Discussion:
EW - Galactica stars received death threats!
(too old to reply)
SFTV_troy
2009-03-17 15:58:56 UTC
Permalink
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.

QUOTE:

SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.

Ron Moore got an up close-and-personal taste of the fan outrage.....
he showed three lengthy clips from the miniseries at a convention:

MOORE (producer of BSG and Star Trek: DS9): They booed and hissed. It
was icy cold in there. It was obvious no one liked it, and their
questions were tipped with a lot of acid. The gist of it was "This is
nothing like the series - how could you do this???" ..... I said,
"This is the show. You may not like the show, you don't have to watch
the show, but this is the show that we're making." Then they got
*really* mad. People started to stand up and yell. And from the back
Richard Hatch stands-up like Moses and says, "Wait a minute; just
settle down."

RICHARD HATCH ("Tom Zarek" and "Apollo"): Whether we agree or
disagree, why don't we give this talented man an opportunity to
present what he has to say. I have a great deal of respect for anyone
standing-up to that hostile audience.
Mason Barge
2009-03-17 17:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
RICHARD HATCH ("Tom Zarek" and "Apollo"): Whether we agree or
disagree, why don't we give this talented man an opportunity to
present what he has to say. I have a great deal of respect for anyone
standing-up to that hostile audience.
You have to take Hatch in context. Moore is all that is standing between
Hatch and a career autographing paraphernalia at conventions.
Ian J. Ball
2009-03-18 01:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mason Barge
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
RICHARD HATCH ("Tom Zarek" and "Apollo"): Whether we agree or
disagree, why don't we give this talented man an opportunity to
present what he has to say. I have a great deal of respect for anyone
standing-up to that hostile audience.
You have to take Hatch in context. Moore is all that is standing between
Hatch and a career autographing paraphernalia at conventions.
Let's face it - that's his fate either way.
--
"There's no business, like Cho business."
- Patrick Jane, "The Mentalist", 02/11/09
OM
2009-03-17 18:46:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
Post by SFTV_troy
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
...Katee's met DTH?

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
catpandaddy
2009-03-17 20:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
Post by SFTV_troy
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
...Katee's met DTH?
OM
"Death To Hacks"?
Dropping The Helicopter
2009-03-17 23:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
Post by SFTV_troy
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
...Katee's met DTH?
OM
"OM": Get over me. For your own sake. I know a broken heart can be
painful, but there you'll have other pwners. Sure you will!
Brian Henderson
2009-03-17 20:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
Anyone who lives in the public eye gets death threats, it doesn't matter
who you are or what you're doing. Politicians get it, movie stars get
it, businessmen get it, it's a fact of being powerful and visible.

Maybe Katee Sackhoff would get it less if she'd stop being in these
stupid piece-of-shit shows like BSG and Bionic Woman.
Post by SFTV_troy
Ron Moore got an up close-and-personal taste of the fan outrage.....
MOORE (producer of BSG and Star Trek: DS9): They booed and hissed. It
was icy cold in there. It was obvious no one liked it, and their
questions were tipped with a lot of acid. The gist of it was "This is
nothing like the series - how could you do this???" ..... I said,
"This is the show. You may not like the show, you don't have to watch
the show, but this is the show that we're making." Then they got
*really* mad. People started to stand up and yell. And from the back
Richard Hatch stands-up like Moses and says, "Wait a minute; just
settle down."
Again, Ron Moore ought to be booed and hissed, he's taken what could
have been a decent show and flushed it entirely down the toilet. While
he has every right to do so, he's running the show, the idea that people
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
what do you expect?

No one OUGHT to get death threats, certainly no one ought to be harmed
in any way by anyone, but this is just a bunch of clueless people who
don't comprehend reality. It's like Brannon and Bragha not realizing
why people hate what they did to Enterprise... or pretty much every
project they've ever worked on.
--
Want to read more? http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com
Religion is irrational, illogical insanity. Stop the madness!
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-17 21:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what person
dropped on their heads as a baby? *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
i***@san.rr.com
2009-03-18 01:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Brian Henderson
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what person
dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.


Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in its
own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this whole All
New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of wholesale and
unnecessary changes to the original, and the end result is that it
totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
Ian B
2009-03-18 01:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Brian Henderson
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that
was once universally hailed as the best show on television and run
it into the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he
has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what
person dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in its
own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this whole All
New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of wholesale and
unnecessary changes to the original, and the end result is that it
totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on the new
BSG, we have to take into the account that the original series was barely,
let alone fondly remembered, and those who did remember it only remember it
as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly
kiddies show.

The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a compelling
universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like many people I've
been disappointed by the last few episodes, but most of the series has been
great and memorable and I'll miss it. The original BSG was cancelled because
it was, in all fairness, irredeemable shit.


Ian
shawn
2009-03-18 04:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian B
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on the new
BSG, we have to take into the account that the original series was barely,
let alone fondly remembered, and those who did remember it only remember it
as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly
kiddies show.
I agree. I watched the original show but I never had any pretensions
about it being a great piece of art.. A great piece of.. well
something else.. yes.. but not a great piece of art.. That whole thing
with Boxy (Boxie?) was just a small piece of what showed it to be
something other than a bit of genius.. Though I think we have to
recognize the creator as doing an amazing bit of salesmanship at
getting it on the air (on ABC if I'm remembering correctly.)
Post by Ian B
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a compelling
universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like many people I've
been disappointed by the last few episodes, but most of the series has been
great and memorable and I'll miss it. The original BSG was cancelled because
it was, in all fairness, irredeemable shit.
It's had it's moments with some good moments. It does show how two
people can take a basic idea and come up with two entirely different
shows. If this version of the show had made it on the air instead of
what we got back in the late 70s that would have changed things for
science fiction on TV.
i***@san.rr.com
2009-03-18 04:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by Ian B
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on the new
BSG, we have to take into the account that the original series was barely,
let alone fondly remembered, and those who did remember it only remember it
as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly
kiddies show.
I agree. I watched the original show but I never had any pretensions
about it being a great piece of art.. A great piece of.. well
something else.. yes.. but not a great piece of art.
Sure - it was pure entertainment. Which is why it's still fondly
remembered by some. (Probably more than just some...)
Dougie Roberts
2009-03-18 05:10:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by shawn
I agree. I watched the original show but I never had any pretensions
about it being a great piece of art.. A great piece of.. well
something else.. yes.. but not a great piece of art.
Sure - it was pure entertainment. Which is why it's still fondly
remembered by some. (Probably more than just some...)
It was pure "something" all right... :-)
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-18 15:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
something other than a bit of genius.. Though I think we have to
recognize the creator as doing an amazing bit of salesmanship at
getting it on the air (on ABC if I'm remembering correctly.)
Hardly. Here's the pitch - "you know that Star Wars thing that is making
ungodly amounts of box office money? Let's make something to cash in on
that as cheaply as possible." The amount of reused footage in the original
BSG was not to be believed - you could sometimes go more than an episode
between seeing new effects shots. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Brian Henderson
2009-03-18 18:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by shawn
something other than a bit of genius.. Though I think we have to
recognize the creator as doing an amazing bit of salesmanship at
getting it on the air (on ABC if I'm remembering correctly.)
Hardly. Here's the pitch - "you know that Star Wars thing that is making
ungodly amounts of box office money? Let's make something to cash in on
that as cheaply as possible." The amount of reused footage in the original
BSG was not to be believed - you could sometimes go more than an episode
between seeing new effects shots. *
Welcome to television in the late 70s. Heck, welcome to television most
of the time, the networks have always copied anything that worked and
drove it into the ground. I was watching some of the documentary
material from Moonlighting a couple of days ago and they kept bringing
up the massive number of basically identical detective shows on at the
time. If one works, ten will work just as well. Star Wars spawned not
only TV series, but plenty of other movies as well. Success breeds copies.

BSG was working with a relatively limited budget, using effects that
were very expensive to produce. The network wanted them to get their
money's worth. Is that so surprising?
i***@san.rr.com
2009-03-18 19:14:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 18, 11:36 am, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by pv+ (PV)
Hardly. Here's the pitch - "you know that Star Wars thing that is making
ungodly amounts of box office money? Let's make something to cash in on
that as cheaply as possible." The amount of reused footage in the original
BSG was not to be believed - you could sometimes go more than an episode
between seeing new effects shots. *
Welcome to television in the late 70s. Heck, welcome to television most
of the time, the networks have always copied anything that worked and
drove it into the ground. I was watching some of the documentary
material from Moonlighting a couple of days ago and they kept bringing
up the massive number of basically identical detective shows on at the
time. If one works, ten will work just as well.
And I'm not sure how "original" "Moonlighting" was either - after all,
"Hart to Hart" predated it.


Ian (Not to mention "The Thin Man" series...)
OM
2009-03-18 20:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@san.rr.com
And I'm not sure how "original" "Moonlighting" was either - after all,
"Hart to Hart" predated it.
...And the only reason "Moonlighting" worked was that the production
staff successfully lobbied for the two stars to be in "soft focus".

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-18 21:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@san.rr.com
And I'm not sure how "original" "Moonlighting" was either - after all,
"Hart to Hart" predated it.
Those two shows have almost nothing in common.
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Ian (Not to mention "The Thin Man" series...)
Or those, though Nick and Nora did have excellent banter. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Brian Henderson
2009-03-18 23:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@san.rr.com
And I'm not sure how "original" "Moonlighting" was either - after all,
"Hart to Hart" predated it.
I didn't say it was orignial, in fact they made the point that it was
just another romantic detective show, like Hart to Hart, like Remington
Steele, like... well, everything else that was on TV at the time.

If you're looking for originality, television is the last place you
ought to look.
OM
2009-03-19 00:47:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:49:13 GMT, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
If you're looking for originality, television is the last place you
ought to look.
...American television, that is. I still find that TV over in
Englandland still can provide some original and enjoyable programming.
Outside of some of the BSG eps, and a few non-Hitler documentaries on
the Hitler Channel and its competitor, Discovery, I think the last
time I saw anything on TV that I qualified as "must-see" TV was "Rome"
and "John Adams", and neither of those were network shows.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Brian Henderson
2009-03-19 18:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:49:13 GMT, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
If you're looking for originality, television is the last place you
ought to look.
...American television, that is. I still find that TV over in
Englandland still can provide some original and enjoyable programming.
Outside of some of the BSG eps, and a few non-Hitler documentaries on
the Hitler Channel and its competitor, Discovery, I think the last
time I saw anything on TV that I qualified as "must-see" TV was "Rome"
and "John Adams", and neither of those were network shows.
Not necessarily, they just have a different kind of unoriginality.
You've just seen the same drivel American television has to offer over
and over and over. Watching British TV is a different kind of drivel.
Watch enough of it and it'll be the same deal. Repeat ad nauseum for
pretty much any country I can think of.
Light of Aria
2009-03-18 13:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian B
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Brian Henderson
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that
was once universally hailed as the best show on television and run
it into the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he
has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what
person dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in its
own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this whole All
New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of wholesale and
unnecessary changes to the original, and the end result is that it
totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on the
new BSG, we have to take into the account that the original series was
barely, let alone fondly remembered, and those who did remember it only
remember it as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in with a stupid robot dog
in it, a silly kiddies show.
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a
compelling universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like many
people I've been disappointed by the last few episodes, but most of the
series has been great and memorable and I'll miss it. The original BSG was
cancelled because it was, in all fairness, irredeemable shit.
Ian
Season 4 is well in truly in the toilet and does for BSG what Season 5 did
for Babylon 5.

