When Does a Buck = A Chick?

[Jedi Knight]

In any dictionary a "buck" means:

1) A male deer, a male....etc etc etc etc

That is what a "buck" is.

Believe it or not this has to do with Battlestar Galactica. Back in the early 1980's when I was a young man thinking of the best ways to destroy commie countries as my hero Ronald Reagan did as President, I enjoyed Battlestar Galactica because it was a show that basically launched my Mars explorations (ruins on Mars, lost human civilizations, etc).

My favorite characters were Starbuck and Apollo because they were men that killed the Zylons (commies) with their ships and they had a great time doing it while beautiful feminine chicks always were after them. That is because Starbuck and Apollo were masculine males and heterosexual females naturally found them very appealing.

Now, what does this all mean?

Well, I was just doing some reading and come to find out there is going to be a new Battlestar Galactica series this winter on SCIFI Channel and the writers are making "Starbuck" a chick.

WTF is up with that? Is that chick going to be a lesbian star pilot? Is that why she is the new 'buck' in the series? Is she going to be the assertive partner?

I never thought Orwellian political correctness could seep into such depths but nothing will phase me now that a chick is going to play the part of Starbuck, a well-known male slogan and position on the original show.

Feminism is homosexuality and feminism is communism.

Feminism seeks to eliminate gender distinctions, even scientifically proven biological ones. Feminism moves beyond the normal class struggle in Marxism and includes the destruction of the family because the family is a non-communist entity. Homosexuality is a tool for feminists to eliminate gender distinctions, creating the feminine where there should be the masculine and the masculine where there should be the feminine.

It is all communism.

What's next-- a male Wonder Woman?

JK

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
[snip]
Well, I was just doing some reading and come to find out there is going to be a new Battlestar Galactica series this winter on SCIFI Channel and the writers are making "Starbuck" a chick.

WTF is up with that? Is that chick going to be a lesbian star pilot? Is that why she is the new 'buck' in the series? Is she going to be the assertive partner?
[snip]
The feminists truly have gone too far. I'm not joking when I say that. Another similar incident was when Arnold Schwarzenegger co-starred in "Red Sonja" which had a female lead character. The movie did worse at the box office than both "Conan the Barbarian" and "Conan the Destroyer."

As much as I like the movie "Red Sonja", it would have been better if it was another Conan movie or a movie about any barbarian character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold Schwarzenegger was in so much of the movie that his character might as well have been the lead character. On my video tape box for the movie, Arnold Schwarzenegger takes up more room in the picture than the female character, so the guys who produced the movie might of figured out that they made a big mistake in not having Arnold's character be the lead.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Feminism is homosexuality and feminism is communism.

I have dated a few feminists, and I can assure you that they were not in the least bit homosexual. I don't know about communist. The issue didn't come up.

[Jedi Knight]

Why not just save all the viewers of the new Battlestar Galactica show a whole bunch of confusion and call the chick "Rocko", "Ralph", "William" or "Bob"?

JK

[peptoabysmal]

Hmmmm... Starbuck, Latte, communism. It's all starting to add up =).

Hopefully, at least the new Starbuck will be a cute cyborg or something like Romi on Andromeda.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

[The Fool]

Lol....running short of Ideas for troll threads?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
Lol....running short of Ideas for troll threads?

Jesus Christ himself will come back before I run out of brilliant topic ideas like this thread. This thread is awesome.

JK

[UnrepentantSinner]

A buck hasn't equalled a chick since the 1930s.

These days it's at least $50, $20 if you get some desperate strung out heroin addict...

And these terms do have some relevance in interracial porn, but I'll let Ghenghis get into that area...

[AmateurScientist]

I think you should ask luvtinayothers this, as he is the one with Dirk Benedict as his avatar. Dirk, of course, was the original and only real Starbuck.

I thought he was cool. Richard Hatch was a weenie, and by then Lorne Greene was selling Alpo, so I didn't have any respect left for him.

On the other hand, Maren Jensen was gorgeous.

AS

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I think you should ask luvtinayothers this, as he is the one with Dirk Benedict as his avatar. Dirk, of course, was the original and only real Starbuck.

I thought he was cool. Richard Hatch was a weenie, and by then Lorne Greene was selling Alpo, so I didn't have any respect left for him.

