Planet Strange
posts on 3/16/2007 2:35:09 PM
Battlestar Galactica wasn't a rip-of of Star Wars. However, my theory is this: after seeing how much dough George Lucas made off Star Wars, Glen Larson decided he wanted a piece of the action, so he made a space opera of his own. Hence, Battlestar Galactica. That's about the only similarity there is, barring the vague resemblance War of the Gods has to the whole Jedi thing.
|
Fab G
posts on 3/16/2007 12:58:13 PM
Then perhaps the descendants of Jules Verne and HG Wells should be suing the crap outta everyone then.
|
The commentator
posts on 6/2/2006 5:24:42 PM
And Star Wars was a rip-off of Buck Rogers and Kirosawa's "Hidden Fortress".
And Lion King was a rip off of Kimba the White Lion which was a rip off of Hamlet for crying out loud.
And HR Pufnstuf was a rip-off of The PRISONER. Fact.
Any uninformed mook can sit back and declare that something is a rip-off of something else.
But if you get down to it, EVERYTHING is just a rip off of GILGAMESH.
So deal.
|
The commentator rand
posts on 3/23/2006 10:45:21 PM
fab-g, bang, i honestly believe my recently completed sci-fi novel will be just the shot in the arm that this genre has needed for some time now. i have robots, ray guns, big space ships, little fighter ships, uniforms, planets, stars, the works. of course, when i sell the movie rights i must insist that only james cameron can produce and direct the film. it will also require somewhere around two and a half billion dollars to make the movie and will be a co-production of mgm-ua, paramount, fox and newline cinema, and will take at least two years to make, but what the hey? i'll be rich beyond my wildest dreams. i leave you with these words that have inspired me for years: if you're going to delude yourself do it big time. take care.
|
Fab G
posts on 3/22/2006 8:38:56 PM
RAND, BANG, and anyone else who cares -I see that most of us are on the same page. Flash Gordon was the beginning, and something I loved very much in my youth. No arguments there, none what-so-ever. Even Lucas has paid his respects to the Gordon serials. The only thing else that could possibly be considered the birth of modern sci-fi would be the novels of Jules Verne.
|
The commentator rand
posts on 3/22/2006 3:23:06 PM
ahh, edward wood jr. one of the true giants of the american film industry. you know, bang, i actually once watched some of "glen or glenda." i was very confused and remain so to this day. take care.
|
The commentator Bang Bang
posts on 3/22/2006 2:05:59 AM
Rand, just to clarify myself a little bit, I meant to say that Star Wars jump-started all the great science fiction that was to come, for it was the 1977 movie that made it clear that sci-fi could attract a large audience and make a lot of money. But the original Battlestar Galactica certainly has nothing to be ashamed of, for it aided in this great revival of sci-fi. And I certainly agree that Flash Gordon is the great grandfather of science fiction. I still remember watching those old serials (hey, it was back in the 70s, and it came on at 1AM on TV--I ain't THAT old!!), and for the time, they were very creative and original. Back then, the special effects industry (if there was one) was new and hamstrung by the technology of the day. (What did Flash's ship engines consist of--a sparkler shoved inside the model?) But the advances in technology ultimately led to the greatest movie in sci-fi history: Plan Nine From Outer Space! (Naw, just kidding, although I had to admire the two paper plates being glued together to form a flying saucer.) Have a good day, everyone.
|
The commentator rand
posts on 3/21/2006 1:55:48 AM
bang, and fab-g, i agree galactica and larson owe a great deal to lucas for paving the way. and maybe star wars is the grand daddy of all modern sci-fi, i say it's flash gordon, but i won't go into that since many people might not consider the thirties and forties the modern era. but if you really look at what has followed since 78', it is more in galactica's footsteps than star wars. WARNING THE FOLLOWING IS A REHASH OF AT LEAST TWO DOZEN PREVIOUS POSTS: to me, the original galactica is the odyssey in space, the exodus from egypt and eric von daniken's ancient astronaut theories all wrapped up in mormonisim. think about it. the colonials' entire world system was destroyed and they were on the run from the cylons. that was the driving concept of the series, yes, but larson, had he been given the time to develop the storyline and the budget to produce better scripts and special effects could have taken the series in any direction. that is what is always going to kill me, all the what might have beens. as i have said before, galactica was a victim of its own success. after seeing the ratings for the pilot abc rushed it into production as a regular series, expecting eighty million people to tune in every week. i mean how many people can say i failed in the end because i was a success in the beginning? how can you not love the ultimate underdog? take care.
