Another Remake ruff cut review

Cinema Verte alert

Re: Tom's view of the mini November 17th, 2003 02:54 AM

Cheap Cinema Verte alert:
Originally posted by conundrum7g "The liveaction filmwork looks very "video". It don't have the depth film usually has. Also they overdo te handheld camera look. Its fine in a frenzied fight, but if everyone is standing still, and the camera is the only thing moviing, its like being on a small rocking boat."

That Cinema Verte baloney, I posted this after Mr. X better known as the assassin of Battlestar Galactica, yep Ronald D. Moore did that leak @ filmjerk.com, The Blair Witch-Hunt is nothing but Cinema Verte. Moore said he was doing this instead of Dogfight’s in space. Then he alluded to Einstein’s 'Space has a Speed Limit', as in nothing can go faster than light, whoops then Faster Than Light popped up in his script, ah ha!

Originally posted by conundrum7g "The liveaction filmwork looks very "video". It don't have the depth film usually has. Also they overdo te handheld camera look. Its fine in a frenzied fight, but if everyone is standing still, and the camera is the only thing moviing, its like being on a small rocking boat."


Tom this 'thing' called Battlestar Galactica was done for one reason,"To maintain the franchise"

Here it is in toto: “Well, BATTLESTAR is interesting because it worked well as its original series,†Hammer told CINESCAPE in an exclusive interview. “It didn’t work as well as its second recreation. So what we want to do is a four-hour mini. Basically, give it a new life – maintain the franchise but modernize it and if it works in a mini, then we’ll develop it into a series. If in fact the audience says, ‘Been there, done that’ then we won’t go there.â€

http://www.cinescape.com/0/Editoria...ge&obj_id=35364[/url]

This has something to do with Glen A. Larson's court case and that Sonny Bono Law!
 
Thank you.

Thanks for the wide variety of places to look in egards to the upcoming miniseries. I have to admit that the more I see and hear of it, the more I'm having my doubts.

I have a feeling it's going to be along the lines of what 'Starship Troopers' the book had todo with the movie. They shared the same name and a couple of basic plot lines, but that was about it.

Rowan
 
Re: Cinema Verte alert

Originally posted by dvo47p
Re: Tom's view of the mini November 17th, 2003 02:54 AM

Tom this 'thing' called Battlestar Galactica was done for one reason,"To maintain the franchise"

“Well, BATTLESTAR is interesting because it worked well as its original series,†Hammer told CINESCAPE in an exclusive interview. “It didn’t work as well as its second recreation. So what we want to do is a four-hour mini. Basically, give it a new life – maintain the franchise but modernize it and if it works in a mini, then we’ll develop it into a series. If in fact the audience says, ‘Been there, done that’ then we won’t go there.â€

http://www.cinescape.com/0/Editoria...ge&obj_id=35364[/url]
Click to expand...


It seem that Tom DeSanto had the right idea on how to maintain and modernize the franchise without alienating the fans, but who are we to argue with someone as brilliant as Bonnie Hammer.

Tom DeSanto and Bryan Singer respected the X-Men lore as demonstrated on the X-Men movies.

They also respected the original works of Stephen King when they did Apt Pupil.

I was looking forward to see what they could pull off with Battlstar Galactica.

I understand that the delay caused by 911 forced Bryan Singer to leave the production early to concentrate fully on X-Men 2 but so what? Sci-fi could have with worked with DeSanto and other qualified directors such as Nick Meyer who breathed new life into the Star Trek lore offered his service to do the same for Battlestar Galactica. Let us not forget that Rob Bowman (Reign of Fire) was also a candidate to direct as well. Rob Bowman has directed the best X-Files episodes as well as the feature film. He also had a firm grasp of the X-Files mythology.

Instead Bonnie Hammer pulled the plug on DeSanto's production weeks before filming was to begin in favor of this upcoming re-imagination.

The first thing she does is hire a production team that has little to no respect to the original series and showed nothing but hostility towards the fans as witnesses in the media.

Has anyone ever read the interview with the remake director Michael Rhymer? He totally slammed the original Battlestar Galactica series.

Yeah okay he's qualified.

It's a shame that science fiction fans are always the ones who suffer because friendships and ego driven studio executives are given the power to dictate to fans on what they are getting.

It's their way or the highway.
 
Oh Dear

It does rather make the whole thing look as if it has jumped upon the populist bandwagon doesn't it?

