The truth about Battlestar Galactica and SciFi Channel

[netsolo]

Originally Posted by spiderr987

Good or bad is objective. Our debate is about which is most well-known. ALF is much more well known than GINO. b/c it good much higher ratings. Larson's BSG is much more well known than GINO b/c it's ratings dwarfed the laughable ratings for GINO. It sucks for you, but it's the cold, hard truth... and there's nothing you can do about it.

Not really, it doesn't suck to be me because I don't post and contradict myself within four sentences.

If good and bad is objective, why are you so vocal against a show? Good and bad are objective, right?

You strike me as the type that is still offended about New Coke... this is 2008, tastes change, genres change, and as your good buddy Dirk Benedict would tell you, sometimes things get left behind. That's just the way things go, it's sad, and I'm totally glad you're a fan of the old school fur coat wearing, furry Muppets in moon boots BSG, but change is inevitable.

Why don't you step down from the soap box, take a few deep breaths, and maybe look at things from a different angle. You know, that objective one. Think for yourself. Don't let Richard Hatch do the thinkin' for you.

[Gartism]

$5 says he posts about ratings in one of the next several rebuttals

[spiderr987]

The ratings have been stinking up the airwaves at around 0.8 to a 1.0 for this last whole season. I don't think it's even possible to get lower ratings than that. I guess Moore really had redefined the genre with his imposter BSG. It sucks to kingdom come.

[BrockSamson]

2005 Hugo Award
2005 American Film Institutes Top 10 Television Shows of the Year
2005 Time Magazine's Best of 2005: Television (Position: #1)
2005 Peabody Award
2005 Spacey Award Favorite Limited TV Series
2006 American Film Institutes Top 10 Television Shows of the Year
2006 Time Magazine's Best of 2006: Television (Position: #7)
2006 Scream Award, Best Television Show
2006 Saturn Award, Best TV Series
2006 Spacey Awards, Best Television show
2007 Saturn Award, Best Tv series



The World vs. Spiderr987

I know, I know, you will be able to easily counter this with a brightly colored quote from some C-list 70's TV actor who is still mildly popular in Europe or something. You got me!





It's funny how you intentionally ignore the fact that Cable TV is so much more prevalent today compared to when the OS was on. Most people had like 3 or 4 channels to choose from back then. Today it's more like 100 or more. That means much, much more competition.

Up against 3 rivals the Original Series lasted 30-35 episodes including the laughable 1980 episodes.
The New Series will end up with around 70-75 not counting DVD movies, webisodes, etc. while going against dozens upon dozens of TV competitors and also doing it in an era where TiVo and internet downloads mean many more people watch the show that the obsolete Nielsen ratings suggest.

Don't get me wrong, I used to like the OS when it originally aired. Of course I was 4 years old at the time, too. I mean looking back now, it was obviously just an attempt to capitalize on the Star Wars phenomenon(set an OS cylon helmet next to Darth Vader's mask or a stormtrooper helmet sometime) and probably could have succeeded if the production cost wasn't so high for the time. And while I agree that RDM is not a genius(the most overused word in the English language, btw) I am very happy the new series was designed for a more adult demographic in mind. I tried watching the OS episodes again when SciFi aired them in the runup to the new series and I felt like I was watching the 60's Batman TV show with Adam West. It just seems campy now and I couldn't watch it.

[spiderr987]

Critics finally telling the truth about the crappiness of GINO and re-imaginings

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

"Unfortunately, like so many basic cable channels, Sci Fi is a devotee of the cult of the "signature show," a highly visible hit that is then replicated throughout the schedule. For Sci Fi, that means applying the bleak, violent, unyieldingly unpleasant revisionist outlook of Battlestar Galactica to as many projects as possible — including its six-hour Wizard of Oz remake, Tin Man."

- Today's USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...-tin-man_N.htm




NBC's "Bionic Woman" is an unspectacular remake. The Sci Fi's "Flash Gordon" is even worse than anything I've written about so far. And my feelings about the new "Battlestar" are the same: It's a spiritless, uninvolving trip through space.

