New Battlestar Galactica

[sawyer99]

In the hopes that this thread won't be deleted for 1) not being entirely timely 2) for expressing a divergent point of view ....I have been a longtime fan of the book Kamikaze Cowboy (even had my copy signed by Dirk at a talk in Santa Monica) and am a macrobat myself. I certainly agree Starbuck was the most interesting character of the original BG series.

But I just can't agree with Dirk's assesment of the new series. StarDoe is certainly one of the most irritating aspects of the new show, but that in itself does not overshadow the quality of the writing and directing of the new series. The original BG was guilty of an almost pedestrian plotline (optimistic or no) and at times descended to campy. The new BG is not afraid to challenge its audience with more complicated plot and dialogue. The fact that the Cylons have risen to a level where they confront the same questions of existence that we do, and therefore have an acknowledged conscience equal to our own that begs questioning their extinction...is only part of that wonderful intellectual labyrinthe that makes the show worth watching.

I also disagree that the men are weak in the new BG. Edward James Olmos is one hard dude.
The other males are multifaceted, as are the Cylons. Granted, women have taken on a new prominence in the storyline (over the original BG anway) but that is a reflection of our age. I have worked for male and female bosses...we don't operate under a 1959 zeitgeist anymore (I genuinely believe that women always had their share of leaders as men do) and the adherence to demographic data that mainstream America is threatened by strong women is outdated. But like David Duchovny, I find it irritating that men 6 feet tall are getting knocked unconscious by women that are 5 feet 2 inches. This denies the laws of physics and is inherantly irritating to those of us who want to buy into the storyline.

So although I disagree with Dirk on a lot of fundamental points about the new show, I hope that he makes an appearance as Richard did. No doubt, Dirk will bring his creative force to bear upon a new character and shake things up. It's what I like about him.

Tom

[Tracy]

Hi Tom and welcome :)

Your post is basically an opposing view of something Dirk wrote ( I'm assuming you are referring to his "Lost IN Castration" article ) which is relevant because it's a rebuttal. Opposing viewpoints are welcome here, and you did it in a mature and informed fashion, so you need not worry about any sort of deletion. However, the fine line is that the new series, for this forum, isn't relevant because, well, Dirk's not in it. Having said that...

I'm happy to entertain debates of anything Dirk has said or written ( including the new BG ), but if the thread takes on a life of new series talk and veers away from the debate, and becomes *about* the show, I'll have to steer it back.

This is basically for anyone in general who wants to respond to Tom's post here:
Dirk's take on the new BG series has been a hotbed of debate for years now. And at times it hasn't been pretty. I'm happy to let people discuss it, but if it becomes a personal mudslinging match, it's kiboshed.

Again welcome :)

[Warrior]

If soft porn and dysfunction (or is that dysfunctional soft porn?) is your thing, then the new BG is it ;)

[sawyer99]

This is such a general and unsupported set of criticisms that one hardly knows where to begin. I have to assume the soft porn you are referring to is blond number six cylon who uses her seductive skills to charm Gaius Baltar. Soft porn typically involves showing breasts (more specifically nipples) and plot is largely superfluous. A weak criticism of the new BG only surpassed by your dysfunction remark.

The essence of drama is conflict. And what conflict between humans would not be classified as dysfunctional? With his dysfunctional behavior, Stanley Kowalski made a Streetcar Named Desire work. Was Hamlet a functional man? I guess one could make the argument people do not tune into television for layered realities and multidimensional characters who often suffer internal conflicts.

I could see where all these nasty shades of grey could detract from the calming black and white security of seventies tv shows like Dukes of Hazzard and A Team. Steve Austin was a real man with no self-doubt. The A Team never showed any skin but they had plenty of firepower.

[Dawg]

Personally, I like shades of gray as much as the next guy - but when it's just shades of gray and black, I lose interest quickly.

I happen to agree with a lot of Dirk has written, and agree that the new show is an excellent example of how Hollywood has fallen. It's no deeper or more three-dimensional than 1978's BSG was - it's just on the opposite end of the spectrum. Where 1978 showed hope and family and faith, 2003+ shows dysfunction, misogyny, insubordination, and psychoses. Hollywood today can't show heroes, only butch heroines.

Dirk's right.

I am
Dawg

[Warrior]

What I call television soft porn happens to be the scientist dude masturbating, glowing spines while riding top, couple swapping in bed every few eps or so, robots for sex...

Firefly had dysfunction, but at a tolerable level. This show goes overboard.

[sawyer99]

Dawg, could you give me an example from the 1978 BSG which demonstrates the depth and three dimensionality you speak of? I am hard pressed to think of any real surprises that surfaced through the course of the show. Once the characters were set, they largely never changed or grew...every week some conflict was put in front of them which they jumped into their fighters and conquered. They met some angel like characters in one episode that brought tears to Starbuck's eyes ( which strangely bothered me since Dirk had cast a character too worldly for that in my view ). That's it.

From the first few episodes of the new BSG, there were both wonderful and horrifying surprises. A female school teacher (not a butch heroine) was made leader of the survivors. That same leader met with a little girl on one of the ships which was nuked...I knew then that the Cylons were truly terrifying, and not shiny targets to be blown up every week like in the first BSG.

Some of the Cylons have conflict with their nature and desire to be human...this is a very positive statement in my view. In many episodes, they even begin a path to embrace spirituality.

And Dawg, how does one walk a path of misogyny while making the only heroes female and butch? That is too contradictory a view to be very credible.

[sawyer99]

Warrior, if real nudity and open sexual activities were occurring in the show (rather than implied and alluded to which is actually the case) I don't think that would even bother me. Is it so far outside our nature as humans to intertwine sexual relations in a story of a desperate fight for survival? It seems natural and honest.

I consider it a very positive step that the stranglehold of the Hays Office and FCC has been loosened a bit so those artificially sanitized views stop stripping art of its truth. Families should dictate family values, not the government or executives at ABC,NBC, and CBS. If people don't like the point of view presented they simply stop tuning in, but that has not been the case with the new BSG.....how many years did the first BSG run as compared to the new BSG?

[bibbi]

Frankly for me the new BSG isn't BSG.
It lacks the charm and family values of the "original and the real" Battlestar Galactica.
That's my honest opinion.
The new show is too dark and too violent.
I also agree with Dirk's assessment of the show.
Starbuck is Dirk Benedict and Dirk Benedict is Starbuck.
I've been a fan of Battlestar Galactica (the 1978 series) for over 30 years.
There is a very strong fan base. ;)

Welcome to DBC! :)

[sawyer99]

Thank you bibbinut (and Tracy) for your warm welcome.

[ani]

.....how many years did the first BSG run as compared to the new BSG?


Pplease pelase pelase don't use that argument. I seriously will respect jsut about any argument or difference in opinion other than that.
That is about as relevent the low ratings of NBG.

TOS wasn't cancelled for lack of poularity or enjoyment of fans, and NBG doesn't have low ratings because no one watches it (it has 'em because the ratings system is archaic and stupid) *head desk*

NBG is still on the air because the studio supports it and is willing to pay for it. The studio was not willing to support or pay for ToS. Simple as that.

What you said is like saying Firefly was a lousy show because it got cancelled one season in. Not it wasn't Fox is just stupid and didn't want the show -_-

If we're gonna argue shows lets at least stick with relevent arguments.

Anyway, I agree with some of Dirk's artical but not all of it. But I can't eat at my desk any longer so *L* I'll have to save it for later (plus I'ts been over a year since I last read it and I guess if we are gonna talk about it I should maybe re-read it ^^)

I've seen all a fair bit of NBG and . . won't be watching the fourth. I was kinda thinking it would be like Babylon 5 in that it would get stronger as it went on. For me it actually got weaker and by the end of the third season was kinda a joke :rolleyes:

[ostarella]

Um - just a little niggle here - I haven't watched much of either show, so many of these comments are lost on me. I have read Dirk's article several times, and I'm not seeing much mention of that. So are we debating the merits of each show, or Dirk's article? Because if it's the merits of each show, it's kind of a waste of time, isn't it? People like or dislike either one and no one's going to change their minds.

C'mon guys - they're TV shows, for heaven's sake! :D

[sawyer99]

Ani - I certainly have not fallen back on ad populum as the sole basis of my counterpoint to some of Dirk's views on the show. I bring it up solely to support that people are not "tuning out" because it is such a dark show. The network will not support a show which flies clearly in the face of what the public wants for over 3 years...advertisors would not pay for such a debacle. The original BSG was obviously nurtured in a different time (3 major networks, no public access to internet, no game consoles) so to compare numbers to the current BSG would be apples and oranges. I think we all catch the subtleties here.

[ani]

Um - just a little niggle here - I haven't watched much of either show, so many of these comments are lost on me. I have read Dirk's article several times, and I'm not seeing much mention of that. So are we debating the merits of each show, or Dirk's article? Because if it's the merits of each show, it's kind of a waste of time, isn't it? People like or dislike either one and no one's going to change their minds.

C'mon guys - they're TV shows, for heaven's sake! :D

Well it's a bit related since Dirk's artical partially argued the merit of the TV show . . and most of modern TV =P
So it comes up but yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at,. if we are arguing shows, lets argue based on what Dirk puts forth not ratings, or seasons.

Because seriously, 'Survivor' beats out both BSG's in both repsects so what does that prove!


But you can have a nice discussion about creativity (which I might take up given I do works that are derivitive), what merits the term, adapations, the prevelence of folklore, ummmm gender roles on TV,and the merits of what's on TV.

But yeah if we wanna argue the meaning of ratings and number of seasons, I can do that on IMBD
-_-

[sawyer99]

ostarella - are we really talking just tv shows here? The ascendancy of women in the public perception of power (a big issue in Dirk's article), the rights of artificial life (both genetic and machine) in the human world, and oddly, the perception of storytelling itself being schewed by Hollywood to the darkside. Granted, nothing of import will probably come from these discussions, but the points themselves make good fodder for thought. Dirk fired a salvo for heterosexual men (decidedly unpopular) but I feel beyond some of his valid points on that subject, broader substantial issues are being dismissed with the "not as good as the happy old days" POV.

