Observations from a well rested fan & Richard Hatch got screwed, again?

dvo47p · February 25th, 2003, 06:19 PM

Look for science fiction ‘type cast actors’ showing up in this ‘B’ mini.

Was Katee Sackhoff cast as Colonial Warrior Kara ‘Starbuck’ Thrace, because the real Starbuck, Dirk Benedict said NO to Bonnie/Scifi’s offer to return to Scifi’s BSG lite? I bet Bonnie Hammer loved killing off Dirk Benedict/Starbuck’s character by gender. Boomer/Jefferson also?

Only Ms. Hammer could compare, Jamie Bamber to Hayden Christensen, her frenzied rhetoric was way over the top, no doubt Bonnie’s phaser was set on bullfelgercarb.

Hello you Ron 'popcorn' Moore fans, Battlestar Galactica is not being remade for scifi fans or as a new creative show for The Scifi Channel, that would be oxymoronic. Nope it is being made so Universal studios can “maintain the franchise”. Do a google on ‘The Sonny Bono Law’.

miltonjames: George Lucas lifted that Force ideology from straight from Joseph Campbell. Hell, Bill Moyers did an episode about the Force with Campbell and Lucas on The Power of Myth, on PBS.

WHOPPERS BY RONNIE MOORE? This was when he was willing to make nice to BSG fandom. (retros)

From battlestargalactica.com
https://www.battlestargalactica.com/d...ept2002qa.html

Q.) How much budget has sci-fi given you to produce this project?

RDM) They don’t like us to give out actual numbers, but suffice it to say that it’s well into the 8 figure range.

Q.) There is concern from fandom that the new series will focus too intently on the love lives of the new cast. Can you comment on this?

RDM) It’s not all about love lives or sex. Certainly the original had romance and a dash of sex and we’re not going to shy away from that element, but it’s not the central focus.

Q.)Does the Sci-Fi Channel see Richard Hatch as a liability to the new Battlestar mini-series production?

RDM) Not to my knowledge. In fact, despite what the dark conspiracy theorists on the internet may tell you, I have never once heard anyone at either the studio or the network say one bad thing about Richard Hatch. All I've heard is about how passionate he is about BG and how astonishing it was that he laid out his own cash to produce a trailer. They respect his guts even if they don't want to go with his take.

Q.) I know Glen A. Larson owns the rights to the characters it was REALLY Richard Hatch who was the one who got this revival started and got the suits interested in the franchise why can you at the very least acknowledge the man and thank him for all he has accomplished Mr. Moore?

RDM)* I'm more than happy to: Thank you, Richard. It was your commitment and passion that likely got people interested in Galactica after a long hiatus and I am more than willing to give credit where credit is due.*

Q.)Glen Larson relied heavily on his Mormon faith to provide mythological heft to the original series. Are we going to see a similar effort in this new series?

RDM) The mythological roots are there, but not in the same format. Okay, that's a really unsatisfying answer, I know, but again, there's no way to talk about some of these things without giving it all away.

Q.)Do you respect the efforts made by Richard Hatch to revive the series and has his efforts had any influence on your decision(s) on how to proceed ?

RDM) *He has my admiration and respect for his efforts, but it doesn't impact my decision-making. In all fairness, a continuation has had at least three different chances: Galactica:1980, Richard Hatch's project, and then the Singer/Desantos version. So I don't think you could say a continuation hasn't had a fair shot. Let's give the remake at least one try before it's condemned.*

dvo47p: * I bet Richard Hatch never heard a single word from Ron D. Moore, Regarding his: "admiration and respect", "Thank you, Richard" or "It was your commitment and passion that likely got people interested in Galactica after a long hiatus and I am more than willing to give credit where credit is due"

Oh yeah RDM never bothered to check out Hatch's trailer either.

Micheleh · February 26th, 2003, 09:25 AM

True. But as I have learned, especially recently, from a wise person, it isn't about the egos or whose name is on what, it's about the quality of the effort, and what you learn from the process. Or, the reward is in the journey, not the credit.

March 16th, 2003, 01:40 PM

Where did Bonnie compare Jamie Bamber to Hayden C? I'd love to read it.

Jamie's better than HC..........

Beth

peter noble · March 16th, 2003, 02:51 PM

To defend my fellow countryman, Jamie Bamber. I've seen him act in the series Hornblower, and he was very good!