I fell asleep watching 4.09 on Friday. Jump.
p***@aol.com
2009-03-18 16:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Light of Aria
Post by Ian B
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
shouldn't react negatively is absurd.  When you take a project that
was once universally hailed as the best show on television and run
it into the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he
has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what
person dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian  (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in its
own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this whole All
New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of wholesale and
unnecessary changes to the original, and the end result is that it
totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on the
new BSG, we have to take into the account that the original series was
barely, let alone fondly remembered, and those who did remember it only
remember it as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in with a stupid robot dog
in it, a silly kiddies show.
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a
compelling universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like many
people I've been disappointed by the last few episodes, but most of the
series has been great and memorable and I'll miss it. The original BSG was
cancelled because it was, in all fairness, irredeemable shit.
Ian
Season 4 is well in truly in the toilet and does for BSG what Season 5 did
for Babylon 5.
Well, what seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5 did for Babylon 5, in fairness...

Phil
Mac Breck
2009-03-18 17:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Light of Aria
Post by Ian B
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project
that was once universally hailed as the best show on television
and run it into the ground, especially when you have the
attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what
person dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in
its own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this
whole All New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of
wholesale and unnecessary changes to the original, and the end
result is that it totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on
the new BSG, we have to take into the account that the original
series was barely, let alone fondly remembered, and those who did
remember it only remember it as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in
with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly kiddies show.
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a
compelling universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like
many people I've been disappointed by the last few episodes, but
most of the series has been great and memorable and I'll miss it.
The original BSG was cancelled because it was, in all fairness,
irredeemable shit.
Ian
Season 4 is well in truly in the toilet and does for BSG what Season
5 did for Babylon 5.
Well, what seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5 did for Babylon 5, in fairness...
Phil
Utter BS. More like what a lot of the first half of Season 5 did for
Babylon 5, in actual fairness....
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
shawn
2009-03-18 22:34:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:35:38 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Light of Aria
Post by Ian B
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project
that was once universally hailed as the best show on television
and run it into the ground, especially when you have the
attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what
person dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in
its own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this
whole All New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of
wholesale and unnecessary changes to the original, and the end
result is that it totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on
the new BSG, we have to take into the account that the original
series was barely, let alone fondly remembered, and those who did
remember it only remember it as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in
with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly kiddies show.
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a
compelling universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like
many people I've been disappointed by the last few episodes, but
most of the series has been great and memorable and I'll miss it.
The original BSG was cancelled because it was, in all fairness,
irredeemable shit.
Ian
Season 4 is well in truly in the toilet and does for BSG what Season
5 did for Babylon 5.
Well, what seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5 did for Babylon 5, in fairness...
Phil
Utter BS. More like what a lot of the first half of Season 5 did for
Babylon 5, in actual fairness....
S5 wasn't all bad on "Babylon 5" but the whole Byron sub-plot was
awful as carried out. I know what the impact was supposed to be but
the kum-ba-ya sing-a-long did a lot to destroy the impact.
OM
2009-03-18 21:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
S5 wasn't all bad on "Babylon 5" but the whole Byron sub-plot was
awful as carried out.
...Much of the "Byron" sub-plot was originally intended to be about
Ivanova until Claudia Christian decided to bail from the series. Many
fans have felt the whole "awakening" bit that Lyta went through would
have been better suited for Ivanova.
Post by shawn
I know what the impact was supposed to be but
the kum-ba-ya sing-a-long did a lot to destroy the impact.
...There was a remix video on YouTube a while back that's long since
gone, that replaced "A Better Place" with Tom Lehrer's "And We'll All
Go Together When We Go", which was a more apropos song for the end of
that arc.

On the other hand, "Fwee Bywon" would have even been more
funnier...:-)

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Exhibitionist
2009-03-19 21:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
S5 wasn't all bad on "Babylon 5" but the whole Byron sub-plot was
awful as carried out. I know what the impact was supposed to be but
the kum-ba-ya sing-a-long did a lot to destroy the impact.
It was pretty blatant that he was supposed to be a "Jesus" character,
but all they accomplishes was making the audience into a mob
screaming, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
p***@aol.com
2009-03-19 08:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Light of Aria
Post by Ian B
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project
that was once universally hailed as the best show on television
and run it into the ground, especially when you have the
attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what
person dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in
its own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this
whole All New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of
wholesale and unnecessary changes to the original, and the end
result is that it totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on
the new BSG, we have to take into the account that the original
series was barely, let alone fondly remembered, and those who did
remember it only remember it as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in
with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly kiddies show.
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a
compelling universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like
many people I've been disappointed by the last few episodes, but
most of the series has been great and memorable and I'll miss it.
The original BSG was cancelled because it was, in all fairness,
irredeemable shit.
Ian
Season 4 is well in truly in the toilet and does for BSG what Season
5 did for Babylon 5.
Well, what seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5 did for Babylon 5, in fairness...
Phil
Utter BS.  More like what a lot of the first half of Season 5 did for
Babylon 5, in actual fairness....
That couldn't do any more harm than the first half of season 4, and
the show never got going until the beginning of season 3.

Phil
Mac Breck
2009-03-19 11:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Light of Aria
Post by Ian B
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project
that was once universally hailed as the best show on television
and run it into the ground, especially when you have the
attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what
person dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in
its own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this
whole All New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of
wholesale and unnecessary changes to the original, and the end
result is that it totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement
on the new BSG, we have to take into the account that the original
series was barely, let alone fondly remembered, and those who did
remember it only remember it as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in
with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly kiddies show.
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a
compelling universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like
many people I've been disappointed by the last few episodes, but
most of the series has been great and memorable and I'll miss it.
The original BSG was cancelled because it was, in all fairness,
irredeemable shit.
Ian
Season 4 is well in truly in the toilet and does for BSG what
Season 5 did for Babylon 5.
Well, what seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5 did for Babylon 5, in fairness...
Phil
Utter BS. More like what a lot of the first half of Season 5 did for
Babylon 5, in actual fairness....
That couldn't do any more harm than the first half of season 4, and
the show never got going until the beginning of season 3.
Nonsense. B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it was
going like hell. The stumble point was in the first half of Season 5,
but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a minor lull with OiM
and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL. You sound like somebody who
thinks a show isn't any good unless like a rollercoaster going 80 mph
from Season 1 through Season 5.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
Just go look it up!
2009-03-19 13:21:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:04:59 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Nonsense. B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it was
going like hell. The stumble point was in the first half of Season 5,
but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a minor lull with OiM
and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL. You sound like somebody who
thinks a show isn't any good unless like a rollercoaster going 80 mph
from Season 1 through Season 5.
I'm trying to remember, at what point did they have to re-write major
parts of the show because they were getting cancelled from (WB?)
network and didn't know TNT/TBS/whomever was picking them up and
wanted to have a proper ending before it went off air?

(I could have the networks wrong, but that's how I remember it, it's
been a long time)
Fred Ellis
2009-03-19 14:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just go look it up!
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:04:59 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Nonsense. B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it was
going like hell. The stumble point was in the first half of Season 5,
but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a minor lull with OiM
and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL. You sound like somebody who
thinks a show isn't any good unless like a rollercoaster going 80 mph
from Season 1 through Season 5.
I'm trying to remember, at what point did they have to re-write major
parts of the show because they were getting cancelled from (WB?)
network and didn't know TNT/TBS/whomever was picking them up and
wanted to have a proper ending before it went off air?
(I could have the networks wrong, but that's how I remember it, it's
been a long time)
It was the syndication service (PTN) that drop BSG from their lineup.
This happen toward the end of the four season. JMS, not having any
other recourse, decided to end the show at the end of season 4. Turner
Broadcasting picked up the show at the last moment to air the 5th and
final season of B5. This forced JMS to make last minute changes to the
episodes in season 5. Plus having Claudia Christian quit at the last
moment didn't help things either.


Fred Ellis
--
"Who do you serve.... And who do you trust?"
(To e-mail me, remove the X from my address)
p***@aol.com
2009-03-19 23:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Ellis
Post by Just go look it up!
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:04:59 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Nonsense.  B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it was
going like hell.  The stumble point was in the first half of Season 5,
but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a minor lull with OiM
and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL.  You sound like somebody who
thinks a show isn't any good unless like a rollercoaster going 80 mph
from Season 1 through Season 5.
I'm trying to remember, at what point did they have to re-write major
parts of the show because they were getting cancelled from (WB?)
network and didn't know TNT/TBS/whomever was picking them up and
wanted to have a proper ending before it went off air?
(I could have the networks wrong, but that's how I remember it, it's
been a long time)
It was the syndication service (PTN) that drop BSG from their lineup.
This happen toward the end of the four season.  JMS, not having any
other recourse, decided to end the show at the end of season 4.  Turner
Broadcasting picked up the show at the last moment to air the 5th and
final season of B5.  This forced JMS to make last minute changes to the
episodes in season 5.  Plus having Claudia Christian quit at the last
moment didn't help things either.
None of which explains the weaknesses of season 4. Or season 1. Or
Delenn's existence. Or the various other flaws with B5...

Phil
OM
2009-03-19 23:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
None of which explains the weaknesses of season 4. Or season 1. Or
Delenn's existence. Or the various other flaws with B5...
...Actually, the PTEN collapse does explain why Season 4 wound up the
way it did. Season 1 had a lot to do with the show trying to get its
footing, and there's finally been some leaks that there may have been
problems with Michael O'Hare from the start of the actual series with
his performance on the set and his actual support of the character's
direction. The issues with Delenn were reportedly a bit more complex,
and the higher-ups above JMS were reportedly pushing him to change a
major aspect of the character so as not to alienate certain areas of
the audience; reportedly, Delenn was supposed to have a) been
originally male, b) entered the Chrysallis in the *middle* of season
1, and c) after becoming female and getting involved in a relationship
with Sinclair, the issue of incest would have become an issue once it
became revealed that Sinclair became Valen and Delenn was descended
from Valen.

Although, to be honest, c) could have easily been blown off with the
simple Jedi hand wave and the statement of "you didn't see Leia kiss
Luke." :-)

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Ian B
2009-03-19 23:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
Post by p***@aol.com
None of which explains the weaknesses of season 4. Or season 1. Or
Delenn's existence. Or the various other flaws with B5...
...Actually, the PTEN collapse does explain why Season 4 wound up the
way it did. Season 1 had a lot to do with the show trying to get its
footing, and there's finally been some leaks that there may have been
problems with Michael O'Hare from the start of the actual series with
his performance on the set and his actual support of the character's
direction.
I always thought he was not a very good actor, and badly miscast as the lead
of the series. The thing only gelled once Sheridan took over. Seasons 3 and
4 were absolutely gripping. Brilliant stuff.


