Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Media Movies Entertainment

Battlestar Galactica Feature Film Confirmed 342

Posted by timothy
from the more-grace-park-please dept.
Dave Knott writes "Entertainment Weekly reports that Universal Pictures has confirmed rumours of a Battlestar Galactica feature film. Directed by Bryan Singer, and co-produced by original series creator Glen Larson, the new movie will not be related to the recently concluded SyFy Network series. Rather, it will be a 'complete re-imagining of the sci-fi lore that was invented by Larson back in the '70s.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Battlestar Galactica Feature Film Confirmed

Comments Filter:
  • Bede bede bede (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Friday August 14, 2009 @05:26AM (#29063201)

    I never bought into any of this re-imagining crap. It's not like how Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards (and fixed the story in parts that didn't make sense). The re-imagining of BSG was almost a totally different show with only the thinnest of veneers tying it to the original series.

    I liked the show, though it was definitely too dark (lighting-wise) and the overuse of 'frak' was annoying, but I felt that it could probably stand on its own as a series.

    I went back and watched several Star Trek TOS episodes and found them to be clever, campy, and very forward thinking. If I were to watch TOS and DS9 back to back, I think I'd have the same reaction as I did to BSG. The difference, of course, is that there was the excellent TNG series which bridged the gap between TOS and DS9. Any re-imagining of a series that changes the fundamental aspects of the base concept is going to run into this problem.

    It's not a re-imagining. It's a cashing-in on the name value of the original concept. I think it is nothing short of a rip off for those who loved the original series. It's also a rip off for those who like the new series itself but are forced to associate it with the original series.

    • Re:Bede bede bede (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FTWinston (1332785) on Friday August 14, 2009 @05:28AM (#29063221) Homepage
      The best thing 2004 BSG could have done for itself that it didn't do, would have been to use a different name.

      That aside, I still consider it awesome.
      • Re:Bede bede bede (Score:4, Insightful)

        by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday August 14, 2009 @09:20AM (#29064547)
        Seeing how vastly superior the new series was compared to the original, I would rather the original be stripped of the name.
      • Re:Bede bede bede (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MindlessAutomata (1282944) on Friday August 14, 2009 @11:01AM (#29065767)

        And a whole 'nother ending, to boot. The show's ending was awful, not just for reasons of plausibility and deus ex machina storytelling but because it ended on a very idiotic "moral" that should rightly offend any technology-loving slashdot nerd. The show managed to go along the entire time without really being preachy and muddying the waters on social issues... then BAM! It hits you with "OK THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS THE BEST KIND OF LIFE IS LIVING A SHORT, BRUTAL, DISEASE-FILLED EXISTENCE, LETS GET RID OF ALL OUR TECHNOLOGY!" and everyone agrees (despite nobody agreeing on anything else in the course of the show) and everyone goes their separate ways to die their eventual brutal deaths. Also, WATCH OUT YOUR ROOMBA WILL GET YOU.

        • Re:Bede bede bede (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anastomosis (1102421) on Friday August 14, 2009 @11:47AM (#29066547)
          I find it rare that I ever chime in with someone using all caps in their post... but I couldn't agree more. This is exactly how I felt after seeing the finale.

          Really? All 40 thousand survivors + whatever Cylons there were are just going to give up their understanding about the entire universe and not teach it to their children or leave some sort of octagonal stone/metal records behind? I can understand Lee Adama (a non-scientist soldier who was just fed up with the war and all and blamed the existence of nuclear bombs on the evil SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY) deciding to go all hermit-action. I can even understand a majority of the uneducated masses doing that. But everyone? Really? I mean, after basically insinuating that Doc Cottle was the sole physician in the fleet they pulled a frakking neurosurgeon (John Hodgman you rule) out of their ass in the final season. We have to assume there are quite a few educated others in the fleet that, even if they wouldn't be super excited about building a modern city right away, would at least be able to separate the evils of the application of technology (war and such) from the advantages that come from understanding the world around them. The Adamas can drive all their technology and records and books into the sun, but they can't take away all these people's lifetime education. Even Gaius Baltar is going to start farming... did anyone catch that? That's right, the agricultural revolution actually started 140,000 years before you think it did.

          I mean, where do you draw the line at where "technology" is, anyway? What, are they going to take away the hunting spears from the native humans and say "NO! TECHNOLOGY BAD!" After really liking the whole series for four seasons, like the parent post says, they pull classic hippie / not-thinking-the-concept-through / technology-and-science-is-inferior-to-"nature"-even-though-it's-a-part-of-it crap.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Blakey Rat (99501)

        I'm guessing the name was necessary to obtain funding for the series.

