Is the original BG a Star Wars rip off?

thomas7g · November 8th, 2003, 09:04 PM

I just saw this bandied about on cylon.org and thought we could also discuss it here.

personally I would say no. Though there is alot of relativity between the two.

First of all, BG never would have flown if Star Wars wasn't the media hit it was. So Star WArs opened the door for BG. Most definitely. BG and a TON of other shows including the Star Trek franchise. None of this would have happened without something like Star Wars.

That being said, the thing that is obviously a bit of a rip off is the special effects system they used to give us the viper combat scenes. The motion control camera came right off of star wars, and that means the look of vipers and raiders dogfighting are very similiar to X wings and Ties. Which is a large part of the show.

Also there is both a western and a religious theme going through both. But that's not really a rip off. More like a genre thing.

Outside of that, I would say the shows are VERY different. Personally I like the charaters better in BG than in the original Star Wars. That is partly do to screen time. Hans, Luke and Leia amazed us, but I think Apollo, Starbuck and Adama are personable characters. They feel more like family. And no one in Star Wars compares to Serina's performance. And the chemistry of the relationships between Jane Seymour, Richard Hatch, Lorne Greene and Noah Hathaway is unmatched in Star Wars.

Now I do think the original StarWars film had an insanely powerful impact. Both in how it effected soceity but also in how powerful a film it was.

But BG definitely had some areas where it was better than star wars.

Muffit · November 8th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Outside the sharing of John Dykstra and his talent, I would say no. It has been said BSG was conceived before Star Wars; it was the success of the latter that opened the door for the production of the former. Likely every sci-fi film is influenced to some degree by every other. To that extent we can see both productions borrowing from each other and from earlier works. But they exist in two totally distinct universes. And their differences are profound.

BSG introduced something totally unique that no other space film did. Star Wars very vaguely touched upon it, but never truly did it. That was the idea of aircraft carriers in space. In BSG, the battlestar or baseship is nothing without its fighter aircraft. It exists as a platform for them to launch from, just as our carriers do today. This I think is a far more likely scenario than huge craft chasing each other and trying to maneuver. It also solves being able to attack or visit land based targets. X Wing fighters never took off from larger vessels, but rather from planetary bases. True, Tie fighters were carried in small numbers by star destroyers, but never to the degree of a carrier, and the primary weaponry and defense of a star destroyer was always its own lasers. Just look at the beginning of A New Hope. Tie fighters do not chase Leia's ship, the huge star destroyer does.

Star Wars had nothing like the Cylons until Attack of the Clones. Its robots were servants that did slave labor. Only BSG had a robot animal, built purely for companionship. Hoth may have grown from Ice Planet Zero. This of course is conjecture, many suppositions can be made.

Star Wars was an awe inspiring epic for the silver screen. BSG was intended to bring that feeling into our homes. That is the extent of its guilt. The story, the combatants, the vessels, and the mythos are totally distinct. They both are set in outer space, but from there they part ways.

I don't think the real question is whether one ripped off the other, but whether a specific venue of special effects can be licensed and restricted like an intellectual property. 2001 A Space Odyssey stole its tricks from the creator of Thunderbirds. Everybody including comedies and cartoons have copied The Matrix still frame and spin effect. Technology always ultimately reaches everyone. I think Mr. Lucas was just trying to forestall that day a bit to keep his sequels the sole evokers of the exclamation, "Wow!".

Sorry for my rambling.

November 9th, 2003, 02:39 AM

Well, it was obvious that Ralph McQuarrie did work on both. So visually, it has similar elements. But the story of Adam's Ark was around long before Star Wars. And I'll admit that the only reson BSG was green lighted was because of Star Wars' success and the networks were drooling over the chance to duplicate that success.

But the fact is, BSG was simply the first post Star Wars piece of science fiction to hit either TV or theaters. So in a way, it was doomed to get the rap as a Star Wars rip off as the first post Star Wars pice of science fiction. In my opnion, if BSG hadn't come along, what ever Sci Fi piece of entertainment that came along that looked as realistic, would have gotten that same wrap. It's just unfortunate that BSG had to be the very first after Star Wars, to enter into the newly energized genre of Science Fiction at that time. Nobody saw it for what it was, the second piece of science fiction in a new more realistic genre.

But the sotry is completely unlike Star Wars, I don't know how it could be any more apart from it.

