How is scriptcontent contemptuous or insulting?

Dean Martin · December 11th, 2003, 09:39 AM

Quote:

A question, Jewels that I have been wanting to ask, but didn't feel that a rational discussion was possible. How exactly have the producers arrogance and contempt? Genuinely curious. I have read all of the interviews of the various players, read of their attendance at various fan gatheings, and I can't find the contempt. Everyone has seemed very polite and conciliatory. Is it just that they are doing the project their way that is taken as contempt ?
I have read some pretty serious charges on verious boards, satanisim, conspiracies sending out false posters, buying off critics, sexual favors etc.
I work in the business and have never seen that kind of behavior on the part of anyone. Trust me I don't see producers and studio heads as saints, but what exactly have they done?*

I agree with you. I don't see contempt EXCEPT in making a female Starbuck. At the very least there is a lack of respect for TOS fans. But for the rest of the mini I saw a lot of genuine homage to TOS.
There were nods to the original Cylons and many other connections that were made. I still can't get past the female Starbuck though. I haven't found a reason other than to create some sort of sexual tension but that could have been accomplished with ANY character.
If I was given some sort of plot connection that I could see, oh they 'Had' to do it to make it work but I just don't see it.

thomas7g · December 11th, 2003, 04:17 PM

Oh you better ask that question in the OTHER miniseries forum!

Don't answer it on this side!

malachi42 · December 13th, 2003, 08:23 AM

Dean-
How is scriptcontent contemptuous or insulting? I can understand finding it annoying, infuriating, but insulting? I just don't get that part of the debate.

thomas7g · December 13th, 2003, 01:23 PM

Thanks Malachi

I think the insulting part is when the writer shows no awareness of what made the original characters so good, but keeps telling you how his version is so much better. Its like he's telling you hey, I'm the one in hollywood, and I KNOW better than you. That's the insult part. We get it from Scifi all the time. And then they give us just what we've always wanted, another season of Scare Tactics.

malachi42 · December 13th, 2003, 07:43 PM

Thanks Malachi

I think the insulting part is when the writer shows no awareness of what made the original characters so good, but keeps telling you how his version is so much better. Its like he's telling you hey, I'm the one in hollywood, and I KNOW better than you. That's the insult part. We get it from Scifi all the time. And then they give us just what we've always wanted, another season of Scare Tactics.

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, Conundrum. I know this is very emotional and important to everyone, but I have read these sentiments a lot, and yet when I read the interviews with the writers and prodcers, I can't make the connection. For example I have never read anything by RDM where he has said anything like he knows better than anyone else because he's the one in Hollywood, or that he doesn't have any awareness of the characters. But he is consistent in sticking to his revision. But isn't that what he was hired to do? Specifically to reimagine BG? Isn't that what he has done? Had the studio asked him to stay true to TOS or to make sure he took the long times fans wishes into account, and then he decided to do his version anyway, then I guess I'd understand better.
I hope you don't mind my asking. I do it with respect for everyones feelings, have no intention of slamming anyones and am only trying to get a clear understanding/

thomas7g · December 13th, 2003, 08:25 PM

oh I don't mind it in the least when anyone asks.

Alot of the changes were pretty needless. Sure, have a strong female role. But why name her Starbuck? The fans protested HEAVILY at that one. It woulda been easy to make one small concession. But almost never were the fans given any bit of consideration even though alot of the fans have been campaigning for BG to comeback for 25 years. That's along time. And a huge amount of emotional investment. And it was dismissed pretty callously. No compromise. No consideration.

Also Bonnie Hammer gave a few interviews were she basically said she thought the kind of fan that liked big star wars kind of films were basically obsolete. And no one likes to be called that. Her belief was that scifi needed to move from less of the old stuff (which we see in the new galactica too) to the more weird phenonenon kind of show. Like Scare Tactics. Tremors, and that new MadHouse thing. Crossing over with John Edwards. All of which is what scifi is telling us is cool. Even though everyone hates them.