On the other hand, Maren Jensen was gorgeous.

AS

Hey AS, what are your thoughts of a chick being called "Starbuck" on the show?

JK

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey AS, what are your thoughts of a chick being called "Starbuck" on the show?

JK

If they put someone that looks like Maren Jensen on, I don't care what they call her. I'm just going to look; I probably won't be listening to much dialog.

Actually, I suspect that trying to watch "Battlestar Gallactica" today would be pretty painful. The only cool thing about it were those cylons.

OK, to answer your question, I don't care for the over-the-top tough chicks in some movies or TV shows today. While it may help some downtrodden chicks feel "empowered," those characters are no more realistic than most of Arnold Schwarzenegger's.

Did you see Michelle Rodriguez in "Resident Evil?" If not, think of the tough space marine chick in "Aliens."

Please.

I don't mind women being tough or strong--in fact I like strong women--but I don't want them being men with tits.

AS

[shemp]

I thought Starbuck was running a chain of coffee shops now. When did he have a sex change?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I don't mind women being tough or strong--in fact I like strong women--but I don't want them being men with tits.

AS

Well said.

JK

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Well, I was just doing some reading and come to find out there is going to be a new Battlestar Galactica series this winter on SCIFI Channel and the writers are making "Starbuck" a chick.


Its scifi, the John Edward network. By the way, have you tried watching the original Battlestar Galactica after you've grown up? Its a show only a kid could find joy in.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Well, I was just doing some reading and come to find out there is going to be a new Battlestar Galactica series this winter on SCIFI Channel and the writers are making "Starbuck" a chick.

WTF is up with that? Is that chick going to be a lesbian star pilot? Is that why she is the new 'buck' in the series? Is she going to be the assertive partner?

Aaahhh, JK, my illiterate friend, you never cease to dissappoint.
He wasn't called "Starbuck" because he was a "buck" from the "stars". Its a literary reference. Mr. Starbuck was Ahab's first mate in Moby Dick.
Here: http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/moby/moby-1.html
Get reading!

More on the name Starbuck: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~parisho/s/starbuck.htmlFrom the link:
The name Starbuck is Scandinavian and signifies a person of imposing appearance, great or grand bearing...
If you think a woman can't be of imposing appearance, then you've been hanging out with the wrong women!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Vorticity

If you think a woman can't be of imposing appearance, then you've been hanging out with the wrong women!

LOL



http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s16/smilies-19281.png

[Elektrix]

Btw, newsflash.... this is supposed to be a new story, etc..... it happens to have a female character named Starbuck. Seems bizarre to me to get that worked up about it.

Also, this new one's cylons will look just like humans..... they are going to be some sort of clones or something.

-Elektrix

[Megalodon]

I don't know if I remember correctly, but wasn't there a girl later in the series who was Starbuck's daughter?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Feminism is homosexuality and feminism is communism.

JK

Please dont do that. I have a bad chest infection and it really hurts when I laaarf. :D

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Jesus Christ himself will come back before I run out of brilliant topic ideas like this thread. This thread is awesome.

JK
It is a brilliant thread. I wish I had come up with it. I love the "feminism is homosexuality and feminism is communism" part. It's totally Jedi Knightesque.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by JAR

It is a brilliant thread. I wish I had come up with it. I love the "feminism is homosexuality and feminism is communism" part. It's totally Jedi Knightesque.

Hi Jar,

You know, I was sitting back thinking of feminism and homosexuality as ideologies and I concluded that since both seek to eliminate gender distinctions that they are the same animal. A new idea--yes--but important when peering into ideologies that are ripping the country apart at the seams.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Elektrix
Btw, newsflash.... this is supposed to be a new story, etc..... it happens to have a female character named Starbuck. Seems bizarre to me to get that worked up about it.

Also, this new one's cylons will look just like humans..... they are going to be some sort of clones or something.

-Elektrix

New story? For something to be new it has to be "for the first time".

Battlestar Galactica is a classic SCIFI show, a great show. Remaking a new show based upon the original show or facts in the storyline isn't "new", it is 'fashionable revisionism' of the original idea. The original idea was "new". What follows is appeal to popularity based upon the reputation and the audience built from the old show, adjusted years into the future by political correctness (in the case of "StarBuck" being a chick now, obviously).