Breathing new life into an old story takes smarts, a lot of heart and certainly the courage to do things that seem risky.

"Tin Man," like the characters in it, doesn't have any of those things. And the people who come up with these idiotic remakes don't either.

http://www.sltrib.com/tv/ci_7593876



GLEN OLIVER AT IGN/FILMFORCE.COM

TV Review: Battlestar Galactica

A disappointingly minimalist and uninvolving rendering of a very promising concept.

by Glen Oliver

December 5, 2003 - "Never create what you can't control" implores the promotional campaign for the Sci Fi Channel's "reinvention" of Battlestar Galactica. Perhaps the network should have heeded its own advice: Rarely in the history of entertainment has a "re-imagining" demonstrated so much contempt for its source material – and rarely has a project with so much innate potential failed on so many fundamental levels. The new Galactica is not just a sewer dweller of a remake – it is a behemoth of troubled and inprecise storytelling whose brightest moments are only dim approximations of what they might have been.


The trouble seems to stem from the ground up – it's difficult to look at this "miniseries" (a two-part, four-hour TV movie) and believe The Powers That Be had any true understanding of the qualities that allowed the original 1978 television series to remain in people's memories for over two decades, or possessed the slightest comprehension of the stirring human drama indigenous in the concept itself.

Original series creator Glen A. Larson's multifaceted, allegorical epic has been replaced here by a one-dimensional "bottle" show (industry term for a show that rarely leaves a contained environment). The original series could be seen as a scathing examination of reverse imperialism: An enlightened, borderline decadent culture (the "human race" – a.k.a. Western Civilization) is run from its homeland by an oppressive empire of mechanical warriors who relentlessly hunt them down – bent on genocidally exterminating mankind. These automatons were utterly uninterested in the desires, hopes, or fears of others – they wanted only one way of things in the universe – their way – and would settle for nothing less. So, in essence, Galactica was originally an allegory for Western Civilization (the United States, Great Britain, etc.) being bullied and burned in the same way we have bullied and burned other nations for centuries.

These qualities are not being mentioned in order to talk-up the (admittedly flawed) original series. This is simply meant to provide a sampling of the innate conceptual depth you will not find in the new Galactica. Gone is nearly every edgy and unique undercurrent that fuels the basic premise. Galactica is about a holocaust, yet the new movie offers no moments as gutwrenchingly truthful as the original series' pan around the Battlestar's bridge...to see the faces of Galactica's crew...crying in anguish...as they watch live video feeds of their homeworlds being obliterated. Here, Galactica gets wind of the Cylon attack on the human's homeworlds, and her crew stands around discussing the incident as if chatting about the score of a football game. There's a moment when lead Edward James Olmos believes someone he loves to be dead – he looks more like he needs laxatives than appearing genuinely upset. The people in this movie are as cold and mechanical as the Cylons they are fighting – and as cold and mechanical as the desperately contrived plot around them. All things considered, it's rather silly – and extremely distancing.

(for full review go to: http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/444/444434p1.html







Battlestar Galactica
Written by EdwardHavens


article-topic-5.htmlAs a work of science fiction, this re-imagined "Galactica" miniseries-cum-pilot runs hot and cold. There are genuine moments of excellent writing within the piece. Sadly, these moments are few and far between. For the most part, Mr. Moore has overthought his re-imagining of the show to bring us a jumbled mess of cliches, dime store psychology and the general feel of a show that wants to be more than it can be. If some reports are to be believed, this version seems to exist solely so the Sci-Fi Channel and Universal can keep their rights to the concept from reverting back to series creator Glen A. Larson. From the way this script reads, I can see how this is a distinct possibility. This new Galactica might not become as bad as the never-released "Fantastic Four" movie from Roger Corman's company several years ago, but that film's failure to even get released straight to video should be a shining example to the producers of this show of what can happen when you try to lowball a high-concept idea.

