I am *very* dissapointed.

[Rowan]

:light: ah rough cut, hadn't heard about that I was wondering why people had such a different impression but that would explain it. But can we count that? It's not what was actually in the final cut of the mini, she doesn't put her hand inside his pants.

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by Gaelen

:light: ah rough cut, hadn't heard about that I was wondering why people had such a different impression but that would explain it. But can we count that? It's not what was actually in the final cut of the mini, she doesn't put her hand inside his pants.

Almost correct, Gaelen. The discussion about graphic sex in the mini began with the release of the script, was reinforced by the rough cut, both of which were apparently quite graphic. The discussion has continued not so much because you can see exactly what she's doing in the broadcast but because it's fairly obvious what she's doing. The sexual content is still there, just not as graphically visible.

I am
Dawg

[Stray Viper]

And, thus, we get down to the real point. That's what she did, it was part of the story, and it doesn't matter how much was shown or how many seconds the cut lasted. Thank you, Dawg.

[larocque6689]

Antelope and Warhammer I have sent you both a PM.

All I can say, then, is that people who have read the script but not watched the mini should at least WATCH the mini so that they actually have an informed opinion. I can understand if someone hates the mini after having watched it. But hating the mini based on its script, well . . . that's like hating the adult that an unformed child will eventually become.

[Gemini1999]

Originally Posted by BarrymoreYorke

All I can say, then, is that people who have read the script but not watched the mini should at least WATCH the mini so that they actually have an informed opinion. I can understand if someone hates the mini after having watched it. But hating the mini based on its script, well . . . that's like hating the adult that an unformed child will eventually become.

BYorke -

I think that is a very healthy statement to make. I will admit that I read the script and didn't think much of it, but I still felt the need to watch the mini, if nothing else to educate myself from a first-hand point of view. I know that when I go to a bookstore and read the inside cover of a book to see if I want to buy it, you're making a snap judgment based on a piece of the material. Or, when you cruise the TV Guide for something to watch and you read what an episode is about to see if you want to watch it, again - you are making a choice based on a tiny bit of material. Some will take a chance and buy that book or watch that show and others will pass them by. It's entertainment and not everyone is entertained by the same things - human nature in my book.

It isn't really wrong for some people to not like the mini based on what they read. The script is pretty close to the filmed version and people being people, they gravitate to what they like and shun what they don't. What works for you or me, or anyone else, you can't apply to another person - it just doesn't work that way. I will agree with you up to a point though, if they have only read the script and didn't like it and didn't watch it either, then whatever commentary offered is from a limited experience - but it's not up to you or me to marginalize those that made that choice not to watch. They are still entitled to an opnion on what they do know and the right to voice that opinion in an open forum like CF.

Best regards,
Bryan

P.S. - I hope that I didn't ramble too much and I'm glad to see you here at Fleets. Keep those posts going!
________
Uggs

[Rowan]

ok so I'm still confused are you guys saying you don't want any kind of sexual innuendo whatsoever in your BSG? :confused:

I watched BSG TOS when I was a 14 1/4 year old girl raging hormones and all and from that perspective I thought Starbuck dripped sex and he was all about sex to me almost every scene he was in with a woman he was flirting or coming on to them or making innuendos. I always thought he had sex on the brain, I even saw the cigar he always carried as being a symbol of it, what can I say I had a naughty mind even back then.


And you guys are totally messing with my mind
I thought guys liked that kind of thing I thought if anyone was going to complain about it, it would be the women. Is it sex stuff in sci fi in general or BSG particularly
just curious

[Jerry Vasilatos]

I do think though, that in the old BSG, sex and raciness were handled with humor, and class.

Starbuck was a lady's man. Cassie was a socialator. They loved each other though and you got a sense of that deeper feeling. Ditto for Apollo and Serina.

