Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Battlestar Galactica Feature Film Confirmed

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the more-grace-park-please dept.

Sci-Fi 342

Dave Knott writes "Entertainment Weekly reports that Universal Pictures has confirmed rumours of a Battlestar Galactica feature film. Directed by Bryan Singer, and co-produced by original series creator Glen Larson, the new movie will not be related to the recently concluded SyFy Network series. Rather, it will be a 'complete re-imagining of the sci-fi lore that was invented by Larson back in the '70s.'"

cancel ×

342 comments

Bleh (1, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063171)

Wagon Train in space? With all the extra stuff from the Book of Mormon? No thanks. Even the retread series that went off the air last year wasn't that great. I mean, come on, live as hick farmers on a dirt planet?

Please have some new ideas. Please!

Re:Bleh (3, Funny)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063199)

grats for spoiling the ending, someone mod that down :D

Re:Bleh (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063207)

That aint no ending fool. Just because you're resisting the clockwork orange treatment and have only got a couple of episodes into season 2...

Re:Bleh (4, Funny)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063903)

grats for spoiling the ending

You can't spoil the ending: the writers already did that.

Re:Bleh (2, Insightful)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063963)

You may want to watch it again. It's a bit deeper than that. Democracy in precarious situations is a recurring theme, for example.

Bede bede bede (4, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063201)

I never bought into any of this re-imagining crap. It's not like how Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards (and fixed the story in parts that didn't make sense). The re-imagining of BSG was almost a totally different show with only the thinnest of veneers tying it to the original series.

I liked the show, though it was definitely too dark (lighting-wise) and the overuse of 'frak' was annoying, but I felt that it could probably stand on its own as a series.

I went back and watched several Star Trek TOS episodes and found them to be clever, campy, and very forward thinking. If I were to watch TOS and DS9 back to back, I think I'd have the same reaction as I did to BSG. The difference, of course, is that there was the excellent TNG series which bridged the gap between TOS and DS9. Any re-imagining of a series that changes the fundamental aspects of the base concept is going to run into this problem.

It's not a re-imagining. It's a cashing-in on the name value of the original concept. I think it is nothing short of a rip off for those who loved the original series. It's also a rip off for those who like the new series itself but are forced to associate it with the original series.

Re:Bede bede bede (4, Insightful)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063221)

The best thing 2004 BSG could have done for itself that it didn't do, would have been to use a different name.

That aside, I still consider it awesome.

But but but (2, Insightful)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063325)

It's a cashing-in on the name value of the original concept.

If the jumpsuits are skin-tight, would it be all bad?? I, for one, say bring it [scificool.com] on [moviestore.com] .

Re:Bede bede bede (5, Interesting)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063481)

It's not a re-imagining. It's a cashing-in on the name value of the original concept. I think it is nothing short of a rip off for those who loved the original series. It's also a rip off for those who like the new series itself but are forced to associate it with the original series.

Would it have been any less of a rip-off if the show and the characters had been given different names? I doubt it. I also doubt that completely rewriting the show to remove any and all allusions to the original series would have made it any better. I keep hearing on this site how no media content is completely novel, and the best content is that which builds on pre-existing ideas. The BSG re-imagining is an excellent practical example of this.

Re:Bede bede bede (5, Insightful)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063531)

I keep hearing on this site how no media content is completely novel, and the best content is that which builds on pre-existing ideas. The BSG re-imagining is an excellent practical example of this.

AbsoFragginglutely damn it the original BSG was a re-imagining of Wagon Train which in turn was inspired by any number of Westerns. I suspect we could probably trace it all the way back to Chaucer and The Canterbury Tales but then who did he nick the idea off?

Re:Bede bede bede (5, Funny)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063557)

Obligatory SPOILER ALERT

No doubt all fiction can be traced right back to a factual account of early humans' journey out of Africa... which by coincidence is exactly where the BSG re-imagined series ends.

Perhaps it can be traced right back to when the survivors of the 12 colonies landed in Africa, in which case all fiction can be traced to Battlestar Galactica.