[Dawg]

Dawg, could you give me an example from the 1978 BSG which demonstrates the depth and three dimensionality you speak of? I am hard pressed to think of any real surprises that surfaced through the course of the show. Once the characters were set, they largely never changed or grew...every week some conflict was put in front of them which they jumped into their fighters and conquered. They met some angel like characters in one episode that brought tears to Starbuck's eyes ( which strangely bothered me since Dirk had cast a character too worldly for that in my view ). That's it.

From the first few episodes of the new BSG, there were both wonderful and horrifying surprises. A female school teacher (not a butch heroine) was made leader of the survivors. That same leader met with a little girl on one of the ships which was nuked...I knew then that the Cylons were truly terrifying, and not shiny targets to be blown up every week like in the first BSG.

Some of the Cylons have conflict with their nature and desire to be human...this is a very positive statement in my view. In many episodes, they even begin a path to embrace spirituality.

And Dawg, how does one walk a path of misogyny while making the only heroes female and butch? That is too contradictory a view to be very credible.

I'm afraid you misunderstand. I make no claims that BSG had deeper, more 3-dimensional characters. What I said was that we are dealing with the opposite end of the spectrum - light and dark, positive and negative, conservative and liberal. The claims that the more recent characters are any deeper or complex are - shall we say - exaggerated. They are simply the negative side of human nature instead of the positive, hopeful side.

(And there was character growth in 1978's characters; the scene you mention, from WOTG, is a good example - it shows Starbuck as being someone who would lay down his life for his friends, not just the rogue looking for a ticket out of harms way.)

And this echoes what I took out of Dirk's article. You can't portray that anymore and be taken seriously. The only characters with cahones are the women. You can't have a cigar-smoking, sexually irresponsible character - unless the character has boobs. And then it's called some great, groundbreaking portrayal.

I laugh. Ha-ha.

The original BSG had women in positions of responsibility few dreamed of in 1978. They were command-capable, they were fighter pilots, they were toe-to-toe equals with their male counterparts.

Particularly early on, the female characters of GINO were routinely beaten, raped, and otherwise mistreated by their male counterpart. There was a period where being a female on that Galactica was a danger. That, my friend, is misogyny - a situation not mitigated in the slightest by the presence of a cigar-smoking, sexually irresponsible female character, or a Pelosi-modeled female President.

And, again, a good illustration of what Dirk was talking about.

FYI, I have written extensively on GINO and the issues with it and have no desire to re-hash any of that here and now - and we're not going to or this thread will be closed.

I am
Dawg

[Dawg]

ostarella - are we really talking just tv shows here? The ascendancy of women in the public perception of power (a big issue in Dirk's article), the rights of artificial life (both genetic and machine) in the human world, and oddly, the perception of storytelling itself being schewed by Hollywood to the darkside. Granted, nothing of import will probably come from these discussions, but the points themselves make good fodder for thought. Dirk fired a salvo for heterosexual men (decidedly unpopular) but I feel beyond some of his valid points on that subject, broader substantial issues are being dismissed with the "not as good as the happy old days" POV.

When we talk about popular entertainment, we're talking about more than just kicking back and watching Deal or No Deal for an hour of mindless fun. We're talking about perpetuating stereotypes, archetypes, and prevailing attitudes encapsulated within an hour or two of fictionalized story.

We're talking about an emasculation of the male gender instead of an elevation of the female; in otherwords, rather than raising up the female to an equal position to the male, the male is torn down to the same level as the female.

Using BSG as an example, the women in the Colonial service were raised to the same level as the men during the crisis, and they stayed there. You can see in the Officer's Club scene, when Apollo and Starbuck (or was it Boomer - I'm drawing a blank) take the stereotypical "feminine" role and turn it on its head - a funny scene that emphasized that the genders were on equal footing.

In the early years of the 21st Century, men don't have it so good. The female is king. The husband is the butt of the joke. And if he isn't, then he's victimizing the female. Only the female characters are smart enough to do the right thing.

Now, that is a generalization, but it is a dominant theme throughout television today.

I've got to cut this short. But I think I've made my point.

I am
Dawg

[sawyer99]

Dawg - so if I understand this clearly, you are saying because you have discussed this in a forum previously, this thread will be closed down if I bring up my own questions or perspectives? Wouldn't the more reasonable step here (to avoid the rehashing) be to let us chatter among ourselves on this subject?

And if this thread is going to be closed down for speaking openly, I would just like to say that there is a big difference between glorifying misogyny and presenting it as a horrible set of actions by evil people that must be stopped. BSG has not glorified misogyny. If bringing up the subject in the context of fiction is itself a crime, then you should also condemn "The Accused" with Jodie Foster.

[ostarella]

If those are truly the issues, then perhaps getting away from the specifics of BSG would be in order. But in a very small nutshell:

The ascendancy of women - I've mentioned this before in other threads, so bear with me if it's tiresome. I attended a convention where the "strong women" role model in TV and films was applauded with enthusiasm. These same women then went on to bemoan the fact that they had no mentors to help them get into directing and producing. TV and films give us (women) a false view, IMHO. We don't see that it takes hard work to get to those power positions - women nowadays seem to think it's their God-given right, and that they should have someone holding their hand to get there just because it's "hard". Hollywood plays to this fiction, and women fall for it. We are, in essence, being taken for the same ride as the "good old days" vision of the happy homemaker.

The rights of artificial life - sorry, I see that as a non-issue. The controversy over "test-tube babies" is long dead, and cloning of humans is still in the pipedream stage. Machines are machines - there's no life there, and if we're talking Cylon type creatures, that's so far in the future as to be inconsequential at this point in time.

Storytelling by Hollywood - no such thing. Hollywood sells a product. They take advantage of the current political and social issues and make up products that people will buy into. They go for either sentimentality or shock value. Years ago we had the "flawed hero" and the current gamut of dark themes is merely Hollywood's extension of that. People watch because there's nothing else being offered.

I'd be more detailed but I have to leave for work. But again, if we are going to discuss "broad, important issues", than by all means do so - but without limiting it to a discussion of two very different (time and theme-wise) TV programs. Let's discuss it in the context of the article, which is what, IMHO, belongs on this forum.

[Warrior]

Considering classic BG's lowest rated episode had a higher rating than GINO's highest rated episode/mini-ep, I think that case is closed as to which was better.

Anyways... we are way off topic with the show comparisons. The article is what the subject was, and Dirk is right.

Can anyone name one show on today where the male character is the stronger character without a female counterpart to make jokes of/be smarter than the male character?

[sawyer99]

Ostarella-

1) "TV and films give us (women) a false view, IMHO." - I would be the first to agree that getting the information to manage your life from film and television is a serious mistake. But it is a universal one. Men do this as well. But I know many women who do not believe that wiggling their noses like Samantha will help them solve problems.

2) The rights of artificial life - in fact, cloning of new species of plant and animal life is going on as we write this. Did you not see the "wonderful" glowing cats the Korean's produced? If you genuinely believe that labs around the world are not working to produce new life forms you might want to put your ear back on that railroad track.


3) Storytelling by Hollywood - your statements show such unbridled contempt for Hollywood storytelling (which I largely share), but there are always pockets of originality which cannot be dismissed. Originality is the exception that proves the rule. Audiences walked out on the first playing of "The Rites of Spring". No doubt you would also walk out on the new BSG.

[sawyer99]

Warrior - I bring this back to the apples and oranges argument. The original BSG lived in an era of very limited media competition. The internet was still very much tied to its DARPA roots and academic institutions. The wildest videogame was Pong. The 3 major networks dominated household viewing time. None of this is true anymore. Success for TV shows has been rescaled accordingly. The numbers would need to be normalized.

[sawyer99]

>>Can anyone name one show on today where the male character is the stronger >>character without a female counterpart to make jokes of/be smarter than the male >>character? --Warrior

I can name quite a few.
Deadwood....the bar owner and the sheriff both (they are principals btw).
24 - Kiefer Sutherland's character
Entourage - Adrian Grenier's character
CSI - William Peterson's character

and on and on we could go.

[bibbi]

Anyways... we are way off topic with the show comparisons. The article is what the subject was, and Dirk is right.


I 100% agree.
I'm here to talk about Dirk. ;)

[ani]

Ok there are a lot of issues here so I'll pick one and then maybe go to another

Let me apologize right of the bat, sawyer99, if I sound uptight or PO'ed or evil during this. I wasn't gonna answer tonight, but something just happened and I need to no be sitting alone in my room right now, so I sound upset at anytime, I am, but not at you or Dirk, or either Battlestar. ^^;;

Ok so first thing I'm gonna go with is Sexism.
(btw I'll say Kara for female Starbuck and Starbuck for male Starbuck simply because hey, Kara has another name, Starbuck does not)

To me, sexism is a belittling of the feminine sex, recently we've hit up against an issue where strong girls are passed off as positive role model.
But what we mean by strong girls is well . . . Kara, little miss I produce more testosterone than the guys.

I have an issue with that. To me, if you constantly present only the rough and tumble tomboy types positively you are STILL negatively influencing the more "feminine" qualities, such as not punching someone in the nose to say hello, but instead. . hugging them. or you know . . as Dirk said, having babies.

But yeah if you show a woman to be strong, but make her strong by downplaying her womanly traits . . that to me is sill pretty gosh darn sexist. I'm not saying all women must be one way but RDM to me often lacks variety. He especially lacks variety if you cross watch his shows, and I think TV/media today lack variety. Sci-Fi especially.

For a good example of what the variety I'm talking about, look at Babylon 5 and the difference between Talia, Ivonova, Delenn, Na'toth, and Lockely. You had a wide range of femininity there. From soft spoken but still very much empowered Delenn to I'm scarier than every male on here put together, Ivonova.

