[BSG] Ron D. Moore gets the Green Light!

Spotted this brief article on the Aussie-based Dark Horizons web site:

Quote:

---

Battlestar Galactica (TV): We've all heard talk about how Ronald D. Moore's version of the new show will differ greatly from the old series, today we found out by how much. FilmJerk reports that USA Cable Entertainment has given Moore's version the greenlight and will start production in March in Vancouver on the four hour mini-series that will potentially 'launch' the new show. Whilst a short synopsis for the project sounds very much like the original show, there are some big changes including some big feminine additions to the show. No longer will Starbuck be a blond and somewhat nervous male warrior, instead SHE will be a ballsy loner full of profanity and taken to jogging around the ship in her bra. There's also a President Laura Roslin character who'll serve as a foil to Commander Adama and get into numerous fights with him. Baltar has become a handsome guy plagued by visions of a beautiful humanoid Cylon who seduced him named 'Number Six'. Fans will not be happy. Thanks to 'Edward'.

---

Additional source: http://www.filmjerk.com/archives/021...galactica.html

Ok I'm loose and ready for something radical like this, notice that Starbuck sounded an awfully alot like a certain Bajoran Major we knew once upon a time?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric R.
Ok I'm loose and ready for something radical like this, notice that Starbuck sounded an awfully alot like a certain Bajoran Major we knew once upon a time?

---

But, why change the character of Starbuck to a woman? Why not use the character of Sheba or come up with a new character?

As a fan I don't find this promising at all.

As a fan of BSG I think this is a frellin' joke.

As a fan of sci-fi I will give the show a chance.

But I will always love the original, problems and all. :)

Here here Aslan, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. I usually enjoyed Ron D. Moore's work from DS9 to his brief stint at Roswell.

What did he do on DS9?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom
What did he do on DS9?

---

Ronald D. Moore (IMDb entry)

I'm looking forward to this, but then I've kind of been following it for a while. It's unfortunate that they're catering to the T-n-A crowd, but that tends to be a reality of syndicated programming, and as long as it's not out of hand, oh well.

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but here's something I find interesting -- if someone takes a 500+ year old play like, say, "Romeo and Juliet," or "Hamlet" and 're-imagines' it like, say, Baz Lurhmann or Kenneth Branaugh, then it's brilliant and so very cool. OTOH, if it's something newer like BG or TOS (that we grew up with), you can't do the same thing. There's no real difference. Both are works of dramatic fiction. It's simply the temporal proximity that changes the perception of what you should or shouldn't do with it.

For those of you who think its a joke or a bad idea, I'd be interested in hearing why...

-- Daniel

Another enlightening tidbit from Ron on the project:

http://www.battlestargalactica.com/f...02/dec02a.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sho-sa Kurita
[B

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but here's something I find interesting -- if someone takes a 500+ year old play like, say, "Romeo and Juliet," or "Hamlet" and 're-imagines' it like, say, Baz Lurhmann or Kenneth Branaugh, then it's brilliant and so very cool. OTOH, if it's something newer like BG or TOS (that we grew up with), you can't do the same thing. There's no real difference. Both are works of dramatic fiction. It's simply the temporal proximity that changes the perception of what you should or shouldn't do with it.

-- Daniel [/B]

---

I know you said it wasn't directed to anyone, but I would like to respond to your example. I for one am against the various 'revisionist' Shakesperre movies that have hit the screen, mainly because they don't fit into the feel of the play. I will never see the R&J set on Verona Beach, all the characters friggin' gangsters!!??? Give me a break.

The only one I have seen yet that works was Sir Ian in 'Richard III' the 'WWII' style of background I thought was brilliant. However, it is my feeling that if you are going to re do something that has been done in the past, be it Shakesperre or BSG or Trek use the ground work that has been establish, don't mess with perfection.

My personal feelings aside on that (I, for one, loved Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet, because it stayed very true to the play despite being set in 19th C. Denmark...other offerings, like the modern R&J, or "O," based on Othello, I didn't even bother with...), I believe the perception is one of memory.

We Trek and BSG fans remember sitting in front of the TV and watching the original shows. They remain fresh in our minds and hearts, and we've invested part of ourselves into these shows. For Shakespeare, none of us were around back then to see his original presentations, so all we have are the interpretations of modern directors, producers and actors. Some work (like pretty much all of Brannagh's Shakespearean movies), and some don't (the modern R&J and "O").