Ian
Mac Breck
2009-03-20 02:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian B
Post by OM
Post by p***@aol.com
None of which explains the weaknesses of season 4. Or season 1. Or
Delenn's existence. Or the various other flaws with B5...
...Actually, the PTEN collapse does explain why Season 4 wound up the
way it did. Season 1 had a lot to do with the show trying to get its
footing, and there's finally been some leaks that there may have been
problems with Michael O'Hare from the start of the actual series with
his performance on the set and his actual support of the character's
direction.
I always thought he was not a very good actor, and badly miscast as
the lead of the series.
I have no problem with him, except in "The Gathering" when he's with
Carolyn Sykes (Blaire Baron), and the fight scene with the Minbari, in
"Infection" (fight scene) and in Soul Hunter (fight scene).
Post by Ian B
The thing only gelled once Sheridan took
over. Seasons 3 and 4 were absolutely gripping. Brilliant stuff.
Tracy Scoggins makes Michael O'Hare's acting look brilliant.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-20 16:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
I have no problem with him, except in "The Gathering" when he's with
Carolyn Sykes (Blaire Baron), and the fight scene with the Minbari, in
"Infection" (fight scene) and in Soul Hunter (fight scene).
I actually liked O'Hare a hell of a lot. His delivery, which a lot of
people say is wooden, is exactly what the character needed. Sinclair had a
lot of messed up stuff happening to him, and he had a hard time holding it
together.

I wouldn't mind seeing the alternate-universe version where Sinclair stayed
in command until he became Valen. I was never a huge fan of Boxleitner,
though he was servicable in the role too. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Beowulf Bolt
2009-03-20 18:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
I wouldn't mind seeing the alternate-universe version where Sinclair
stayed in command until he became Valen.
Wouldn't mind? I'd pay damned good money for that version.
Post by pv+ (PV)
I was never a huge fan of Boxleitner,
though he was servicable in the role too. *
You don't happen to be a sock-puppet of mine, do you? ;)

Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-20 20:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Post by pv+ (PV)
I wouldn't mind seeing the alternate-universe version where Sinclair
stayed in command until he became Valen.
Wouldn't mind? I'd pay damned good money for that version.
Yeah, I probably would too now that I think about it.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Post by pv+ (PV)
I was never a huge fan of Boxleitner,
though he was servicable in the role too. *
You don't happen to be a sock-puppet of mine, do you? ;)
We're all sock puppets of Troy Heagy. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Mac Breck
2009-03-20 20:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Mac Breck
I have no problem with him, except in "The Gathering" when he's with
Carolyn Sykes (Blaire Baron), and the fight scene with the Minbari,
in "Infection" (fight scene) and in Soul Hunter (fight scene).
I actually liked O'Hare a hell of a lot. His delivery, which a lot of
people say is wooden, is exactly what the character needed. Sinclair
had a lot of messed up stuff happening to him, and he had a hard time
holding it together.
Oh, I liked him, too. He was holding on tight, barely keeping it
together, a soldier in a diplomat's shoes.
Post by pv+ (PV)
I wouldn't mind seeing the alternate-universe version where Sinclair
stayed in command until he became Valen. I was never a huge fan of
Boxleitner, though he was servicable in the role too. *
I liked 'em both. They were just different, and had different styles.
Capt. Sheridan, for the most part, was more at ease in the role, less
tightly wound, less frustrated, etc.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
Ian Galbraith
2009-03-20 02:03:13 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Fred Ellis
It was the syndication service (PTN) that drop BSG from their lineup.
This happen toward the end of the four season.  JMS, not having any
other recourse, decided to end the show at the end of season 4.  Turner
Broadcasting picked up the show at the last moment to air the 5th and
final season of B5.  This forced JMS to make last minute changes to the
episodes in season 5.  Plus having Claudia Christian quit at the last
moment didn't help things either.
None of which explains the weaknesses of season 4.
Are you completely unaware that JMS accelerated the arcs in S4 due to the
PTEN situation. It very much explains the S4 situation.
Post by p***@aol.com
Or season 1. Or Delenn's existence.
Lets just say mileage various on Delenn.
--
"I'd rather have a show that a hundred people need to see than a thousand
people like to see." - Joss Whedon
Mac Breck
2009-03-20 00:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Ellis
Post by Just go look it up!
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:04:59 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Nonsense. B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it
was going like hell. The stumble point was in the first half of
Season 5, but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a
minor lull with OiM and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL. You
sound like somebody who thinks a show isn't any good unless like a
rollercoaster going 80 mph
from Season 1 through Season 5.
I'm trying to remember, at what point did they have to re-write major
parts of the show because they were getting cancelled from (WB?)
network and didn't know TNT/TBS/whomever was picking them up and
wanted to have a proper ending before it went off air?
(I could have the networks wrong, but that's how I remember it, it's
been a long time)
It was the syndication service (PTN)
PTEN (Prime Time Entertainment Network)
Post by Fred Ellis
that drop BSG
B5
Post by Fred Ellis
from their lineup.
No, PTEN was as dead as the Monty Python parrot.

Date: 1/22/1997 4:59:00 PM
http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-10938

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-3240
http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-3367
http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-3108
Post by Fred Ellis
This happen toward the end of the four season.
Jan. 22, 1997 looks like early in Season 4 to me.
http://epguides.com/Babylon5/
Season 4

67. 4- 1 401 7 Nov 96 The Hour of the Wolf
68. 4- 2 402 14 Nov 96 What Ever Happened to Mr.
Garibaldi?
69. 4- 3 403 21 Nov 96 The Summoning
70. 4- 4 404 28 Nov 96 Falling Towards Apotheosis
71. 4- 5 405 *30 Jan 97* The Long Night
72. 4- 6 406 6 Feb 97 Into the Fire
73. 4- 7 407 13 Feb 97 Epiphanies
74. 4- 8 408 20 Feb 97 The Illusion of Truth
75. 4- 9 409 27 Feb 97 Atonement
76. 4-10 410 24 Apr 97 Racing Mars
77. 4-11 411 1 May 97 Lines of Communication
78. 4-12 412 8 May 97 Conflicts of Interest
79. 4-13 413 15 May 97 Rumors, Bargains and Lies
80. 4-14 414 22 May 97 Moments of Transition
81. 4-15 415 29 May 97 No Surrender, No Retreat
82. 4-16 416 5 Jun 97 Exercise of Vital Powers
83. 4-17 417 12 Jun 97 The Face of the Enemy
84. 4-18 418 19 Jun 97 Intersections in Real Time
85. 4-19 419 9 Oct 97 Between the Darkness and the
Light
86. 4-20 420 16 Oct 97 Endgame
87. 4-21 421 23 Oct 97 Rising Star
88. 4-22 422 30 Nov 97 The Deconstruction of Falling
Stars
Post by Fred Ellis
JMS, not having any
other recourse, decided to end the show at the end of season 4.
Warner Brothers told them to wrap it up.
Post by Fred Ellis
Turner Broadcasting picked up the show at the last moment to air the
5th and final season of B5. This forced JMS to make last minute
changes to the episodes in season 5.
It forced JMS to move 422 "Sleeping in Light" to be the Season 5 finale,
and that meant they had to film a new Season 4 finale, 501
"Deconstruction of Falling Stars."
Post by Fred Ellis
Plus having Claudia Christian
quit at the last moment didn't help things either.
You're a master of understatement.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
Mac Breck
2009-03-19 16:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just go look it up!
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:04:59 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Nonsense. B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it
was going like hell. The stumble point was in the first half of
Season 5, but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a minor
lull with OiM and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL. You sound
like somebody who thinks a show isn't any good unless like a
rollercoaster going 80 mph from Season 1 through Season 5.
I'm trying to remember, at what point did they have to re-write major
parts of the show because they were getting cancelled from (WB?)
It wasn't getting cancelled by anybody. Its venue, PTEN (Prime Time
Entertainment Network) had ceased to exist, and B5 had nowhere to go.
Post by Just go look it up!
network and didn't know TNT/TBS/whomever was picking them up and
wanted to have a proper ending before it went off air?
It was known from about the middle of Season 4 that B5 probably wouldn't
get a Season 5 (because of PTEN going belly up.), and so a lot of the
show was wrapped up in Season 4. Warner Brothers told them to wrap it
up. Then, at the last minute, TNT stepped in and picked 'em up for
Season 5, *AFTER* all the Season 4 episodes, including Sleeping in
Light, the show's finale, had been produced.
Post by Just go look it up!
(I could have the networks wrong, but that's how I remember it, it's
been a long time)
It happened over the Season 4 to Season 5 break, while most of the cast,
including Claudia and JMS were at the Blackpool [UK] convention, where
JMS found out from Doug Netter (who found out from Warner Brothers, who
found out by reading it in *VARIETY* .), that Claudia Christian was NOT
going to come back for Season 5.

Naturally, Warner Brothers, Netter and JMS were furious about this,
since all the rest of the cast had signed the extension to be in Season
5, and Claudia was still stringing them along, but hadn't signed yet.
They, JMS and some of the cast talked to Claudia at Blackpool, but
Claudia wouldn't make a decision. So, JMS, who had already written
Claudia into the first half dozen episodes of Season 5, had to dump that
stuff, and cast another actor (Tracy Scoggins. See nothing good could
come of this.) as a new character to command B5 for Season 5, and get
back up to speed with new episodes before they started Season 5. Then,
AFTER all of this, Claudia's agent contacts John Copeland and tries to
get Claudia back onboard, thinking it'd be no problem, and the agent was
told that he was two weeks too late. Scoggins had been signed and the
new scripts had been written.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
Tony Calguire
2009-03-19 18:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
Naturally, Warner Brothers, Netter and JMS were furious about this,
since all the rest of the cast had signed the extension to be in Season
5, and Claudia was still stringing them along, but hadn't signed yet.
They, JMS and some of the cast talked to Claudia at Blackpool, but
Claudia wouldn't make a decision. So, JMS, who had already written
Claudia into the first half dozen episodes of Season 5, had to dump that
stuff, and cast another actor (Tracy Scoggins. See nothing good could
come of this.) as a new character to command B5 for Season 5
I never understood that part... Scoggins was a dead ringer for Claudia
Christian. She could have assumed the Ivanova role, and hardly anyone
would have noticed.
Just go look it up!
2009-03-19 22:36:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:52:44 -0400, "Mac Breck"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:


(Snip great synopsys on what happened)