The new BSG is populated by a bunch of hormone driven, seemingly unfeeling characters that cheapen any heart we would hope they have. Whether it's demonstrated by handjobs or people tearing other people's clothes off. I like the original BSG, where you got a sense of exactly WHO Starbuck and Cassie were as people BEFORE their little foray into the launch tubes rather than two characters we've just been introduced to in the mini (I think the newly castrated Boomer was one of them?) ripping each other's clothes off like animals without knowing anything about them. The mini seemed to throw "gritty sex" into everything to try and justify and prove it was being "real and gritty". In my opinion, it's LAZY STORYTELLING that just shows what was so great about the original.

We can argue semantics and motive back and forth ad infinitum. It all boils down to whether you like sex and raciness handled with humor and class and getting to know the characters involved with eacjh other first, or in the more indifferent, soulless, animalistic "real life grittiness" manner of the mini.

I'm a sucker for the old way, but then again I grew up on it ("Star Wars", "Star Trek", and "BSG" being great examples of how you can have sex, humor and some feeling lacing the characters.)

JV

Boomer and Chief Tyrol love each other . . . their reunion scene is highly romantic, sweet and passionate. Number Six seems to have pretty deep, albeit unhealthy, feelings for Baltar. There was no sex or physical contact without meaning on the mini, except for whatever the heck that was on Armistice Station.

The whole problem here, I think, is that "they just don't make 'em like they used to." When even Star Trek is showing us half-naked people leathering eath other up with blue gel, and Seventh Heaven is far racier than The Waltons, and Charmed shows acres and acres of flesh. it's pretty obvious that television has changed. The thing is, that change happened gradually, so it generally doesn't seem outrageous these days to most folks.

But the old BSG is from an era before that change happened, so the difference between it and the mini is highly pronounced. And I understand why some people have trouble with that, I really do. But the plain fact of the matter is that there was ONE SEX SCENE, some kissing and tearing at clothes, and what appeared to be a quick grope off camera.


I just feel there needs to be a little bit more perspective here. If you make it about "the kids," well, our children aren't going to be reading the script, so they won't have any idea that there was supposedly tons of S-E-X in it. They'll be watching the show, and what they'll be seeing is tamer than many other TV shows. NYPD Blue has been doing worse for a DECADE now!

If TOS was remade with the exact same script today we would have seen Cassie naked from the back in the launch tube moving up and down on Starbuck just prior to their steam bath.

I think some of the sex stuff was unneeded in the mini, in particular the mind sex scene near the end. The cylon 6 scene in the beginning and the initial Boomer lust scene however is no worse than most anything else you can see on TV on one of the major networks on any given night. For better or for worse what is expected in televesion dramas has become a bit racier in the past 24 years.

I do say it is interesting what is cut from the original script. It can give you an idea of some concepts that aren't clear in a show. For example the COL Tigh cut scene gives the reason for his alcoholism and the cut Tyrol scene shows the crew does not like his affair. However things are cut for more reasons than time. Maybe the cut sex scenes were cut because they were considered gratuitous and unneeded. As such we the viewer were never meant to know they existed or to judge the movie as if they happened. I do suggest that those who have opinions on the movie at least watch the movie once. Seeing something is often a very different experience than reading or hearing something. Remember the case of the Nixon/Kennedy debates. Those who watched on TV had an entirely different opnion on who won the debate than those that only listened on the radio.

What did the movie actually have in the sex area: Only one naked back scene, one scene of a man pulling a womans jacket open who had a shirt on beneath, two bear hug scenes, and a woman sitting on a man's lap while he imagined something sexual not shown. Over the course of 4 hours that's not too bad today. How about we compromise. I'll have Moore take out the mind lap dance if you let me keep the naked back and the bear hugs!

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Dawg

Almost correct, Gaelen. The discussion about graphic sex in the mini began with the release of the script, was reinforced by the rough cut, both of which were apparently quite graphic. The discussion has continued not so much because you can see exactly what she's doing in the broadcast but because it's fairly obvious what she's doing. The sexual content is still there, just not as graphically visible.

I am
Dawg

Thank you Dawg!

