|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 07:05 PM
|
#1
|
out there somewhere
| Former Admin (ret) | | Colonial Fleets | | BattlestarGalactica-Fleets.com | | Owner | | Ship Of Lights Forum |
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Ship Of Lights
Posts: 5,517
|
Why not call our shows BIG?
We struggle with naming these things. Names like "old school", "mini" and others suck. Why not switch to this idea which is less obtrusive.
We shorten Battlestar Galactica to BG, and pronounce it "BiG", cause the show is BIG, The ship is BIG, and well... I think BiG fits it.
Then the shows would be
BG1 (pronounced Big-One) cause it was first
BG80 (pronounced Big-Eighty)
BG2C (Big-TwoCee) -Hatch's Second Coming
BGD (Big-Dee) - The Desanto production
BG03 (Big-Three) - The new one
Our shows are BiG!!!!!
:laugh:
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 07:23 PM
|
#2
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Wa USA
Posts: 1,874
|
BIG would be a great moniker, it would also reflect some of the BIG hearts found here
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 07:39 PM
|
#3
|
GINO Public Defender
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357
|
I am beginning to believe the labels are not so relavent.
There is no compelling reason to be accomodating in the use of labels,as I see things now.
If the mini goes to series, the TV Guide will most likely list it as Battlestar Galactica.
For some, this will sting like blasphemy.
The original Battlestar Galactica will probably be listed with the year it aired (as might a new show by the same name). Galactica 1980 needs no further qualifiers.
The other potential projects will most likely still be celebrated by the names behind the implementation.
I really dont think it is an argument that can be settled though. Those that have a strongly negative reaction to the RDM BSG will alway hate that the name is attached.
We that see enough of the old in the new to feel it worthy of the name will probably always over react to someone downplaying its legitamacy.
One thing that was funny to me, that in the old TOS section, so many of the most ardent TOS-supporter/RDM bashers would repeat similar criticism of TOS. Bad writing here, there, etc. Have a RDM fan level the same remark and it turns ugly fast.
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 07:58 PM
|
#4
|
out there somewhere
| Former Admin (ret) | | Colonial Fleets | | BattlestarGalactica-Fleets.com | | Owner | | Ship Of Lights Forum |
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Ship Of Lights
Posts: 5,517
|
I would hazard a guess that you and I agree that we shouldn't be dividing the forums into different camps. That would be bad. But there are different physical show productions. Those need to be distinguished apart from each other. Like when we say TOS, I think Captain Kirk. Cause Trek was saying TOS for a looong time now. And instead of spelling Galactica 1980, "BG80" is so much easier to use. (Or G80)
I think acronyms to save typing on show production titles would be an okay use.
We could even drop the "B" and just have G-1, G80, G-2C, etc, though its not as clear.
Though using G-1, G-3 etc reminds me of GatchaMan.
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 08:09 PM
|
#5
|
out there somewhere
| Former Admin (ret) | | Colonial Fleets | | BattlestarGalactica-Fleets.com | | Owner | | Ship Of Lights Forum |
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Ship Of Lights
Posts: 5,517
|
Quote:
One thing that was funny to me, that in the old TOS section, so many of the most ardent TOS-supporter/RDM bashers would repeat similar criticism of TOS. Bad writing here, there, etc. Have a RDM fan level the same remark and it turns ugly fast.
|
True.. but this will be a whole tangent deserving its own thread. But suffice to say if a newbie on a Farscape board said the Farscape writing sucked, he would get broiled alive. Whereas if a well known member was critical, it wouldn't be as badly received. Fans tend to be very protective of their shows.
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 08:13 PM
|
#6
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 12,939
|
Good Idea Tom ..........
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 08:33 PM
|
#7
|
Stablemaster, Livery Ship
| Fleet Modertor | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wandering Indiana
Posts: 5,101
|
Pretty funny, Tom!
__________________
"We feel free when we escape – even if it be but from the frying pan to the fire." Mozzie on White Collar
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." Malcolm Reynolds [/color]
"We don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries." Mitt Romney [/color]
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 08:37 PM
|
#8
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 12,939
|
I thought so too
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 10:12 PM
|
#9
|
Muff Daggy
| Owner: | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Beaver Hollow, TN
Posts: 3,900
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by conundrum7g
I would hazard a guess that you and I agree that we shouldn't be dividing the forums into different camps. That would be bad. But there are different physical show productions. Those need to be distinguished apart from each other.
|
Tom,
I do hope the various shows and their repsective fans are somewhat separated, you know like:
BSG Discussion
** Original
** G80
** Mini/G03
One thing that's important for me, hope others feel that way, when I browse a forum I don't want to have to see/skip over subjects I really don't like, or that cause a twinge of pain. That's one thing I've liked about CF over CA and SKiffy - there you never know what the content is till you're into it, and then it's too late not to be hurt or offended. But CF has allowed me to always choose which portion of the board to frequent, like TOS discussion and the Cafe. Not that I don't want to say hi to our mini friends too sometimes, just want to steer clear of those "twinges".