Thanks Mac and Fred. My memory was only partly wrong then ;)
Mac Breck
2009-03-20 01:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just go look it up!
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:52:44 -0400, "Mac Breck"
(Snip great synopsys on what happened)
Thanks Mac and Fred. My memory was only partly wrong then ;)
Yeah, but I got a bit of it wrong. :-O My post was from memory, typed
in a hurry before I went to work. Didn't have time to check it. I'm
posting a follow up with corrections and more detailed info (e.g. exact
dates, what happened when, etc.). I'm working on it now.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
Mac Breck
2009-03-20 02:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Just go look it up!
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:04:59 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Nonsense. B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it
was going like hell. The stumble point was in the first half of
Season 5, but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a minor
lull with OiM and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL. You sound
like somebody who thinks a show isn't any good unless like a
rollercoaster going 80 mph from Season 1 through Season 5.
I'm trying to remember, at what point did they have to re-write major
parts of the show because they were getting cancelled from (WB?)
You really need to read "Babylon 5 - The Scripts of J. Michael
Straczynski - Volume 11" pages 1 through 30, entitled "Okay, What the
HELL Happened Here?"
Post by Mac Breck
It wasn't getting cancelled by anybody. Its venue, PTEN (Prime Time
Entertainment Network) had ceased to exist, and B5 had nowhere to go.
Post by Just go look it up!
network and didn't know TNT/TBS/whomever was picking them up and
wanted to have a proper ending before it went off air?
It was known from
early in
Post by Mac Breck
Season 4 that B5 probably
wouldn't get a Season 5 (because of PTEN going belly up.), and so a
lot of the show was wrapped up in Season 4. Warner Brothers told
them to wrap it up. Then, at the last minute, TNT stepped in and
picked 'em up for Season 5, *AFTER* all the Season 4 episodes,
including Sleeping in Light, the show's finale, had been
filmed (but were not yet done in post production.). Post production on
the Season 4 episodes would continue well into Sept. 1997.
Post by Mac Breck
Post by Just go look it up!
(I could have the networks wrong, but that's how I remember it, it's
been a long time)
It happened over the Season 4 to Season 5 break, while most of the
cast, including Claudia and JMS were at the Blackpool [UK]
convention, where JMS found out from Doug Netter (who found out from
Warner Brothers, who found out by reading it in
"the trades"
Post by Mac Breck
that
Claudia Christian was NOT going to come back for Season 5.
Naturally, Warner Brothers, Netter and JMS were furious about this,
since all the rest of the cast had signed the extension to be in
Season 5, and Claudia was still stringing them along, but hadn't
signed yet. They, JMS and some of the cast talked to Claudia at
Blackpool, but Claudia
left on July 14, 1997, the drop-dead date, without signing the extension
or the contract.

Some excerpts from "Babylon 5 - The Scripts of J. Michael Straczynski -
Volume 11" pages 1 through 30, entitled "Okay, What the HELL Happened
Here?"

The actors' contracts ran out June 15, 1997.
All the actors except Claudia signed the 30 day extention to July 14,
1997.
All the actors except Claudia signed the new Season 5 contracts by July
13, 1997 at 11:59PM in Blackpool, in time to get the contracts faxed to
the execs who would be coming in the morning of the July 14th to make
sure it all got done by the deadline.
On July 19, 1997, at a Trek con., Claudia tells fans that she was fired,
and provides Warner Brothers Liason to B5, Gregg Maday's fax and phone
numbers to the fans. Fax and phone call shitstorm ensues. Warner
Brothers is not amused.
On July 28, 1997, Claudia's agent calls John Copeland at the B5 offices,
and asks if they are "ready to negotiate now?" Copeland tells the agent
that they start shooting in a couple of weeks, the scripts are written
and the directors are prepping, and that the agent is a day late and a
dollar short. The agent said "So what're you saying, that it's over?"
to which Copeland said "It was over on July 14th."
Post by Mac Breck
So, JMS, who had
already written Claudia into
an unknown number of
Post by Mac Breck
episodes of Season
5,
I'm not sure how many episodes he had written. In the book, he says
that he'd hoped to come back from Blackpool with at least one,
preferrably two scripts in hand, but on the flight back from Blackpool,
he was coming back with none. That meant that he'd have to write no
less than one script per week for the next three to six weeks, and he
didn't even know who the commanding officer would be yet.

Talk about a crummy situation!
Post by Mac Breck
had to dump that stuff, and cast another actor (Tracy Scoggins.
See nothing good could come of this.) as a new character to command
B5 for Season 5, and get back up to speed with new episodes before
they started Season 5.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
p***@aol.com
2009-03-19 23:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Light of Aria
Post by Ian B
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project
that was once universally hailed as the best show on television
and run it into the ground, especially when you have the
attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what
person dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in
its own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this
whole All New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of
wholesale and unnecessary changes to the original, and the end
result is that it totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement
on the new BSG, we have to take into the account that the original
series was barely, let alone fondly remembered, and those who did
remember it only remember it as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in
with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly kiddies show.
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a
compelling universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like
many people I've been disappointed by the last few episodes, but
most of the series has been great and memorable and I'll miss it.
The original BSG was cancelled because it was, in all fairness,
irredeemable shit.
Ian
Season 4 is well in truly in the toilet and does for BSG what
Season 5 did for Babylon 5.
Well, what seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5 did for Babylon 5, in fairness...
Phil
Utter BS. More like what a lot of the first half of Season 5 did for
Babylon 5, in actual fairness....
That couldn't do any more harm than the first half of season 4, and
the show never got going until the beginning of season 3.
Nonsense.  B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it was
going like hell.  The stumble point was in the first half of Season 5,
but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a minor lull with OiM
and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL.  You sound like somebody who
thinks a show isn't any good unless like a rollercoaster going 80 mph
from Season 1 through Season 5.
You sound like somebody who's decided to invent a reason for an
objection rather than taking the unusual step of asking where the
other person's coming from.

B5 season 1 was mostly a batch of disconnected Star Trekesque stories,
with the main plot arc never rearing its head. B5 season 2 was much
the same (an episode with a bomb in a lift shaft trapping Garibaldi,
or something similar, comes to mind as a typical example of season 2
'filler'). Not because the show wasn't "a rollercoaster going 80 mph",
but because the much-billed Five Year Plan simply wasn't there. And it
didn't help that when season 2 did kick into gear, it focused so
heavily on Delenn, a dull-as-dishwater mystical-fantasy-elf stereotype
played by a woman whose atrocious acting made Nana Visitor's fake
crying on DS9 look plausible.

Fortunately I actually started watching B5 with season 3 and went back
over the older episodes later - if I hadn't I'd never have got that
far. But then Stracynski decided to make a mess of that by deciding
that it was much more interesting showing endless bad CGI scenes of
Vorlon and Shadow ships blowing planets up than to actually tell the
story - oh, yes, and Sheridan found god at the bottom of a hole
(literally), brought him back, and god duly told the Vorlons and
Shadows to go to their rooms. Yes, we got a good year out of it
(though, tellingly, season 3's best story was the two-parter about the
rebellion against Earth, a much more interesting story angle than the
hackneyed good-vs.-evil junk Stracynski then landed us with), but DS9
told much the same story with exactly the same crappy resolution in
six episodes. But wait, they'd invested all their storytelling in the
Shadow War by that time, and wrapped up the Shadow War at the
beginning of the year, so all there was left to do was give us a very
extended trailer for Excalibur (or whatever that short-lived spinoff
was called - you know the one, exactly the same as B5 without the
novelty, and so predictably fell apart as soon as it started).

Phil
Mac Breck
2009-03-20 01:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by p***@aol.com
On 18 Mar, 13:34, "Light of Aria"
Post by Light of Aria
Post by Ian B
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project
that was once universally hailed as the best show on
television and run it into the ground, especially when you
have the attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By
what person dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the
original series, at least, was fondly remember, and was
groundbreaking in its own way in its day. The one real
pleasure I get out of this whole All New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is
that they made a bunch of wholesale and unnecessary changes to
the original, and the end result is that it totally blew up in
their faces. I love it!)
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement
on the new BSG, we have to take into the account that the
original series was barely, let alone fondly remembered, and
those who did remember it only remember it as a laughably bad
Star Wars cash-in with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly
kiddies show.
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a
compelling universe which has on occasion approached awesome.
Like many people I've been disappointed by the last few
episodes, but most of the series has been great and memorable
and I'll miss it. The original BSG was cancelled because it
was, in all fairness, irredeemable shit.
Ian
Season 4 is well in truly in the toilet and does for BSG what
Season 5 did for Babylon 5.
Well, what seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5 did for Babylon 5, in fairness...
Phil
Utter BS. More like what a lot of the first half of Season 5 did
for Babylon 5, in actual fairness....
That couldn't do any more harm than the first half of season 4, and
the show never got going until the beginning of season 3.
Nonsense. B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it
was going like hell. The stumble point was in the first half of
Season 5, but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a minor
lull with OiM and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL. You sound
like somebody who thinks a show isn't any good unless like a
rollercoaster going 80 mph from Season 1 through Season 5.
You sound like somebody who's decided to invent a reason for an
objection rather than taking the unusual step of asking where the
other person's coming from.
Based upon what you said, I was trying to determine where you were
coming from.
Post by p***@aol.com
B5 season 1 was mostly a batch of disconnected Star Trekesque stories,
with the main plot arc never rearing its head.
Foreshadowing of the main arc started in Season 1 Episode 1 "Midnight on
the Firing Line" if not earlier in "The Gathering." The payoff of Londo
and G'Kar strangling each other didn't happen until "In the Beginning"
(story time 2278).
Post by p***@aol.com
B5 season 2 was much
the same (an episode with a bomb in a lift shaft trapping Garibaldi,
or something similar, comes to mind as a typical example of season 2
'filler').
What? Your memory needs work. You're talking about Londo and G'Kar
trapped in "Convictions" and that was in Season 3 (Episode 2).
Post by p***@aol.com
Not because the show wasn't "a rollercoaster going 80 mph",
but because the much-billed Five Year Plan simply wasn't there.
Only because you aren't seeing the connections. In Season 2 they
constantly ramped up the Shadow threat. Did you even watch the show?
Post by p***@aol.com
And it
didn't help that when season 2 did kick into gear, it focused so
heavily on Delenn, a dull-as-dishwater mystical-fantasy-elf stereotype
played by a woman whose atrocious acting made Nana Visitor's fake
crying on DS9 look plausible.
Nothing could make anything on DS9 look plausible.
Post by p***@aol.com
Fortunately I actually started watching B5 with season 3 and went back
over the older episodes later - if I hadn't I'd never have got that
far.
S
Post by p***@aol.com
But then Stracynski decided to make a mess of that by deciding
that it was much more interesting showing endless bad CGI scenes of
Vorlon and Shadow ships blowing planets up than to actually tell the
story - oh, yes, and Sheridan found god
Lorien wasn't God, or a god. He was the oldest living sentient. He
preceded the Vorlons and the Shadows, and the other first one races.
Post by p***@aol.com
at the bottom of a hole
(literally), brought him back, and god duly told the Vorlons and
Shadows to go to their rooms. Yes, we got a good year out of it
(though, tellingly, season 3's best story was the two-parter about the
rebellion against Earth, a much more interesting story angle than the
hackneyed good-vs.-evil junk Stracynski then landed us with), but DS9
told much the same story with exactly the same crappy resolution in
six episodes.
Was DS9 under threat of cancellation? Were the DS9 people told by
Paramount to wrap things up. DS9 ran its whole seven years, just like
TNG, just like Voyager did (Now, that's mind boggling how Voyager could
run for seven years!).
Post by p***@aol.com
But wait, they'd invested all their storytelling in the
Shadow War by that time, and wrapped up the Shadow War at the
beginning of the year,
You're forgetting the whole Centauri war. No, you didn't watch the
show, and certainly didn't "get" the bits you did see.
Post by p***@aol.com
so all there was left to do was give us a very
extended trailer for Excalibur (or whatever that short-lived spinoff
was called - you know the one, exactly the same as B5 without the
novelty, and so predictably fell apart as soon as it started).
Phil
Crusade, and it's apparent that you don't know what the hell you're
talking about. <snif, snif> I smell a troll.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
OM
2009-03-20 02:19:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:44:38 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Foreshadowing of the main arc started in Season 1 Episode 1 "Midnight on
the Firing Line" if not earlier in "The Gathering." The payoff of Londo
and G'Kar strangling each other didn't happen until "In the Beginning"
(story time 2278).
...Yeah, but what a payoff. As JMS said, we'd know the ending, but the
road to getting there was what was really worth the trip!

