Moderator: NecronLord
Yo.By the way, who else is neutral in this battle between the oBSG fans and nBSG fans? People who enjoyed both shows and not bash the other?
I suspect things would've been different for me if I had been around for when the original series began, but I'm simply too young to like oBSG.Bounty wrote:
Yo.
I don't see them as the same series. They're two different interpretations of the same idea, just like there are hundreds of reimaginings of Shakespeare's plays. I can watch oBSG and not be reminded of nBSG just as easily as the other way around.
Do I sound that oldVympel wrote:I suspect things would've been different for me if I had been around for when the original series began, but I'm simply too young to like oBSG.Bounty wrote:
Yo.
I don't see them as the same series. They're two different interpretations of the same idea, just like there are hundreds of reimaginings of Shakespeare's plays. I can watch oBSG and not be reminded of nBSG just as easily as the other way around.
Ok, here's a mental exercise for you:Vympel wrote:I suspect things would've been different for me if I had been around for when the original series began, but I'm simply too young to like oBSG.
I get your point- as far as you're concerned, oBSG was space opera- and nBSG explicitly rejects Space Opera. RDM's essay on the topic:Ok, here's a mental exercise for you:
George Lucas goes (even more) batshit insane and turns the Star Wars reins over to Ron Moore. Moore takes stock of Star Wars, decides many elements are too silly, and aren't real and gritty enough, and have FAR too few post-911 and Iraqi War references.
Out goes turbloasers - in comes bullets and missiles. Out goes lightsabers - in comes steel swords. Gotta keep it REAL...turbolasers and lightsabers are so scifi...
Han Solo is female, but retains all the qualities of the old male Han Solo - except she's mad and depressed about the Empire taking over the galaxy.
Moore eliminates all the "silly" stuff from Star Wars, like Chewbacca, droids, and Luke's father being Darth Vader. Stormtroopers look more like Sam Fisher from "Splinter Cell" now.
The camera work looks like someone punched the cameraman in the balls, even during the dialogue scenes.
Would you watch this version of Star Wars?
Of course, nBSG doesn't adhere to the above "manifesto" strictly- if it did there'd be no FTL.Battlestar Galactica: Naturalistic Science Fiction or Taking the Opera out of Space Opera
Our goal is nothing less than the reinvention of the science fiction television series. We take as a given the idea that the traditional space opera, with its stock characters, techno-double-talk, bumpy-headed aliens, thespian histrionics, and empty heroics has run its course and a new approach is required. That approach is to introduce realism into what has heretofore been an aggressively unrealistic genre.
Call it "Naturalistic Science Fiction."
This idea, the presentation of a fantastical situation in naturalistic terms, will permeate every aspect of our series:
Visual. The first thing that will leap out at viewers is the dynamic use of the documentary or cinema verite style. Through the extensive use of hand-held cameras, practical lighting, and functional set design, the battlestar Galactica will feel on every level like a real place.
This shift in tone and look cannot be overemphasized. It is our intention to deliver a show that does not look like any other science fiction series ever produced. A casual viewer should for a moment feel like he or she has accidentally surfed onto a "60 Minutes" documentary piece about life aboard an aircraft carrier until someone starts talking about Cylons and battlestars.
That is not to say we're shooting on videotape under fluorescent lights, but we will be striving for a verisimilitude that is sorely lacking in virtually every other science fiction series ever attempted. We're looking for filmic truth, not manufactured "pretty pictures" or the "way cool" factor.
Perhaps nowhere will this be more surprising than in our visual effects shots. Our ships will be treated like real ships that someone had to go out and film with a real camera. That means no 3-D "hero" shots panning and zooming wildly with the touch of a mousepad. The questions we will ask before every VFX shot are things like: "How did we get this shot? Where is the camera? Who's holding it? Is the cameraman in another spacecraft? Is the camera mounted on the wing?" This philosophy will generate images that will present an audience jaded and bored with the same old "Wow -- it's a CGI shot!" with a different texture and a different cinematic language that will force them to re-evaluate their notions of science fiction.
Another way to challenge the audience visually will be our extensive use of the multi-split screen format. By combining multiple angles during dogfights, for example, we will be able to present an entirely new take on what has become a tired and familiar sequence that has not changed materially since George Lucas established it in the mid 1970s.