But honestly, is it really that big a deal that Starbuck and Boomer have changed genders? Not really. There is little chance any male actor could match the bravado of Dirk Benedict in the original series, so making the character female could be an interesting choice. However, there is nothing specifically feminine about the new Starbuck, so there is really no reason to make the character female either. Boomer does show some maternalistic qualities when she picks up young Boxey as one of the survivors of the destruction of Caprica City, but any female character could have shown the same instincts. If there aren't any compelling reasons to make a change, that change shouldn't be made.

In the end, this could be a good new show... provided there was some intense rewriting and the removal of any remaining evidence of Galactica. Galactica fans have kept the faith alive for almost a quarter century, and they do deserve better than this. As I stated before, I don't know what happened with previous attempts to mount a Galactica, by original series Richard Hatch or the "X-Men" team of Tom DeSanto and Bryan Singer or why either of those failed to happen, but this is a step in the wrong direction. I give the screenplay a C- for effort and a C for execution.

This is not to say that Moore is not a good writer. I happened to have also received a copy of the pilot screenplay for his upcoming Depression-era drama "Carnivalé," which I will be reviewing soon and will be getting positive marks from me, as that show looks to have much potential for the future. But the Galactica fans are right on this fight. This story is not worthy of the name "Battlestar Galactica."

http://www.filmjerk.com/new/article354.html

Why most sci fi fantasy fans dislike Ronald Moore

However, many have a problem with Ron Moore for the key
role he played in writing "Star Trek Generations," which many consider to be the turning point of Trek, essentially the franchise killer, though it was to be a slow death over time.

One of the biggest fan "movements" of modern Trek stems from the frustration over the ridiculously mediocre and meaningless death of Kirk, an icon of American pop-culture. Again, Moore played a key role in this.

Moore has been attached with much mediocrity. Star Trek Generations. Mission Impossible 2.

My own look at TNG episodes reveals (IMHO, of course) that most of the really good episodes with Moore's name on them are co-written with other writers, and than many of the scripts with only Moore's name on them are pretty mediocre. Haven't looked at the DS9 episode credits in the same way.

Add to that Moore's role in the remake of BSG when for more than two decades both the BSG fan base and actors have been clamoring for a continuation.

Top that with Moore's uncommon arrogance in claiming to reinvent an entire genre with a remake of an old TV show. Gene Roddenberry never claimed that he was doing anything remarkable. He was just happy to do what he
wanted to do, as best he could, while occassionally putting one over on the networks who didn't catch some of the messages he wanted to convey. George Lucas never thought that Star Wars would revitalize and change a genre and an industry, he was just happy to tell the story he wanted to tell. Very few creative types who declare their own work revolutionary will
produce anything that truly is.

[colo=red]So, to his critics Moore has been involved in the two most contentious bad decisions in two of science fiction television's biggest franchises ever,
as well as engaging in more than his share of mediocre TV and movies.[/color]

As for BSG, what Moore claims is revolutionary is really just taking SF TV further from it's roots and potential. All he is doing it is placing the SF in the background to make character drama in space, with the whining, maladjusted, psychologically disoriented, unrealistically, dysfunctionally flawed characters that seem to be popular as a current entertainment fad. How drama cliche's translate to revolutionary SF, I don't know.

I think Moore would do fine in straight drama, maybe as a staff writer for ER or some cop show, but his sensibilties are all wrong for Trek, BSG and SF.

And did I mention all the mediocrity?

http://www.trekweb.com/stbbs/showThread.php?bid=r8

yhsW3AaKqzE&tid=41c3a0145f0b4&cid=41c3a01463ebf&viewby=

&sort=&order=

***********************************
***********************************

RONALD D MOORE (Occupation: Hack)

Caprica - A PIPEDREAM THAT WILL NEVER SEE LIGHT OF DAY

Battlestar Galactica - AFTER A 66% DROP IN RATINGS ON LIFE SUPPORT & HEADING TOWARD
CANCELLATION ON THE SCI FI CHANNEL: WHERE CAREERS GO TO DIE

Touching Evil - CANCELED AFTER 1 SEASON

Carnivàle - CANCELLED AFTER 2 SEASONS (Moore only was a writer for the show, which was created by Daniel Knauf, who is presently writing the Iron Man comic from Marvel).

