Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never.
(I hate them.)
"Resistance is Useless !!!"
Cheers,
Nigel
Last edited:
That Wacky Redhead
- Thread starter Brainbin
- Start date
"Resistance is Useless !!!"
Cheers,
Nigel
You say Harlin Ellison would never be involved in Star Trek again. But In the OTL, he did go to Paramount and suggest a Star Trek Movie Story. So I would question is his return to Star Trek would be that ASB.
Speaking of Harlin and ASB , Does the Book Last Dangerous Vision ever see print in your Timeline?
Speaking of Harlin and ASB , Does the Book Last Dangerous Vision ever see print in your Timeline?
McGyver
.Since Henry Winkler does not do Happy Days, AKA Rock Around the Clock,
everyone is thinking that McGyver is out. But Looking at the credits of the show, I notice something, John Rich was in OTL Winkler partner on McGyver. But why would he need a partner to devolved a Show.
He has been Directing show since the 1950's and did some classic shows in the 1960, including two episodes of the Twilight Zone, Gillian Island, and The Dick Van Dyke show. He was both a Producer and a Director on All in the Family. And he produced 6 shows in the 1970/80's before he did McGyver.
But if you decide you need a second Producer on Mc Gyver, may I recommend Stephen Kandel was a writer who wrote two episodes of Star
Trek in the OTL. He may have written more in TTL. He wrote also for Batman, I Spy, Wild Wild West and Mission Impossible, It takes a Thief, and Mannix.
He serve as Producer on Three Shows before McGyver, and would have made a great partner if John Rich was looking for someone to Co produce with.
He serve as Assistance producer on McGyver in the OTL
Lee David Zlotoff, another Writer who was working as a Producer on Remington Steel, when he came up with the idea for Mcgyver is the credited creator. So while a few thing could be change on the Show, McGyver should still be possible even without Winkler.
.Since Henry Winkler does not do Happy Days, AKA Rock Around the Clock,
everyone is thinking that McGyver is out. But Looking at the credits of the show, I notice something, John Rich was in OTL Winkler partner on McGyver. But why would he need a partner to devolved a Show.
He has been Directing show since the 1950's and did some classic shows in the 1960, including two episodes of the Twilight Zone, Gillian Island, and The Dick Van Dyke show. He was both a Producer and a Director on All in the Family. And he produced 6 shows in the 1970/80's before he did McGyver.
But if you decide you need a second Producer on Mc Gyver, may I recommend Stephen Kandel was a writer who wrote two episodes of Star
Trek in the OTL. He may have written more in TTL. He wrote also for Batman, I Spy, Wild Wild West and Mission Impossible, It takes a Thief, and Mannix.
He serve as Producer on Three Shows before McGyver, and would have made a great partner if John Rich was looking for someone to Co produce with.
He serve as Assistance producer on McGyver in the OTL
Lee David Zlotoff, another Writer who was working as a Producer on Remington Steel, when he came up with the idea for Mcgyver is the credited creator. So while a few thing could be change on the Show, McGyver should still be possible even without Winkler.
Galactica
Galactica
“There are those who believe...that life here began out there, far across the Universe...with tribes of humans...who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians...or the Toltecs...or the Mayans...that they may have been the architects of the Great Pyramids...or the lost civilizations of Lemuria...or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man...who even now fight to survive--somewhere beyond the heavens!”
