The new BSG was horrible.  It suffered from the new writing style which has two main elements:

• Moral Relativity.  The "bad guys" don't exist.  What at first appears to be bad guys are "just like us."  BTW, in any story if there's no strong protagonist the story fizzles.

• Redemption.  For some reason writers have decided that unless there are characters who do something bad then get redeemed, there is no drama.  It may be true, for example the character of Zachary Smith in Lost in Space had that element, but they overdo it.  Dr. Baltar helped wipe out the entire human race, but he attained redemption.

Star Wars employed both elements, but did them well.  Darth Vader was just like Luke, but there was no moral relativity.  Anakin chose evil, and perpetrated evil.  He was redeemed when he made the choice for good.  Luke wasn't just like him in that Luke did evil, he was just like the bad guy in that the bad guy had the seed of good in him, and ultimately took good actions.

I agree fibbits. The "NEW" writing style that your referring to is to be "wishy washy" - to "ride the fence" - to "go with the flow".

For some reason writers are allergic to the solid "good guy versus bad guy / hero vs. villian" formula. They believe that it's unbelievable and that a clear cut good vs. evil struggle does reflect believable reality. So exactly what in the hell have we been going through since 911 anyway? An actual struggle of good versus evil - or a little "I'm Ok - Your Ok, just misunderstood" tiff? I DON'T THINK SO! Tell our young men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that solid heroes are a myth! THEY ARE SOLID HEROES!

Also, I am really getting tired of this "living in the gray area" mentality that writers have anymore.
YES - a lot of things in life DO fall into gray areas - but they are different shades of grey - some leaning more towards the dark and others toward the light. You might say that a totally black and white position does not exist, but in doing so you must also come to terms with the fact that niether does absolute ambiguity.

From the relativistic perspective - mathematically - if your moral bent is over 50% towards the dark side - your generally a bad guy. If it's over 50% towards the light, then your generally a good guy, but NOBODY is exactly 50 / 50. Your still on divided ends of the ethical spectrum.
I'm sure even Hitler had one or two things in common with Winston Churchill, but they were still the antipathy of one another - and that was a static condition.

It's bologney to say that there is no right or wrong, good versus evil, etc., and that writers shouldn't even go there. As a result of this prolonged exahltation of the "anti-heroe" fence rider character formula (which is MY GOD SO OLD AND TIRED), you do not have a more open, "sophisticated" audience - but a more hardened, SYNICAL audience - because they've been spoon fed dog poop for so long that they now prefer it over a well planned meal.

 I agree with the good vs evil thing.  The world is shades of gray, and THAT is what the evil bastards hide in to do evil.  I have encountered true, pure evil in the real world, so I know it DOES exist.  There ARE people who make the choice to get off on the pain of others, to make themselves rise over overs by piling up bodies of people the murdered.  It's like a drug.  They cause pain and death out of a rush or high they get from hurting others to prove they are better than others.

There are people who get feelings of helping others,too.  There you have it. Good and evil.  They do exist and if writers can't at least acknowledge that do really exist, their writing becomes weak and ineffectual.  That means bad stories.

An anti-hero is a hero, just flying in the face of custom or convention, that challenges the status quo to do good in they own style. Hollywood and others forgot that.  Hollywood forgot a LOT of writing techniques.

AARGH!

I'm twixt between for leaving some things alone and seeing what a remake would do/look like.

I'd love to see a remake of "Forbidden Planet", but I absolutely love the original.
"THEM" is one I'd like to see redone, but in the era that it took place, just update the Special FX.

I hear the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was not so good, but I loved the original.

There's a western I'd love to see redone as well, but the original is a classic.

What to do, what to do?

When "The Invasions of the Body Snatchers" was redone (again - for the umteenth time), I watched it because I loved the 70's version with Donald Sutherland. I was REALLY disappointed  at the ending of the current "The Invasion". Not even close. Too rosey. Bah.

They almost never remake a movie as good as the original - in fact I can't even think of one at the moment (although I'm sure they exist..lol). Case in point; The Planet of the Apes. The old one was absolutely exceptional. The new one? What a dog of a movie...lol.