There is alot of other things that scifi does. Like censorship on the main forums there. They often take out your post even if you are nice and polite just because of it doesn't fit the image they want the user to see.

Bonnie Hammer said this about Olmos's statement that old fans shouldn't watch.

Quote:

Bonnie Hammer: "Anybody who was there and was listening knew he was doing it to egg people on and make them want to tune in. ...it was a total tease."

Basically there was alot of PR spin on this show rather than being upfront and honest. And people get really irritated if you assume you can trick them with spin.

They shoulda been upfront.

thomas7g · December 13th, 2003, 08:58 PM

btw alot of the attitude is not so much a contempt for the fans. More like a MASSIVE disregard of them. Treating them as if tehy are unimportant. Plus we notice that a few definitely look down on us, like Hammer.

BST · December 13th, 2003, 09:14 PM

An example of contempt:

*****
The network is hoping for another hit with an update of "Battlestar Galactica," a rethinking of the 1978-80 ABC series that starred Lorne Greene, Anne Lockhart and Dirk Benedict. Sci-Fi's version stars James Edward Olmos in the Greene role of Commander Adama, and is slated to air in December. "When we tested the segmentation study, every single group ... all said that they were interested in it," Hammer said. "They'd love to see it reinvented, reimagined.

"I think we are going to knock this one out of the ballpark."
*****

(For the entire article: https://custom.marketwatch.com/custom...}&alias=/ht/nw

The remarks by Hammer were an outright lie. There is at least 1 group that I know of that was not in favor of a re-imagining.

BST

amberstar · December 13th, 2003, 10:48 PM

I know exactly what group that would be

Amber

malachi42 · December 14th, 2003, 02:16 PM

Well Hammer does sound insensitive to the fans of TOS. And I can understand that it feels pretty insulting to be dismissed when something is so important to you. Like every other corporation the film business is just that, a business. One of the frustrating things for me in this business is dealing with the corporate mindset juxtaposed against a creative medium. There are times where I'll get a directive from studio exec to make a female cops uniform tighter or her pants ride lower, or a million other stupid ideas that execs feel will garner them the maximum number of viewers. Pure dollars and cents. And my guess is that the TOS fans didn't really show up on the radar screen. Their numbers are too few. Just like WalMart, who doesn't care if 20 small family business get wiped out upon their arrival in an American town. The number of people affected negatively cannot compete against the billions of shoppers gained. It's business.
I have to say tough, it seems that David Eick and Ron Moore are being painted by the same brush as Hammer. That eludes me.

jewels · December 14th, 2003, 02:39 PM

Go to www.scifi.com/battlestar if they still have the Ask David Eick stuff up: read through that, it contains a lot. The lowdown had more, check his chat transcript archived at www.scifi.com/chat . Does anyone have RDM's popcorn letter still?

As far as "how not to succeed in public relations" RDM's letter was a case study in how not to approach an established fanbase that should be in marketing & PR textbooks. Very bad word choices, very "I'm the answer to all that's wrong with sci-fi" sort of attitude. Anytime someone thinks that "they" are the solution to something, that there is no other way than theirs, no understanding of why another way might be wiser or at least a stronger marketing way to approach a project, my "arrogance" meter goes off.

As Tom DeSanto is quoted as having said during X-men "always stay true to the lore." For treating their source material with a little respect and humility that team got 2 blockbuster movies out of a comic book franchise, kept fans mostly pleased, added fans from the movies themselves....

I like how they did it. I wish that Tom gets his chance with BSG again.

peter noble · December 14th, 2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by malachi42
And my guess is that the TOS fans didn't really show up on the radar screen. Their numbers are too few.

If the numbers were too few, why did they go ahead with bringing the property out of mothablls after 25 years?

Surely TPTB saw there was an interest in the property, after all 16,000 people signed a petition to get the original cast included into the DeSanto version, and while that's not Star Trek numbers, surely it shows interest?