Another example is Homer's Odyssey. I have seen two recent works on the story -- both very different (the made-for-TV Odyssey mini-series and "O, Brother, Where Art Thou"). For me, both worked very well (and for those of you who have not seen "O, Brother..." it is worth the time! :) ). Yet, for Star Trek, I have a much greater scrutiny, because of my years of invested time and energy on the original series and its spin-offs. As such, I can be more critical of each new series or movie.

Let me through a wrench into that thinking. lets compare Henry V both the 1944 and 1989 versions. Botha re set in the same period, both try to show correct costumeing and hard true to the original dialoge but they are nevertheless hugely different films in feel and interpration. For instance in 44 they showed glorious French knights rideing on steeds under a bright sunlight and rolling French countryside follwoed by arrows and more arrows. What did we see in 89 Mud, terror in the English archers eyes and the sound of horse hoofs rding ever nearer and then french knights ingloriusly dying as English infantry dispatch them in the mud and rain by cutting there throats as they are unable to fight.

I guess having been in Stage and theater for most of my life in one degree or another I am not hung up as much on window dressing. If a women can perform a role better than a man or if that would open up new opportunities then I am for it. If I can do a play with just a Chair and table on stage then I will do it instead of building an elaborate set. It is in the end the story and the actors emotions and efforts put into the characters that is the important part, you forget that and there goes your effort, didn't Voyager teaches us that?

I mean Voyager captured the look of Starfleet, Uniforms, the ship, bridge and etc... when you looked at it it was Star Trek on the surface. But go deeper and you see that Character depth sucked because the creative staff failed to put effort into the basic story. Moore does not want to be limited by the window dressing and be hemmed in by the past. Just like any director redoing a classic play he wants to put his spin on the material changing a little of that a little of this and I say he has that right. I have heard of all female cast productions of Julius Ceaser for petes sake!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phantom

I know you said it wasn't directed to anyone, but I would like to respond to your example. I for one am against the various 'revisionist' Shakesperre movies that have hit the screen, mainly because they don't fit into the feel of the play. I will never see the R&J set on Verona Beach, all the characters friggin' gangsters!!??? Give me a break.

---

Actually, a revisionism is a good way to present a story to an audience that would never touch literature. I remembered being involved in a local production of R&J using local pidgin language to motivate the high school students (a set designer, not actor). It may not be agreeable with the traditionalist but hey, at least you reach another type of audience.

Quote:

---

The only one I have seen yet that works was Sir Ian in 'Richard III' the 'WWII' style of background I thought was brilliant. However, it is my feeling that if you are going to re do something that has been done in the past, be it Shakesperre or BSG or Trek use the ground work that has been establish, don't mess with perfection.

---

They are using the ground work that have already been established. Adama, Apollo, Starbuck, etc. Just because Starbuck is undergoing a sex change doesn't mean it ruins the entire ensemble.

Of course, I will not be held responsible for conjuring images of Richard Hatch (the actor, not the Survivor millionaire) and a cross-dressing Dirk Benedict sleeping together. :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric R.
Let me through a wrench into that thinking.

---

Oh, I agree with you that if Moore wants to present his own vision of BSG, he should be allowed to do so (and I'll still be looking forward to seeing it :) ). I was simply presenting a logical reason why people more readily accept different interpretations of Shakespeare (or other "Classic" and "Ancient" literature) than they are over the stuff they grew up on. I think it's an emotional bond thing with Star Trek/Star Wars/BSG fans that make them more resistant to "outsiders" coming in and changing their favorite shows.

Quote:

---

I think it's an emotional bond thing with Star Trek/Star Wars/BSG fans that make them more resistant to "outsiders" coming in and changing their favorite shows.

---

Exactly the point I was making. To paraphrase a great Jedi master, "the difference is only in your mind." It's all a matter of timing.

You know I thought Star Trek fans were rabid until I saw the BSg fan base.

These people are terrifying.

I mean I got accused of being a Spy for Sci-Fi when I said (months ago) that I was not opposed to a remake as the old show had its problems.

Now given Mr. Moore's character breakdowns don't fill me with hope, many non BSG fans ahve been responding positivly to this.

But as my buddy said "It's only a Glenn Larson show afterall" ;)

Isn't that also like saying "ENTERPRISE is a Gene Roddenberry show, after all." :p

The only thing Glen Larson is being credited for the remake is as a creator of the original production in name only.

