Thoughts on Moore's Latest Interview

[StallionCornell]

Moore's latest responses to Sandy's questions over at cylon.org are, I believe, his most straightforward and unflinching remarks on the mini to date. They leave me with tremendously mixed feelings about him personally, along with a sense of hopelessness about the final product he will produce in Galactica's name.

I remember reading his first Q&A with Michael Faries and being impressed with his candor and honesty in the face of unremitting hostility from continuation fans. At the time, I was excited about a faithful BSG remake, and Moore's Q&A lead me to believe that's what we were getting. When the casting sheet and the script leaked, I couldn't help but feel that Moore had been thoroughly disingenuous in his first Q&A. He boasted that the new script would have a Starbuck, a Boomer, a Baltar, a Tigh - but, of course, he knew that these characters were radically different from what had gone before, didn't he? How could he answer the question like that and not be lying through his teeth?

Well, taking a step back from the profound paranoia these boards seem to engender, particularly in me, I read Moore's answers and, perhaps for the first time, saw things from his point of view. I now think that HE believes that what he's doing is faithful to what went before. To most of us, Katie Sackhoff's contention that the female Starbuck is "still the same" as the original version is laughable, but given Moore's consistency on this point and others like it, I have to think that Moore really believes that.

Look at his listing of the themes of Galactica - to him, that's what the original series is. He's created a mini that is consistent with those themes AS HE SEES THEM - and he's startled when others watch Galactica and see something else.

As I've thought about it, I recognize that a Stallion Cornell remake would likely annoy most longtime fans, too. I would probably have played up the religion angle more than others might have liked, and I would have felt no need to continue some of the elements of the series that I found tedious - the use of words like "yahrens" and "centons," for example. Each of us, if given the assignment to remake the series, would, wittingly or unwittingly, remake the series in our own image.

That's why so much of this resembles Moore's Trek work - not because Moore's being deliberately deceptive or Trekkish, but because all of Moore's writing consciously or unconsciously reflects how he sees the world. Unfortunately, it's not how I see the world - or how I see Galactica, which, ultimately, leaves me even more pessimistic about the mini than I was before.

It's considerably easier to look at Moore's statements about BSG and say "he's a liar - he's a charlatan - he's the emperor with no clothes." Coming from that position, one can still hope that someone objective will look at the situation and make things right. Maybe if we batter Moore harder, we could end the game once and for all and truth could prevail.

But what if Moore isn't a charlatan? What if he truly looks at this mini and says "this isn't a put-on; this really is the sum total of everything Galactica ought to be?" Well, it means that all is truly lost, because there's no way to blow the lid off the deception when there is no deception. It means that true believers are fighting against true believers, and, for the moment, the Moore believers, however scanty they may be in number, are holding all the cards. That is much more daunting for those who want Galactica to return in a form more consistent with the Galactica they recognize.

Which leads me back to this: no remake can stay true to all the themes that made Galactica special. It can only accentuate the themes that ring true in the heart of the remaker. The only way to preserve the original themes is to preserve the original universe. Ron Moore may have guts; he may be tenacious, and - horror of horrors - he may even be honest, but he doesn't understand what made Galactica special to the vast majority of the fanbase. He believes in a Galactica that is antithetical to the one I loved, so I won't "put myself through the pain" of watching what he does with it.

[Hito]

Originally posted by StallionCornell
Look at his listing of the themes of Galactica - to him, that's what the original series is. He's created a mini that is consistent with those themes AS HE SEES THEM - and he's startled when others watch Galactica and see something else.

As I've thought about it, I recognize that a Stallion Cornell remake would likely annoy most longtime fans, too.

I'm glad someone else has finaly come to this conclusion.
This is the essence of what i have been saying all along.
But I would also apply the same thinking to someone doing a continuation as well...

There will always be an element of fandom who would hate what you did no matter how sincere your effort because it wouldnt live up to their expectations.

[Dawg]

I agree with that sentiment, Hito, and I approve of how SC put it ( ), too. There would always be some level of disappointment in any remake because it wasn't your vision of the original.

However -

I honestly feel that the core of it, that part of the original story that really made it Galactica, is missing from this remake. By making the Colonists from Earth rather than having originated on Kobol, by using the cliched and overused concept of the creations turning on thier masters, the removal of many of the design elements, etc. etc. etc., this is not the Galactica universe.

I think that if any one of us were at the helm more of that core would show through. Even a "Stallion Cornell" remake would gain far greater acceptance than this one, because it would retain more of the Galactica Universe that all of us recognize (in spite of the stick-figure animations that would undoubtedly be used).

The only thing visually recognizable in the remake (that we've seen so far) is the Viper. The only thing recognizable in the characters is the call signs (which would be names in the Galactica universe). The only thing recognizable in the story is holocaust suvivors fleeing across the stars.

