Before I proceed with my long-promised review of the new Battlestar Galactica remake series, there’s something I want to get off my chest: I am really sick and tired of the way every article I read about the new show starts out by trashing the original series. What is it about American culture that we can’t complement one thing without denigrating something else? It’s almost like one of Newton’s laws — for every positive word spoken there must be an equal and opposite insult.
TV Guide is especially guilty of this kind of needless hostility. For example, in next week’s issue, critic Matt Roush begins his comments about the new show’s season ender by saying, “If anyone had predicted a year ago that I’d be hooked on a new version of Battlestar Galactica — that cheesily juvenile and insipid ‘Star Wars’ wannabe from the late ’70s — I’d have laughed.”
That sort of remark is all too common in the press on Neo-G, and it really pisses me off.
For one thing, the original Battlestar (Paleo-G?) was not a Star Wars rip-off, despite what most people seem to think. Yes, there are some superficial similarities between the two, but they really don’t mean much in my book. Consider two very important facts. First, Galactica was in the development stage well before Star Wars hit the movie theaters. It’s just a coincidence that two big space-opera projects were in the works at about the same time. (A new Star Trek series was under development then as well, but nobody accuses that project — which eventually morphed into Star Trek: The Motion Picture — of being a rip-off. For whatever reason, pop culture in the mid-70s was just naturally drifting toward adventures set in space.)
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, George Lucas and 20th Century Fox lost a lawsuit against Glen Larson and Universal because they couldn’t legally prove their accusations of plagiarism. Fox’s attorneys had compiled a long list of plot and visual elements that were supposedly unique to Star Wars and which Larson had supposedly copied from Galactica‘s big-screen rival. The judge in the case was unimpressed, rightfully noting that most of the cited elements did not correspond as closely as the attorneys claimed they did. If the court determined that Paleo-G was not a rip-off of SW, then that’s good enough for me.
(Incidentally, there’s an amusing footnote to that story: Universal, which produced Galactica, countersued Fox, claiming that Lucas had stolen his cute little Star Wars robot, R2-D2, from the cute little robots in Universal’s Silent Running. That was an even more ridiculous notion than Fox’s claims — SR’s Huey, Dewey and Louie look nothing like Artoo, for one thing — and I’m not sure the suit even made it into court. However, in an interesting coincidence, it turns out that Galactica‘s special-effects wizard, John Dykstra, did reuse footage he’d shot for Silent Running on Paleo-G, specifically the domed “agro-ships” that are seen in several episodes. And if that isn’t incestuous enough for you, it also turns out that Dykstra worked on Star Wars, which to my mind is all the explanation you need for the visual similarities between the two. I don’t think it was a case of copying his earlier work so much as just building on prior experience.)
In any event, it’s not as if Star Wars is such an original piece of work either. The plot is basically lifted from Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress with a few Western motifs and some World War II aerial dogfighting thrown in, while the film’s most memorable location — the desert planet Tatooine — bears a striking resemblance to Frank Herbert’s Arrakis, a.k.a. Dune. That’s why I tend to dismiss accusations of artists ripping off one another. Everything is synthesized from something else, so there’s little point to these pissing contests over who borrowed what from whom. Especially in this case when it should be obvious to anyone who’s ever watched the damn show that it isn’t about the same things that Star Wars is about, once you get past the spaceships and things that go “boom.”
Now, as to Roush’s other insulting opinions about Paleo-G, there’s not much I can say about the charge that the show was juvenile. It was, and I freely admit that. But it was juvenile by design. As I explained in my first entry on this subject, the network suits wanted it that way, because the show was running in primetime on Sunday evenings and because in their tiny little reptillian brains, “science fiction” meant “kid-stuff.” It’s hardly to fair to slam a twenty-five-year-old for being exactly what it was intended to be.
When it comes to calling Galactica “cheesy” and “insipid,” I say it was no better or worse in that regard than any of its contemporaries. Just about every popular television show of the late ’70s and early ’80s can be called cheesy and insipid (although I personally wouldn’t, because I happen to like stuff from that era; yeah, it was generally pretty silly, but it was also generally a lot more entertaining than the programming we have now). I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: context is key, people. Back in college, I hated the way certain professors insisted that historical context meant nothing when considering a novel, and I hate the way so many modern TV and film viewers do the same when they bash an older show.
