"a human civilization on 12 planets decimated from an attack by intelligent robots known as Cylons"
So we're now saying that the twin towers were brought down by robots? Or is the Taliban run by Cylons? I'm confused as to the link there.
X-Men helmsman Bryan Singer will direct and produce a big screen outing of Battlestar Galactica, Variety reports. The Universal Pictures movie adaptation is described as a "complete reimagining" of the sci-fi series. Singer had already worked on a possible Fox TV sequel to the original 1978 series, but this was canned …
So they are reimagining a reimagining? Or are they reimagining the original and ignoring the reimagined series?
What the hell?
Hope they don't follow the original series (complete crap in my opinion), and that they don't shaft the reimagined series which actually had some merit... at least to begin with.
They are really getting desperate - re-hashing programmes that are only a couple of years old.
Films that are all about the effects rather than the plot (what plot?).
I sound like a boring old fart, but I'm getting really tired of all the crap that is being trundled out by Hollywood and the TV networks these days. It all seems to be about pumping advertising in one form or another, rather than trying to be something that is worth watching.
The amount of TV that I watch has dropped by about half in the last couple of years, and I could actually see myself only turning on to watch the news within a couple more years.
Just call me Victor "I don't belieeeeve it".
Mines the one with the leather patches on the elbow and a copy of the Daily Mail in the pocket (damnit!)
...the new series could it?
The original, while awful, had a lot of 70's camp charm about it. It was never going to change your life, but it was entertaining.
The new series... I mean, jeebus help me! Wtf was that about? The schitzo's were really seeing angels and god was manipulating them? Earth is actually third generation humanity?
I just can't see the point to this.
The reimagining of BSG was, for want of a better work, brilliant. A movie just doesn't have the length to do a decent story based on the outline of what BSG is about.
Before they made the new series, I would have said yes to this, but now I see no point.
Perhaps, rather than a Battlestar, how about a large, mobile space station that can destroy planet & can only be stopped by small fighters? Oh, wait..
How abount instead of the twelve tribes of man, there's this federation of planets? Oh...
Er...giant spaceships position themselves over major cities... No?
Why oh why oh why (sorry, entered Points of view mode) won't Hollywood learn that if you completely re-imagine something it invariably ends up not being what it's supposed to be...
I loved the old stuff, I loved the recent re-imagining even more, but I really don't think a movie will cut it after the series. It was too epic and brought too much detail to BSG. Even though they say it will stand apart from the new series it will be that against which most benchmarks are drawn.
This has fail written all over it. Actually it'll probably be JJ Abrams and like everything he does (fringe, lost, star trek) it'll involve a parallel dimension or change to the timeline.
I'd rather the film were about the origins of the battlestar and the first war against the cylons.
I dont watch TV at all anymore, I watch any programmes I want to watch via streaming or DVD. I dont sit in front of the box and vegetate. I make an exception for Top Gear though.
Its a rehashing of a series that got one of the best reimagings ever - do they really need to reimagine it again? How about, I dont know, new IP?
Now it makes sense why Big Content is pushing so hard for copyright extensions - they dont have any original ideas anymore!
"Singer had already worked on a possible Fox TV sequel to the original 1978 series, but this was canned following the 9/11 attacks because the premise involved "a human civilization on 12 planets decimated from an attack by intelligent robots known as Cylons", Variety explains."
I see I'm not the only one completely lost by this explanation. Are they really suggesting that decimation by an attack, even if by sentient robots to human civilisation on 12 planets, is too close to 11/9 (DAY / MONTH thank you!) because of those two words? If that isn't the reason I don't know what they could be suggesting.
On the reimagining of BSG, why? Isn't there some other 70s or 80s show they can rehash before they go to programs that have not long finished? Perhaps Airwolf since they're already abusing Knight Rider and The A-Team.