Peter

jewels · December 14th, 2003, 02:55 PM

peter, pssst: it's something around 17,400 ish now.

Starbuck · December 14th, 2003, 03:02 PM

And if we're so few in numbers, why go through the time and effort of putting together a DVD box set for the series and a video game based on the series?

peter noble · December 14th, 2003, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starbuck
And if we're so few in numbers, why go through the time and effort of putting together a DVD box set for the series and a video game based on the series?

Exactly! As malachi42 said, it's showbusiness, no one's going to greenlight a product if they don't think it's going to sell!

Peter

malachi42 · December 14th, 2003, 03:54 PM

It is unfortunate but true that 17,000 viewers is not enough to green light a series. It may be enough to puit out a DVD collection because that costs them virtually nothing since all the footage is sitting in a vault. Any profit matterscompared to nothing.
But as an example, when a studio does a release of say, Wild Wild West, it costs them considerably less than an original project that they don't own and have to develop, eliminating an entire tier of costs. And they don't market it to the original viewers because they wouldn't account for a big enough demographic and their demographicdoesn't go to the movies or watch tv in numbers comparable to a younger audience. Which is who they then market the remake to. An audience who never saw the original.
It may be crappy, but most business is.

malachi42 · December 14th, 2003, 03:56 PM

RDM actually said "I am the answer to all that is wrong with science fiction"?
Is that in an interview or chat that I can read somewhere? Wow!

thomas7g · December 14th, 2003, 04:00 PM

basically he stated that all scifi was bad and that his version is better cause its more real. That was in the lowdown. But he said it elsewhere I'm sure.

BST · December 14th, 2003, 05:02 PM

malachi,

Your effort to be diplomatic is most appreciated and I do mean that.

What it all boils down to is that there has been a revival of Battlestar Galactica in the works, long before Hammer, Eick, and Moore showed up on the scene. False starts and corporate intransigence kept the product from appearing much sooner than a week ago. After the Fox effort with Singer and DeSanto fell through, Moore was handed the project by Hammer and Eick and they did what they wanted.
They owned the property so who was to stop them?

The only problem is that, in our combined humble opinion, their way was not the best way. Their effort trampled all that made the show special. Sure, it may appeal to younger viewers who don't know the back story. So would the same show with a different name.

All that we are saying is that they would have had nearly absolute guaranteed support if they had stuck to the original storyline and then, picked up the story from there. To a creative mind, the possibilities are endless. It would have been no problem to pick up the story 20-25 years later.

Finally, there have been remarks that the new viewer would have been disadvantaged by not knowing the back story. How were they going to view the mini? The same network, broadcasting the mini, has been broadcasting TOS re-runs for years. That argument (stated many times by others) falls flat with me. It's a matter of willingness.

BST

oldwardaggit · December 15th, 2003, 04:14 AM

Plus I have said this many times before but I will say it again. Almost every story has a story that took place before it.

Star Wars started at episode 4 and only had a scrolling of words to fill the audience in on what took place before it.

Even the original Battlestar Galactica had a story before it and that didn't stop the viewers. A continuation would have made less confusion to new fans that go back to view the original and it would have made better DVD sales for the mini on DVD because most of those buying the box set would have felt that it wouldn't be compleat with out it just as we feel that it's not really compleat now without the 4 1/2 minute trailer by Richard Hatch.

Yes Tom Desanto knows how to make all parties mostly happy and thats because he is a fan of Galactica and respects the original source. Ron said him self that he was aiming his Galactica at the casual fan like him that might remember it a bit.

To me that's pretty much saying, I'm making a new show that will barely keep enough of the original content so that I can justify using a name that will draw the viewers in and I can still say that this is my creation.

The only problem with that, is that it doesn't put the viewer first.

The true shame of remaking is the fact that Hollywood releases something and they do there best to get you to fall in love with it. They promote it from an emotional side, from an action side or from any side to make you connect with it, then when a group of people do become loyal to it, Hollywood turns around and thanks them by bringing back the name of the show they are loyal too but they changed most of the things they worked so hard to get you to connect too.