Re:Bede bede bede (1)

Goodl (518602) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063799)

if i had mod points that line would get em , you owe me a keyboard :-D

Re:Bede bede bede (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29064393)

Would it have been any less of a rip-off if the show and the characters had been given different names? I doubt it. I also doubt that completely rewriting the show to remove any and all allusions to the original series would have made it any better.

There's a point all of you are missing: the original series sucked ass. Lame characters. Lame bad guys. Lame special effects.

Re:Bede bede bede (2, Insightful)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063675)

DS9 actually got interesting when they stopped dicking about on Bajor and had them some wars...

Re:Bede bede bede (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29063741)

DS9 got interesting?

hmm.. All I remember was "blah, blah, blah, Defiant leaves DS9 and gets its a$$ kicked, blah, blah, blah" ...rinse...repeat.

Re:Bede bede bede (3, Funny)

Sebilrazen (870600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063793)

DS9... was that the Star Trek about the Gas Station on the interstate?

Re:Bede bede bede (4, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063985)

DS9... was that the Star Trek about the Gas Station on the interstate?

No, it was Ron Moore's big-budget "re-imagining" of the campy Sci Fi classic "Babylon 5".

(ducks)

Re:Bede bede bede (2, Insightful)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063815)

>DS9 actually got interesting when they stopped dicking about on Bajor and had them some wars...

I found that DS9 got tedious when they stopped dealing with the political and social situation on Bajor and turned it into yet another humans vs aliens war story.

Re:Bede bede bede (1)

MistrX (1566617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063847)

Humans vs Aliens? You mean what Star Trek is all about? (Granted, it's actually Aliens vs Humans with the help of Aliens).

Re:Bede bede bede (5, Insightful)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063921)

>Humans vs Aliens? You mean what Star Trek is all about?
>(Granted, it's actually Aliens vs Humans with the help of Aliens).

Star Trek was never about aliens vs humans. It was a hopeful (and a bit naive) programme about the expansion of humanity into the Galaxy. For the most part the conflict was driven by human conflict, not wars with aliens.

Re:Bede bede bede (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064059)

I wish i had modpoints. I hoped Abrams did understand that, but IMO he simple didn't get it. Sadly.

Re:Bede bede bede (1)

MistrX (1566617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064305)

Yes and that is what Gene Roddenberry intended. But with that backstory in mind it mostly turned out Humans aided by aliens versus other aliens. Count out the numerous alien foe's against human mishaps. Dominion, Borg, Klingon, Romulan, Ferengi etc. Some aided the federation but politically, they were at war in some point in time. With the human imprint of 'good' as a mindset to make the Federation the good party.

Frankly IIRC, only the Klingon empire vs Federation got resolved and are at peace after, chronologically speaking, TOS. It's my favorite series let me make that clear but to say it's only about exploration... naah I don't really believe that.

Re:Bede bede bede (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29063865)

[...]Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards (and fixed the story in parts that didn't make sense).

I guess you're too young to understand.

Being a old Star Wars fan i sometimes wish Lucas would have died before he was able to do so.

Re:Bede bede bede (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064023)

It's also a rip off for those who like the new series itself but are forced to associate it with the original series.

I definitely can second that. If it's anything like Abrams Star Wars^W Wars^W Wars^W Trek film for TNG ff. fans, then: no, thanks.

Re:Bede bede bede - say what? (2, Interesting)

Markvs (17298) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064131)

I'm with you on the most of your points, but the 70's Battlestar Galactica & the 00's Galactica are the same show exactly the same way the 1974 Three Musketeers and the 1993 Three Musketeers are the same movie. Or compare Mel Gibson's Hamlet to Kenneth Branagh's, or 1984's DUNE to the recent Sci-Fi. Things happen a little differently, but each one is a fair representation of itself.

To say that re-imagining is crap is to say that any story that is redone is automatically inferior to it's predecessor. Which I don't buy, because (who knows?) some day we might even get a version of Blake's 7 with good production values!

Did the new BSG go into territory the original didn't? Well yes, some. But *everything* that happened in the original series happened in the new one, which I give Sci-Fi kudos for. (Ok, excepting for the daggits or flying motorcycles...)