Sequels fall short in my opinion as well. I can only think of a few that were actually better than the original: Aliens, Harry Potter series and the LOTR series comes to mind. Most they would have done better to leave alone, like The Terminator series. The original was a cult classic. No topping that ;o). Pirates was an utter disappointment when I went to the theater to see the second installment. I knew within the first 5 minutes that I was gonna hate it ;o).

So now, I see they've made a sequel to Twilight (never seen it and don't intend to). In my mind, vampires are BAD, not good (yeah, I'm old school) and this glorifying of them lately just really makes me yawn. At the minimum, the girl who plays the lead character has exceptionally poor taste in men. What are the odds you'll fall in love with both a vampire AND a werewolf in your short life? Imagine the rotten luck...lolol. Maybe I just can't suspend my disbelief far enough anymore ;o).

The last good "newer" movie I've seen: 30 Days of Night. I was riveted...lol. But the good newer movies I've seen encompass a very, very short list. Same goes for television - an even shorter list.

Laurie

A good story is a good story.  There have been "remakes" for centuries. Even ancient stories about the flood were done several times over with different characters, though that may be remembering localized versions of a world-wide calamity!

Remaking classics and continuing story lines can be good. After all, there really aren't that many good new stories and characters around. Themes and plot construction remain the same for many stories. Kind of like all the similar versions of characters and textures seen here at Renderosity. It depends on whether the person creating the work has talent or is a hack! :)

I saw V the other night and it seems like a good start. You don't want to go into all the explanations and questions in one show. That would require too much exposition which is a no-no in screenwriting 101. The info will have to be slipped in each episode. With more time to tell the story, you have that luxury in a novel, but not in TV or film.

Approaching this from the angles of FBI agent, TV reporter, family themes, brings the ordinary viewer into it more easily. The general female audience, which TV targets, will not sit still for most science fiction, unless the other familiar themes are there. They also have to be able to relate to the characters, especially in a TV show. My understanding is this show is only running four weeks, so if it does well, it will come back. Even more reason to get viewers hooked in the shortest time possible.

Quote -

So now, I see they've made a sequel to Twilight (never seen it and don't intend to). In my mind, vampires are BAD, not good (yeah, I'm old school) and this glorifying of them lately just really makes me yawn. At the minimum, the girl who plays the lead character has exceptionally poor taste in men. What are the odds you'll fall in love with both a vampire AND a werewolf in your short life? Imagine the rotten luck...lolol. Maybe I just can't suspend my disbelief far enough anymore ;o).

The last good "newer" movie I've seen: 30 Days of Night. I was riveted...lol. But the good newer movies I've seen encompass a very, very short list. Same goes for television - an even shorter list.

Laurie

I like 30 Days of Night, too! Good story and nice changes on standard themes.

I do know girls who make terrible choices in guys. Happens all the time, especially to the younger set and 20-somethings... even older women. It's that damn attraction thing which messes them up. I know one girl who has had three bad boyfriends in the last year. She's finally coming to her senses but her desire to go out and have fun because her life basically sucks is getting her in these jams.

I too quit watching the new BSG halfway through the first season. I didn't care for a single one of the characters. If you can't "relate" to any of the characters in a story, it fails to really engage you.
I'll tell you a show I currently have a seething love/hate for and  that is Smallville!!! I love Superman, but this show insults me in just about every episode and yet I'm still watching the damn thing 9 seasons in!!! For some reason I just can't help myself. I keep waiting for Clark to become the hero he's supposed to be. I really want Dean Cain and Lois & Clark back!

I've actually heard that the original 'Prisoner' series literally did end with no one knowing how to end it...that episode is high in my lists of 'WTF?'...;) Supposedly the writer (I think it was McGoohan himself) either quit, or gave up...;)

All I remember about 'V' (not vendetta...;) was that they ate cockroaches...;) Maybe if cheese ages sufficiently, it can be considered palatable...;)

Quote - Battlestar Galactica from the former Sci Fi channel was not to shabby ;)

Until the Frakin end. Then it blew chunks. It was like they had no idea how to wrap it up, so they just made some crap up. The ending more or less ruined the entire series for me.

couldnt have said this better...
last season sucked...and the last ep of the last season sucked the suck to a whole new level of suckiness!

lol
BT

Quote -
I'll tell you a show I currently have a seething love/hate for and  that is Smallville!!! I love Superman, but this show insults me in just about every episode and yet I'm still watching the damn thing 9 seasons in!!! For some reason I just can't help myself. I keep waiting for Clark to become the hero he's supposed to be. I really want Dean Cain and Lois & Clark back!