[Rowan]

I think a very important element that I personally hadn't realized until now and which makes these two movies and their portrayal of sex different and perhaps explains why we feel like certain scenes of a sexual nature were “plunked down” is: on the original series Starbuck did not know Cassie until after the war began and they were fleeing they met because of this the same for Apollo and Serina they met under those circumstances as well and we followed the progression of their relationship over the following months /years. Where as in the mini we are dropped down into existing relationships. We know that 6 and Baltar have been together 2 years she tells him she loves him, the same for Boomer and Tyrol they are in a pre-existing relations ship we as the audience are dropped down into the middle of this. We are not at the beginning of their relationships watching them develop. These relationships have existed for years before we even meet them for the first time. I think this is the essential difference here between them and why it feels gratuitous it's because we aren’t' starting at the beginning and watching it grow and unfold and develop. Were picking up years later.

Originally Posted by Gaelen

I think a very important element that I personally hadn't realized until now and which makes these two movies and their portrayal of sex different and perhaps explains why we feel like certain scenes of a sexual nature were “plunked down” is: on the original series Starbuck did not know Cassie until after the war began and they were fleeing they met because of this the same for Apollo and Serina they met under those circumstances as well and we followed the progression of their relationship over the following months /years. Where as in the mini we are dropped down into existing relationships. We know that 6 and Baltar have been together 2 years she tells him she loves him, the same for Boomer and Tyrol they are in a pre-existing relations ship we as the audience are dropped down into the middle of this. We are not at the beginning of their relationships watching them develop. These relationships have existed for years before we even meet them for the first time. I think this is the essential difference here between them and why it feels gratuitous it's because we aren’t' starting at the beginning and watching it grow and unfold and develop. Were picking up years later.

Excellent, excellent observation. This, of course, leads to the feeling of getting punked down in the middle, which creates the sense (at first) that these scenes are gratuitous, when they're plainly not.

[Treylon]

As someone who was at the Galacticon (and had a GREAT time!) I was looking forward to hearing what Mr. Moore had to say. Of course most people went with some anger, I mean this was a man who whas changing the feel of the program and seem to have little interest what anyone else had to say. I know, I know, SCIFI Channel already had decided the route the wanted to take. He uses them as a scapegoat. That's fine. After hearing his presentation and watching an almost unwatchable, cut and paste job of a preview trailer, I felt sick. the changes seemed unwarranted. This was the thinking that went into Gilligan's Planet, the Lost in Space remake and putting Scrappy Doo on our TV sets. Not enough people at GALACTICON? He doesn't mention the fires and transportation strikes that were going on. He must have thought there would be enough people there to explain his new effort so Why else would he have come? I felt he was treated respectfully as Richard Hatch stood up for Moore's right to have a vision. Mr. Moore was flippent and ready for a fight from us. I wasn't going to fight him, I felt sad.
It's many months later, the mini series aired and I watched it with hope. To me there was just way too much material lifted from Star Trek for me to be interested. But that's just me. I understand the series is quite expensive to make and will have to really be a ratings grabber right out of the gate, but not all the people who watched the miniseries will be returning for the series. Those rating numbers included fans of the original who watched for curiosity. Since the new series is so far removed from the interesting characters introduced in the original, I won't be watching, but I respect the people who will. I understand that Mr. Moore must be sick of the criticism. It must be a royal pain, but I am sure he knew that going in.

Originally Posted by Micheleh

Hi, all!

I am reposting a segment from a recent Moore interview at G2003 which, I am sure, has been making the rounds. I wish to express my severe dissapointment- not in the fact that Moore has his own opinions and views, but in the fact that it seems impossible for anyone from the new series' representation to be capable of any sort of grace or manners in communication.



Speaking as a coordinator of Galacticon, I deeply resent this remark. It implies a total lack of courtesy, and a complete disrespect for the enormous amount of work put out by those of us who did the show, Michael and Richard included. It was *not* a popular decision to invite him, and Richard took a great deal fo heat for it. It was decided, however, that it was up to us to be mature, to give everyone a chance to express their views and to speak for themselves, and to make it a convention which would welcome *all* fans.

I am highly dissapointed in Mr. Moore. It is extremely unprofessional to accept an invitation to an event as a guest, and to then speak in such a condescending manner after the fact. I, for one, would never invite him to speak his mind again.

