XPost: hactar.space-1999, alt.galactically.pointless   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article <507-5054DA94-150@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>,   
   BillV2320@webtv.net (The Void Era Man) wrote:   
   >   
   > In hindsight with the new series someway behind us and all of its   
   > offshoot options truncated, i think i can say i like the Original   
   > better.   
   > maybe it has nostalgia because i was only 14 when it debuted and scifi   
   > of that magnitude was rare in theater OR TV in those days.   
   > yeah, it had some corny stories and it didnt have the gritty 'real' feel   
   > of the new, but i like it because it was more escapist fantasy and not   
   > just a displaced post apocalypse set in space.   
   > i kind of see that roland moore sold his premise clothed in BSG   
   > because ...   
      
   The revival of Battlestar Galactica wasn't even remotely Ron Moore's idea.   
      
   It was started long before he was recruited to the job, but originally the   
   new series was going to be a proper sequel to the original Glen Larson   
   series, and at one stage it was helmed by Bryan Singer who unfortunately   
   had to pull out due to commitments with the X-men movie and other things.   
   He did much of the ground work, including getting many of the CGI models   
   created that Ron Moore than later took over.   
      
   I'm not even sure it was actually Ron Moore's idea to do a remake /   
   reimagining, or whether that was (partly) forced by the idiots in studio   
   management. It wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to make his own, likely   
   hopeless, show and just like his mentors (Star Trek's Beavis & Butthead   
   twins: Berman and Braga) got pushed into doing something he didn't really   
   want to do OR if he agreed to do it simply to get a big name on his resume   
   so he could then do his own show.   
      
      
      
      
   > it was much more likely to be picked up as a series if it had an   
   > established name on it already.   
      
   The problem is that that makes no sense at all. If the original Battlestar   
   Galactica was supposedly so bad, why would they reuse the name? Anyone   
   with a micro-milligram of common sense isn't going to watch something   
   called "Battlestar Galactica" if they didn't like the original show called   
   Battlestar Galactica ... that would be like going into a restaurant to   
   order spinach soup when you know you don't like spinach soup, but are   
   stupidly hoping / expecting it's not actually spinach soup.   :-\   
      
   It would make FAR more sense to use a totally new name for their very   
   different show. People who didn't like the original Battlestar Galactica   
   *SHOULD* be much more likely to give a new show a chance if it had no   
   obvious link to the original ... unfortunately the vast majority of the   
   human race are apparently lacking in any "common" sense and are stupid   
   enough to watch any old crap simply because it's the latest new toy on the   
   block or it's "what we do every Friday night", regardless of it's name or   
   what it's about.   :-(   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)