Actually I only met Lee on set, and although we became friends, we really didn't get a chance to work together as it were. I did my sketches out of Vancouver, and he did his work out of Zoic in L.A.

It is unfortunate I could not have seen the designs through to the modeling phase, but for the most part, I am very happy with the results. There are a few things I would have tweaked, but in this business it is rare that a design turns out the way you envisioned it to.

p.s. ROGUE is on hold. FInancial crisis has postponed the project, unfortunately.

Well, I've just finished a second painting and starting a third. Depending on how things work out, we may go live with the BSG edition of DRAWING ON IMAGINATION in a week or so. I am painting as fast as I can, and I have other responsibilities on my plate too, but rest assured it is looking pretty good so far. Normally, a painting will take me two days of solid work to get the bulk of it done, then, depending on the nature of the piece, I will go in and tweak and polish until I am happy, or it is ripped from my hard drive.

I can tell you that, in addition to the Cylons and Vipers that I designed in the painting above, I have a new take on the Galactica, the Raiders, and a little... surprise.

At this point, I really don't know what the text will be until the art is done. Referencing this thread is a possibility, but we really didn't talk too much about the design aspect of the show.

My website is www.paranoiddelusionsinc.com, however, most of the stuff there is quite old now. I am currently trying to put together a big project (which I cannot really discuss right now until we have the deal in place), but once that is taken care of, the website will be updated with tons more stuff!

In the meantime I'm gonna get me a box of Goobers... anybody need anything from the concession stand?

Hi Mal!

Yes, I agree that most people would not want a campy version of BSG. I think that was my point, actually. It was Callahan's suggestion that TOS was campy and therefore fun. My point was that fun need not be campy, and in this case would serve the project negatively.

Secondly, in regards to revealing the link between the survivors and our own civilization, I was just kicking around how I would have handled the story. I know that TOS did it differently, but just because that was how it was told originally, does not mean that is the only way to tell the story. I just felt that that story point might have been better handled.

re: Playboy centrefolds.... in that case, keep the popcorn. You can watch mankind save itself, while I'll be saving mankind in my own special way...

Hi Eric-

I see the conversation is going strong!

Two points I would like to address from your recent post. Before that, I would like to comment that I believe most of us are pretty much on the same page with your wishes in a quality story/movie!

It is with that in mind that I have to ask, that after everything that has been written here, why you would make a comment like this:

“Sure, TOS was campy. Do you really think the fans want a campy BSG movie?”

I have been conversing with opponents of TOS for nearly six years, and though I outline in no uncertain terms that I do NOT want a reincarnation of TOS to be campy, cheesy and all of the other similar verbiage, it still comes back to the above question. So again, why would you still think that, after reading our comments? I am just curious, where the communication breaks down.

The other comment of yours that caught my eyes is:

“By making so many obvious references to those cultures, you are telegraphing in no uncertain terms that these people eventually made it to Earth and were the beginnings of civilization as we know it. It should always be a possibility, but don't tell me the ending of the story before the movie is finished.”

In the original story there was no doubt that the 13th colony had indeed made it to Earth. The question was, would the Ragtag Fleet find their way to Earth? What would they find if they did? We, as the audience knew that Earth exists, but the characters on the show had to go forward on faith (which was a big part of the show) Sure, by today’s writing standards, this could be done more deeply and meaningfully, and I sincerely hope that any new version will do so, but that was not the style back then.

I’ll still give you popcorn… as long as we agree on those Playboy models! ;)

Oh, and maybe a view of the new art work? :)

Yes, I fully realize that what did not work for me could very well be what made BSG work for others. I am just telling you my personal preference.

I am not against SF and Fantasy at all. In fact I am a big fan of anything that promotes imagination. What I AM against is lazy writing. However, if you want to do a Flash Gordon/rubber monster movie retrospective, I'm all there with my tongue in cheek, but if you think you can rehash those same conventions in this day and age and not expect to be laughed at, well, you're in for a big disappointment.

Sure, TOS was campy. Do you really think the fans want a campy BSG movie?