– The Opening Narration of Galactica
In the wake of Moonshot Lunacy, and the success of Star Trek, in the late-1960s, many television writers and producers found themselves devising, and then pitching, science-fiction premises to network executives, eager to tap into the zeitgeist of the time. But very few of them saw lasting success; whether this was the result of inferior product or oversaturation, or perhaps a combination thereof, was difficult to determine. Copycat series, as was usually the case, tended to ape only the most superficial aspects of the pioneering success story, lacking both the thematic and allegorical cohesiveness of Star Trek, along with its emphasis on character development and interaction. Most of them also lacked the lavish budget of Star Trek, and therefore failed with even the basic and visceral accomplishment of creating an impressive or distinct look (and it certainly didn’t help that Desilu paid the best wages for propmasters, costume designers, background artists, and effects creators, and attracted commensurate talent in comparison to other studios). The only broadly science-fiction series to achieve a modicum of success were foreign imports (such as Doctor Who, which had been bolstered by American money, Desilu talent, and a crossover connection with Star Trek itself), and anthology series (including Desilu’s own The Night Gallery – which, although generally a horror series, often crossed that thin line into other genres of speculative fiction, and benefitted from recycled materials previously used in Star Trek). After Lost in Space had been cancelled in 1968, no American-made, serialized dramatic series other than Star Trek had managed to last for longer than one season.
Enter Glen A. Larson, a former singer-songwriter who had transitioned into television production in the 1960s. He was one of the many people who had developed a pitch in the wake of Star Trek and Moonshot Lunacy, but never went anywhere with his idea; that said, he refused to give up on it. And when it became clear that those pitches that were developed into series were dropping like flies, it gave Larson the opportunity to refine his own pitch; to analyze what had gone wrong with them, and how he could be spared the same fate. He scored a major coup when, in 1971, he secured the assistance of none other than Gene L. Coon, former Co-Executive Producer and showrunner of Star Trek itself, whom he would consult on this project until his death in 1973. But even with Coon’s involvement, Larson still found that he could not sell his pitch, because by now the “curse” of science-fiction series had been firmly established – even Star Trek saw its ratings fall in its fifth and final season, though it had rebounded nicely in syndication – and even the lustre of Moonshot Lunacy was in decline by this point. Larson would have to wait for the next big break – but he wouldn’t have to wait for long.
The breakthrough came from an unusual source: Moonraker, the latest James Bond film, very loosely adapted from the Ian Fleming novel of the same name, in order to capitalize on Moonshot Lunacy (which was in its death throes by the time the film itself would finally premiere in the summer of 1974). Moonraker was significant in many ways: it was a smash hit, and proved that science-fiction had “legs” beyond the circumstances of its recent rise in popularity. By this time, with the pedigree of Coon, and many years spent to refine his premise into a workable and desirable product, Larson was finally able to attract some substantive interest. MGM, who had plenty of studio space to build the vast number of sets required, not to mention an overall reasonably robust and profitable television division, agreed to produce the series. Coon would be credited as co-creator (as was the case with The Questor Tapes, though this was not challenged or resented as that decision was), with Larson alone receiving developer credit. [1]
Larson, like Roddenberry, had used his personal beliefs to inform the fictional universe that he had created; Larson, a Mormon, took the more universally Judeo-Christian ideas of the Exodus story and of Noah’s Ark to furnish his plot, tailoring them to fit his outer-space setting (and thus providing the working title for his project, Adama’s Ark) and buttressed the society he had created with customs borrowed specifically from the theology of the Latter-day Saint movement. Though he was obviously motivated to pay homage to his faith, there was also a nicely pragmatic reason for him to make this creative decision: Mormonism was not within the “mainstream” (except in concentrated areas, such as Utah), and therefore its rites and rituals would appear sufficiently “alien” to the average viewer. This continued a time-honoured tradition in 20th-century speculative fiction of “lifting” and “adapting” real-world culture for world-building purposes. J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings, had pioneered this technique.