And why ? Because there are ego's much too inflated for anyone in charge to put the fans first.

You can put the fans first and reach out to the new fans.
It's like fixing up a classic car. Sure the original fans of the car might have some complaints but as long as the car looks somewhat the same and most of the aspects of the car that made them fall in love with it in the first place are still there, they will want this car again.

Plus all the things like the new paint job, the upgraded engine and others, will attract new fans for the car.

If your the one who is upgrading this car and you loved it in it's original state, your gona want to keep most of the things that made you love it, familiar.

My opinion from everything I read. Ronald D. Moore isn't a fan of Battlestar Galactica. When you are always finding fault with something, it doesn't make sense to say that you dislike most of it but you are still a fan.

We can color this any way we like but the fact is, the fans are the reason the Galactica name became feasable, The message from the fans was ignored, most of Battlestar Galactica was changed and now the fans are pi$$t
It's really that simple.

OWD

malachi42 · December 15th, 2003, 08:42 AM

First, I would like to thank everyone for answering my questions and doing so with such openess. I have watched this drama unfold and have been puzzled by much of it. Not everyones dissapointment in the major changes to a beloved show, but the conspiracy theories and the attributing of some very nefarious motives on the part of the writers and producers. It's great to actualy be able to discuss this with you guys hwo are the heart of it.

"Ron said him self that he was aiming his Galactica at the casual fan like him that might remember it a bit."

I see that this is distressing if you want the show to remain true to TOS, but I don't see it as an example of contempt. The goal of any network, writer or producer is to bring in millions of viewers, which they did. The casual fan or even those who have never seen the show will represent much greater numbers than those who watched the original. So wasn't he doing his job? How is that contemptuous or arrogant?
I truly understand the view that it is not true to TOS, that RDM may not be a fan of TOS, the studio decided to "re imagine" the series ignoring TOS, and the history behind it, DeSanto, Hatch et al. It is not so much ignorance on my part of the history, as much as bewilderment as to why this is seen as personal decisions designed to insult fans of BG instead of a business decision based as always on numbers not on people, as in my Wal Mart example.
I don't want to wear out my welcome on this topic. You have all been very gracious. Please let me know when my questions cross the annoyance line. I know that feelings are tender.

Dawg · December 15th, 2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by malachi42
It is unfortunate but true that 17,000 viewers is not enough to green light a series. It may be enough to puit out a DVD collection because that costs them virtually nothing since all the footage is sitting in a vault. Any profit matterscompared to nothing.
But as an example, when a studio does a release of say, Wild Wild West, it costs them considerably less than an original project that they don't own and have to develop, eliminating an entire tier of costs. And they don't market it to the original viewers because they wouldn't account for a big enough demographic and their demographicdoesn't go to the movies or watch tv in numbers comparable to a younger audience. Which is who they then market the remake to. An audience who never saw the original.
It may be crappy, but most business is.

Forgive me for jumping in here so late, but I've got the flu and was out of it completely for a few days.

Malachi, one point I see didn't get made was that the 17,000 figure is particularly impressive when you consider the fact we're talking about an internet petition. How many households are wired to the internet world-wide - 8 - 10%, or something like that? Obviously, it's a bit higher in the US and the rest of the "west", but it represents only a small fraction of those households who own televisions.

Imagine what kind of representative sample of the total number of fans that is, then. It's a factor totally disregarded as they conceived and wrote this mini. Still more mismanagement of the franchise.

I'll say that I really think BSG could have been as big as Star Trek if they'd handled it right; they haven't yet, and I don't think the mini has the stuff to do it. The original concept does - I'm prepping my letters to go out 1/2, and I hope everyone else is, too.