I can certainly appreciate a fun movie, however, fun should not mean stupid... which is certainly the easy way to go, given the Hollywood scripts of late. The conventions of SF storytelling can be there as long you have a different take on it. To blindly follow those cliches we've seen a hundred times in other movies is just lazy and a waste of time. It takes no brains to produce a formulaic script and if that's your standard of fun, may I suggest (fake sarcasm alert) the bargain bin of your local Blockbuster Video. No, what I am suggesting is that with such a rich history of SF in our culture, we should be able to move forward and make something with imagination and wit. An unconventional idea that produces surprise is infinitely more preferable to me than a mediocre storyline filled with stock elements.

My reference to Cain was not meant to be directly associated with Commander Cain per se. My point was that the usage of a villain named Cain is such a tired cliche, as is any biblical or mythological reference (how many times have we heard "Phoenix Rising"???) that is a cheap attempt to instill a script with a false sense of depth. It's like the class know-it-all who constantly drops pretentious information just to show off how much he knows (see title above). Now, I am not against it if the reference is a crucial part of the story, but do it with subtlety... and do it for a reason.

I did not suggest to do away with the character of Starbuck, I just thought his (or her) name was silly and was just one of a number of elements that relegated the show to a B-movie standard. Moore handled the problem quite creatively by making it her call sign.

As far as the Grecian and Egyptian elements, I fully recognize that it is part of the story, I just thought TOS handled it a little too "on the nose". Those elements should have been dialed back a bit. By making so many obvious references to those cultures, you are telegraphing in no uncertain terms that these people eventually made it to Earth and were the beginnings of civilization as we know it. It should always be a possibility, but don't tell me the ending of the story before the movie is finished.

Besides, those Egyptian-style helmets always looked silly to me.

Er... does this mean I don't get any popcorn now?

Wow. Have to give that one some thought there... You really are trying to make me some enemies, aren't you? Lessee...

A lot of the following points have much to do with my personality and what I find works for me in terms of story, so I may be revealing much about myself without realizing I am doing so. Keep in mind, these are personal preferences and I fully realize that many of you will disagree with me, which is fine, but please respect my right to my opinion, OK?

First off, I would throw away anything that reeks of cheap SF cliches. When BSG was made, it was dotted with cheap comic book-type touches that ring false every time I see them repeated on TV. The name "Starbuck" is as silly as having a villain named "Cain", which has become the standard of any direct-to-video crapfest. See also amphibian (or insectoid) aliens, laser guns, futuristic utopian societies... etc.

The visual references to Roman and Egyptian culture (some may argue this is essential to the whole story, but c'mon... robot centurions with swords?) was always handled quite clumsily. Every time I see the original TV movie it always reminds me of a Cecil B. DeMille biblical epic. In fact, the casting of John Calicos as Baltar always brings Edward G. Robinson in The Ten Commandments to mind.

If I had my way, I would completely do away with the whole religious aspect of the show. TOS was rife with new age and christian themes and imagery (Moore's version handled it differently, but still... lots of spiritual references). I would rather deal with the cold hard reality of finding a new home than pondering the existence of God (or, in the case of BSG, gods).

Which brings me to the "scriptures" which foretell the existence of Earth. The "prophecy" is a mainstay of many SF and fantasy stories.. (see also "The Chosen One") and I find its inclusion to be a sure sign of weak storytelling. I will emit an audible groan and smack my forehead every time it pops up.

I would make the villains truly lethal, not bumbling garbage cans. In fact, why make the Cylons humanoid at all? For the moment, let's stick to the original concept, that they are amphibious aliens in armor (although I have always been more partial to killer robots myself...). We now have the ability to create almost anything we can imagine. If we stick to the humanoid shape, it is less interesting visually and dramatically, and subconsciously everybody is going to be thinking "man in suit".

Next, give them a purpose. I mean a REAL and NASTY purpose, not just "exterminate"... (see SF cliches above). Something worth spanning the galaxy and waging a bloody war for... ("Humans is tasty!").

Lastly, Boxy and Moffit....

You know what? To hell with it... keep Moffit. In fact, if I had my way, I would cast all the characters as chimpanzees in animatronic costumes. Now THAT would be a re-imagining I would see!

