Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: trekgeezer on December 04, 2003, 07:37:06 PM

Title: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: trekgeezer on December 04, 2003, 07:37:06 PM
This  mini-series begins Monday on SciFi Channel.  Got any opinions on the direction they are taking it?

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Ash on December 04, 2003, 08:14:02 PM
If it's on Sci Fi then the only direction they'll be taking it is directly south.

Sci Fi is a crappy channel that could be good...but isn't.



Post Edited (12-04-03 19:14)
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Velvet Brotha on December 04, 2003, 11:32:50 PM
Ooooooh yeah... I'm a huge fan of Battlestar Galactica. all hail the Cylons!!!!
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Eirik on December 05, 2003, 07:32:49 AM
"Sci Fi is a crappy channel that could be good...but isn't."

While I appreciate their occasional Twilight Zone marathons, I have to agree with that statement.  Is it me or has anyone else noticed that the f#%$%ers at SciFi channel run about 10-12 minutes or commercials per 30 minutes of air time?  And that's not an exaggeration either.
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on December 05, 2003, 08:41:20 AM
Eventhough it is on SciFi, I will definently watch it.  It'll be nice to see some Battlestar after all these years.

Now if only they would remake V................

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: trekgeezer on December 05, 2003, 09:32:01 AM
SciFi is no worse than any other cable channel abou the commercial. I just dislike the way they program their shows. Like they did with Farscape when one time you had to wait  9 months to see a new episode.  Then the idiots cancelled it , their  number one rated show.  Henson and company are making a 4 hour  mini-series to tie up the loose ends from the  sudden cancellation, only it probably won't show on SciFi. It will probably be sold to syndication.

I really wanted some opinions on the way they are changing Galactica.  A lot of fans of the old show were really raising hell about it .   I was 23 when the old one was on ABC and it was neat  in 1978 because no one had done anything like it on tv, but to tell the truth you can tell the show is really from the 70's.  I think it is kind of dated.

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Eirik on December 05, 2003, 10:02:09 AM
I was 8 in 1978 and thought the show was an acceptable surrogate for what I really wanted to be watching, but couldn't on TV at that time: Star Wars.  I look at Battlestar Galactica today and I see one awful 70s show...  

So do I think the new BG series is sacrelige?  Hardly.  The original was such garbage, there's really no way to detract from it.  BUT - the premise of the original show was good enough that I think it's worth revisiting with a higher production value.  I also really liked the Vipers, and think they look even better in the new show.
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Flangepart on December 05, 2003, 03:26:34 PM
Vipers = Cool.
I wish the fleet jumped into the Star Wars universe. Vipers Vs. Tie fighters. Star Destrover Vs. Cylon Base star. Baltar getting a light sabre up his ass....
"Cattlcar Galaxitive", as MAD magazine called it, was a cheese fest.Likable Velveeta.
Hummm....a T.V. cheese fest, with Voyage to the bottom of the sea, time tunnel, and battlestar could make  good riffing practice.

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Jamtoy on December 05, 2003, 11:31:42 PM
There's an article in the TV Guide about the mini-series:
According to that article:

WHEN THE CYLON HAS SEX HER SPINE GLOWS RED!

So... You tell me if it's going to be any good.

"Eventhough it is on SciFi, I will definently watch it. It'll be nice to see some Battlestar after all these years."

Not like this....

"the premise of the original show was good enough that I think it's worth revisiting with a higher production value."

Half naked female seduction cylons with glowing red spines,  Oh yeah High production values.....

"If it's on Sci Fi then the only direction they'll be taking it is directly south."

It's already gone way past south!

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: DARKWOLF on December 06, 2003, 02:47:57 AM
I'm not gonna watch it not a big fan of the new one. I' m still a big fan of the first one I remember watch it in 1978 when I was four years old. Making Boomer and Starbuck women that's reallt mess up.
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Prophet Tenebrae on December 06, 2003, 05:29:25 AM
Boomer *and* Starbuck? I thought it was just Starbuck... why not just make all the characters female then?
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: JohnL on December 06, 2003, 09:46:51 PM
I'm going to watch it, but it p**ses me off that Richard Hatch produced a trailer that all the fans loved, but the copyright holders didn't want anything to do with it. When they finally decided to make the miniseries, they didn't want any of the original cast, or to make it a continuation of the original. Sure, don't make what the fans want, make what YOU think the fans should want. :-/
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Velvet Brotha on December 07, 2003, 12:06:07 AM
>Half naked female seduction cylons with glowing red spines, Oh yeah High production values.....


What the f@#$k?1 This has to be a joke! Please tell me you're joking.....
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Jamtoy on December 07, 2003, 12:35:13 AM
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not joking.  Look in the TV Guide (It has a NASCAR on the cover).

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Eirik on December 07, 2003, 02:30:21 AM
"they didn't want any of the original cast, or to make it a continuation of the original."

Wasn't the original brought to a conclusion?  Didn't they find Earth and lick the Cyclons once and for all?  That's one of the things I actually liked about the original - the story was headed somewhere and actually got there instead of just jerking the audience around year after year ala the X-Files.
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: trekgeezer on December 07, 2003, 08:11:03 PM
I have actually seen the red glowing spine  on the little special they made about the show.  I am going to give this a chance, it has potential if done right.

I think the reason I'm not ranting about this is because I was an adult when the original was  ABC on Sunday night.  I used to carry my little portable tv to the drive in where I was the cashier  ( I was  going to school on the GI bill, but extra cash always comes in handy ).  It was a cool show for the time, but like I said it is dated now when you watch the reruns.

One of the things I like about SciFi is that they do show old cancelled shows, even if they were only on for half a season.  Sometimes it's disappointing because something you thought was so cool when you were in  your twenties seems really lame now.