Finally, our visual style will also capitalize on the possibilities inherent in the series concept itself to deliver unusual imagery not typically seen in this genre. That is, the inclusion of a variety of civilian ships each of which will have unique properties and visual references that can be in stark contrast to the military life aboard Galactica. For example, we have a vessel in our rag-tag fleet which was designed to be a space-going marketplace or "City Walk" environment. The juxtaposition of this high-gloss, sexy atmosphere against the gritty reality of a story for survival will give us more textures and levels to play than in typical genre fare.
Editorial. Our style will avoid the now clichéd MTV fast-cutting while at the same time foregoing Star Trek's somewhat ponderous and lugubrious "master, two-shot, close-up, close-up, two-shot, back to master" pattern. If there is a model here, it would be vaguely Hitchcockian -- that is, a sense of building suspense and dramatic tension through the use of extending takes and long masters which pull the audience into the reality of the action rather than the distract through the use of ostentatious cutting patterns.
Story. We will eschew the usual stories about parallel universes, time-travel, mind-control, evil twins, God-like powers and all the other clichés of the genre. Our show is first and foremost a drama. It is about people. Real people that the audience can identify with and become engaged in. It is not a show about hardware or bizarre alien cultures. It is a show about us. It is an allegory for our own society, our own people and it should be immediately recognizable to any member of the audience.
Science. Our spaceships don't make noise because there is no noise in space. Sound will be provided from sources inside the ships -- the whine of an engine audible to the pilot for instance. Our fighters are not airplanes and they will not be shackled by the conventions of WWII dogfights. The speed of light is a law and there will be no moving violations.
And finally, Character. This is perhaps, the biggest departure from the science fiction norm. We do not have "the cocky guy" "the fast-talker" "the brain" "the wacky alien sidekick" or any of the other usual characters who populate a space series. Our characters are living, breathing people with all the emotional complexity and contradictions present in quality dramas like "The West Wing" or "The Sopranos." In this way, we hope to challenge our audience in ways that other genre pieces do not. We want the audience to connect with the characters of Galactica as people. Our characters are not super-heroes. They are not an elite. They are everyday people caught up in a enormous cataclysm and trying to survive it as best they can.
They are you and me.
So you are saying I'm older than you??? I am 100% way younger than you, Vympel. And I enjoyed both shows!!! I may only have been twelve, but every time I heard that narration about Egyptians coming from the stars I thought, 'then wtf are those Habilis bones from?'the egyptian background makes you feel like humanity really come from Kobol
I am, somewhat. Although it's not so much that I enjoyed both shows as I don't really give a fuck. I was somewhat leery about making Starbuck a guy when the series started, but considering the writing has been pulled off quite well so far it simply doesn't bother me that much anymore.ray245 wrote:I think the name 'Gina' was aimed towards oBSG fans who called the nBSG 'GINO' Galactica in name only.
By the way, who else is neutral in this battle between the oBSG fans and nBSG fans? People who enjoyed both shows and not bash the other?
Damn straight.This shift in tone and look cannot be overemphasized. It is our intention to deliver a show that does not look like any other science fiction series ever produced. A casual viewer should for a moment feel like he or she has accidentally surfed onto a "60 Minutes" documentary piece about life aboard an aircraft carrier until someone starts talking about Cylons and battlestars.
There's saying it sucks, then there's saying a remake sucks because it's not being original. Which is just fucking retarded.LordShaithis wrote:This totally reminds me of when someone accused me of "trolling every Serenity thread I see" when I had in fact only ever posted in two threads related to the movie, neither of which had anything to do with the quality of the film itself. One was about it's financial woes, which I came into armed with the boxofficemojo numbers, and the other was about fanboys votewhoring it into the top 250 in IMDB.
Chill the fuck out. I've never seen nBSG so I have no idea how awesome or shitty it may be, but as far as I know Poe is allowed to say it sucks and that the fanbase is full of idiots if he wants to, so long as he isn't crashing random threads to post "LOL SUX LOL".
A remake sucks when it shits on the original, yes.General Zod wrote:There's saying it sucks, then there's saying a remake sucks because it's not being original. Which is just fucking retarded.
