Some reasons why people hate the mini

thomas7g · December 10th, 2003, 01:15 AM

to be honest... alot of the anger against the mini has been insurmountable.

Alot of that has been due to SciFi channels PR department. Their repititious statements in public about the old series having been hopelessly flawed has stoked anger against them. Their total disrepect for the original series. And the constant bitter atttacks by fanatical miniseries fans of the mini who threatened people with lawsuits, and created false fbi men and fake senators to harass "old school" fans etc, created an environment where people begane to form an absolutely INTENSE hate of the mini.

And while these fans may not have been able to form any sort of physical protest in any large numbers....they told their friends, work colleagues and total strangers about how bad the new mini was. Everytime the scifi commercials created interest about the mini, there was a "old school" fan there to join in the conversation and "educate them."

Alot of the anger against the mini was Scifi, Moore's, and Bonnies direct fault. Its gone beyond story. Beyond love of an old tv show. People HATE now.

dec5 · December 10th, 2003, 01:25 AM

I like the mini series...but I also like the TOS too...

But there is no excuse to attack any type of fans on a personal level at all....that is just sick....and must be stopped.

thomas7g · December 10th, 2003, 01:37 AM

I agree!

The goal of this place is to provide a place where people can enjoy battlestar galactica. Emphasis on "enjoy." Its not a place for wars or arguing hotly.

GreggAllinson · December 10th, 2003, 04:30 PM

Is that somebody- I'd guess it's Bonnie Hammer, but god only knows if that's the case- decided to divide fandom with this mini. But it *didn't have to be that way*.

Honestly, I do think that Moore made some improvements and did some very interesting things. I liked the "documentary style" camerawork and the more realistic naval terminology. I thought some of the characters were likable- Sharon Valerii obviously wasn't "our" Boomer, but I liked her. I liked Chief Tyrell. I liked Lt. Gaeta. I liked William Adama.

The problem is this: was there anything in the original series that absolutely prohibited these artistic touches and characters from appearing in this new series? I don't think so. You could've had the same "documentary feeling" even *with* a straight continuation. Why couldn't "Boomer" simply be named "Valerii", considering the only thing she had in common with Boomer was the fact that she was stationed on the Galactica?

With a tweak and a turn here and there (mostly just renaming the characters), this could have easily been "Battlestar Galactica: One Thousand Years Later"- as different from Star Trek: TNG was from the original Star Trek, yet still clearly part of the same "universe." Instead, it was supposed to be the original story, and yet it was just different enough that I (and a majority of Galacticans) couldn't process it as the original story. Rather than being something everyone could embrace, it's touched off some very deep divisions, and I just find that sad.

Dark_Man · December 10th, 2003, 04:58 PM

Stop suger coating it. This BSG remake is just a symptom of a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger problem. I mean common Sci-Fi channel has for going on 2 yrs now made every bad choice posable.

They tried to fubar Stargate and fialed. Although I STRONGLY suspect there going to finish that job begining of next yr.

They DID screw up Farscape totaly, and now that they have agreed to this 4 hour Farscape mini I fear its just a back door way to screw farscape even more.

Now they are screwing over BSG. Ods are they will continue to screw it over.

Lets not forget that they have gone off on a total tangent of making shows that are at best questionable sci-fi. John Edwards? Common that isn't scifi its a con man spewing crap. Scare tatics? I love Shannon but common this isn't Sci-Fi its just candid camera with a twist. What about this new reality show mad house? Hahaha sorry...

Bottom line when did all this stuff start? What 1 - 1.5 yrs ago? Maybe 2? Well guess what in early y2k USA univerals Sci-Fi the whole shabang was bought by the Canal Group / Vivendi. see a trend here? I do. Not to be ummmm I know the word isn't raceist bleh anyway its the damm french. Lets face it right now all they care about is makeing a fast buck. There economy is in the felgercarbter they know it and there bleeding universal dry. Throw in some rather differnt political views than most americans and guess what they are fubaring everything they touch...