JK

[Elektrix]

Yes, yes. What I meant is that it is just a new Battlestar Galactica series, with its own new storyline.... it doesn't seem to be considered a "remake" from anything I've read..... various references to the original show, but apparently in its own universe and storyline.

Btw, I'm not trying to defend it..... just saying it's not a remake.... i.e. the female character named Starbuck has nothing to do with the original character beyond the name. It's not so much that Starbuck has been turned into a woman, as this new miniseries isn't really considered a remake or even a "re-imagining".

Same with the Cylons and most of the other trappings of this new miniseries.

By "new" I only meant this is considered to be a new story as opposed to being a remake or sequel or prequel to the original.

Obviously it's not new in the sense of originality. I doubt it will be any good, frankly. But I can't see getting worked up about the presence of a female character named Starbuck.

-Elektrix

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Elektrix
Yes, yes. What I meant is that it is just a new Battlestar Galactica series, with its own new storyline.... it doesn't seem to be considered a "remake" from anything I've read..... various references to the original show, but apparently in its own universe and storyline.

Btw, I'm not trying to defend it..... just saying it's not a remake.... i.e. the female character named Starbuck has nothing to do with the original character beyond the name.

Same with the Cylons and most of the other trappings of this new miniseries.

By "new" I only meant this is considered to be a new story as opposed to being a remake or sequel or prequel to the original.

Obviously it's not new in the sense of originality.

-Elektrix

But here is the problem. The characters are all going to be from the old show. New faces, old characters. Adama, Apollo, Starbuck--they are all coming back into the new show. But now, a guy is a chick.

That is "fashionable revisionism", a form of political correctness (based on political conditions that are in "fashion") that seeks to alter traditional trademarks where they had a specific gender, etc, and replace them with an opposite. It is a form of feminism and potentially has gender-elimination overtones, but I can't really say until I watch the show.

If it was a 'new' show and a chick was called 'starbuck' on it, hey, have at it.

The point here is that the original show had a "guy" as Starbuck and when people say "Starbuck" and have ever encountered Battlestar Galactica on TV they know Starbuck is a guy.

Who knows, maybe when they do the next Battlestar Galactica remake in 2030 or thereabouts, Starbuck will be a transsexual. It all depends on the political fashion of the times.

JK

[Elektrix]

Again.... there are characters who happen to share the same names, but they are not "remakes" of the characters from the original show. I'm not sure what makes you think this is a remake or revision of the original Battlestar Galactica.

There are characters in it with names like Adama, Apollo, Starbuck, etc..... but they have nothing to do beyond that with the original show or the original characters.

Again, I hate to be in a position of 'defending' it, as it sounds like utter tripe to me, but the one thing they've been clear on is that this is unrelated otherwise beyond using some of the same names and concepts as the original show.

Same thing with the Cylons in it.... they are now clones, and apparently being used to make some point about cloning... they are called Cylons, but otherwise have nothing to do with the Cylons in the original series.

There's just no point in looking at it as some sort of revision or remake..... at best it would seem closer to describe it as "homage", because the timelines and storylines otherwise have no link between them (at least not that I know of).

I just don't see the point in getting worked up or upset that there is a Battlestar Galactica miniseries coming out which happens to feature ships, characters, technologies, etc. with the same names as the original series. There really is no link beyond it.

I see that you're trying to make a bigger point about this being some sort of feminism issue, but i think you're reading WAY too much into it.

The folks behind this series have created a female character called Starbuck not to make some feminist point (I mean, you don't think they're trying to appeal to females here do you).... they are doing it because they want to have a sexy female character as a star of it. It's to appeal to horny fanboys, not to make some feminist appeal or point.

That's why I don't see why you're reading so much into it beyond that. They are doing this to make it sexy and have some eyecandy for the predominantly male audience who they expect to watch this.

-Elektrix

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Elektrix
The folks behind this series have created a female character called Starbuck not to make some feminist point (I mean, you don't think they're trying to appeal to females here do you).... they are doing it because they want to have a sexy female character as a star of it. It's to appeal to horny fanboys, not to make some feminist appeal or point.