Hi Eric,

You know, I said this before, and I really meant it. That painting you did based on on the DeSanto/Singer designs is very cool. It makes me even more excited about what's to come from the Movie.

However, that being said, I've got a question for you. Knowing what we know about Singer and Larson's views regarding BSG, and knowing the intent of the movie in basing it within the TOS Universe, what would YOU like to see in it. Enough so, we can see you parked in the Theatre, with a big bucket of buttered popcorn, cheering as loud as the rest of us. (aside from you working on it, which I should bloody well hope you've been putting out the feelers on that.)

I mean, as I've said, and others have as well, we'd want and expect it to be a bit more serious in tone that the 79 incarnation, albeit with Heroics and a whole lot of excitement and adventure. However, as an Artist, add the colors to this "portrait", the colors that would make it Battlestar Galactica to you.

Well, I'd say both choices, Sugar And Cream versus Black...

Cream ONLY is the way to go.....

hehehe

Eric, I think the differences in what people keep going at depend on venue, or property.

BSG is first and foremost a Space Opera. People that have been pushing for 30 years now for it to be just that.

Is there a place for Moore-vision? The dark, gritty, angsty, dysfunctional, bitter, angry view of the world? Yes. It's a fairly narrow market, and without a stealth marketing team, narrow markets are by their nature not mainstream.

Look at Moore's project Virtuality. 1.5 Million viewers. I'm sorry, but he's lucky Fox didn't pull the plug after the first hour.

RDMBSG didn't fair much better in the ratings numbers, but being on Skiffy, that helped cushion it.

As for the oft heard speech, from Moore, Eick, and their fans "Heroes and Villans that stuff would never sell in the 21st Century." Then how does one explain the success, on a National Network, of a show like Legend of the Seeker? Its a fine show. Mainstream appeal, Heroes, Villans, sword fights (and the Girl who plays Kahlan is H O T, AND She Kicks some serious ass) The Characters aren't by any accounting perfect, the Heroes have their flaws, but they are likeable.

So Yes Eric, I agree with you that there is a place for Moore's style, but maybe that place would be better suited to Lifetime Network, or doing some Gritty Real Crime Drama. Moore seems intent on staying away from the mainstream, which is fine, that's his choice. However, unless he has a good stealth marketing unit working with him on everything he does, he may want to prep for more Virtuality-like responses.

As for Eick, don't get me started on his Bionic Woman.

Now, someone a wee further up thread suggested a middle ground toward the BSG Movie, in regards to the whole darkness versus light thing, and I whole heartedly agree, and have never suggested otherwise. Nor for that matter has any of the TOSers I know.

Now, one thing we will never agree on. Well there are 2, actually.

First. Black Coffee, blech!

Second. Dude, if you call stuff like the painting you posted here a "Doodle", when do you get started on the 21st Century Sisteen Chapel...

Man, your talent and ability have not been in question, one iota.

Great conversation going on!

Eric- First great work! I am a fan!

I finally had to jump into this discussion, in response to your "good people in the worst of times" post.

You are right, that there is not a clearcut line between good guys and bad. But movies have never been meant to be anything other then entertainment and escapism. If one wants to take in the reality of the world, they watch the news, read the paper or go to museums like you did. But let me ask you, do you think Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or even Mother Therisa had any bad moments? I would venture to say yes. But we do not remember them for anything like that, but for the good they did. We have choosen to highlite their positive influences on the world, as opposed to anything negative that they may have done. I say this, because in many ways, movie can be such an inspiration. Instead of focusing "heavily" on the ugliness of humanity, it is possible to present a balanced version, where perhaps even a bit of the positive outshines the negative. People live on hope, and examples of such is a far better teaching tool, then to emphasize the negative. Which is exactly what Moore's show did. In a way, I look at Moore's show as the extreme oposite of TOS. TOS may have been too "happy" and "fun" for some, Moore's show was "dark" and "depressing". Hardly something I want to tune into, when looking for entertainment.
A balance is required and has been requested by the fans of TOS from the beginning. The broken record that is the folks that keep thinking that an update TOS movie will still have the 70s cheese, is a sure sign of someone who is not very sincere in their critiques or open to new possibilities.
But I digress... Again, showing heroic and likeable characters that the audience can root for is not the same as creating a "perfect" and "good" character. There is a balance that can be reached as many many movies have been able to do. That is what many people would like to see.
As for GINO, it was actually on the ropes after the mini, with only the assistance of SKY1 helping it out. But there were numerous inconsistancies both in story and characters, that gave the show only a fringe following for most of its run. When tested on a network channel it did even worse!
I notice that the 2001 DeSanto/Singer version was barely brought up, but it too was going to be darker and more serious in tone. Moore lifted many ideas from that story. But the arguement that Moore's is better then the original becuase of the deeper story-telling has a built in bias to it, in that the nature of storytelling has evolved into what Moore made. There is very little doubt in my mind, that had the DeSanto/Singer pilot been given a go, you would have been able to make the same arguement about it.
Ok, that's it for now.