The story of what had then been known as Adama’s Ark entailed the twelve colonies of a race explicitly established as human, though from a homeworld called “Kobol”. All twelve colonies were named for the signs of the Zodiac. [2] They formed a federated government called, simply, the Twelve Colonies of Kobol, and each colony had a single representative in a governing body called the Quorum of the Twelve (one of the more prominent Mormon trappings in the story). Each of these colonies represented an ancient tribe from the planet Kobol; there had actually been thirteen, but the last of these was said to have travelled to a distant planet called “Earth”, far from both Kobol and the Twelve Colonies. The Colonies had fought a centuries-long war with a roboticized opponent race known as the Cylons. After a long-term deadlock, the Cylons feigned a cease-fire, before double-crossing the Colonials and laying waste to their civilization, destroying their military and killing billions of inhabitants. The only people to escape were a “rag-tag” bunch of colonists, numbering in the tens of thousands (out of tens of billions), in only a few hundred spaceworthy ships of the former Colonial Fleet, seeking out the fabled “lost colony” of Earth. The flagship of this fleet was the line-of-battle starship (or battlestar) Galactica, which would eventually lend its name to the title of the series; executives had deemed Adama’s Ark far too clunky and on-the-nose, compared to the elegance and evocative power of, simply, Galactica. [3]
Meanwhile, NBC had been planning on cancelling Doctor Who, whose ratings had continued to decline despite the resurgence of popular interest in science fiction; they finally pulled the plug in March of 1975, having already devised a plan for its replacement by then. Knowing that they needed a replacement “tentpole” series in the genre (as both Doctor Who and the preceding Star Trek had always done phenomenally well with younger viewers), they approached the studio and commissioned the pilot, though they balked at the price tag. $3 million for a three-hour pilot movie, or $1 million per hour, was over triple what had been spent on the grand finale of Star Trek, a proven property, not five years before. This endeavour would also consume an entire day in their primetime schedule. A compromise figure of $2.5 million soon emerged, and the pilot movie (airing in early 1975) would count as the “dry-run” toward any series, which if successful would then premiere in the 1975-76 season (and that initial investment would then be measured against it). Like Star Trek, many elements of tone and style were borrowed from World War II; indeed, the similarities were much stronger in Galactica, given the primary setting of what was essentially an aircraft carrier (the USS Enterprise, by comparison, had seemed utterly devoid of both fighter craft and space marines).
Much of the budget for the Galactica pilot movie was devoted to filming special effects footage, which was farmed out to – where else? – Desilu Post-Production, whose parent studio fortunately had a good working relationship with MGM (even though Lucille Ball had worked for RKO). The idea was that as much footage as possible would be shot for the pilot movie, and would then be reused in the episodes proper, to keep costs down. Star Trek itself had often recycled effects in its earlier seasons (indeed, rising budgets in the later ones were devoted largely to the filming of new effects, along with raises in actor salaries). Ratings for the pilot were good, though critical opinions were mixed. It was still enough for NBC to green-light the show for a regular network berth. Surprisingly enough (though perhaps not so much, given the network’s history with science-fiction programming), Galactica emerged a solid performer, finishing in the Top 30 during its first season. However, it was hardly a smash, and the per-episode cost was over $500,000, making it the most expensive show in primetime. [4] But despite the obscene costs of production, the Peacock Network reluctantly consented to go forward on a second season, hoping that the show’s popularity with younger audiences would pay additional dividends, given the neck-and-neck three-way battle in the Nielsens…
---
[1] IOTL, Battlestar Galactica was produced by Universal Television. (This may have been due to Coon, who joined Universal after leaving Star Trek, which he did not do ITTL.) Note also that Coon was not credited in any official capacity for his contributions to Battlestar Galactica IOTL, but is ITTL thanks to his (slightly) greater longevity and reputation. This, of course, means that two shows created by Coon premiered after his death. Believe it or not, this has happened IOTL, to someone very close to this timeline…
[2] IOTL, the planet that should rightly have been named for Cancer was instead called “Orion”, because of the negative connotations of that word. ITTL, the word “Cancri” (the possessive or genitive form of the word “cancer”, used in naming stars within that constellation) is used instead.
[3] As opposed to Battlestar Galactica, the OTL title, chosen because executives demanded that the word “star” be part of the title (given the twin successes of Star Trek and Star Wars). ITTL, aping Star Trek too closely has come to be seen as a problem by the mid-1970s, and therefore those in charge are more likely to avoid the word “star” (and the word “trek”, for that matter – except perhaps in South Africa, where television is only gradually being phased in at this time).
[4] Famously, Battlestar Galactica was the first show to break the seven-figure threshold IOTL, though it did not do so consistently (the pilot – produced as part of the first season IOTL – cost far more than the rest of the season, and averages tend to chase extremes). Excluding the pilot, my figure is actually relatively close to reality.