I used to always like STar Wars best with BSG a close second. And now after watching the DVD's, and being disenchanted by the Star Wars prequels, I can honestly say that I think I now like BSG better than Star Wars.

chez1701 · November 9th, 2003, 03:18 PM

Paramount was thinking of doing a new TV series of Star Trek with the orignal cast. That changed With Star Wars. As far as Battlestar, all the special effects were from the same people who pioneered the effects of Star Wars, So the effects were from that time period.

And of course Lucus barked that Battlestar was a carbon copy of his idea. Thus resulted the death of Galactica. I say no way are the same, but in order to come up with new ideas , writers always are influenced by history or events that they use. Like the sneak attack of Pearl Harbor idea that was used in Galactica.

Ower problem is ,if Galactica was like Star Trek would it have been doomed? Or a copy? So is Babylon 5 like DS 9 ?

Its like cars When Mercedes & BMW come out with new styles all manufactures try to capture the style for there products.
Does that mean it's bad? Is Robocop like Terminator? Different themes but same principls?!

no?

I say BSG got the short end of the stick & should of continued!!!!!!!!!!!

shiningstar · November 9th, 2003, 05:33 PM

While the special effects technology was Born out of Star wars,
the plot line is completely different. While the BSG was
inclusive of Earth; Star wars wasn't. Earth is not even mentioned
once in the Star Wars episodes while in BSG ..........everything
from the star of David to references from the Quaron were used.

As one person pointed out IBLIS means Saten in the Quaron.

We even have references to Greek and Egypt. Everything in
BSG (THE ORGINAL - not the trashy REMAKE) has a basis in Earth
history. Even the Name of ADAMA - The commander - means of Red Earth.

So NO I do not believe that Battle star Galactica is a rip off of star wars.

November 9th, 2003, 07:55 PM

Don't know how to say this ... but the real fans of Galactica will be receiving more stick thanks to the new mini series.

Now, instead of Galactica being unfairly being tagged a Star Wars rip-off, looks like big G may be considered a futuristic/space rip-off of the Terminator/Matrix series.

Does this sound familiar ... humans create robots, humans abuse robots, robots revolt, war between humans and robots.

But the saddest part is viewers of the new mini series will miss what we all loved about the original Galactica.

What the new series presents is NOTHING from the original!

Can someone please explain to me why do they keep insisting that it is a remake when they have removed so much of the original idea and mythology?!

Muffit · November 10th, 2003, 11:31 AM

A True Ripoff that we liked...

I just watched "MacKenna's Gold" on cable. And guess what? I just discovered that Universal's new "The Mummy" is an incredibly identical clone/remake of that old 1969 movie!

The similarities are so many and so striking I don't know if I can even mention them all. MacKenna's Gold is about a search in the desert for a hidden/invisible/possibly magical place with a huge vein of gold 5 yards wide. The Mummy is the search for the same, except the gold has been fashioned. One person knows where it is and leads a greedy party thru the desert. Two factions fight all along the way - both versions. The location magically appears at daybreak in both versions. A curse causes it to tumble down in both versions when they try to get the gold. One of the greediest members (in both versions) loads up a pack horse with tons of gold, only to be killed, thus leaving a gold-laden animal unknown to anyone. Two guys and one girl escape the curse in both versions, while everyone else dies. Finally, in a stunningly identical finale, our heroes mount their animal (horse or camel) and ride off into the desert toward home -- and as they do, the camera shows the back of the animal with the glimmer of gold peeking out of its saddlebags -- they're gonna be rich after all!

Now that's an example of a "ripoff", and even then you really don't mind cause The Mummy is a really great movie all on its own.

Just thought I'd mention it... if you wanna bit of deja vu, catch MacKenna's Gold on cable this month...

Bug-Eyed Earl · November 13th, 2003, 08:31 PM

I started that other thread on Cylon.org.

My whole point was that calling BG a rip-off of SW is correct only if you acknowledge that Star Wars itself took much from Dune and the works of Akira Kurosawa.

Basically; some common elements from Dune:

-galaxy ruled by a corrupt emperor
-Imperial Stormtroopers/Sardaukar
-desert planet where moisture is precious
-vicious desert people

I believe Frank Herbert found 17 points of comparison and was going to sue George Lucas.

And from what I can tell, the plot of Star Wars is very similar to Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress", especially earlier drafts. I plan to order THF, since I found a site that has the DVD for 6.99, so when I do see it, I'll let you know how it compares.

