Beta
×

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!

SciFi Channel To Air A New Galactica Series

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the production-values dept.

175

EvilBuu writes "The Sci-Fi Channel has begun airing ads announcing a full Battlestar Galactica series following the surprisingly (to some) good new mini series starring Edward James Olmos. Looks like it will be a straight forward continuation of the mini, with the same cast and more Cylon goodness!" According to this press release, Richard Hatch will guest star, and the show will air starting in January 2005.

cancel ×

175 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Welcome to February (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914129)

Re:Welcome to February (2, Informative)

Omega1045 (584264) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914457)

I have seen the ads on since the season premiere of SG-1, which was a month ago. This story is seriously dated.

March called... (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914479)

It wants it's dupe back.

D'oh! (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914493)

That apostrophe really shouldn't be there in my parent post. That's what you get when you visit Slashdot after a long, hot Sunday spent plastering and sanding walls rather than catching some sun.

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914131)

i want to have rough sex with lynndie england

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914154)

that woman is so goddamn ugly... uuuggghhh

FP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914133)

FP wooo!

Previews... (1)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914143)

...can be misleading from time to time, but i gotta say this looks like it's going to be very nice for the eyes :) i know, i know, that won't carry everything, but meh, i think it'll be fun to watch :)

Re:Previews... (3, Insightful)

Nishal (636649) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914196)

the cylons are supposed to be robots dammit..robots!!!!!

no mas no mas! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914146)

Granted, I wasn't old enough to have watched the original Galactica (I'm not even 30 yet), but I did watch part of the mini-series and was thoroughly bored. Why they're going to make a regular series out of it, I'll never know.

One thing I *do* know is that as good as Stargate SG-1 is, it pisses me off that Stargate gets 8 seasons and counting *AND* a spinoff while Farscape got three years and change with an abrupt axing without doing the characters justice in the "ending".

That was enough to tick me off originally. But then Sci-Fi made it worse by continuing with that idiot John Edwards who "talks to stupid people"... oh - and supposedly their dead loved ones too (*cough* cold read *cough*). And then they had those two retarded "dream experts" that made everything in their show about *sex*. Sci-Fi is turning into the fucking LifeTime network. Then that terrible "Taken" by Spielberg (or lucas - I can't seperate the two anymore) and then that attrocious three hour guerilla marketing (disguised as a documentary) for The Village which investigated how M. Night Shyamalan is really some sort of voodoo shaman kind of guy with magical powers really did me in for good.

I canceled my cable last week due specifically to my dislike for the Sci-Fi network. I'll put that $120/mo into something more worth while and any shows that I deem worthy enough to waste my time watching, I'll just grab from bit torrent.

Anyway, back to the original point. What is it with Battlestar Galactica? It's about as exciting and interesting as that really crappy "Dark Shadows" series (and don't even get me started on the Mormony Goodness of the show). Is it just that SciFi couldn't find the funding for their 400th Sci-Fi Original movie about killer bees, killer anacondas, killer bats, killer dragons, killer spiders, killer rats, killer mosquitos, killer cats, or alien viruses?

Re:no mas no mas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914166)

Farscape got 4 seasons

Re:no mas no mas! (1)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914192)

Yow! That was one heck of a comment there, but i do have to agree with some parts of it. Sci-Fi (and cable) in general aren't worth too much of my time. Sci-Fi will play the good flick (proper, not made for tv), but their own shows? Let's just say that i don't cancel anything to watch them (the new BG should be at least pretty though).

As for dropping cable, i just scored a new gig that will pay for broadband and i'm dropping cable (and it's admittedly very reliable internet access) like a fucking rock for DSL immediately. Other than the intarweb, i won't miss much from cable and dsl will pick up the slack.

As for your ending comments, jesus, i have to agree - the lineups for the last few months on the weekends have all been killer-this or killer-that...all poorly made, poorly acted and just...not good. Small plot revolving around a handsome fellow, hot chick (whose makeup rarely smears despite flames, sweat, blowing pretty much everything sight up, etc), and some freak animal variety. Getting kinda old.

Bah, i'll watch the new BG before the cable gets kicked, but i'm not too sure i'll miss cable all that much. i'll miss cnn somewhat though.

Re:no mas no mas! (1)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914231)

"...and the show will air starting in January 2005.

heh...er, guess i won't be watching it then (cable will be a distant item in the house at that time ;-)

Re:no mas no mas! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914208)

What is it with Battlestar Galactica? It's about as exciting and interesting as that really crappy "Dark Shadows" series (and don't even get me started on the Mormony Goodness of the show).

I disagree. I'm a hard sci-fi fan. I occasionally watch sci-fi on TV but for the most part find it dirge that drives me running back to Iain M Banks, Neal Stephenson, Ken McCloud, Vernor Vinge, Peter F Hamilton et al.