If he truly saw Galacticon as nothing more thatn a few hundred implacable fans waging a war campaign, then he completely missed the point, and inviting him was a serious mistake, one which I, for one, now regret.

I sincerely hope you do beter in the future, Mr. Moore, at handling your own fan base, or you will alienate them. Among the concepts of humanity you wish to explore in the production of this series, I suggest you add courtesy.

[The Rain]

Originally Posted by Jerry Vasilatos

It's just too damn bad Ron Moore wasn't allowed to take his concepts, change a few things (like the BG names) and just introduce a new show with a new title that doesn't alienate fans of the old while serving fans of whatever it is he and Sci-Fi are peddling.

JV

Baloney! If Moore had just changed the names, everybody would be griping about how Moore "ripped off the BG concept" and you would have hated it anyway.

There's no pleasing some people. That's why Moore says "who cares" about the core fanatics of BG in the first place.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Originally Posted by The Rain

Baloney! If Moore had just changed the names, everybody would be griping about how Moore "ripped off the BG concept" and you would have hated it anyway.

There's no pleasing some people. That's why Moore says "who cares" about the core fanatics of BG in the first place.

Ron Moore ripped off something from just about every other recent sci-fi project anyway, I doubt it would have mattered. Overdeveloped female android Sexy 6 written into the story to attract pre-pubescent boys... does sexy 7 of 9 from "Star Trek: Voyager" ring a bell?

Mary McDonnell was practically re-playing her role as the first lady from "Independence Day"... something tells me Ron was watching ID4 when he had this brilliant idea to write the role for her.

I posted the following in an older thread and will repeat it here:

The Borg reimagined as the Cylons. Cylons looking like humans to infiltrate and destroy mankind like the entire "Terminator" series. Borrowing ship designs outright of the ragtag fleet didn't seem so much like homage as much as pandering. The Cylon Raider Fighters were ripoffs of the Trade Federation droid ships from "The Phantom Menace", and the ships from "Wing Commander" and "Stargate". The new Cylons looked like Trade Federation droids from "Attack of the Clones". The "Galactica" looked like a big Trojan condom, screwing fans and ribbed for no one's pleasure. The whole mini FELT like I was also watching "Independence Day".

Funny how people said Glen Larson "ripped off" "Star Wars" when in fact the original had nothing in common with "Star Wars" other than it took place in outer space. Would people say "Shane" ripped off "12 O'Clock High" because it took place in the old west? Of course not. Larson created an entire mythology for the series based in his spiritual beliefs, very different than what George Lucas did in "Star Wars". And he himself has admitted that the success of "Star Wars" got studios to consider something he had been developing for years in his "Adam's Ark" concept.

What we have in Moore's mini-series is more of a re-salvaging than a re-imagining. With this in mind he could have VERY EASILY named this new series he "created" borrowing from all these other sources something different. But Sci-Fi's mandate was to capitalize on the "Battlestar" brand name. Plain and simple. Even if it was to be a bastardization.

JV

[bsg1fan1975]

Originally Posted by Jerry Vasilatos

I can only imagine the outcry from people if George Lucas decided to add "handjobs" to "Star Wars". Or maybe people would like to see classic "Star Trek" with CGI sex scenes of young William Shatner and the green alien dancing girl?

I guess I just don't understand why people willing to let so much be changed for the BG re-imagining don't consider it a betrayal of what BG was originally about, classic space fantasy adventure instead of modern WB style "angst in space". I also thought the "Lost in Space" movie was crap though. It seems whenever someone decides to "remake" something contemporary to instill their own "take" on it, they ruin what was great about it to begin with.

It's just too damn bad Ron Moore wasn't allowed to take his concepts, change a few things (like the BG names) and just introduce a new show with a new title that doesn't alienate fans of the old while serving fans of whatever it is he and Sci-Fi are peddling.

JV

I so totally agree with this. Its been proven that if you take a quality show and change everything in that show in a short amount of time its going bomb! Great post Jerry! Lots of insight there!