The 'Battlestar Galactica' movie is a new entity that owes nothing to the versions that have gone before or to the fans that like them. Why don't we wait and see what it is like before we judge it.

Who are we to assume what Singer is planning? Maybe he IS going to revive the disco look! Maybe he IS planning on a big resurgence of star-filter cinematography...

I'm just saying...

Oh yes. I am sure there are good people in the worst of times, but it is not always a clearcut case of "we are the good guys and they are the bad guys". That ideology may have been relevant before, but in this day and age, we have to look with better eyes than that. Yes, it's easy to demonize the other side, especially when you see the atrocities of war being displayed on the news. However, on a recent trip to Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, I took a tour of the War Museum ( a collection of photos and relics from the Vietnam War), and some of the photographs depicted American soldiers doing terrible things that you would never expect a civilized person would ever do. Moore's BSG was not meant to be a flag-waving feel-good view of war but to show that both sides are flawed.... And that, is not an easy message to convey.

I agree with Robert. I really like the new BSG at the start. The dark approach was a breath of fresh air. However, the point that he got to in the first half of the final season was somewhere I had reached in the middle of Season Two. All credit to the show for trying something different and never being predictable, but if I wanted to watch a bunch of humans stabbing each other in the back constantly and basically showing the worst traits of humanity, I'd watch the Six O'Clock News. I couldn't find a single one to admire and got the point where I didn't care whether they lived or died. Where do we get the idea that the worst of times only brings out the worst in people? I'm not saying the BSG didn't have many merits, but it wasn't any more a realistic portrayal of human behaviour than most other SF series. Anyway, if there is a new BSG film, I hope it balances the best of Moore's series with some of the fun of the original. I'm hoping SGU [Syfy's 'friendlier' version of BSG?] will be like that, too.

CIAO

I'm sorry guys, but the original series was what it was: a product of the 70s, that cheese-baked polyester decade of crap cars, bad music and even worse television.

Battlestar was at the epicenter of it. Not only did it tell bad Star Trek stories using cloned Star Wars effects, but it didn't make logical sense either. Two words: Disco planet. Remember when they went to the disco planet? God that was stupid...and looks ridiculous to anyone watching it today.

If they wanna do another one then I say sure, go ahead, but is it going to be a continuation story based off the original series, or are they gonna start from scratch and show the destruction of the colonies again? If it's a full reboot, it might be fine, but if it's a continuation story then it'll just be cheese with cheezewhiz added on top.

First gentlemen thank you for an adult reasoned conversation. Second an important bit of detail, TOS had ratings numbers that would guarantee any other show a second season. In fact nothing ABC put in TOS time slot came close for years in the ratings.

"You like your stories upbeat and hopeful, which is perfectly valid, yet there are others who like the bleak and nihilistic. Neither is wrong, just different"

Unless Hollywood is completely brain dead I believe a film can be made that bridges both style of stories in an exciting PG-13 package. That can all be done within TOS universe and characters which are still iconic.

Hi Callahan,

-re: Seasons 3 & 4. Even at its worst, Moore's show did take chances, which is admirable in this day of cookie-cutter entertainment.