Anyway, my point is (the new) Battle Star Galactica is VERY well written. It passes the golden rules of good Space Opera (no plot holes, an imaginative but beliebable universe, character driven) with flying colours and bar Firefly is about the only decent (non-Japanese) scifi to appear in the last decade.

c

Re:no mas no mas! (2, Insightful)

iantri (687643) | more than 10 years ago | (#9915001)

Anyway, my point is (the new) Battle Star Galactica is VERY well written. It passes the golden rules of good Space Opera (no plot holes, an imaginative but beliebable universe, character driven) with flying colours and bar Firefly is about the only decent (non-Japanese) scifi to appear in the last decade.
*COUGH* Babylon 5 *COUGH*.

Re:no mas no mas! or... "What's up with SG?" (2, Funny)

Wizzy Wig (618399) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914239)

So they turned the McGuyver action hero character central to the SG theme into a desk jockey.... Yeah.. that'll boost ratings as they replace his anger fed machine gun sprees with angst fed stapler accidents.

Re:no mas no mas! or... "What's up with SG?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914264)

I can't figure out why they did that. While the other characters are interesting, they aren't the glue that holds the show together and keeps people watching. If they got rid of his character entirely, the show would fall apart. I suspect that he'll end up back running the show - or will somehow continue to play vital roles in the action parts - however they manage that.

All I could figure is that maybe he has another project he's working on for a few months or a year and needed to have less of a prominance in SG-1 so that he could focus on the other project. Because, as a plot-line, taking your main character out is just stupid.

Of course, SG Atlantis has started up, too. I thought it would suck but I actually like it so far. It could use some hotter chicks, but oh well. I thought it was stupid that they landed Robert Patrick to play one of the marines in the pilot, but then he was killed off in the same episode. When I saw him, I thought he was going to be a regular. That would have been awesome.

StarGate is the only series I'll miss now that I ditched cable TV. I'll probably still download what I can off the net to keep up with it, but... meh. It isn't worth $120/mo just to watch stargate.

Re:no mas no mas! or... "What's up with SG?" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914372)

He's stated that he wanted more time to be with his family/daughter. By taking a lighter role he can hopefully do that.

In the "From Stargate to Atlantis" thing they said that season 7's ending wasn't how they wanted to end the series, and basically implied that season 8 would be it. We'll see.

Re:no mas no mas! or... "What's up with SG?" (2, Interesting)

jx100 (453615) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914398)

That's kind of the same reason why Don S. Davis (Gen. Hammond) left the show entirely. He's had some health problems, and the stress of a shooting schedule wasn't helping. He wanted to spend the rest of his time relaxing with his family.

Re:no mas no mas! or... "What's up with SG?" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914418)

You would think that they could have come up with something more interesting than him becoming a desk jockey then. Maybe he could have somehow played a more vital role to that alien race (the greys who were like.. super super super advanced - and benevolant). And in that, he could have a periodic role, but without the dullness of the desk job thing.

Or maybe they thought the desk job bit was an unexpected twist that would normally not be pursued in a sci-fi show.

I saw the sci-fi special about stargate and the impression I was left with from some of the comments was that the 8th may or may not be the final season. They made it sound like they would continue to do both series simultaneously and didn't really appear to indicate that this *would* be it.

If they do end it, I hope they do the show justice with the ending. I really can't take anymore of this bullshit where we invest an hour every week for most of a decade into a show only to have the producers fuck us in the ass in the last season and feeds is melted cheese rather than tenderloin.

That's what pissed me off about X-Files and Farscape. Invested a lot of time and emotion into those shows and loved both only to have them tossed in the trash without an ounce of respect to the loyal audience that stayed along for the ride all those years.

Re:no mas no mas! or... "What's up with SG?" (1)

Wizzy Wig (618399) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914389)

"I thought it was stupid that they landed Robert Patrick to play one of the marines in the pilot, but then he was killed off in the same episode. When I saw him, I thought he was going to be a regular. That would have been awesome."


Yep. I was disappointed to see him killed off. But with about 40 years of sci fi consumption under my belt - it was refreshing that somebody finally came up with actual scary bad guys in "The Wraith." It would be interesting if - as life sucking immortal monsters - they were also a vampire race, and Patrick came back as one of them.

Re:no mas no mas! (1)

jx100 (453615) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914269)

You know that they're making a miniseries to give Farscape a proper ending? It'll be called "The Peacekeeper Wars"

Re:no mas no mas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914308)

Pointless, if you ask me. You can't cram the final two years of story arc into two or three hours of programming over two nights.

