.

Meh. Life goes on.

 

[The Realist]

At the time, it was most reflective of the Superman from the comics

Are you thinking of the "New 52" comics Superman in particular (which was, indeed, the current version at the time of MoS's release)? Because otherwise, I personally find the film's version pretty far removed from most portrayals of the character in the comics.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It's also fair to like them! I'm a big fan of Watchmen, I think that comic was a good fit for him.

But from the interviews I've seen, the dude really doesn't seem to click with the concept of Superman and Batman as they are in the comics and most media. He basically tells people who think Batman doesn't kill to grow up iirc.

Batman also wore a zebra-pattered costume, was invisible, plagued by little green men from other worlds, and played circus hi-jinks with Superman and Robin--all of that was from the comics, but I would never expect any filmmaker to even acknowledge that which is either irrelevant to the story said filmmaker is telling, or is just plain stupid. The point being if a filmmaker takes anything from the comics, it should be that which was actually great, and fits the filmmaker's adaptation, not some broad, all-you-can-adapt assemblage of wildly different writing styles, mood and cultural shifts (including silly crap) across the life of a character who is closer to a century old than not. In Snyder's case with Batman, he knew Batman killed in his early years (same with Superman), so that was not some aberration to the source, but--as noted above--a character development trait straight from the comics, which fit the adaptation.

...and of course, some of the same "Batman does not kill" group--while suffering from self-induced Raging-Blood-Eyed-Hate Snyder-Syndrome--conveniently forget that one of their favorite movie Batmen--Burton/Keaton's--also killed. I guess they had to run to the restroom every time those scenes were on screen.

 

[The Realist]

Batman also wore a zebra-pattered costume, was invisible, plagued by little green men from other worlds, and played circus hi-jinks with Superman and Robin

I'd pay to see that Batman movie.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I bet you would!

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

In Snyder's case with Batman, he knew Batman killed in his early years (same with Superman), so that was not some aberration to the source, but--as noted above--a character development trait straight from the comics, which fit the adaptation.

Sure, Batman did kill people a few times, in issues printed 20 years before Zack Synder was born. Batman is pretty famously the superhero who absolutely won't use guns or kill people and has been for quite a while now, it's been an important part of his character in the comics, the cartoons... even the Christopher Nolan films to an extent, though he sure found a loophole when it was convenient. The Tim Burton Batman films are an exception that some people have taken exception to, but Batman '89 was basically the second or third good superhero film ever made, so the majority were happy to get what they did.

Even Dark Knight Returns, which was heavily influential on Snyder's Batman, doesn't have a Batman that kills. But Snyder still wanted him to be a killer, because he thinks it's unrealistic that a man like that wouldn't just kill his enemies.

 

[Timby]

Even Dark Knight Returns, which was heavily influential on Snyder's Batman, doesn't have a Batman that kills. But Snyder still wanted him to be a killer, because he thinks it's unrealistic that a man like that wouldn't just kill his enemies.

Because this version of Batman was a guy at the absolute end of his rope, with Superman's presence basically breaking his worldview.

One of BvS' major throughlines is Bruce Wayne rediscovering what it means to be a hero, instead of a vigilante cop.

 

[theenglish]

Are you thinking of the "New 52" comics Superman in particular (which was, indeed, the current version at the time of MoS's release)? Because otherwise, I personally find the film's version pretty far removed from most portrayals of the character in the comics.

I was actually thinking of the oughts, the era that led up to the New 52. DC comics were pretty violent at the time and probably the most graphically violent they've been. That was when Wonder Woman killed Max Lord who had previously killed Ted Kord, and Jean Loring had killed Sue Dibney prior to that. There was a lot of killing going on.

 

[Timewalker]

Yes, the overabundance of male characters (especially Forced White Male ones) was a problem.



You can't ask for a Yes/No to this because it's subjective from series to series.

So create some female characters to suit your requirements. That's what I did when I started adapting games to prose in some of my writing projects. The source material was thin on female characters, so rather than genderswapping any of the male characters, I created some female characters and found reasons why they were "off-camera" during the canon events and could be present in the rest of the story.