[The Rain]

Originally Posted by Jerry Vasilatos

Ron Moore ripped off something from just about every other recent sci-fi project anyway, I doubt it would have mattered. Overdeveloped female android Sexy 6 written into the story to attract pre-pubescent boys... does sexy 7 of 9 from "Star Trek: Voyager" ring a bell?

Mary McDonnell was practically re-playing her role as the first lady from "Independence Day"... something tells me Ron was watching ID4 when he had this brilliant idea to write the role for her.

I posted the following in an older thread and will repeat it here:

The Borg reimagined as the Cylons. Cylons looking like humans to infiltrate and destroy mankind like the entire "Terminator" series. Borrowing ship designs outright of the ragtag fleet didn't seem so much like homage as much as pandering. The Cylon Raider Fighters were ripoffs of the Trade Federation droid ships from "The Phantom Menace", and the ships from "Wing Commander" and "Stargate". The new Cylons looked like Trade Federation droids from "Attack of the Clones". The "Galactica" looked like a big Trojan condom, screwing fans and ribbed for no one's pleasure. The whole mini FELT like I was also watching "Independence Day".

Funny how people said Glen Larson "ripped off" "Star Wars" when in fact the original had nothing in common with "Star Wars" other than it took place in outer space. Would people say "Shane" ripped off "12 O'Clock High" because it took place in the old west? Of course not. Larson created an entire mythology for the series based in his spiritual beliefs, very different than what George Lucas did in "Star Wars". And he himself has admitted that the success of "Star Wars" got studios to consider something he had been developing for years in his "Adam's Ark" concept.

What we have in Moore's mini-series is more of a re-salvaging than a re-imagining. With this in mind he could have VERY EASILY named this new series he "created" borrowing from all these other sources something different. But Sci-Fi's mandate was to capitalize on the "Battlestar" brand name. Plain and simple. Even if it was to be a bastardization.

JV

SIGH! Even when someone makes a solid logical point, a REAL fan has to try to find some holes to punch.


Better fix that aim, scooter!
Everything you're just said just proves my point.

[Gemini1999]

Originally Posted by The Rain

SIGH! Even when someone makes a solid logical point, a REAL fan has to try to find some holes to punch.


Better fix that aim, scooter!
Everything you're just said just proves my point.

Rain -

If you have something informative to add to the thread, that's fine. I would suggest that you try and avoid making it directly personal by making pointed and less that complimentary remarks to someone else's discussion. Personal arguements have no place here.

Regards,
Bryan
________
Glass Bubblers

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Originally Posted by The Rain

SIGH! Even when someone makes a solid logical point, a REAL fan has to try to find some holes to punch.


Better fix that aim, scooter!
Everything you're just said just proves my point.

Rain, what was your solid logical point and what holes did I punch?

I don't understand your response or your sarcastic remarks about fixing my aim and proving your point. Can you clarify? Or are you simply claiming I am a "core fanatic" that Moore says "who cares" to?

You seem to operate from a lot of presumptions. I've never said I "hated" what Moore did. What I "hate" is how what he did had to be labelled "Galactica" instead of something else. There were some interesting things in Moore's "Galactica". But they just weren't what "Galactica" was about. He took a premise (the destruction of mankind in space), borrrowed from a lot of other sources and then Sci-Fi labelled it "Battlestar Galactica". Gone was the mythology Larson incorporated into it, gone were the relationships and sense of family that existed in the original, gone was the fun, and the gone were the swashbuckling adventure aspects of it. What sci-fi broadcast was not "Galactica" and should never have been titled such.

:upchuck: "Angst in Space" is more appropriate. Or maybe "Handjobs in Space".

JV

[jewels]

Rain: not baloney! to many of us there is so little Galactica in there (and so much from other universes) that he would have had a better chance without the baggage of the Galactica name. Especially for starting a series.