...than the (recent) series. At least with any luck it'll be free of religous bullshit and won't be as manufactured as Girls Aloud to tick all the right boxes for reeling in fans and then pissing them off by not being able to provide a decent ending. I've seen plenty quotes from writers that they basically didn't give a fuck about ending the story properly without resorting to the pile of bullshit they expected us to swallow. It was jumbled together pile of Sci Fi references (Adama/Skin Jobs/Bladerunner connection) and obvious changes (Starbuck as a tart, oooh, well done marketing scum) to maximise the audience. Or course, that's their job, but then that's the difference between creating art and creating a product.
The pragmatist in me doesn't mind all that, it's the geek in me that wants to whine about it all after being led down a glittering path of inspried Sci Fi just to be smacked in the mouth by a collection plate.
Also, I agree completely with the above about remaking everything under the sun. Meh, I'll just read a good book instead.
This story doesn't make any sense, possibly because the writer has ignored the fact that Battlestar Galaticia has already been successfully re-imagined as a 4 series long franchise on the Sci-Fi channel.
So, the question remains is this a movie following on from that? a movie that's ANOTHER reimagining (likely dire)? Some kind of mistake?
So, after the fuss over the phenomenally bad idea of making a "reimagined" Buffy film in an attempt to cash in on the fans of the TV series, but not using anyone or anything from the TV series at all, they're now trying to do exactly the same with BSG? Clue: the TV series of Buffy and the new BSG were popular because they were good, not because the original on which they were based was somehow guaranteed to drag in a lot of people. At best, the tie-in to the original BtVS or BSG would make people read a review.
Since both reimaginings were vastly more popular than the originals, any attempt to ignore them is going to make fans keep away - these fans being those who were intrigued by the hook to the original the first time round. It's like making a Spider Man film based on the comic series and ignoring the recent films, or making a Batman based solely on the Adam West version (not that this doesn't have its place in history).
Still, at least this time the people involved weren't directly responsible for the original being less good than it could have been. I'm not sure that the fan disappointment at the ending of BSG (TNG) is going to make them come and see this, though.
Now, how about a film of Veronica Mars? A Buffy film actually set after Chosen, in Whedon's Buffyverse? (Even getting Summer Glau to do Fray?) Tie T:tSSC into a Terminator film?
Sadly, I'm betting on Friends: The Movie happening first.
Worst idea ever, considering they are still making excellent TV films & series in an already reimagined BSG universe - looking forward to more Caprica.
Why dont they reboot Superman a 2nd time or The Hulk a 3rd time instead?!
Aweful, if they really wanted to do something like this they had a chance before. The reimagined series is available on DVD and BD now. Find something original and don't give us stuff that is fresh in recent memory again. That is like that Final Destination crap again, that was a new movie only a couple of years ago, or do they think we are like them with ADD and can't remember seeing that then
I've got a billion ideas for a devent movie or TV series. Just wait Sci-Fi fans, once all the retard currently at the helm are fired or sued into oblivion for plagiarism I'll rise and dominate.
Coincidentally, I recommend G.I. Joe (the new film). It eschews moderate realism that films seem to like lately and just shoves cool stuff into your eyepieces. A few cringy bits a few funny bits, lots of "I could watch this all day" bits. Forgettable but very fun. Remember waht that was? Hint: it's not watching a rehashed film with bland actors and, because it's rehashed, you don't even get to predict the predictable ending becuase it's already part of common lore.
WWAD? What would Adama do?
Launch the alert fighters!
PS: Can someone ressurrect Gene Roddenberry?
Oh good, Bryan Singer. Given the amount of plot required to do justice to the previous series (whichever one they focus on), they'll probably want to spin it out to a trilogy.
Then Singer can fuck off after the first two and go direct another Marvel/DC "reboot" movie that tanks so badly no-one will want to go near the source again for decades. Which will also happen to the third BSG movie in the hands of Paul WS Anderson or whatever fuckstick they saddle the poor thing with.
If they must go through with this, ditch Singer and get Sam Raimi. At least he knows how to rise above the source material, and has the balls to stick with a franchise even if it threatens to be running out of steam.