I am
Dawg

malachi42 · December 15th, 2003, 01:42 PM

Malachi, one point I see didn't get made was that the 17,000 figure is particularly impressive when you consider the fact we're talking about an internet petition. How many households are wired to the internet world-wide - 8 - 10%, or something like that? Obviously, it's a bit higher in the US and the rest of the "west", but it represents only a small fraction of those households who own televisions.

Imagine what kind of representative sample of the total number of fans that is, then. It's a factor totally disregarded as they conceived and wrote this mini. Still more mismanagement of the franchise.

I'll say that I really think BSG could have been as big as Star Trek if they'd handled it right; they haven't yet, and I don't think the mini has the stuff to do it. The original concept does - I'm prepping my letters to go out 1/2, and I hope everyone else is, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But can a studio measure that number and do they care enough to do so. You may be absolutely correct in your estimates, but from the studio point of view they can get the numbers they need without taking that path, so why would they, based on the assumption that they, the studio, does not have the emotional commitment to TOS that those 17,000 fans do. They don't care about staying true TOS or honoring the years that people have invested in it, they care about making profit for their shareholders. Period. And they have fulfilled their goal. The numbers were better than they ever expected. It did better the 2nd night than the first, which is unheard of. Close to 4 MILLION viewers tuned in. From where they sit, this show is absolutely positioned properly to be another Star Trek, they even have the "Star Trek guy" as their exec producer and show runner. In their eyes they are in the perfect position. Universal will put up all the money, where are the drawbacks?
Because of this great discussion I think I am honing in on the answer to my own question.
The bottom line here is the expectation that the studio would care about TOS because of it's fan base. Boy I wish this town worked on those kinds of principals, but it just doesn't. I have learned that lesson the hard way. When I arrived I thought I was creating art, I have learned that I am making corporate product. If I'm lucky it will be on something of some quality. It is a compromise that most of us in this business make.
It works like every other business, it is based on the bottom line. It is not personal, no one is out to insult anyone or make any great attempts to bring harm to anyone who supports TOS. It may sting even more, but it just doesn't register as an issue for them. Bonnie Hammer loses no sleep over TOS, only the mini and how it does.
I agree with the position many have taken here, to move on and hope for the best with the movie possibility, enjoy the DVD's, the conventions and the wonderful community that all of you have created because of TOS, which you will always have and no one can take away from you. It is quite amazing that a show that was on for one season could engender this kind of response for such a long time. You all are very lucky, many people go through there entire lives never finding something they care about with such passion.

DCRabbit · December 15th, 2003, 11:41 PM

You know, you are absolutely right. It got numbers. Up against nothing. It also got better the second night.. cos everyone that missed it the first night took it in the second night full length due to rebreadcasting the first ep again Very smart move that..

And again, you are right.. it's a business. And the big question now is.. sustainable audience. The this was watched by everyone.. including those that are against it, those that were curious and those that checked it out due to all the hype. Now.. how many of those are you going to lose? The ones that are against it.. the ones that checked it out cos of the hype and the generally curious that didn't like it.

I don't see how this thing can get weekly ratings even up to Enterprise level. It's wayyyyyy too 90210ish to cater to anything other than that audience.. and the amount of scifi fnas in that audience isn't huge.. then you cut out the ones that just don't like it out of that audience and you have another Farscape situation.

Personally I hate the gender changes. It was an insult, yes.. and Moore crowed about doing it. Then we got some lame excuse to cover it. It was a politically correct thing.. Eick gave him carte blanche and that's the first thing he did. If money was the only consideration, it would not have been done cos it was known to seriously annoy a good portion of possible viewship.. who would then do their best efforts to turn away everyone they knew from possibly viewing the weekly.

Seriously.. these people have been fighting 2o plus years.. it isn't gonna stop. And where is the business sense in going to war with *ANY* potential viewers? If this were done strictly to make money, it would have been a far superior product and most everyone would be happy. But a network head, a producer and a writer got the idea they could take an established name and dictate what they thought it should be in hopes of joining the Reddenberry's and Larsen's of the world. The media business is full of those who are full of themselves. This is unfortunately obvious when it comes to Sci-Fi.