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Mac Breck
2009-03-20 02:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:44:38 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Post by Mac Breck
Foreshadowing of the main arc started in Season 1 Episode 1
"Midnight on the Firing Line" if not earlier in "The Gathering."
The payoff of Londo and G'Kar strangling each other didn't happen
until "In the Beginning" (story time 2278).
...Yeah, but what a payoff. As JMS said, we'd know the ending, but the
road to getting there was what was really worth the trip!
OM
Oh I agree. I wasn't saying anything to the contrary.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
Ian Galbraith
2009-03-20 02:03:14 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by p***@aol.com
That couldn't do any more harm than the first half of season 4, and
the show never got going until the beginning of season 3.
Nonsense.  B5 built all the way up to Season 4, and by that time it was
going like hell.  The stumble point was in the first half of Season 5,
but it recovered nicely with the Centauri arc, had a minor lull with OiM
and OaR, and finished perfectly with SiL.  You sound like somebody who
thinks a show isn't any good unless like a rollercoaster going 80 mph
from Season 1 through Season 5.
You sound like somebody who's decided to invent a reason for an
objection rather than taking the unusual step of asking where the
other person's coming from.
Pot meet kettle.
Post by p***@aol.com
B5 season 1 was mostly a batch of disconnected Star Trekesque stories,
with the main plot arc never rearing its head.
Wrong, 2 episodes were clearly part of the ongoing arcs at the time and
in hindsight at least 8 of 22 were arc related for 6 of them it just
wasn't clear at the time.
Post by p***@aol.com
B5 season 2 was much
the same (an episode with a bomb in a lift shaft trapping Garibaldi,
or something similar, comes to mind as a typical example of season 2
In S2 at least half the episodes were by now clearly arc driven with the
ongoing arcs beginning to take shape and thats being generous.

[snip]
Post by p***@aol.com
Fortunately I actually started watching B5 with season 3 and went back
over the older episodes later - if I hadn't I'd never have got that
far. But then Stracynski decided to make a mess of that by deciding
that it was much more interesting showing endless bad CGI scenes of
Vorlon and Shadow ships blowing planets up than to actually tell the
Endless? Hardly.
Post by p***@aol.com
story - oh, yes, and Sheridan found god at the bottom of a hole
(literally), brought him back, and god duly told the Vorlons and
Shadows to go to their rooms. Yes, we got a good year out of it
(though, tellingly, season 3's best story was the two-parter about the
rebellion against Earth, a much more interesting story angle than the
hackneyed good-vs.-evil junk Stracynski then landed us with),
Er which is why in S4 the real story was revealed to be more about the
rebellion against Earth which ended S4.
Post by p***@aol.com
but DS9
told much the same story with exactly the same crappy resolution in
six episodes. But wait, they'd invested all their storytelling in the
Shadow War by that time, and wrapped up the Shadow War at the
beginning of the year,
6 episodes in, more than a quarter the way through the season.
Post by p***@aol.com
so all there was left to do was give us a very
extended trailer for Excalibur (or whatever that short-lived spinoff
was called - you know the one, exactly the same as B5 without the
novelty, and so predictably fell apart as soon as it started).
I think you're getting confused.
--
"When I get a little money, I buy books. If any is left, I buy food and
clothes." - Erasmus
OM
2009-03-20 02:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Galbraith
Post by p***@aol.com
B5 season 1 was mostly a batch of disconnected Star Trekesque stories,
with the main plot arc never rearing its head.
Wrong, 2 episodes were clearly part of the ongoing arcs at the time and
in hindsight at least 8 of 22 were arc related for 6 of them it just
wasn't clear at the time.
...Correct. And this was deliberate *and* necessary in order to give
audiences time enough to get accustomed to the characters and the
"strange new worlds" they inhabited.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-20 16:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Galbraith
Wrong, 2 episodes were clearly part of the ongoing arcs at the time and
in hindsight at least 8 of 22 were arc related for 6 of them it just
wasn't clear at the time.
I'd have to rewatch season 1 to be sure (I'm going to have to rewatch B5
one of these days - it's been a long time), but I would put the number
higher than that even. A great deal of season 1 stuff that looked like
fluff ended up paying off later. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Mac Breck
2009-03-20 20:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Ian Galbraith
Wrong, 2 episodes were clearly part of the ongoing arcs at the time
and in hindsight at least 8 of 22 were arc related for 6 of them it
just wasn't clear at the time.
I'd have to rewatch season 1 to be sure (I'm going to have to rewatch
B5 one of these days - it's been a long time), but I would put the
number higher than that even. A great deal of season 1 stuff that
looked like fluff ended up paying off later. *
Exactly. However, somebody can only appreciate this by watching it all
the way through once, in order, and *then* watching it again. ;)
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-19 15:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
That couldn't do any more harm than the first half of season 4, and
the show never got going until the beginning of season 3.
Oh, total crap. The seasons of B5 went like this:

Season 1: Started off pretty crappy, with some good stuff mixed in.
Season 2: The crap came to a close, and the wonderfulness began.
Season 3: Quite possibly the best season of an SF show of all time.
Season 4: As good or even better than Season 3, right up until
"Get the heck out of our galaxy". Downhill but still
watchable after that. Ended BEAUTIFULLY.
Season 5: Continuity porn, and too much focus on characters you
didn't give a crap about. Ended with a whimper, with
just a few moments of greatness mixed in
(Londo's and Lanier's arcs).

*
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Ian B
2009-03-19 16:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by p***@aol.com
That couldn't do any more harm than the first half of season 4, and
the show never got going until the beginning of season 3.
Season 1: Started off pretty crappy, with some good stuff mixed in.
Season 2: The crap came to a close, and the wonderfulness began.
Season 3: Quite possibly the best season of an SF show of all time.
Season 4: As good or even better than Season 3, right up until
"Get the heck out of our galaxy". Downhill but still
watchable after that. Ended BEAUTIFULLY.
Season 5: Continuity porn, and too much focus on characters you
didn't give a crap about. Ended with a whimper, with
just a few moments of greatness mixed in
(Londo's and Lanier's arcs).
At its peak, it was the most compelling sci-fi show on TV, it had me every
bit as riveted as BSG did until recently. But season 5 was a disappointment.
It felt that we'd very much had all the story that needed to be told.
Stories are like that- they reach a point when they are done and, even
though people are begging for more, they'll be disappointed if they get it.

As to BSG, I hope to be pleasantly surprised by the final episode, but my
feelings about the last half season are that it started well, but then has
been mostly a waste of time. My loss of interest has been immense, and has
surprised me myself.

Stories are about good characters, but characters on their own don't make
stories. It's what the characters do that pulls the thing together. However
well Frodo was written as a character, if LOTR had been about him staying at
home mithering about the Shire, nobody would care. Good characters are an
essential ingredient, but they aren't the be-all and end-all of
storytelling. They aren't enough on their own. Too much character just gets
tiresome; in the same way as a good description of a setting enhances a
novel, but if it's nothing but descriptions of valleys and forests you're
going to lose interest.

It's not shallow to want interesting and exciting stuff to occur. The key
thing for the writer is to have compelling characters, doing compelling
things. I think BSG has got the mix wrong just at the time when it needed to
get it very right.


Ian
Mac Breck
2009-03-20 00:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian B
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by p***@aol.com
That couldn't do any more harm than the first half of season 4, and
the show never got going until the beginning of season 3.
Season 1: Started off pretty crappy, with some good stuff mixed in.
Season 2: The crap came to a close, and the wonderfulness began.
Season 3: Quite possibly the best season of an SF show of all time.
Season 4: As good or even better than Season 3, right up until
"Get the heck out of our galaxy". Downhill but still
watchable after that. Ended BEAUTIFULLY.
Season 5: Continuity porn, and too much focus on characters you
didn't give a crap about. Ended with a whimper, with
just a few moments of greatness mixed in
(Londo's and Lanier's arcs).
At its peak, it was the most compelling sci-fi show on TV, it had me
every bit as riveted as BSG did until recently. But season 5 was a
disappointment. It felt that we'd very much had all the story that
needed to be told.
There's a reason for that. Early in Season 4 (January 1997), PTEN was
going under, and JMS and co. were told that there would be no Season 5,
and to wrap things up. So, some of the Season 5 stories got moved to
Season 4. Then, *AFTER* all of Season 4 was filmed (401 thru 422), they
got the go ahead for Season 5 on TNT. The renewal for Season 5 happened
around June 27, 1997. Blackpool was July 11-14, 1997. Claudia quit
July 14, 1997. Claudia's agent called back on July 28, 1997 to ask if
they were ready to negotiate with her yet, and was told that he was a
day late and a dollar short. The deadline for her being in Season 5 was
July 14, 1997. Season 5 filming would have to start in August 1997,
and before that, new scripts sans Claudia would have to be written. Oh,
and by the way, at Blackpool, when the hotel people moved JMS to a
smaller room without telling him, they threw out all of his Season 5
notes on 3x5" cards, the stuff he kept in his office in 3-ring binders.
He rooted through a conventions worth of hotel trash in their dumpsters
to find 'em, but they were gone.
Post by Ian B
Stories are like that- they reach a point when
they are done and, even though people are begging for more, they'll
be disappointed if they get it.
That was not the case regarding Babylon 5. Real world events (above)
screwed it over.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Brimstone" (1998)
Angel: Oh, there's one more thing you should know. Your fate was never
determined until you killed Gilbert Jax. All in all, you've led a good
life, Ezekiel. Have faith. Your work's appreciated.
OM
2009-03-20 01:59:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:55:37 -0400, "Mac Breck"
Oh,and by the way, at Blackpool, when the hotel people moved JMS to a
smaller room without telling him, they threw out all of his Season 5
notes on 3x5" cards, the stuff he kept in his office in 3-ring binders.
He rooted through a conventions worth of hotel trash in their dumpsters
to find 'em, but they were gone.
...Man, I'd forgotten about that particular point! Fans were actually
hoping they'd been *stolen* instead of just lost.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
p***@aol.com
2009-03-19 23:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by p***@aol.com
That couldn't do any more harm than the first half of season 4, and
the show never got going until the beginning of season 3.
Season 1: Started off pretty crappy, with some good stuff mixed in.
Think I missed the good stuff - not sure I've caught all of the first
two years, just most of them.
Post by pv+ (PV)
Season 2: The crap came to a close, and the wonderfulness began.
...More than halfway through. And then it was a slow build - hence, as
I said, the show never got going until rhe beginning of season 3.
Post by pv+ (PV)
Season 3: Quite possibly the best season of an SF show of all time.
Season 4: As good or even better than Season 3, right up until
          "Get the heck out of our galaxy".
Right up until? That was episode 4, as I recall - certainly early in
the season.