That's why I don't see why you're reading so much into it beyond that. They are doing this to make it sexy and have some eyecandy for the predominantly male audience who they expect to watch this.

-Elektrix

OK then, if the new Starbuck chick does heterosexual things on the show (kiss men, etc) then the argument is moot.

However, if she doesn't engage in traditional behavior then it is a hard sell to say she isn't being propped up for fashionable political culture.

JK

[Elektrix]

I haven't read anything to indicate that she is supposed to be a lesbian in the miniseries..... in fact I'm pretty sure that she does have a relationship with one of the main mail characters, from what I've read.

I mean, if she doesn't do anything to overtly show she is a heterosexual, who cares? Is there some sort of rule that unless a fictional female character explicitly displays that she is heterosexual (i.e. by kissing a man), it is somehow detrimental?

I mean, if she doesn't do anything that specifically identifies her sexuality one way or the other, I hardly see how that really matters.

Although again, I would say..... if they made her a lesbian, it would probably have much more to do with again appealing to the core fanboy horny male demographic than anything else.

Either way, I wouldn't make a big deal about it either way. Whatever the character ends up being or doing, it has been made clear by the sci-fi channel and the people behind this that it is a lot more about providing some eyecandy than making any sort of political points. I wouldn't look at it beyond this dimension.

Although I do have to say, if they did want to use this to make some general points, I don't see what the big deal is..... the original series, and classic science fiction in general, has often been a vehicle for exploring a wide range of human, social, political, etc. issues. It's not like it's unprecedented for science fiction to explore issues of gender equity, racism, human ethics, etc.

-Elektrix

[Pyrrho]

Why, in the name of all that is sacred and profane, is anyone bringing back Battlestar Galactica? Why, O why?

Cylons (why all the chrome? what--were they made from car bumpers?)...robot doggies...lame storylines...kinda liked the Cylon attack craft, though. Best-looking evil spacecraft ever.

Schmaltz, that's what it was. Sci-fi schmaltz. America can never get enough schmaltz.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
OK then, if the new Starbuck chick does heterosexual things on the show (kiss men, etc) then the argument is moot.

However, if she doesn't engage in traditional behavior then it is a hard sell to say she isn't being propped up for fashionable political culture.

JK
Ahem...I've seen speculations that Starbuck and Apollo were kickin' it, and that was back when the series was still on.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Why, in the name of all that is sacred and profane, is anyone bringing back Battlestar Galactica? Why, O why?

Cylons (why all the chrome? what--were they made from car bumpers?)...robot doggies...lame storylines...kinda liked the Cylon attack craft, though. Best-looking evil spacecraft ever.

Schmaltz, that's what it was. Sci-fi schmaltz. America can never get enough schmaltz.

I loved that show because of its correlation between lost human civilizations and Mars/Egyptian connections.

What annoyed me was when Galactica got to Earth they didn't go to Mars and show the Earth government where Cydonia and the other human-created ruins are.

JK

[Elektrix]

JK, I wouldn't even spend time thinking about Galactica 1980. It was a complete disaster and a mess (necessitated by trying to keep the show going with a much lower budget, by sticking them on Earth in 1980). Best just to try and forget about it.

-Elektrix

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Elektrix
I haven't read anything to indicate that she is supposed to be a lesbian in the miniseries..... in fact I'm pretty sure that she does have a relationship with one of the main mail characters, from what I've read.

I mean, if she doesn't do anything to overtly show she is a heterosexual, who cares? Is there some sort of rule that unless a fictional female character explicitly displays that she is heterosexual (i.e. by kissing a man), it is somehow detrimental?

I mean, if she doesn't do anything that specifically identifies her sexuality one way or the other, I hardly see how that really matters.

Although again, I would say..... if they made her a lesbian, it would probably have much more to do with again appealing to the core fanboy horny male demographic than anything else.

Either way, I wouldn't make a big deal about it either way. Whatever the character ends up being or doing, it has been made clear by the sci-fi channel and the people behind this that it is a lot more about providing some eyecandy than making any sort of political points. I wouldn't look at it beyond this dimension.