Such was not the lot that Bonnie Hammer handed him. She'd rather he reinvented what she didn't understand in the first place ("reinventing science fiction"). From my POV, Joss Whedon was way more successful at developing a character-driven sci-fi universe from scratch (in Firefly) that gave you the "you are there" feel, that there simply is no comparison. I'm glad Uni. picked up his film option--that is something concrete to look forward to, and know it is still secure in the hands of it's creator.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Gaelen

I think a very important element that I personally hadn't realized until now and which makes these two movies and their portrayal of sex different and perhaps explains why we feel like certain scenes of a sexual nature were “plunked down” is: on the original series Starbuck did not know Cassie until after the war began and they were fleeing they met because of this the same for Apollo and Serina they met under those circumstances as well and we followed the progression of their relationship over the following months /years. Where as in the mini we are dropped down into existing relationships. We know that 6 and Baltar have been together 2 years she tells him she loves him, the same for Boomer and Tyrol they are in a pre-existing relations ship we as the audience are dropped down into the middle of this. We are not at the beginning of their relationships watching them develop. These relationships have existed for years before we even meet them for the first time. I think this is the essential difference here between them and why it feels gratuitous it's because we aren’t' starting at the beginning and watching it grow and unfold and develop. Were picking up years later.

You've made a good point there ..........still watching someone doing the
functional equivelant to a lap dance ..........is still not my idea of good TV no
matter HOW long they've known each other.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by jewels

Rain: not baloney! to many of us there is so little Galactica in there (and so much from other universes) that he would have had a better chance without the baggage of the Galactica name. Especially for starting a series.

Such was not the lot that Bonnie Hammer handed him. She'd rather he reinvented what she didn't understand in the first place ("reinventing science fiction"). From my POV, Joss Whedon was way more successful at developing a character-driven sci-fi universe from scratch (in Firefly) that gave you the "you are there" feel, that there simply is no comparison. I'm glad Uni. picked up his film option--that is something concrete to look forward to, and know it is still secure in the hands of it's creator.

Excellent post Jewels. And you're right there's so little Galactica in there I also
think that had he not put the Galactica name on it .............the show might have
had a better chance of succeeding.

Yes I loved Firefly. And I'm looking forward to the film also.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Jerry Vasilatos

Ron Moore ripped off something from just about every other recent sci-fi project anyway, I doubt it would have mattered. Overdeveloped female android Sexy 6 written into the story to attract pre-pubescent boys... does sexy 7 of 9 from "Star Trek: Voyager" ring a bell?

Mary McDonnell was practically re-playing her role as the first lady from "Independence Day"... something tells me Ron was watching ID4 when he had this brilliant idea to write the role for her.

I posted the following in an older thread and will repeat it here:

The Borg reimagined as the Cylons. Cylons looking like humans to infiltrate and destroy mankind like the entire "Terminator" series. Borrowing ship designs outright of the ragtag fleet didn't seem so much like homage as much as pandering. The Cylon Raider Fighters were ripoffs of the Trade Federation droid ships from "The Phantom Menace", and the ships from "Wing Commander" and "Stargate". The new Cylons looked like Trade Federation droids from "Attack of the Clones". The "Galactica" looked like a big Trojan condom, screwing fans and ribbed for no one's pleasure. The whole mini FELT like I was also watching "Independence Day".

Funny how people said Glen Larson "ripped off" "Star Wars" when in fact the original had nothing in common with "Star Wars" other than it took place in outer space. Would people say "Shane" ripped off "12 O'Clock High" because it took place in the old west? Of course not. Larson created an entire mythology for the series based in his spiritual beliefs, very different than what George Lucas did in "Star Wars". And he himself has admitted that the success of "Star Wars" got studios to consider something he had been developing for years in his "Adam's Ark" concept.

What we have in Moore's mini-series is more of a re-salvaging than a re-imagining. With this in mind he could have VERY EASILY named this new series he "created" borrowing from all these other sources something different. But Sci-Fi's mandate was to capitalize on the "Battlestar" brand name. Plain and simple. Even if it was to be a bastardization.

JV

Well Written JV ........Keep POSTING.

[Boomer65]

Originally Posted by Jerry Vasilatos

Funny how people said Glen Larson "ripped off" "Star Wars" when in fact the original had nothing in common with "Star Wars" other than it took place in outer space.

Hold on a sec – was it just me or did TOS Cylons look more than a little bit like Star Wars Stormtroopers? Maybe it wasn’t intentional but I certainly see a resemblance. So could we call TOS Cylons a rip-off of Star Wars Stormtroopers?