I've finally liked the show since season 8 now that they've gotten off the Lex fixation and have had some new threats, guests, etc. I can live with the changes they've made to the mythos, but if the comic books can change stuff all the time, why not the TV shows (I never forgave the comic book version for killing off Supergirl - they had Kara alive for this show but now stuck in the Phantom Zone - one of last season's better episodes - I guess the writers can never figure out what to do with her character). And finally, Lois and Clark are getting more focus. I love Erica Durance as Lois... she, Teri Hatcher and Phyllis Coates are my all-time favorite Lois Lane actresses. Good news, too, the ratings have been going up since the move to Friday night, so it looks like another season next year!

 Qoute:"I can live with the changes they've made to the mythos, but if the comic books can change stuff all the time, why not the TV shows", Unqoute.

Ok so what's this thing about change that everybody loves so much? No really?
People seem to absolutely love having the freaking rug pulled out from under them on a constant basis by idiots with societal attention deficit disorder who have no sense of long term attention span - and have to gear up everything in their lives all over again - almost weekly.

When society has a collective nervous breakdown because everybodie's getting all of this precious "change" shoved down their throats at machine gun rapid fire frequency (and the symptoms are indeed boiling up), I'm gonna laugh my stinkin arse off at the whole of them and come down with a real bad case of the screaming "I TOLD YOU SO"s! lol.

You say "Why can't things change all the time", I say "Why in the heck should they have to?"

Mugsey, you know sir, at first you annoyed me. Then I realised, it's because we're so much alike! Grumpy old farts! We should form a club!

GRUMP GROWL GRUMETY GRUMP Grrrrr, LMAO :lol: :lol: :lol:.

Quote - Mugsey, you know sir, at first you annoyed me. Then I realised, it's because we're so much alike! Grumpy old farts! We should form a club!

Hey!

I resemble a grumpy old fart...lol ;o). I think a lot of us are hanging around this place.

A toast to the grumps! Hehehe.

Laurie

Oscar the Grouch ain't got nothin' on Old Poser Users!! We should be on PBS! :tt2:

Well I'm in my early 40s, old enough to know better but still young enough not to give a hoot either way, lol.

Well, I can remember paying $.18 for a gallon of gas.  Beat that you young'ngs--Jan

ok- I remember when I was a teenager me and my buds went on a 125 mile road trip on .50 cents of gas.

I remember when a bottle of coke was a nickle and the pop tops were NOT screw offs, lol.

When I was a young child Fort Mackinac was my playground before it was rebuilt.

So what're you tryin' to say? I'm prematurely grumpy? 

Quote - So what're you tryin' to say? I'm prematurely grumpy? 

Not at all, it takes years of refining, dedication, and unusual aches and pains to get into our elite group!   Jan

Quote - So what is ABC going to do with "V" that NBC didn't do a few years back?

That's easy - milk the younger generation for all the bucks they can.

I'm old enough to have seen and actually appreciated the original series (did anyone else find it funny that Robert Englund, who played the wimpy turncoat lizard/alien, would eventually become Freddy frickin' Kruger?)

It was a pretty cool show for its time.

I'm thinking that ABC isn't riding it for nostalgia, but is trying to latch onto the upcoming movie based on the original series

...which reminds me - "V" the movie rips off the original TV series. "The Box" directly rips off an old Twilight Zone ('80s, not '60's) episode. When the frig are writers and producers going to come up with something, you know, ORIGINAL!? 

Quote - > Quote - Battlestar Galactica from the former Sci Fi channel was not to shabby ;)

Until the Frakin end. Then it blew chunks. It was like they had no idea how to wrap it up, so they just made some crap up. The ending more or less ruined the entire series for me.

couldnt have said this better...
last season sucked...and the last ep of the last season sucked the suck to a whole new level of suckiness!

lol
BT

YES! This, I can agree with.