Re:Bede bede bede (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064163)

It's not like how Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards

No bit he got a lot more blood out of that rock. He sucked in a Lot of the rabid fans, even after the introduction of Jar-Jar all of you rabid fans went back to watch Ep II and Ep III.

Star Wars fans are suckers. He proved that. BSG fans will be just as big suckers, Movie studios count on rabid fandom to go and buy or spend even though the film is tripe.

Re:Bede bede bede (3, Funny)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064309)

It's not like how Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards (and fixed the story in parts that didn't make sense).

Yeah, I'm so glad how me made Greedo shoot first, but Han still measures time in distance.

Now excuse me for yard. I've got a phone call.

Re:Bede bede bede (1)

Anivair (921745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064333)

Bah. Re-imaginings are great. If you handle it right. BSG did it fine. they took a series that only hardcore nerds cared about, but that most people remembered and made something new and excellent out of it. What you do not then do is re-imagine a series that just finished last year AGAIN in movie form. Bad idea.

Amazing (5, Insightful)

Misanthrope (49269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063203)

Brought to you by the same minds that thought Syfy was a good name change......

Re:Amazing (5, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063269)

Brought to you by the same minds that thought Syfy was a good name change......

When a movie reminds you of that channel, would you say it's Syfylous?

Re:Amazing (1)

Misanthrope (49269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063297)

Ironically both come from America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#European_outbreak [wikipedia.org]

Re:Amazing (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063939)

if that's the only disease that went back in that direction... I think the native american got the short end of the stick... so to speak.

Re:Amazing (1)

bogjobber (880402) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063951)

The whole Syfy thing is misunderstood. The main reason why they changed the name is because SciFi is a generic term and can't be trademarked. I don't know why they chose a weird spelling of the same phrase instead of just rebranding the channel, but it's probably a good decision from a business perspective.

Re:Amazing (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064141)

Somehow they went for 17 years without that being a concern.

Re:Amazing (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064201)

I figure, as much as anything, they are trying to de-brand the network. Some of the shows on USA appear to be generating equally strong ratings as the BSG final, with much lower production costs:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/03/24/battlestar-galactica-finale-blasts-away-the-competition/15054 [tvbythenumbers.com]
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/news/cable-tv/e3ic888e7d7726537250dc61eea82e93a48 [mediaweek.com]

(I'm not confident that the ratings listed in those articles are a fair comparison, but the viewer totals for both Burn Notice and Royal Pains are higher than the BSG finale; I doubt those shows are ridiculously cheap, but I can't imagine they cost more than BSG)

Re:Amazing (3, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064391)

Exactly. You can't have channels with generic terms like "Discovery" or "History" or "Learning".

Meh... (2, Interesting)

Annwvyn (1611587) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063219)

Though I did enjoy the series... To be honest, I don't think a movie that takes another shot at what the series did (even if in a different light) will be terribly interesting. I am sure that they will make it look spiffy with spectacular special effects and all... but that does not a good movie make. Like DNS-and-BIND said... come up with a new idea, don't just re-vamp old ones and ruin them.

Thank goodness (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063227)

the new movie will not be related to the recently concluded SyFy Network series

I can only hope. The 1970's show was something I loved as a kid (I remember running to the TV when I heard the theme song come one), and it's something my little kids have enjoyed. The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)

There's an audience for this kind of fiction (as I'm sure SciFi's ratings proved), but I'd much rather have something I could take my kids to and just plain enjoy.

Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (5, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063289)

Are we not allowed to have adult sci-fi now? If you want to let your kids watch sci-fi theres plenty of sacharrine shit from Pixar and the like available.

"The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)"

You're coming across as just a teensy bit wet my friend.

Re:Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (2, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063437)

Are we not allowed to have adult sci-fi now? If you want to let your kids watch sci-fi theres plenty of sacharrine shit from Pixar and the like available.

"The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)"

You're coming across as just a teensy bit wet my friend.

You say I should go to Pixar films. I say you should watch the Saw movies. People with your tastes have no more claim on the BSG franchise than people with my tastes.

I was just saying that I wanted my kids to be able to enjoy something that I enjoyed when I was their age. I'm sorry that's hard for you to handle.

Re:Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (4, Insightful)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063489)

So get the original series on DVD and show them that.