You watch that show growing up as a lilt girl and can see all the possibilities open to you. You watch BSG and you don't get that variety.

IMHO you get the radical feminist version of what a woman should be.
Now their certainly are woman like Kara, so I'm not saying Kara in and of herself is bad, I'm saying the bias in the show toward woman like Kara, and RDM's statement that sexism isn't in his show is well that is bad.

And speaking of how Kara acts, I love how the show never really goes into it. Because yes you have some very masculine acting women out there but also, sometimes, we have to act that way to get the respect we need for our jobs.

Ok personal example:
I'm not a girly girl, but I were skirts a lot, I'm soft.

I get promoted into a leadership position over a bunch of frat boys on a Maintenance crew. VERY MALE environment.
I quickly became the one most likely to bounce your head of a table and curse at you.

Why? Because I found out I either go the guys to follow me by going topless and mesmeriziing them with breasts or I out testosterone them and scared the living beejessus outta them.
Option one would have been more fun, but sadly the university had a dress code.

So I went with option two.
And not lightly. I have a temper, but I don't like being the mean person or the scary person. And it angered me that I had to do so because my male counter part could just speak and be listened to. I had to high kick a vehicle door so hard I dented it inward to get that level of respect they gave to a male automatically.

Does that mean I sucked at me job. No I was good at it, but I did have MAJOR issues getting the guys to listen and take me seriously because I bleed once a month.

So NBG further aggravates me by not raising any of those social issues despite trying to be gritty and realistic.

Instead, they choose to INGORE the entire friggen issues.
So yeah anger.


Ok compare that to the original.
Were the women more limited?
Oh gosh yes.

But you know, for the time, it was actually more progressive than I feel NBG is. NBG breaks no new ground, and doesn’t have woman doing anything I'd not seen woman do in sci-fi hundreds of times before. Not even female presidents are new.

TOS had Dietra telling Apollo off and well . . making Apollo's sexism looks stupid.
And that's big for me.

Have sexism in shows! By gods have it because it is real! But make it looks stupid. Apollo looked like an idiot after Dietra and the woman saved his butt.

And also, BSG was better about addressing the differences that come up when you get in mixed company.
I know guys act differently when woman aren't around.
(and woman act differently when guys aren't around)

Starbuck's line about "sensitive as a virgin's . . lips" was so gosh darn perfect (still is today actually) Oh god yes was it not something you say in front of a woman, but that was the entire point. The crew had been all men, Starbuck was on auto pilot and had to check himself.

That's IMHO again more honest than anything I see in NBG as far as sexism goes.

Starbuck and Apollo mocking the woman pilots, also honest. Again, sexist but raising real issues in society. SHOWING HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE!

NBG claim to do this but IMHO it doesn't, or at least not any better or worse than TOS did, I feel.

Ok so As to Dirk's point, turthfully I think he had one. The portraayal of women in this show is not IMHO overly honest.
The protryal of the male/female relationship given the envorment is idealized and sanitized.

Do I agree with how he said it. No not really. I do think he sounded sexist, but at the same time, I think he also had a point.

As for emasculating men. That one I don't know. But it could be because I watch Family Guys, Friends, and other shows were the guys are so blatently emasculated and made into jokes that by comparison, the guys look great on NBG. Look they aren't falling down stupid! WOW!
But Lee gets on my ever last nerve like Ross did on Friends, so I think perhpas Lee at least is. Baltar absolutely is. Baltar is like female fanservice. .
I'd argue though that Tyrol and Adama are not.


I think in that respect, Dirk as a wonderufl point about TV in general, but I'm not sure it applies as much to NBG.

Has Carlos Mencia (a comedian said) if you ever wonder why no one listens to daddy anymore, turn on your TV.



Which would bring me to Humanity?
Yes we suck, but we also don't suck.

But I'll save debates of the more nihilistic attitude of NBG versus the more optimistic attitude of TOS for later (but as a preview both are valid and both are rather onside looks at humanity and are so because of the trends of the time)





As an ending note, if this were my only issues with the show, I'd watch it. I'm not saying here that NBG is more sexist than anything else on TV (it's not) I'm simply discussing where I find it's failing in regards to sexism and in relating to what Dirk said.

[sawyer99]

Thank you Ani for that very thoughtful answer. In no way did I feel you were angry (or evil) in your presentation of the ideas and experiences. In fact, your descriptions of having to gain male respect (kicking doors in) was very poignant.

[ostarella]

I get promoted into a leadership position over a bunch of frat boys on a Maintenance crew. VERY MALE environment.
I quickly became the one most likely to bounce your head of a table and curse at you.

Why? Because I found out I either go the guys to follow me by going topless and mesmeriziing them with breasts or I out testosterone them and scared the living beejessus outta them.Oh, can I relate to that! :p I worked in shipping, in a manufacturing plant. Not only nearly all male, but a lot of them of social and religious backgrounds where women are to be seen and not heard. Take directions from moi? Right...so yeah, like you, I developed a vocabulary and demeanor that I wasn't particularly fond of - but I had a job to do and had to find a way of getting these guys moving. I don't know if it was the shock value or the fact I could spit out the words faster and further than they could - but there were no slackers on my shift. It's just too bad it had to be that way, because I came home angry most days, just from having to act like that for so many hours...:(

[Dawg]

Dawg - so if I understand this clearly, you are saying because you have discussed this in a forum previously, this thread will be closed down if I bring up my own questions or perspectives? Wouldn't the more reasonable step here (to avoid the rehashing) be to let us chatter among ourselves on this subject?

And if this thread is going to be closed down for speaking openly, I would just like to say that there is a big difference between glorifying misogyny and presenting it as a horrible set of actions by evil people that must be stopped. BSG has not glorified misogyny. If bringing up the subject in the context of fiction is itself a crime, then you should also condemn "The Accused" with Jodie Foster.

You misinterpret. I was echoing Tracy, trying to keep this thread pointed in the direction of Dirk's article and not a full-on discussion of subjects we've decided we don't want to talk about.

I think I get you now, though. I said nothing about "glorifying" misogyny or anything else - that's your term, not mine. But when the alleged heroes of the story are the ones guilty of criminal mistreatment of the female characters, then it's not being presented as a "horrible set of actions by evil people" - those are the actions of the people we're supposed to identify with and root for. So I'll accept the term "glorifying" and thank you for it.

Dirk was right.

Yes, I understand you. I might even know you.

I think I'm done.

I am
Dawg

[Tracy]

Ok..

I allowed this thread to continue in good faith that it would be treated as a debate on what DIRK stated in his Lost In Castration article. I made it clear that it's not a debate of "my show is better than your show". It's creeping dangerously close to that.
We tried this discussion before, and it didn't work. I thought that after several years of the articles release and it basically being beaten to death, Dirk praised, called an asshole, male chauvenist pig, blah blah blah, that *perhaps* a new fresher perspective could be taken after the initial fracas.
Time has passed and tempers have tempered.
If that's not going to be the case, and some still want to beat the already dead horse, without making an informed and valid arguement, then it's pointless discussing it at all.

If you disagree with something DIRK SAID, then voice it and state your case. We'll debate WHAT HE SAID.

[ani]

I'm curious, Dirk talked about sorta the emasculation of male characters in modern TV (which I agree happens irregardless if it happens on NBG - look at The king of Queens, Friends, Family Guy, The Simpsons, American Dad, The War at home, Malcom in the Middle, etc etc etc).

But what do you guys consider masculine to begin with?
I'm wondering because I think you know Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Lance Henriksen, Andy Griffth even (oh c'mon he wasn't tough, but he weas a strong figure) The Rifleman, Sheriff Matt Dillon

And on more recent TV, Elliot Stabler on Law and Order, Also Detective Munch, Jack McCoy, Fred Thompson, and even William Adama.

So given those idea of masculinity . . ok maybe NBG does not emasculate the male characters as much as Dirk claims. It emasculates some, but as it's an ensamble cast (to be fair to Dirk though, he judged based on the miniseries shoot script IIRC, or something, and I think if the mini series stood alone, he would be more correct. He wasn't ignoring things to make his point because those things were not there yet).

So I'm wondering if perhaps there's not a difference of ideas over what masculinity is? I doubt my idea of masculinity is Dirk's and that might be part of the issue.

I'd almost argue that Dirk's criticism about the darknes sof the show and more so the criticism of the Darkness of today's TV is the more valid point in regards to BSG ( in regards to TV in general, I think most of his points are correct in a general way).

I think maybe what was not adaptable to today's TV today was not the original Starbuck's maleness, but the original Starbuck's positiveness. And if you look at Kara, yeah they didn't even bother to try to make her the cheerful upbeat person that Starbuck was.

And I can certianly see that worth a criticism from Dirk. It's scary to me that the media doesn't seem to think, in a serious Drama, that happy people are realistic. That to be happy means you are an outdated cliche. That is . . . disturbing.

I also gotta add though.
Dirk id down as saying that using a cookbook to cook shows lack of brillance and courage.

I want to know what fans actually thought his opinions on adapting BSG would be overly enthusiastic? Considering, from what I've read, he wrote the essay because people kept wanting to know what he thought about it all, so I think this falls under, 'be careful what you ask for, you just might get it'.

I think it should have been kinda obvious Dirk would not be writing sunshine and love for the new series, just given his beleifs 0.o


*looks to mods . . . does this work? I tried hard to make sure this was as about Dirk's article as possible though I'm using memeory of what I read last night as i can't get to it right now at work to direct quote anything ^^ *

[sawyer99]

It's unfortunate, but I am picking up that the admins feel like they have already dealt with our family of responses to Dirk's article (which speaks well for Dirk's article btw) and don't want to be bothered with it again. In looking back over this thread, it seems vigorous without being hostile. The comments are both intelligent and heartfelt which has made me feel that this topic is important. In all I sense an abiding respect for Dirk.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would not see the quality product that exists in the new BSG (despite the ever annoying StarDoe), but after having read these comments I have a better understanding of the mysterious black box that most of you are to me. I genuinely thank you for taking the time to craft your eloquent responses.