But even if the original Galactica is every bit as bad as modern viewers seem to find it, I don’t see why it’s necessary to constantly harp on that point. Yeah, Roush, we get it: you like the new show more than the old. So why don’t you just focus on the new, then, and leave the old one out of it, because believe it or not, there are still people out there who like the ’70s version. It’s not like we’re a reluctant majority that has to be overcome, either. It’s pretty obvious we old-school fans are irrelevant to the development or success of the new show. Neo-G has already been renewed for a second season and, judging from the buzz on the message boards, just about everybody thinks it’s the televisual equivalent of the Second Coming. So why is it still necessary to begin every article on the new by giving the finger to the original?
Enough, already!
My, aren’t we feeling fiesty today? 🙂
I think it’s got to do with the fact that the original “Galactica” TV show was terrible, terrible, terrible, and the new one just throws that fact into stark relief.
“It was no worse than its contemporaries” is a pitiful defense, and false to boot. “MASH,” “All in the Family” and “Taxi” were all on the air when the old “Battlestar Galactica” show debuted.
It’s also pretty disingenuous to say that “old-school fans are irrelevant to the development or success of the new show.” The fact that you’re irrelevant has nothing to do with the fact that you do or don’t like the old show. It has to do with the fact that you comprise such a microscopically small demographic, that you just don’t add up to a blip on the radar of a three-million-viewers-a-week bona fide hit. It’s totally nothing personal. It’s just a matter of arithmetic.
I know it’s a silly thing to get my blood pressure elevated over, but that TV Guide article really irritated me. You know how I am about the old shows, though — I hate how no one these days respects them for what they are, or what they were.
Quick note: My first comment above was directed to Anne.
As for Jeff, you’ve just illustrated my exact point with your condescending attitude. I think I can speak for all of us old-school fans when I say that we are mighty sick of hearing the oh-so-superior bullshit being dished out by fans of the remake.
Look, I like the new show. I like it a lot. I know it’s a hit, and I’ve already admitted that it’s better than the old one in a lot of ways. But I have a deep affection for the old one, too, in spite of its flaws and sometimes even because of them. I don’t have any trouble giving them both room to breathe in my consciousness, and the point I was trying to make in this entry is that I wish others would do the same. If you like Neo-G and hate the old one, fine. You’ve got your reasons and I’m not going to question them. But since the new one is such a monster hit, which I’m sure you would admit is due to its own merits instead of some kind of nostalgia effect, then why the continual need to even mention the old, let alone trash it? What does slamming the original (and, by extension, its fans) accomplish, except giving the slammer the opportunity to feel smug about something?
What I’m trying to get at here is that the disrespect visited on the ’78 version — by professional writers, no less — is unnecessary to make the case for the ’05 version’s quality. If the ’78 version is destined to be forgotten in favor of this remake, then I wish people would let it go quietly, with a modicum of respect for the inspiration of the show they love and for those of us who still honor the original.
As for the argument about how old Galactica compared to other series of its time, I was thinking of the hour-long dramas and adventure shows from that period. While the sitcoms of the late 70s were sublime, you’ve got to admit that shows like “CHiPs” and “Fantasy Island” weren’t exactly high quality television. And yet, they had their charms, and if you google around a bit I’m sure you’ll find they have their “microscopically small demographics” of fans as well.
“Condescending attitude?” Dude, take a stress pill. Nobody’s getting personal here. Nobody said you can’t like whatever you want. It’s just that, you know, objectively Â…Â the old show was really, really bad. “Oh, the world just came to an end, woe is us — ooh, look! A casino planet!”
You want to like it? Fine. Knock yourself out. But I don’t see the point in getting really defensive when others point out the fact that it was, you know, terrible and stuff.
I’m a writer, and I can tell you that I would certainly not write an article about “Battlestar Galactica” without mentioning the poorly received commercial flop from 25 years ago that gave the show its premise and its name. It’s just context. It’s just Journalism 101, you know? It’s nothing personal.
Well, my apologies if I didn’t receive your comments in the way you intended – it was late when I read them and I wasn’t in the best of moods. And I can’t deny that I do tend to be touchy on this particular subject. I’ve been defending this show for years, knowing full well that people think I’m crazy or stupid for liking something that is, by “objective” estimates, pretty silly. (I used quotation marks there because these things are never really objective, in my opinion. It’s all a matter of taste, which is about as irrational as anything.) As of a couple years ago, the show had acquired sufficient historical distance that it rarely came up in conversation and when it did, most people just smiled and said, “oh yeah, I remember that one.” It had become something I felt like I could enjoy without having to justify my opinion, a harmless exercise in nostalgia.
Now, all the hype over the remake has brought the original back into the public eye in a fairly significant way, and, yes, I do feel like I’m on the defensive. It’s hard not to when people are throwing words like “terrible” at you. I guess it’s kind of like the way I’ve always imagined older siblings are toward their younger ones: it’s one thing for you to mock and tease the little brother and it’s quite another when someone else does it.
