Oh to be at SDCC: DeSantostar Galactica - Page 2

dilbertman · September 27th, 2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Kingjason

Oh... to be in your shoes at this cruise dilbertman!

Can't imagine all the requests Tom DeSanto got, and all the possible bowing and positive fan responses from you all.

I can guess you guys asked him to put all his Continuation portfolio designs and 2001 BSG script. Into a book much like 'Star Trek Phase 2' to get his and Bryan Singer's unmade BSG revival material, out to Galactica fans and sci-fi fans in general in such a commercial manner, its the one possible remaining option left surely, to get Tom and Bryan Singer's intended BSG out there to the masses.

And god knows that, Guy Dyas beautiful designs from the 2001 production should get out and be seen by everybody! If you got the X2 and Indiana Jones 4 art books, you know what i'm talking about.

KJ

I asked if he planned the do a 'Star Trek: Phase 2' type 'making of' or 'art of' for this. For right now there are no plans, but he liked the idea. I'm first in line for that book.

Jim

JSC1 · October 8th, 2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldwardaggit

Well over the last so many years I've heard all the negative responses to why The original Galactica could never come back.

Lets address some of them shall we?

#1 No one will ever watch a show based on some show that was on in the 70's. The new fans will never know what's going on because they didn't watch the original.

Answer = Doctor Who anyone? how about the Knight Rider movie that got good enough ratings to get picked up? Both updated continuations.

A well done updated continuation will work.

2# The original stars are to old.

Answer = Who would want to see them doing exactly what they did 30 years ago anyway? not me. It would only make sense that if we continued the story 30 years later that they would be in different positions.

And so we never see anyone over 60 in any popular shows.
It's to bad that Boston legal is doing so poorly in the ratings.
If they could only replace those has been actors with much younger and fresher faces, they might get someone to watch. Insert sarcastic smile here LMAO

#3 No one wants to see some show continued that had disco and bell bottoms in it.

Answer = Ya no one wanted to see a show continued that had cheap sets and a very low budget but the new Doctor who is a very popular reality.

#4 2 different versions of A show can not exist at the same time.

Small ville, Superman returns. Yup I remember watching Small ville right before I went to see Superman returns.

#5 GINO killed any chance of Desanto doing a continuation.

Ok, so I threw this one in and I might actually agree with it in the long run

Answer = The original being dead may be so but if Batman & Robin along with Catwoman, didn't kill the Batman franchise before Batman Begins, I believe anything is possible.
Although I believe Galactica not coming back in the right manner has more to do with it's awful long line of bad luck.

incidentally, Catwoman and Batman begins are only 1 year apart. The first half awful Ang Lee Hulk movie in 2003 didn't stop them from doing another in 2008.
And it ignores the 2003 version.

Well that's a few things I heard over the years with the last one #5 being from us and it's just my optimistic opinion. lol

The first 4 are from posters that for some reason, don't come here anymore.
Hummmmm, wonder why. lol

OWD

Mind if I add one?

#6. The fan base of this show is too small to be of any significance.

Answer=Back in the 70's Sci Fi fandom is not what it is today. There were very few fandoms out there, and only through the launch of Star Wars, Star Trek and Battlestar among others was fandom able to prosper like it has.

The target audience back then was families, and while the family audience may have been diminished or fragmented, that was what Battlestar looked to cater to. And some of those young kids then are parents now, and would love to be able to go to a movie with their kids.

So it is not just fans that an original Galactica production would cater to. It would cater to a far greater audience of which fans are but a part of. Like Star Wars, Star Trek and Doctor Who had done leading all three of these francises to great success.

oldwardaggit · October 8th, 2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSC1

Mind if I add one?

#6. The fan base of this show is too small to be of any significance.

Answer=Back in the 70's Sci Fi fandom is not what it is today. There were very few fandoms out there, and only through the launch of Star Wars, Star Trek and Battlestar among others was fandom able to prosper like it has.

