What dyou prefer?

Which do you prefer

  • BSG Old Styleeee

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • BSG retelling Masssiieeeve

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
still seems to me you guys are picking and choosing what is "inspired" by existing material and what counts as a "rip-off"

I can accept you've poor taste and don't like the new BSG and leave it at that! :wink:
 
emperorpenguin said:
still seems to me you guys are picking and choosing what is "inspired" by existing material and what counts as a "rip-off"

I can accept you've poor taste and don't like the new BSG and leave it at that! :wink:

My biggest point is just this: I think the series would be better if they had done enough extra to make it new. Like I've said, it has enough originality, character and story that it *could* Change the title, character names and ships and you are almost half way there. I think even the story idea itself would require a little tweaking to make it not seem they were just copying the idea of the orginal BSG.
 
A remake is neither a con nor a rip-off. Galactica isn't vaguely retelling the story with the names and setting changed just enough to avoid a lawsuit like Homeworld did (by the game's creator's own admission, they wanted to do a BSG game), not has it tried to pass itself off as something it's not, which is what a con would be.

Hell, if you're talking rip-offs, the original Galactica is largely taken from the Book of Mormon anyway.

What moore's Galactica is is a retelling of a classic story with modern sensibilities, which isn't going to be to everyone's taste. If you prefer the original series, it's right there on DVD, and nice and cheap too.
 
emperorpenguin said:
still seems to me you guys are picking and choosing what is "inspired" by existing material and what counts as a "rip-off"

All a matter of opinion, if it had hit me with a "wow" I may not be here disputing you!!!

emperorpenguin said:
I can accept you've poor taste and don't like the new BSG and leave it at that! :wink:

And I accept you have poor taste in telling who has poor taste, err....I think :)

Actually undecided, but only seen a couple of episodes. Put it this way, when it is B5, NOTHING was going to stop me watching it, newBSG hasn't done that with me - mind you it would help if it was not on SKy with their bl**dy endless adverts.
 
Well L33tpenguin, I would agree that if we could get some great sci fi that was original, it would be good, but at the same time I doubt sci fi would greenlight the show as easily as something with the name recognition. Also in this case the old BSG was something that was produced more or less to cash in on the popularity of Star Wars. The remake stays relatiely close but at the same time breaks new ground and uses the name of what was really a bad sci fi show remembered more for it's effecs and cool costumes than for it's plot and story and breaths some life into it.

As for War othe Worlds the problem is as simple as a lack of reverence for the original source. Hmm, let's take a victorian era novel, and place it in the modern day! this was a vehicle for Tom Cruise not a film, Nice effects, shame about the story!

The First Lord of the rings film (Bakashi's one) was horrible, why not because it was a remake, but because it was ill concieved and not faithful to the original material. (certainly not in comparison to the Jackson film)

If they do a film of game of thrones, and have Ashton Kutcher play eddard Stark, and Paris Hilton Play Cercei Lannister, it would probably be crap, and I for one would pray for a remake!
 
Lorcan Nagle said:
Hell, if you're talking rip-offs, the original Galactica is largely taken from the Book of Mormon anyway.

very true, with its planet Kolob which is the seat of god or something, I confess to not knowing much about Mormons other than they're not allowed drink tea :shock:
 
As always, Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica#Religious_and_mythological_references

also there's a hillarious episode of south park where some mormons come to town...
 
I haven't read the entire thread, so bear with me if I repeat anything.

First of all, I'd like to show some Canuck pride: the actress who plays Six is from just outside of my hometown of Edmonton. And all that gorgeous Caprican scenery can be found in and around Vancouver, B.C. Okay...

While the original Battlestar Galactica holds a fond place in my memories, I last saw it as a young lad. Having seen it more recently, it struck me as terribly dated, a bit cheesy to say the least, and somewhat immature as far as storytelling. All I remember of BS 1980 was sky-bikes over the Los Angeles freeways...ew.

Let's not forget that the original Star Trek comes across much the same way when compared to its later incarnations.

Captain Kirk: We need to go down to that mysterious planet. I'll take Spock, Sulu, Scotty, Bones...and you there, in the red shirt.

Red Shirt: Aww, crap.