Roswell - THE TEENY SCIENCE FICTION SOAP OPERA BANISHED FROM WB TO UPN TO DIE AFTER 2
SEASONS before being CANCELED immediately afterwards

G vs E - CANCELED AFTER 2 SEASONS

http://www.tv.com/ronald-d.-moore/pe...esults;title;0

P.S. None of Moore's STAR TREK credits were included, b/c it's pretty clear now, that he was just riding on the coattails of several & better co-writers on that particular staff...




Ronald Moore booed at 25th BSG anniversary convention

NBC/Universal, which owns the franchise, ultimately went with a new version of the "Battlestar" saga, which, like the old series, follows the last vestiges of humanity through space as they try to elude attacks from a mechanized race called the Cylons.

Despite this tangled history, when Ronald D. Moore, creator of the new "Battlestar," finally met Hatch in person, the two hit it off.

Hatch had invited Moore to show footage of the new mini-series at a 2003 convention celebrating the 25th anniversary of the original series. To say that the old-school "Battlestar" fans in the audience were a tough crowd is an understatement.

"There was hostility," Moore recalls with a rueful laugh. "I was booed."

When things got too testy during Moore's Q&A session, Hatch stepped in, a gesture the veteran of "Carnivale" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" appreciated.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....nt_tv/2005/01/

[BrockSamson]

So now we know when someone exposes your flawed ratings comparison by pointing out the vast difference in competition level between 1978 and today you immediately ignore that, change tactics and start posting negative reviews as if positive reviews don't exist. How lame.

Picked this off of Metacritic in like 5 minutes:

TV Guide - Matt Roush
'One of TV’s boldest and best dramas.'(100/100 rating)

Boston Globe - Joanna Weiss
'This is a show about religion, politics, parent-child relationships, and the moral dilemmas of insurgency. Consider it a workplace drama where the business is armed resistance. '(100/100)

San Jose Mercury News - Charlie McCollum
'One of TV's most invigorating and intellectually stimulating series.... provocative television that transcends its genre. '(100/100)


Detroit Free Press - Mike Duffy
'Filled with strong writing, a colorful gallery of vivid characters and a rocking good mix of cool dialogue and explosive action, "Battlestar Galactica" rolls on as an intergalactic entertainment classic.'(100/100)

Newsday - Diane Werts
'"Galactica" is so beautifully designed, shot, edited and acted that you can practically smell and taste its emotional validity. '(100/100)


Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Rob Owen
'"Battlestar Galactica" is one of the most politically relevant and necessarily bleak series on television today. '(100/100)


San Francisco Chronicle - Tim Goodman
'"Battlestar Galactica" not only lives up to its sci-fi gold-standard reputation but also should be considered straight up as one of television's most appealing dramas, no matter the genre. '(100/100)


Entertainment Weekly - Ken Tucker
'Any show that can accommodate decadent cruelty, tragic bravery, and political divisiveness is one you ought to be watching, frakkin' spaceships or not. '(91/100)


Newark Star-Ledger - Alan Sepinwall
'The acting, writing and directing are superb. '(90/100)


Chicago Tribune - Maureen Ryan
'[The] third season... provides a[n] unpredictable, fascinating take on events dominating real-world headlines. '(90/100)


Salon - Heather Havrilesky
'The uninitiated may continue to write off "Battlestar Galactica" as the remake of a mediocre show (ouch!), or as the domain of science fiction fans alone, but those who've watched the show more than once or twice know better. '(90/100)


Seattle Post-Intelligencer - Melanie McFarland
'More relevant and biting than it has ever been. '(90/100)


New York Daily News - David Hinckley
'It boldly goes where no man has gone before.'(88/100)


New York Post - Adam Buckman
'"Battlestar" is many cuts above the usual outer-space shoot-'em-up.'(75/100)


OVERALL:
Critics = 94/100
Users = 9.2/10

But I guess this can all be disregarded because the 2nd Unit Director from The Fall Guy is not a fan or some other blather, right?