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: raj on December 08, 2003, 03:32:05 PM
Jamtoy wrote:

> There's an article in the TV Guide about the mini-series:
> According to that article:
>
> WHEN THE CYLON HAS SEX HER SPINE GLOWS RED!
>

Hmm, so she needs to be on top, and you have to have a mirror on the ceiling.

I watched the original, and tried hard to like it, but there was something about it that just didn't work for me.  I'm actually optimistic.
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: JohnL on December 09, 2003, 12:19:12 AM
>Wasn't the original brought to a conclusion? Didn't they find Earth and lick the
>Cyclons once and for all? That's one of the things I actually liked about the
>original - the story was headed somewhere and actually got there instead of just
>jerking the audience around year after year ala the X-Files.

Not exactly. Battlestar Galactica ended with no resolution to the story. A couple years later they made Galactica 1980 with only the characters of Adama, Tigh and Boomer returning. They find Earth, but decide that it's too primitive to help them, so they send down a couple warriors and a bunch of kids to learn about Earth while the Galactica leads the cylons away. This was done so that they could save on special effects and it sucked. They actually had flying motorcycles!

Most fans of the show would rather forget that it exists. The only episode worth watching is the one that shows how Starbuck got stranded on a planet with a cylon and they become friends, although even that one had to wimp out and give the cylon a more human sounding voice.

>One of the things I like about SciFi is that they do show old cancelled shows,
>even if they were only on for half a season.

No, they USED to do that, and still do occasionally for popular shows like BG, but there have been a lot of short-lived shows recently that SciFi hasn't touched. Just off the top of my head;

Nightman - 2-3 seasons in syndication.
Freakylinks - One season on Fox.
Lone Gunmen - One season on Fox.
All Souls - Six episodes on UPN.
Dead Last - 13 episodes on WB, only about 7 aired.
Special Unit 2 - Two seasons on UPN.
The Others - 13 episodes on Fox.
Dark Angel - Two seasons on Fox.
Firefly - 13 episodes (I think), only about 10 aired on Fox.
Sinbad - 2-3 seasons in syndication.
Conan - 1-2 seasons in syndication.
Sleepwalkers - Six episodes I think, on NBC.

Where are these shows?
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: raj on December 09, 2003, 10:37:40 AM
JohnL wrote:

Some of them may have hefty price tags for syndication, but I'd rather see a one or half season show than Stargate SG-1 over and over and over.
> >One of the things I like about SciFi is that they do show old
> cancelled shows,
> >even if they were only on for half a season.
>
> No, they USED to do that, and still do occasionally for popular
> shows like BG, but there have been a lot of short-lived shows
> recently that SciFi hasn't touched. Just off the top of my
> head;
>
> Nightman - 2-3 seasons in syndication.
> Freakylinks - One season on Fox.
> Lone Gunmen - One season on Fox.
> All Souls - Six episodes on UPN.
> Dead Last - 13 episodes on WB, only about 7 aired.
> Special Unit 2 - Two seasons on UPN.
> The Others - 13 episodes on Fox.
> Dark Angel - Two seasons on Fox.
> Firefly - 13 episodes (I think), only about 10 aired on Fox.
> Sinbad - 2-3 seasons in syndication.
> Conan - 1-2 seasons in syndication.
> Sleepwalkers - Six episodes I think, on NBC.
>
> Where are these shows?
Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Scott on December 09, 2003, 11:36:34 AM
I think the Cylon played the mirror as well. Taken on two roles.

I like Sci-Fi, but Sci Fi channel dosn't interest me. Sometimes they show a good movie. I work on Saturdays and I'm not even sure they show MYSTERY THEATER anymore. Their series don't look interesting. The new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA looked good on the commercials as did the new DUNE a while back.

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Scott on December 09, 2003, 11:42:40 AM
I was a big fan of the original BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, the lost tribe idea, cylons, vipers. I think it was the idea behind the show as much as the cylons and vipers.

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: trekgeezer on December 09, 2003, 11:55:29 AM
I watched part one last night and was fairly impressed. The military parts of the show were very realistic, they even had there own version of AWACS  out with their fighter squadrons.

The part with the sex with the cylon lasted about  30 seconds and actually is  relevent  to the plot.

It reruns at  6:00 central tonight with part 2 at  8:00.

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: Flangepart on December 09, 2003, 01:41:35 PM
Caught the first 15min last night. Recorded the rest so i can zip commercials.
Might be intresting. The new Cylons are mean looking, and while the idea of a Human looking Cylon for intel ops makes sense, the "Lets make 'em human so we can save bucks on FX" aspect still bugs me.

The space battles look promising...we'll see.....

Title: Re: Battle Star Galactica
Post by: JohnL on December 10, 2003, 06:02:35 PM
>Some of them may have hefty price tags for syndication, but I'd rather see a one

Maybe some of them, but I can't imagine that the WB is asking too much for Dead Last (a struggling three member rock band finds an amulet that lets them see dead people, who they must help), or Sleepwalkers from NBC (they go into other people's dreams to help them), considering that they only played a couple episodes in a real timeslot and used the rest as filler, usually unannounced. I taped all the episodes of several of those shows, but some of them the networks didn't even play all the episodes.

>The new Cylons are mean looking

Yeah, too bad there are only four of them in the entire miniseries and they don't actually do anything.

>and while the idea of a Human looking Cylon for intel ops makes sense,
>the "Lets make 'em human so we can save bucks on FX" aspect still bugs me.

Not only that, but it rips off many other shows and movies where you don't know who's human and who isn't. Oh and the idea of Baltar having a chip in his head? Straight out of Farscape. I expected him to start calling her Harvey.