Although I do have to say, if they did want to use this to make some general points, I don't see what the big deal is..... the original series, and classic science fiction in general, has often been a vehicle for exploring a wide range of human, social, political, etc. issues. It's not like it's unprecedented for science fiction to explore issues of gender equity, racism, human ethics, etc.

-Elektrix

But Starbuck is a male character.

Take a look at how many people are on a Battle Star. There were thousands of women on those things in the last show and none of them were called "Starbuck".

If the chick who plays Starbuck in the new series liplocks with some masculine heterosexual males on the show, then that is OK. It will be less damaging than I would have first thought. But if she doesn't liplock with men on the show, the suspicion meter will be blinking. Especially is she starts acting like a man. :rolleyes:

JK

[Elektrix]

For the last time JK, this series has nothing to do with the original beyond the names. That's all.

Most likely you will see her kiss her main male romantic lead in this..... but either way, it's pretty much irrelevant.

The presence of the female character named Starbuck has nothing to do with trying to push some political agenda... it has to do with them providing eyecandy for the horny male demographic this miniseries is targetted at.

If she IS a Lesbian in it, it would again be a lot more about indulging male fantasies than making any political point (so I'm not sure what alarms would be going off for you). I'm truly baffled as to why you think that there is a political agenda here, when it is has been made quite clear to them that eyecandy is their primary and sole agenda.

And as I said.... if they DID want to make her a homosexual, so what? It doesn't affect the original series because it is unrelated outside of the names..... and science fiction in general has a LONG and established history of exploring political and social issues (yes, even "leftist" issues, and I'm sure you hate that kind of sci-fi).

I don't know what it means about "acting like a man" anyway..... does that mean if the character isn't overly feminine, it matters that much?

I mean, this is going to largely be an action miniseries.... I'm not sure what your definition of "acting like a man" is though..... if she is in a lot of combat, or doing things you think only a man should do, I guess that will bother you.

It seems utterly irrelevant to me. Everything about this series is about providing eyecandy and some action for their core male audience..... trying to ascribe political motivations to anything that is written for this series strikes me as extremely bizarre, because it has nothing to do with what their clear stated objectives are for this series.

-Elektrix

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Elektrix
For the last time JK, this series has nothing to do with the original beyond the names. That's all.

Most likely you will see her kiss her main male romantic lead in this..... but either way, it's pretty much irrelevant.

The presence of the female character named Starbuck has nothing to do with trying to push some political agenda... it has to do with them providing eyecandy for the horny male demographic this miniseries is targetted at.

If she IS a Lesbian in it, it would again be a lot more about indulging male fantasies than making any political point (so I'm not sure what alarms would be going off for you). I'm truly baffled as to why you think that there is a political agenda here, when it is has been made quite clear to them that eyecandy is their primary and sole agenda.

And as I said.... if they DID want to make her a homosexual, so what? It doesn't affect the original series because it is unrelated outside of the names..... and science fiction in general has a LONG and established history of exploring political and social issues (yes, even "leftist" issues, and I'm sure you hate that kind of sci-fi).

I don't know what it means about "acting like a man" anyway..... does that mean if the character isn't overly feminine, it matters that much?

I mean, this is going to largely be an action miniseries.... I'm not sure what your definition of "acting like a man" is though..... if she is in a lot of combat, or doing things you think only a man should do, I guess that will bother you.

It seems utterly irrelevant to me. Everything about this series is about providing eyecandy and some action for their core male audience..... trying to ascribe political motivations to anything that is written for this series strikes me as extremely bizarre, because it has nothing to do with what their clear stated objectives are for this series.

-Elektrix

I don't have male fantasies seeing lesbians on TV. I am heterosexual. I like my women straight heterosexual. When I watch TV and see women who act like men, I change the channel and never watch the show again.

JK

[Elektrix]

Yes, of course JK. I'm merely pointing out that if she WERE to be a lesbian in this, it would have a lot less to do with politics then with titallating the male audience. I'm not saying EVERY male has this fantasy, just that some do, and that is who it would be targeted at.

Same thing with that Fox show "Fastlane", which has a much-hyped lesbian kiss scene last season.... let's just say it wasn't done to try and please feminisists, lesbians, etc.