'Subjective from series to series' is still avoiding an answer. You're saying it's valid to not want any genderswapped characters in one series, but invalid to object to genderswapping in another. IOW, it's "illegitimate" if someone else's opinion disagrees with yours, is what this looks like.

My own thoughts are, if you're going to include an iconic character which an iconic appearance, it's probably best to stick with it unless your whole project is based on a concept that would benefit from them being changed. Like if someone's making an all-female adaptation of 12 Angry Men, obviously everyone should be female. But if Clark Kent or James Bond or Blade shows up in a blockbuster movie, I want to be able to recognise them instantly. I would generally not be impressed by gender swapped characters.

The Battlestar Galactica remake doesn't quite count though, as the original characters weren't exactly pop culture icons, and the new characters are so different half of them don't even have the same names. New Starbuck is really Kara Thrace, new Apollo is Lee Adama, new Boomer is Sharon Valerii. And they added extra main characters with no equivalents in the original show. I can sympathise with people who wanted it to be more faithful to the original series, but what we got was so much its own thing that the protagonists are basically new people instead of gender swapped or race swapped versions.

So why not just refer to the characters by the new names and not even mention the names from the original series? That would make them new characters and therefore wouldn't be a genderswap.

 

[jaime]

Specify. Preferably without treating this as a discussion in a different forum, since some of your comments to/about me are inching awfully close to a line.



Taking what other factors out?

I gave up on Doctor Who prior to Capaldi's final season. I never watched Jodie Whittaker's stories, not because she's a woman, but because I finally had enough of Clara and the dumbed-down writing.


Exactly. Denis Villeneuve's excuse for making Liet-Kynes female was that he claimed there "weren't enough strong women" in Dune.

That's utter BS. There is no female character in Dune who is NOT strong, in some way or another. If he wanted that specific actress, all he had to do would be to cast her as Harah. Harah is actually a rather significant character in the first three Dune books, even without being one of the main characters.

Oh, wait... he opted to omit Alia's birth and toddlerhood, so Harah (who basically took over raising her when Jessica proved to not have a maternal bone in her body when it came to a Pre-Born daughter) didn't have that reason to be part of it.



You don't see me mocking you for that opinion, do you? It's your right to like that character. For me, Starbuck is a male character. I don't care which actress might have been hired. And I actually did try to like nuBSG. It failed to entertain me, so I stopped watching it.



My pronouns are "she" and "her". That should be inferred by my usertitle.

It's your opinion that I'm wrong, btw. I don't get where racism comes into this, unless you're suggesting that men and women are different races.



In that case, why not create more female characters?



I will admit to one case of genderswapping I don't mind, but then that particular one was something that became fanon, and was never canon. TPTB stated the character was male, and never changed that. The fans, on the other hand, include people who prefer to think of the character as female, and have written numerous stories portraying that character as female.

The character to whom I refer is Aithusa, the baby dragon in BBC Merlin. So in this case, Aithusa is a nonhuman character who isn't voiced by anyone because there are in-universe reasons why Aithusa doesn't speak. There are numerous fanfiction writers who prefer to portray Aithusa as female, for whatever reasons they have that preference.

When it comes to other nonhuman characters, it's dizzying to try to keep up with Spot, on TNG. Is Spot male or female? Or is he a male cat who got pregnant and had kittens? Did Data just have multiple cats and named all of them Spot? I don't recall that the show or movies ever clarified that.



If you don't know someone's pronouns, it's okay to ask. Or just notice the usertitle.

So, then. It's "illegitimate" for me to prefer that male characters are male and female characters are female when remaking a series or movie, even when there are sound reasons to keep them as written in the source material.

O-kayyy...



"That poster" is in the room. And you had better not be referring to me as a "real bigot."



Here's the thing about Dune. I first read it over 40 years ago, and have read it many times since. I saw the Lynch movie in the theatre (whole different experience to just seeing it on a little TV screen), and I really have to laugh at the numerous people who have claimed that there's no evidence of any relationship between Chani and Liet-Kynes, so it doesn't matter if Liet-Kynes is male or female.