-Caprica's origins as a script is irrelevent. Many successful films have had their Genesis as other unrelated projects: Aliens, for example, started as a script called "Mother" before it ever became associated with the Alien franchise. The fact is, Sci-Fi wanted some way to continue the Galactica storyline... and perhaps, as was the case with TOS/Galactica 1980, at a more economical price point.

-In regards to the original series, a million dollars an episode or not, nobody spends that kind of money unless they thought they could get the ratings to justify it. I would think that the numbers were not low, but not high enough to make it worthwhile.

-The dark and dismal-ness of Moore's show may have turned away some, but that was the tone of the show. I am sure it attracted quite a few too. Not everybody likes light and fluffy either. I suppose I am in that group. I prefer the (as you put it) "Forever Emo" crowd as opposed to the (as I put it) "Forever Elmo" crowd. (Ok, ok, bad joke... don't roast me over a pit of coals for that...)

What it comes down to is a difference in tone. You like your stories upbeat and hopeful, which is perfectly valid, yet there are others who like the bleak and nihilistic. Neither is wrong, just different. When you take charge of a show like this, you follow your instincts and do what you feel is best. Moore may not have been right 100% of the time, but he gets marks from me for not taking the popular route.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing the Larson/Singer project outright without knowing what their intentions are. In fact, I agree that IF there is a good story to tell, then all this will be moot. I am hoping Larson has such a story. All the cool design, special effects, CG, and music won't save it if he doesn't.

p.s. My involvement with Moore's show does not affect my bias towards one production or another. I have worked on many projects that I have felt were crap. However, if you really want to test that theory, lemme work on the Larson/Singer project and we'll see if I like it any more! ;-P

Hi Eric

Let's face it, part of the problem Moore had was the fact that he really didn't have a well thought out "plan". Hense his now infamous "It's the Characters Stupid" comment, and why season 3 & 4 is considered by many to be the worst. The finale being the capper "God Did It".

There's some Realism for ya.

As for Caprica, they simply shoehorned in BSG elements into a pre-existing script. It's origins had nothing to do with BSG. That story could take place in a slightly future setting of Earth, with Caprica City being, well, Vancouver, remove the BSG references, and no one would notice the difference.

As for the TOS's cancellation, it had less to do with ratings than it had to do with $$$. At a Million per episode (in 1979 dollars) it was a huge undertaking. Hence the rushed appearance of G1980. If the show had been canceled based on ratings, as you posit, there never would have been a G1980.

Nor would there have been a Universal Studios Tour attraction Battle of Galactica.

Again, Eric, RDMBSG was never meant for a Mainstream audience, which is the root of it's problem. The Critics may have loved it, but audiences weren't flocking to it, with the exception of the Mini-Series. Once audiences realized how dark and dismal it was, they turned away in droves, and never returned.

Aside from the fact that Glen Larson owned the Theatrical Feature rights to BSG, its total lack of mainstream appeal is precisely why RDMBSG would never have been looked at for Big Budget Theatrical release. Regardless of what the "Forever Emo" crowd would like to believe.

The TOS, of 1979, had it's issues. Many of those being imposed on it by the Television Code, which in 1979 was still very much enforced.

No one, and I repeat NO ONE is saying that the new Feature should be a cotton candy lite recreation of that. The ONLY people that keep repeating that, are the Moore Fans who have been saying that since before Moore's Mini.

However, let me say to you a line many of the Pro-Moore Supporters said repeatedly early on, in defence of Moore's Mini. Only let me use it in regards to the forthcoming Feature.

Give it a Chance, You Might like it.

Just look at the painting you did, which I suspect is based on those DeSanto/Singer Cylons. That looks pretty frigging Cool! (Nice job on the painting, BTW)

Sure, a Larson and Singer version of Battlestar Galactica might not be an angst filled, dysfunction ladened, Emo fest, with Jerky Cameras, and Swish Pans.

However, with a big budget, a good script, top notch ILM level Visual Effects, A-Title Level people at the Production Helm, and some Talented Performers in front of the non-jerky cameras, can you honestly say all that couldn't stack up to RDMBSG?

For me personally, I prefer Heroics to hand-wringing. I prefer a sweeping musical score to conga drums and gregorian chants. Mostly, I prefer Hope to Despair. The TOS, while dark in its subtext, still presented a story of Hope, in spite of adversity. RDMBSG was dark from beginning to end, with only dysfunction and angst as it's underpinnings.