"If they must go through with this, ditch Singer and get Sam Raimi. At least he knows how to rise above the source material, and has the balls to stick with a franchise even if it threatens to be running out of steam."
Sam Raimi has signed up to do the live action World of Warcraft film.
This was actually the plan all along. The re imagined TV series only happened after a movie deal based on the original series fell through. All that's happening is they are reprising the original plan.
Personally I quite like the idea of a remake of the classic series. The new series was too preachy for my taste, and the whole religion V science aspect made it even worse. And it was one of the worst finale's ever. A complete disapointment.
Let's hope that this new film gets a good balance between SFX and the sci-fi camp of the original. I't hate to see it turned into another Michael Bay - Transformers fiasco, or another T4, where there's about 4 lines of meaningful dialogue lost in 120 minutes of SFX for the sake of SFX.
In the novelization of the original Glen Larson movie/pilot for the original series, the Cylons were an (extremely) alien race whose origin had no connection to humans. The way you got promoted up the ranks of Cylon society/military was, if deemed worthy, by getting a new, more complicated brain installed.
Those brains worked very differently from those of humans as far as the way they thought about things. They were certain that any other sentient lifeform was an unworthy stain upon the universe which should be totally, completely eradicated, so they could be reasoned with or dissuaded about as well as any of the Terminator models, only without any chance of reprogramming.
A two hour movie wouldn't give enough time to really explore any of that, but a series could.
As for the 9/11 angle, why would it stop this project when it lead to the whole Xindi (sp?) attack on Earth story line that screwed up "Enterprise"?
Alien guy, obviously.
If it was thought up before 9/11, could there actually be a Battlestar Galactica remake that looks good, is well written AND isn't just a rehash of what's going on in Iraq at the time coupled with a drug trip and Hendrix?
It probably won't be, but given the abysmal ending that the "re-imagined" series had I'm still going to see it.
Since most people seem to be unaware, there were TWO groups trying to 'redo' BSG - the team that did *not* have Richard Hatch ( the original Apollo, fact fans) on 'their side' eventually got funded first and made their "re-imagined" tv series. The 'Richard Hatch' group wanted to (re)do a BSG movie... and it looks like they might now get to do so.
So before y'all get your panties in a bunch over this, calm down - there were two groups years ago, and now we might get to see what the "loser" wanted to do in the first place.
Personally, I'm in favor of it all...
I guess you all were watching different episodes to me, or you thought it was good in comparison to episodes of Kyle/oprah/springer that's your normal staple.
The original was great in its way. It had a good mix of plausibility, and imagination. the new stuff, eugh, crap. I had a friend who was a fan, and so I sat through the first two seasons, First was pretty good, second was ok. third, well, it was so patently ridiculous he couldn't even stand it, let alone me. All that religious crap drove me nuts (you can be smart, or religious, and I wouldn't trust a religious nut to handle a can-opener, let alone a fighter, or a presidency - once you start ignoring the facts in favour of 'belief, you've lost the plot)
I much prefered Hatch's own reimaging (thats how much of a fan I was, I've actually seen it) I'll also tell you this, in 10-15 years, Tom Servo and Crow will be taking the piss of number 6, once the manufactured hype about its 'goodness' has gone.
All those people having a go at the new BSG because of its heavy-handed approach to religion... have you actually *watched* the old BSG recently? If so, kindly refer to the set of episodes towards the end, especially the "everything has turned white" (name eludes me) episode. Glen Larson was known for adding religious overtones (no, not undertones - overtones) to most of his TV series. "Quantum Leap" ended with the main character having a conversation with "God", FFS.
So as far as I am concerned, the new BSG followed in the footsteps of the old series - or at least where it would have ended had it continued beyond a single season. (and let's not talk about BSG1980, OK?)
Now, f they want to do re-imaging/rebooting, what about "Space 1999", or "The Prisoner"?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019