From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   On 2026-02-28 00:42:48 +0000, MummyChunk said:   
   >> Your Name wrote:   
   >> On 2026-02-27 18:08:41 +0000, MummyChunk said:   
   >>>   
   >>> If anyone's still checking in every few months to see whether the Sam   
   >>> Esmail Battlestar project ever escaped development purgatory, there's   
   >>> still nothing resembling a real green light. The last meaningful   
   >>> movement was that Peacock dropped it and it was supposedly going to be   
   >>> shopped elsewhere, but since then it's basically been radio silence in   
   >>> terms of a network actually picking it up and putting it on a schedule.   
   >>> At this point it feels less like "when" and more like "if," which is a   
   >>> shame because the franchise is one of the few that could come back   
   >>> without feeling like nostalgia cosplay if the writing is there.   
   >>>   
   >>> Meanwhile, the old arguments about the ending are having another little   
   >>> flare up, because people are circulating George R R Martin's comments   
   >>> about the finale again. It's funny how that never really goes away. For   
   >>> a lot of viewers, the show is still an all time great that just didn't   
   >>> stick the landing in a way that matched the earlier seasons. For   
   >>> others, the ending is thematically consistent and the problem is more   
   >>> about pacing and execution than the idea itself. Personally, the reason   
   >>> it stays a debate is because the show set an insanely high bar for   
   >>> grounded, messy, political sci fi and then asked people to accept a   
   >>> very different kind of resolution at the end. Whether that works   
   >>> probably depends on what you wanted the story to be about in the first   
   >>> place.   
   >>>   
   >>> The one actually concrete Battlestar thing on the horizon right now is   
   >>> the new game Battlestar Galactica Scattered Hopes. It's got a planned   
   >>> release window of Q2 2026, and what they've shown so far looks like   
   >>> it's trying to blend fleet survival management with more direct combat   
   >>> than the usual strategy layer games. That could be great or it could   
   >>> end up feeling like it can't decide whether it wants to be tense and   
   >>> desperate or just a laser show, but at least it's something new in the   
   >>> universe that isn't trapped in rights and meetings.   
   >>>   
   >>> So that's where things stand today. No real TV revival news, the finale   
   >>> discourse is immortal, and the game is the only thing with a calendar   
   >>> attached. If a new series did happen, would people here even want it in   
   >>> the same continuity as the 2004 show, or is the only way forward a hard   
   >>> reset with a new tone.   
   >>   
   >> The only *true* "Battlestar Galactica" is the original created by Glen   
   >> A. Larson version. Moore-Ron's awful in-name-only "reboot" is   
   >> irrelevant garbage as will be any follow-on or another idiotic "reboot"   
   >> version.   
   >   
   > I've got a soft spot for the Larson original too. It's pure late-70s TV   
   > in the best way, and it still has that vibe that a lot of newer stuff   
   > can't fake. And honestly, even though the 1980 run is messy and kind of   
   > all over the place, it's part of the same little universe and I can't   
   > totally hate it for trying.   
      
   "Galactica 1980" was also ill-fitting garbage. As was the second season   
   of "Buck Rogers". They obviously ran out of sensible ideas, so 'jumped   
   the shark' into a mess.   
      
      
      
   > At the same time, I get why people defend the Moore reboot as its own   
   > thing. It's not really competing with the original so much as taking   
   > the premise and aiming for a completely different tone and era.   
      
   Then he should have given it a different name and said "losely based on   
   Battlestar Galactica". Re-using the same name for a completely   
   different product is plain stupidity and laziness ... the one, and   
   only, point "Galactica 1980" has in its favour.   
      
      
      
   > I tend to think of them as three separate animals: the original as the   
   > classic, 1980 as the odd cousin, and the reboot as the darker   
   > reimagining. Plenty to like or dislike in each without having to   
   > declare one "real" and burn the rest.   
   >   
   > This is a response to the post seen at:   
   > http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=701975610#701975610   
      
   There is only one *real* version of anything - the one created by the   
   person who had the actual talent to come up with the idea in the first   
   place ... in this case Glen A. Larson (despite court cases by George   
   Lucas).   
      
   The original contiuation idea for the resurrection was a MUCH MUCH   
   better idea, before Moore-Ron took over and butchered it with his own   
   inane ideas.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)