Anyway..... this is all hypothetical anyway since her character isn't a lesbian. Again though, I don't know what your definition of "acting like a man" is though..... I mean, she will still be a military character, but I don't know if you think that the things she might do in combat inherently would be "acting like a man", or things she couldn't do while being heterosexual at the same time.

This is kind of pointless to discuss anyway though, so I'll drop this.

-Elektrix

[DialecticMaterialist]

WTF man... LOL. This didn't even make sense.

Just thought the line

Believe it or not this has to do with Battlestar Galactica. Back in the early 1980's when I was a young man thinking of the best ways to destroy commie countries as my hero Ronald Reagan did as President, I enjoyed Battlestar Galactica because it was a show that basically launched my Mars explorations (ruins on Mars, lost human civilizations, etc).

Was most amusing though.

[Skeptic]

What is shocking to me is that ANYBODY would want to remake "Battlestar Galactica", one of the most god-awful SF series of all time.

An obvious ripoff of "Star Wars", everything about "Battlestar Galactica" was bad: bad special effects (the same ones in every episode due to a low budget); atrocious acting by no-talent "Luke Skywalker" lookalikes (sans lightsaber); ludicrous plots full of trite SF cliches. It was so bad, the effect was often unintentionally hilarious; it still has a cult following due to the unintentional giggle factor.

I must say, though, that I am not surprised JK considered this artistic Chernobyl a deep, inspirational, moving achievement. Of course, he's just trolling...

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I don't have male fantasies seeing lesbians on TV. I am heterosexual. I like my women straight heterosexual. When I watch TV and see women who act like men, I change the channel and never watch the show again.

JK
I too do not have male fantasies about seeing lesbians doing something on TV or anywhere else. Men who fantasize about seeing women perform lesbian acts are sick perverted savages.

Those men are encouraging what any sane man who doesn't want the feminists to take over would discourage. Men encouraging women to do acts of lesbianism are indirectly urging women to drive men to extinction.

Jedi Knight, I'm glad you hold the same opinion as I do on this subject.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I only have one problem with "hot lesbian action" that so many of my fellow men seem to think is so hot and it's all mathmatical.

Number of chicks getting some = 2.
Number of Me getting some = 0.

When I came to this realization some years ago, sexual experimentation and/or confusion on the part of the ladies stopped being so appealing.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Jedi Knight
Jesus Christ himself will come back before I run out of brilliant topic ideas like this thread. This thread is awesome.

Didn't Jesus Christ have some regulations about lying? I guess Jedi Knight can't be Christian when he breaks the rules so often.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Didn't Jesus Christ have some regulations about lying? I guess Jedi Knight can't be Christian when he breaks the rules so often.

You're a Christian. Why don't you explain it to us skeptics.

JK

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by The Fool
Lol....running short of Ideas for troll threads?

Hmmmm...

Is the pothead calling the kettle black?

[Crossbow]

Wow!

Only someone like JK could turn an event such as the re-make of a rather mediocre TV show into a discussion of how lesbians will ruin men.

Ugh!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Wow!

Only someone like JK could turn an event such as the re-make of a rather mediocre TV show into a discussion of how lesbians will ruin men.

Ugh!

Lesbians can't 'ruin' men. Lesbians like women.

JK

[gnome]

Argh! I hate the idea of this new show, but for totally different reasons.

I am far from a fanboy of the original, but I used to watch it all the time and kept coming back. I loved how mysterious the Cylons seemed, and they preserved that by only introducing tidbits of knowledge about them, and their use of robots such as Lucifer... they just looked so darn COOL. I liked the fighter ships and models, and didn't care that all the battle scenes were the same stock footage, my imagination filled in the rest.

Oh, and some of the voice acting was particularly good I think.

What appealed to me about a new series was to see fleshed out some of what I had to use my imagination for because the show was so, well, crappy. :P

And now they're gonna change everything around and just give things the same names?

UCK. :mad:

Sounds like a completely new show that was given the name to attract an automatic fan base.

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by gnome
Argh! I hate the idea of this new show, but for totally different reasons.

I am far from a fanboy of the original, but I used to watch it all the time and kept coming back. I loved how mysterious the Cylons seemed, and they preserved that by only introducing tidbits of knowledge about them, and their use of robots such as Lucifer... they just looked so darn COOL. I liked the fighter ships and models, and didn't care that all the battle scenes were the same stock footage, my imagination filled in the rest.

