New Battlestar Galactica Or Old Battlestar Galactica

[Werewolf]

I disagree, fans of the new are often dismissive but I find it's the classic fans who get the most worked up and seem kind of bitter.

The classic fans at least have an honest excuse.

You have to keep in mind the years and years of the grass roots type of campaign of the classic fans to get the show back on the air. They have from the beginning wanted a revival/continuation like the Star Trek movies. Not a reimagining that so completely changes the show and its characters.

The classic fans were very loyal and organized. With all the energy and years the the BSG fans put into keeping the show alive you can see why some would see the new show as a slap in the face. The rudeness from the fans of the new show just adds to that.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

Old, definitely.

>I think it's funny that fans of the old series have so much venom for the new.

The new one is "24" in space. The old one is VERY rooted in 70's imagery, and ideals; but that makes it unique. It's a dark gritty story seen through disco shades. Silly as the result might be it's distinct. I like that. I applaud that. Plus the old Cylons rocked.

The new one frustrates me 'cos it's just like every other sci-fi show I've seen in the last ten years. "I'm ANGRY" characters, TELLING me the plot rather than letting it happen. (Which is what the nekkid chick in baltar's head is for.) Hell; if it wasn't called "Battlestar Galactica" you could have marketed it as the sequel to "Space: Beneath and Behind," set ten years in the future after they'd beaten the "chigs" and the androids had remustered.

Plus; the new one has a lot of weird little things that bug me. So... you've mastered interstellar travel but still use chemical ballistic weapons? Starbuck is female? Star... BUCK is female....? And everybody is either whining or yelling? If I was trapped in a ship with these guys I woulda flushed 'em out the airlock a LONG time ago!

>you can see why some would see the new show as a slap in the face.

Some good points... I dunno; I didn't like it 'cos it looked like they said "hey, let's use the Galactica name but make it like "24" 'cos "24" is really popular!"

>The rudeness from the fans of the new show just adds to that.

Hmmmm.... I haven't seen a lot of rudeness; but the new fans tend to get really sanctimonious. ("Oh, the OLD one is SOOOOO 70's!" Of course, the new one ISN'T SOOOOO 00's. Just ask 'em.) But that seems like a common thing amongst fans of the nerdly arts in general. (See my post comments for a good example.)

Don C.

[megoscott]

It's not fair to compare them. The first one is a classic, slightly cheesey juvenile adventure. It inspired a richly complex socio-political sci fi adventure I wouldn't let my kids watch.

[Brue]

No Contest

Agreed.

but I came to a different conclusion.

Old One.

The old one was fun. It was Sci Fi at its finest (for 70's TV).

I can watch these over and over.

The new one - ridiculous. What they tried to use from the original was messed up. What they tried to add should have just been done in some new show.

This reminds me of the thread about movies you walked out on. I actually sat throough the whole pilot. After which I lamented to my wife about the 2 hours they stole from me.

[palitoy]

The rudeness from the fans of the new show just adds to that.

I think that rudeness also comes from the classic series fans too, who tell new fans that the thing they like is garbage because it's not their preference. I get it

It's a pointless debate rooted in dysmorphic proportionality. If you like the new series, it's stupid to dimiss the old one because you wouldn't have the new without it. Obviously it has merit. If you like the old series, it's your preference, nothing more, both series are popular and the idea of which is superior is only really important to you.

The term "Battlestar Galacatica" now means different things to different people, just like Star Trek, Doctor Who, Ultraman, Kolchak, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Star Wars etc. We all got DVDs, comics and action figures out of the deal, life is good.

Starbuck is female? Star... BUCK is female....?

Sometimes women get men's nicknames, even when they're cute. I can think of several women in my life with such a moniker. I admit I didn't want a female Starbuck to begin with either but she's Starbuck to a whole legion of new fans and she does a great job.

Hmmmm.... I haven't seen a lot of rudeness; but the new fans tend to get really sanctimonious. ("Oh, the OLD one is SOOOOO 70's!" Of course, the new one ISN'T SOOOOO 00's. Just ask 'em.)

Buck Rogers is soooooooo 70's to me, that's why I love it.