---
So now we know a little more about Galactica ITTL! It’s largely the same as the OTL version, though with a (slightly) different name, a different production company, a different network, and (most importantly) a second season! We’ll hear more about the show in future overview updates.
“There are those who believe...that life here began out there, far across the Universe...with tribes of humans...who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians...or the Toltecs...or the Mayans...that they may have been the architects of the Great Pyramids...or the lost civilizations of Lemuria...or Atlantis. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man...who even now fight to survive--somewhere beyond the heavens!”
– The Opening Narration of Galactica
In the wake of Moonshot Lunacy, and the success of Star Trek, in the late-1960s, many television writers and producers found themselves devising, and then pitching, science-fiction premises to network executives, eager to tap into the zeitgeist of the time. But very few of them saw lasting success; whether this was the result of inferior product or oversaturation, or perhaps a combination thereof, was difficult to determine. Copycat series, as was usually the case, tended to ape only the most superficial aspects of the pioneering success story, lacking both the thematic and allegorical cohesiveness of Star Trek, along with its emphasis on character development and interaction. Most of them also lacked the lavish budget of Star Trek, and therefore failed with even the basic and visceral accomplishment of creating an impressive or distinct look (and it certainly didn’t help that Desilu paid the best wages for propmasters, costume designers, background artists, and effects creators, and attracted commensurate talent in comparison to other studios). The only broadly science-fiction series to achieve a modicum of success were foreign imports (such as Doctor Who, which had been bolstered by American money, Desilu talent, and a crossover connection with Star Trek itself), and anthology series (including Desilu’s own The Night Gallery – which, although generally a horror series, often crossed that thin line into other genres of speculative fiction, and benefitted from recycled materials previously used in Star Trek). After Lost in Space had been cancelled in 1968, no American-made, serialized dramatic series other than Star Trek had managed to last for longer than one season.
Enter Glen A. Larson, a former singer-songwriter who had transitioned into television production in the 1960s. He was one of the many people who had developed a pitch in the wake of Star Trek and Moonshot Lunacy, but never went anywhere with his idea; that said, he refused to give up on it. And when it became clear that those pitches that were developed into series were dropping like flies, it gave Larson the opportunity to refine his own pitch; to analyze what had gone wrong with them, and how he could be spared the same fate. He scored a major coup when, in 1971, he secured the assistance of none other than Gene L. Coon, former Co-Executive Producer and showrunner of Star Trek itself, whom he would consult on this project until his death in 1973. But even with Coon’s involvement, Larson still found that he could not sell his pitch, because by now the “curse” of science-fiction series had been firmly established – even Star Trek saw its ratings fall in its fifth and final season, though it had rebounded nicely in syndication – and even the lustre of Moonshot Lunacy was in decline by this point. Larson would have to wait for the next big break – but he wouldn’t have to wait for long.
The breakthrough came from an unusual source: Moonraker, the latest James Bond film, very loosely adapted from the Ian Fleming novel of the same name, in order to capitalize on Moonshot Lunacy (which was in its death throes by the time the film itself would finally premiere in the summer of 1974). Moonraker was significant in many ways: it was a smash hit, and proved that science-fiction had “legs” beyond the circumstances of its recent rise in popularity. By this time, with the pedigree of Coon, and many years spent to refine his premise into a workable and desirable product, Larson was finally able to attract some substantive interest. MGM, who had plenty of studio space to build the vast number of sets required, not to mention an overall reasonably robust and profitable television division, agreed to produce the series. Coon would be credited as co-creator (as was the case with The Questor Tapes, though this was not challenged or resented as that decision was), with Larson alone receiving developer credit. [1]
Larson, like Roddenberry, had used his personal beliefs to inform the fictional universe that he had created; Larson, a Mormon, took the more universally Judeo-Christian ideas of the Exodus story and of Noah’s Ark to furnish his plot, tailoring them to fit his outer-space setting (and thus providing the working title for his project, Adama’s Ark) and buttressed the society he had created with customs borrowed specifically from the theology of the Latter-day Saint movement. Though he was obviously motivated to pay homage to his faith, there was also a nicely pragmatic reason for him to make this creative decision: Mormonism was not within the “mainstream” (except in concentrated areas, such as Utah), and therefore its rites and rituals would appear sufficiently “alien” to the average viewer. This continued a time-honoured tradition in 20th-century speculative fiction of “lifting” and “adapting” real-world culture for world-building purposes. J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings, had pioneered this technique.