Thanks,
Muffit
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 10:28 PM
|
#10
|
GINO Public Defender
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357
|
Maybe a big flashing sign with the EJO quote "don't put yourself through the pain."
Or the alternative of just ignoring the mini and possible series. Some places have gone there.
I think the new show(s) are driving the interest in BSG. The growth demographic is fans clamoring for a new series from that.
I think a site such as this can be enriching for the new fans, as well as a rallying point for other efforts (continuation movie, and perhaps even a continuation series).
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 11:16 PM
|
#11
|
out there somewhere
| Former Admin (ret) | | Colonial Fleets | | BattlestarGalactica-Fleets.com | | Owner | | Ship Of Lights Forum |
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Ship Of Lights
Posts: 5,517
|
Quote:
I think the new show(s) are driving the interest in BSG. The growth demographic is fans clamoring for a new series from that.
I think a site such as this can be enriching for the new fans, as well as a rallying point for other efforts (continuation movie, and perhaps even a continuation series).
|
Heavy agreement from Tom.
Quote:
From Muffit
One thing that's important for me, hope others feel that way, when I browse a forum I don't want to have to see/skip over subjects I really don't like, or that cause a twinge of pain. That's one thing I've liked about CF over CA and SKiffy - there you never know what the content is till you're into it, and then it's too late not to be hurt or offended. But CF has allowed me to always choose which portion of the board to frequent, like TOS discussion and the Cafe. Not that I don't want to say hi to our mini friends too sometimes, just want to steer clear of those "twinges".
|
Make sure Don knows that. He is going to be the main voice in forum structure.
Though before all this, all the anti-BG03 folks were ignoring the barrier and posting in the proBG03 forum. So fans of BG03 weren't really spared the "twinges". And older BG1 fans were upset if anything was done about it. They claimed we were overmodding. So damned if we do, damned if we don't. The feedback we got back (you saw alot at CA, but from others too) was one reason why I wasn't happy about continuing CF.
|
|
|
|
February 7th, 2004, 11:29 PM
|
#12
|
Muff Daggy
| Owner: | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Beaver Hollow, TN
Posts: 3,900
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by conundrum7g
Make sure Don knows that. He is going to be the main voice in forum structure.
Though before all this, all the anti-BG03 folks were ignoring the barrier and posting in the proBG03 forum. So fans of BG03 weren't really spared the "twinges". And older BG1 fans were upset if anything was done about it. They claimed we were overmodding. So damned if we do, damned if we don't. The feedback we got back (you saw alot at CA, but from others too) was one reason why I wasn't happy about continuing CF.
|
Muffit whispers: " Doghouse..." timidly, then sneaks off to bed.
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 12:58 AM
|
#13
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Earth, Mutter's Spiral
Posts: 243
|
preface: jokes are not my forte, still I try anyway. So sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by conundrum7g
I would hazard a guess that you and I agree that we shouldn't be dividing the forums into different camps. That would be bad. But there are different physical show productions. Those need to be distinguished apart from each other. Like when we say TOS, I think Captain Kirk. Cause Trek was saying TOS for a looong time now. And instead of spelling Galactica 1980, "BG80" is so much easier to use. (Or G80)
I think acronyms to save typing on show production titles would be an okay use.
We could even drop the "B" and just have G-1, G80, G-2C, etc
|
Or we could just start calling it "Galactica"?
Unless you are paranoid about there being an actual show called "Galactica", in which case we could go for subtext to draw in the all elusive hordes of Batman fans and call it "Bat-Gal".
*groan*
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 07:39 AM
|
#14
|
Retired or am I?
| Special Effects Artist | | Battlestar Galactica 2003 | | CoFounder | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
I am beginning to believe the labels are not so relavent
|
Quote:
Or we could just start calling it "Galactica"?
|
__________________
www.colonialfleets.com
THE ART OF GALACTICA!
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 08:00 AM
|
#15
|
GINO Public Defender
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nashville,TN
Posts: 1,357
|
Well, it does sort of come down to a choice in the end.
The G03 forces can gather elsewhere, there is an anti-G03 section of the CF audience, and they have demonstrated they can gather elsewhere as well.
I am interested to see how it works out.
__________________
May've been the losing side. I'm still not convinved it was the wrong one.
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 08:49 AM
|
#16
|
Retired or am I?
| Special Effects Artist | | Battlestar Galactica 2003 | | CoFounder | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
I am interested to see how it works out
|
Hopefully for all our sakes it works out for everyone which ever vision they choose.
__________________
www.colonialfleets.com
THE ART OF GALACTICA!
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 09:42 AM
|
#17
|
Watashiwa Shin no Noir
| Veteran | | Fleets Warrior | | Former Assistant | | Richard Hatch |
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where my heart is.
Posts: 1,038
|
Yeah, but what if a poster tells another to bite he BG1?
*ducks*
I personally don't care who is pro or anti what- if they can get along and not attack the other members. Personally speaking.
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 09:45 AM
|
#18
|
Retired or am I?
| Special Effects Artist | | Battlestar Galactica 2003 | | CoFounder | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
I personally don't care who is pro or anti what- if they can get along and not attack the other members. Personally speaking.
|
Exactly. That's why i do not want labels. Just Galactica.