One of the biggest humps I had to get over on the new series was ties. I don't even know why I wear em so I had a lot of trouble with BSG characters sporting them. Sci Fi will always be cursed with hairstyles and set design dating the series, it's something you have to look past.

[grayhank]

The classic fans were very loyal and organized. With all the energy and years the the BSG fans put into keeping the show alive you can see why some would see the new show as a slap in the face. The rudeness from the fans of the new show just adds to that.

The original series only lasted one season. The "second" season was Galactica 1980 which left much to be desired. Maybe if the original had not revamped so quickly it may have lasted longer. Starbuck and Apollo had basically been written out of the show by Galactica 1980. Kent McCord playing the role of a grown up Boxey (Apollo's son) was used instead. So I don't get where fans would be fighting to keep that one on.

The new Galactica plays tribute to all those fans of the original show who wanted the show to continue. They obviously couldn't go back and do the original series (Lorne Green had died many years ago). But they did bring back Apollo and Starbuck as well as kept many of the characters from the original (Adama, Apollo, Starbuck, Boomer/Athena, Commander Tighe, Baltar even Boxey was there for an episode).

I am grateful for the new one because I was a huge fan of the original. At first I could not accept the idea of a female Starbuck either. But after watching this series I find the character to be more intriging because of it. She has a lot of the same characteristics as Dirk Benedicts version, but she breathes more life into the role. It is also nice to see that the original Apollo (Richard Hatch) has a recurring role on the new one. The character he plays is almost likeable to a point but you're not sure you trust him.

For me comparing the old vs new is like comparing Adam West to Michael Keaton as Batman. Both have their good and bad qualities.

[palitoy]

I think the Richard Hatch attempted relaunch was going to say that "Galactica 1980" never happened. I don't know anyone who likes that show.

From what I saw of the promo reel it was going to pick off where the original left off with the original cast, it could have worked. It's definitely why Hatch is on the new series.

[Werewolf]

I think the Richard Hatch attempted relaunch was going to say that "Galactica 1980" never happened. I don't know anyone who likes that show.

From what I saw of the promo reel it was going to pick off where the original left off with the original cast, it could have worked. It's definitely why Hatch is on the new series.

Exactly. I recommend people checking out Hatch's BSG novels. That will give you an idea of what Hatch's continuation would have been like.

[HardyGirl]

The old one, hands down. Starbuk isn't a girl, Cylons don't look human (c'mon, who doesn't love the "tin cans" w/ side scrolling light and mechanical voice?), and the new series isn't something the whole family could watch, or would spawn good toys.

[fallensaviour]

I think the biggest thing to peeve me off about the whole Idea of BSG is......
Why when they released the old series on DVD did it cost $101.96 and seasons 1,2 of the new one were retailing for $39.99 what kind of cash grabbing BS is that???

The only way I'd pay that kind of money for a DVD boxed set is if the main characters come to my house and re-enact my favorite episodes!!!

[grayhank]

All of this makes me wonder how well the new Star Trek movie is going to be recieved. There are going to be die hard fans of TOS who I'm sure will want the heads of the new cast served on a silver platter. While a whole new generation will be inspired by the new cast and chastize the old series.

When you go into these types of updated versions of classics, you have to forget what you know and let go of your expectations and treat it like you are seeing it for the first time. It makes the experience far more enjoyable IMHO.

[grayhank]

I think the biggest thing to peeve me off about the whole Idea of BSG is......
Why when they released the old series on DVD did it cost $101.96 and seasons 1,2 of the new one were retailing for $39.99 what kind of cash grabbing BS is that???

While I can respect your frustrations, I think that's a little unfair. The original BSG was released on DVD when complete TV series were just beginning to be marketed for home release. It was also the property of a major network which meant they could charge more. The new series is put out by a smaller cable network with less viewers. So yes they wouldn't charge as much because they want to get their show out there into the public's eye. Most TV Series DVDs have come down in price considerably (even the original BSG). People aren't going to shell out 100 bucks a pop anymore because there are so many TV shows to choose from now. The average cost of a TV season is now between $20-50. It seems that only the Star Trek franchise has yet to lower their prices because they know their fanbase will continue to buy them at higher costs.