The story of what had then been known as Adama’s Ark entailed the twelve colonies of a race explicitly established as human, though from a homeworld called “Kobol”. All twelve colonies were named for the signs of the Zodiac. [2] They formed a federated government called, simply, the Twelve Colonies of Kobol, and each colony had a single representative in a governing body called the Quorum of the Twelve (one of the more prominent Mormon trappings in the story). Each of these colonies represented an ancient tribe from the planet Kobol; there had actually been thirteen, but the last of these was said to have travelled to a distant planet called “Earth”, far from both Kobol and the Twelve Colonies. The Colonies had fought a centuries-long war with a roboticized opponent race known as the Cylons. After a long-term deadlock, the Cylons feigned a cease-fire, before double-crossing the Colonials and laying waste to their civilization, destroying their military and killing billions of inhabitants. The only people to escape were a “rag-tag” bunch of colonists, numbering in the tens of thousands (out of tens of billions), in only a few hundred spaceworthy ships of the former Colonial Fleet, seeking out the fabled “lost colony” of Earth. The flagship of this fleet was the line-of-battle starship (or battlestar) Galactica, which would eventually lend its name to the title of the series; executives had deemed Adama’s Ark far too clunky and on-the-nose, compared to the elegance and evocative power of, simply, Galactica. [3]
Meanwhile, NBC had been planning on cancelling Doctor Who, whose ratings had continued to decline despite the resurgence of popular interest in science fiction; they finally pulled the plug in March of 1975, having already devised a plan for its replacement by then. Knowing that they needed a replacement “tentpole” series in the genre (as both Doctor Who and the preceding Star Trek had always done phenomenally well with younger viewers), they approached the studio and commissioned the pilot, though they balked at the price tag. $3 million for a three-hour pilot movie, or $1 million per hour, was over triple what had been spent on the grand finale of Star Trek, a proven property, not five years before. This endeavour would also consume an entire day in their primetime schedule. A compromise figure of $2.5 million soon emerged, and the pilot movie (airing in early 1975) would count as the “dry-run” toward any series, which if successful would then premiere in the 1975-76 season (and that initial investment would then be measured against it). Like Star Trek, many elements of tone and style were borrowed from World War II; indeed, the similarities were much stronger in Galactica, given the primary setting of what was essentially an aircraft carrier (the USS Enterprise, by comparison, had seemed utterly devoid of both fighter craft and space marines).
Much of the budget for the Galactica pilot movie was devoted to filming special effects footage, which was farmed out to – where else? – Desilu Post-Production, whose parent studio fortunately had a good working relationship with MGM (even though Lucille Ball had worked for RKO). The idea was that as much footage as possible would be shot for the pilot movie, and would then be reused in the episodes proper, to keep costs down. Star Trek itself had often recycled effects in its earlier seasons (indeed, rising budgets in the later ones were devoted largely to the filming of new effects, along with raises in actor salaries). Ratings for the pilot were good, though critical opinions were mixed. It was still enough for NBC to green-light the show for a regular network berth. Surprisingly enough (though perhaps not so much, given the network’s history with science-fiction programming), Galactica emerged a solid performer, finishing in the Top 30 during its first season. However, it was hardly a smash, and the per-episode cost was over $500,000, making it the most expensive show in primetime. [4] But despite the obscene costs of production, the Peacock Network reluctantly consented to go forward on a second season, hoping that the show’s popularity with younger audiences would pay additional dividends, given the neck-and-neck three-way battle in the Nielsens…
---
[1] IOTL, Battlestar Galactica was produced by Universal Television. (This may have been due to Coon, who joined Universal after leaving Star Trek, which he did not do ITTL.) Note also that Coon was not credited in any official capacity for his contributions to Battlestar Galactica IOTL, but is ITTL thanks to his (slightly) greater longevity and reputation. This, of course, means that two shows created by Coon premiered after his death. Believe it or not, this has happened IOTL, to someone very close to this timeline…
[2] IOTL, the planet that should rightly have been named for Cancer was instead called “Orion”, because of the negative connotations of that word. ITTL, the word “Cancri” (the possessive or genitive form of the word “cancer”, used in naming stars within that constellation) is used instead.