DC

DCRabbit · December 15th, 2003, 11:48 PM

You know, you are absolutely right. It got numbers. Up against nothing. It also got better the second night.. cos everyone that missed it the first night took it in the second night full length due to rebreadcasting the first ep again Very smart move that..

And again, you are right.. it's a business. And the big question now is.. sustainable audience. The this was watched by everyone.. including those that are against it, those that were curious and those that checked it out due to all the hype. Now.. how many of those are you going to lose? The ones that are against it.. the ones that checked it out cos of the hype and the generally curious that didn't like it.

I don't see how this thing can get weekly ratings even up to Enterprise level. It's wayyyyyy too 90210ish to cater to anything other than that audience.. and the amount of scifi fnas in that audience isn't huge.. then you cut out the ones that just don't like it out of that audience and you have another Farscape situation.

Personally I hate the gender changes. It was an insult, yes.. and Moore crowed about doing it. Then we got some lame excuse to cover it. It was a politically correct thing.. Eick gave him carte blanche and that's the first thing he did. If money was the only consideration, it would not have been done cos it was known to seriously annoy a good portion of possible viewship.. who would then do their best efforts to turn away everyone they knew from possibly viewing the weekly.

Seriously.. these people have been fighting 2o plus years.. it isn't gonna stop. And where is the business sense in going to war with *ANY* potential viewers? If this were done strictly to make money, it would have been a far superior product and most everyone would be happy. But a network head, a producer and a writer got the idea they could take an established name and dictate what they thought it should be in hopes of joining the Reddenberry's and Larsen's of the world. The media business is full of those who are full of themselves. This is unfortunately obvious when it comes to Sci-Fi.

DC

malachi42 · December 16th, 2003, 08:50 AM

Seriously.. these people have been fighting 2o plus years.. it isn't gonna stop. And where is the business sense in going to war with *ANY* potential viewers? If this were done strictly to make money, it would have been a far superior product and most everyone would be happy. But a network head, a producer and a writer got the idea they could take an established name and dictate what they thought it should be in hopes of joining the Reddenberry's and Larsen's of the world. The media business is full of those who are full of themselves. This is unfortunately obvious when it comes to Sci-Fi.

So they made it to piss people off??? That just doesn't make sense on any level. Let's take another example. The Cat In The Hat. To many people it was a piece of crap. Critics HATED it, long time fans of Seuss were horrified. But it made a fortune. YOU hate the mini, you think it is a lousy production and won't hold viewers. But that is a subjective opinion, one that is not neccesarily held by the folks who made it. Just like 3/4 of what gets made in Hollywood. They don't see a war, nor do they consider themselves involved in a war. The "controversy" has been good for them. It has created a buzz, given the show a high profile, created more newspaper and magazine articles and piqued curiosity. The message boards runneth over. My guess is that Sci Fi would be thrilled if people marched in the streets about their TV series. It helps raise audience awareness of their nework. They couldn't afford to but this kind of publicity.
A studio owned a property. They hired producers and writers to develope it. that's it. They dictated what they thought it should be, because they could, it was their property.
As to whether or not people will watch the series, there will only be one way to tell. Other than that it's all speculation.

Dawg · December 16th, 2003, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by malachi42
So they made it to piss people off???

No, they made it to make a profit. What pissed off so many people was that it could have been so easy to make it in such a way that everyone could have been happy. The choice was made to ignore a long-standing, vocal segment of the audience.

That hardly seems wise business - unless you've got such an ego that you're convinced you know best, and thousands of other people who have a quarter century into the subject don't know squat.

Granted, Hollywood doesn't work in the same exact way as a retailer does, thanks to the creative element still there (even though that creative element is now more of a corporate product).

The voices were out there, and they spoke clearly. Sci-Fi and Universal - Hammer & Eick and Moore - chose to ignore them.