Regards,

Peter

Dawg · March 16th, 2003, 06:59 PM

Thanks for posting the link to the September 2002 posting by Ron Moore. I hadn't seen that yet (I'm new here).

And thank you, too, for helping me crystalize my thoughts on the whole subject. It's the undertone of "my way or the highway" that was in your post, the between-the-lines vilification of Moore that did the trick.

I'm going to try to state those crystalized thoughts in a couple of brief paragraphs, so bear with me.

Except for the few of us on these boards, the viewing public probably doesn't remember much of BSG - and don't give a hoot whether or not it's ever brought back. The franchise is dead and buried as far as the outside world is concerned. Even though there are a good number of us who are still fans, that number is insignificant compared to the wider audience; the studio and the network are not going to give hundreds of thousands (or millions, eventually) of dollars to a project just because it has our stamp of approval, they are going to give that money to the project that will make them the most money.

Bottom line, $$$$. Period, end of discussion.

My friend, I'll tell you point-blank that my own feelings (as I've posted elsewhere) are basically of disappointment that the most likely BSG miniseries isn't going to be a continuation, it rather will be a remake with changes (not uncommon with remakes, if you think about it).

Richard Hatch and others (including yourself) have been passionate about a continuation, but neither the studio nor the network have liked the ideas that have been pitched so far, apparently. That's too bad. There has been high-level acceptance, though, of the Moore remake. That's good, if only because it may reintroduce the franchise to the wider audience.

What we can do, though, is continue to post our ideas and suggestions -and maybe, just maybe, have some influence on the final product (depending on who's reading). I hope to see Richard and Dirk and Herbert, maybe Ed Begley and Sarah Rush, and as many of the original cast as still survive in the new telling of BSG (where are you, Maren?).

I think we all need to keep an open mind, frankly. Moore is a Hugo Award winner - that means he's no hack writer. If he produces crap this time, though, then we can tear him a new one.

I am
Dawg

Sci-Fi · March 16th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Hi, ojai.

Micheleh · March 16th, 2003, 09:02 PM

"Except for the few of us on these boards, the viewing public probably doesn't remember much of BSG - and don't give a hoot whether or not it's ever brought back. The franchise is dead and buried as far as the outside world is concerned."

Your opinion, which of course you are welcome to. This has not been my experience, however, or the experience of the majority of people here, or whom I have had contact with. Dead and buried? With all respect- hardly.

"Even though there are a good number of us who are still fans, that number is insignificant compared to the wider audience; the studio and the network are not going to give hundreds of thousands (or millions, eventually) of dollars to a project just because it has our stamp of approval, they are going to give that money to the project that will make them the most money.

Bottom line, $$$$. Period, end of discussion."

Again, your rightful opinion. My experience and the experience of many others is widely differing. End of discussion? Hardly.

I'm going to say something right now and get it over with. This forum is a place for all to express their views, regardless of what they are, in confidence of being heard and respected. However, there is a point where I draw the line. I strongly disagree with people who choose to tell others how they must think or act or view things, especially with the implication that this is the best course, for their own good, etc. (Or that they are little nobodies without a chance, but if they do x, y, and z, they may yet be saved.)

I am not saying that you are doing this- I am just taking a timely moment to mention this. Regardless of one's views, respect of the views of others and their right to speak and do as they will is mandatory, here.

Thank you.

*Gets off soapbox so Hito can get some soap.*

Dawg · March 16th, 2003, 09:37 PM

Micheleh, if I gave you or anyone the impression that I wanted to tell you or anyone else how they should think, I sincerely apologize. I started posting in this forum to have a discussion about this whole debate, and I don't mean for anyone to think I'm not going to respect others' views on the subject. In fact, I welcome differing views and different sources of information; we learn more that way.

And I think that was the ultimate point I was trying to make.

I think it's a mistake to dismiss "the Moore vision" out of hand, just because he's retelling the story, but that's the tone I picked up from dvo47p's post. I guess I just poured too much into my response, which confused the issue. I'm a writer; I guess I like words.

I also don't think the most rabid on any issue will be taken too seriously, either.

Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I am
Dawg

Micheleh · March 16th, 2003, 09:45 PM

Don't be sorry, you have every right to share your thoughts and feelings. I'm only mentioning it because there have been quite a few who have come here simply to force the majority of us, ah, 'retros' to give up our opinions. I didn't want you standing there in a pair of smoking shoes, going "Was it something I said?" Lol!

I appreciate your understanding.

Micheleh · March 16th, 2003, 09:56 PM

By the by- most who disagree with Moore's work aren't dismissing it out of hand. We all have good reasons, at least to us.

For my part, I also am a writer, and I believe that if you are going to produce a derivative work of any sort, regardless of the form, you must do certain things. One is to have a familiarity with the original work, which to my knowledge Mr. Moore lacked. The second is to maintain plausability- not nessecarily by following all tenets fo the prior work to the letter, but to at least offer plausible explanations of major changes.

As a writer, if I had to change somehing to the point where the original work became moot, then I would just do a seperate project and dissociate from the original altogether.

It is also a common speculation that the reason Mr Moore and those involved did not do just that was to capitalise on the name, a plan which obviously backfired when it became obvious that Moore had little respect for the original material, and became downright adversarial when the fans of the original series did not simply embrace his vision without question. At that point, it becomes less about the work than the attitude with which it is presented.

I did not like the remake script because, frankly, I think it was shoddy, cliche-ridden and lacking in the ability to involve the reader emotionally in any significant way. This is, of course, my opinion.

WXM · March 17th, 2003, 06:37 AM

Hi all!

To add my two cents at this point (the likes of which have surely been uttered thousands of times already, but...) to Dawg

Quote:

"Except for the few of us on these boards, the viewing public probably doesn't remember much of BSG - and don't give a hoot whether or not it's ever brought back. The franchise is dead and buried as far as the outside world is concerned."

I strongly disagree with this. Many people still remember BSG. I'm in my mid-thirties and most everyone I know my age to whom I ask, "Did you watch Battlestar Galactica when you were a kid?" answers with something along the lines of, "Of course! Every week!" They may not post on bbs's, but there's a big difference between coming here, getting a handle, joining discussions--and setting your VCR to record something that's an update (with some same actors, same ship designs more-or-less) of what you enjoyed watching when you were a kid. I think a continuation could be HUGE! And I, as I seem to be so proud of saying here, am not a hardcore BSG fan. I think I'm similar to you, Dawg, but with a different take on the possibilities. The RDM imagining is at least a full step behind what common sense would dictate would be the best way to sell a new Galactica. To "re-imagine" is a alienate those many people out there who, out of pure curiosity, would want to see Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict on screen again. To cancel out that flush of viewership, the new show needs to be FANTASTIC. The Hugo award winning writer was given his shot to win over the folks who wish to see their childhood memories turned into another potential LostInSpaceTheMovie. I see the folks here at CF as the litmus test as to whether RDM did, indeed, create something worthy of canceling out the built-in boost that the BSG property has from having been so very popular. RDM's script apparently is not FANTASTIC (I haven't read it, but I don't think I need to to come to this conclusion(see Michele's post above

)). Most of the people who really stick up for it are people who seem to be worried that RDM needs work, might be about to apply to welfare or something; others are people who obviously would watch the new show no matter what, as long as it was done well, which means they're not gone wither way--so why not keep them AND the others who religiously used to watch the original show?

I LOVE many episodes of ST:TNG written by RDM, but that doesn't mean he can do no wrong. It was like with the film Tora! Tora! Tora! The great Akira Kurosawa himself was to direct the Japanese segments of the film--but, as great a filmmaker as he was, his side of the production, for reasons I won't go into detail on here, didn't work out due to his simply being the wrong person for the job. (Kinji Fukasaku, who did Battle Royale decades later, took over and did marvelously.)

Alright, I'm starting to ramble so I'm stopping now while the points seem reasonably well made.

-WXM

P.S.-To Dawg: Hope you're not feeling picked on; just my two cents on all this.

P.S.2- To everyone else: I didn't mean to refer to you all as a litmus test!

Dawg · March 17th, 2003, 09:13 AM

No, WXM, I don't feel picked on. I really do appreciate hearing what you and micheleh have said; I've learned something new.

And I am glad to hear the fan base is larger than I thought it was.

