Jedi_Joel said:
I wouldn't say BSG copied SW simply because they had space battles and spaceships that shot lasers, they had totally different stories, and Glen A. Larson talked about how he based the show upon Mormonism and the Cold War as well.
The original Battlestar Galactica was basically "Star Wars" for TV, the usual Hollyweird jumping on the band-wagon of someone else's good idea and making semi-clones of it (another one being Buck Rogers by the same team and even using some of the same footage!) ... in fact George Lucas even (reportedly) sued them, but lost.
Borsk said:
Ok, I'm missing where Galactica was mentioned in the original article.
Galactica as such wasn't mentioned anywhere in the original news item. The words "darker" and "character-based" do imply something similar to some degree to me (similar wording has been used about the new-Galactica) ... but, the main point was changing the style of Star Wars as they've already done with Galactica is not a good idea.
Borsk said:
I've never seen a single episode of the Original Battlestar Galactica. But, I very seriously doubt that faithfully recreating every aspect of the old show would have left us with watchable tv. And it isn't like they could do the same thing Star Trek does and just place the events of the new show 100 years after the ending of the previous show and give the characters different names.
There was already a show called "Galactica 1980" (an awful pile of trash that's held in the same "esteem" by fans as the Star Wars Holiday Special is by us) made in 1980 that did follow on from the original "Battlestar Galactica". It basically took over the story years later when they reached Earth ... but again the entire style of the show was completely different and MUCH more 'kiddy-fied". It was basically "Space Scouts Camp Out on Earth" with a bit of crime investigation and time travel thrown in, but very little of the actual Galactica whihc simply lured the Cylons away from Earth.
During Hollyweird's recent "remake" / "update" everything fad, the original idea for the new-Galactica
was to be a "next generation" style show, which would have worked, but the guy behind it (Bryan Singer and before him someone else) got too busy doing the X-Men 2 movie and the whole project got given to Ron Moore (from the Star Trek franchise), who decided to be half-lazy and just remake the original using his own style (and taking over most of Bryan Singer's already done CGI work!).
Jedi_Joel said:
You do have to admit that the Original BSG was pretty campy and very dated.
I don't think anyone would say the original was high quality, but it was a nice show for many. Personally I see the new version as over-sexed rubbish that takes itself far too seriously, but as I said, whether the show is any good or not is irrelevant, that's only personal opinion and emotions.
From a logical point of view, changing the style is simply silly, and even more so when you keep the same name. It would be like Coca-Cola releasing Asparagus Coke and still just calling it Coca-Cola - a completely different product hiding behind the name of the original. Calling a show by the same name means you're basically false-advertising to the original's fans and putting off people who disliked the original ... it makes no real sense from anyone's point of view, except perhaps the studio who then own the rights to that name for another X years. Realisitically it would have made more sense if Ron Moore had called his show something else. The same goes for a Star Wars - a TV show that is done in a completely different style is simply trading on the Star Wars name to get the all-important initial ratings.
* BUT *
As I said above, Episode III was supposed "darker" and wasn't that different. We can only wait and see what the TV series really is before we'll know for sure whether it's complete rubbish, more great Star Wars, or somewhere in-between that some of us like and some dislike. Hopefully it's not a drastic change ... and I can't see George Lucas being that stupid.