[3] As opposed to Battlestar Galactica, the OTL title, chosen because executives demanded that the word “star” be part of the title (given the twin successes of Star Trek and Star Wars). ITTL, aping Star Trek too closely has come to be seen as a problem by the mid-1970s, and therefore those in charge are more likely to avoid the word “star” (and the word “trek”, for that matter – except perhaps in South Africa, where television is only gradually being phased in at this time).
[4] Famously, Battlestar Galactica was the first show to break the seven-figure threshold IOTL, though it did not do so consistently (the pilot – produced as part of the first season IOTL – cost far more than the rest of the season, and averages tend to chase extremes). Excluding the pilot, my figure is actually relatively close to reality.
---
So now we know a little more about Galactica ITTL! It’s largely the same as the OTL version, though with a (slightly) different name, a different production company, a different network, and (most importantly) a second season! We’ll hear more about the show in future overview updates.
Orville_third
Banned
Will Thiokol (based in Utah) still provide the Landram? Will they try and use that for publicity?
Well, without the original Battlestar, there never would have been a remake. So this creates the possibility of a remake, though Ron Moore's entire career is likely to be completely butterflied if there are no Trek sequel series for him to be involved with. But again, that's well after 1986, so not terribly relevant to TTL.
Anyway, this was another interesting update for me, as I don't know too much about the original BSG IOTL--actually, most of what I've seen of it was effects footage stolen for the movie Space Mutiny--perhaps that being my first exposure to it is part of why I'm not too interested in digging up the show? Anyway, it looks like Galactica will be the series that finally proves that sci-fi can find an audience on TV beyond Trek by pulling a second season, even if it doesn't manage a third. It may have some luck in timing though--Goerge Lucas' little baby project is going to come out one of these years, even if it's not 1977, and if it survives into a third season that could help it get a fourth due to a new wave of interest in scifi properties--the one that OTL created the chance for BSG to finally make it to air, 3 years after it did ITTL.
Last edited:
Yet another intriguing update ! Is the cast more or less the same as OTL ? In particular, do Lorne Greene and Dirk Benedict star as Adama and Starbuck ? Presumably some of the Star Wars influences are missing. Hopefully that includes the robot dog, which I found annoying.
In the UK, the pilot movie was first shown in cinemas while the tv series was shown on ITV. Without Star Wars, I guess that the pilot would be shown on tv rather than in the cinema. I can still see ITV picking it up as the Beeb has enough SF shows of its own.
Cheers,
Nigel.
In the UK, the pilot movie was first shown in cinemas while the tv series was shown on ITV. Without Star Wars, I guess that the pilot would be shown on tv rather than in the cinema. I can still see ITV picking it up as the Beeb has enough SF shows of its own.
Cheers,
Nigel.
Last edited:
An informative update. One I find changing less in detail, which means all the things I disliked about "BSG" OTL remain.... (I do like learning what I didn't know before, even if that's true.)
*sigh* And the pyramids were built by parasitic aliens....
Or technophobia? Hostile computers, Cylons, Borg, Replicators...
(The Vulcan "ring-drive" ships from "Enterprise" come 3d.)
One I find changing less in detail, which means all the things I disliked about "BSG" OTL remain.... (I do like learning what I didn't know before, even if that's true.)Brainbin said:
Brainbin said:
*sigh* And the pyramids were built by parasitic aliens....