        "I want to make an gritty and edgy new sci-fi series, loaded with violence and moral conflicts. Oh, and in the first episode, 50,000,000,000 people die."

        "No."

        "Ok. My second proposal: A re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica."

        "GREAT IDEA!"

    • But but but (Score:3, Insightful)

      by eclectro (227083)

      It's a cashing-in on the name value of the original concept.

      If the jumpsuits are skin-tight, would it be all bad?? I, for one, say bring it [scificool.com] on [moviestore.com].

    • Re:Bede bede bede (Score:5, Interesting)

      by teh kurisu (701097) on Friday August 14, 2009 @06:35AM (#29063481) Homepage

      It's not a re-imagining. It's a cashing-in on the name value of the original concept. I think it is nothing short of a rip off for those who loved the original series. It's also a rip off for those who like the new series itself but are forced to associate it with the original series.

      Would it have been any less of a rip-off if the show and the characters had been given different names? I doubt it. I also doubt that completely rewriting the show to remove any and all allusions to the original series would have made it any better. I keep hearing on this site how no media content is completely novel, and the best content is that which builds on pre-existing ideas. The BSG re-imagining is an excellent practical example of this.

      • Re:Bede bede bede (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Big Hairy Ian (1155547) on Friday August 14, 2009 @06:54AM (#29063531)

        I keep hearing on this site how no media content is completely novel, and the best content is that which builds on pre-existing ideas. The BSG re-imagining is an excellent practical example of this.

        AbsoFragginglutely damn it the original BSG was a re-imagining of Wagon Train which in turn was inspired by any number of Westerns. I suspect we could probably trace it all the way back to Chaucer and The Canterbury Tales but then who did he nick the idea off?

        • by teh kurisu (701097) on Friday August 14, 2009 @07:01AM (#29063557) Homepage

          Obligatory SPOILER ALERT

          No doubt all fiction can be traced right back to a factual account of early humans' journey out of Africa... which by coincidence is exactly where the BSG re-imagined series ends.

          Perhaps it can be traced right back to when the survivors of the 12 colonies landed in Africa, in which case all fiction can be traced to Battlestar Galactica.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by coolmoose25 (1057210)
            Ka is a circle.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by MROD (101561)

            Yes, and the mice were furious!

            • PS. (Score:3, Interesting)

              by MROD (101561)

              The last episode did seem to be a re-imagining of the end of the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (TV and (first) Radio series, it's the end of the Book "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe").

              Just think of the parallels:

              A man in a bath steers the last remnants of a dying race to their final destination planet, Earth, in a ship who's name starts with the letter 'B' ("B Ark" vs. "Battlestar Galactica").

              They land in pre-historic times and out-compete the indigenous pre-agricultural humanoids, supplantin

        • I believe you meant "AbsoFrakkin`lutely"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Canazza (1428553)

      DS9 actually got interesting when they stopped dicking about on Bajor and had them some wars...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mrsquid0 (1335303)

        >DS9 actually got interesting when they stopped dicking about on Bajor and had them some wars...

        I found that DS9 got tedious when they stopped dealing with the political and social situation on Bajor and turned it into yet another humans vs aliens war story.

    • by tenco (773732)

      It's also a rip off for those who like the new series itself but are forced to associate it with the original series.

      I definitely can second that. If it's anything like Abrams Star Wars^W Wars^W Wars^W Trek film for TNG ff. fans, then: no, thanks.

    • I'm with you on the most of your points, but the 70's Battlestar Galactica & the 00's Galactica are the same show exactly the same way the 1974 Three Musketeers and the 1993 Three Musketeers are the same movie. Or compare Mel Gibson's Hamlet to Kenneth Branagh's, or 1984's DUNE to the recent Sci-Fi. Things happen a little differently, but each one is a fair representation of itself.

      To say that re-imagining is crap is to say that any story that is redone is automatically inferior to it's predecessor.
      • by SilverJets (131916) on Friday August 14, 2009 @11:20AM (#29066117) Homepage

        Did the new BSG go into territory the original didn't? Well yes, some. But *everything* that happened in the original series happened in the new one, which I give Sci-Fi kudos for. (Ok, excepting for the daggits or flying motorcycles...)