Re:Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (4, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063491)

Except that the new BSG ISN'T the show you enjoyed as a kid. If you want your kids to enjoy the BSG you liked when you were young, go buy the original BSG series on dvd for them.

You have no idea what my tastes are (5, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063543)

And I don't see why a sci fi series dealing with adult themes should be made child friendly. Kids have enough TV of their own. Its bad enough with most films being downgraded to 12 certificates without infliciting the same on TV shows. Clearly you think the original series is rubbish or you would have shown your kids that instead.

Re:Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (4, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063583)

So you have no problem with your kids watching a dozen planets and billions of people being annihilated in a nuclear holocaust, people being left behind to die of radiation sickness, starvation and the like, people being executed, committing suicide - but don't nobody go killing babies?

The baby killing scene builds tension the best way possible - showing us that the Cylons had no issue with killing off the weak and innocent. She's even musing about the baby's weakness as she does it. That's why it is so effective - it tells us that there is no negotiating with them, tells us that they have no compassion and that we'd be better off hoping that the group of hungry lions don't eat the baby gazelle.

But back to my original point - why is it that you feel your kids can enjoy watching billions of people being killed, but you can't allow them to watch a single one being killed? Why is it that you feel that your kids can enjoy watching an episode like 33, where humans themselves kill a ship with a significant amount of the survivors of the attacks (I think 1,300 vs 45,000), but the sound effect of a baby's neck snapping and a mother crying out in anguish is too much?

Re:Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (4, Insightful)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063827)

Personally I thought that the cylon killing the baby was more of a mercy killing so the baby wouldn't suffer when the nukes fell.
Showing the audience that the cylon had some human qualities.

Re:Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064151)

Maybe parenting instinct? "Big blue baby eyes - must protect".

Re:Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29063597)

People with your tastes have no more claim on the BSG franchise than people with my tastes.

The "BSG Franchise", ooooh ladidooda Mr Fancypants... What he's saying is that if the movie isn't age appropriate, there's plenty of other stuff for your kids to watch. This could be Pixar sugary shit, or you know... The older, less age inappropriate, battlestar galactica.

I was just saying that I wanted my kids to be able to enjoy something that I enjoyed when I was their age.

When you were their age I'm pretty sure that there were shows your parents didnt' allow you to see. They didn't make a fuss about it and probably showed you shows that were appropriate. Perhaps you should look into what is acceptable for your kids to watch, and see if you can enjoy that too. Did your parents enjoy BSG with you? Probably not. And when your kids grow up and fondly look back on their childhood television shows, I'm sure that the 1970's version of BSG that Dad made 'm watch when they were little is the last thing they 'll remember.

Or perhaps this is about you having to take the kids to the theatre and seeing the new BSG movie, and not being able to see it with them. Followed by your inability to convince your wife at another time to drop off the kids at grandma's and go see that movie. As the words "No dear, I'd rather watch something more real than those silly spacemovies with what little free time we get away from the kids" escape her mouth, you come here and rant about how you'd love to have some kid safe scifi so the missus can't deny your request as you've egged up the kids to go see that new KID-FRIENDLY SPACEMOVIE.

I'm guessing your wife really hates scifi. Either that, or you just hate your kids enough to forcefeed them what you liked as a kid.

Re:Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29063849)

You're coming across as just a teensy bit wet my friend.

You're coming across as just very desensitized to disturbing things.

Re:Why does everything have to be child friendly?? (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064111)

(the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)"

I can't remember that one, is it on the DVD edition? I only watched the part that aired. And i can understand why you consider that gross. Especially when you're a parent.

Re:Thank goodness (2, Insightful)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063319)

The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)

That part was pretty much intended to bother everyone, I think. I didn't enjoy the miniseries that much, but the rest of it, especially the start of season 3 and the last season, was especially awesome ... apart from a few inevitable filler episodes here and there.

Re:Thank goodness (1)

Archimonde (668883) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063535)

Too bad that the whole final season was a one big filler.