Oh yeah, I found a site that has votes and scores from viewers for both series called TV.com. Here is what I found:

Original Series: 8.2/10 avg score (907 total votes)
New Series: 9.2/10 avg score (12,714 total votes)

Yep, the OS is waaaaay more well known than the NS. Sure.



Everyone is laughing at you, not with you.

[quote=spiderr987;1209491]Why most sci fi fantasy fans dislike Ronald Moore

However, many have a problem with Ron Moore for the key
role he played in writing "Star Trek Generations," which many consider to be the turning point of Trek, essentially the franchise killer, though it was to be a slow death over time.

One of the biggest fan "movements" of modern Trek stems from the frustration over the ridiculously mediocre and meaningless death of Kirk, an icon of American pop-culture. Again, Moore played a key role in this.

Moore has been attached with much mediocrity. Star Trek Generations. Mission Impossible 2.

My own look at TNG episodes reveals (IMHO, of course) that most of the really good episodes with Moore's name on them are co-written with other writers, and than many of the scripts with only Moore's name on them are pretty mediocre. Haven't looked at the DS9 episode credits in the same way.

Add to that Moore's role in the remake of BSG when for more than two decades both the BSG fan base and actors have been clamoring for a continuation.

Top that with Moore's uncommon arrogance in claiming to reinvent an entire genre with a remake of an old TV show. Gene Roddenberry never claimed that he was doing anything remarkable. He was just happy to do what he
wanted to do, as best he could, while occassionally putting one over on the networks who didn't catch some of the messages he wanted to convey. George Lucas never thought that Star Wars would revitalize and change a genre and an industry, he was just happy to tell the story he wanted to tell. Very few creative types who declare their own work revolutionary will
produce anything that truly is.

[colo=red]So, to his critics Moore has been involved in the two most contentious bad decisions in two of science fiction television's biggest franchises ever,
as well as engaging in more than his share of mediocre TV and movies.[/color]

As for BSG, what Moore claims is revolutionary is really just taking SF TV further from it's roots and potential. All he is doing it is placing the SF in the background to make character drama in space, with the whining, maladjusted, psychologically disoriented, unrealistically, dysfunctionally flawed characters that seem to be popular as a current entertainment fad. How drama cliche's translate to revolutionary SF, I don't know.

I think Moore would do fine in straight drama, maybe as a staff writer for ER or some cop show, but his sensibilties are all wrong for Trek, BSG and SF.

And did I mention all the mediocrity?


***********************************
***********************************

RONALD D MOORE (Occupation: Hack)

Caprica - A PIPEDREAM THAT WILL NEVER SEE LIGHT OF DAY

Battlestar Galactica - AFTER A 66% DROP IN RATINGS ON LIFE SUPPORT & HEADING TOWARD
CANCELLATION ON THE SCI FI CHANNEL: WHERE CAREERS GO TO DIE

Touching Evil - CANCELED AFTER 1 SEASON

Carnivàle - CANCELLED AFTER 2 SEASONS (Moore only was a writer for the show, which was created by Daniel Knauf, who is presently writing the Iron Man comic from Marvel).

Roswell - THE TEENY SCIENCE FICTION SOAP OPERA BANISHED FROM WB TO UPN TO DIE AFTER 2
SEASONS before being CANCELED immediately afterwards

G vs E - CANCELED AFTER 2 SEASONS


P.S. None of Moore's STAR TREK credits were included, b/c it's pretty clear now, that he was just riding on the coattails of several & better co-writers on that particular staff...




Ronald Moore booed at 25th BSG anniversary convention

NBC/Universal, which owns the franchise, ultimately went with a new version of the "Battlestar" saga, which, like the old series, follows the last vestiges of humanity through space as they try to elude attacks from a mechanized race called the Cylons.