I'll download it from suprnova after it airs - or go to a friends and watch it. NO way in hell I'll pay sci-fi to watch it.

Re:no mas no mas! (1)

lrucker (621551) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914668)

You know that they're [SciFi] making a miniseries to give Farscape a proper ending?

They aren't making it. They have the rights to air it, but they had nothing to do with making it. If it had been up to them, it wouldn't have been made.

Re:no mas no mas! (4, Funny)

pyrrhonist (701154) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914343)

Well, at least you're not bitter about it.

Are you crazy? (1)

fleener (140714) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914347)

Boring? How can you say you found the new Battlestar Galactica boring? It sucked through and through. Didn't you orgasm?

Re:no mas no mas! (1)

NetNinja (469346) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914385)

When you have learned that your shit stinks then comment about Battlestar Galactica. otherwise go play your X-Box

Re:no mas no mas! (3, Insightful)

Daemonik (171801) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914507)

Sci-Fi has a Farscape mini series scheduled for next year too that's supposed to take up from where the series ended.

As for why Sci-Fi schedules the shows that it does, it all comes down to money. Science Fiction shows are expensive and easy to screw up in the eyes of the hardcore audiences that follow them like they're Jim Jones with a fresh batch of kool-aid.

The fact that Sci-Fi has any original programming is pretty cool, but it's far cheaper for them to run 'freak-of-the-week on their way to dvd' movies and 'reality' (*cough* Edwards *cough*) shows than to produce a good science fiction series.

Also, considering that broadcast television has f****d up with Enterprise and couldn't figure out Firefly, a network that goes out on a limb to update a series like Battlestar Galactica, creates 3 Dune mini-series, buys up Stargate and spins off another series, is developing an Earthsea mini and is finally giving Farscape a mini isn't all that bad in my book. At least they're trying dude, which is more than NBC, CBS, FOX or the others can say.

Re:no mas no mas! (1)

steeef (98372) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914558)

The Farscape mini series (The Peacekeeper Wars) is scheduled to begin October 17th, not next year.

Re:no mas no mas! (2)

Luminari (689987) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914633)

  • One thing I *do* know is that as good as Stargate SG-1 is, it pisses me off that Stargate gets 8 seasons and counting *AND* a spinoff while Farscape got three years and change with an abrupt axing without doing the characters justice in the "ending".

Stargate SG1 gets the best ratings the SCI-FI network has ever gotten, and is still breaking it's own records, whereas the original Farscape wasn't getting very good ratings, despite the fact that there is a very devoted fanbase for it. I might also want to note that they are continuing Farscape (and hence correcting their own mistake).

  • That was enough to tick me off originally. But then Sci-Fi made it worse by continuing with that idiot John Edwards who "talks to stupid people"... oh - and supposedly their dead loved ones too (*cough* cold read *cough*). And then they had those two retarded "dream experts" that made everything in their show about *sex*. Sci-Fi is turning into the fucking LifeTime network. Then that terrible "Taken" by Spielberg (or lucas - I can't seperate the two anymore) and then that attrocious three hour guerilla marketing (disguised as a documentary) for The Village which investigated how M. Night Shyamalan is really some sort of voodoo shaman kind of guy with magical powers really did me in for good.

However much you might not like that 'idiot' John Edwards, he gets ratings so they show him. If noone watched it, they wouldn't be playing it.

Like any cable network owned by a large company (and thats basically all of them), the #1 thing they are concerned about is ratings (and hence the ad dollars that result from ratings). All of the tv networks are guilty of cancelling shows before they had a chance to really get started. That is unfortunately the way things work. If you don't like it that way, lobby your congressmen to force a breakup of large media companies, because thats the only way to reverse what is happening now...

Re:no mas no mas! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914756)

1) Farscape actually got very good ratings but the cost of production was still insane. If they had done a bit more to pump up the show and treated it like more of a flagship product than a step-child, they'd have reaped far bigger rewards. Farscape was one of the best pieces of television programming ever. I would put it above everything but perhaps Twilight Zone.

2) Farscape isn't coming back. They're doing a four hour miniseries which breaks down to about 2 hours of programming (and two hours of commercials) on two nights in October. That's hardly "bringing it back".

Re:no mas no mas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914757)

While Stargate SG1 does have great numbers, Farscape's numbers were good. Farscape only went below 1.0 once, and that was in its first season. For the niche programming Sci-Fi offers, those are good ratings. Stargate is getting 2.0+ due to it having grown a fanbase on Showtime and network syndication for five years before moving to Scifi.

Si mas sin mass! (1)

toddhisattva (127032) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914771)

First, you should get an account so I wouldn't be replying to an AC!

That "Mormony Goodness" you lament led me to a deeper understanding of Satan [rr.com] .