Re:Thank goodness (5, Insightful)

discord5 (798235) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063473)

the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck

*gasp* Not a baby!! Considering the fact that they nuke everything and anything they can see about half an hour later, the baby was lucky. Lateron in the show have breeding farms with humans, and they steal Starbucks ovary, and much later they subjugate all of humanity under the guise of "co-existence" and torture their prisoners. They steal Sauls eyeball (again with the bodypart snatching, what's up with that?). Oh, and then there were suicide terrorists. But oh dear gods, they snapped a babies neck, that really makes this show inappropriate for kids as opposed to ... all the other things.

I'd much rather have something I could take my kids to and just plain enjoy.

Feed'm Disney, or Pixar, or whatever is popular these days. Hell, I was entertained for hours with Tom & Jerry and Roadrunner back in the day. (Beware though, in some cartoons featuring Roadrunner, Wiley Coyete is violently smashed against big boulders most often followed by an explosion. This may offend you.) Most of my friends with kids have an entire shelf full of that stuff, and they tend to watch shows like BSG when their kids have gone to sleep.

Just saying, not everything needs to be suitable for kids. There's plenty of stuff that's ready made for them and is still enjoyable to parents.

Re:Thank goodness (4, Insightful)

MistrX (1566617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063901)

I remember Tom swallowing dynamite and bowlingballs. Do I love the classical cartoons that are funny and not pouring with political correct utopian ideas. I loved them as a kid and I'm still not a mass murderer. It must be magic.

Re:Thank goodness (1)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064323)

Just saying, not everything needs to be suitable for kids. There's plenty of stuff that's ready made for them and is still enjoyable to parents.

THANK YOU.

I wish I had mod points, but instead, I'll just quote you and say, "hear hear!"

In a society where a mom who has a neighbor videotape Beavis & Butthead so she can use it to pacify her kids, then sues the network when one of the kids burns down the family trailer (reference way at the bottom [beavisandbutthead.net] ), we need more people to understand this simple truth.

Re:Thank goodness (2, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063743)

I get tired of this... "I watched this as a kid and it was good and this new stuff well..."

MOVE ON!!!! I watched the original TOS, and original Battlestar Galatica, and want to know something. I prefer the new ones. Even TNG is showing its age now. As we evolve socially certain things are tacky and cliche. Sure it is fun to watch, but you have to jump over those odd moments.

Take James Bond, which I have never been a fan of. The latest one Quantum Solace I loved! Many Bond folks said, "gag gag..." Just like how I am uncomfortable with the new Star Trek movie. But at the end of the day I say, let's see how these folks did this and maybe I will like... Keep the mind open for change and you just, just maybe, might enjoy it...

Re:Thank goodness (1)

MistrX (1566617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063869)

Do your kids enjoy the 70's objectifaction of woman aswell (70's Starbuck)?

Re:Thank goodness (2, Insightful)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064183)

70's Starbuck was male.

Re:Thank goodness (1)

jjrff (891275) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064361)

The problem that arises here is similar to star wars (although the prequels were a trainwreck); people have a memory associated with the original and now that memory was tarnished. Ron Moore was not looking to really even re-imagine, he was looking for a place to allegory real world situations and try to make viewers think; it did not always work so well because there were obvious agendas in some of them; but for the most part it worked. What does it mean to be human? What do people really do in war? If your about to become extinct and are aware of it - how would you react to a given situation? The old show was created at a time when things like just were not possible on cable and it was never intended to be a think piece series; it was and always will be a religulous view of star wars - and there is nothing wrong with that - you just shouldn't hold it against the new series because that is not what it is about. Star Trek DS9 was another good example of this departure; Moore expressly got involved in DS9 because with Gene passed away the "it always has to have a happy ending" hand cuffs were taken off. Again, many fans were angry at DS9's darkness (which compared to new BSG is lightweight) but the point was not to do yet another trek, it was to try and make people think about what war is like, what are humans really like (both the good and the bad). In the end though, I still look at this as completely separate and not even a re-imaging. I still watch the old series on retro TV and I do not feel any sort of loss. I do suggest for kids though try out Eureka; you might need to screen Eureka (depending on the children's age) but for the most part it is light hearted fun.