The target audience back then was families, and while the family audience may have been diminished or fragmented, that was what Battlestar looked to cater to. And some of those young kids then are parents now, and would love to be able to go to a movie with their kids.

So it is not just fans that an original Galactica production would cater to. It would cater to a far greater audience of which fans are but a part of. Like Star Wars, Star Trek and Doctor Who had done leading all three of these francises to great success.

That's a great point.

OWD

KJ · October 11th, 2008, 11:32 AM

Another great point is the fact that, most revivals are made out to be much "darker" or made out to be better in all catogories than the classic original was. (new Dr Who series, case in point!).

So while a revived continuation would've catered to the fans of the original who have now grown up, with nods layered here and there to the 78 series, etc. A new BSG series/movie certainly developed not only new stories, storyarcs, characters and whatnot. But also shed the 'ABC' shadow of interference from the classic series and done far more deeper and much more adult stories with credible threats and not given in to toning everything down as the 78 series had under ABC and Universal's suits.

Whether we got the Hatch; 'Second Coming', Larson's Battlestar Pegasus, or Singer & DeSanto's BSG revival. A new BSG continuation handled right, would've been far more darker akin to today's current shows (Lost, 24, Prison Break, CSI,) etc rather than be a rehash of 1978 and show's of that time.

When will the bloody naysayers out there, realise. That a continuation of Galactica means the characters, storyarcs, its basic source materials, and its themes. not the time it was shot around; i.e. 1978?

KJ

Stevew · October 11th, 2008, 11:36 AM

There is no reason for sci-fi to be dark. Personally I don't like dark sci-fi.
Stargate is a great example

KJ · October 11th, 2008, 11:37 AM

P.S. That'll mean, Col. Tigh's Afro, the costumes in the space casinos (see Larson's Buck Rogers as well on that point.), the "santinised" violence, the hair styles etc.

Would be a no-show!!!

Hell, aren't they even reading my signature? huh, guess its true then, naysayers spend too much tme 'bitching' and not enough time learning to actually read at all. Such a pity-.......not!

KJ

KJ · October 11th, 2008, 11:43 AM

And as Stargate goes.

I prefered the 1994 movie version anyways. far more epic than the series MGM has stretched to its limits and beyond.

Cos i hope and pray Dean Delvin and Roland Emmerich indeed do there intended sequels. SG1 just pushes the unbelievabilty, that Earth could withstand alien invasions and whatnot, then have starships on a day by day basis, patroling space when most of Earth is unawares and technologically not even "interstellar" ready nor accomplished at all.

And believe me, i'm not alone in my support of the movie over the series and why the series and spinoff 'jumped the shark' and piranhas long ago!

KJ

Stevew · October 11th, 2008, 11:47 AM

Stargate is great Sci-fi to me. It does not have to be real, thats why it is called Sci-fi and it adds humor that makes it fun but the bottom line is that opinions vary

monolith21 · October 11th, 2008, 11:42 PM

I don't mind it they go dark. I don't mind if they keep it light. As long as its done with a healthy amount of respect for the fan base and the story AND done as a continuation I think it'll be alright. From what I've heard it looks like Tom's version would be darker but nowhere near as dark as that other show or as he put it a while back "hard sci fi". A little darker is fine. If you think about it, Battlestar went to some pretty dark places. The difference is in how the characters dealt with it. Courage and strength in the face of adversity is a strong message.

KJ · October 12th, 2008, 08:09 AM

With all due respect SteveW (and you know old KJ respect you alot o.k.).

Saying we have opinions and that they vary, is kinda sloppy. I mean yeah o.k. we have'em and are certainly entitled to have them. But they must at least be argued with enough reasonable debates and statements behind them sometimes. Yes, we shouldn't take sci-fi too seriously as they all are just that sci-fi, thus the "brainchild" of somebody else and the studio/television networks.