|
The commentator Bang Bang
posts on 3/21/2006 12:57:28 AM
I do agree with Rand to a certain extent that the concept of Battlestar Galactica possibly had more potential than Star Wars. Alas, that potential came to a crashing halt in 1979. But the original Star Wars in 1977 was the grandfather of all science fiction to come, and Galactica was the son of Star Wars. However, in many ways, George Lucas and Glen Larson had opposite problems--Lucas was trying to create a movie that no one seemed to believe in, while Larson had all kinds of expectations heaped upon him, even to the point of ABC rushing the show into a weekly series. And it's just my opinion, but I still don't think that Lucas had the ideas for his prequels in mind when Star Wars hit the screen in '77--but of course, who could blame him? He just wanted to get his movie made. But there was no "Episode IV" during the opening crawl, and even the original novel is subtitled "From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker." As for the prequels, I think that the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker could have been told in one movie. Sure, it sounds like it would've been crammed together, but that's only because we're judging it by what we've seen in Episodes 1 through 3. The key scene of Episode 1 was Anakin being separated from his mother; Episode 2's key scene was Anakin finding his mother dead and slaying the sandpeople. Everything else--the Trade Federation, the clones, the rise of Senator Palpatine--could have progressed naturally throughout the movie as Anakin grew up. Even Darth Maul could have made a bigger contribution, because one of the critical gripes about "Attack of the Clones" was the lack of a powerful villian. With all due respect to the great Christopher Lee, Count Dooku is not quite up to Darth Maul's calibre. If a movie like this sounds like it would've been convoluted and crammed together, it might actually have been a better story, as all the elements would be in place to form a much tighter movie. Was the opening 20 minutes of "Revenge of the Sith" really necessary? Exciting, perhaps, but did it really advance the story? But the original trilogy is still the best nonetheless, and all good sci-fi today owes it debt to George Lucas' imagination back in the 1970s. Have a good day, everyone.
|
Fab G
posts on 3/20/2006 11:37:39 PM
Well RAND, in a sense, you're right. Most sci-fi shows of the past were forced to deal with severe budget constraints, network censors, absurb schedules - still, some of that remains even today. Star Trek (any one of the five series) is a good example. There is a reason every alien on Star Trek is another form of humanoid with a variation of bumps on its head, and that is budget. The new Galactica series is no different really, sure they have nice special effects, but when it came down to it, human appearing Cylons are cheaper than their CGI counterparts (which are used far less often). Otherwise, I do think the two series can be compared, moreso than Galactica can be compared to Star Wars. About the only thing the two have in common is that they occur in space, with robots and other sci-fi gimmicks. Personally, I feel the Star Wars mythology is far more rich than Galactica, old or new. Galactica has a specific storyline, whereas the Star Wars universe could encompass thousands and thousands of individual storylines thus equating to much more longetivity and creative direction. When it comes down to it, BSG, old or new, is about human survivors fleeing the Cylons. I know they threw some aliens into the works in the original series, but in hindsight, I wish they hadn't. I know budgets are a big thing, but I've had about enough humanoid aliens to suit me a lifetime. BSG is really a human drama, and newither the old or new series required or requires aliens to make the story work. I'm glad they aren't planning any for this series. Anyway, back to the original topic, I still don't think Star Wars can be compared to BSG at all - and although I think Star Wars (original trilogy only) is better, we're all entitled to our opinions and it's doubtful we'll change each other's minds. One last thing, and this is just an observation, but the whole GINO thing you original series fans have come up with, although it's meant sometimes as an insult (depending on who's saying it), there are fans of the new series like me that take great comfort in the fact that the new series is nothing like the original. Still, I'm one that prefers a darker story with more gritty realism and I still think the survivors in the original series were much to easy-going considering they were the last of their kind and running for their lives.
|
The commentator rand
posts on 3/20/2006 11:09:54 PM
fab-g, i honestly believe the basic concept of the original galactica was superior to that of the original star wars. it had far more potential in the long run. also, IT IS NOT FAIR TO COMAPRE THE ORIGINAL SERIES TO GINO. if ron moore had to face the same demands from the sci-fi channel's censors that glen a. larson had to put up with from abc's censors, reimagined wouldn't have lasted even a single season. considering everything else larson had to put up with, the network's ridiculous demands, rushed scripts, episodes completed often on the day before they would air leaving little if any time to edit or re-shoot scenes, an ever tightening budget forcing the use of the same stock footage over and over and even the disappearance of the cylons, it's a miracle the show was able to remain on the air long enough to even be compared to star wars. i would like to see ron moore do one iota better under the same conditions. take care.
|
Fab G (aka Brokeback Jedi)
posts on 3/20/2006 1:48:21 AM
I am an avid hater of the prequel trilogy in Star Wars. In my opinion, the original trilogy compared to the prequels is like comparing the original Star Trek to Enterprise...but first of all, as mentioned earlier, Episode 4 was not orignally named Episode 4. They should have left it alone and let the original trilogy stand. HOWEVER, the original Galactica cannot, in any way, shape or form, compare to the original Star Wars. To say so is to admit you're on some bad, bad drugs and it's time to seek help.
|
The commentator rand
posts on 3/18/2006 10:05:45 PM
ben, you sound like a fine, upstanding fellow. you also have excellent taste in television shows. take care.
|
The commentator Ben G
posts on 3/18/2006 9:31:25 PM
Battlestar is nothing like Starwars!