Oh, and some of the voice acting was particularly good I think.

What appealed to me about a new series was to see fleshed out some of what I had to use my imagination for because the show was so, well, crappy. :P

And now they're gonna change everything around and just give things the same names?

UCK. :mad:

Sounds like a completely new show that was given the name to attract an automatic fan base.

That's pretty much it gnome. Brought to you by the fine folks at the Sci Fi Channel.

For what it's worth, Richard Hatch had been trying to get a new Battlestar Galactica project off the ground for a while, although he has no involvement in this. He had been hoping to get something that would have been more like a real sequel or sometihng along those lines..... in the meantime he has been doing his own thing, and apparently has a 5th Battlestar Galactica novel coming out this year (all of this can be found in more in depth at his site, http://www.battlestargalactica.com/index2.html).

He does point out that most fans seem to be upset with this new miniseries, which does make one wonder what the Sci Fi Channel is thinking...... the primary reason to make this project with the Battlestar Galactica name would seem to be to please fans of the original..... but they almost seem to be going out of their way to piss off those fans, who were hoping for something more like a true sequel with newer technology.

Originally this revival was happening at the hands of Tom DeSanto and Bryan Singer.... but Singer left to focus solely on the X-Men sequel, and it seems that DeSanto has nothing to do with it any more either. It seems that at some point the Sci Fi Channel decided to just scrap whatever they had been doing and do this miniseries concept.

It's now being done primarily by Ronald D. Moore.... you can get an idea for his "ideas" at this interview: http://www.battlestargalactica.com/discussions/rm2002qa/bg_moore_sept2002qa.html - including some responses to some common questions in the fan community.

You can also get a PRETTY good idea of fan reaction to this thing at fan sites like: http://battlestarfanclub.com/battlestar/ - including some script reviews (such as http://www.filmjerk.com/nuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=354 and http://www.demonslayers.org/BattlestarGalacticaNewslinkRMScriptReview.htm), etc. to give you an idea of what it is like.

Anyway..... it sounds like the hope was and probably still is for this to be a pilot of sorts for an on-going series, but it's hard to see where the support is going to come to make it worthwhile.

-Elektrix

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Jokey Krap
You're a Christian. Why don't you explain it to us skeptics.
Skeptics like to justify their claims. I can see that just like Sylvia Browne you don't like to do that. You just like to run away and hurl insults. There's a good french phrase for those sorts of people. What is it? Ah yes. Les plonqueurs.

Pardon, un soupcon d'humour au sujet de l'homme militaire courant.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Skeptics like to justify their claims. I can see that just like Sylvia Browne you don't like to do that. You just like to run away and hurl insults. There's a good french phrase for those sorts of people. What is it? Ah yes. Les plonqueurs.

Pardon, un soupcon d'humour au sujet de l'homme militaire courant.

You didn't answer the question, Christian.

JK

[Drifterman]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the (intentional) parallels betwixt Battlestar G. and Mormonism.

They are rather crude and obvious!

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Lesbians can't 'ruin' men. Lesbians like women.

JK

Thank you JK, I stand corrected.

By the way, I will rate this thread five stars.

[LW]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist




The only cool thing about it were those cylons.

The cylons are still the only evil science fiction race with a good explanation for their abysmal accuracy with guns: it is very difficult to aim with only one eye that keeps bouncing around like a ping-pong ball.

[Dancing David]

Ugh, sorry JK but I couldn't stand Battlestar Gerriatrica. I guess they could call her something other than Starbuck, maybe StarBabe, or Apollonia, or Lusty Latex Lavererne.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Jedi Knight
You didn't answer the question, Christian.
Ah yes. To answer my own question. I do believe that Jesus Christ did have a few rules. Let me see. One went something like 'thou shalt not lie'. Guess that makes him something else. But what? A Hindu? Perhaps? A Buddhist? Maybe? A follower of Shinto? Possibly. A skeptic? No - he doesn't seem to understand the meaning of simple concepts like the word 'fact' or 'defend your own claims' or 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'foreigners can be nice people' or 'logic' etc. Pity really. A bit of mental growing up required yet it seems. Good luck.