Quote:

Originally posted by malachi42 A studio owned a property. They hired producers and writers to develope it. that's it. They dictated what they thought it should be, because they could, it was their property.
As to whether or not people will watch the series, there will only be one way to tell. Other than that it's all speculation.

Very true - no argument there. But it only goes to show what kind of management the franchise - and the fans - have had to endure for the past 25 years. BSG could have been as big as Star Trek ever was if it was handled the way Paramount handled their property; with respect.

In retrospect, I don't think we should have been surprised that the eventual "revival" of BSG came out this way.

Malachi, I'm a great admirer of your uncle's work; I even met him once, several years ago (although there's no way he'd remember). I beleive, though, that his approach to this particular franchise was badly flawed; he missed the boat big-time, and I fault the "suits" that continued to green-light the thing as much (or more) than him.

That is not to say I fault anyone who enjoyed the mini. I know that a good many people did enjoy the performances of several of the actors, and did not find the content objectionable. I'm glad, actually, I really am. But forgive me if I maintain that this production wasn't BSG, and would have been so much better if it hadn't tried to be.

I am
Dawg

malachi42 · December 16th, 2003, 11:37 AM

He's not my uncle.I've actually never met the man. My daughter is a school friend of his niece (which is how we got tickets to the premiere).
Yesterday the two of them were on my computer and went to the board to talk to Tyrol. So it showed up with my name on the board. They were promptly banned from the board in order to keep me from looking like a complete idiot! I can only hope that my posting style is a BIT more sophisticated than a 13 year olds. LOL

ANYWAY....

"No, they made it to make a profit. What pissed off so many people was that it could have been so easy to make it in such a way that everyone could have been happy. The choice was made to ignore a long-standing, vocal segment of the audience."

As I've said before, you're absolutely right Dawg, they made that choice. I understand that it is upsetting to so many who have cared so deeply about TOS for 25 years, but it is not inherently a bad business decision. No studio I have ever worked for would give a whit about making everyone happy, there would have to be millions of existing fans for them to consider their wishes. It's a pretty harsh business.

" That hardly seems wise business - unless you've got such an ego that you're convinced you know best, and thousands of other people who have a quarter century into the subject don't know squat.

"Granted, Hollywood doesn't work in the same exact way as a retailer does, thanks to the creative element still there (even though that creative element is now more of a corporate product).

The voices were out there, and they spoke clearly. Sci-Fi and Universal - Hammer & Eick and Moore - chose to ignore them."

Again, I think that is absolutely correct. But it is not remotely a personal decision based on a goal to destroy BSG. Nor a matter of ego. They made a decision based on part on demographics, which resulted in millions of viewers. So from their view they absolutely made the correct choice. Maybe they would have had a similar turnout if they had done it the way of TOS fans, but financially they didn't make mistake by doing it their way.

"Very true - no argument there. But it only goes to show what kind of management the franchise - and the fans - have had to endure for the past 25 years. BSG could have been as big as Star Trek ever was if it was handled the way Paramount handled their property; with respect."

How can we know that BSG won't be as big as Trek. (allthough the fact that it is on cable will probably eliminate the possibility because of the number of subscribers). Millions watched the pilot. Millions may continue to watch it, and millions may never tune in. We'll have to wait and see.
thanks Dawg for your willingness to have this discussion. I watched TOS, and enjoyed it. I knew people who worked on the show, and came by tickets to the premere through my daughters classmate, which was really my introduction to the mini. I was impressed and hearing about the reaction of fans of TOS was curious as to the issues. I was amazed by some of what I read. It seemed long on emotion and short on fact. I really apreciate the discussion that posters here have been willing to engage in, It has really helped me to understand. As I said before you guys have created an amazing community.

Corwwyn · December 20th, 2003, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by malachi42
The numbers were better than they ever expected. It did better the 2nd night than the first, which is unheard of. Close to 4 MILLION viewers tuned in.