So far, I have not actually heard if Mr. Larson is actively involved in the Ron D Moore's production of BSG. After all, Universal owns BSG.

OBTW, my using ENTERPRISE in the first statement is in no way near in comparison between Brannon Braga's production of said show and Ron D. Moore's production of BSG. I have more respect for Ron D. Moore (aka the Klingon Loremaster) than I have with Braga.

Actually the shot was based on the fact that Glen Larson (who brought us Knightrider, Magnum PI, Quincy and Buck Rogers to name a few) was a very prolfic TV producer in the late 70s and early 80s, but not a very good one.

I disagree and think Larson was beinh some very important TV shows, but hey what are you going to do? This guy also calls it "Cattle Car Profalactica"

Actually, it was Don Belesario (Sp) who had more to do with Magnum PI then Glenn Larson. In addition I have felt many of the more positive aspects of the original BSG were his (Belesario)doing. There are very many points of continuity in his work, not just the stock group of Character Actors.

Ba Ba Black Sheep
Battlestar Galatica
Magnum PI
Quentenum Leap
JAG

All have some Naval/Marine Angle, have featured a fighter/Helicopter pilot as a main character or principle one, have used its military background. BSG worked so great because it felt like this was a story about a squadron of fighter pilots not just Starbuck and Apollo. I just wonder if Moore has talked to him about the new story.

I enjoyed the original, but it wasn't without problems. I'm not married to every idea in it, so I'll likely give the new series a look, at least. It also helps that Ron Moore did some of the best work on Deep Space 9, IMO.

Intersting stuff Eric. Thanks for the info :)

I didn't know that Don Bellisario was involved in the original BSG series.

Would be a major improvement if he would replace Braga on ENTERPRISE. Hehehe. :p

Well, Kira never jogged in her bra... unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric R.
Ok I'm loose and ready for something radical like this, notice that Starbuck sounded an awfully alot like a certain Bajoran Major we knew once upon a time?

---

Well, I read up most of the stuff available... and I like it.

BSG had plot holes you could fly a Battlestar thru... perhaps this will close some of them.

The characters sound excellent, the scenario sounds more beliveable...

I'm looking forward to it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66

Well, Kira never jogged in her bra... unfortunately.

---

She doesn't have to. All she had to do move around in her tight orange-brown uniform, and I need to dump my head in cold water. :p

I don't know if she's Irish, but I'd nominate Nana Visitor for candidacy of IBG.

On a serious note, I do agree that the actress who will play "Starbuck" must be a strong female. Sort of a Kira's first-season "angry b" persona.

It is getting scary listening to the Continuation Camp, they are one step away from letter bombs.

I find it interesting how those who were no BSG fans seem to think this is no big deal.

I myself am stuck in the middle. There were aspects of BSG I liked and aspects I thought were stupid or dumb.

Hmmmmm

And why does strong female = angry?

can't females be strong without being bitches? Dax in the first 6 seasons of DS9 is a good example.

Yeah, but Kira Nerys stands out more. I like it when she is in conflict with Sisko during the first season.

Personally, I will watch the movie. But the fact tha they are messing with my favorite character in the series is very irratating. It would be like them remaking Star Trek, and making Spock female, or worse Kirk.

but that is just my opinion.

Well, Star Trek have the fortune to have spawned several different series and films based on the original timeline. for past ... what, 20-plus years?

BSG have only one TV series (two if you dare to count GALATICA: 1980 ... I sure wouldn't), and it was 20 years ago.

BTW, isn't JMS's Babylon 5 a remake of an old TV series back in the 60's? I swear it is but correct me if I'm wrong.

According to rumor mills. yes i listen and pass on info. They are hitting many points on galactica.. The father son relationship with Adama and Apollo. Starbuck's gender. The actual names of the characters. The cylon history. The great betrayer turns to and idiot.. just to name a few points. I begin to wonder why they still call it Galactica at all if they are going to change everything about it..

Because the series will set in and around the Battlestar named Galactica.

So does anyone know? Was there an original Babylon 5 back in the 60's?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by REG


BTW, isn't JMS's Babylon 5 a remake of an old TV series back in the 60's? I swear it is but correct me if I'm wrong.

---

The info I heard was that there was a movie (TV I presume) called B5 back around 1980-81. Can't prove it, can't find any info to back the claim up.