Despite this tangled history, when Ronald D. Moore, creator of the new "Battlestar," finally met Hatch in person, the two hit it off.

Hatch had invited Moore to show footage of the new mini-series at a 2003 convention celebrating the 25th anniversary of the original series. To say that the old-school "Battlestar" fans in the audience were a tough crowd is an understatement.

"There was hostility," Moore recalls with a rueful laugh. "I was booed."

When things got too testy during Moore's Q&A session, Hatch stepped in, a gesture the veteran of "Carnivale" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" appreciated.








Like I said earlier, I'm not a big fan of RDM or anything so none of this is relevant to me. I have no idea why Carnivale's 2 season run is relevant when comparing the 2 BSG series. (Although it is funny to point out Carnivale lasted longer than the OS did even though it was limited by the fact you hade to pay money to be able to watch, whereas anyone with a TV could watch the OS for FREE) It just implies you are so emotionally invested in RDM's career that you will grasp at any straw, ignore any logic, and probably made up your mind about the new series before ever watching an episode.

The new series has it's flaws, like everything else, but it is orders of magnitude better than Gene Larson's cheesy attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze in the late 70's.

[spiderr987]

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ONE AND ONLY BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (as created by Glen A Larson)
____________________

"Battlestar Galactica, the definitive battle between the last surviving human colony and an evil robotic race, premiered on ABC in 1978 to an audience of 65 million viewers. The show remained a top-15 series throughout its brief run, and was eventually cancelled due to the prohibitively expensive special effects. From legendary television series creator Glen A. Larson (Magnum P.I., The Six Million Dollar Man), this science fiction adventure starring Lorne Green, Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict quickly established itself as an epic and powerful television saga.

Considered cutting-edge for its time, Battlestar Galactica took home Emmy Awards for Outstanding Costume Design for a Series and Outstanding Individual Achievement - Creative Technical Crafts."

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/426/426739p1.html

Originally Posted by BrockSamson

The new series has it's flaws, like everything else, but it is orders of magnitude better than Gene Larson's cheesy attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze in the late 70's.

[ Glen Larson's interview in The San Antonio Express-News (December 21, 1998 ). Special thanks to Phillip Lozano for providing the article. ]

Galactica Creator Refutes Copycat Theory
By David Martindale

Was Battlestar Galactica just a thinly veiled ripoff of Star Wars?

It's a matter die-hard sci-fi buffs debate to this day, more than 20 years after the fact.

And even though first impressions and a quick check of the dates indicate there might have been some borrowing (Star Wars premiered in movie theaters in 1977, Galactica on TV screens in 1978 ), Galactica creator Glen Larson says such limited research only tells a fraction of the story.

"The truth of the matter is that we were not copying," Larson says. "We were taking advantage of the fact that they had made this type of show saleable again for the first time in years."

Granted, there is no escaping that Galactica, which starred Lorne Greene, Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict, had much in common with George Lucas' blockbuster movie. But Larson - who also created Quincy, M.E. and Magnum, P.I. - says the beginnings of Galactica predate Star Wars by nearly a decade.

"I had wanted to do a show called Adam's Ark, which was the genesis of Battlestar Galactica, but I couldn't sell it to the networks," he says. "Look, networks buy what they want to buy based on trends. Sci-fi was not a trendy thing after Star Trek went off the air in the '60s. Star Wars changed that. Then, all of a sudden, sci-fi is an idea that you can sell them.

"There was a period where George was threatening to sue. He felt very proprietary about his world. But our show, Galactica, I believe it was quite unique and quite different."

Simply put, Larson believes there is room for a Star Wars universe and a Galactica universe.

He merely wishes his had gotten a longer lifespan. The series ran for one season (1978- 79 ), then was revived with format and cast changes in Galactica 1980.

"Galactica is like a bittersweet memory because it should have gone on and on," he says. "It opened with huge ratings and then settled into sort of an audience of more sci-fi fans. But at that time, ABC was really spoiled and they gave up on us before I think they should have."