        Or Apollo raising Boxey. Or landing on a casino planet with insect people that start sticking the crew into hive compartments. Or Baltar becoming the leader of the Cylons. Or Starbuck being stranded on a prison planet where the inmates are the descendants of the original inmates. Or Apollo being stranded on a frontier planet and having an old-west shoot out with Red-Eye. Or encountering Count Iblis. And there are probably more that I just can't think of right now.

        I guess it depends on your definition of *everything*.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      It's not like how Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards

      No bit he got a lot more blood out of that rock. He sucked in a Lot of the rabid fans, even after the introduction of Jar-Jar all of you rabid fans went back to watch Ep II and Ep III.

      Star Wars fans are suckers. He proved that. BSG fans will be just as big suckers, Movie studios count on rabid fandom to go and buy or spend even though the film is tripe.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by coaxial (28297)

      It's not like how Lucas was able to squeeze more story out of the Star Wars trilogy by adding in effects that brought it up to modern-day standards (and fixed the story in parts that didn't make sense).

      Yeah, I'm so glad how me made Greedo shoot first, but Han still measures time in distance.

      Now excuse me for yard. I've got a phone call.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Measuring the Kessel Run in distance makes perfect sense. From wookiepedia (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kessel_Run): Han Solo claimed that his Millennium Falcon "made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs". A parsec is a unit of distance, not time. Solo was not referring directly to his ship's speed when he made this claim. Instead, he was referring to the shorter route he was able to travel by skirting the nearby Maw black hole cluster, thus making the run in under the standard distance. He may hav
  • Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Misanthrope (49269) on Friday August 14, 2009 @05:27AM (#29063203)

    Brought to you by the same minds that thought Syfy was a good name change......

  • Meh... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Annwvyn (1611587)
    Though I did enjoy the series... To be honest, I don't think a movie that takes another shot at what the series did (even if in a different light) will be terribly interesting. I am sure that they will make it look spiffy with spectacular special effects and all... but that does not a good movie make. Like DNS-and-BIND said... come up with a new idea, don't just re-vamp old ones and ruin them.
  • Thank goodness (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Friday August 14, 2009 @05:30AM (#29063227)

    the new movie will not be related to the recently concluded SyFy Network series

    I can only hope. The 1970's show was something I loved as a kid (I remember running to the TV when I heard the theme song come one), and it's something my little kids have enjoyed. The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)

    There's an audience for this kind of fiction (as I'm sure SciFi's ratings proved), but I'd much rather have something I could take my kids to and just plain enjoy.

    • by Viol8 (599362) on Friday August 14, 2009 @05:40AM (#29063289)

      Are we not allowed to have adult sci-fi now? If you want to let your kids watch sci-fi theres plenty of sacharrine shit from Pixar and the like available.

      "The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)"

      You're coming across as just a teensy bit wet my friend.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

        Are we not allowed to have adult sci-fi now? If you want to let your kids watch sci-fi theres plenty of sacharrine shit from Pixar and the like available.

        "The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)"

        You're coming across as just a teensy bit wet my friend.

        You say I should go to Pixar films. I say you should watch the Saw movies. People with your tastes have no more claim on the BSG franchise than people with my tastes.

        I was just saying that I wanted my kids to be able to enjoy something that I enjoyed when I was their age. I'm sorry that's hard for you to handle.

        • by teh kurisu (701097) on Friday August 14, 2009 @06:38AM (#29063489) Homepage

          So get the original series on DVD and show them that.

        • by Totenglocke (1291680) on Friday August 14, 2009 @06:38AM (#29063491)
          Except that the new BSG ISN'T the show you enjoyed as a kid. If you want your kids to enjoy the BSG you liked when you were young, go buy the original BSG series on dvd for them.
        • by Viol8 (599362) on Friday August 14, 2009 @06:56AM (#29063543)

          And I don't see why a sci fi series dealing with adult themes should be made child friendly. Kids have enough TV of their own. Its bad enough with most films being downgraded to 12 certificates without infliciting the same on TV shows. Clearly you think the original series is rubbish or you would have shown your kids that instead.

        • by MartinSchou (1360093) on Friday August 14, 2009 @07:06AM (#29063583)

          So you have no problem with your kids watching a dozen planets and billions of people being annihilated in a nuclear holocaust, people being left behind to die of radiation sickness, starvation and the like, people being executed, committing suicide - but don't nobody go killing babies?

          The baby killing scene builds tension the best way possible - showing us that the Cylons had no issue with killing off the weak and innocent. She's even musing about the baby's weakness as she does it. That's why it is so effective - it tells us that there is no negotiating with them, tells us that they have no compassion and that we'd be better off hoping that the group of hungry lions don't eat the baby gazelle.