I am hoping that the God-worshipping Cylons will similarly [hiddenagenda.org] enrich [hiddenagenda.org] my devotion [hiddenagenda.org] to Satan [hiddenagenda.org] .

Re:no mas no mas! (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 10 years ago | (#9915183)

that idiot John Edwards who "talks to stupid people"... oh - and supposedly their dead loved ones too (*cough* cold read *cough*)

I recall reading about how they would let the guests for the show onto the stage a while before the show started with the microphones live. What do you think the guests would talk to each other about? Possibly about the dead people they are hoping to hear from? Or at least enough information to classify them better to make it more like 'warm reading' than 'cold reading'.

Let's just hope (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914148)

They don't find the ratings too low and revamp it into Galactica 2006. "Hey, look, we're on Earth now!"

Re:Let's just hope (1)

EtherAlchemist (789180) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914189)

But at least if they land on earth they can do crossover shows with Stargate.

Re:Let's just hope (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914789)

You mean with the flying motercycles Galactica '80-style? "CHiPs in Spaaaace!"

If you've watched the SciFi Channel (1, Flamebait)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914149)

They've been advertising this for months.

The mini-series didn't suck anywhere near as much as I thought it would. It was actually pretty good. But then, considering how horrible the original series was, there was nowhere to go but up.

Re:If you've watched the SciFi Channel (1)

Malacon (761384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914199)

I thought I was the only one to realize this Why is this news? The ad campaign for the Farscape Miniseries is more recent than this one...

Re:If you've watched the SciFi Channel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914341)

It's news because no one really watches SciFi channel anymore and it's the beginning of August.

re the beggining of August is when the main TV channels change their schedules, do even more reruns, and put up even more useless crap, so people get bored, so they channel surf a bit more. Someone was probably watching a SciFi show for the first time in months and saw the ad, thinking it was new.

Hell, I found out that the ads for Farscape and Battlestar were running online, before I ever saw it on the tube. It's amazing how much they've screwed up that channel.

Re:If you've watched the SciFi Channel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914382)

Just out of curiosity, could you name your top 10 favorite television series?

(yes, I'm setting you up.)

Re:If you've watched the SciFi Channel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914481)

I've listed eleven of them - but they aren't so much my "top 12 favorite of all time" as they are... well... the only 11 that I could really even think of that I liked at all. I'm in my mid 20's and wasn't allowed to watch television when I was young so I've only had from my teens onward to build up "television experience" on. Even with that, I'm not a big TV watcher (except for news and science shows).

I would classify the first 8 or 9 as favorites - as in I really really enjoy them. The rest, I would classify as "things I've watched a lot of and gone out of my way to see". But it should also be noted that they are also the only 12 shows I've really watched with any interest - even if it was only a mild interest. For example, I've only seen four episodes of Futurama.

Dark Angel looked like it would suck, but I wound up loving it. I'm not sure if I loved it for the plot and action or if I just convinced myself that I did, because Jessica Alba is fucking hot.

+ X-Files (the first five years)
+ Farscape
+ Dr. Who
+ Stargate SG-1
+ M.A.S.H.
+ Millenium
+ Simpsons/Futurama
+ Twilight Zone / Outter Limits
+ Lexx
+ Dark Angel
+ Brisco County Junior
+ Sliders

And a year from now... (2, Funny)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914160)

I'll be cancelled.

Yeah, this is flamebait, but that doesn't change its veracity.

Re:And a year from now... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914172)

No, it won't.

The way Sci-Fi operates is to promote and retain shitty programs while terminating the truly great ones. The only exception to this ever has been Stargate SG-1.

Re:And a year from now... (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914256)

maybe you dont understand his post. Let me explain: you're an idiot.

Re:And a year from now... (3, Funny)

Em Ellel (523581) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914367)

I'll be cancelled.

I think you may be cancelled way earlier than that... let me make a few phone calls.

(sorry, could not resist)

Nostalgia (3, Insightful)

Moderation abuser (184013) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914177)

Am I the only one who finds the fact that nostalgia is driving the current Science Fiction series aired to be supremely ironic?

Re:Nostalgia (2, Insightful)

Daemonik (171801) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914562)

Am I the only one who finds the fact that nostalgia is driving the current Science Fiction series aired to be supremely ironic?

Considering that many of the sci-fi staples are either already here or have been discredited and that older series have a built in audience versus the financial risk of developing a new series that might not find an audience it doesn't surprise me in the least that many 'new' series are retreads of old shows.

Also, unlike the audiences of the past who had an optimistic, childlike view of the future, most people today are extremely cynical of technology and it's impacts on our future.