The overnights might agree, but the weeklies seem to tell a different (and much less flattering) tale.

Quote:

From where they sit, this show is absolutely positioned properly to be another Star Trek, they even have the "Star Trek guy" as their exec producer and show runner. In their eyes they are in the perfect position. Universal will put up all the money, where are the drawbacks?

And then they'll all be shaking their heads in bewilderment when it all falls apart and fails to deliver.

Quote:

Because of this great discussion I think I am honing in on the answer to my own question.
The bottom line here is the expectation that the studio would care about TOS because of it's fan base.

Perhaps, but caring about the fan base for its numbers is only part of it. What is more important about caring for the fanbase is to work out the formula. That is, to nut out what worked so well to create that fanbase and learn to go with that, because going against that will not only alienate existing fans, but will be unlikely to find/capture the lightning in a bottle that is the holy grail of BIG franchise seekers and results in enormous and enduring profits.

Quote:

Boy I wish this town worked on those kinds of principals, but it just doesn't. I have learned that lesson the hard way. When I arrived I thought I was creating art, I have learned that I am making corporate product. If I'm lucky it will be on something of some quality. It is a compromise that most of us in this business make.

If you are "the creative individual" as in all business you need to realize that TPTB are after the bottom line. You need to convince them that what you plan will achieve their goals (be it corporate or individual). If you do this successfully they will support you (for their own self-interest if nothing more).

Corwwyn · December 20th, 2003, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by malachi42
" That hardly seems wise business - unless you've got such an ego that you're convinced you know best, and thousands of other people who have a quarter century into the subject don't know squat.

"Granted, Hollywood doesn't work in the same exact way as a retailer does, thanks to the creative element still there (even though that creative element is now more of a corporate product).

The voices were out there, and they spoke clearly. Sci-Fi and Universal - Hammer & Eick and Moore - chose to ignore them."

Again, I think that is absolutely correct. But it is not remotely a personal decision based on a goal to destroy BSG. Nor a matter of ego. They made a decision based on part on demographics, which resulted in millions of viewers. So from their view they absolutely made the correct choice. Maybe they would have had a similar turnout if they had done it the way of TOS fans, but financially they didn't make mistake by doing it their way.

I disagree. It is a personal decision. There are/were a number of potentially successful business models.

TPTB at the top might be distanced enough for corporate dispassion, but the lesser PTB that pitched and steered the product in question (I'm thinking primarily of Bonnie Hammer, Michael Jackson(not the performer), David Eick and Ron Moore) have/had their own agendas and "visions" of what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it (eg the Skiffy programming changes , Scare Tactics, John Edwards, ad nauseum).

Folks tend to forget that while TPTB at the top may have corporate dispassion by not having direct involvement, the active participants who make the product are arguably real people (often extremely ambitious people) with the related foibles and often self-serving callousness, unafraid to pull strings (eg Bonnie's close friendship with Barry Diller) to get their way.

Quote:

How can we know that BSG won't be as big as Trek.

If you mean G2003, well, without "the remake being remade" it can't be. It is "small", introspective, angsty, and lacking broad appeal. It has no massive, epic quality to it, little charm and no ageless, timeless tapestry. It doesn't show, it tells. It doesn't take you into the action, it has you hearing reports from the sidelines. It doesn't feed the imagination, it presents no intriguing puzzle, and it doesn't grow. It is imo essentially existentialist "Waiting for Godot" kind of stuff. Noone comes, noone goes, nothing happens, nothing matters. Just go through the motions.

Quote:

Millions watched the pilot.

Yes, probably. A few millions.

Quote:

Millions may continue to watch it,

Maybe.

Quote:

and millions may never tune in.

I have no doubt of this.

Quote:

I was amazed by some of what I read.
It seemed long on emotion and short on fact.

Why? The facts exist, and are available for analysis.

Some very hard-working posters have dredged up loads of information that imo Bonnie would love to bury in the backyard under a ton of concrete.