          But back to my original point - why is it that you feel your kids can enjoy watching billions of people being killed, but you can't allow them to watch a single one being killed? Why is it that you feel that your kids can enjoy watching an episode like 33, where humans themselves kill a ship with a significant amount of the survivors of the attacks (I think 1,300 vs 45,000), but the sound effect of a baby's neck snapping and a mother crying out in anguish is too much?

          • Personally I thought that the cylon killing the baby was more of a mercy killing so the baby wouldn't suffer when the nukes fell.
            Showing the audience that the cylon had some human qualities.

          • by tenco (773732)
            Maybe parenting instinct? "Big blue baby eyes - must protect".
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ScentCone (795499)
            So you have no problem with your kids watching a dozen planets and billions of people ... but don't nobody go killing babies?

            This is nothing new. Folks pay other people to kill cattle, swine, sheep, goats, rabbits, fish, crustaceans and poultry on their behalf millions of times every day. Most of them would have to be personally starving before they could bring themselves to be that necessarily predatory/brutal up close and personal. To say nothing of using a knife to clean the guts out of a hog before r
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by selven (1556643)

            The death of one is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Chris Burke (6130)

          You say I should go to Pixar films. I say you should watch the Saw movies. People with your tastes have no more claim on the BSG franchise than people with my tastes.

          Claim?

          WTF does "claim" have to do with it?

          They made a BSG series that is not for kids. So... don't show it to your kids. You might as well place some "claim" on Saw and say they should make that kid friendly.

          I was just saying that I wanted my kids to be able to enjoy something that I enjoyed when I was their age. I'm sorry that's hard for you

      • by tenco (773732)

        (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)"

        I can't remember that one, is it on the DVD edition? I only watched the part that aired. And i can understand why you consider that gross. Especially when you're a parent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FTWinston (1332785)

      The SciFi remake even bothered me as an adult (the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck.)

      That part was pretty much intended to bother everyone, I think. I didn't enjoy the miniseries that much, but the rest of it, especially the start of season 3 and the last season, was especially awesome ... apart from a few inevitable filler episodes here and there.

    • Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)

      by discord5 (798235) on Friday August 14, 2009 @06:34AM (#29063473)

      the part where at the beginning of the series, the Cylon chick snaps a human baby's neck

      *gasp* Not a baby!! Considering the fact that they nuke everything and anything they can see about half an hour later, the baby was lucky. Lateron in the show have breeding farms with humans, and they steal Starbucks ovary, and much later they subjugate all of humanity under the guise of "co-existence" and torture their prisoners. They steal Sauls eyeball (again with the bodypart snatching, what's up with that?). Oh, and then there were suicide terrorists. But oh dear gods, they snapped a babies neck, that really makes this show inappropriate for kids as opposed to ... all the other things.

      I'd much rather have something I could take my kids to and just plain enjoy.

      Feed'm Disney, or Pixar, or whatever is popular these days. Hell, I was entertained for hours with Tom & Jerry and Roadrunner back in the day. (Beware though, in some cartoons featuring Roadrunner, Wiley Coyete is violently smashed against big boulders most often followed by an explosion. This may offend you.) Most of my friends with kids have an entire shelf full of that stuff, and they tend to watch shows like BSG when their kids have gone to sleep.

      Just saying, not everything needs to be suitable for kids. There's plenty of stuff that's ready made for them and is still enjoyable to parents.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SerpentMage (13390)

      I get tired of this... "I watched this as a kid and it was good and this new stuff well..."

      MOVE ON!!!! I watched the original TOS, and original Battlestar Galatica, and want to know something. I prefer the new ones. Even TNG is showing its age now. As we evolve socially certain things are tacky and cliche. Sure it is fun to watch, but you have to jump over those odd moments.

      Take James Bond, which I have never been a fan of. The latest one Quantum Solace I loved! Many Bond folks said, "gag gag..." Just lik

    • by kheldan (1460303)
      You can have your sanitized little entertainments all you like -- so long as you do NOT EVER try to sanitize everything else. This is a world of ADULTS, we don't WANT to live in a childproofed world.
  • by Viol8 (599362) on Friday August 14, 2009 @05:30AM (#29063233)

    As a series BG is perfect , one of the best Sci Fi series in a generation. But no, they've got to milk the franchise until it goes moo and dies. Isn't the new Caprica series enough? Why can't hollywood producers know when something is complete and just leave it as is to be savoured , not slowly milked to death because i'll bet you this film won't be the last.