Richard Hatch? Oh no (3, Funny)

bravehamster (44836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914181)

God, I hope he keeps his clothes on this time. And Olmos better watch out, or he'll find that everyone has voted him off the Galactica

*yes I know it's a different Richard Hatch.

Re:Richard Hatch? Oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914201)

No, it's the same one.

Richard Hatch? (0, Offtopic)

Shky (703024) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914200)

One trick pony. He was only good on Survivor.

Re:Richard Hatch? (1)

jsheedy (772604) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914238)

I am surprised he even agreed to do a guest spot seeing he bashed the direction the new series was going to follow( Like a female Starbuck/Boomer). It will be interesting to see his comments after he does his part.

Re:Richard Hatch? (1)

cybpunks3 (612218) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914671)

I think he's doing it because this is his only opportunity to work as an actor. I think the guy is an okay actor but for whatever reason his career is over aside from anything related to Galactica. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0368745/

Re:Richard Hatch? (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914823)

He does seem to have put a lot of work into it. His site [richardhatch.com] and his other site [battlestargalactica.com]

It just ain't the same without Lorne Green! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914204)

a full Battlestar Galactica series following the surprisingly (to some) good new mini series starring Edward James Olmos.

Okay, we were obviously not watching the same show...

Richard Hatch? (3, Funny)

PeterChenoweth (603694) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914214)

Oh thank god it's not the Survivor Richard Hatch. [richhatch.com]

Terrible nightmares of naked homosexual Cylons hell-bent on manipulating the universe...

Re:Richard Hatch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914368)

Terrible nightmares of naked homosexual Cylons hell-bent on manipulating the universe...


You mean they're not?

Re:Richard Hatch? (1)

lrucker (621551) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914738)

Terrible nightmares of naked homosexual Cylons hell-bent on manipulating the universe...

You mean they're not?

Homosexual? No. Naked? Yeah [ugo.com]

Re:Richard Hatch? (3, Funny)

bnenning (58349) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914786)

Terrible nightmares of naked homosexual Cylons hell-bent on manipulating the universe...

Provided the Cylons in question are portrayed by Tricia Holfer [maximonline.com] and Grace Park [galactica2003.net] , I have no problem with that scenario.

Bah! (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914215)

Bring back Mystery Science Theater 3000 ;)

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914282)

No kidding - if sci-fi wants to make lots of money by producing extremely low-budget shows that draw lots of viewers, you couldn't do better than MST3K. Cheap shitty movies that probably cost less to license than a pack of gum, a couple plastic puppets, a dude, a cheesey script and you're set.

Lost all interest.. (5, Interesting)

leathered (780018) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914217)

I loved BG as a child and I recently watched some re-runs for the first time since, all I can say is that the original series have not aged well, the whole thing looks cheesy and very early-80s. The scripting is laughable on occasions.

Contrast this to when I saw repeats of Dr Who, Blake's 7 etc from the same era. They seemed to have aged very well like a good wine, and despite some very dubious sets and sfx they make you realise that it's the quality of writing that make shows like these a classic.

Old news... (5, Informative)

Orne (144925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914272)

They've been showing previews for it since the Stargate SG1/Atlantis season premier weekend... and pretty much every other hour of the day... can't miss it.

Also of note:

Farscape is coming back as Farscape: Peacekeeper Wars [scifi.com] . Old News [slashdot.org] .

New series based on Ursula K LeGuin's EarthSea [scifi.com] coming in December. Old News [slashdot.org] .

Firefly is coming back in movie form as Serenity [imdb.com] next summer. Old News [slashdot.org] .

SciFi channel is also contemplating a Larry Niven Ringworld [cinescape.com] miniseries. Old News [slashdot.org] .

And most likely, there's going to be another 8 or so Tremors spinoffs...

Re:Old news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914298)

Just a note that Farscape is NOT coming back. It's just going to have a 4 hour miniseries. The show had a couple more years (at least) left to the main story arc when it was unjustly axed, so they're going to "compromise" by cramming some silly resolution to everyone's problems in two evenings worth of programming - and then *maybe* a movie down the road. Seems odd.. if there is such a desire from people to see a Farscape miniseries and a farscape movie, you would think they'd realize that there would be an interest in bringing the ACTUAL FUCKING SHOW back. Hell, they still show reruns of it enough.

As for EarthSea.. meh. Ursula K LeGuin is interesting reading .... if you're eight years old.

Firefly.. meh. I watched two episodes. It struck me as "Brisco County Junior... in space... without Bruce Campbell". I never understood the excitement of it.

