BSG brought in new audiences and has done the seemingly impossible - has given science fiction television an air of respectability in the mainstream it never had before. Flash Gordon 2007 however is a completely different scenario. BSG's central storyline, as well as many periphery details WERE kept intact. FG 2007 was gutted. Characters were not changed in interesting ways, nor were their motivations and behaviours fleshed out and explained as in BSG's changing of characters. They were simply changed to appeal to the brainless bubblegum brigade. Where Moore changed the show to be even truer to Larson's original vision for BSG - one he was NOT allowed by the networks at the time to proceed with, and had to water down his own story - Peter Hume expressed open disgust with the original material, dumbed it down and then expressed surprise when it was overwhelmingly rejected.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I've read the novelization, own quite a few of the original Marvel comics, and even used to know, once upon a time, a little bit about the pre-series background and don't see anything of Larson's original premise; where's SKYLAR or the reptilian ALIENS who were the Cylons? Skylar became Apollo, the reptilian Cylons were cut from the series even though they were intended to be in it (witness the fact they had a action figure), and that's all I remember.
Moore did his own thing, based largely on premises he'd been working out during his days attached to the Star Trek franchise. There's nothing wrong with what he did, per se, but the pre-mini series hype built up expectations in the extent fanbase that the mini-series never fully met. That's not Moore's fault, but he had to overcome that pre-mini series hype. It wasn't until, what, around season two that the series really managed to shake off the haters?
As for Larson's "vision" you do know its been reported that Larson intended the series as a Mormon parable? Don't know how true that is but there's definiately Biblical undertones in the original series. The old series was sort of PEARL HARBOR meets EXODUS in a FLASH GORDON setting with hints of UFO mythology ala Von Daniken/Zecharia Sitchin.
Ah, the seventies! I don't think you could get that mix in a series today.
BSG has won multiple prestigious awards. It has been on the cover of highly regarded mainstream new magazines such as Time. Even for people who don't watch it but are aware of the show's existence, it has become linked to the idea of quality broadcasting. Yet it was indeed rejected vocally by the fans before it ever was aired due to the known changes the producers leaked. When it aired, people came round. I am a long time original BSG fan, I was worried about what it would be like too - but it was superb, the changes were made for the better and it continues to be a terrific show in it's final season. I know from the imdb boards here that there are more people who like both shows than there are staunch hold-outs like yourself.
Whoa, not looking to argue friend. I'm just pointing out that BSG fandom can not be said to have universally embraced the series and that it's garnered/earned it's own fan base. Kudos where kudos are due. And that despite the Sci-Fi channel, whose suits seem to go out of their way to alienate the sci-fi community. In the face of that hostile environment that Mr. Moore has managed to keep his series going as long as he has is astonishing.
When you consider that Hollywood treats movies and series as properties and think they can just slap a title onto a crap script and make a bag full of money, well, I can see how Mr. Moore would have jumped at the chance to use the BSG property to do his own thing. He probably knew that no matter what he did it wouldn't be any worse than what some Hollywood hack would do. However I think it needs to be acknowledged that's exactly what he did, take BSG in a direction of his own re-imagining. He created his own vision of BSG seperate from (well if you ignore the mini-series where he was forced to try to follow Saga of a Starworld somewhat) the old series. I personally think the series would have been far better if Moore had been given a clean slate and carte blanche to do his own thing without the alabatros of old show BSG expectations around his neck.
The
miniseries (and I stress MINISERIES not the series) was hamstrung by the necessity to keep threads of relation, some semblance of resemblance, to the established world/characters of odl series BSG. Maybe next time he'll get that clean slate to do his own series. Might be interesting, don't you think?
That is NOT the case with Flash Gordon 2007, a show reviled by print press, internet press, casual television viewers and long time Flash Gordon fans alike.
Which is why it's gone and BSG is not. Don't forget to watch tomorrow to see what's up with that 5th Cyclon!
Peace.
---
http://cryptspace.yuku.com/
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
kester_pelagius
16 years ago
Oh, and point of fact - the cylons went through several iterations during rewrites by Larson. At one point they were lizards inside armour, at another they were machines created by humans that rebelled against humanity (as in the new BSG), and the final rewrite was what ended up in the show - machines created by a biological lizardlike race who had overthrown their masters - hence why the Cylon Leader wore a dead lizard husk over his mechanical body -
Never heard that last one. FWIW the Cylons were alive and well in the novelization (co-written by Larson IIRC) and I think the imperius leader was an organic Cylon in the oversized comic adaptation but don't recall what their background in the original Marvel comic series was like. Wish I still had that oversized comic. I think it's Zak character might have been closer to the Zak character from the novel, who was completely different from the Zak character of the original series. And, yes, the Zak character from the new series was closer to the original/novel Zak character.