They just can't leave well alone (5, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063233)

As a series BG is perfect , one of the best Sci Fi series in a generation. But no, they've got to milk the franchise until it goes moo and dies. Isn't the new Caprica series enough? Why can't hollywood producers know when something is complete and just leave it as is to be savoured , not slowly milked to death because i'll bet you this film won't be the last.

Entertainment is an Industry (2, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063519)

"Milking a franchise" for writers/producers/distributors is like re-using bits of code for developers. It worked once, and with only a little bit of tweaking, it will work again. If you can bill twice for something you've already written, you do it. Obviously.

Entertainment *can* be art, like code *can* be poetry, but mostly it's not. People gotta eat.

Re:They just can't leave well alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29063575)

As a series BG is perfect , one of the best Sci Fi series in a generation.

Yes, throw away the second half of the last series and this is true.

Re:They just can't leave well alone (1)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063753)

"perfect" is far too generous. It was VERY good in parts; it was also absolutely dire on occasion and the ending was a complete betrayal of the sci-fi fanbase (IMO of course). For me, it would have been perfect if they had decided the show was sci-fi at heart; instead they decided to write a space opera.

Re:They just can't leave well alone (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29063819)

Caprica will flop. The bulk of the people making up the BSG viewer base are not going to be interested in YATA (yet another teen angst) show.

In other words (5, Insightful)

Mag7 (69118) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063241)

Larson hated the new series

Re:In other words (4, Interesting)

pmontra (738736) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063321)

I can believe it as it was about the opposite in spirit of what the original one was. Actually I don't know what Larson tough about the new BSG but Dirk Benedict didn't like it [dirkbenedictcentral.com] . Personally I enjoyed both shows, I hope the movie will be as good as them.

I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it (5, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063391)

Just sounds like sour grapes to me. This isn't the 1970s anymore - TV series (well, the upmarket ones) need people who can actually act well, not just stand on their mark looking good. ANd I don't think anyone could accuse Benedict of being the worlds best actor - calling him wooden would be unfair to the pine desk I'm typing this at.

Re:I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063599)

This isn't the 1970s anymore - TV series (well, the upmarket ones) need people who can actually act well, not just stand on their mark looking good.

Well, that is true... but there's some gaps today too -- Tricia Helfer and Grace Park for example. They ain't winning any acting awards this side of hell freezing over. TnA casting all the way.

Re:I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it-NOT (4, Insightful)

Meditato (1613545) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063623)

I'm a child of the late 80s and 90s, and I grew up watching Star Trek DS9 and later spending my teenage years watching the newer BSG series. So out of curiosity, I went back and watched the old BSG... There's a reason they did a rebooted series and not something based off the old one. Because the old one is a piece of crap. It was morally simplistic, hokey, ripping too much off Star Wars, too Mormon (Larson is a Mormon), and requiring too great a suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy.

Re:I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it-NOT (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063723)

Unfortunately Sci fi is a genre that doesn't age well unless its done *really* well. Cheap sets, tacky costumes, poor technology (sorry , a wardrobe with flashing lights and some tapes spinning doesn't cut it in 2009) and bad acting end up making something made in the 70s or 80s almost comical now. One of the few exceptions I can think of is Space 1999 (not sure if the yanks ever got that) which I watched last year and though it looked a bit dated the effects somehow still worked and Martin Landau was/is a fscking good actor.

Re:I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it-NOT (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063897)

I caught an episode of UFO [wikipedia.org] once. From a modern perspective it wasn't great but I could almost watch it - until one of the shots where the actors were wearing space helmets and bell-bottoms. I just couldn't take it seriously after that.

IMO Gerry Anderson should have stuck to puppets. I know it was always his ambition to do live-action, but supermarionation was what he did best. Thunderbirds has barely aged at all.

Re:I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it-NOT (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064065)

"Thunderbirds has barely aged at all."

Agreed. I guess its because its puppets which makes it almost cartoon like and cartoons generally age much more slowly than live action.

Re:I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it-NOT (2, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064245)

Problem is every time I watch any of the Thunderebirds I keep having a song run through my head...

"america...... America..... America F Yeah! here we come to save the mutherfin day now......"

Thunderbirds is forever changed now...