I understand the journalistic need to provide context and don’t mind the pros mentioning the old show or even stating that it wasn’t very good. What has gotten to me is the snarky attitude that I’ve been reading in articles by Roush and various others. What I was trying to get at in this post, and which I hope I’m presenting a bit more rationally now, is that I don’t think it’s necessary to be cruel toward the old show or its fans in order to get the word out about the new show.
(Incidentally, it’s a myth that Galactica was a commercial flop; it actually did fairly well in the ratings, just not up to ABC’s overinflated expectations.)
I’m mostly with you on this one, Jason, especially what you said above. Of course, I have fallen head-over-heels for the new show, but I found once I had seen all of season 1, I was hungry for more Battlestar and started watching the original episodes again. I have come to discover through my journey with the rag-tag fugitive fleet that I had a pretty good recollection of the bad episodes and could barely remember the good ones. I must admit there were some pretty craptacular episodes in there, but like you, the nostalgia still made me smile. Obviously, not everyone looks at the show the same way we do. Then I watched “The Living Legend.” I don’t think I saw this one when it originally aired, because I think I’d remember it. I couldn’t believe how tight that episode was.
The original show may have been poorly received, but I think the important thing is that is was not poorly conceived. Although on the surface the new show appears to have little to do with the original in feel, I find that as I watch the new series that they really have taken a lot more from the original show than just the premise and the name.
I think what it comes down to is that the creators of the new show obviously liked and have a respect for the original. If they thought like the author of the TV Guide article and apparently like many others that the original show was just a crap-fest, the new series would not be as good as it is.
Thanks, Dave —
I’ve been reflecting on this all day, and I think what makes me crazy is exactly what you pointed out: the original couldn’t have been ALL bad or else no one would remember it at all, let alone want to do a remake of it. (I don’t hear any discussion of remaking “The Starlost” or “Salvage One,” for example.)
But the hip-and-ironic set who get paid to render opinions that are no more valid than yours or mine (and, in fact, are probably less valid given their obvious lack of knowledge when it comes to these cult shows) are incapable or unwilling to give the original so much credit. They just dismiss the original with a blanket statement of “it sucked.” And that annoys the hell out of me, because not every episode sucked, and even the lousy episodes usually had something to commend them. OK, maybe not “Fire in Space.” But in general…
Not to beat a dead horse, Jason, and certainly not to be argumentative, but the old “Battlestar Galactica” was, in fact, a commercial failure. See, TV networks sell advertising based on their estimates of how many viewers will tune in to a given hour. (You may know all this already. It’s hardly a secret.) If the network estimates, based on their knowledge of their audience and the show they’re selling, that X people will tune in, and the actual number of people who tune in is Y, where Y is significantly lower than X, then the network isn’t going to be able to sell advertising at the rate they need to in order to turn a profit. No profit, no show. Commercial failure.
As for the credit-where-it’s-due thing, I don’t think anybody has argued that the old “Battlestar Galactica” didn’t have a solid and compelling premise. What it lacked were believable characters, interesting stories and good writing. Which is what made it a perfect candidate for a do-over. Good premise, dismal execution.
If anything, though, the fact that the premise was good just made the old show worse. It’s one thing when somebody produces something — an album, a TV show, a book — that’s just crap through and through. It’s easy to dismiss something like that as being unworthy of a moment’s attention. But when something has the potential to be great and that potential goes unrealized, that’s just tragic. It’s the “so close, and yet so very far” effect, you know?
I am fully aware of how networks pay for their programming, thank you. If I cared to argue the ratings issue and the reasons for Galactica’s cancellation, I could find the sources upon which I based my assertion. But that’s a pissing contest that’s not worth pursuing.
Look, Jeff, I’m not disagreeing with your point that the original show could’ve and should’ve been much more than it was. I’ve said as much myself (see my entry called Neo-Galactica, Part 1). And I also agree that the remake greatly improves on the original in most respects (something I’ve already conceded and which I’m planning to further examine in my next entry). But that doesn’t change the fact that I and others continue to value the old show. It means something to me, for personal and subjective reasons that I probably couldn’t explain and you probably couldn’t (or would refuse to) understand. And that’s why I get hot under the collar when people use words like “terrible” or “insipid” to describe it. Because it’s one thing to say that old Galactica failed to live up to its potential. It’s quite another to use language that implicitly insults fans of the show for liking it.