The early episodes? Awesome. Blew away anything the old 1970's pseudo-mormon series could ever hope to cough up. Loved every minute of it.

Then, they got stupid. Real stupid... starting with the whole hyper-focus on political infighting and the near cross-eyed stare at "okay, who's a Cylon and who isn't"? It's like they ran out of ideas. I stopped watching it at around that time.

(they must've been traveling in circles as well, considering all the trips they made back to their home worlds... )

 Personally, I think it would have been ironically clever if in one climictic scene, they sit around a table and find out THEY'RE ALL CYCLONS!  DUh-duh-DUHNNNNN!!

"You mean the only survivors of the Colonies being destroyed are the Cylon SPIES?"

"Who are we spying on?"

"I guess we didn't know we won. OOps!"

Gasp! End of series, fade to black, begin laughing.:laugh:

THAT would have been original. Weird but original.:lol:

Attached Link: Roger Ebert "The Box" movie review

"The Box" movie and the Twilight Zone (80s) TV episode were based on a Richard Matheson short story originally published by Playboy in 1970.  He was the writer responsible for some of the better episodes of the original Twilight Zone that Rod Serling hadn't written.

Ok - here's what usually happens...

A guy writes a great premise - that goes to a team of writers who think "Awsome sweetness babe - this thing can really fly" - then they slap together a pilot script. 

It then get's shot with a little begging on hands and knees and a little donkey kissing thrown in for good measure - and it goes to network and get's viewed by some sans-personality business drones who get all hot and bothered over NASDAQ reports, and who think a really fun past time is argueing the merits of CDs over Bonds, over a couple of shooters at the local rich clowns club.

THEN - a monkey suit with soggy white bread, graham cracker sensibilites has a sudden, miraculous, amazing epiphany of halfway decent taste - and says "air it".

SOOOooooo - the pilot get's aired - and get's viewers out the wazoo. Then - the suit tells the production staff - you've got your first season, I want six episodes shot by the time I finish wiping my backside in the crapper.

And thus - for about a season or two - the series is interesting and halfway decent, until the executive producer get's a call from big chief numb marbles over at corporate - who starts telling him how to change his show to keep the sponsors happy and to appeal to the lowest common denominators possible to boost viewers, to drag in new viewers who may not have been into it before by introducing lame angles, and to stimulate the bottom line.

The executive producer then starts rattling the production staffs monkey tree - the writing staff is then asked to prostitute their sensibilities and cave in to the assinine ramblings of some suit and tie jackass who wouldn't know the difference between Shakespeare and Shakey's Pizza, and after a while - the writing staff aquires a "who gives a big raunchy SH!#" attitude, get's panicky and punchy from trying to keep the corporate mannequins happy, and finally - the show tanks, goes belly up, and DIES!!!!!

Thus - "JERICHO"

The end,

Quote -
"The Box" movie and the Twilight Zone (80s) TV episode were based on a Richard Matheson short story originally published by Playboy in 1970.  He was the writer responsible for some of the better episodes of the original Twilight Zone that Rod Serling hadn't written.

That makes sense... didn't know that, but it makes a ton of sense.

==

Quote - And thus - for about a season or two - the series is interesting and halfway decent, until the executive producer get's a call from big chief numb marbles over at corporate - who starts telling him how to change his show to keep the sponsors happy and to appeal to the lowest common denominators possible to boost viewers, to drag in new viewers who may not have been into it before by introducing lame angles, and to stimulate the bottom line.

You know? That would explain why Mr. Whedon decided to stop doing Firefly episodes after the first season... (and in some ways I'm kind of glad he did stop it where he did, in spite of wanting more of them). Keeps the whole story nice and fresh, and left a ton of possibilities open in the mind. Think Star Trek, right after the original series ended.