If the admins feel that this thread is a problem that very much dampens the enthusiasm for it. Most forums and blog sites welcome vigorous and thoughtful exchanges since this helps to drive quality traffic. More importantly, the message of that site (Dirk, macrobiotics, etc) gain a wider audience.

No one here has had anything but the highest regard for Dirk. Thank you everyone.

[starlight]

Yikes! I don't come on for a few days and I miss all this! I have not seen any of the NBG so can't really comment of its portrayal of men and women. But my 1st impressions have come from the naming a female character Starbuck. Personally, if I was given the name or nickname 'buck' (I don't know if this is a surname in the show), I'd be insulted because I'm a girl and would be wondering why would anyone call me 'buck'? Do I act like a bloke?

[starlight]

Hi Sawyer!
I feel the comments by everyone are very well thought out and there is great debating. I hope you stay :)

[ostarella]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would not see the quality product that exists in the new BSGI think (and this is just my opinion) that this is the problem - the discourse seemed to be moving determinedly in the direction of convincing people that NBSG is a fantastic show, and not relating in any *significant* way to Dirk's article. Frankly, I don't care if it is or isn't fantastic, nor do I care what it's so-called social relevance is. As Tracy noted - it doesn't have Dirk in it so why should we discuss it here? There are, I'm sure, many other places on the 'net to do so. If you want to discuss the article and *reference* either show, I'm more than willing to continue reading and possibly even commenting. ;)

[bibbi]

I think (and this is just my opinion) that this is the problem - the discourse seemed to be moving determinedly in the direction of convincing people that NBSG is a fantastic show, and not relating in any *significant* way to Dirk's article. Frankly, I don't care if it is or isn't fantastic, nor do I care what it's so-called social relevance is. As Tracy noted - it doesn't have Dirk in it so why should we discuss it here? There are, I'm sure, many other places on the 'net to do so. If you want to discuss the article and *reference* either show, I'm more than willing to continue reading and possibly even commenting. ;)

I agree with ostarella, Tracy, dawg, Warrior, Ani (I hope I haven't left anyone else out.) I too am agreeable to discussing Dirk's article and references to the article and also perhaps commenting. ;)

[ani]

I think (and this is just my opinion) that this is the problem - the discourse seemed to be moving determinedly in the direction of convincing people that NBSG is a fantastic .

Well keep in mind part of the original question relates to "how/why do we agree with Dirk?"

Which implies a lack of understanding of why anyone would not care for NBG.

Also he followed that with:
but after having read these comments I have a better understanding of the mysterious black box that most of you are to me. I genuinely thank you for taking the time to craft your eloquent responses.


I'm fine with not understanding my opinion, as long as it's respected :p

I can somewhat relate too. I've said before it's easy for me to agree with Dirk's criticism and his aiming them at NBG 'cause I'm at best tolerantly entertained by some episodes. Clearly I see issues with the show already or I'd be a fan (saw NBG first).

If you are a fan of the show, presumably, you aren't gonna share Dirk's issues, or if you do, not understand why they are negative.

And I think it's hard to discuss LIC without bringing up the differences in shows.The trick that's working here (and I appreciate it Saywer) is there's not a vlaue judgment.

Too often I'm up against "well you don't like it because you are an idiot and need to read real sci-fi"

[bibbi]

And I think it's hard to discuss LIC without bringing up the differences in shows.

Very good point Ani. :)
I think we can both discuss LIC and bring some small reference to the shows because Dirk talked about the differences in his article and his views.
I think we can do that here without going really off topic.
As long as it's Dirk related. ;)

[ostarella]

I agree one can hardly discuss the article without discussing the shows - but it seems to me that if someone has to search to find a small reference to the article in the myriad of comments, something's off-kilter. A discussion of the article (yay or nay) to my mind means "Dirk said this, and here is an example from (old/new) to (agree/disagree) with that point, and why I think so.", and then someone else saying, "Well, but there's this in rebuttal...". Instead (and no disrespect intended to anyone) it sounded like a group of social anthropologists discussing two obscure civilizations, trying to prove that one was more viable than the other in terms of historical significance. Which is fine if a) you're another social anthropologist and b) this was a social anthropology website.

I just would've liked to see a discussion of his article at that altitude. ;)

[ani]

I just would've liked to see a discussion of his article at that altitude. ;)

Ah ok, I was kinda looking for a discussion of concepts Dirk brings up and I guess less of a dissection of what he literally said.

But because for me, discussions like the later have always quickly fallen apart into an anal retentive discussion about what he literally said and not what he meant. :cry:
Which then gets me cournered into defenidng HOW he said it rather than WHAT he said. Which in fact are what a lot of LIC conversations seem to be.

Dirk said "women hand out babies" OMG! Sexist. Scream! Flail! Miss rest of the entire point of essay! Insist woman don't hand out babies! Make Ani wonder what reality you live in!



But I mean also even if I go pull direct quotes it sill is easy to get the BSG's in it given what he says ;)

[ostarella]

Well, I didn't mean a phrase by phrase dissection, either. Concepts will work. ;) My main point being that this particular discussion was way too heavy on the show comparison, and feather-light on the relevance to the article (phrases or concepts). It could have been a high level discussion with the starting points of various concepts from the article and moving through/past the shows to media and society in general, in which many could have participated. Instead it was massive doses of show-specific detritus that was meaningless to anyone who hadn't watched them, and again, with a purpose that seemed to me something other than a discussion of the article.

[Tracy]

Well, I didn't mean a phrase by phrase dissection, either. Concepts will work. ;) My main point being that this particular discussion was way too heavy on the show comparison, and feather-light on the relevance to the article (phrases or concepts). It could have been a high level discussion with the starting points of various concepts from the article and moving through/past the shows to media and society in general, in which many could have participated. Instead it was massive doses of show-specific detritus that was meaningless to anyone who hadn't watched them, and again, with a purpose that seemed to me something other than a discussion of the article.

Ostarella,

THANK YOU. You hit the nail on the head. :cool:

[Crazy Tommy T]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would not see the quality product that exists in the new BSG (despite the ever annoying StarDoe), but after having read these comments I have a better understanding of the mysterious black box that most of you are to me. I genuinely thank you for taking the time to craft your eloquent responses.



I don't find her annoying. Although I watch the new show, I can't deny it's flat out dull 80% of the time. A real chore to sit through episodes some of the time. Things move at a snails pace and there are only about 2 or 3 good episodes per season.

[Nacky]

I like Katee, too. Maybe not so much in GINO but in other stuff she's done. She's quite good.

[bibbi]

Well, I didn't mean a phrase by phrase dissection, either. Concepts will work. ;) My main point being that this particular discussion was way too heavy on the show comparison, and feather-light on the relevance to the article (phrases or concepts). It could have been a high level discussion with the starting points of various concepts from the article and moving through/past the shows to media and society in general, in which many could have participated. Instead it was massive doses of show-specific detritus that was meaningless to anyone who hadn't watched them, and again, with a purpose that seemed to me something other than a discussion of the article.

I agree with Tracy.;) You hit the nail on the head ostarella. ;)
I'm here because I'm a Dirk Benedict fan. This is Dirk Benedict Central. ;)
Look at my avatar. Dirk Benedict IS Starbuck. Starbuck IS Dirk Benedict. I'm a Starbuckaholic of the "real and one and only and true" Starbuck... Dirk Benedict. ;)
I became a big fan of Dirk's when my Father took me to see "Saga of a Starworld" in the movie theatre way back in the 70's. I had seen Dirk in Charlie's Angels and Chopper One. I loved his portrayal of Starbuck The dashing rogue with a heart of gold. He made that role his. I wanted to learn more about the person who is Dirk Benedict. I agree with him 100% in LIC. He is down-to-earth, honest and speaks his mind and has a great sense of humour and is a wonderful Father and family man. *I don't think I left anything out.*;) As a special treat I watched the movie version again last night of "Saga of a Starworld." It delighted me as much as it did back then. And this was more than 30 years ago! ;)
May the Lords of Kobol bless Lt. Starbuck...DIRK BENEDICT! ;)
*Enough said.* ;)

[taylorsgirl]

I 100% agree.
I'm here to talk about Dirk. ;)

Yes i totally agree.And ostarella i love the pic of dirk.He looks so suave

[ostarella]

i love the pic of dirk.He looks so suaveDoesn't he though? :D

[taylorsgirl]

Doesn't he though? :D

Oh my god.He getssexier as he gets older.Although he were very sexy in BG

[bibbi]

Oh my god.He getssexier as he gets older.Although he were very sexy in BG

I 100% agree. ;)

[Sarika]

Frankly for me the new BSG isn't BSG.
It lacks the charm and family values of the "original and the real" Battlestar Galactica.
That's my honest opinion.
The new show is too dark and too violent.
I also agree with Dirk's assessment of the show.
Starbuck is Dirk Benedict and Dirk Benedict is Starbuck.
I've been a fan of Battlestar Galactica (the 1978 series) for over 30 years.
There is a very strong fan base. ;)

Welcome to DBC! :)

I agree with you Bibbinut.;)
I too hold the same opinions about TNS. It shouldn't have been even called Battlestar Galactica, but something else that might have served as some sort of a spin off from Galactica.
The new BG is limited with it's range of audience suitability, and therefore, will never truly have the same fan following in numbers as the TOS did.
The original actors immortalized the very characters(and genders) they played, and will always be remembered as the parts they played and I'm afraid it's just not the same without them.
Nor without half of the characters that have been left out of TNS.

As Laurette said,....Battlestar Galactica will never be the same again as it was.

