[The Scornful Roman]

Hello, all. I've nearly gotten through watching the miniseries of Battlestar Galactica on DVD for the second time, and my thoughts about it have turned towards the Star Wars prequels.

Perhaps you know that the new Battlestar Galactica series on SCI-FI is a re-imagining of the original 70's series. It has a different cast, a different look and feel, and slight (from what I have gathered) differences in storyline and characters (perhaps the biggest is that Starbuck's a woman).

Contrast this with the Star Wars prequels, which have also re-invented to a certain extent, the look and feel of a classic 70's movie series. They too have a (mostly) different cast (and of course, slight changes to the characters!).

Sadly, I've not yet seen the classic BSG series (though I would love to), but the thought has struck me that BSG 2003's 're-imagining' of the whole mythos is perhaps a more intrinsically successful operation than the "new canon as backstory" course that the SW prequels have taken.

Now, perhaps some old-school BSG fans would dislike some, many, or all aspects of the 2003 version, and that would be their right, but why make a sequel or even a prequel to a 20-plus year-old franchise? Unless you went back to using the same type of models and technology as used in the original BSG, and the exact same cast (put through a time-warp so that they haven't aged, which is impossible), it would look so different, so disassociated from the look of the original that you might as well go forth and do a different version of the story altogether.

That's what the makers of BSG 2003 have done. A fan of the original could very well dismiss it and refuse to go along with it, but the beauty of the re-imagining concept is that they could do that freely. The 'canon' of BSG 2003 is not glommed onto the original series, as the Star Wars PT has been glommed onto the OT, or even as the new CGI effects have been glommed onto the SW OT. If an old school BSG fan dislikes the new series, he/she can do so without having people say, "Well, the new stuff is CANON!" It can potentially be dismissed without making the old BSG series stink retroactively.

The Star Wars prequels, on the other hand, claim to be the original backstory of the OT. But the problem is, they feel too much like new stuff stuck onto the classics, like gum to the bottom of one's shoe.

[Despondent]

Well, the fact that higher technology (at least in the presentation, you have to admit) FOLLOWS the earlier, less slick looking canonical material shows they're doing something consistant.

I would prefer 1979 BG to the PT, thanks.

[barend]

starbuck's a woman?

why didn't they just make him A FUCKING COFFEE SHOP?!?

[Chefelf]

starbuck's a woman?

why didn't they just make him A FUCKING COFFEE SHOP?!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a rather interesting move. That would be like Han Solo being turned female. That would cause for a lot of issues with the originals.

I don't like it when they change race/gender of classic things like that. For example, apparently a few years ago DC Comics decided that Green Lantern was going to be an African-American. Personally I couldn't care less about the Green Lantern and his lame ass superpowers, but he is, and always will be, a white man.

If you want to make things diverse then get off your lazy asses and create some new and interesting characters, stop changing classic movies, TV shows and comics to accomodate this need. Bastardizing old material, even lame stuff like The Green Lantern, is the worst way to go about it.

[HK 47]

I don't like it when they change race/gender of classic things like that. For example, apparently a few years ago DC Comics decided that Green Lantern was going to be an African-American. Personally I couldn't care less about the Green Lantern and his lame ass superpowers, but he is, and always will be, a white man.

While I totally agree with the principle of retaining the original characters and concepts, the Green Lantern is actually a special case. John Stewart, the african-american Lantern made his debut in the seventies. And since there are thousands of GLs in the galaxy and every GL gets to pick a substitute I think it's alright. Hal Jordan (the second Green Lantern of Earth and by far the most famous) picked John Stewart. [mildlyupset]Green Lantern is not lameass by the way! [/mildlyupset]

Ok, I'll stop my geek attack now...

As for Galactica I think the female Starbuck was decent enough. But Dirk Benedict will always own that character.

[barend]

firstly the green lantern was cool...

but WILD WILD WEST was the real doozie... a black sherif, in those days? uh, yeah...

[Chefelf]

While I totally agree with the principle of retaining the original characters and concepts, the Green Lantern is actually a special case. John Stewart, the african-american Lantern made his debut in the seventies. And since there are thousands of GLs in the galaxy and every GL gets to pick a substitute I think it's alright. Hal Jordan (the second Green Lantern of Earth and by far the most famous) picked John Stewart. [mildlyupset]Green Lantern is not lameass by the way! [/mildlyupset]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stand corrected. My apparent lack of knowledge of Green Lantern and his origins has come through.

Okay, so GL is an exception as I have proven through my non-existant research.

[HK 47]

I stand corrected.  My apparent lack of knowledge of Green Lantern and his origins has come through. 

Okay, so GL is an exception as I have proven through my non-existant research. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't blame you, character/concept degradation happens all to often nowadays, especially when Hollywood feels the urge to "reimagine" concepts that already work well.

[Xombie]

My question is not "Why did they make Starbuck a woman?" It's "Why didn't they just go ahead and make her a dyke?"
And yes I said "dyke" because while there are a few lesbians on televison, almost all lean to the fem side (which is great for us guys who like our TV lesbians lipsticky) it really does ignore the reality of the other side of the coin. Starbuck, as reconceived for this new show, really is a classic butch. She's also the most likeable character on the show (of the two episodes I've seen) and it could have been some really breakthrough television to make one the action heroes a hard-drinking, cigar-smoking, whore-mongering, one-of-the-boys dyke.

[barend]

to make things clear... i don't have a problem with lead female character who is a pilot.

but i do have a problem with things being changed in a remake. it does change the dynamics of the situation.

would it have been politically incorect to not cast a female pilot? was that part of the deal to have the series?

better yet, why didn't they right a new fucking show? or was that a deal breaker too?

Exec.: "we need a new show for next season, some thing fresh, something new and something that's already been done that was succesful. we don't want to challange audiences with new names... how about that sci fi show with that guy from the A-team, except we'll replace his character with a chick so the libbers don't call us phalu- falic... you know, mesogi, er... chick-haters.

anyway... if it fails, we'll just do a new version of the A-Team with that wrestler chick "Chyna" as B.A.Barrakas"

[njamilla]

Battlestar Galactidrama!