Bring it on! (1)

canolecaptain (410657) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914278)

I was frankly surprised by a few events during the mini series, and I'm looking forward to the new season. However, now that they've shown us the 6 (ahem)chassis models, we know who the bad guys are. How many episodes can they go using that suspicion as a fundamental backdrop in the story line ... 3-5? Hopefully it won't turn into a lame attempt at a series ala Voyager, Deep Space 9, Enterprise.

I'm hoping for something more like Babylon 5 but moving through space...

"Human Cylons" are a mistake... (5, Interesting)

Hanno (11981) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914283)

...I saw the mini-series and yes, it was surprisingly good. I really really liked it. I liked that they avoided a lot of sci-fi cliches, except one.

So let's face, the invention of human cylons is a big horrible mistake and one of the worst sci-fi cliches ever. Obviously, they wanted to save on the CGI-effects budget and wanted to avoid cheesy robot costumes. So they came up with human-looking cylons. The pilot movie made it clear that the following series will revolve around the question which of the Galactica crew members is actually a cylon, possibly without even knowing about it.

But I see no suspense whatsoever from a plot point that was innovative in 1927's "Metropolis" but that has been worn off ever since: Is that person human or isn't it? Am I talking to the original or not? The idea of non-human enemies posing as humans to subvert the human forces has been done to death by every incarnation of Star Trek and practically almost every other sci-fi show ever made. I see no new idea coming from this. Too bad.

I just wish they would have avoided that and come up with some non-cheesy robot cylons.

Re:"Human Cylons" are a mistake... (4, Funny)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914402)

Actually, I can imagine that no-name cylons would be cheaper -- no need to pay a recurring actor/actress since anyone can don a costume and continue... Plus I seem to recall that the identity of the Cylon infiltrators was already known... Unless the lookaline happens to have been the human from which they cloned the appearance...

For my predictions:
A cylon becomes a 7-of-9; that is, it integrates into human culture. There will be some episodes where it reverts back to its roots, but somehow, through sheer human (ha) will, overcomes its mechanical nature. A human crewmember falls in love with the Cylon.

A Cylon and a human get trapped on a planet. They need to overcome their differences in order to survive. Someone insults Mickey Mouse. One says, "Picard in big chair, turning."

A human infiltrates Cylon HQ by mimicking Capt. Kirk's robotic delivery: Jones....Jones.....Cannot....keep....straight....f ace..

A crew member dies in an early episode but reappears in a later one as the son/daughter/doppelganger. Time travel may be involved. Or cloning. Or, egads, Cylons replicating. They'll call him Duncan. Duncan Idaho. Or Tasha if it's a she.

A gay space pirate named Sonny Crockett appears. He seems to know the captain from way back... Rumors float and some light-hearted banter.

Re:"Human Cylons" are a mistake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914867)

A mighty empire will fall!

Re:"Human Cylons" are a mistake... (0, Troll)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914424)

Disappointing? Yes. But it shouldn't come as a surprise. For some reason (bad) Sci Fi producers seem to like making the enemy have personality - someone you can talk to. Just look at the terrible things they did to the Borg in Star Trek : First Contact. The idea of having an enemy be just a force that's Out There(tm) and not interactive just doesn't occur to some people.

Not just bad producers, bad writers. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914640)

There are all kinds of antagonists to use.
I believe the current crop of writers and producers just don't understand the protagonist/antagonist concept.

Example:
#1. Man, stranded in the snow, struggles to find shelter.
-vs-
#2. Man, stranded in the snow, struggles to find shelter from evil ice wizard's storm.

There's a huge difference between the two.

With the Borg, they were initially introduced as #1. They were impersonal.

Then, with the addition of the Borg Queen, they became #2.

"The idea of having an enemy be just a force that's Out There(tm) and not interactive just doesn't occur to some people.

But a force does make for a better antagonist in some situations. You cannot argue with it, persuade it, find out why it doesn't like you, etc.

I think the problem is that the writers/producers don't WANT anything to be BIGGER than their characters. The antagonist must have a voice and you must be able to tell when it has been defeated.

Humans vs Cylons:
Easy back in the 80's. People worried about losing their jobs to machines. Now we worry about being replaced by some guy in India. Robots from outer space just are not that effective as a generic threat now.

The other thing I found disappointing is how the writers never let any of the humans make a wrong decision.

#1. Must abandon the slower ships to be killed by the Cylons. But right then the Cylons show up so it isn't "abandon", it becomes "escape".

#2. "Bad" human guy tries to shift suspicion away from him by blaming an innocent person. But the "innocent person" turns out to be a robot.