Except... "I am Chani, daughter of Liet" is a line that's in Frank Herbert's novel, and it's in the Lynch movie. So I call BS for that reason alone in Villeneuve's boastful claims of being "faithful" to the novel. There are many more reasons why it's obvious that he wasn't faithful to the novel, some related to why Liet-Kynes is a man rather than a woman, but I won't go into those here (and yes, I know Lynch got some things wrong as well, but at least he never did pointless genderswapping that proved he didn't think too hard about the actual background of the story).



There's not a lot of difference between calling a specific person's opinion bigoted and calling the person bigoted.



Well, since there are numerous things I didn't like about nuBSG and nuDune, I guess this isn't directed at me, right?



When a major SF literary work is adapted, yes, I do prefer that it be as close to the original as possible. Same with Shakespeare. There have been numerous homages to Romeo and Juliet, for instance (West Side Story is one), and that's a different situation from just lifting Shakespeare's dialogue and setting it in some other place and time where it makes no sense.

As for "extreme"... nope, not extreme. I know there can never be a "pure" adaptation of Dune, simply because we don't live in that universe and there are some things that can't be reproduced on a stage or studio. A pure adaptation would (for example) be everyone speaking either Galach or Chakobsa or any other languages mentioned in the novels. There hasn't been a single adaptation of Dune that didn't get something noticeably wrong, including Lynch (the stillsuit design, weirding modules, making it rain at the end), the miniseries casting issues (William Hurt made a flat, boring Duke Leto, and Susan Sarandon was several decades too old for the part she was cast in), and Villeneuve's bizarre choices in casting and how he portrayed the Harkonnens, etc.



It rather depends on if the person who adapts the fiction is honest about making the changes and doesn't just hit the audience with a "GOTCHA!" and makes excuses that don't make sense. At least fanfic authors tag their stories as to whether they're canon-compliant or not and how they differ from canon (if they do), so the readers can decide if they want to continue.

My take on it is there's never a reason to get incensed if someone else doesn't like the same fiction you like. That is the behavior of a child.

Example: There are some people on this forum who, even 15 years later, have never forgiven me for not liking the nuTrek movies, and have yet to let that go. They still bring it up. On the flip side, there's a Doctor Who fan who profoundly disagrees with me about a story I really enjoy, yet he loathes. Guess what - we've agreed to disagree, and get along fine.



This is so hypocritical.

I was agreeing with you on Dune btw. (We chatted about it before.)
As to extreme, I do not mean in a negative sense. It’s just further along the fan curve than is commonplace.
What’s the Who episode?

 

[jaime]

Yes, the overabundance of male characters (especially Forced White Male ones) was a problem.



You can't ask for a Yes/No to this because it's subjective from series to series.

If it’s subjective, then the answer is yes, surely?
Because sometimes it *is* ok.
There are successful genderswapped characters too — but they don’t tend to be well known, because they are successful and didn’t cause a furore. The Guns of Navarone for instance has the entire subplot with the female characters added for the film, if I recall correctly.

 

[jaime]

My own thoughts are, if you're going to include an iconic character which an iconic appearance, it's probably best to stick with it unless your whole project is based on a concept that would benefit from them being changed. Like if someone's making an all-female adaptation of 12 Angry Men, obviously everyone should be female. But if Clark Kent or James Bond or Blade shows up in a blockbuster movie, I want to be able to recognise them instantly. I would generally not be impressed by gender swapped characters.

The Battlestar Galactica remake doesn't quite count though, as the original characters weren't exactly pop culture icons, and the new characters are so different half of them don't even have the same names. New Starbuck is really Kara Thrace, new Apollo is Lee Adama, new Boomer is Sharon Valerii. And they added extra main characters with no equivalents in the original show. I can sympathise with people who wanted it to be more faithful to the original series, but what we got was so much its own thing that the protagonists are basically new people instead of gender swapped or race swapped versions.

They also covered it completely by implying it’s a repeating history. Starbuck even goes through the same Angel thing as the original, if I recall.