The killing off of a lot of main characters in the movie was at once refreshing (Holy crap! The good guys do get klilled out there!) and at the same time, it was (IMHO) a deliciously raised middle-finger to the corporates out there thinking of continuing/resurrecting/whatever the Firefly story. It was like he was daring them to bring it back without him. :)

Save your angst for the real disruption - Disney is revamping Mickey Mouse:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/business/media/05mickey.html?_r=1&em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1257547223-Pa8AW3p/HF9mKF4DOCVGGg

Sorry for the URL, I'm not firing up another browser to make it clickable.

I haven't seen the "new" BSG so I can only relate to the "new" Star Trek which was very cool, save for two Spocks coexisting in the same time/space which  seems heretical in some sci-fi sense, and Spock, a non Pon Farr crazed Spock, sucking face with Uhura, completely trashing the character's basic nature IMO. Other than that, I thought that they did a pretty remarkable job of making the new cast seem faithful to the personas of the originals - almost like they were The Ones we'd been waiting for heh, heh.

Quote -

Sorry for the URL, I'm not firing up another browser to make it clickable.

Why not use the globe and paperclip AKA Insert/Edit Link?

 "New Mickey of 1828 vintage";www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/business/media/05mickey.html

Quote -  "New Mickey of 1828 vintage";www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/business/media/05mickey.html

WOW! Mickey's been around for a loooong time...lol ;o). But I know you prolly meant 1928 ;o).

I always knew Mickey was evil...

Laurie

 YES 1928! When I found out, it's too late to fix. It was in the early part of last century, not the previous.

It only FEELS that way.:laugh:  Generations before my birth!

*"Why not use the globe and paperclip AKA Insert/Edit Link?" *

Stopped working when I upgraded to Opera 10. I think it's a chain (as in link) rather than a paperclip :-)

You are correct!

Quote - > Quote - Hey man I used to love the old "V", but my interest in it kinda "waned off" after it started turning into a melodramatic / psuedo-romantic soap opera in the second season. I was'nt sure if I were watching a sci fi flick, or just "The Young And The Restless" with humanoid reptilians and really good window dressing.

I liked the series too when it first started, but it seemed too goofy when it turned out the
Visitors were actually lizard people so I quit watching after a while.  Guess most other
people did too, as it didn't last long after that.  I'll probably skip the new incarnation
unless I'm really, really bored, or the word of mouth says it's really, really good.

I think the reveal was mis-handled.  It started as a mini-series, and it was important to reveal to the viewers that the visitors weren't what they seemed very early.  The problem is that there are only a few options available once the world at large figures out that the visitors are reptiles harvesting humans.  The show's maximum potential to entertain was squandered by revealing the aliens to soon.  Once they did that it had to go down the road of occupation>rebellion, and dragging that out led to the soapy stuff and "starchild" weirdness.

But damn were Lydia and Diana hot. 

Well, V is on again this Tuesday.  --can't wait to see the political digs---Jan

 The local channel here in Nashville pulled it from prime-time, and moved it after midnite.  Don't know why. They are showing some boring rerun in it's place. V might might be a redo, but it's not completely boring. I think.  Replacing stuff with crap. Now THAT is some TV executive's dream job!:laugh:

I've decided not to watch as every time I seem to get interested in a show, somewhere in the universe it creates a paradox and it's like the kiss of death for that show...lolol (althought it still hasn't affected "House" thus far) ;o).

Anyway, I'm too busy watching ID Discovery most of the time. I watch for tips, only for the tips ;o).

Laurie

So MICKEY MOUSE is no longer "relevant" to this "new generation" because he's been too "nice", and sweet, and wholesome? WOW - then by that reasoning this "new generation" isn't worth warmed over mule p!$$. Lol. :lol:

 Micky Mouse is a corporate icon, like Ronald McDonald, Snoopy or the Burger King. Really, haven't we all been spammed to death by them all?  They're relevant advertising icons, but most people try to ignore them as much as possible.  Besides... none of them are "nice sweet or wholesome".  They are bland, vanilla and unappetizing.

Just because some corporation is revamping their cartoon icon, you feel like slamming a generation of people? THAT is relevant as standing on your porch and shaking a fist at children and telling them to stay off your lawn! :laugh: LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Actually penguinisto already offered me a lawn to tell them to scram off of - and I told him that I wanted Kentucky Bluegrass only, with sprinklers and a ceramic garden Gnome, but he never got back with me on that so I don't know if the stuff is coming FEDEX or UPS, lol.