Downhill but still
Post by pv+ (PV)
          watchable after that. Ended BEAUTIFULLY.
Was that with Londo watching the post-Shadow ships coming to Centauri
Prime?

Phil
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-20 17:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
Season 3: Quite possibly the best season of an SF show of all time.
Season 4: As good or even better than Season 3, right up until
          "Get the heck out of our galaxy".
Right up until? That was episode 4, as I recall - certainly early in
the season.
Well, what I'm saying is that was the climax of the series. Season 4 was
still mostly great, but it never hit a higher point than that. And as we've
discussed before, what should have been a crowning moment of awesome was
marred a bit by bad dialogue.
Post by p***@aol.com
Was that with Londo watching the post-Shadow ships coming to Centauri
Prime?
That was great too, but I was mostly thinking of "deconstruction of falling
stars", which I loved to death. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
trag
2009-03-18 14:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian B
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on the new
BSG, we have to take into the account that the original series was barely,
let alone fondly remembered, and those who did remember it only remember it
as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly
kiddies show.
While Star Wars opened the door to many new scifi productions,
including Battle Star Galactica, I believe that it also had a huge bad
effect on the industry--although perhaps this mindset was already in
existence.

Many producers/directors/writers seemed to come away from Star Wars
believing that any show with special effects in it will be good,
ignoring that Star Wars also has interesting characters and a very
engaging story line--at least, the first 2.5 movies did.

So we saw the creation of a bunch of shows with special effects and
all the plot-line of a hurriedly-made porn flick.
Ian B
2009-03-18 18:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
Post by Ian B
Well, I don't think that's fair. Whatever the ultimate judgement on
the new BSG, we have to take into the account that the original
series was barely, let alone fondly remembered, and those who did
remember it only remember it as a laughably bad Star Wars cash-in
with a stupid robot dog in it, a silly kiddies show.
While Star Wars opened the door to many new scifi productions,
including Battle Star Galactica, I believe that it also had a huge bad
effect on the industry--although perhaps this mindset was already in
existence.
Many producers/directors/writers seemed to come away from Star Wars
believing that any show with special effects in it will be good,
ignoring that Star Wars also has interesting characters and a very
engaging story line--at least, the first 2.5 movies did.
So we saw the creation of a bunch of shows with special effects and
all the plot-line of a hurriedly-made porn flick.
Well to be fair, some of the hurriedly made porn from the golden age has a
certain freshness and charm which is lacking in productions which are more,
eh, polished...
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-18 15:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian B
The new one, OTOH, has been at its best, gripping drama set in a compelling
universe which has on occasion approached awesome. Like many people I've
I mostly hate the show, and I'll agree with that statement 100%. I'm still
watching because when the show has a crowning moment of awesome, it makes
your jaws drop. You almost *need* to hate everyone on the show to make
those moments matter.
Post by Ian B
been disappointed by the last few episodes, but most of the series has been
great and memorable and I'll miss it. The original BSG was cancelled because
it was, in all fairness, irredeemable shit.
Starlost with better stock footage, yep. Actually I like Starlost a lot
more. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Tony Calguire
2009-03-18 03:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Brian Henderson
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what person
dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in its
own way in its day.
Reading comprehension might just be your friend too, Ian... I'm pretty sure
Brian was referring to Ron Moore's miniseries and the first season or two
as "universally hailed as the best show on television".
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-18 15:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by pv+ (PV)
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what person
dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Go back and read the post. He was relating an incident that happened before
a single episode of the new BSG ever aired. How can you run a concept into
the ground before it ever airs?

It was badly written, and I called him on it with a snarky response. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Brian Henderson
2009-03-18 18:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Too true.
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Ian (And while Brian probably won't say it, I will - the original
series, at least, was fondly remember, and was groundbreaking in its
own way in its day. The one real pleasure I get out of this whole All
New! NEW!! BSG fiasco is that they made a bunch of wholesale and
unnecessary changes to the original, and the end result is that it
totally blew up in their faces. I love it!)
I'll admit a fondness for the original BSG, not because it was a wonder
of television sci-fi, but, in a lot of ways, because it was cheesy fun.
I remember sitting there waiting to watch the pilot movie and having
it pre-empted by a presidential speech for about 45 minutes. It wasn't
incredible, but it was fun.

New Galactica, however, was abysmal. Horrible characters, stupid plots,
moronic eye-candy, set dressing by Ikea, it was just bad. Most episodes
could have been solved in the first 10 minutes by anyone with a few
brain cells rattling around in their heads. It was just bad and kept
getting worse.

Galactica 1980... the less said about that the better.
unknown
2009-03-18 03:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what person
dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Your mother?
Mason Barge
2009-03-18 12:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Brian Henderson
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what person
dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Since Ian has clarified that this refers to the first season or two of the
remake, it makes at least some sense. I mean, not "universally hailed as
the best show on television", which sounds suspiciously like a quote from
the transcript of a commitment hearing. But some of the shows in the early
going were downright awesome, especially when there was so much action and
CGI that Jamie, Katee et al. didn't have an opportunity to "act".
Obveeus
2009-03-18 15:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Brian Henderson
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what person
dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Yes, BSG (the new version of the series) is one of the very best shows on
TV. The original series, from a few decades ago, was not.
i***@san.rr.com
2009-03-18 15:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Obveeus
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Brian Henderson
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what person
dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Yes, BSG (the new version of the series) is one of the very best shows on
TV. The original series, from a few decades ago, was not.
What button do I push to rate this posting 1 out of 5 stars?!?!!1! :p
Obveeus
2009-03-18 15:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@san.rr.com
Post by Obveeus
Post by pv+ (PV)
Post by Brian Henderson
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
The original BSG hailed as the best show on television? By what person
dropped on their heads as a baby? *
Yes, BSG (the new version of the series) is one of the very best shows on
TV. The original series, from a few decades ago, was not.
What button do I push to rate this posting 1 out of 5 stars?!?!!1! :p
Just from today's news about the name change to 'SyFy':
http://adage.com/adages/post?article_id=135297

"The channel should have been spending the week celebrating the series
finale of "Battlestar Galactica," one of the best shows to hit TV in the
last 20 years. Instead, it's spending the week being mocked"
a***@yahoo.com
2009-03-17 22:31:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 17, 4:22 pm, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine.  I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me.  It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings.  But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
Anyone who lives in the public eye gets death threats, it doesn't matter
who you are or what you're doing.  Politicians get it, movie stars get
it, businessmen get it, it's a fact of being powerful and visible.
Thank you. This has nothing to do with science fiction fans in general
and everything to do with the specific nutjob who sent her the threat.
shawn
2009-03-18 04:32:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:22:18 GMT, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
Anyone who lives in the public eye gets death threats, it doesn't matter
who you are or what you're doing. Politicians get it, movie stars get
it, businessmen get it, it's a fact of being powerful and visible.
Maybe Katee Sackhoff would get it less if she'd stop being in these
stupid piece-of-shit shows like BSG and Bionic Woman.
I would expect she got the death threat before she did "Bionic Woman."
Heck, she may have gotten it before the show even aired.
Post by Brian Henderson
Post by SFTV_troy
Ron Moore got an up close-and-personal taste of the fan outrage.....
MOORE (producer of BSG and Star Trek: DS9): They booed and hissed. It
was icy cold in there. It was obvious no one liked it, and their
questions were tipped with a lot of acid. The gist of it was "This is
nothing like the series - how could you do this???" ..... I said,
"This is the show. You may not like the show, you don't have to watch
the show, but this is the show that we're making." Then they got
*really* mad. People started to stand up and yell. And from the back
Richard Hatch stands-up like Moses and says, "Wait a minute; just
settle down."
Again, Ron Moore ought to be booed and hissed, he's taken what could
have been a decent show and flushed it entirely down the toilet. While
he has every right to do so, he's running the show, the idea that people
shouldn't react negatively is absurd. When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
what do you expect?
Well, I don't know that BSG in any shape/form/fashion was ever
universally hailed as the best show on television, but that doesn't
matter when you look at what he was describing. He took the name of an
existing show and basically scrapped many of the ideas that went into
the original BSG to come up with his version. Of course people are
going to be upset and complain when they see he did something totally
different from what they were expecting. If he had named the
StarFracker's or anything but BSG people wouldn't have had an issue.
They would have judged the preview on it's own merit, but he choose to
use an existing concept.

Why he's surprised people didn't like the idea of changing the concept
surprises the heck out of me unless he's one of the those Sci Fi fans
that is still living in his mom's basement and never sees the light of
day and never ever talks to normal people. Anyone that wasn't in that
situation would know people are not going to be happy with him making
a different show from the original "Battlestar Galactica."
Post by Brian Henderson
No one OUGHT to get death threats, certainly no one ought to be harmed
in any way by anyone, but this is just a bunch of clueless people who
don't comprehend reality. It's like Brannon and Bragha not realizing
why people hate what they did to Enterprise... or pretty much every
project they've ever worked on.
Certainly no one should get death threats but there's a plethora of
people on the Internet that go overboard and say a lot of stuff but
will never actually follow through on their words. Unfortunately
there's always one or two individuals out there every few years that
is really unhinged and will end up going after someone famous. That
happens to people that have nothing to do with science fiction as well
as those in this genre.
p***@aol.com
2009-03-18 16:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:22:18 GMT, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine.  I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me.  It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings.  But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
Anyone who lives in the public eye gets death threats, it doesn't matter
who you are or what you're doing.  Politicians get it, movie stars get
it, businessmen get it, it's a fact of being powerful and visible.
Maybe Katee Sackhoff would get it less if she'd stop being in these
stupid piece-of-shit shows like BSG and Bionic Woman.
I would expect she got the death threat before she did "Bionic Woman."
Heck, she may have gotten it before the show even aired.
Post by Brian Henderson
Ron Moore got an up close-and-personal taste of the fan outrage.....
MOORE (producer of BSG and Star Trek: DS9): They booed and hissed.  It
was icy cold in there.  It was obvious no one liked it, and their
questions were tipped with a lot of acid.  The gist of it was "This is
nothing like the series - how could you do this???"  ..... I said,
"This is the show.  You may not like the show, you don't have to watch
the show, but this is the show that we're making."  Then they got
*really* mad.  People started to stand up and yell.  And from the back
Richard Hatch stands-up like Moses and says, "Wait a minute; just
settle down."
Again, Ron Moore ought to be booed and hissed, he's taken what could
have been a decent show and flushed it entirely down the toilet.  While
he has every right to do so, he's running the show, the idea that people
shouldn't react negatively is absurd.  When you take a project that was
once universally hailed as the best show on television and run it into
the ground, especially when you have the attitude that he has above,
what do you expect?
Well, I don't know that BSG in any shape/form/fashion was ever
universally hailed as the best show on television, but that doesn't
matter when you look at what he was describing. He took the name of an
existing show and basically scrapped many of the ideas that went into
the original BSG to come up with his version. Of course people are
going to be upset and complain when they see he did something totally
different from what they were expecting. If he had named the
StarFracker's or anything but BSG people wouldn't have had an issue.
They would have judged the preview on it's own merit, but he choose to
use an existing concept.
If you look at DS9 as a preview of the sort of story Moore wanted to
tell, it makes perfect sense for him to have become involved with the
BSG concept (note: the BSG concept. Not BSG the "Oh no, our world's
been destroyed. Let's find another one, but don't worry - we're all
implausibly happy and not in any kind of hurry, so in the meantime
we'll just play Star Trek" series). BSG shows Moore reusing a lot of
the elements he was largely prevented from using in Star Trek - the
political stories he ended up sidelining, the religious angle he ended
up forcing into a clumsy good vs. evil finish, the use of a large
recurring cast. All things you would expect in a drama based on the
premise that a small group of people stuck aboard a few spacecraft
were trying to rebuild society while on a religious quest.
Post by shawn
Why he's surprised people didn't like the idea of changing the concept
surprises the heck out of me unless he's one of the those Sci Fi fans
that is still living in his mom's basement and never sees the light of
day and never ever talks to normal people.
Or alternatively someone who talks to normal people but not to sci-fi
fans... The average 'normal person' doesn't get hung up on faithful
translations of bad television shows, or nitpick minutiae. He may also
be surprised that the original BSG had any fans; after all, it did so
poorly it was cancelled twice. What's more, for its first two and a
half years BSG followed the original series' premise more faithfully
than the original series - it was all about what happens to a society
after it is virtually destroyed. Not to mention playing the religious
motif so heavily. And it was all the better for that and for hardly
mentioning the word "Earth", until for no very good reason he came up
with some mystery show gibberish about "The Final Five", screwed up
his plot and tied his story in knots.