[spiderr987]

My two cents on the matter, that I've condensed into a mantra, so I won't have to type it out over and over again, at the request of several posters:


This is simply not about a show us original BSG fans don\'t like. Long before there were GINO or fans of GINO (Galactica In Name Only), there were a core group of original BSG fans, who fought for and petitioned for a new BSG show. The majority of us wanted and petitioned for a FAITHFUL CONTINUATION of BSG. If you know anything about the history of BSG, you would know that Singer and DeSanto of XMEN fame were already working on a FAITHFUL CONTINUATION of BSG, with THE BLESSING OF IT\'S CREATOR, GLEN LARSON AND THE FANS. DeSanto attempted to continue Singer\'s vision, but SciFi Channel tore up all the preproduction sets, without warning, overnight. Really professional.

After the 9/11 tragedy set Singer and DeSanto\'s BSG project behind, they had no choice but to abandon the project, as they had already previously contracted to start the XMEN movie by a certain date.

Many, like myself, had gotten over the fact, the new show would not be a continuation, and still were very excited about a new BSG BEGINS. Many, like myself, tuned in for the first four to five episodes, with hopes of liking what we saw. Instead, we were soured by severe changes to the spirit of BSG and the characters that fill out this space epic. We were looking forward to an updating of the F/x, a SLIGHTLY darker, more mature interpretation of BSG. On the other hand, we didn\'t want a show that was so devoid of hope in the face of adversity and so filled with shock value antics, such as baby-neck snapping, rape and public masturbation (Baltar), we would hardly recognize the show as BSG. All of the latter is very out of place in a story, which bares the Galactica name.

Just think if someone remade STAR WARS and made Han Solo a girl, Princess Liea a guy and interjected public masturbation and rape? Fans would have been outraged. I like my ALIENS dramatic, dark and gritty, and my STAR WARS fun, slightly dark and political and action-packed. It was how both stories were written and meant to be. George Lucas penned STAR WARS, so the prequels were his to do with as he pleased. They weren't perfect, but for the most part, I like the prequels, as they stayed true to the spirit of episodes 4-6. I wouldn\'t want my ALIENS fun, lighter in tone and action-packed anymore than I would want my STAR WARS more dramatic, darker, grittier and more violent. STAR WARS, along with BSG, was the sparkle in our eye, which sent a surge of adventure and dreams of hope and heroism through our heads, as children. Moore disrespected that memory, all in a selfish agenda to pad his own ego. WHY? As I stated before, I love dark, violent and gritty, just as much as I love light-hearted fun, adventure and action. It depends on the mood; I’m in at the moment. To be honest, if Moore had penned his own story, characters and title, laced with all the dark & grittiness of an ALIEN movie and then some, I would have loved to seen what became of it with eager anticipation. Still, I’m not sure; I’m not too keen on what I’ve witnessed of Moore’s directing and writing skills.

Moore has taken a cherished story and characters and molested them into something they were not written as and never meant to be. If he wanted to do something so different, why didn\'t he wait until he had a chance to write his own source material 100% from scratch, instead of crushing a fan base\'s and author\'s hopes and wishes. THAT is the definition of true SELFISHNESS. ...and that is why so many of us are pissed off. The core element of original BSG fans, which are the same ones, who fought for a BSG revival, are actively making their opinions known via e-mails, message board, etc, as we feel, as that is our only voice. Most of the casual original BSG fan base of 29-65 million strong (at least back in 78-79), make their disapproval known, simply by not tuning in to watch GINO. SciFi Channel is the Goliath and we are David. We are desperate and frustrated. The nastiness and vindictiveness of so many pro-GINO posters (not all) and staffers at Sci Fi Channel SINCE DAY #1, has only added fuel to the fire.


I hope this sheds some light on the state of things today, in the BSG community.

Sincerely

sPider

[ani]

The original actors immortalized the very characters(and genders) they played, and will always be remembered as the parts they played and I'm afraid it's just not the same without them.

I agree but for a generation.

And think that's what really gets people is that, for most of my generation and younger, Katee is Starbuck and probably will remain Starbuck (to make it about one character, whihc of course it is not really) :(

And yeah replacement sucks (err specially one like Kara ouch).

ETA: And it occurred to me I can't off hand think of anything else redone like this. Movie adaptations of TV series we see all the time, same for updating of movies (I mean what we have three or four seperate takes on Invasion of the Body Snatchers), but is there another total re-work of an TV series?

*thinks* I know there were two seperate "Untouchable" series, the one from the 50's then again in the 90's (which I loved and no one will release on DVD) but hmmm ok that's intereting. In a general scope, what the differences? I mean I feel there is one, but off hand I can't put it into words. And of course the interesting thing is neither Untouchable series is remotely true to the facts at all.

Off hand the only re-make I can think that got such an outraged response recently was Charlie and the Chocolate factory, which was also interesting in that the new movie (which I didn't like) was actually closer to the novel than the first one (which in fact so angered the authr he refused to allow his stuff to be made into a movie again while he was alive), yet most people over like 15 still weren't happy about it as far as I could tell.




I think Dirk had more the right of it when he said something like people will forget there ever was a male Starbuck.

Or at least I think he was right in the short term right of it.

Long term I don't know . . .
Starbuck and Apollo are much more timeless a pair of hereos, they're all Sam and Frodoish/ and umm shoot uhhh insert greek heros I've forgotten about because nobody cares to test me on them anymore.

And of course I'd argue that BSG being a one of the few TV shows remade (seriously how often do you see that? Movies sure, TV series, whoa) kinda proves the timelessness of the themes.

My generation looked at it and went "HEY! We want that! Look! Here's our version!" Just as other generations did to greek myths, shakespear, grimm's fairy tales, the works of Dickens, etc.

You could argue a true sign of how good ToS was that my generation wanted to retell it.

Unfortunantly I'm in the emo/overly serious/bitter/nasty/snarky/rude/violent/easy sex/my way or the highway/anti-hero obsessed generation and so ummm yeah . . . I don't even care too much for our version. It's liek the most recent version fo Invasion of the Body Snatchers. *meh*

I hope when the pendulum swings back to a more genial type of storytelling, BSG is re-told/continued more in keeping with the original. I'm just sad it probably won't happen in Dirk or Richard's lifetimes.

I'm sorry :cry:

So yeah there is something very timeless about the original that may give it real staying power. It's may be a bit dated in look I guess, but you know, I didn't live in the 70's and to me, it always just looks like cool invented outher planet culture, becuase except for the hair, I don't know 70's *L*.

I don't know how hugely iconic it was though (Starbuck was the show overall I dun know), certainly not as iconic as A-Team (which btw, is why I think I'm not so worried about the movie being any kind of replacement. Whatever they do, they can't replace the original, it's too ingrained in pop culture spanning more than one generation )

Actually it's kinda interesting to think about the effect of the A-Team on pop culture. I was musing on this and it's pretty wide spread!

God my thoughts meander. :P

[bibbi]

Sarika wrote: The original actors immortalized the very characters(and genders) they played, and will always be remembered as the parts they played and I'm afraid it's just not the same without them.I 100% agree. And this is not just for one generation. Dirk Benedict immortalized the character of Starbuck. Starbuck IS Dirk Benedict. No one will ever forget that. Thirty years later and the memory of Dirk Benedict as Starbuck is still very, very strong. Look at the fan base out there and it's very, very strong. The fans of the "real" Battlestar Galactica. I am one of those fans and VERY PROUD OF IT! ;)
I'm a Dirk Benedict fan and a Starbuck fan. The "real" Starbuck and that's Dirk Benedict! ;)

[bibbi]

Ani wrote: I don't know how hugely iconic it was though (Starbuck was the show overall I dun know), certainly not as iconic as A-Team (which btw, is why I think I'm not so worried about the movie being any kind of replacement. Whatever they do, they can't replace the original, it's too ingrained in pop culture spanning more than one generation )It IS hugely iconic and IS as iconic as the A-Team. The "real" Battlestar Galactica lives on in comic books, fan fiction, and has a very, very strong fan base. Look at the sales of the complete epic series of the "real" Battlestar Galactica on DVD. They can't replace the "real" Battlestar Galactica. It too is too ingrained in pop culture spanning more than one generation. I should know. ;) I'm a fan of the "real" Battlestar Galactica and for more than 30 years and I'm not the only one! ;)
Like I've said before I'm here because I'm a "real" Battlestar Galactica fan and a "real" Starbuck fan. Starbuck IS Dirk Benedict and always will be. ;)

[ani]

No one will ever forget that. Thirty years later and the memory is still strong.

I don't know. I truly think Face is the more immortalized chatacter. Face is pop culture. No matter what happens, what movie is made, you don't replace Dirk as Face. Everyone knows the original.

I just don't see Starbuck as having that kinda cross generational immortality, mostly because simple reality is, from most of what I've seen and heard, lots of younger people under 25 didn't know *he* existed until *she* existed.

Where as, in contrast, university students I worked with made A-Team jokes that at the time I dind't get but are funny now. I mean we had one guy who that guys would call him The Faceman as a joke (he could always get us supplies plus he had that same clean cut look).

Heck the other person I work with had an A-Team ring tone.

For me, Starbuck, and BSG in general, seems to lack that kinda cross generational immortality.

I'm a fan of the "real" Battlestar Galactica and for more than 30 years and I'm not the only one!

Oh, I'm not comparing it's staying power with fans at the time. it's utterly loveable and I unforgetable if you saw it (or if you give it a chance liek I did).

I'm comparing it's cross generational appeal and pop culture impact. For me, BSG is no where near as well known cross generational as A-Team is and has had no where near the pop culture references (I mean the A-Team is *still* being spoofed in new shows today!)

[bibbi]

Ani wrote: I just don't see Starbuck as having that kinda cross generational immortality, mostly because simple reality is, from most of what I've seen and heard, lots of younger people under 25 didn't know *he* existed until *she* existed.

I respectfully disagree. Here's a link from the Colonial fleets forum.
http://www.nbc.com/Battlestar_Galactica/video/episodes.shtml
A lot of the younger people are now getting a chance to see the "real" Battlestar Galactica and the "real" Starbuck.

[ani]

bibbinut, I think you're missing my point :oops:

I'm not saying fans of both generations do not exist, or that the fandom is dead.