Re:"Human Cylons" are a mistake... (1)

DevlinInTheBlueMoonl (803597) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914615)

I was also unimpressed with the human Cylons, especially since they look to be the dominant form of Cylon that we'll be seeing in the series. And why bother CG'ing them at all? Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing the clunky old versions, even if they do look cheesy. It wouldn't be hard to update them a bit, and then they wouldn't look any worse than the stormtroopers in Star Wars. With the large number of scifi series out there competing for a relatively small market share, BG must have and should have been banking on nostalgia to pull people in. By removing the nostalgia with this and so many other changes, I think they're consigning themselves to the status of 'just another scifi show on some cable channel.'

Re:"Human Cylons" are a mistake... (1)

Mordaximus (566304) | more than 10 years ago | (#9915027)

I just wish they would have avoided that and come up with some non-cheesy robot cylons.

There were non-cheezy robot cylons, we didn't get to see much of them though. Just a little at the beginning. Actually, from what I saw of them they look pretty freaking cool.

Re:"Human Cylons" are a mistake... (2, Funny)

Jetson (176002) | more than 10 years ago | (#9915167)

The pilot movie made it clear that the following series will revolve around the question which of the Galactica crew members is actually a cylon, possibly without even knowing about it.

That would be Rick Deckard, right?

New BG... (0, Troll)

BigZaphod (12942) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914286)

I thought the miniseries was stupid. Maybe I'm missing something. It seems a lot of people liked it, though. I thought it was shallow, cheesy, and a sorry attempt to use sex to sell it half the time. I just couldn't get into it for some reason. In fact, I hardly remember anything about it. To me, that's a decent sign it wasn't very good. But.. maybe I'm just missing something. I didn't watch the original BG growing up, so perhaps that has something to do with it.

Re:New BG... (1)

dtungsten (445338) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914887)

I watched the original, and I couldn't get past the first 5 minutes of the new one - not because it was different from the original - but because it was f'ing stupid. They're supposed to be having this special 'treaty' meeting, or something, and the woman (presumably cylon in human form) starts the meeting by sitting on his lap! I said to my self, "I she kisses him next, I'm outta here!" I want those 5 minutes back Sci-Fi!

The Homer inside me sais: (1)

nabil_IQ (733734) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914295)

Woohooooooooooooo!

(Yawn) That's nice (1)

slickwillie (34689) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914326)

But what about Farscape?

[And what the fuck is this? I think /. people are taking themselves too seriously. Bad posting indeed!]

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are

Re:(Yawn) That's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914391)

Yeah, I got that for about two months, too. Mind you - I am the ONLY person who lives here and I am the ONLY person that uses the computer, internet or slashdot here. And I hadn't posted a single message to Slashdot in WEEKS if not MONTHS.

Yet, somehow, my IP was banned for the last two months (until just this week in fact).

I emailed "moderation@slashdot.org" to complain and ask what was up and all I got back was a "well, someone from your location must have been abusing their posting ability on slashdot". That's just ridiculous. As I told them in the email - NOBODY ELSE IS HERE AND I HAD NOT POSTED IN WEEKS!

Normally, I wouldn't have given a shit. But I had just recently renewed my "slashdot subscription" and it pisses me off that I was forbidden from posting to slashdot almost the entire duration of my subscription and that all I got from slashdot staff was essentially an "oh well - fuck off".

I'll never subscribe to slashdot again.

Excuse me, but ... (1)

BobSutan (467781) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914339)

This is news how? There shouldn't be a single geek out there that hasn't been aware of this for months now.

Looking forward to this (1)

dmacdonald (699877) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914356)

The mini was one of the best pieces of SciFi that I've seen in a long, long time. I only hope that they're able to maintain the standard on a weekly basis. Anyone who hasn't seen this miniseries should seriously look into it. It's too bad that there's so much negativity surrounding this project, mainly from supporters of the original series.

This is the worst repost I have ever seen on /. (1)

loggia (309962) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914412)

Asking once again, add the ability to meta moderate the people who post stories.

It is just getting ridiculous. The reposts have gone from sad, to so sad it is funny, to so sad it is just... sad.

New Material (1)

svenvder (778211) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914414)

This is just wonderful. maybe now they can put some new material into the show. I mean is it just me or watching the same thing with better cg and starbuck as a girl. Of course i could be wrong and we could get the same old stuff. Who knows the kids beingg able to jump 10times higher than regular earthilings might make another appearance. Well heres to new material that wont suck.

Screw the show! Where are the tie-in TOYS?! (2, Funny)

IronChefMorimoto (691038) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914470)

Dammit! Screw Edward James Olmos and his pock-faced character. To hell with that lebian-ish looking chick that plays Starbuck, forever ruining the original series' mac daddy version of Starbuck (who later trolled the A-Team series). I don't care that the 2nd of two black guys from the original series has been turned into an Asian woman...that might actually be a humanoid Cylon fabricated for the sheer ease of reducing the CGI effects budget!

WHAT ABOUT THE DAMNED TOYS?!