I remember paying about 100 each for each season of the X-Files, that's over $900 for 9 seasons. Now they are available for half the price and still I see them for less on occasion. So I feel your pain

[Werewolf]

All of this makes me wonder how well the new Star Trek movie is going to be recieved.

It all depends on how true they are to the source material. Speaking as a die-hard classic Trek fan I had no problems with any of the new Trek series or movies. But if the new movie goes the reimagined BSG route and changes the names, races, genders, personalities, etc. of the characters I will not be interested.

I do think it is a bit insulting that the movie so heavily revolves around Kirk and Shatner is not in it at all.

[palitoy]

I think the biggest thing to peeve me off about the whole Idea of BSG is......
Why when they released the old series on DVD did it cost $101.96 and seasons 1,2 of the new one were retailing for $39.99 what kind of cash grabbing BS is that???

Keep in mind new BSG season's are 13 episodes where as the original was 26 plus the movie plus a whole bunch of extras. I also got my original series for about $45 on clearance.

[ctc]

>Buck Rogers is soooooooo 70's to me, that's why I love it.

HAW! That's one I hated as a kid. I've seen most of 'em recently (they're on really late at night here) and I STILL hate it, but I can see why folks like it. There's a good naturedness to the whole thing (even the bad guys don't seem THAT bad... sorta like a grown up version of kids show writing) and there's a weird overall cartooniness that permeates the whole shebang.

But they REALLY brought back the ol' standard plots. Manless space amazons, hypnotic rock and roll, and... SPACE VAMPIRE!

>One of the biggest humps I had to get over on the new series was ties. I don't even know why I wear em so I had a lot of trouble with BSG characters sporting them.

The new one had a lot of that problem for me; which was a big reason why I didn't like it. The unifroms are VERY reminiscent of modern military outfits; and indeed the interiors of the ships look like modern warships. (Or cruise ships...) When I first saw it I thought the producers had WANTED to do the next Tom Clancy movie but got stuck with this, so they decided to make the next Tom Clancy movie ANYWAY. They seemed to follow the "make it 'realistic" principle of sci-fi tv. You know, where you make it as close as possible to the contemporary world so the viewers won't be freaked out by weird terminology or imagry. Which causes OTHER problems. (If they're supposed to be our ancestors wouldn't their stuff look more like our antiquated stuff, or did they have an amazingly similar amount of parallel development?)

>Sci Fi will always be cursed with hairstyles and set design dating the series, it's something you have to look past.

I don't see it as a problem. EVERY show is influenced by the time it's made, even if it's only because the crew making it lives during that time. Part of why I like old stuff is 'cos it's made with a whole different perspective than what I'm exposed to now. That perspective ADDS to the uniqueness in a lot of cases. Even the new Galactica is "afflicted" with this, although it's tough to notice while you're IN the current time period. The uniforms will one day look odd, 'cos the attitude of what a sci-fi uniform looks like will change. The political and religious expousements will seem dated one day too, since they're VERY DEFINITELY locked into the current mindset.

One of the reasons I think remakes are usually not as good as the originals is 'cos of this. Like Galactica. For example: the original had a lot of cammaraderie amongst the team. Most of the adventures came about because of it: characters taking of to rescue a friend, or being pulled into someone's schemes, or sticking up for their friends. That was how stories were done back then. The new one follows the current trends in characterization: angry, angsty characters saddled with unfortunate backgrounds. For me, the closeness of the crew was integral to the show and when they took that out they lost a bit of distinctness. The old style crew would seem hokey to the current audience 'cos the current audience allocates that sort of thing to sitcoms or OLD shows.

>When you go into these types of updated versions of classics, you have to forget what you know and let go of your expectations and treat it like you are seeing it for the first time.

Well.... the problem is you're NOT. Producers remake stuff BECAUSE they know there are fans of the old one who'll say "I loved that! Maybe I'll watch the nw one!!!" Catch 22: how do you do something new, without alienating the old crowd? Usually they don't; it's the old name slapped onto the current standard show/movie/book/comic/whatever. So even watching it with new eyes, it's the same old. (Or more correctly, the NEW same old....?)

Don C.