I'm saying they don't exist in the number they do for A-Team, and BSG does not have the kinda of recognition A-Team does cross generationally.

Like it or not, if I say Starbuck the layman in the street who is my age thinks is most likely to think of Katee.

No matter what an A-Team movie does, I'm confident that if I say "Faceman" the layman in the street who is my age is gonna think Dirk.

To me that's a huge difference. Your generation can pass on, and Faceman is still Dirk. I'm not willing to put money down on that holding as true for Starbuck :(

I think maybe y'all being not in the the younger generation underestimate how huge the NBG show is for younger set.

Dirk predicted younger generation would forget Starbuck was ever not a girl and ummm . . . yeah kinda . . he's already right 0.o

I hate that he is but I mean I've actually gotten WTF comments for my Starbuck art because along the lines of:
Why is She male?
What is she wearing?
Why are you calling this BSG fanart.

To which I head desk.

ETA: Sorry had to remove work details ^^

[bibbi]

Ani, I do get your point. :)

I'm also happy to see that the younger generation are getting to see the "real" BSG. I know some people in the younger generation who watched the series with Dirk Benedict as Starbuck and they absolutely loved it.
We've got fans of the "real" BSG who are in their twenties and more and more are coming over. Guess who one of their favourite characters is?
Starbuck and that's Dirk Benedict. ;)

[bibbi]

Ani wrote: To me that's a huge difference. Your generation can pass on, and Faceman is still Dirk. I'm not willing to put money down on that holding as true for Starbuck :(I'm willing to put money down on that holding as true for Starbuck and millions of other fans. ;)

[ani]

I know some people in the younger generation who watched the series with Dirk Benedict as Starbuck and they absolutely loved it.


Oh no no, again, *L* that's never been anything I doubted. I'm proof it happens. I'm just talking numbers.

Go to livejournal, or myspace, or facebook and search "starbuck" that's kinda what I'm talking about.

Now it could be a flash in the pan, true, but I'm not as optimistic as you are. Occasionally I can be quite cyunical and I guess this is one of those times :blush:

Guess who one of their favourite characters is?
Starbuck and that's Dirk Benedict

*GASP* :o
Not Apollo! Say it ain't so! :cry:

:p;)

[bibbi]

Oh no no, again, *L* that's never been anything I doubted. I'm proof it happens. I'm just talking numbers.

Go to livejournal, or myspace, or facebook and search "starbuck" that's kinda what I'm talking about.

Now it could be a flash in the pan, true, but I'm not as optimistic as you are. Occasionally I can be quite cyunical and I guess this is one of those times :blush: I looked at those sites. There is a lot of Dirk Benedict as Starbuck related sites. ;)

[bibbi]

*GASP* :o
Not Apollo! Say it ain't so! :cry:

:p;)
They also really liked Apollo.
Their favourites were Starbuck and Apollo. The "real" ones of course.
I think they've got good taste. ;)

[ostarella]

Considering I'm kind of a "neutral party", I would say the test of time is going to be the determinate here. Will the NBSG be celebrating its 30th anniversary with the type of fan loyalty the original is? Or will people look at one strangely and say "What's that?"

Hmm. I may even be around to find out. :o

[ani]

Considering I'm kind of a "neutral party", I would say the test of time is going to be the determinate here. Will the NBSG be celebrating its 30th anniversary with the type of fan loyalty the original is? Or will people look at one strangely and say "What's that?"

Hmm. I may even be around to find out. :o

Well that applies for the new one (which I'm not really consdiering here, so please don't take this to be an argument that it is/will be iconic 0.o), but the BSG has had 30 years, and I just don't think it's cross-generational iconic.

But maybe we aren't talking the same things here. When I say cross-generation iconic I mean like Star Wars or The Beatles.

BSG is certainly still memorable and still has an fanbase, sure, but IMHO that's no iconic. Otherwise just about every show ever made is iconic. 0.o

[bibbi]

It's interesting you mentioned The Beatles, from the 60's. That's from my generation and they're still loved today. Star Wars too, from the 70's again my generation. And the same goes for Battlestar Galactica the one with Dirk Benedict, Lorne Greene, Richard Hatch, etc. from the 70's as well, also my generation. There are many fans of The Beatles, Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica that are not just my generation it's also the younger generation too. ;)

[bibbi]

BSG is certainly still memorable and still has an fanbase, sure, but IMHO that's no iconic. Otherwise just about every show ever made is iconic. 0.o

Having a thirty year anniversary and still remembered and a strong and loyal fan base and a growing fan base and it's not just my generation that are fans of the show. That IS iconic.
You cannot say that about every show. ;)

[ostarella]

BSG is certainly still memorable and still has an fanbase, sure, but IMHO that's no iconic.I wasn't necessarily saying anything was iconic. Frankly, people like to call a lot of things icons which, in reality, are thus only in the minds of a few. :p More to my point is that if NBSG fans are as loyal in 30 years time, then maybe the naysayers weren't quite as on the ball as they thought. And, obviously, vice versa. :cool:

I just don't get why people on either side have to be so fanatical about them. Even Dirk, who has more reason than any of us to be so, wrote about the overall changes that NBSG was only indicative of.

Which reminds me - are we *ever* going to get back to that article? What was the name of it again? ;)

[bibbi]

Which reminds me - are we *ever* going to get back to that article? What was the name of it again? ;)

*You all know my opinion.* ;)
Now let's talk about Lost in Castration and Dirk Benedict of course. ;)

[ani]

AHHH FORUM ATE MY POST *CRY*

I don't have time to rewrite it before my break ends, but it was basically saying the entire iconic thing was in response to the last line and last paragraph of Dirk's artical and I'll try to quote the bits of the essay I use as jumping points.

But yeah, I think you did kinda have to be there for the changes in NBG to be a big deal. And the reason you had to be there is because the show is not iconic. If it were, you wouldn't have had to be there and the studio never woul have had the guts to do what it did.

So umm yeah that's what got me onto the iconic thing . . .

Like I said, I'll try and quote the bit I'm jumping off from, so it's not totally outta left field. I can't promis to leave BSG totally out of it though, sorry but I really think it's a part of the essay more often than not. :(

[ostarella]

I'm not saying BSG/NBSG shouldn't be part of the discussion. But I don't see any point in having the discussion drain down to simply which show is better, because that's purely subjective. However, looking at them as representations of values, television's influence, how society has changed, etc etc - certainly they're part and parcel of that discussion. ;)

I'm not sure I'd agree that the original's status as iconic would have prevented the studios from screwing around with it. The media, in general, doesn't usually get overwrought when tearing things down, no matter what the supposed status. :rolleyes:

[bibbi]

I also think that BSG/NBSG should be part of the discussion, not the whole discussion. Dirk refers to the comparison in his article on how his role was changed into something that it wasn't originally meant to be. And we're not here to say which show is better. There are other fan sites to do that in, not here. ;)

We're also talking about the influences back then in the media and how television is now and how it was back then. Discussion about family values, society changing, etc. How Dirk has viewed those changes and I agree with him. ;)

As for the part about the show not being iconic and if it were the studio wouldn't have the guts to do that to the show...they do that to television series all the time and especially to the ones that are iconic. To name a few ... Battlestar Galactica, Bewitched, The Dukes of Hazzard, The Incredible Hulk, The Flinstones, The Bionic Woman, etc. They make both TV series remakes and movies of the shows. They don't care as long as they make the big bucks. Look at what they're trying to do to the A-Team and what they did to Battlestar Galactica. :rolleyes:

[Dawg]

You need to decide on a definition for "iconic".

What is an "icon"? It's a symbol, an image for lack of a better term.

From that show came science fiction icons that live to this day, are instantly recognizable.

The Battlestar Galactica.

The Viper fighter.

The uniforms.

And, the most iconic of all - the Cylon Centurion.

All of these are instantly recognizable and silently represent not only the genre but the show. Flash a pic of a Battlestar at the end of a commercial and you know what it is without asking. Same with the Centurion. And I'd place any one of those up against the X-wing fighter, death star, or Darth Vader, Buck Rogers ray-gun, etc.

Money is always the motivator in Hollywood - art never is. Lowest common denominator.

Is it any wonder the only thing I watch on Skiffy now is Dr. Who?

I am
Dawg

[ostarella]

Money is always the motivator in HollywoodWhich is why we have sooooo many reality shows :cry:

[ani]

I'm not saying BSG/NBSG shouldn't be part of the discussion. But I don't see any point in having the discussion drain down to simply which show is better, because that's purely subjective

neither do I but I don't perceive how the iconic point was in anyway a comparison. I'm gussing you saw it as such as you said it would take 30 years to know, but I wasn't really remotely fussed with the new show being or not being iconic. In fact I specifically used the A-Team as a reference point to try and avoid that perception :neutral:

I was only concerned with the original and whether that was iconic.

However, looking at them as representations of values, television's influence, how society has changed, etc etc - certainly they're part and parcel of that discussion.

True, but i felt I did that with the discussion on sexism comparing how it was shown in each show, but agian that came up as comparing shows:confused:

I've never been trying to say which show is better. Yes I picked out negatives and positives of each show, but any show has those. That never intended to be about which show *as a whole* is better.
So fat this point I'm really confused as to why you keep having issues with the topics because I've never felt any large part of this thread has beend evoted to which show is better as a whole. :confused:

As for subjectivity, this entire essay is subjective. It's Dirk's opinion. Not TrueFact or anything. Any response will be subjective. :(



Bewitched, The Dukes of Hazzard, The Incredible Hulk, The Flinstones, The Bionic Woman

ermmm well, Anne, I don't think any of those are iconic, except maybe Flintstones (the hulk as a symbol, but again as a long time comic fan, the movie did him well. he was the hulk, so actually I think that proves that studios don't tend to muck with icons!).

Which was a faithful adaptation. Exceedingly so in fact. Of all of those I'd argue that was least likely a money grab and most likely a labor of love on someone's part. If anything I think that argues against Hollywood being only an uncreative money machine. That movie showed insane amounts of creativity and loyalty to the show.