Look, just about anything you see on TV or the big screen can be called a rip-off of something else. It’s pretty commonly thought everything has been done before and all we can do now is implement old ideas in new ways. BSG TOS itself has been likened to an old western series (Wagontrains?) as well as having biblical origins. And the idea of alien-developed machines killing man wasn’t exactly original at the time of TOS either.

And before you blast the human-looking Cylons too loudly – remember that DeSantos, the champion of the continuation, has a version that has Apollo as a converted Cylon. Now is that a Borg ripoff?

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Boomer65

Hold on a sec – was it just me or did TOS Cylons look more than a little bit like Star Wars Stormtroopers? Maybe it wasn’t intentional but I certainly see a resemblance. So could we call TOS Cylons a rip-off of Star Wars Stormtroopers?

Look, just about anything you see on TV or the big screen can be called a rip-off of something else. It’s pretty commonly thought everything has been done before and all we can do now is implement old ideas in new ways. BSG TOS itself has been likened to an old western series (Wagontrains?) as well as having biblical origins. And the idea of alien-developed machines killing man wasn’t exactly original at the time of TOS either.

And before you blast the human-looking Cylons too loudly – remember that DeSantos, the champion of the continuation, has a version that has Apollo as a converted Cylon. Now is that a Borg ripoff?

First of all Boomer ...........the issue of whether or not TOS was a rip off of
starwars was RESOLVED in a COURT OF LAW.

It was decided that there were enough DIFFERENCES in the script where TOS
was NOT in any way a RIP OFF or Plagurizing Starwars.

Anf for the RECORD Boomer if you look at BSG80 .............a CYLON/humaniod was
introduced into the series. THat was LONG, long BEFORE the BORG.

[Boomer65]

Originally Posted by shiningstar

First of all Boomer ...........the issue of whether or not TOS was a rip off of starwars was RESOLVED in a COURT OF LAW.

Oh please! There is a huge difference between plagiarism and copying (ripping off) an idea. The COURTS have RULED that IDEAS can’t be COPYRIGHTED. That doesn’t mean that we can’t call the Apollo/Cylon a rip-off of the Borg, which was a rip-off of an episode of Star Trek TOS, which was a ripoff of … it goes on and on.

Let me make it clear for you – I can write a story about a colony of humans that comes under attack by a mechanical race (anybody read Saberhagen?) and goes on the run. Larson CAN’T touch me! He can hire all the lawyers in the world too. That is UNLESS I call the mechanical race Cylons and have the ship named Battlestar Galactica as well as the same characters. But if I don’t my story isn’t any less of a rip off. Do you understand this?

So tell me…do YOU think that the TOS Cylons look a little like the Star Wars Stormtroopers? And, since the Cylon/humanoid was done in BSG80 you OBVIOUSLY don’t have a problem with the Cylon/humanoid concept in BSG03.

[Jerry Vasilatos]

Originally Posted by Boomer65

Oh please! There is a huge difference between plagiarism and copying (ripping off) an idea. The COURTS have RULED that IDEAS can’t be COPYRIGHTED. That doesn’t mean that we can’t call the Apollo/Cylon a rip-off of the Borg, which was a rip-off of an episode of Star Trek TOS, which was a ripoff of … it goes on and on.

Let me make it clear for you – I can write a story about a colony of humans that comes under attack by a mechanical race (anybody read Saberhagen?) and goes on the run. Larson CAN’T touch me! He can hire all the lawyers in the world too. That is UNLESS I call the mechanical race Cylons and have the ship named Battlestar Galactica as well as the same characters. But if I don’t my story isn’t any less of a rip off. Do you understand this?

So tell me…do YOU think that the TOS Cylons look a little like the Star Wars Stormtroopers? And, since the Cylon/humanoid was done in BSG80 you OBVIOUSLY don’t have a problem with the Cylon/humanoid concept in BSG03.

Do stormtroopers look like Cylons?





Umm, no. Stormtroopers are cloned men in white armor. Cylons are chrome colored cyborgs.