Phil
OM
2009-03-18 19:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
If you look at DS9 as a preview of the sort of story Moore wanted to
tell, it makes perfect sense for him to have become involved with the
BSG concept (note: the BSG concept.
...Of late, I've noted that those who aren't fans of BSG fall in to
three categories;

1) Those who loved BGOS, built up an expectation at the Desanto
relaunch, and felt raped/maimed/pillaged/burned by the RDM reimaging,
especially with Starbuck now being a girl. I wll admit being one of
these until about halfway through the first season, when after
watching all the episodes to that date in one sitting, I actually came
to appreciate the show.

2) Those who are simply fuckwit trolls who could care less whether
either BSG series is a success or flop, so long as they can jerk the
chains of those who like either series as it's the only way they can
masturbate as sex in any normal form just doesn't work for them. I
think we know who these catamitic misanthropes are, as most of them
are in the killfiles of those who are wise.

3) Those who liked the show until the last half of this season, who
felt that there should have been far more slam-bang action than the
excessively rushed attempts to add character depth and backstory that
should have been added at least two seasons prior. Right now, that
appears to make up a large portion of the sane regulars on this group.

...And yes, I'm still trying to figure where Brad and his inane
theories fit in this scheme :-P

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
shawn
2009-03-18 23:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
Post by p***@aol.com
If you look at DS9 as a preview of the sort of story Moore wanted to
tell, it makes perfect sense for him to have become involved with the
BSG concept (note: the BSG concept.
...Of late, I've noted that those who aren't fans of BSG fall in to
three categories;
1) Those who loved BGOS, built up an expectation at the Desanto
relaunch, and felt raped/maimed/pillaged/burned by the RDM reimaging,
especially with Starbuck now being a girl. I wll admit being one of
these until about halfway through the first season, when after
watching all the episodes to that date in one sitting, I actually came
to appreciate the show.
I liked the old show for what it was and didn't care for the concept
of the remake. Not so much because of what RDM was doing but that most
remakes are poor quality compared to the original. It's rare when a
remake can stand alone on its own sake, which I think applies to the
new BSG. RDM did a decent job overall with the show, but it was
impossible to know if the show would be any good until we saw the
first episode.
Post by OM
2) Those who are simply fuckwit trolls who could care less whether
either BSG series is a success or flop, so long as they can jerk the
chains of those who like either series as it's the only way they can
masturbate as sex in any normal form just doesn't work for them. I
think we know who these catamitic misanthropes are, as most of them
are in the killfiles of those who are wise.
3) Those who liked the show until the last half of this season, who
felt that there should have been far more slam-bang action than the
excessively rushed attempts to add character depth and backstory that
should have been added at least two seasons prior. Right now, that
appears to make up a large portion of the sane regulars on this group.
Well, I'm not sure there should have been more slam-bang action in the
past episode but it does feel like they've done a poor job in this
past half season. Part of it is adding in character development that
should have been spread out over the course of the show (as you state
above) but there's also the issue of adding in some plot lines that
seem to be nothing more than filler. That's a poor use of time and I
don't know if we can blame Ms Espenson (sp?) or if RDM is at fault,
but I would expect the final episodes to be constantly pulling me into
the story (which can be done through action or character development.)
They fell down on the job.
Ian B
2009-03-18 22:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by OM
Post by p***@aol.com
If you look at DS9 as a preview of the sort of story Moore wanted to
tell, it makes perfect sense for him to have become involved with
the BSG concept (note: the BSG concept.
...Of late, I've noted that those who aren't fans of BSG fall in to
three categories;
1) Those who loved BGOS, built up an expectation at the Desanto
relaunch, and felt raped/maimed/pillaged/burned by the RDM reimaging,
especially with Starbuck now being a girl. I wll admit being one of
these until about halfway through the first season, when after
watching all the episodes to that date in one sitting, I actually
came to appreciate the show.
I liked the old show for what it was and didn't care for the concept
of the remake. Not so much because of what RDM was doing but that most
remakes are poor quality compared to the original. It's rare when a
remake can stand alone on its own sake, which I think applies to the
new BSG. RDM did a decent job overall with the show, but it was
impossible to know if the show would be any good until we saw the
first episode.
Post by OM
2) Those who are simply fuckwit trolls who could care less whether
either BSG series is a success or flop, so long as they can jerk the
chains of those who like either series as it's the only way they can
masturbate as sex in any normal form just doesn't work for them. I
think we know who these catamitic misanthropes are, as most of them
are in the killfiles of those who are wise.
3) Those who liked the show until the last half of this season, who
felt that there should have been far more slam-bang action than the
excessively rushed attempts to add character depth and backstory that
should have been added at least two seasons prior. Right now, that
appears to make up a large portion of the sane regulars on this group.
Well, I'm not sure there should have been more slam-bang action in the
past episode but it does feel like they've done a poor job in this
past half season. Part of it is adding in character development that
should have been spread out over the course of the show (as you state
above) but there's also the issue of adding in some plot lines that
seem to be nothing more than filler. That's a poor use of time and I
don't know if we can blame Ms Espenson (sp?) or if RDM is at fault,
but I would expect the final episodes to be constantly pulling me into
the story (which can be done through action or character development.)
They fell down on the job.
Yes. It's not a question of "slam bang action", it's just a question of
wanting some kind of engaging story. Characters are there to serve plots.
For instance, Romeo and Juliet has some well written characters, but you
wouldn't watch it if it didn't have the love affair and suicides and shit
like that. There's just some kind of general rule of storytelling, that when
you introduce 2000 year old androids who crossed hundreds of light years on
a mission and founded an entire android race, a domestic squabble isn't the
way forwards.


Ian
Brian Henderson
2009-03-19 00:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
1) Those who loved BGOS, built up an expectation at the Desanto
relaunch, and felt raped/maimed/pillaged/burned by the RDM reimaging,
especially with Starbuck now being a girl. I wll admit being one of
these until about halfway through the first season, when after
watching all the episodes to that date in one sitting, I actually came
to appreciate the show.
I liked BGOS, but I approached NBGC as it's own entity. I didn't care
about Starbuck being a girl. I did care that she was a pain in the ass
bitch. I didn't care that most of the Cylons were now humanoid, I did
care that they were an entirely detestable lot. In fact, the changes
didn't bother me, the rotten characters with no redeeming
characteristics, the bad stories and the ridiculous plotholes so big you
could fly a Cylon basestar through them did.

The mini-series was good, it had a lot of potential. The series... not
so much. By the end of the first season... not at all.
Post by OM
2) Those who are simply fuckwit trolls who could care less whether
either BSG series is a success or flop, so long as they can jerk the
chains of those who like either series as it's the only way they can
masturbate as sex in any normal form just doesn't work for them. I
think we know who these catamitic misanthropes are, as most of them
are in the killfiles of those who are wise.
It shouldn't matter whether it's a success or a failure, only whether
they enjoy it and can satisfactorily explain why or why not. It doesn't
mean anyone has to agree with them, only that they have reasons that
they can articulate and rationally debate the issue.
Post by OM
3) Those who liked the show until the last half of this season, who
felt that there should have been far more slam-bang action than the
excessively rushed attempts to add character depth and backstory that
should have been added at least two seasons prior. Right now, that
appears to make up a large portion of the sane regulars on this group.
The show jumped the shark with New Caprica. And the religious zealot
Cylons. And... well, lots of things at about the same time. None of
that changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of characters in
the show are insufferable pricks without a single redeeming characterisic.

Why watch a show about a bunch of assholes, especially when we're
supposed to care if they survive or not?
OM
2009-03-19 00:40:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:02:32 GMT, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
The show jumped the shark with New Caprica. And the religious zealot
Cylons. And... well, lots of things at about the same time. None of
that changes the fact that the overwhelming majority of characters in
the show are insufferable pricks without a single redeeming characterisic.
...In order:

1) Actually, I think it really began to jump the shark - or, at least
hatched Jonathan Winters fully grown from an egg - when they decided
to go with the Final Five. They honestly could have skipped over all
of that, had 12 models all standard fleshbots, and had the mysticism
be the one "true" Cylon God. I suspect we'd have gotten that had Dirk
Benedict not been such a total prick and agreed to play the
cigar-smoking Cylon God after all.

2) Not all of them are without redeeming characteristics. Helo even
when he mercy killed the fleshbots in the brig, has always been a
remarkable character that by all odds should have never made it out of
the pilot alive. And Doctor Sherman "T." Cottle(*) is just too damn
ornery to not be a character beyond reproach!

(*) After the revelation that his first name was "Sherman", I now have
this vision in my head of Harry Morgan playing Doc Cottle. and scenes
of him riding the last horse in the universe around on the flight deck
despite the complaints of the deck crew about the horse apples being
left behind :-P

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Brian Henderson
2009-03-19 18:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
1) Actually, I think it really began to jump the shark - or, at least
hatched Jonathan Winters fully grown from an egg - when they decided
to go with the Final Five. They honestly could have skipped over all
of that, had 12 models all standard fleshbots, and had the mysticism
be the one "true" Cylon God. I suspect we'd have gotten that had Dirk
Benedict not been such a total prick and agreed to play the
cigar-smoking Cylon God after all.
Mork was a Cylon, who knew?