I stand by the opinion that started all this, that the professional media are being unnecessarily bitchy about the old show in their coverage of the new. There’s no good reason for it at this stage of Neo-G’s development, and it’s hurtful to an admittedly small but still significant number of people. It’s especially troublesome to those old-school fans like me, who are quite happy to accept both versions but feel like we’re not quite welcome at the fancy new table because we refuse to follow the crowd and condemn the source of this whole damn topic.
“Because it’s one thing to say that old Galactica failed to live up to its potential. It’s quite another to use language that implicitly insults fans of the show for liking it.”
Weird. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody take anything so personally before.
You must not spend much time on science-fiction message boards, then. I’m being downright rational compared to some of what I’ve seen out there.
All right, I’m going to have to step in and offer the bucket for pissing in….
Both of you, Jas and Jeff have valid points. Let’s just agree to disagree will ya?
Jason’s point is well taken but with a sprinkle of Pixie Dust. I think its a bit of the “I don’t wanna grow up” syndrome seeping the emotion into his posts. Valid and much the same here. We have fond memories of sitting in front of a television set with only 5 channels, pre commercialized re-runs and no electronic highway to bring unity to a series fanbase. Only TV Guide, Starlog and if you were really lucky, an announcement in your local paper that your favorite series stars were making an appearance at the local mall which obviously were mostly guest stars and extras from what I remember. 🙂 – My point is this. It’s a glamorous, sugar-coated, hyper-reality that every child’s memories consist of. Even CHiPS and Fantasy Island were cool when I was young. Television was the reward for a long day at school or the babysitter when sick. It kept us busy when we sat inside when it was too wet or cold to play outside. It was like a sibling.
I’m 32 years old and still have fond memories of many of the shows I grew up with. I’ve truly hesitated in buying any of the old series for fear that the memories of long ago would be superceded by an adult mind (well..almost adult..)
I plunked down $30 to buy the first season of MacGyver, my all-time favorite series and one in which helped peak my interest in science. I still have the Swiss Army knife that I recieved as a Christmas present during my early teen years. I kept it with me at all times. You never know when a twelve year-old may need to rescue a hostage or disable a bomb (actually that seems a bit more real today than it did then 🙂 )
I’ve since watched each episode and frankly, the writing sucks the acting sucks but for the 45 min of each viewing, I felt a little bit of what I remember watching it as a youngster. Do I see myself watching these over and over again like I did with my VHS recordings 20 years ago. Probably not. In fact they’ll probably sit on the shelf and collect dust.
I think nostalgia is healthy in measured doses, but sometimes it’s like attending the viewing of a relative, loved one or friend. You always wish you hadn’t in a way because saying goodbye to something that doesn’t look like it did in your memories is always a crappy wake-up call to reality.
As for Jeff’s point. The clock ticks, days and years go by and perception changes. Communication nowadays allows for better and quicker feedback to the networks. Had old Galactica or any of the shows of yesteryear had the internet to further the interest and dedication of the fans, perhaps most would have lasted longer. Perhaps now though, the adults who have grown up with those shows are ready for more adult story telling. Either way, the show is being remade and from what I’ve seen, isn’t necessarily better than the original series, just a different point of view in telling the story.
At least the premise was good enough to revive it after 20 years. Most of the series back then wouldn’t stand a chance with today’s audiences.
I’ve still got the bucket handy if you’re gonna fill it 🙂
Mike
As for the Sci-Fi message boards. That is a world of its own. Not even fair to bring that into the mix unless you’re willing to accept input from cartoon and comic characters.
Wow, Cheno, I think that’s the longest comment you’ve ever made here. Most impressive. 🙂
I’m growing bored with this sparring match and don’t think I need to justify my opinions or tastes on my own blog any more than I already have — I’m getting very close to the “Darkman” point, actually — but I do want to say that my continuing interest in the original BG isn’t entirely motivated by nostalgia. Memories of childhood are a very big part of my loyalty to the show, but I really do continue to enjoy those old stories for what they are: pure, unironic, escapist entertainment. I sometimes get really tired of the self-consciously edgy fare that’s popular these days, and find it refreshing to watch something unsophisticated and low-tech.
Sorry to hear that MacGyver hasn’t aged well for you, but that’s not been my experience with Galactica. It’s pretty much exactly what I remember it being, and that’s fine by me.
In any event, I don’t think Jeff and I have been arguing about the show’s quality (or lack thereof). We’re arguing over semantics and subjective opinions that are inherently disprovable. Much ado about nothing, really.
As for the message boards, I just wanted to offer some perspective for my emotional responses. You want to talk defensive? Just hang out on the Trek BBS for any length of time. You’ll see opinions over there that make me look downright dispassionate.