__________________
www.colonialfleets.com
THE ART OF GALACTICA!
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 09:58 AM
|
#19
|
Stablemaster, Livery Ship
| Fleet Modertor | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wandering Indiana
Posts: 5,101
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micheleh
Yeah, but what if a poster tells another to bite he BG1?
|
*waits for her to pop her head up and THWACKS*
:laugh:
You needed an appropriate welcome back after all.
__________________
"We feel free when we escape – even if it be but from the frying pan to the fire." Mozzie on White Collar
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." Malcolm Reynolds [/color]
"We don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries." Mitt Romney [/color]
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 09:58 AM
|
#20
|
Muff Daggy
| Owner: | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Beaver Hollow, TN
Posts: 3,900
|
Welcome Kester!
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 04:57 PM
|
#21
|
Warrior
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 393
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by conundrum7g
BG1 (pronounced Big-One) cause it was first
BG80 (pronounced Big-Eighty)
BG2C (Big-TwoCee) -Hatch's Second Coming
BGD (Big-Dee) - The Desanto production
BG03 (Big-Three) - The new one
Our shows are BiG!!!!!
:laugh:
|
Good suggestion but I prefer TOS for the 1978 series. I referred to Galactica 1980 as G1980 or G80 on my docs. There was no "Battlestar" in the title for 1980.
BSG03 and BG03 are my shorthand for the new series.
__________________
.
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 05:43 PM
|
#22
|
out there somewhere
| Former Admin (ret) | | Colonial Fleets | | BattlestarGalactica-Fleets.com | | Owner | | Ship Of Lights Forum |
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Ship Of Lights
Posts: 5,517
|
Quote:
There was no "Battlestar" in the title for 1980.
|
ummm.... I just watched my tape of it. It said "Battlestar Galactica" in the opening credits. No "1980"
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 05:56 PM
|
#23
|
Muff Daggy
| Owner: | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Beaver Hollow, TN
Posts: 3,900
|
How about, "G Whiz???"
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 06:35 PM
|
#24
|
Strike Leader
| Fleet Moderator | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 3,544
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by conundrum7g
ummm.... I just watched my tape of it. It said "Battlestar Galactica" in the opening credits. No "1980"
|
Tom -
They changed the title sequence when they sold the show into syndication. I noticed that too when Skiffy re-ran G80...
Bryan
________
FIX PS3
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 06:35 PM
|
#25
|
Warrior
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 393
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by conundrum7g
ummm.... I just watched my tape of it. It said "Battlestar Galactica" in the opening credits. No "1980"
|
I have ABC dubs, which clearly say "Galactica 1980". You are probably watching the SciFi versions with the "new" BSG logo slapped on top of it. Sorry dude !
__________________
.
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 06:49 PM
|
#26
|
out there somewhere
| Former Admin (ret) | | Colonial Fleets | | BattlestarGalactica-Fleets.com | | Owner | | Ship Of Lights Forum |
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Ship Of Lights
Posts: 5,517
|
OH!
okay
Learn something new everyday here. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 07:30 PM
|
#27
|
Guest
|
lol, Kester.
Bat-Gal is close to what my friends and I used to shorten it to
as 4th-graders back in '78-9. (Ours was BatStarGal)
I've been calling the Sci-Fi Channel's Battlestar Galactica reimagined Mini-Series starring Edward James Olmos "the mini" for two months. I'm sorry for being lame.
I'll call it G-03 from now on. My bad!
Let's just hope they don't make another one in '05, causing further message board confusion with the new Macintosh PowerMac computer!
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 07:34 PM
|
#28
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Earth, Mutter's Spiral
Posts: 243
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Marley
Well, it does sort of come down to a choice in the end.
The G03 forces can gather elsewhere, there is an anti-G03 section of the CF audience, and they have demonstrated they can gather elsewhere as well.
I am interested to see how it works out.
|
Don't ask me why but, upon reading this, I was struck by a single thought...
"That would make a great opening two sentences for some bizzaro space opera mystery tale." I mean if you change "audience" to "Alliance". . .
Just saying. :tongue:
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 10:26 PM
|
#29
|
Colonial Story Teller
| Fleet Moderator | | Colonial Fleets |
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New Orleans (Metairie), LA
Posts: 4,785
|
Simply put...as far as I am concerned (with the exception of Galactica 1980)...it is all GALACTICA.
Respectfully to all, LONG LIVE BOTH GALACTICAS,
Martok2112
__________________
Don't be a fan. Don't be a victim!-Martok2112
|
|
|
|
February 8th, 2004, 10:51 PM
|
#30
|
Bad Email Address
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Henderson(Las Vegas), NV
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
Though using G-1, G-3 etc reminds me of GatchaMan.
|
Heh, heh, I'm actually a Battle of the Planets fan my self. I even liked the new comic series printed last year, although they did paint my favorite character out to be a bad guy.
Whatever names you want to give them is good by me, just so I know how to refer to them without putting anyone down.
Ethan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For fans of the Classic Battlestar Galactica series
|
|
|