Dukes of Hazzard yeah ok money making at it's worst.
But that's how it works, some movies are good, some are bad.

I don't think adaptation automatically means there is an uncreative money grab of evil.

I mean loomk at LotR, that was an adatpation of a *huge* icon.
Not a money grab. Jackson did it for love.
(also note, as an icon, it was fairly faithful given the contraints inherent in the change of medium! Any truly out there crazy idea Jakcson had got tossed because it wouldn't go over well EG: Arwen invovled in Battle and a final showdown battle between Aragorn and Suaron, both with great marketability, both tossed because LoTR is too iconic for changes to the story of that magnitude . . . not even the pipes were taken out!)

[bibbi]

Ani, I think it depends on what you think of as iconic and what the definition is.
The definition of iconic.
1. characterized by fame: relating to or characteristic of somebody or something admired as an icon
http://encarta.msn.com/xImages/dictionary/bullet.gifhttp://encarta.msn.com/xImages/trans.gifTheir fame has grown to iconic proportions.
I think Battlestar Galactica definitely belongs in that category and I agree with you on LOTR. The other shows I was giving as an example also have a huge following Bewitched (check out the websites) and Battlestar Galactica from 1978, etc.
I'm pleased that Jackson did such a great job with LOTR. I loved those movies. Thank the Lords of Kobol that Larson has the movie rights to Battlestar Galactica. ;)

[bibbi]

Money is always the motivator in Hollywood - art never is. Lowest common denominator.

Dawg, sad but true. :rolleyes:

[ostarella]

but I don't perceive how the iconic point was in anyway a comparisonI think we're talking at cross-purposes here - my original statement about the 30 years thing had nothing to do with icons. It had to do with "fan longevity", I guess you'd call it, and was more or less tongue-in-cheek.

Nor did I ever say that your comments vis a vis sexism, etc, were "off topic". I was addressing the overall "flavor" of the discussion at that point in time. (I usually try to use quotes if I'm going to address an individual post.) I do think we (all) need to reference the article more, mainly so people know where to look to see what someone is talking about. And again, I'm making a generalized statement there, simply because Dirk's statements have already been taken out of context all over the place. ;)

[bibbi]

I do think we (all) need to reference the article more, mainly so people know where to look to see what someone is talking about. And again, I'm making a generalized statement there, simply because Dirk's statements have already been taken out of context all over the place. ;)

ostarella, You've hit the nail on the head again. ;)

[ani]

1. characterized by fame: relating to or characteristic of somebody or something admired as an icon


I'll agree to disagree, because more or less, yeah that definition, that's exactly what I'm saying I don't think the original BSG has for my generation. Now, if you do think it has that kinda fame for my generation, then at this point again, I'll agreee to disagree on that too ^^;;

Sorry for the bold, but I think y'all kept trying to argue it as iconic for you generation, which was never my point. I'm not at all prepared to speak on behalf of y'all 'cause well *L* I wasn't there! :p



Money is always the motivator in Hollywood - art never is. Lowest common denominator

Only for some. I think the money grubbing nature of the studios blots out that you do actually have some art get though. Cloony's 'Good Luck and Goodnight' was IMHO a good example. So was Capote, and Schindler's List. And many otehrs IMHO.

I also think Aressted Develoment and Starved were good TV show examples of art/concept before money.

I mean I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand, but I don't think she was completely right, nor do I think everything needs to be artistic. *shrugs*

Die hard was sooo lowest common denominator,All of 'em really. So was Transformers, but you know, I'm glad they were made. They were fun times.

And again, I'm making a generalized statement there, simply because Dirk's statements have already been taken out of context all over the place

*L* Well point, but to be honest, that was something I wasn't as worried about happening here.

[Crazy Tommy T]

Of course even though Dirk said those things, this meeting still took place, in Starbucks.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/955/starbucknohl8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[ani]

I love that picture so much, it's so adorable.

Speaking of taking LIC out of context, it's a shame Katee took the essay so personally. :rolleyes:

'Course also I've seen that she was under the impresison from that meeting that he liked the idea of the new show, so then I guess LIC would be a bit of a shock, but still, ah well between her and him.

It's stillan adorable shot.
I even iconed it:
http://www.oshinchan.com/avatars/starbucks.gif

[Crazy Tommy T]

What did Katee say about Dirks article?

[ani]

I PMed her comments.

On second look, way off topic and way inflammatory.

ETA:
You know it occures to me, I hope no one took my thoughts on my opinion that BSG not iconic and that's why as Dirk said, you had to be there, to be thoughts on BSG not being good :o

I think many many shows are good, but not iconic (even my own 'best show ever made ever for the next million years', Babylon 5 I wouldn't say is iconic for my gen :rolleyes:)

My roommte says icons shuld be the Holy Mother Mary btw. *L*

[Lagniappe's guy]

Hi all,

I found this site by accident while researching the old show's Starbuck character as played by Dirk Benedict. I was trying to counter someone I know who raves on and on about the "new" bitter feminist version.

I took the liberty of blogging on Dirk's excellent essay which is discussed in this thread and posted on the main site. I'd welcome any commentary.

http://lagniappeslair.blogspot.com/2008/04/dirk-benedict-writes-starbuck-was-meant.html

Thanks!

Lagniappe's Guy

[ostarella]

A little irony - on the fun side ;)

http://www.wickedlocal.com/quincy/homepage/x990748269

[bibbi]

ETA:
You know it occures to me, I hope no one took my thoughts on my opinion that BSG not iconic and that's why as Dirk said, you had to be there, to be thoughts on BSG not being good :o

I think many many shows are good, but not iconic (even my own 'best show ever made ever for the next million years', Babylon 5 I wouldn't say is iconic for my gen :rolleyes:)

My roommte says icons shuld be the Holy Mother Mary btw. *L*

Ani, I respect your opinion and I know you respect mine. I like the fact that you really like Battlestar Galactica. ;)
I also like what you said about your roommate saying that icons should be about the Holy Mother.
I also like Babylon 5. I watched the entire series.
I think a better term than being iconic would be famous and having a huge fan base and a huge following. I think we can all agree on that. ;)

[bibbi]

Hi all,

I found this site by accident while researching the old show's Starbuck character as played by Dirk Benedict. I was trying to counter someone I know who raves on and on about the "new" bitter feminist version.

I took the liberty of blogging on Dirk's excellent essay which is discussed in this thread and posted on the main site. I'd welcome any commentary.

http://lagniappeslair.blogspot.com/2008/04/dirk-benedict-writes-starbuck-was-meant.html

Thanks!

Lagniappe's Guy

I just read that. Very well said. I really like what was written.
I also commented on the blog.

Some quotes of the article from Dirk Benedict himself.

I'm not sure if a cigar in the mouth of Stardoe resonates in the same
way it did in the mouth of Starbuck. Perhaps. Perhaps it "resonates"
more. Perhaps that's the point. I'm not sure. What I am sure of is
this…

Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Hamlet does not scan as
Hamletta. Nor does Han Solo as Han Sally. Faceman is not the same as Facewoman. Nor does a Stardoe a Starbuck make. Men hand out cigars.
Women `hand out' babies. And thus the world, for thousands of years, has gone round.

I 100% agree with Dirk. And what Dirk is saying is not sexist.
Nor does Stardoe a Starbuck make. That's for sure. ;)

And I agree with this statement from the blogger.

Dirk, my hat's off to you. You're on the money politically and philosophically and what's more, you made TV fun to watch and sadly it's rarely like that today.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_sqnjZD8MC7A/R_7N0VQCyjI/AAAAAAAAAV4/tNA8tFecM-k/s320/dirk-benedict-1.jpg (http://bp3.blogger.com/_sqnjZD8MC7A/R_7N0VQCyjI/AAAAAAAAAV4/tNA8tFecM-k/s1600-h/dirk-benedict-1.jpg)
The one--and only--Galactica's Starbuck.

I 100% agree! ;)

[spiderr987]

I think Dirk had more the right of it when he said something like people will forget there ever was a male Starbuck.

I think Dirk was being a bit modest and sarcastic. LOST IN CASTRATION was written to be funny in a dry manner, with a dash of sarcasm, far from "the bitter, old man" mischaracterisations, that have been thrown his way by so many in the GINO camp.

Let's do the math:

*29-65 million weekly veiwers tuned into watch Larson's BSG, starring Dirk as Starbuck.

*Less than 3 million tune in to watch GINO, starring Katee as Stardoe.

That tells you that most people in the country know Starbuck as Dirk.

[Tracy]

Now if anyone in the US from here had of tuned in to "Live with Regis and Kelly" they would possibly have a new ride and a vacation :)

http://www.patriotledger.com/entertainment/x628029523

[Crazy Tommy T]

I'd love to see classic BSG get a makeover with some new effects like Star Trek is. Not that they don't hold up but we all know that because of the shooting schedule so many of the same shots had to be used and used again from episode to episode. I think that might help draw a new crowd in to the old series.

[Tracy]

It IS hugely iconic and IS as iconic as the A-Team. The "real" Battlestar Galactica lives on in comic books, fan fiction, and has a very, very strong fan base. Look at the sales of the complete epic series of the "real" Battlestar Galactica on DVD. They can't replace the "real" Battlestar Galactica. It too is too ingrained in pop culture spanning more than one generation. I should know. ;) I'm a fan of the "real" Battlestar Galactica and for more than 30 years and I'm not the only one! ;)
Like I've said before I'm here because I'm a "real" Battlestar Galactica fan and a "real" Starbuck fan. Starbuck IS Dirk Benedict and always will be. ;)

I'm going to have to disagree with you. On several points.
I'm going to play Devils advocate ( notice my post count?? CREEPY!! ) here for a mo....

First of all, "real" wouldn't be my choice of a word. "Original" I prefer. What is "real" for the first generation of fans, may not necessarily apply to the current generation who enjoy *both* shows. Or just the current one. And there are many.