In spite of his success through the years, Larson - whose credits also include such lightweight fare as The Fall Guy, Knight Rider, B.J. and the Bear and The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo - is still somewhat sensitive about his reputation.

"There are critics who will take shots and they'll say things that are very unflattering and a little bit unfair," he protests. "I read in a book once where someone wrote, 'Glen Larson has so many shows that are hack,' and I was stunned and terribly hurt.

"I mean, I don't know how you can call Quincy a hack show. Or Magnum, P.I. You can say Battlestar Galactica was derivative of Star Wars, if you don't know the genesis of it or the manner in which these things are sold. But where do they think Quincy came from? What was that a ripoff of? What was Magnum, P.I. a ripoff of?"

The Sci-Fi Channel's 12-hour Galactica marathon begins at 6 a.m. Thursday.

http://www.kobol.com/archives/interviews/copycat.html

Who is John Dykstra?

John Dykstra is best known as special effects producer for Star Wars, and was also special effects producer for Battlestar Galactica. His work can be seen in the premiere, "Lost Planet of the Gods", and "Gun on Ice Planet Zero". He has worked on several big-budget Hollywood films, including The Andromeda Strain, Silent Running, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Lifeforce, Invaders from Mars, Batman Forever., Batman and Robin and Stuart Little. Dykstra is no longer associated with ILM, but he is still active in the business. Working with a computer graphics group, he recently put together a spot for The Sci-Fi Channel, combining computer animation with miniatures and models.

http://www.kobol.com/archives/BG-FAQ.html#C2

[Gartism]

Originally Posted by spiderr987

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ONE AND ONLY BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (as created by Glen A Larson)
____________________

"Battlestar Galactica, the definitive battle between the last surviving human colony and an evil robotic race, premiered on ABC in 1978 to an audience of 65 million viewers. The show remained a top-15 series throughout its brief run, and was eventually cancelled due to the prohibitively expensive special effects. From legendary television series creator Glen A. Larson (Magnum P.I., The Six Million Dollar Man), this science fiction adventure starring Lorne Green, Richard Hatch and Dirk Benedict quickly established itself as an epic and powerful television saga.

Considered cutting-edge for its time, Battlestar Galactica took home Emmy Awards for Outstanding Costume Design for a Series and Outstanding Individual Achievement - Creative Technical Crafts."

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/426/426739p1.html

Well, the ratings also DROPPED 44% from the original airing in 1978 to the last episode.

Yeah - wicked loyal fans back then ... especially when the only other thing to watch was Mary Tyler Moore's Variety Show.

[BrockSamson]

So Spidey's 'evidence' that the OS wasn't a Star Wars ripoff is to ask the guy who created it, as if expecting him to be honest and say ' Oh yeah we were definitely trying to cash in on that phenomenon. Cha-Ching!'


And you once again conveniently ignored evidence that the new series is far more popular than the OS, so I will put it in this post as well:


Oh yeah, I found a site that has votes and scores from viewers for both series called TV.com. Here is what I found:

Original Series: 8.2/10 avg score (907 total votes)
New Series: 9.2/10 avg score (12,714 total votes)

Yep, the OS is waaaaay more well known than the NS. Sure.






... and you also CONTINUE to ignore the fact that the OS was only up against 2 or 3 other channels, unlike today's HUNDREDS of channels on cable and satellite.



This all reminds me of a quote from the movie 'Johnny Dangerously' starring Michael Keaton and Joe Piscopo:

'You know Vermin, I'm gettin tired of slapping you around. It bores me.'


Your posts are far too lame to reply to anymore.

[spiderr987]

TOS BSG = 29-65 million weekly viewers when it was on the air

GINO = A laughable less than 3 million weekly viewers

REALITY CHECK: When most people in the U.S. hear the name Battlestar Galactica they know and think of TOS as created Glen A Larson. It sucks for you, but those are the facts.