I'm realy not trying to be politicle per say, but you can't ignore the fact that 90% of the "problems" the fans started haveing with Sci-Fi channel all started right after the french took over. Weather we all like it or not the sci-fi channel and what it does has a HUGE effect on the scifi scene in general. Thus everyting is getting frelled.

I'm not sure HOW to do it but I think we has fans need to figure out how to take back control of things. I mean lets face it I'm pretty sure the sci-fi channel doesn't air in france. For the most part its an american channel. So why is it americans aren't running it?

GreggAllinson · December 10th, 2003, 05:34 PM

From the start, it's always been run on the cheap. It's never been a true channel for science fiction fans. If it was, they'd've shelled out the big bucks for all the Star Treks, continued to show Doctor Who (as well as other long-running British SF shows like Blake's 7 and Red Dwarf), paid top dollar for current SF blockbusters, etc. Instead, it's always been B-movies, flops, and stuff that could only be considered SF if you were drunk out of your skull and nearsighted.

thomas7g · December 10th, 2003, 05:39 PM

isn't the Farscape revival a non-scifi channel production?

Dark_Man · December 10th, 2003, 06:49 PM

Hmm I ASSUMED that it involved scifi channel. My guess was that what they were going to do is spend 2 hours fixing the cliff hanger then spend 2 hours getting John back to earth so that way the series would be totaly completely dead and the fans would have nowere to go. Obviously I assumed wrong because according to savefarscape.com they don't even KNOW were its going to air. So it might not have anything to do with Sci-Fi channel. If I weren't an atheist I'd say thank god. I wish I knew who to realy thank. My bet is on Brian Henson.

As far as Sci-Fi channel being cheep/cheesy... Ok fine I admit from day one the channel has done some questionable things. They played any and every low budget flick they could get there hands on. Made a few things here and there. However there BREAD and BUTTER. the show that MADE sci-fi a REAL channel. The show that totaly put them on the map Farscape. They canceled.

I mean common if they put some real money on the table and made more Stargate SG-1 plus did the Larson/Hatch/Desanto BSG continuation series PLUS had more all new Farscape EPs... every scifi geek on the planet would be glued to thier channel 24/7. Don't tell me it isn't so cause you all know it is.

Instead what do they do? Rebuff there fans. Cancel there pilot show. Threaten to cancel the only other truely good show they have (stargate). Which they suposedly were the hero's and saved from being canceled on showtime. To top all this off they take probibly one of the single most wanted remake shows BSG and they totaly fubar it.

I mean common what is left to be remade that is worth a damm? I can only think of 2 shows Buck Rodgers and BSG. Lost in space has been done. Star Trek has been done, and done, and owe redone agian. Starwars is pure movies and its still being done. I think Dr Who has been over done so that isn't going to work. That leaves what? BSG.

I'm sorry but its true. This is EXACTLY why Hatch met such an amazeing respoance. Its one of the few good shows that could be brought back and get a real responce from real fans. That is the whole damm point. You have a biult in audiance already. So what do they do? Attack the fans. Alienate them. Make them DOWN RIGHT MADD. Reimagine it all to try and apeal to a whole new audiance... Haha yeah that makes sense. Lets remake something, but lets do it in a way were no1 likes it alot some ppl like it a little and the previous fan base hates us for it. Hahaha... I just have to laugh.

Bottom line the ppl running the show are insian. Its like they want to fial.

Sorry don't mean to rant. I just REALY hate stupid ppl. The more I think about all of this the more I realise these ppl are just plain stupid.

thomas7g · December 10th, 2003, 07:30 PM

the scifi channel does seem to be on a campaign of hate against us scifi fans.

They want people who like scare tactics and that weird MadHouse thing...not us.

Darth Marley · December 10th, 2003, 07:54 PM

I don't see that on air outside of a few PBS markets.

I never liked the sets or production values,or the on the fly writing as Avon Kerr stole the show from Blake,but loved the premise.And the Kerr performance.

"Trust is only dangerous when you rely on it."