I'm not slamming a generation, I'm just slamming Disney's flawed logic, lol.

NOW DAMMIT - WHERE'S MY GERITOL? OH NO - I CAN'T FIND MY BIFOCALS!
Lmao :lol: :lol: :lol: .

Mugsey, you are too young for either them bi's or the Geritol ---say isn't that Viagra's daddy!  Jan 

Quote - So MICKEY MOUSE is no longer "relevant" to this "new generation" because he's been too "nice", and sweet, and wholesome? WOW - then by that reasoning this "new generation" isn't worth warmed over mule p!$$. Lol. :lol:

Well, he actually started out more like the kind of character they think he needs to become.  His look is just so dated compared to the stuff kids are used to seeing on Nick.  His older stuff actually seems more palatable compared to his 40s and 50s stuff, IMHO.

Bugs bunny went through a similar evolution.  He was originally a very wacky and manic character, hence the name "Bugs".  Somewhere along the way Daffy became became the looniest toon, and Bugs became the always standing up, carrot chomping straight rabbit.

Quote -  Micky Mouse is a corporate icon, like Ronald McDonald, Snoopy or the Burger King. Really, haven't we all been spammed to death by them all?  They're relevant advertising icons, but most people try to ignore them as much as possible.  Besides... none of them are "nice sweet or wholesome".  They are bland, vanilla and unappetizing.

Just because some corporation is revamping their cartoon icon, you feel like slamming a generation of people? THAT is relevant as standing on your porch and shaking a fist at children and telling them to stay off your lawn! :laugh: LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Maybe we should blame the generation that's actually doing the marketing instead of blaming the tykes who really can't be expected to any know better?  

"HENCE THEN BEHOLD - FOR THE GREAT AND NOBLE MOOGAL DID SPAKE WISDOM UNTO THE HEATHEN - AND THEN HENCEFORTH THE UNBELIEVERS HAVING BEEN ENLIGHTENED - FEASTED THEREIN UPON THE LLAMAS, AND THE CATTLE, AND THE MONKEYS, AND THE FRUIT BATS, AND THE BREAKFAST CEREALS..."

***The Book Of Armaments, 9 : 24

***Lol. :lol: :lol: :lol:

PLUTOM: No - actually Vitamin "E" is the grandpappy of Viagra - but your not leaving our game show empty handed. As a consolation prize your getting a years supply of Elk brand sewing machine lubricant, and a free gift certificate from Molly's All Night Goldfish And Guppy Emporium!!! Yes - you guessed it - THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY USELESS!!!
Lmao :lol: :lol: :lol:.*

WHAT Mugsy, you really mean to say that Elk brand lubricant and that free gift certificate are completely useless???  Heck, I was going to farm them out as Christmas gifts to my infamous relatives and former friends---might still.  Jan 

-Well watched episode two of V.  Commander looks a little like the Poser 6 gal.  Well I degress.  --didn't pick up on any political digs.  Hmm, so they have a resurrection machine.  Hmmm, saw that somewhere before, just can't remember where.  Jan

Quote - -Well watched episode two of V.  Commander looks a little like the Poser 6 gal.  Well I degress.  --didn't pick up on any political digs.  Hmm, so they have a resurrection machine.  Hmmm, saw that somewhere before, just can't remember where.  Jan

The Day The Earth Stood Still

 Yeppers. Klaatu did that.  Better done,too without cheesy fake cuts and such. The first one had promise, but the second one is not as good. It was not well written at all.IMO.  It keeps declining at this speed, and it'll be augering in at a second grade writing level by the end of episode three.

If so...that might actually be pretty funny to watch.:laugh:

End of mini-series: Everyone in a riot find out that they ALL are spies for the  V's. Anna throws a dance party to celebrate conquering the Earth. :lol:

WWwwwwooooowwww - Are you guys telling me that the new "V" is tanking already?! !
Daaaaaaammmmmm. Lol :lol:.