As an example, even in the TOS Pilot versus the RDMBSG Mini Series the differences are clear with one Key point in the story, which occurs in both.

When Adama is standing in front of the survivors of the Holocaust, and he tells them of his plan to lead the survivors of the Colonies to the mythical home of the 13th Tribe/Colony, Earth.

In the TOS, Adama believes the old stories of the 13th Tribe. He doesn't know where it is, but he believes in it.

In RDMBSG, Bill Adama tells the people this for lack of anything better to tell them, thinking that its nothing but BS. In effect, he lies to them to keep them quiet.

If I need to point to just one particular part that made RDMBSG GINO, (Galactica In Name Only) that was it. There are countless others, but that was a key moment where it was no longer BSG, but a Lifetime Network Soap Opera with Space Ships.

I'm sorry Eric, but the VERY BEST parts of RDMBSG were the things You, Gary Hutzel, and Lee Springer brought to it. The work you did on it, while I disagree with some of it, was amazing.

Look at what the Crew at Zoic was able to do, even on the somewhat limited budget they had.

Imagine what could be done with a full Feature level budget.

I guess the very bottom line for me is what I most hope for from this upcoming Feature is an Epic Scale, Escapist Adventure, with Heroes and Villans, and a sweeping musical Score that transports the audience, not to Vancouver, but to another time, and another place.

A movie that makes the audience feel good.

So come on Eric, join the TOSers over here on the Popcorn Aisle, and Give the new Feature a Chance.

You'll probably like it.

(And we'll even save some popcorn for ya :) )

Hello Callahan,

You're welcome ;-)

I agree, critical acclaim does not equal ratings, a recent look at the numbers for Transformers 2 will prove that.

I do not dispute that Moore's BSG was not without its clunker episodes. But good numbers or not, it was never the intention for Moore to continue the series for more than another year. The story was already heading towards a resolution. Even when the show was in its early days, it was always acknowledged that it had a specific arc to follow and that once that had been achieved, that was it. That is why any so-called "continuation" to the story was fashioned into "Caprica", a prequel of sorts.

Ratings can be deceiving, remember that this is not a network-produced show as TOS was. Back when it first aired, it was a hard show to find, and in recent years, with the stop-start spurt of episodes due to lack of confidence from Sci-Fi (who make questionable decisions at best regarding their programming), or the writer's strike, made it even more difficult to keep up.

Series longevity is no measure for success as even TOS suffered from dwindling popularity eventually leading to its eventual cancellation within a year.

No, what it comes down to is what comes to mind when you mention BSG. My point is, most people will identify it with the re-imagining whether or not they actually watched it if only because it is freshest in people's minds.

Whether people want angst and soul-searching, well, I will agree it's not to everybody's taste. But when you're dealing with genocide and war, you don't want to sugarcoat the tragedy. The show was not meant to be pure escapist entertainment. It is not an easy show. It was meant to do what good SF is particularly suited for, and that is addressing difficult subject matter that may not be easily addressed through realistic depiction.

As I said to someone further down thread, Critical Acclaim doesn't equal ratings.

Let's face it, if it did, RDMBSG wouldn't have had it's series finale, it would be gearing up for season 5.

The problem with your argument follows on the fallacy the the viewing public would be disturbed by the differences. As it was, the numbers (ie Those pesky actual viewer numbers) don't bear out your argument. By the beginning of season 3, there was already talk of cancellation. By the end of season 3, it was all Moore and Eick could do to get the Network to go along with a final season to "wrap it up".

As it was, the botched that entirely. Using your standard, that being critical acclaim, the finale was at best a disaster.

A well written return to the TOS Universe will not "force the public to reset their brains" regarding BSG, because if the actual numbers are applied, most of the viewing public didn't even bother to turn into RDMBSG following the mini-series.

Sorry Eric, but the mainstream audiences don't want all that angst, dysfunction, dark and gritty Emo stuff, mixed with rape as a shock object.