I would have expected the characters to have been a little more multi-dimentional in a remake (and therein lies the place were most of the unease would have come), but not the wholesale changes to the basics.

Hito, I wanted to give this remake a chance, so badly I could taste it. But everything I have seen so far is so far removed from the Galactica universe it makes me feel ill.

I am
Dawg

[StallionCornell]

Reading both these replies, I think I may have been misinterpreted.

Ron Moore's mini, in just about every way, is the opposite of what I loved about Galactica. I think it should die a horrible and painful death. Given the level of opposition to the script, it's clear that most people who loved the original series will hate this mini.

Hito's quote, taken independent of the rest of my message, might lead some to believe that my point was that since no Galactica will please everybody, Moore's or anyone else's vision of the thing is equally valid. That's NOT what I was trying to say. I think Moore's take on the BSG themes is skewed at best and wretched at worst. My purpose in making that statement was to illustrate the folly of going with a remake instead of a continuation. A remake can only reflect the biases of the remaker. A continuation preserves the original universe, which provides common ground for all kinds of fans of the original. In order to cast the widest possible net, a continuation is the only valid approach.

My message is actually a warning - MOORE IS NOT LYING - HE TRULY BELIEVES THIS IS GALACTICA. I'm not saying he's right, because I don't think he is. I'm just saying HE believes he's right, and we're silly if we ignore that.

Too many of us, especially me, have tried to fight this thing by saying "Moore's a liar; he's out for a quick buck; it's all a plot by Bonnie Hammer, blah blah, blah." That may make us feel righteous or vindicated, but it's taking our eyes off the mark. If we want a faithful continuation, we have to know the guy who's standing in the way. We are not facing a con artist; we're facing a committed, dedicated writer who mistakenly believes that this wretched mini is actually "some of his best work." If he were just in it for the payday, he'd have cut and run by now. We're dealing with a true believer who believes in something we despise. That is, in many ways, more frightening than thinking Moore's just putting us all on.

[Dawg]

I understood you just fine, SC. My comment was on the narrower point Hito picked up.

I agree, too, based on that interview. And, it is very, very hard to argue against a writer's vision of a project - particularly if that vision is bought by a publisher or studio. That purchase vindicates the writer's vision, and makes him right. That's where Mr. Moore is coming from. He is a beleiver because the studio bought it, and so our views are simply off his radar.

In my opinion, our job now is to show the world how flawed that vision is so that fewer and fewer people will be interested in tuning in.

And, maybe, cause the people who bought into this flawed vision a little discomfort along the way.



I am
Dawg

[BST]

Originally posted by StallionCornell

...I think I may have been misinterpreted.

Not at all, Stallion. My take, from your remarks AND the interview, is that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Ron Moore truly does believe that what he wrote conveys his interpretation of Battlestar Galactica and that he feels it is among his best work. There is no fault in that. In fact, there is no fault on either side of this argument, with the exception of a certain "Collective". Moore is entitled to his opinion of BSG and we are entitled to ours. The fact that his opinion runs counter to ours places him in a minority, in forums such as this, albeit a very powerful minority. He holds all of the cards, save one - viewership.

Don't misundertand me, I am, in no way, saying that I prefer his method or that I will give his method a chance. Those two phrases are not in my vocabulary nor will they be. It's that I agree with your assessment of the interview. He seemed to stay true to his beliefs. It just wasn't what we wanted to hear (or read).

The interview reinforces, for me, that we won't change his mind nor the direction of the show, not at this late date. Our only hope now is to do as much as we can to ensure that the re-imagining, to quote you, "dies a horrible and painful death" then, move forward to a true return of Battlestar Galactica. My only fear, as I have stated in other posts, about this mess is that the re-imagining may "poison the waters" for a true, thoughtful revival of the show.

BST

[oldwardaggit]

The way I see it, it's the same as me writing songs for the public to buy on a CD. If I test a few and there is a song that every one hates, I will surly axe it no mater how much I feel it to be the best song I have ever written. Sure, if I felt that I knew better then all those people and wanted to tell my self that others will like it, then I would probably release it anyways but I don't have an ego bigger then my common sense and I wouldn't chance it.

Lots of musicians and others in fields of creativity, do have some pretty big egos and I've seen allot of people shoot them selves in the foot because of it. I'm not saying that Ron has a big ego or not but we all know that if some one walks in with a new show called Battlestar Galactica and plans on using very little of the name sake, and they do this right after a fan base has been fighting for years to see a new well done, faithful continuation come to life, they should expect the worst from that fan base.

It's nice to know that we the fans are on the same page.
OWD

[BST]

BTW,

Did you notice the apology for the "popcorn remark". (To me, he made it seem that it was OUR fault that we were offended by it.)

Oh well, I guess I'll accept "the apology", such as it is, and close the lid on that fiasco.

BST