I watched that "Final Frakkin' Special" last night and Ron Moore admits
he made up the Final 5 because he didn't think the trial of Baltar would
be enough for a season finale. Not because it was a good idea, not
because it was in his "plan", but because he wanted additional impact.
Yeah, that's a good idea.
Post by OM
2) Not all of them are without redeeming characteristics. Helo even
when he mercy killed the fleshbots in the brig, has always been a
remarkable character that by all odds should have never made it out of
the pilot alive. And Doctor Sherman "T." Cottle(*) is just too damn
ornery to not be a character beyond reproach!
Unfortunately, you're not talking about the main characters. Helo...
eh, still never liked him and hey, he's a Cylon so what difference does
it make? Cottle? He's a secondary or tertiary character at best,
doesn't even show up very often. Even if he was a good character, which
I still don't think he is, that's not enough to keep me tuning in week
after week.
Post by OM
(*) After the revelation that his first name was "Sherman", I now have
this vision in my head of Harry Morgan playing Doc Cottle. and scenes
of him riding the last horse in the universe around on the flight deck
despite the complaints of the deck crew about the horse apples being
left behind :-P
Cottle ought to have had an assistant named Radar. :)
catpandaddy
2009-03-19 19:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Unfortunately, you're not talking about the main characters. Helo... eh,
still never liked him and hey, he's a Cylon so what difference does it
make?
Helo's a cylon? Since when?
Brian Henderson
2009-03-19 22:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by catpandaddy
Post by Brian Henderson
Unfortunately, you're not talking about the main characters. Helo...
eh, still never liked him and hey, he's a Cylon so what difference
does it make?
Helo's a cylon? Since when?
Gah, I was thinking of Anders, sorry. Shows me to respond when I'm in
the middle of a dozen things.
OM
2009-03-18 19:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@aol.com
The average 'normal person' doesn't get hung up on faithful
translations of bad television shows
...The average "normal person" is an inbred with no college education,
is stuck in a blue-collar job, watches NASCAR while he sits around in
his underwear and wife-beater, both stained with beer and cheese dip,
and scratches his privates while his significant whatever bitches
about him not being like "other men" when she/it happen to exemplify
those characteristics herself.

And sadly, that's the average demographic that most networks want as
their primary viewing audience.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Joseph D. Korman
2009-03-18 20:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
Post by p***@aol.com
The average 'normal person' doesn't get hung up on faithful
translations of bad television shows
...The average "normal person" is an inbred with no college education,
is stuck in a blue-collar job, watches NASCAR while he sits around in
his underwear and wife-beater, both stained with beer and cheese dip,
and scratches his privates while his significant whatever bitches
about him not being like "other men" when she/it happen to exemplify
those characteristics herself.
And sadly, that's the average demographic that most networks want as
their primary viewing audience.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
You should watch the movie *Idiocracy* It's what you said taken 500
years into the future, when no one knows how or why anything works.

It was a funny/dumb movie.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:***@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
shawn
2009-03-19 00:24:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:26:19 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
Post by Joseph D. Korman
Post by OM
Post by p***@aol.com
The average 'normal person' doesn't get hung up on faithful
translations of bad television shows
...The average "normal person" is an inbred with no college education,
is stuck in a blue-collar job, watches NASCAR while he sits around in
his underwear and wife-beater, both stained with beer and cheese dip,
and scratches his privates while his significant whatever bitches
about him not being like "other men" when she/it happen to exemplify
those characteristics herself.
And sadly, that's the average demographic that most networks want as
their primary viewing audience.
You should watch the movie *Idiocracy* It's what you said taken 500
years into the future, when no one knows how or why anything works.
It was a funny/dumb movie.
I liked the book so I would probably hate the movie.
Obveeus
2009-03-19 03:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:26:19 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
Post by Joseph D. Korman
You should watch the movie *Idiocracy* It's what you said taken 500
years into the future, when no one knows how or why anything works.
It was a funny/dumb movie.
I liked the book so I would probably hate the movie.
I think you will like the movie as well. Definitely give it a shot.
Exhibitionist
2009-03-19 21:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by OM
...The average "normal person" is an inbred with no college education,
is stuck in a blue-collar job, watches NASCAR while he sits around in
his underwear and wife-beater, both stained with beer and cheese dip,
and scratches his privates while his significant whatever bitches
about him not being like "other men" when she/it happen to exemplify
those characteristics herself.
And sadly, that's the average demographic that most networks want as
their primary viewing audience.
Ladies and Gentleman, I present the NortheasternTroglogyte.
Notice his pale skin from sitting in Mama's basement all day. Notice
the zits from living on Skittles and Hot Pockets. Notice the total
lack of muscle tone and greasy, unkempt, uncut hair.
See the false sense of smugness becaus he went to junior college for 2
semesters and got a job at Kinkos, where he "worked with computers."
No doublt he believes that the "presteige" universities in the area
have rubbed off on him, making him better than persons from other
parts of the country.
His dress consists of casual sneaker knockoffs from Walmart (even
though he hates Walmart and would never admit to shopping there), the
occasional set of Dockers if he wants to look dressy, but usually a
set of jeans and a "Phish" t-shirt.
All in all, a pathetic creature, deluded with his own sense of
self-worth, and the kind of thing most sane societies would kick to
the curb and force to get a job or beg for handouts.
2 cents to view, 1 cent on weekdays.
pv+ (PV)
2009-03-19 22:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Exhibitionist
Ladies and Gentleman, I present the NortheasternTroglogyte.
Damn, that's funny. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Enzo Matrix
2009-03-18 05:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Henderson
When you take a
project that was once universally hailed as the best show on
television
They were very uncritical times that we lived in.
--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
trag
2009-03-18 14:41:53 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 17, 3:22 pm, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
Again, Ron Moore ought to be booed and hissed, he's taken what could
have been a decent show and flushed it entirely down the toilet.
Courtesy and decency are reason enough not to boo and hiss. On the
other hand, the circumstances matter and I have not been to one of
these conventional-based show previews. Is the audience expected to
publicly demonstrate their opinion en mass?
catpandaddy
2009-03-18 14:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by trag
On Mar 17, 3:22 pm, Brian Henderson
Post by Brian Henderson
Again, Ron Moore ought to be booed and hissed, he's taken what could
have been a decent show and flushed it entirely down the toilet.
Courtesy and decency are reason enough not to boo and hiss. On the
other hand, the circumstances matter and I have not been to one of
these conventional-based show previews. Is the audience expected to
publicly demonstrate their opinion en mass?
Yes.
Mason Barge
2009-03-17 23:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me.
Aw crap. I hope <an unnamed person who posts here> doesn't go to jail.
Sofa - Spud
2009-03-17 23:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
Ron Moore got an up close-and-personal taste of the fan outrage.....
MOORE (producer of BSG and Star Trek: DS9): They booed and hissed. It
was icy cold in there. It was obvious no one liked it, and their
questions were tipped with a lot of acid. The gist of it was "This is
nothing like the series - how could you do this???" ..... I said,
"This is the show. You may not like the show, you don't have to watch
the show, but this is the show that we're making." Then they got
*really* mad. People started to stand up and yell. And from the back
Richard Hatch stands-up like Moses and says, "Wait a minute; just
settle down."
RICHARD HATCH ("Tom Zarek" and "Apollo"): Whether we agree or
disagree, why don't we give this talented man an opportunity to
present what he has to say. I have a great deal of respect for anyone
standing-up to that hostile audience.
This story is about 2 yrs old isn't it?
Mike Hall
2009-03-18 14:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sofa - Spud
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
Ron Moore got an up close-and-personal taste of the fan outrage.....
MOORE (producer of BSG and Star Trek: DS9): They booed and hissed. It
was icy cold in there. It was obvious no one liked it, and their
questions were tipped with a lot of acid. The gist of it was "This is
nothing like the series - how could you do this???" ..... I said,
"This is the show. You may not like the show, you don't have to watch
the show, but this is the show that we're making." Then they got
*really* mad. People started to stand up and yell. And from the back
Richard Hatch stands-up like Moses and says, "Wait a minute; just
settle down."
RICHARD HATCH ("Tom Zarek" and "Apollo"): Whether we agree or
disagree, why don't we give this talented man an opportunity to
present what he has to say. I have a great deal of respect for anyone
standing-up to that hostile audience.
This story is about 2 yrs old isn't it?
Nah. This is referring to the new Caprica miniseries. Anyway has anyone
not had death threats? I know I have and I have never been on any
incarnation of Battlestar Galactica!


Mike Hall
Dropping The Helicopter
2009-03-17 23:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
Katie, are you sure you don't have those numbers reversed?
Mason Barge
2009-03-18 12:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dropping The Helicopter
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
Katie, are you sure you don't have those numbers reversed?
She's talking about the general audience, not r.a.t.
Hunter
2009-03-18 16:01:21 UTC
Permalink
In article <3b79fb7f-683a-4daa-adb6-
***@a39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me. It mad
me terrified of science fiction fans, which was unfair because 98% of
them are fantastic human beings. But there's 2% of them that scare
the living shit out of ya.
Ron Moore got an up close-and-personal taste of the fan outrage.....
MOORE (producer of BSG and Star Trek: DS9): They booed and hissed. It
was icy cold in there. It was obvious no one liked it, and their
questions were tipped with a lot of acid. The gist of it was "This is
nothing like the series - how could you do this???" ..... I said,
"This is the show. You may not like the show, you don't have to watch
the show, but this is the show that we're making." Then they got
*really* mad. People started to stand up and yell. And from the back
Richard Hatch stands-up like Moses and says, "Wait a minute; just
settle down."
RICHARD HATCH ("Tom Zarek" and "Apollo"): Whether we agree or
disagree, why don't we give this talented man an opportunity to
present what he has to say. I have a great deal of respect for anyone
standing-up to that hostile audience.
----
Some of them probably post here LOL! Some people just can't put
things in prospective. I don't much like what I see of the new "Star
Trek" movie (mostly because I will find it hard to reconcile the
original series and the re imagined NCC-1701 but I am not writing
death threats and at conventions while I can see myself asking hard
questions, I would never act like a foaming at the mouth dog and
attack producers personally. If one doesn't like what is being
produce, then don't watch or by a movie ticket. As for BSG RDM has
done a fine job. The proof is in the puddling over how so many are
missing this show already and wanting more.

Indeed, RDM recently in his latest podcast spoke about the tenor or
the show. He said that he always said that BSG was a drama first and
s Sci-Fi series. I will transcribe it here soon complete with link.
--
----->Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
G Bell
2009-03-18 16:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by SFTV_troy
I just read this interview in Entertainment Weekly magazine. I'm
beginning to understand why NBC wants to move the Sci-Fi Channel
*away* from sci-fi fanatics by renaming it.
Out of three hundred suggestions they chose "SyFy," I want to smoke what
they were when they chose that. Usual ignorant "As others see us" piece
of piss reporting.

Look up ansible.co.uk for many more chucklesome examples of journalistic
generalisations.

Graham
OM
2009-03-18 19:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by G Bell
Out of three hundred suggestions they chose "SyFy," I want to smoke what
they were when they chose that. Usual ignorant "As others see us" piece
of piss reporting.
...More than likely there weren't any "three hundred" suggestions.
There was just Bonnie the Bimbo and whoever's her pet stud toy making
the decision.

Ah, but what the frack? After Friday, there won't be a reason to watch
the damn channel anymore, so why fret over it?

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Abo
2009-03-18 20:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by SFTV_troy
SACKHOFF ("Starbuck"): ...I got a death threat mailed to me.
Ooh, death threats from nerds...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...