However, akin to Gino. Stargate was Delvin/Emmerich's baby which, MGM basically 'bastardized' and altered from its original movie version to create a franchise out of. While i too have watched SG1 and it was entertaining for 5 or so seasons. Its long outlived its original intended scope and has become a long winded overstayed sci-fi excuse to make money merely for furthering a series which drastically altered itself from its origins too much to be taken seriously or enjoyed if its got way too many bad things going for it currently ('Atlantis').

Thats my two cent on the matter, no offence dude, got all the love in the world for you generally!

Laters

KJ

Stevew · October 12th, 2008, 08:27 AM

None taken. It just goes along with what I said. For me Good sci-fi takes me away for a short time and gives me a break from the day to day grind. Do I take it seriously, no, but I have always been facinated with the future and what my next life will be like. Some of what we called sci-fi has manifisted in things we take for granted today. Time travel pgms are among my favorite. I have been a sci-fi addict since 53 when I first saw War Of The Worlds even some of the stupid ones I will watch once. To me Dark Sci-Fi is mostly depressing and we don't need anymore of that, at least for me
S

monolith21 · October 12th, 2008, 02:31 PM

I can see where you're coming from. I dig some dark sci fi, but if I'm not in the mood for that I watch something a bit lighter. I can see why taking something that was originally pretty light and making it dark would screw it up.

Stevew · October 12th, 2008, 02:35 PM

Most of the Dark sci-fi is also in dark lighting and it is hard to see some of the neat stuff. The neat Gizmos are half the fun

KJ · October 13th, 2008, 10:34 AM

True, a balance usually needs to be struck in whatever genre is providing the entertainment be it thrillers or sci-fi.

I agree that too much isn't what any of us want, and that certain properties did't start out like that but touched upon it, every now and then to a degree. current TV along with several genre films, are getting to be alot darker and aren't as campy nor treat science fiction as childish as it was in preivous days gone by etc.

But i think even light hearted sci-fi/fantasy has always had a place to be enjoyed along side the darker concepts writers/creators come up with.

KJ

Raptor · February 5th, 2009, 01:42 AM

I'd just like to drop in and say I support SteveW's view on this. I too an a Stargate SG1 fan, and I feel the same way. The real world is so dark and dull and crushing that when I watch Sci-Fi I want to see noble, honest heroes, where good and light prevail. It's a means to escape the real world to a place of light and where people are 'better'. It's escapism.

I have to admit, I'm not so keen on the artwork linked in the first post of this thread. But that's likely because I really like the original look of the show, or should I say the vision. The Cylon's were just perfect as they were, and as for the Galactica...

This is likely becuase it was Galactica that got me into sci-fi. It was the first three episodes (Saga of a Star World) welded together into a TV movie my family had recorded. When I was little (we're talking mid eighties here) I would sit and watch that 'movie' again and again. Must have driven my parents nuts... Until only a few years ago I didn't even realise it was a series. I thought it was just that movie.

My reaction to GINO might have been less, extreme, had it not been Galactica that hooked me in. I took an immediate dislike to the show from the first few moments. The look and feel was just wrong. I tried, I really tried, to give it a chance. Lasted to about midway through season 2 before I threw may hands up in disjust. Main reason I stayed was due to learning that Mr Hatch himself would appear.

If you're reading this sir, I'm sorry, but that was a bad choice.

But... it wasn't just a reaction to a treasured childhood memory being twisted and corrupted that upset me. It was the whol ethos and feel of the show. It's too dark, gritty and hopeless. Not one of those characters is a hero; they're just different degrees of bad and useless IMHO. The fact that my second most 'liked' character in the show is a politcian speaks volumes, I think.

There are certain elements of the Original that were over done (the kids in the main...) but the core characters and thier interactions were good. In their situation, you either joke around and make like of things, or allow yourself to take in what has happened, the desperate situation you're in...

Such thoughts could lead to despression, at best.