Throwing out as much of the original as possible is popular with film makers, especially with film, it has happened with every film interpretation of 60's and 70's hit TV show I can think of. http://www.ascifi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16736
As most of those rip offs seem to have gone on to be box office hits, I presume it is popular enough for the peasants at large, so the omens are good here.

The same with cinema virte. It is popular with film makers because it is new. What they miss is that it only really works in the right circumstances. The people involved really have to believe in what they are doing, or the viewers won't. Everybody running around bonking everything in sight is not likely to do it. Though it does bring into my mind the old question from the 1960's Home Office, Protect and Survive leaflet, 'What will you do when the 4 minute warning of nuclear holocaust is sounded?'
If it is a choice between running around ripping doors off and burrying them under sandbags whilst amassing two weeks of tinned food and water and a quicky somewhere, I know where I would be.

Which brings us nicely onto the sex. It was there in the original, but only as inuendo and suggestion. If this is supposed to be a nod in the direction of Miss Nine on ST Voyager, then I think it can be quickly dis-associated here too! Whilst she may have provided a 'Crumpet' factor and even the bed later, it was never as blatant, or as pointless as the review is implying.

Whilst, unlike some, I do believe BG needed something more than a simple carry-on from the original. I agree this is not sounding as if it is it!

Unfortunately, for sensibility, I think it will be a success.
Fortunately, that may provide encouragement for the vaunted film?
 
Wrong Decade, I saw what Harry saw, go figure

Battlestar Galactica '78 & '79.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077215/


Oh that Cable in the Classroom:
WAR AND PROPAGANDA Battlestar Other than some cool and nasty WW II posters, Galactica 2003 still doo doo on a paper plate,
http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/index.php3

26-NOV-03 10:00 PM BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE LOWDOWN (LBX)
26-NOV-03 2:00 AM BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE LOWDOWN (LBX)
28-NOV-03 11:00 PM BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE LOWDOWN (LBX)
28-NOV-03 5:00 AM BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE LOWDOWN (LBX)
29-NOV-03 11:30 AM BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: THE LOWDOWN (LBX)


Battlestar Galactica 2003 will not make it as a series, put it down as another The Scifi Channel production like ‘Epoch’ or ‘B: 5 The Legend of the Rangers’, or hey ‘Tremors the Series’ got one as in 1.
 
Re: Thank you.

Originally posted by Rowan Thanks for the wide variety of places to look in egards to the upcoming miniseries. I have to admit that the more I see and hear of it, the more I'm having my doubts.Rowan
Click to expand...

Oh I not to sure about The Scifi Channel, do ya think the same nincompoop that did these links sent out the BSG 2003 DVD’s?

http://www.gateworld.net/galactica/links.shtml


ROWAN Universal is letting its little TV channel do this show because of thr Sonny Bono law, it has been 25 years, as in that BONO law.

Here it is in toto: “Well, BATTLESTAR is interesting because it worked well as its original series,†Hammer told CINESCAPE in an exclusive interview. “It didn’t work as well as its second recreation. So what we want to do is a four-hour mini. Basically, give it a new life – maintain the franchise but modernize it and if it works in a mini, then we’ll develop it into a series. If in fact the audience says, ‘Been there, done that’ then we won’t go there.â€

http://www.cinescape.com/0/Editoria...ge&obj_id=35364
 
Re: Oh Dear

Originally posted by ray gower

Throwing out as much of the original as possible is popular with film makers, especially with film, it has happened with every film interpretation of 60's and 70's hit TV show I can think of. http://www.ascifi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16736
As most of those rip offs seem to have gone on to be box office hits, I presume it is popular enough for the peasants at large, so the omens are good here.
[/B]
Click to expand...


Lost in Space
Planet of the Apes
Time Machine
Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea as Sea Quest DSV
The New Outer Limits
The New Twilight Zone
V The New Series

Ok Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Guttersnipe Another Attempt at a Horror Story-A Clown at Midnight Critiques 4
Toby Frost Yet another depressing article involving SFF publishing Publishing 48
msstice Another word for barstool without the word stool in it. Grammar & Spelling 46
Robert Zwilling Another Bumpy Fasten Your Seat Belt Lunar Landing Technology 7
Vladd67 Yet another remake, sorry reboot General Film Discussion 9

Similar threads


Back
Top