I have to disagree that the original BG is "iconic". Why? Well let's be honest. It doesn't match the status of shows like "M*A*S*H", "All In The Family", the "Star Wars" franchise of being known all over the world. Yes BG is known, but not on the same scale. I'd consider 1978's BG as more pop culture than iconic. Which isn't to say that for it's time it wasn't popular, because it was, and it has had a lasting impression on a generation of fans who really wanted and felt that it deserved a Tom DeSanto upgrade ( I did and still do ), but it only lasted one season. It was the show of my childhood and brought alot of fun memories and I would love to see the original actors back for a feature film ( a la Star Trek ), but my hopes are waning.

As for Dirk being Starbuck, well...aspects of his Starbuck are based on his own personality, but not all. And truth be told, when they write his obituary I can pretty much guarantee that he'll be credited first and foremost as being "Templeton Peck" of "A-Team" then he will as "Starbuck" of "Battlestar Galactica." That is the character he is MOST remembered for. Although I do think that Dirk would prefer to be remembered not for either but simply for "Dirk Benedict.......Dad".

Dirk's Battlestar was a different time. A different generation of values, ideals. It's no different than the younger generation disagreeing with their parents. Both sets come from different times, experiences, education, etc etc. Dirk gave his perspective, from having lived it and seeing the progression from one generation to the next. And so he should. The younger 20-something generation see it from *their* perspective. And so they should. It's the only perspective they have. It's like trying to make them understand what it was like living in a time they never knew, and will never know.

Judging from all the e-mails I have personally received at this website over the years since the article was released, I can honestly say that most of the older generation got what he said, but not all. Most of the younger generation ( and I must say women in particular ) were the most outraged.

Just different generations, different perspectives.

[bibbi]

Tracy wrote:As for Dirk being Starbuck, well...aspects of his Starbuck are based on his own personality, but not all. And truth be told, when they write his obituary I can pretty much guarantee that he'll be credited first and foremost as being "Templeton Peck" of "A-Team" then he will as "Starbuck" of "Battlestar Galactica." That is the character he is MOST remembered for. Although I do think that Dirk would prefer to be remembered not for either but simply for "Dirk Benedict.......Dad".

I respectfully disagree. I think Dirk will be credited with being remembered as "Starbuck" of " Battlestar Galactica" as much as "Templeton Peck" of the "A-Team".
I do agree with you that Dirk would prefer not to be remembered not for either but simply for "Dirk Benedict.......Dad" That's a beautiful sentiment. :)

[ostarella]

It's like trying to make them understand what it was like living in a time they never knew, and will never know...Most of the younger generation ( and I must say women in particular ) were the most outraged.I must admit I have a certain amount of impatience with younger generation women. And there's undoubtedly more than a little resentment mixed in with that as well. :oops: I see them (and I'm over-generalizing, I know, so bear with me) as having grown up in the age of "entitlement" - with the idea that just because they're "qualified", they should get any job they apply for - and woe to the employer who hires the man instead! But I also feel sorry for them, in a way, because they make everything so hard on themselves - because they take everything so personally and so seriously! For example, they see their male supervisors as cold or crabby, and don't understand why I get along with them. To me, it's obvious - I "accept" the men as "men". I don't expect them to be non-sexual robots. So I let them "relax" around me, and I relax around them - and then we get the work done, and have fun at the same time. Around the younger women, everyone's on their guard so as not to say the "wrong thing". And everything becomes serious and professional - and the men think the women are bitchy and the women think the men are crabby.

I don't agree with everything Dirk has said about women, but I also understand that he's not a "woman-hater". He's just not "PC" - and I applaud that. Frankly, I'm so sick of that atmosphere of watching what you say and to whom you say it. And God save me from "sensitive" men! But again, I think that's the generational thing. Younger women seem to expect that men accept them as is, and if they don't, it's the man's problem. A woman can ogle a man's behind and that's okay. A man who stares at a woman's breasts is a jerk. :rolleyes:

So call me old-fashioned - or maybe just tired. :p But as much as I enjoy the benefits of being a female today, I miss the days when I was treated like a *woman* and not just a person.:(

[bibbi]

I have to disagree that the original BG is "iconic". Why? Well let's be honest. It doesn't match the status of shows like "M*A*S*H", "All In The Family", the "Star Wars" franchise of being known all over the world. Yes BG is known, but not on the same scale. I'd consider 1978's BG as more pop culture than iconic. Which isn't to say that for it's time it wasn't popular, because it was, and it has had a lasting impression on a generation of fans who really wanted and felt that it deserved a Tom DeSanto upgrade ( I did and still do ), but it only lasted one season. It was the show of my childhood and brought alot of fun memories and I would love to see the original actors back for a feature film ( a la Star Trek ), but my hopes are waning.

I respectfully disagree. I think it is "iconic". When I said "real" I meant real in the sense it was and is the genuine article and it was first. Battlestar Galactica is known world wide. There are fan sites in Germany and other countries. I've taken a look at a lot of the fan sites. I belong to more than one fan site of Battlestar Galactica and there are fans of all age groups. I'm not the only person who thinks this. Dirk's character of Starbuck is well loved and by millions of fans. And it's still popular. More and more fans have come to know it through re-runs, the NBC site and the DVD boxed set. It did last only for one season. But, it was a season of real quality. I'd rather have a show of real quality than quantity any day. ;)

[ostarella]

I think it is "iconic".Jumping into the fray here :D I would have to say I agree with those who don't see the show as an icon. An icon is something that is so well known that people know what you're talking about as soon as you mention it - Star Trek, for example. Something that made such a huge impact that you don't have to explain what it was. BSG is really a "cult classic", in that it has a great many fans and followers, but outside of that group (however large) it is generally not well known. Heads of state as well as the kid on the street would recognize Star Trek - they may not have even heard of Battlestar. ;)

[bibbi]

Jumping into the fray here :D I would have to say I agree with those who don't see the show as an icon. An icon is something that is so well known that people know what you're talking about as soon as you mention it - Star Trek, for example. Something that made such a huge impact that you don't have to explain what it was. BSG is really a "cult classic", in that it has a great many fans and followers, but outside of that group (however large) it is generally not well known. Heads of state as well as the kid on the street would recognize Star Trek - they may not have even heard of Battlestar. ;)

There are many, many of the fans of BSG that would disagree. It's got it's 30th anniversary coming up and is still known. Now that's something! ;)
You know if everyone agreed on the same thing, the world would be pretty boring indeed. ;)

[Tracy]

Jumping into the fray here :D I would have to say I agree with those who don't see the show as an icon. An icon is something that is so well known that people know what you're talking about as soon as you mention it - Star Trek, for example. Something that made such a huge impact that you don't have to explain what it was. BSG is really a "cult classic", in that it has a great many fans and followers, but outside of that group (however large) it is generally not well known. Heads of state as well as the kid on the street would recognize Star Trek - they may not have even heard of Battlestar. ;)

"Cult classic" now that's the phrase I was looking for ;) I agree.

I think if BG had of gone the way of Star Trek, been made into a feature film with the original cast as a springboard for perhaps spinoffs etc, that it could *possibly* made "icon" status. But that didn't happen. It's like it was "interrupted" by a different vision, a different direction ( with switched gender characters ). I think if they had of made Spock a woman in the Star Trek: Motion Picture, the outcome for the franchise would have been very different. Or perhaps not. Who knows. We'll never know. But the motion picture worked for ST and since, of course, the ST universe got a whole lot bigger and people were offered a Whitman's sampler of different ideas under the ST umbrella. But they stayed true to the original characters, and introduced a new generation to ST:TNG. Both generations were happy :)

[Tracy]

There are many, many of the fans of BSG that would disagree. It's got it's 30th anniversary coming up and is still known. Now that's something! ;)
You know if everyone agreed on the same thing, the world would be pretty boring indeed. ;)

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that original BG still has quite the following 30 years later ( Hell..I'm one of 'em! ), but I still have to agree to disagree with you on the icon status. As much as I love original Battlestar, it hasn't garnered the same attention as other scifi franchises. However, I think it *could* have if Tom DeSanto had of had the opportunity to continue with the original cast/themes.:)

[bibbi]

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that original BG still has quite the following 30 years later ( Hell..I'm one of 'em! ), but I still have to agree to disagree with you on the icon status. As much as I love original Battlestar, it hasn't garnered the same attention as other scifi franchises. However, I think it *could* have if Tom DeSanto had of had the opportunity to continue with the original cast/themes.:)

Good points. I also think it depends on what each of us thinks of as a definition of iconic and what each of us perceives as iconic. I also agree it's a "cult classic" too. I think we can all agree it does have quite the following 30 years later. ;)

[bibbi]

I'd love to see classic BSG get a makeover with some new effects like Star Trek is. Not that they don't hold up but we all know that because of the shooting schedule so many of the same shots had to be used and used again from episode to episode. I think that might help draw a new crowd in to the old series.

I'd love to see that too. :)
I read this in an article that was written in June of 2007.
Glen A. Larson, the original creator of the 1970's series Battlestar Galactica, has won his battle with Universal over intellectual property rights to the BSG franchise. Now, it's up to him to decide if the series has a future on the big screen, or even with direct-to-DVD films. Larson has retained all motion picture rights to both the franchise and the name. Larson has, however, expressed an interest in revitalizing the original series with a theatrical-release movie picking up where the original story left off.

[starlight]

As a 20-something, I'd like to say I saw BSG, as I was growing up and had not seen the show. I had only heard of BSG and knew that is was a HUGE thing with lots of dedicated fans which had made it a cult. A few years back, when I was in college, part of our course was about a particular genre; sci-fi. When BSG came up, my class of 18 year olds knew it as the classic, cult TV show but not really anything more. BTW, I live in South Wales where most of the youngsters are like how ostrella described above. I am glad to not be one of them. I guess that's why I have many friends who are older than myself.

[ostarella]

I guess that's why I have many friends who are older than myself.Hey, we're like fine wine... :D:D:D