Still, I do beleive that the production of TV and movie projects are cash driven, for the most part, particularly franchises like Star Wars or BSG. I would not be at all surprised if Richard Hatch has been short-changed by Universal, but I also think it possible that the "keepers of the purse" did not see his vision as profitable, and approached Moore to get a fresher take on it. The purse-holders at SciFi apparently preferred Moore's vision to the Hatch/DeSanto ideas.

It also appears that fan input may be making a difference, if I read Michael Faries' posts correctly. I take that as good news.

I also notice, though, that the production is still not green-lighted? :confused:

Anyway, thanks for the input, and please don't stop doing so.

I am
Dawg

ojai22 · March 17th, 2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RGrant
Hi, ojai.

Oh, yes, RG, another one bites the dust. More quickly this time. Your turn to buy the Mountain Spring Water.

dvo47p · March 17th, 2003, 06:26 PM

Sullivan v. NYTimes, Dawg enables me vilify any public person, like Moore

Dawg "you ignorant slut"

Plenty of people remember Battlestar Galactica, not only from ABC but from lots of prime time air time on The Scifi Channel. I was looking forward to Tom DeSanto's Galactica, then whoosh he was fired, replaced by Ron Moore/David Eick.

I deal in reality, no way could more than Hatch, Benedict & maybe Jefferson &/or Lockhart could return in a continuation. A new generation born in space would have a lot of air time.

Universal studios wants to “maintain the franchise”, on Battlestar Galactica, they know it was BIG, plus they do not want Glen Larson getting it back or Richard Hatch getting a shot with Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming.

I am a fan of science fiction, TV is gutting the genre, with lousy scripts, piss poor CG/FX & Star Trek over & over.

Ps. Dawg that was no "undertone" in my post that was a 2X4.

Micheleh · March 17th, 2003, 07:17 PM

dvo47p vs MeTheMod, Colonial Fleets enables me to say mind yer' frikkin' manners.

Debate the man's points, but leave the personally directed remarks and comments out of it. Be careful witht he 2X4, I have a 4X4. Got it?

dvo47p · March 17th, 2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dvo47p
Sullivan v. NYTimes, Dawg enables me vilify any public person, like Moore

Dawg "you ignorant slut"

Plenty of people remember Battlestar Galactica, not only from ABC but from lots of prime time air time on The Scifi Channel. I was looking forward to Tom DeSanto's Galactica, then whoosh he was fired, replaced by Ron Moore/David Eick.

I deal in reality, no way could more than Hatch, Benedict & maybe Jefferson &/or Lockhart could return in a continuation. A new generation born in space would have a lot of air time.

Universal studios wants to “maintain the franchise”, on Battlestar Galactica, they know it was BIG, plus they do not want Glen Larson getting it back or Richard Hatch getting a shot with Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming.

I am a fan of science fiction, TV is gutting the genre, with lousy scripts, piss poor CG/FX & Star Trek over & over.

Ps. Dawg that was no "undertone" in my post that was a 2X4.

Why is this post before the one I was repying to?

ojai22 · March 17th, 2003, 08:02 PM

Oh boy. dvo, it's mu understanding that you meant your forcefulness of tone as the 2x4. If it's wrong of you to assume that attitude, then the threat of a 4x4 seems a bit worse. However, you did call the man a slut. That's a no-no, Sweetie.

I know it's frustrating when someone presents themselves one way, then the next day they've seen the light. It's best to let it go. Or join RGrant and me with a bottle of MS Water.

my 2 cubits.

Micheleh · March 17th, 2003, 08:17 PM

What, you mean I'll have to give back Warrior's mod stick? *Trudges off to put it back in closet.*

dvo47p · March 17th, 2003, 08:18 PM

Re: “you ignorant slut”, Micheleh have you ever seen ‘Saturday Night Live’ from the mid 70's that was Dan Akroyd doing the news with Jane Curtain, put my post in perspective. The NBC censors sure did. This is the 21st century, come on. That 2X4 shot was a metaphor.. GEEZ, has cultural literacy has taken a nose dive or what?

ojai what is MSwater & is it owned by Bill Gates?

Btw: your two cubits have bought my heart, how do I love you let me count the ways..........hey why are you drinking with Ray?

Micheleh · March 17th, 2003, 08:21 PM

Nope, never really watched it. The point isn't cultural literacy, though. It's about keeping the arguments about the topic, not calling each other names, whether they are cultural references or not. (I wasn't really worried about the 2x4.)

ojai22 · March 17th, 2003, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dvo47p

ojai what is MSwater & is it owned by Bill Gates?