While we're discussing changes, wasn't Baltar originally a character closer to what Sire Yuri <sic> in the original series was like? John Colicos pretty much redefined that character when he was cast in the role, and for the better I think. There's a parallel here with Katee Sackoff. A good actor breates life into a role. Too bad the same can't be said for ANY of the actors attached to sciffy's Flash Gordon. The actor who got the Zarkoff role was an especially bad choice. UGH!
and who declared war on the colonies after humanity tried to stop them destroying another alien race called the Hussari, as I recall. If there had been a second season to the original show - other than the hastily rewritten Galactica 1980 that is - Larson has stated he intended to show human-looking Cylons among the Centurians and that was an idea he indeed carried to Galactica 1980.
So it did, in the episode with Wolfman Jack IIRC. That, at least, was an interesting episode!
Funny that we should be talking about Galactica 1980 in the Flash Goron forum because there's still quite a few people, even after all these years, with rabid hate-on for that unfortunate series. Which is a shame because it had a very poignant Starbuck/Cyclon episode that's worth putting up with the Dr. Z nonsense to see, IMO.
By the end of the first season, while there were people who did indeed dislike the new BSG, they were most definately a minority of those posting. Now things have evened out on the boards with a small amount of people posting on the original series boards, a much larger amount posting on the new series, and some floating between. So while you may not like it, saying the majority of original series fans hate it is incorrect, certainly from what I've seen, and certainly from the evidence on the imdb and on the skiffy boards.
Two points:
1) I don't think I ever said the extant old series fan base hated the series I said they didn't embrace it, which is true. Mere mention of it is still verbotten on certain old series BSG community forums.
2) There's been plenty of digruntled posts on the sciffy boards. There's one up there right now complaining that the series isn't as good as it used to be and it's lost it edge and blah blah blah Moore is teh evil blah blah blah.
On an unrelated note: Wouldn't it be funny if Gaeta turned out to be the real 5th cylon?
---
http://cryptspace.yuku.com/
reply
share
crazyaxton
16 years ago
kester, the Marvel comics, and the paperback novels that were written from '78 to '87, thou they offer up some fun, but incorrect insights, are not considered "cannon" for the Battlestar Galactica franchise created by Glen Larson. Nor are the Rrichard Hatch novels. I suggest that you read "An Analytical Guide to Televisions's Battlestar Galactica", written by John Kenneth Muir. This will give you the complete story on the show, and help you correct all your errors on your last postings.
reply
share
kester_pelagius
16 years ago
kester, the Marvel comics, and the paperback novels that were written from '78 to '87, thou they offer up some fun, but incorrect insights, are not considered "cannon" for the Battlestar Galactica franchise created by Glen Larson. Nor are the Rrichard Hatch novels. I suggest that you read "An Analytical Guide to Televisions's Battlestar Galactica", written by John Kenneth Muir. This will give you the complete story on the show, and help you correct all your errors on your last postings.
Errors of what. . Grammar? Syntax?
Canon according to whom and in what context?
re: "novels" I suggest you re-read what was actually written. I'm referring to one novel and only one novel, the one that bears Larson's name as co-writer. It is pretty much a novel adaptation of Saga of a Star World IIRC.
re: "comics" the Marvel comic series and the oversized series adaptation (which contained a LOT of background information) were all that was out there for years and years. I can see dismissing the serialized Marvel comic, though it did offer some interesting stories, but the oversized comic was a direct tie-in with offical pics and background info.
As for the Richard Hatch novels I've heard those, like Hatch's supposed pilot that got shown at cons a few years before the new series, were unauthorized. And that's about the extent of my knowledge about them.
Never heard of the book you mention. Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye out for it.
---
http://cryptspace.yuku.com/
reply
share
crazyaxton
16 years ago
LOL! I didn't intend to come across as a jerk with my post. It's just that you seem to be a rather large fan of the original Battlestar Galactica, and you were incorrect with some of the facts of the show. And just for the record, there were a total of fourteen novels from the oringal series, published up until January of 1988, the last one was titled, "Battlestar Galactica 14: Surrender The Galactica!". My point is, all fourteen bear Larsons name as co-writer, but it's very doughtful that he contributed much other than what was the general idea of what Battlestar Galactica was. The rest was up to the actual writers to just follow Larsons guide lines, and at times expanded beyond what was Larsons "series bible".
Like I posted before, the book, "An Analytical Guide to Television's Battlestar Galactica", by John Kenneth Muir, pretty much covers everthing about the original series. From when Glen Larson first came up with the show's original title, "Adams Ark", to when the suits made him change it in drastic measures due to the Star Wars craze, to the final insult, Galactica 1980. And everything inbetween. It's just a great read for fans of the original Battlestar Galactia.
How odd, I'm posting about the original BSG on the Flash Gordon 2007 board, and it's the first post in six days. Sad.
reply
share
kester_pelagius
16 years ago
How odd, I'm posting about the original BSG on the Flash Gordon 2007 board, and it's the first post in six days. Sad.
Better than no activity at all. OTOH, 14 novels for BSG? That's more than I would have guessed were out there yet, shockingly, far fewer than other popular series have had. So has the sciffy incarnation of FG had any novelizations? Any product tie-ins at all?
---
http://cryptspace.yuku.com/
reply
share