Talk about a generalisation. The only people that would say that would probably not be geniune Sci-fi fans.
Battlestar (the original) was much better than Starwars in my opinion. Battlestar had its introduction story with the war at Caprica and progressed through, while Starwars started at episode four? Good ole George then decides to go backwards and make prequels which don't match up!!
He screwed up Starwars completely!
The original Battlestar rules! Oh except for Galactica 1980, don't get me started on that one!
|
The commentator Buddy Paraiso
posts on 3/16/2006 1:59:23 AM
Hello,
The Topic looks so cool enough, I made a gallery blog of 3D arts about Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica
|
Brokeback Jedi
posts on 3/13/2006 1:51:20 PM
I'd be happy to share some of my work with you guys/gals...in fact, some of it will be available to read on my website very soon. I'll send along the address as soon.
|
The commentator rand
posts on 3/13/2006 1:50:11 PM
bang, now that we've let the cat out of the bag about our ages we'll probably wind up as a couple of middle aged cylons. being a dj sounds like a pretty fun way to make a living. i've always fantasized about having a talk show where i could rant about politics and anything else that just ticked me off. i figure i'd last two days tops before the fcc put out a contract on my life. take care.
|
The commentator Bang Bang
posts on 3/13/2006 2:38:40 AM
Rand, thank you for the kind words regarding my age, but I shall be turning 41 years old as of March 24th. Yes, I too have some silver in my hair. I guess most of you don't know this, but I DJ on the weekends, either at clubs, or parties, or weddings. My nickname "Bang Bang" came from a friend of mine who worked on the local radio station with me; my real name's Gary Yorty, and there was a wrestler named Terry "Bam Bam" Gordy, so my buddy started calling me Bam Bam, and then Bang Bang. That's how the whole thing started; there's nothing pornographic about my nickname. (One time I went to Ocean City, Maryland, and there's a bar there called Big Peckers. They told me to leave, because if they let me in that would be false advertising! LOL!) Anyway, I guess one thing I've learned about DJing and playing newer music is that you have to respect the views of the younger generation. After all, there was a time when music that I loved (from the 80s) was disliked by older people, at that time. And now, suddenly, I'm one of the older people!! So, when I tell you that I really liked the finale of the new Galactica (minus the election scenes) you can trust what I'm saying. You may not agree with me, but I gave it a chance and liked it. We'll have to see what happens with the next season, because it will supposedly be set five years in the future. Maybe I'll have lost twenty pounds by then! Have a good day, everyone.
|
The commentator rand
posts on 3/13/2006 1:39:10 AM
bbj, i'd like to read your work also. that is as long as there are no stupid bad guys named rand and bang. however, if i am destined to be a bad guy, i always envisioned myself as the lord byron type, mad, bad and dangerous to know. and bang, even after all these years it still kills me to think about what might have been. there are so many "if only's" where the original series is concerned. if only abc had waited to make it a weekly series. if only they had given it a second season. if only they had brought it back as a series of movies after cancelling it. but we'll never know. at the moment, I think our only hope for a continuation in any form is the direct to dvd option. as soon as i can afford it, i'm going to take out an add in the local newspaper asking all galactica fans in alabama, or at least my area, to write universal requesting the dvd be made. if it is and if it is a success, maybe the money can be found for at least a modest budgeted feature film. by the way, who do you think would make a good adama? before he got ill, i always saw charlton heston as a great kane, but no one has ever seemed right to fill lorne greene's shoes. perhaps i shall have to take the role on myself. i already have the silver hair. take care.
|
The commentator Bang Bang
posts on 3/13/2006 1:09:54 AM
Brokeback Jedi, has any of your work been published? If so, please let me know, because I'd like to read some of your writing. And if not, just keep at it, because like you posted on an earlier site, there's just not enough good sci-fi around right now. With all this discussion about the original Star Wars in 1977, there was a scene in the novel and in the Marvel Comics adaptation where Luke is talking to his old friend Biggs, before the Rebels take off to tackle the Death Star. Red Leader comes along, and after Biggs introduces him, Red Leader tells Luke something to the effect of, "If you're as good as your father, we'll be all right," or something like that. My point is, at that time, no one had known that Anakin Skywalker had become Darth Vader, the most hated man in the galaxy. This leads me to the conclusion that Darth Vader being Luke's father popped up in Lucas's mind at a much later date; Luke's father had simply been an excellent pilot and a well-trained Jedi knight who was betrayed and killed by Darth Vader. But one can forgive George Lucas for not looking too far ahead when Star Wars came out in 1977, because no one expected much of it. Twentieth Century Fox was merely hoping to break even, and thoughts of Anakin turning to the Dark Side were years in the future. But Lucas made everything possible that we see today, and to him we all must express out gratitude. Glen Larson also had high expectations about Battlestar Galactica, and maybe if ABC had allowed the project to proceed as a series of movies instead of being rushed into production as a weekly series, the original might have lasted a long while. Have a good day, everyone.
|
Click here to post a message
|
|