    • "Milking a franchise" for writers/producers/distributors is like re-using bits of code for developers. It worked once, and with only a little bit of tweaking, it will work again. If you can bill twice for something you've already written, you do it. Obviously.

      Entertainment *can* be art, like code *can* be poetry, but mostly it's not. People gotta eat.

    • "perfect" is far too generous. It was VERY good in parts; it was also absolutely dire on occasion and the ending was a complete betrayal of the sci-fi fanbase (IMO of course). For me, it would have been perfect if they had decided the show was sci-fi at heart; instead they decided to write a space opera.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blueZ3 (744446)

      Why can't they know when something is "complete"? Because despite all the claims to the contrary, Hollywood (indeed, the entire entertainment industry) is NOT about "art"--it's about money. There are a lot of individuals in the industry who think of themselves as artists, and there are a few (a very few) who actually are artists--or at least craftsmen--but most of the decisions about what gets produced, and how those productions are edited, marketed, and then "slowly milked to death" are made by people who

  • In other words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mag7 (69118) on Friday August 14, 2009 @05:31AM (#29063241) Homepage

    Larson hated the new series

    • Re:In other words (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pmontra (738736) on Friday August 14, 2009 @05:47AM (#29063321) Homepage
      I can believe it as it was about the opposite in spirit of what the original one was. Actually I don't know what Larson tough about the new BSG but Dirk Benedict didn't like it [dirkbenedictcentral.com]. Personally I enjoyed both shows, I hope the movie will be as good as them.
      • by Viol8 (599362) on Friday August 14, 2009 @06:08AM (#29063391)

        Just sounds like sour grapes to me. This isn't the 1970s anymore - TV series (well, the upmarket ones) need people who can actually act well, not just stand on their mark looking good. ANd I don't think anyone could accuse Benedict of being the worlds best actor - calling him wooden would be unfair to the pine desk I'm typing this at.

        • by owlnation (858981)

          This isn't the 1970s anymore - TV series (well, the upmarket ones) need people who can actually act well, not just stand on their mark looking good.

          Well, that is true... but there's some gaps today too -- Tricia Helfer and Grace Park for example. They ain't winning any acting awards this side of hell freezing over. TnA casting all the way.

        • by Meditato (1613545) on Friday August 14, 2009 @07:14AM (#29063623)
          I'm a child of the late 80s and 90s, and I grew up watching Star Trek DS9 and later spending my teenage years watching the newer BSG series. So out of curiosity, I went back and watched the old BSG... There's a reason they did a rebooted series and not something based off the old one. Because the old one is a piece of crap. It was morally simplistic, hokey, ripping too much off Star Wars, too Mormon (Larson is a Mormon), and requiring too great a suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy.
          • by Viol8 (599362)

            Unfortunately Sci fi is a genre that doesn't age well unless its done *really* well. Cheap sets, tacky costumes, poor technology (sorry , a wardrobe with flashing lights and some tapes spinning doesn't cut it in 2009) and bad acting end up making something made in the 70s or 80s almost comical now. One of the few exceptions I can think of is Space 1999 (not sure if the yanks ever got that) which I watched last year and though it looked a bit dated the effects somehow still worked and Martin Landau was/is a

            • I caught an episode of UFO [wikipedia.org] once. From a modern perspective it wasn't great but I could almost watch it - until one of the shots where the actors were wearing space helmets and bell-bottoms. I just couldn't take it seriously after that.

              IMO Gerry Anderson should have stuck to puppets. I know it was always his ambition to do live-action, but supermarionation was what he did best. Thunderbirds has barely aged at all.

              • by Viol8 (599362)

                "Thunderbirds has barely aged at all."

                Agreed. I guess its because its puppets which makes it almost cartoon like and cartoons generally age much more slowly than live action.

                • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                  by Lumpy (12016)

                  Problem is every time I watch any of the Thunderebirds I keep having a song run through my head...

                  "america...... America..... America F Yeah! here we come to save the mutherfin day now......"

                  Thunderbirds is forever changed now...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Megane (129182)

        Dirk Benedict may not have liked it, but Richard Hatch actually had a proposal for a sequel to the original series. He has a demo tape with some awesome footage that is everything you would expect from the original series. I got to see it a few years ago when he came to a convention I was at. (And how can you go wrong with a sequel to a show that killed off an '80s pop singer in the first episode?)