Re:I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it-NOT (1)

MistrX (1566617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063925)

An sci-fi example of something really done well: Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Re:I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it-NOT (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063971)

Actually after hearing all my life about how great that movie is, I tried to watch it last year. I might it about half way through before the cheesiness (especially the soundtrack) was too much to bear. Sometimes I think people who saw the original before it was outdates simply view it later with different standards than people watching for the first time.

Re:I bet he'd have liked it if he'd been in it-NOT (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064329)

You know what bothered me about the original BSG?

The colonials capture Baltar and two Cylons. Cylons are certainly self aware, but they basically take them to bits to see how they work. Later on they put them back together and the Cylons are malfunctional and the humans joke about it. And even when I was nine it struck me that "how funny would humans find it if the Cylons had done the same thing to a human, i.e. chopped her up, put her back together and her IQ was permanently impaired by the abuse". In the old series it seemed the people writing it were just too brutish to think of this sort of thing. I mean if you're something not obviously human and they captured you in a war then God help you basically. The whole thing seemed to be highly disturbing, especially as in the real world humans have regarded other races/nations as subhuman quite recently.

Say what you like about the new series and in retrospect it was a lot of portentous nonsense that seemed to hint at a depth that it didn't have, but at least the people writing it didn't seem to be capable of vivisecting their prisoners Mengele style and then joking about the fact that the prisoners are messed up by the experience.

Re:In other words (1)

ted.hansson (877542) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063487)

That was quite possibly the most bitter rant I have ever read. I would recommend Dirk a good therapist, but I'm afraid it might be a woman.

Re:In other words (1)

mwbeatty (1401881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063619)

Richard Hatch hated it too until they gave him a recurring role on the show. I wonder what Benedicts stance would have been if they had approached him for a guest role? I was a big fan of the re-imagined series so after the series was over, I thought I would revisit the original just for a lark. Maybe it was too soon and unfair to compare the two but jeez the original BSG was a real stinker. I made it through two episodes before I turned the whole thing off and returned the discs. I guess it's true that "you can't go home again"

Re:In other words (1)

MistrX (1566617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063631)

I think Mr. Benedict stayed in the 70's for some reason. Times change and culture comes with it. For example feminism brought far more productivity in most companies.

Re:In other words (2, Interesting)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064197)

Dirk Benedict may not have liked it, but Richard Hatch actually had a proposal for a sequel to the original series. He has a demo tape with some awesome footage that is everything you would expect from the original series. I got to see it a few years ago when he came to a convention I was at. (And how can you go wrong with a sequel to a show that killed off an '80s pop singer in the first episode?)

Article [scificool.com]

Youtube [youtube.com]

However, the people with the big money wanted to do Boobiestar Galactica, and denied him the rights. (At least they let him have a part.)

Re:In other words (1)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063429)

"Larson hated the new series"

Sounds like a a developer that get his/her code forked and improved x100 :)

Re:In other words (1)

briareus (195464) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064099)

Larson hated the new series

You mean the Larson responsible for the atrocity known as Battlestar Galactica 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactica_1980)? Was there not enough silly time travel missions? Not enough disco? Somehow I don't really care much what Larson thinks.

Side Effect (1)

Zarjazz (36278) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063301)

Even if this is completely unrelated to the SyFy series, Singer is not a small name in the movie business. So if it gets more people interested enough to watch the TV show, I can't say it's a bad thing.

Frak Singer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29063353)

Let's not forget, Singer screwed Superman...

Re:Frak Singer (1)

ethicalBob (1023525) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063967)

Let's not forget, Singer screwed Superman...

Why was this modded down? it was unfortunately true... (I did not write the above post, but happen to agree).

Whore that brand (2, Insightful)

trawg (308495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063381)

Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] talks about milking brands.

I loved the new BSG series - one of the things I've enjoyed doing most involving a screen in the last several years. But this just seems like a really shameless attempt to get more money out of me. At least let a couple years pass; I can't even buy all the episodes of BSG on DVD yet.

Re:Whore that brand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29063559)

I can't even buy all the episodes of BSG on DVD yet...

I just did. They have been super cheap in this part of the world. (And no, I did not copy or burn them).

Don't have high hopes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29063411)

After they managed to mess up the finale of the series completely, I think we shouldn't have high hopes for the film at all.