GreggAllinson · December 10th, 2003, 07:56 PM

It's been off the air since 1989, barring one (count it- one) lousy TV movie. How's that "overdone"?

In any event, BBC Wales is bringing it back in 2005. Boo-yah!

GreggAllinson · December 10th, 2003, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darth Marley
I don't see that on air outside of a few PBS markets.

I never liked the sets or production values,or the on the fly writing as Avon Kerr stole the show from Blake,but loved the premise.And the Kerr performance.

"Trust is only dangerous when you rely on it."

Blake's 7 is a great concept. Alas, the sequel series to that seems to be in limbo, since Paul "Kerr Avon" Darrow pulled out of it.

Stevew · December 11th, 2003, 06:02 AM

I tried to watch it again, they could cut #6 out totally, she was really annoying. The thing moved at the speed of paper and went slower when she was on.
S

Artemis · December 11th, 2003, 01:04 PM

It seems to me that Moore got rid of everything that made BSG unique and added pieces of other shows to make it as ordinary as possible. Others have already pointed out all the things I am refering to such as the B5 costumes and 6 of 12, 7 of 9 comparison, the terminator concept and the completely out of Farscape chip in the head of Baltar. It looked like he went to the local mall for the costumes of the non military and I have one word for him-TRIPOD, the shakey camera was driving me nuts and I had to stop watching the scene with Lee and the others on Colonial one when he kept spinning around the group. Other than having clothes that looked like todays fashions there was nothing to make the audience feel as if we were connected to these people. He said he changed the sex of the characters to have some strong female roles but Sharron came off as a wuss and Starbuck was just annoying, Athena, Serena and Cassiopeia were much stronger characters, and Sheba in later episodes. The only character I remotely liked was the crew chief, everyone else was whinney or self-absorbed. You don't have to give every character a major personality flaw to make them believable, in fact I find it hard to believe that many maladjusted people could be working on one ship.
In the end it wasn't horrible, I look at it for what it was, a way to retain the rights to the franchise, I don't think scifi really cared how it came out they just had to use the name before the end of the year. I'm just glad they don't have their hands on the Farscape mini.
Well that is my rant. :colwar:

Stevew · December 11th, 2003, 01:30 PM

Nice rant. wish I could write like you guys. I made the same point that most of the guys were whiny wusses. How about the guy in the neck tie
LOL it was all almost like it was on earth. The FX were the only thing watchable. I thought sci-fi was suppose to take you away
S:uhdrop:

malachi42 · December 11th, 2003, 01:50 PM

I understand that the decisions about the costumes were very deliberate. From what I have read the idea that viewers wouldn't be disracted by weird clothes of the future, and could concentrate on the dialogue and story rather than the irridescent green cape.
I doubt RDM went to a mall. I believe the show had a costume designer. I believe he was on Carnivale when many of the details were worked out during production.
Apparently SciFi had a lot riding on this show, and they are extremely happy about the results.

Artemis · December 11th, 2003, 05:12 PM

I never found the clothing in TOS distracting or weird but it was just different enough to make you feel they were from another place. Seeing a guy in a suit and tie that is supposed to be from a civilization far removed from our own was distracting to me. It made me think they had just dragged him in off the street and said stand here. It also made me think they were more concerned with cutting costs than with trying to make a world that we could believe in and care about, although they did spend $12,000 per helmet.
Stevew, I'm sure I repeated things you and others said, I haven't been able to catch up with all the postings lately.

Stevew · December 11th, 2003, 05:17 PM

Charlie had a lot to say about the helmet at the con, it was really funny.
The next few weeks should be interesting
S

dec5 · December 11th, 2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

He said he changed the sex of the characters to have some strong female roles but Sharron came off as a wuss and Starbuck was just annoying, Athena, Serena and Cassiopeia were much stronger characters, and Sheba in later episodes.

Sharron may be the imperious leader, but she was no wuss.

In fact she was the one who had to decide on a dime who lived and who was to die on Caprica.......she didn't let the guy make the decision....she took that responsibility....

It was the most emotional and tragic scene in the show....