I want my little Galactica starfighter back -- from when I was only about 6 or 7 years old. I want figures to put into the starfights -- ones WITHOUT arms that bend at the elbows wrists. They better have less arm/leg motion than a Barbie doll on downers! I want the toys to require batteries so I can keep replacing them over and over again -- JUST TO HEAR THE CHEEZY LASTER BLASTER SOUNDS!

Oh -- and I want a Cylon fighter this time. My brother got a Lincoln Log set last time I owned Galactica toys, and dammit -- it's time I had my Cylong fighter! Fuck you, bro -- let's see how your "cabin" fairs against my army of silver badass Cylons! :-p

IronChefMorimoto

Ponderosa in space (3, Funny)

baomike (143457) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914540)

Do I really want more?
Maybe the Cylons and Daleks can once and for always
make space safe for inorganics.

Re:Ponderosa in space (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914902)

Umm, the Daleks do have an organic component, as did the Cylons in the original movie release (only in Canada eh) and book.

Re:Ponderosa in space (1)

baomike (143457) | more than 10 years ago | (#9915101)

You're right.
Lets hear it for the cybermen!!!!

I do not care.. (1)

noselasd (594905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914560)

As long as they don't stop StarGate.

I enjoyed the new BSG (3, Insightful)

beldraen (94534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914582)

Unfortunately, I think most people are just not going to "get it." I had a discussion with a friend who is the true "but this isn't like the original show, so it sucks!" The most fascinating thing about of this series is the fact that the Cyclons are now human. The pilot ended up with some great philosophical (for the Slashdot crowd, this won't work because it requires thinking about other positions than your own, I know..) ideas and plot points:

-- Are the Cyclons more human that we are? Can they have all their emotions without being socially destructive? Or, are they less human because they are so reigned in? Do they have freewill? Can they have freewill and yet also be sleeper programmed?
-- Is Baltar just psychologically unsound or did they plan a device in his head? We know that there are at least one other Cyclon on board, but I seriously suspect another. Are they the perpetrators or is Baltar unconsciously being controlled?
-- How will Starbuck deal with having passed Zack? In theory, this should lead to her resignation, but we cannot afford to lose any valuable pilots.
-- How with the X.O. handle his daemons now that his job isn't plush anymore?

This series has a lot more drama to it, which is probably why the "old crowd" doesn't care for it. I can say that the people I know who weren't raised on the old show really like this one.

Re:I enjoyed the new BSG (1)

tarawa (215365) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914728)

Amen man. I loved the new BSG and was cheering when SciFi decided to continue with it. You are correct that the two shows left a lot of strong possiblities for plot lines.

I can't wait to watch (and record) the new episoids.

Why doesn't Sci-Fi broadcast old Dr.Who reruns???? (2, Informative)

zymano (581466) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914588)

It's about money .

Dr Who and SciFi channel should be a perfect match.

Re:Why doesn't Sci-Fi broadcast old Dr.Who reruns? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9914730)

You would think so, but they haven't shown Dr. Who on Sci-Fi in over a decade. I suspect that they realize the show is too over-their-heads for the SCi-Fi channels "Scare Tactics / John Edwards" audience.

So... (1)

Zx-man (759966) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914600)

...by the matter, it was a really not-too-fun computer game, why should it be made into a movie?

Great... (3, Funny)

payndz (589033) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914652)

...now what about an update of Buck Rogers In The 25th Century?

"Bidibidibidi, nice ass, Wilma!"

Has begun? Umm you been asleep? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914788)

ive been seeing the damned commercials for months.. Wishing it was just a bad dream..

Man it was a terrible 'mini-series'.. i had hoped that was the end of it..

There are no .. (1)

Akimotos (747459) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914814)

Americans in Ba.... oooh, sorry, wrong Rant.

We can't have a new Galactica. It is simply not possible, so it isn't there. It is all that Win XP SP 2 thing that has gotton into your heads. You all see things that simply aren't there. See. Okay, repeat after me: a new Galactica doesn't exist.

Now, off you go, do something usefull. How about downloading Win XP SP3 at: www.suse.com

Richard Hatch (1)

geek (5680) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914856)

That guy sucked on Survivor All Stars. I mean so what, he's big, he's gay, he's covered in hair, he bit a shark (ok that was kinda cool). Oh wait...... the OTHER Richard Hatch, gotcha.

Sheesh (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 10 years ago | (#9914976)

Either you hate it or you love it. Haven't seen much indifference. I for one welcome our nuclear strike cylon enemy overlords.

robot babes (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#9915093)

with the same cast and more Cylon goodness

You misspelled "goddesses". I agree, we need more of those hot, kissing ambassador models.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>