And I don't think Larson would sue you. You are using a basic premise and I would assume you would then create original characters to tell that story not reliant on using BGT character names.

Your point?

I'm saying that Moore is a hack writer who borrowed from other specific movies to tell his story which are all a little familiar. Do you UNDERSTAND THAT?

And as far as the DeSanto Apollo/Cylon plot twist... to me it does sound a little too "Borg" for my liking. Wow! I bet your surprised I would say something like that huh? Maybe that will prove to you that I have a more open mind than you think.

JV

I think the original point of The Rain is valid:

Even if Moore changed all the names of the characters so that none of them reflected TOS and the Battlestar was renamed anything other than Galactica or Pegasus a significant number of the hard core fan base would still be angry.

I am sure under the above scenario we would still hear the following things:

1. It's not the REAL Battlestar because every fan knows only the Galactica survived the halocaust and only the Pegasus survived the battle of Molacy and went into deep space.

2. The script sucks and Moore and SCIFI ruined our chance to see the REAL Desanto Continuation.

Everything old is new again:
I would expect Moore to "borrow" great storylines from the various SCIFI books and shows out there. That would be the intelligent thing to do. It is also the smart thing Glen Larson did. From TOS we have adaptations of "Midway", "Patton", "The Dirty Dozen", "The Guns of Navarone", adaptations of bible stories, the history of the cylons could be a continuation of the classic RUR (Rosum's Universal Robots), and themes pulled from current politics of the time (Soviet versus America). From BSG1980 Glen Larson adapted "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Hell in the Pacific" he also introduced the human cylon. Whether Star Trek copied a Larson concept with the Borg and then Moore copied Star Trek or reached back to Battlestar who knows.

At this point we can definitely say that Moore adapted Battlestar Galactica and "In Harm's Way". It may not be ALL (TOS) Battlestar Galactica but even a cursory view of the mini shows it has many if not a majority of original Battlestar themes and mythos. You might not like what he did but it is Galactica.

Battlestar Galactica was three television series and some books not a real historical event. We can all pick and chose what we want to watch and what we want to believe. We are even entitled to believe in two separate but similar stories if we want. Richard Hatch's books are the real Battlestar Galactica, so was BSG1980, as was TOS, as were the comic books, as is the mini, as is the fan fiction. What you as individual chose to believe or throw away in your mind is your decision.

Personally in my mind I have four separate Battlestar Galacticas in my mind. Two of them, TOS (and the prequel stuff I have read and agree with) are one Battlestar Galactica story and the mini universe another. The Hatch books and BSG1980 to me throw out interesting concepts but are not a story I want to hold in my mind as cannon.

There is no sense arguing about whether Moore's version or any version is real or not. It is all in the mind of the viewer or reader. No ones opinion in this area is any more valid than anyone elses.

[Boomer65]

Umm, no. Stormtroopers are cloned men in white armor. Cylons are chrome colored cyborgs.

Umm, yes. I asked do you see similarities. Stormtroopers, from the outside look like humans in armor that sound robotic, Cylons, from the outside look like humans in armor that sound robotic.

And I don't think Larson would sue you. You are using a basic premise and I would assume you would then create original characters to tell that story not reliant on using BGT character names.

Your point?

Thank you – I don’t know why Shiningstar brought up the whole Lucas/Larson suit – it had absolutely no bearing in the “rip-off” debate. There’s a huge difference between a rip-off and plagiarism.

I'm saying that Moore is a hack writer who borrowed from other specific movies to tell his story which are all a little familiar. Do you UNDERSTAND THAT?

Believe it or not I agree with you. IMHO, the BSG03 plot had so many contrived elements that it looked like a jr. high school student wrote it.

And as far as the DeSanto Apollo/Cylon plot twist... to me it does sound a little too "Borg" for my liking. Wow! I bet your surprised I would say something like that huh? Maybe that will prove to you that I have a more open mind than you think.

I never said you weren’t. All I’m saying is that before you start pointing out all the rip-offs realize that damn near everything you see in the movies or on TV today is a rip-off of something else.