        Article [scificool.com]

        Youtube [youtube.com]

        However, the people with the big money wanted to do Boobiestar Galactica, and denied him the

    • by BuR4N (512430)
      "Larson hated the new series"

      Sounds like a a developer that get his/her code forked and improved x100 :)
  • Whore that brand (Score:3, Insightful)

    by trawg (308495) on Friday August 14, 2009 @06:04AM (#29063381) Homepage

    Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] talks about milking brands.

    I loved the new BSG series - one of the things I've enjoyed doing most involving a screen in the last several years. But this just seems like a really shameless attempt to get more money out of me. At least let a couple years pass; I can't even buy all the episodes of BSG on DVD yet.

  • by pariahdecss (534450) on Friday August 14, 2009 @06:24AM (#29063433)
    Let me guess a bizarre time paradox will result in an alternate reality, allowing them to re-imagine the series. Where have I seen that before?
  • by bdraschk (664148) on Friday August 14, 2009 @07:23AM (#29063673)

    All of this was re-imagined before and it will be re-imagined again.

  • by mlush (620447)
    I don't think I could take BSG shakeycam footage on a big screen!
  • Ah crap! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hesaigo999ca (786966) on Friday August 14, 2009 @08:34AM (#29064123) Homepage Journal

    Ok, when the NEW BSG came out, I was like...is this a continuation, is this a complete do over ...how is it going to work...
    They came up with a sort of nice way to begin the series as say they left then came back...

    Now they are saying they are going back to the drawing board again....why? More importantly, are they going to keep Starbuck?
    She is hot!

  • Aim between (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Funky Weasel (1618185)
    I'm in a seeming minority that enjoyed the old show that, admittedly, I grew up with and BSG 2004.

    The former was a product of the times but suffered the same sort of flaws that would happen in similarly targeted family-friend shows of today - it had it's own Annoying Kid/Jar Jar (Boxy and Muffet the robot-ape-dog-thing), shocking techno-blags, appalling support actors (not to mention somewhat teak-like main actors). But there was always a sense of prevailing optimism, and heroes were heroes as opposed no
    • I, too, liked the original series, and the re-imagined one. I even liked the ending. Prevailing wisdom says this means I have no taste...

      And I agree that they are essentially the same premise done under two different world views. The original was the classic hero odyssey, politically right wing ("Sometimes the opposite of war is not peace, the opposite of war is slavery"), family values type of fare - space opera and simple at its roots. The re-imagined series was exactly the opposite - there were no
  • Nine years ago, Singer was working on a made-for-TV adaptation of BSG, but it got delayed and died and eventually Fox "lost interest" in the project.

    So rather than sitting back and saying, "Well, Ronald D. Moore got lucky and did great, good for him!", Singer's got time now and is probably thinking "Hey, I can make a lot of money on this!" I'll bet whatever he does is based on the work from 2000. Or maybe it's Larson saying "Hey, I hated that re-imagining, let's see if Singer's still interested and I can m

  • ... and spruce up the old series with CGI environments... ships in the air and a couple of bantha or dewbacks walking through New Caprica before the attack?

    Seriously, in how many ways does this story need to be told? It's why we have re-runs and syndication agreements.

    I could see doing something like Richard Hatch's idea of creating a new movie that erases the embarrassment of Galactica 1980 and adds to the story where the original series left off, with as many of the original actors as you can get. But a

  • by hoggoth (414195) on Friday August 14, 2009 @10:20AM (#29065227) Journal

    The Hollywood Singularity will occur when a movie is remade before the previous remake has finished production. I am glad to see this bold step towards the Hollywood Singularity.

  • by Mercano (826132) <mercano&gmail,com> on Friday August 14, 2009 @10:49AM (#29065617)
    The BSG movie was created by man. It was camed. It was torrented. There are many copies...
  • by kheldan (1460303) on Friday August 14, 2009 @10:57AM (#29065707) Journal
    The new BSG was great, I thought. Awesome. That being said, and even though I have all the original broadcasts of it on DVD (or waiting to be made into DVDs), I doubt I'll watch it again anytime in the next decade. Why? Because it was so awesome, it held my attention so well that I know I won't forget significant details about it before then. Also because it was such a journey to make watching it, and I've still got the taste of dust from the trail of that journey in my mouth for at least 10 more years. I don't NEED some movie muddying up all my memories of watching BSG. Leave it the fuck alone!
  • by HBPiper (472715) on Friday August 14, 2009 @11:08AM (#29065903)

    Starbuck will be a guy again?

Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings

Working...