From minute one I have loved the new BSG for a great many reasons. First and foremost, the cinematography. The hand-held cam look is elegantly simple and effective. You can easily lose yourself in an environment you might well just step into. Nothing is too shiny, and everything looks lived-in and worn. The clothes, the props, the sets...they're all believeable. The pseudo-Egyptian space-disco capes-and-feathered-hair...not so much.

The sound adheres much better to the laws of physics. No whining or growling beauty passes of starships, just the barely audible and muffled percussion of live ammunition. It adds another layer onto the realism. And the soundtrack...skeet!...I haven't listened to a single CD so often as I have the BSG Sountrack. Give it a listen, even if only on the Amazon demos and you'll understand.

The story is not merely episodic. It's an ongoing sojourn, as the original should have been, I think. And it's character-driven - with deep and complicated and well-rounded characters played by capable and believeable actors. In my opinion, this is bar none the best reason for its superiority over the original.

And for the record (it's become the subject of some debate with a rather anvil-headed sister-in-law), Gaius Baltar and DS9's Dr. Bashir are two different actors. Yes, they look alike, but that's all. It astonishes me how many people I need to explain this to.
 
And for the record (it's become the subject of some debate with a rather anvil-headed sister-in-law), Gaius Baltar and DS9's Dr. Bashir are two different actors. Yes, they look alike, but that's all. It astonishes me how many people I need to explain this to.
Really? What's their respective names?


And which one played the prince in "Kingdom of Heaven"?





As for comparing the remake to Star Trek TOS and TNG, I think we can give Galactica 2003 the benefit of being better that the original, and not the other way around.
 
The Cheat said:
And for the record (it's become the subject of some debate with a rather anvil-headed sister-in-law), Gaius Baltar and DS9's Dr. Bashir are two different actors. Yes, they look alike, but that's all. It astonishes me how many people I need to explain this to.
Really? What's their respective names?


And which one played the prince in "Kingdom of Heaven"?.

Dr Bashir was played by Alexander Siddig and he was in Kingdom of Heaven

Baltar is played by James Callis
 
emperorpenguin said:
Dr Bashir was played by Alexander Siddig and he was in Kingdom of Heaven

Baltar is played by James Callis

Who played Bridget's gay friend in the Bridget Jones movies BTW
 
If you're referring to the character Tom, that was James Callis.

And: Alexander Siddig was also credited as Siddig El-Fadil in the earlier DS9 episodes. Seems the guy Americanized.
 
War Leader G'Shon said:
If you're referring to the character Tom, that was James Callis.

And: Alexander Siddig was also credited as Siddig El-Fadil in the earlier DS9 episodes. Seems the guy Americanized.

or realized that having an arab name in hollywood only gets you certain roles and dodgy looks....
 
emperorpenguin said:
War Leader G'Shon said:
And: Alexander Siddig was also credited as Siddig El-Fadil in the earlier DS9 episodes. Seems the guy Americanized.

or realized that having an arab name in hollywood only gets you certain roles and dodgy looks....

But mainly because everyone got his name wrong, including his agent (which is the reason he gave for changing his stage name).
 
Not exactly relevant to the BSG portion of the thread but relevant to the War of the Worlds portion the most current iteration starring Tom Cruz is definitely (ignoring the modern setting) the closest movie yet to actually Herbert George Wells original plot structure. No other worldly fliers, appearance of the aliens on earth using technology more advanced than hours, capturing humans using their biological products to help seed alien biological forms on the Earth.

HG most carefully mentioned that his "Martions" did not use the wheel or gear as our technology does, nor do the aliens in the Cruz movie. Aliens invulnerable to all of our weapons, The sequence with the Ferry is really quite accurate to the book (just not done in England, on the English Channel.

All in all not a bad reinterpretation of HG's book in the light of modern technology.

If you want a real chuckle read HG's description of a heavier than air flying machine and remember when the book War of the Worlds was written 1890 something wasn't it. :wink:
 
CudaHP said:
...appearance of the aliens on earth using technology more advanced than hours...

Erm, you did see the same movie as the rest of us..? They very much arrived due to a mucher higher technology than ours...

My biggest proplem with the Cruise movie was it was way too close to the book (whilst giving lip service to updating it). The whole "well bugger me, we forgot our flu shots" ending really feels tacked on because of it and I know, that's the original ending, but it just doesn't fly these days.

Not a good film IMO, but still way better than "Mission to Mars" (my benchmark for a waste of two hours).
 
Back
Top