BSG done right, without all the 70's restrictions (and the Moore fan scare tactics of returning to disco hair and such notwithstanding) will not be viewed as Galactica Light.

As it is, according to the viewer numbers, Moore's BSG was "Galactica, what?"

and I apologize.

As you say, it is a Hot Button issue, and I'm afraid Eric's article pushes that button.

While I think Eric is an amazingly talented Artist and Designer (His painting of the Cylons and the Viper is spectacular) I'm afraid his bias for the RDMBSG and against the TOS while understandable, is something it would be nice if he had the true courage of his convictions to debate them.

I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to his opinions, and Gods know his designs and his resume speak for themselves, but quite honestly, has it not been for the TOS, he wouldn't have a large entry on his resume from which to speak.

In short, as the Author of the article that got this discussion going, for better or worse, wouldn't it behoove him to step in here and discuss it as well?

So again, I apologize for my part in letting this discussion get out of hand.

Unfaithful, I've always wanted to ask someone like you, but does it hurt, physically, to be both Ignorant and a Liar.

Face it Junior, if anyone, especially Lucas had such a clear string of evidence of actual theft, doncha think it would have lead to some kind of legal result?

Any?

Lucas lost handily in his case against Larson and Universal (a fact you first tried to hide, then when caught lying, you just acted like it didn't matter. Typical Moore Fanboi behavior, I'm used to that)

Now, you do realize, don't you, that accusing Universal, the Company, of outright theft, which you have, without proof, you could be opening this website up to legal issues, right?

You also realize that while you are trying to defend Ron Moore's BSG, you are accusing the Company who pays him, thereby casting a bad light on him, right?

Look Junior, no matter what approach you use, you have already proven yourself to be an Obfuscator, a Liar, and a fairly Ignorant Moron. Actually, those are the only 3 things you have proven.

Coming from a quivering sackless MooreRon like you, I guess I should say thanks for the compliment.

Universal Hartland did indeed obtain the Dykstraflex system, through Dykstra himself. Much of which they used later on Airport 79, Buck Rogers, etc.

The FX for BSG (The Pilot and the first 3 episodes) were done at Apogee (the operation that became ILM).

Use of the DykstraFlex system was part of the contract with Dykstra from the get go. However, the cost after the initial episodes, skyrocketed, as evidenced by the repeated use of stock effects in the remaining episodes of BSG-TOS.

Sorry Junior, again, come back when you grow some.

UnFaithful (Or just Sackless, from here on out) a little Home Movie from back in the day.

Not only does it show you are a Moron, but a Liar as well.

http://vimeo.com/5696809

Callahan:

You just WISH I was all mouth and no sack.

Regardless of what the court said about the stories, the similarities with Star Wars were glaring:

Battlestars = Star Destroyers
Vipers = X-Wing Fighters
Vacuuform Cylons reminiscent of vacuuform Storm Troopers
Cute robot dog to mimic cute robot (R2-D2)
Starbuck and Apollo buddy relationship to mimic Luke Skywalker and Han Solo buddy relationship
Patriarchal Adama = Patriarchal Obi-Wan

Universal stealthily hanging around and stealing the visual effects technology developed by Richard Edlund, Dennis Muren and Ken Ralston for the pilot and then building their own facility using this technology at Hartland.

I could go on and on and on...

John, when you're right, you're right.

I agree, I think Singer will do as you describe. But not for the reasons most think.

Remember, back in 78-79, they were operating under that "Television Code" which really placed a lot of undo restrictions on how a show could be presented.

A more serious tone wouldn't hurt TOS BSG on iota, in fact, I'll go one further, I would welcome that with wide open arms.

I know the rest of the story tends to make you look like an Idiot, so I can understand why you'd leave it out.

But, since you brought it up, Did Lucas WIN that case against Larson in Court?

Of course, you'll refuse to answer, because that's the sort of person you are. A Typical Moore Fanboi, All Mouth, No Sack.

Kamikazeathena

i guess you're fond of history lessons because so many of these "GINO" haters like to live in the past.

and if it's ripping off you want to talk about, Galactica was a blatant rip-off of Star Wars. George Lucas went after Larson because of it.

so now who's ripping off who?

hypocrisy much?

end of story.

was that six shots you fired, or only five. tell ya the truth, in all this excitement I lost count.