How attached was Larson to the name?Brainbin said:
Probably the best creative decision made in the show's origins...Brainbin said:
Is it just me, or do some TV sci-fi (not SF, note...) writers have a Thing about hostile technology?Brainbin said:
Or technophobia? Hostile computers, Cylons, Borg, Replicators...Here's hoping they kept the ship design, IMO one of the two best ever in SF, along with the D-7.Brainbin said:
(The Vulcan "ring-drive" ships from "Enterprise" come 3d.)Just goes to show, you can't rely on popular media... I had the impression it was twice that OTL.Brainbin said:
Nice update BB
And TTL Cylons must assuredly be better designed
I think it's an outgrowth of pulp fiction. One of the reasons that inspired Asimov to write his robot stories with the 3 laws was all the "tech out to destroy the world".
It's probably just basic xenophobia exacerbated by war trauma
And TTL Cylons must assuredly be better designed
Is it just me, or do some TV sci-fi (not SF, note...) writers have a Thing about hostile technology?
I think it's an outgrowth of pulp fiction. One of the reasons that inspired Asimov to write his robot stories with the 3 laws was all the "tech out to destroy the world".
It's probably just basic xenophobia exacerbated by war trauma
Thande
Donor
Good update. I'm surprised you didn't change BG more, actually, though I suppose higher production values, special effects, etc will make a significant difference in themselves.
One show I always associated with Battlestar Galactica growing up (similar styles, aesthetics etc.) was Buck Rogers in thr 25th Century, though that did not air until 1979. Very cheesy of course, but I enjoyed it. Is there a possibility of a similar revival of such properties on the back of Star Trek's success in TTL? For the sake of difference you could perhaps use Flash Gordon instead of Buck Rogers (which then of course butterflies the Flash Gordon film).
Personally I hate the "remake" (in name only) of Battlestar Galactica. It's very similar to the BBC's 2000s "Robin Hood" series in that it's wasting such high production values and good actors on such a blatant piece of political allegorising with all the subtlety of a political cartoon where everything's labelled in big letters. You half expect them to turn to the camera and wink periodically saying "you get that this is a clumsy metaphor for the weapons of mass destruction fiasco in the Iraq war/the gay marriage debate in the US/whatever, right?"
Mind you I hate it generally when people think the only purpose of science fiction is to reflect our own world and society through allegory, completely missing the frickin' point of escapism
One show I always associated with Battlestar Galactica growing up (similar styles, aesthetics etc.) was Buck Rogers in thr 25th Century, though that did not air until 1979. Very cheesy of course, but I enjoyed it. Is there a possibility of a similar revival of such properties on the back of Star Trek's success in TTL? For the sake of difference you could perhaps use Flash Gordon instead of Buck Rogers (which then of course butterflies the Flash Gordon film).
Personally I hate the "remake" (in name only) of Battlestar Galactica. It's very similar to the BBC's 2000s "Robin Hood" series in that it's wasting such high production values and good actors on such a blatant piece of political allegorising with all the subtlety of a political cartoon where everything's labelled in big letters. You half expect them to turn to the camera and wink periodically saying "you get that this is a clumsy metaphor for the weapons of mass destruction fiasco in the Iraq war/the gay marriage debate in the US/whatever, right?"
Mind you I hate it generally when people think the only purpose of science fiction is to reflect our own world and society through allegory, completely missing the frickin' point of escapism
Thande
Donor
Oh, and while we're on the subject of BG, I must post what has to be the best reference to it, ever.
First thing's first...
WE LOVE YOU BRAINBIN!
OH YES WE DO!
WE LOVE YOU BRAINBIN,
AND WE'LL BE TRUE!
WHEN YOU'RE NOT WRITING STUFF
WE'RE BLUE!
OH BRAINBIN, WE LOVE YOU!
Awesome update!