Btw: your two cubits have bought my heart, how do I love you let me count the ways..........hey why are you drinking with Ray?

Read the posts above yours, Sweetpea. That's Mountain Spring Water. I don't know if Bill Gates owns it, but I wouldn't be surprised.

And I'm drinking with Ray because you went south with your valentine and became the Midnight Sandman. Even so, I own your heart...

ojai22

Dawg · March 18th, 2003, 07:30 AM

Don't worry, dvo, I wasn't offended by the SNL reference - in fact, I was amused. It's comforting, in a way, to know we are of the same generation (assuming you caught The NRFPTP first-run, as I did).

Of course, most of us are about that age, aren't we?

Anyway, my friend, I find little to argue with in your last post (your response to mine yesterday). I think our basic philosophies about BSG are very similar - your style, though, is just more in-your-face than mine is. That's OK.

I, too, deal in reality (although there are days I prefer non-reality, I confess). That's why I've adopted a kind of wait-and-see attitude. I still think it unlikely we'll see original cast reprising original roles, but I lack key information about that. That's why I'm waiting for announcements, and watching the posts here.

If you want to have a more detailed discussion about why I think as I do, I'd be happy to. Not likely to make you happy, though.

LOL

I am
Dawg

March 18th, 2003, 07:45 AM

Now that the dust is settling, can someone please answer my earlier question? Can someone direct me to where Bonnie Hammer compared Jamie Bamber to Hayden Christiansen?

Beth

March 18th, 2003, 07:50 AM

The TV Guide article last month Beth was where she was quoted.

March 18th, 2003, 08:11 AM

I'll check it out over at TV guide online.

Beth

dvo47p · March 18th, 2003, 02:33 PM

Was that the interview where she tried to defect questions about Farscape?

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain James The TV Guide article last month Beth was where she was quoted.

dvo47p · March 18th, 2003, 02:54 PM

Dawg got it!

Quote:

Originally posted by Dawg Don't worry, dvo, I wasn't offended by the SNL reference - in fact, I was amused. It's comforting, in a way, to know we are of the same generation (assuming you caught The NRFPTP first-run, as I did). Of course, most of us are about that age, aren't we?

Anyway, my friend, I find little to argue with in your last post (your response to mine yesterday). I think our basic philosophies about BSG are very similar - your style, though, is just more in-your-face than mine is. That's OK.

If you want to have a more detailed discussion about why I think as I do, I'd be happy to. Not likely to make you happy, though.

LOL
I am
Dawg

Sure I would enjoy "a more detailed discussion.....I'd be happy to." also.

But I doubt the Mod/Nanny unlike you, could understand my acerbic wit, I would have to take you apart somewhere else

I am,
The 40 something Dawg catcher!

Ps, U will "Not likely to make you happy, though." Dawg "You ignorant ****"

Dawg · March 18th, 2003, 03:52 PM

The Dawg is ignorant, dvo!?!??

You are absolutely right - at least as far as what's gone on in the BSG universe in the last year.

:p

ojai22, that's why the apparent (and I emphasize apparent) turnaround on my part. Like I said, I think dvo and I both want the same thing; I just lacked some of the information you guys have had all along, and his "acerbic wit" took me a little by surprise. I'm learning, though... And I'm learning fast.

Sorry, dvo, I won't be a moderator - not enough time in my day (I'm stealing time now to do this). I will be reading and posting, trying to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, though.

As I have posted elsewhere, I want to be involved in a frank discussion about what's been going on - RDM involvement and the really strange things he wanted to do, whether he's out now as some are suggesting, whether Sci-Fi is really going ahead, but with what, and when?

Just for the record, I have no doubt that Richard Hatch got screwed (can I say that?) more than once, but I can think of several reasons why his vision could be looked at skeptically by some. I really like the books, though (except, why the sudden mental powers? Kind of left me cold, but I got over it).

I am
Dawg

Micheleh · March 18th, 2003, 08:32 PM

"But I doubt the Mod/Nanny unlike you, could understand my acerbic wit, I would have to take you apart somewhere else "

LOL! No skin off my nose. If you two want to be culturally referential at each other, knock yourselves out. Just don't make a mess.