I saw a box set of the modern Battlestar Galactica DVDs at a sale today. I paused but passed.
I'm not well-up on BSG at all. Like this set, it sort of passed me by in the maelstrom of Star Wars, but I do seem to recall someone saying that the modern re-make TV series was one of the best sci-fi shows around.
Is that right? Any good? It might still be there next week!
I can highly recommend the Galactica remake. It is, in my view, far far better than the original.
ReplyDeleteThanks Kev. I'll look out for it next week. Was the original a series or a film?
DeleteIt was a tv series but some episodes were edited together as movies.
DeleteThe original was a TV series, but the pilot movie was released in movie theatres. I watched about two episodes of the modern re-make and gave up, not my cup of tea.
ReplyDeleteThanks Paul. The history of the original seems a bit messy.
DeleteThe two incarnations are very different. The original was bright and action-y and full of 1970s enthusiasm, pew-pew. Less serious than Star Trek, a little more serious than Buck Rogers or Lost in Space. The re-imagined version has some basic commonalities with the original but is an often-brooding drama with lots of "sleeper agents" that suddenly activate and betray everyone. It's hard to think of the two versions as related at all; liking one is not in any way a guarantee that you'll like the other. I liked the first one a lot, and when I finally watched the re-imagined version I ended up like that too, for completely different reasons. I'd have preferred if they'd adhered more to the original setting, but I still think it's worth a watch.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Baron! I loved them both, without reservations. Was lucky to be at the right age to enjoy both of them when they came out.
DeleteThanks Baron, very insightful and very helpful. When I can't be in the garden in Winter I reckon BG could be a good TV watching project.
DeleteWow, Arto, you really like them. I can tell.
DeleteI agree with the others, the reimagined Battlestar Galactica is well worth a look. It is relentlessly "Grimdark" coming as it did, in the aftermath of America's own 911 attack. The ultimate ending is a bit of a headscratch, which you will either like or hate. I felt a little deflated by it, but I could see the logic behind it.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, the Showrunner Ronald D Moore went on to create "For All Mankind" which is an amazing reimagining of the 1960s Space Race and how it affected future history.
SPOILER America loses the race for the moon and spends the next decades playing catchup to the Soviets.
The sprawling Saga encompasses moon landings, moonbases, Mars landings and ends up (so far) with mining asteroids!
Love that word Looey, Grimdark! For all Mankind sounds ace!
DeleteThe original series was a blatant attempt to cash in on Star Wars and started out with good intent. Unfortunately, things went a bit pear shaped when a second ‘film’ was cobbled together using existing footage, bits from the series and large sections of the was film ‘Operation Crossbow’, so there are incongruous scenes of wartime V2 factories being destroyed! The remake came about too late for me to take advantage of given its release on certain media, but seeing the spindly, art nouveau Cylons and their flying croissants, put me off straight away! Bill
ReplyDeleteAnd there's me thinking you loved the remake! Can't believe they spliced V2 clips into the second BSG film!
DeleteEnjoyed the original series, though it has some very duff episodes. It was originally planned to be a series of TV movies (two or three a year) but the network decided to make it a full blown series so further scripts were very rushed and it shows up very badly . It's very much a 70s show - space cowboys, Irish space pirates. rubbish looking androids with painted silver faces (shades of the old 60s Lost in Space). At the time it was the most expensive TV show ever made. At first John Dykstra's company did the miniature FX using the same crew and cameras they had used on the first Star Wars movie. When it was changed into a series rather than TV movies, Dykstra's company ddn't want to do a series, They had already done some of the FX for some of the other TV movies that became two-parters (Gun on Ice Planet Zero, Lost Planet of the Gods).. Universal set up their own FX company but it took ages to get new stuff out so the same FX from the first episodes were just reshown time and time again which became very annoying and obvious.
ReplyDeleteIMHO the TV movies/two parters are the best of the episodes, a bit more gritty, whereas the other episodes are mostly generic 1970s Sci-Fi that could be in any other Sci-FI series of that time.There are some great characters and the original Cylons and Imperious Leader are far better than the remake versions. Also the original Galactica looks far better then the remake version! Just don't bother with child friendly Galactica 1980! Fans never mention that one.
The 2000s remake is brilliant, though as stated is much darker and far more adult. The FX is all CGI . For the remake there is also a Galactica TV move 'Razor' that explains the background of the Battlestar Pegasus and the absolutely ruthless Admiral Cain. Lots of murders and killings in that one. Also 'Blood and Chrome' DVD which tells the story of a young Adama during the first Cylon War getting his first mission. There was also the planet bound TV sreies 'Caprica' which tells the story of the Adama family before the Cylon wars which honestly I found rather dull.
Wow, Yorkie, thanks! A superb run down for the non-initiated like me! So much Battlestar!
DeleteI was too old for the first one, which I thought was childish, and the too humanoid Cylons ruined the second one for me, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteDid you like any of the modelling and FX Mish?
DeleteThe model effects were amongst the best for TV, at the time, but the multiple passes of heavy optical printing often resulted in a high level of print degradation, which 'blurred' the final composite images.
ReplyDeleteContrast the pin sharpness of the effects in Space 1999, which were mostly created in shot, as seen through the lens, or by two or three exposures 'in camera', on the same piece of film.
Thanks Mish. Fascinating stuff.
Delete