Yes, Gene Coon's involvement in the series would be very critical. He'd be able to polish it up and give it the kind of focus than the OTL series never had, especially if he wrote a couple scripts for the pitch. I'd imagine without the Star Wars influence, and making a conscious decision not to mirror Star Trek too closely, it would focus even more heavily on the "Ancient Astronauts" angle. The significance of finding Kobol here would be even more important, and it's possible many of the alien races in the show would actually be the "basis", in-universe, for mythical creatures, like minotaurs and trolls and such.
And I agree with The Professor: perhaps instead of being evocative of Star Wars Stormtroopers, the Cylon Centurions would look more like robots.
WE LOVE YOU BRAINBIN!
OH YES WE DO!
WE LOVE YOU BRAINBIN,
AND WE'LL BE TRUE!
WHEN YOU'RE NOT WRITING STUFF
WE'RE BLUE!
OH BRAINBIN, WE LOVE YOU!
Awesome update!
Yes, Gene Coon's involvement in the series would be very critical. He'd be able to polish it up and give it the kind of focus than the OTL series never had, especially if he wrote a couple scripts for the pitch. I'd imagine without the Star Wars influence, and making a conscious decision not to mirror Star Trek too closely, it would focus even more heavily on the "Ancient Astronauts" angle. The significance of finding Kobol here would be even more important, and it's possible many of the alien races in the show would actually be the "basis", in-universe, for mythical creatures, like minotaurs and trolls and such.
And I agree with The Professor: perhaps instead of being evocative of Star Wars Stormtroopers, the Cylon Centurions would look more like robots.
Thande
Donor
More seriously though, if done well that would indeed be a rather new and interesting concept for a mass audience at the time.
First thing's first...
WE LOVE YOU BRAINBIN!
OH YES WE DO!
WE LOVE YOU BRAINBIN,
AND WE'LL BE TRUE!
WHEN YOU'RE NOT WRITING STUFF
WE'RE BLUE!
OH BRAINBIN, WE LOVE YOU!
Awesome update!
Yes, Gene Coon's involvement in the series would be very critical. He'd be able to polish it up and give it the kind of focus than the OTL series never had, especially if he wrote a couple scripts for the pitch. I'd imagine without the Star Wars influence, and making a conscious decision not to mirror Star Trek too closely, it would focus even more heavily on the "Ancient Astronauts" angle. The significance of finding Kobol here would be even more important, and it's possible many of the alien races in the show would actually be the "basis", in-universe, for mythical creatures, like minotaurs and trolls and such.
And I agree with The Professor: perhaps instead of being evocative of Star Wars Stormtroopers, the Cylon Centurions would look more like robots.
I agree. Excellent Update
Question is John Dykstra involved with the Effect? if so then some one else would have to do the effect for Star Wars.
Did Stu Phililps do the Music? The Sound Track to Battlestar Galactica was a favorite of mine.
Is Donald P Bellisario involved? He was a writer on the original. In the OTL , it was one of his first big Jobs in the industry. If not, then there are some real butterflies. No Quantum Leap, No Jag, No NCIS. I have nothing to watch on Tuesday Night.
Who was the Cast? Is Loren Green involved? Who played Starbuck and Apollo?
That could be. On reflection, I wonder if there isn't some underlying fear of change, especially as the rate of change accelerates in society.The Professor said:
Agreed. There might be good production cost reasons to do it, too: the ability to recycle old designs...vultan said:
More like androids, such as OTL Data, you mean? Or more like OTL's 3PO? Or OTL's "SG" Replicators? Robbie the Robot?vultan said:
Actually, I see no reason the android form would be preferred for a species with mechanical origins...unless they, like "SG"'s Replicators, got out of hand...More like androids, such as OTL Data, you mean? Or more like OTL's 3PO? Or OTL's "SG" Replicators? Robbie the Robot?
No, not androids... Think a more advanced (and bloodthirsty) version of Robbie the Robot, yeah.
In 1970, futurist Alvin Toffler published a best-selling book titled after this phenomena which he called Future Shock. A documentary of the same name was released in 1972. It was definitely a theme running through William Gibson's Sprawl trilogy.