Yeah another paradox (4, Funny)

pariahdecss (534450) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063433)

Let me guess a bizarre time paradox will result in an alternate reality, allowing them to re-imagine the series. Where have I seen that before?

Caprica (1)

MistrX (1566617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063529)

This is a nice addition but I really can't wait for Caprica the series comming out in 2010. The pilot was great IMHO!

All of this ... (5, Funny)

bdraschk (664148) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063673)

All of this was re-imagined before and it will be re-imagined again.

Re:All of this ... (3, Funny)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064199)

There are many copies!

Good thing too (2, Funny)

mlush (620447) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063681)

I don't think I could take BSG shakeycam footage on a big screen!

They're missing the whole point. (-1, Troll)

donnacha (161610) | more than 4 years ago | (#29063845)

the new movie will not be related to the recently concluded SyFy Network series.

FAIL.

Ah crap! (2, Interesting)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064123)

Ok, when the NEW BSG came out, I was like...is this a continuation, is this a complete do over ...how is it going to work...
They came up with a sort of nice way to begin the series as say they left then came back...

Now they are saying they are going back to the drawing board again....why? More importantly, are they going to keep Starbuck?
She is hot!

Aim between (2, Interesting)

Funky Weasel (1618185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064171)

I'm in a seeming minority that enjoyed the old show that, admittedly, I grew up with and BSG 2004.

The former was a product of the times but suffered the same sort of flaws that would happen in similarly targeted family-friend shows of today - it had it's own Annoying Kid/Jar Jar (Boxy and Muffet the robot-ape-dog-thing), shocking techno-blags, appalling support actors (not to mention somewhat teak-like main actors). But there was always a sense of prevailing optimism, and heroes were heroes as opposed not dysfunctional man-children, an obligatory alcoholic main cast member, or psychotic nymphomaniacs.

Whilst the latter sometimes degenerated into misery TV - the point often missed in dark series is that against a background of apparent despair hope shines all the more brightly, increasing the poignancy of the moment. There was more of a sense of life aboard a naval vessel than the flying plastic city of the 1970s complete with pastelles.

My hope is that the new motion picture aims somewhere between the optimistic heroics, campness and suspciously Mormon-like super-aliens of the original; and the grim, dystopic, occasionally rapetastic recent series.

Re:Aim between (1)

coolmoose25 (1057210) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064373)

I, too, liked the original series, and the re-imagined one. I even liked the ending. Prevailing wisdom says this means I have no taste...

And I agree that they are essentially the same premise done under two different world views. The original was the classic hero odyssey, politically right wing ("Sometimes the opposite of war is not peace, the opposite of war is slavery"), family values type of fare - space opera and simple at its roots. The re-imagined series was exactly the opposite - there were no clear heroes, or at least likable ones, politically left wing or at least humanist in nature, and examined the question of what it was like to be human. At times during the series, I was rooting for the Cylons. Human nature at its worst is explored, and human nature at its best has little representation.

So trying to do something in between is the equivalent of trying to have your cake and eat it too. It will be monumental and frankly Larson is not up to it. If he is really producing (instead of pseudo-advising like he did in the re-imagined series), it will end up like the original. And even if he did manage to pull it off, you'd find an even smaller minority than you and me who like it. In short, I'm not sure the in between option is possible, and even if it is, it won't be popular.

Singer already tried this. (1)

dschuetz (10924) | more than 4 years ago | (#29064317)

Nine years ago, Singer was working on a made-for-TV adaptation of BSG, but it got delayed and died and eventually Fox "lost interest" in the project.

So rather than sitting back and saying, "Well, Ronald D. Moore got lucky and did great, good for him!", Singer's got time now and is probably thinking "Hey, I can make a lot of money on this!" I'll bet whatever he does is based on the work from 2000. Or maybe it's Larson saying "Hey, I hated that re-imagining, let's see if Singer's still interested and I can make some coin on a movie instead!" Either way, it's the wrong reason to make a movie.

I don't have high hopes for this. RDM's BSG was one of the best TV series I've ever seen, and there's no way Singer will be able to even approach it. Especially after the Superman debacle.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...