Star Wars got away with it because the space setting most likely caused Kurosawa enthusists not the notice, and given how with novels, the readers of Dune probably had a vision of something completely different look-wise from Star Wars, they got away with it with Dune fans as well.

But because BG is set in space, with large ships and smaller ships that engage in WWII style dogfights, it got the rap it did.

But of course you all know the differences.

And read "The Power of MYth" by Joseph Campbell. It basically states that humankind has been telling the same stories for thousands of years, so that's also worth noting.

Proximo · November 14th, 2003, 03:07 AM

There are even closer similiarities between Dune and Starwars. When 3PO is waving to the Jawa sandcrawler in the desert, what do you see behyind him but the skeletal remains of a sandworm?

I've heard there are only 12 archetypical characters in the entire world and that all stories use mixtures and variants of them. That would tend to limit the number of stories you can tell right away...

Trevor Angelus · November 15th, 2003, 07:14 AM

The core of the story is centered around Adama leading a rag tag fugitive fleet to the egendary earth. Much like Moses led the rag tag Hebrews away from the tyrrany of the Egyptians toward the promised land.

Kobol was based off of Egypt, and the colonial culture is based on the ancient greeks.

NONE of those elements were in Star Wars.

I don't think Lucas paid much attention to the show, he just saw the Cylons and the space dog fighting and based his conclusions upon that.

Faust · November 16th, 2003, 01:02 PM

I don't really see any similarities between the two either the special FX and the cylons kinda look like storm troopers but the stories are totally different from each other.

dvo47p · November 16th, 2003, 06:21 PM

Glen A. Larson had the idea 'Adam's Ark' the precursor of Battlestar Galactica, long before George Lucas put Star Wars* on the silverscreen and into the colloquial speech of people around the world. No doubt the success of Star Wars gave life to Larson’s production. Indeed the popularity of Battlestar Galactica caused the ingrate Lucas to sue ABC, Battlestar Galactica & Larson!

John Dykstra did the special effects for Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, as well as Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Galactica 1980, (really) Spider-Man and Spider-Man II.

Another tidbit longtime Battlestar Galactica fans know is George Lucas’ cutting edge Industrial Light & Magic Co. negotiated the type of FX Laser blasts Colonial Vipers as well as Cylon fighter could use.

*Now episode IV, A New Hope, indeed three different VHS editions, as well as a yet to be released on DVD yet newer edition with Natalie Portman as the Queen/Senator/Mrs. Anakin Skywalker/Mother of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia/Padmé Amidala/andwhoknowswhatelse in yet the newest name of episode IV, “The Life and Times of Anakin Darth Vader Skywalker”.

Senmut · February 4th, 2012, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corairs

1 no BSG is not a rip off of Star Wars

2 Star Wars is a rip off of Star trek

.

Here, here!!!

BST · February 5th, 2012, 02:11 PM

Another 9-year old thread breathes the fresh air!!

Senmut · February 5th, 2012, 06:41 PM

Hey, even the Mummy got to live again!!

Charybdis · February 6th, 2012, 07:59 AM

Actually, Star Wars is a ripoff of Flash Gordon (idea) and Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress." Lucas has even said as much...

But when it gets down to it, a court of law ruled that BSG was not 'stolen' from Lucas, so that should settle it once and for all....

Star Wars paved the way for that kind of action oriented sci-fi and the rest just followed right on through the opening...

137th Gebirg · February 6th, 2012, 08:48 AM

Lucas also plagiar...er...took inspiration from Japanese Anime, such as Space Battleship Yamato:

Punisher454 · February 6th, 2012, 10:54 PM

And Star Trek is patterned after Forbidden Planet.
Also SAAB had a lot of Galactica similarities, right down to the burning flag at the end of the initial surprise attack. Its just inescapable that you'll find similarities real, coincidental or just imagined.

IMO the most blatent "Rip Off" in a long time was The Island staring Ewan Mcgregor. It was a blatent (and I believe unauthorized) remake of "parts: the clonus horror".
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078062/reviews
If youve seen both, you'll know this is the poster child for movie Rip-Off's.

Senmut · February 7th, 2012, 12:07 AM

But hey, the lawyers ended up smiling. All the way to their time-shares in Cabo.

137th Gebirg · February 7th, 2012, 07:20 AM

^^^ Yep! And at the end of the day, that's really what counts...

Senmut · February 7th, 2012, 05:36 PM

Sadly.
Afterwards, maybe some ended up on the Council of Twelve...