Obviously, being a tough, independant woman in the military, she has to be a dyke.FSTargetDrone wrote:I've gotta ask, is this thing with Starbuck in the new series coming across as a lesbian to some people supposed to be some sort of insult or slight? Because I for one cannot imagine a single reason why it's at all relevant in any way other than as a description of the character (which is incorrect).
While I did not really wish to enter this miasma of stupid (mostly because I don't care one way or the other about oBSG), the thought occured to me: Do you think Starship Troopers sucked? One might say it completely ripped off the Heinlein classic, yet with the only similarities being the basic premise and most of the names -- much like the difference between the BSGs.Lord Poe wrote:A remake sucks when it shits on the original, yes.
Actally; yes. It was an ok popcorn flick, but when I went to go watch it in the theater, I came out totally depressed because I was expecting a movie based on SST, not a totally different movie with a couple names from the book tossed in.Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:While I did not really wish to enter this miasma of stupid (mostly because I don't care one way or the other about oBSG), the thought occured to me: Do you think Starship Troopers sucked? One might say it completely ripped off the Heinlein classic, yet with the only similarities being the basic premise and most of the names -- much like the difference between the BSGs.Lord Poe wrote:A remake sucks when it shits on the original, yes.
Most of the people who were big fans of the original Heinlein book hated the movie. The people who love the movie tend to be people who don't give a shit about the book. So don't pretend this is somehow different.Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:While I did not really wish to enter this miasma of stupid (mostly because I don't care one way or the other about oBSG), the thought occured to me: Do you think Starship Troopers sucked? One might say it completely ripped off the Heinlein classic, yet with the only similarities being the basic premise and most of the names -- much like the difference between the BSGs.Lord Poe wrote:A remake sucks when it shits on the original, yes.
Look at the reaction from Star Wars fans to "Greedo Shooting First". Nearly everyone who was familiar with ANH before the "Special Editions" hate this scene, and the way it affects Han Solo's character. Fans who grew up just knowing the SEs don't give a rat's ass.Darth Wong wrote:Most of the people who were big fans of the original Heinlein book hated the movie. The people who love the movie tend to be people who don't give a shit about the book. So don't pretend this is somehow different.Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:While I did not really wish to enter this miasma of stupid (mostly because I don't care one way or the other about oBSG), the thought occured to me: Do you think Starship Troopers sucked? One might say it completely ripped off the Heinlein classic, yet with the only similarities being the basic premise and most of the names -- much like the difference between the BSGs.
Shame they're not even close to realising this goal then, hey?MKSheppard wrote:Damn straight.This shift in tone and look cannot be overemphasized. It is our intention to deliver a show that does not look like any other science fiction series ever produced. A casual viewer should for a moment feel like he or she has accidentally surfed onto a "60 Minutes" documentary piece about life aboard an aircraft carrier until someone starts talking about Cylons and battlestars.
I confess I'm not entirely sold on the notion of 'naturalistic' sci-fi. I think both 'grittiness' and 'campiness' are two extremes; there's no reason why a show can't exist in the middle of both and not be successful. Some of the best fiction I've read did this, and some of the worst was too far to either extreme.Stark wrote:Shame they're not even close to realising this goal then, hey?
Well, actually it looks like Space: Above and Beyond redone with 2004+ graphics and a competent composer, but we'll forgive it anywayIt is our intention to deliver a show that does not look like any other science fiction series ever produced.
So would I, but Moore's rhetoric makes it clear that 'naturalistic' is an outright rejection of Space Opera, or taking the opera out of space. And that's completely retarded.Stark wrote:I would have thought 'naturalistic' would have been that middle ground.
No I don't. Like you, I didn't think 'naturalistic' was on one end of the scale but was rather a separate 'style'.Do you consider 'gritty' to be 'naturalistic'? I mean, the sets and direction of nBSG make it 100% obvious it's a scifi show from the getgo.
It's not just nBSG, but Firefly as well - although Firefly much less so. There was a line in the commentary for the pilot episode about how they were getting all the equipment for this show and one of the pieces of equipment procured was special camera lenses that prevented lens flares, but Joss Whedon chucked a hissy fit because it wasn't 'naturalistic' or something.It's a laudable goal - although I'm not sure what it'd do to the drama - but I'm quite glad 60minutes doesn't make documentaries like nBSG.