JLHurley · February 6th, 2009, 11:05 AM

Thanks for your post, Raptor--I enjoyed it from start to finish and it pretty much echos my own thoughts/feelings. What's...I dunno..."ironic" is that--back in '78 and for years afterward--the original BG was criticized as being too depressing!

Raptor · February 7th, 2009, 12:42 AM

Well, I've always said that supposedly expert critics never know what they're talking about...

How good a film or TV series is, is based solely on personal opinion. What I think is good another person thinks is rubbish, and vice versa. It's all personal.

I can see how some people may take the show to be depressive, but I look at it like this: the show is about how people carry on despite everything that has happened to them. It's about hope, about beliving that thngs can get better.

WarMachine · February 12th, 2009, 07:04 PM

Raptor,

Yeah, that being 1.0, not 2.0. Hatch's "Second Coming" was admittedly darker than the original, but it was still klieg-light sunny compared to "Cousin It".

As I've stated elsewhere, a "properly" done 2.0 - well, 3.0, now

- will take one of two courses:

A) Bring back the old cast, put them in the same roles, but 30 years later

B) Start with "Saga", but with a completely new cast, but the-same-or-close-to-it costuming (JCPENNY'S RACK CAST-OFFS BURN IN HELL!

); fix the more egregious issues from the first series, then move right along with VS 2 & 3, et al.....

to the VS crew!

....And I STILL vote for David Warner as the new Adama.....

Lt Donovan · February 12th, 2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarMachine

Raptor,

Yeah, that being 1.0, not 2.0. Hatch's "Second Coming" was admittedly darker than the original, but it was still klieg-light sunny compared to "Cousin It".

As I've stated elsewhere, a "properly" done 2.0 - well, 3.0, now

- will take one of two courses:

A) Bring back the old cast, put them in the same roles, but 30 years later

B) Start with "Saga", but with a completely new cast, but the-same-or-close-to-it costuming (JCPENNY'S RACK CAST-OFFS BURN IN HELL!

); fix the more egregious issues from the first series, then move right along with VS 2 & 3, et al.....

to the VS crew!

....And I STILL vote for David Warner as the new Adama.....

I hate to be a buzzkill, and I agree with you in principle, but in the mind of the public, Galactica is the new show, not the original now.

Same thing is gonna happen with Adam's Trek movie. People will treat IT as Trek and push aside all the old Trek.

Sad, but I fear true.

monolith21 · February 13th, 2009, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarMachine

Raptor,

Yeah, that being 1.0, not 2.0. Hatch's "Second Coming" was admittedly darker than the original, but it was still klieg-light sunny compared to "Cousin It".

"Cousin It"

...I love it! That is too funny.

JLHurley · February 13th, 2009, 05:13 AM

"Cousin It" cracked me up, too. As far as the original BG and a continuation goes, at this point I'm just happy that we have 24 hours (more or less) of it and I'll enjoy it all to my dying day. To be unhappy or even miserable that we never got/get more would be downright ungrateful.

monolith21 · February 14th, 2009, 02:06 AM

I agree about being grateful. However the fight for a continuation has become part of the experience for me. It wasn't always that way. It just sort of morphed into it. When we get our continuation it'll morph into something different or even more. To me its about a bit more than just the continuation of the story itself. Its about fighting for something worthy against a system of decision making, and an institution that has forgotten the reasons that it exists. Too many "suits" treat artistic property as disposable these days more than ever before.

Its about balance. Art without profit means that artists cannot make a living on their craft. Profit without art in an industry based around artistic properties...is pointless. The fight for a continuation where Battlestar is concerned just makes sense to me. The fight to exist on ones own terms is a strong theme within this story. That story inspires people like myself to champion the cause.

This is the reason why I have to smile when someone says "its just a tv show". They don't get it at all. That is a surface level observation. What is going on here is a movement towards returning balance to the entertainment industry. This is just one small fight in a larger picture. It may not change anything in that larger picture...but one victory, no matter how small can be significant.