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

[REG]

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

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

[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?

[Phantom]

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.

[AslanC]

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.

[JALU3]

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

[REG]

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.

[Phantom]

What did he do on DS9?

[Sho-sa Kurita]

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

[Sho-sa Kurita]

Another enlightening tidbit from Ron on the project:

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

[Phantom]

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.

[Sea Tyger]

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.

[Eric R.]

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!

[REG]

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.

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.

[Sea Tyger]

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.

[Sho-sa Kurita]

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.