You may feel lucky that Bryan Singer is going to dredge up this scrap heap of '70s polyester and chrome, but I can do without it. Have you watched the original series recently (yeah, you probably watch them all over and over...every night, right?) - it's laughably bad.

Those who live in the past are destined to repeat it. Fortunately, I live in the here and now.

UnFaithful...

You have a long and sad few years ahead of you.

We'll all try and look miserable whenever you look over so you can be happy.

When you look away we're going to be dancing like its 1979!!!

the original series blowed goats hard. Moore's was about the world of today, not the world of afros, flared pants and ripping off George Lucas.

i agree with the author, let's have more spinoffs of Moore's Galactica. I for one throw up a bit in my mouth at the prospect of another velour Galactica with leopard skin Viper seats, hokey lizard people and three-eyed chicks in alien disco bars.

Ugh, enough of that crap once and for all.

Can't we just have something that isn't dark & brooding navel-gazing on the one hand, or campy, schlocky disco-cheese, Star Wars rip off on the other?

Can't we get a Battlestar that takes the best elements of the original - the basic design and civilization fleeing genocide - and give it a contemporary (but not necessarily overly-psychanalyzing) story?

How 'bout it? Imagine what someone like Jim Cameron could do with BG. How 'bout more like that?

Bring it on! Moore's show had its run and now its over. Quite a few of us are ready for something that actually looks and feels like Battlestar Galactica.

Sure, a lot of the SyFy show fans may not like it. They are in the unfortunate position of being fans of a show that had nearly nothing to do with its predecessor which had been around for a long time. I don't envy how they are feeling...but they can cry me a river. Welcome to how the rest of us have felt for the past five years.

There is an interesting section of your article that really applies to fans of the Ron Moore show equally to their (and apparently your) indignation.

"But in this day and age, that's to be expected whenever you produce anything based on an existing property. People get defensive when you propose change, and as they say, you can't please everybody."

Indeed. One cannot please everyone and nor should one try.

Wait. What? People think the original show was anything but ridiculously campy trash? Battlestar Galactica is the the 1970s what Hercules: The Legendary Journeys wasto the 90s; entertaining, silly, badly acted and better in memory than in reviewing.

Unfortunately for this de-imagining, Bryan Singer has quite the knack for taking something popular and enduring and somehow making it disappointing. X-Men while successful at the box office were considered mediocre at best and Superman Returns was a flop on all counts. Singer needs to stick to non-genre material like the Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil in order to make a good movie (Valkyrie not withstanding).

Oh well.

I don't know why you think battlestar was ever cancellation fodder, especially now when a new series is coming out based from the show and a tv movie is coming out later this year.

And obviously, you have a clear bias against Moore's Battlestar because you're electing to degrade the show based off ratings as opposed to quality, and unless you happen to wear a suit and hold stock in NBC Universal, why would you ever make that comment? Even if you can't seem to understand that the Sci Fi network only reaches so many homes, there's obviously a reason why this show gets carried at blockbuster, it makes the best selling lists at amazon, it has seen international success in both Canada and the U.K amongst other places, including the United States. Instead of complaining about Battlestar's ratings, which is a retread and pretty insane as a fan, compare those ratings to other shows on Sy Fy and you'll see why it was never cancellation fodder. And that's without mentioning the awards.

Also, when on earth does box office gold mean quality? Oh great, so you want a G.I Joe version of BSG? That's perfect, so enjoy it. But it's pretty evident that I won't, and certainly many other people won't, but at least the old BSG fans have another failed attempt at the franchise they can try to lore over us all.

You know, the truth is to most of us, there isn't three battlestars. If it wasn't for Moore's BSG, there would be no Battlestar. It's not even a competition to the rest of us, like it always seems to be these ass hats who wait on the internet to jump on any article to express their outdated opinion. Wake up man, the original was canceled after ONE season, and when Larson had his second chance, he made galactica 1980.

If you love the old battlestar, fine, people aren't going to hate you. Just come to terms already that it doesn't measure up on any scale with the new one. Not critically or commercially.