DISQUS

JLSosa · 3 months ago

Don't knock the lens flares in the Star Trek reboot, Rob. THEY WERE AWESOME.

Don B. · 3 months ago

How can the crap Ron Moore produced for the past few years be called a "phenomenon" when it had ratings so low it would have never survived past it's first season on a real network?

Kangaroo Be Stoned · 3 months ago

Because clearly high or low ratings determines whether a show is good or not. Pull your head out of your ass, moron.

Don B. · 3 months ago

High or low ratings clearly have nothing to do with whether or not a show is good.However,I have yet to see a low rated "phenomenon",moron.

Kangaroo Be Stoned · 3 months ago

Calling a show a "phenomenon" implies that it is a great show. Therefore, you think ratings have something to do with it, which is evidenced by your comments. Anyway, I can think of a show that received low ratings that I consider a phenomenon: "Firefly".

Don B. · 3 months ago

American Idol was a phenomenon. Lost was a phenomenon. ER was a phenomenon.They all had great ratings.Does that mean they are all great shows because of their great ratings? No,of course not.There are many great shows that deserved to have great ratings and be called a phenomenon but did not.Firefly was one of them. Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica is not.It was a mediocre show with mediocre ratings.Firefly had higher ratings than Galactica had.It just had the disadvantage of airing on a real network where numbers like Galactica's are not tolerated.

atomicraj · 3 months ago

Mate, you are a TWAT. Have you actually watched Ronald Moore's BSG?

American Idol? What a load of shit. Just because a bunch a proles watch it, it gets huge ratings but in essence the show is shite.
I agree with ER being a great show though. Firefly was amazing.
But to deride a show just because it got shit ratings is unforgiveable.
Ever heard of a sleeper hit? BSG was a highly acclaimed show and it's not the makers fault that twats would rather watch American Idol then BSG. I for one would choose BSG over anything that is on TV these days.
Ever seen any of these shows? Dexter? Breaking Bad? True Blood?
Get a life and just accept that the millions of people who have watched BSG truly believe that it was an amazing show.

rollo1 · 3 months ago

No, you are the TWAT. You and the clown are missing Don's point. To call BSG a "phenomenon" is completely inaccurate. At best, it has a cult following-just like "Firefly" (which is a vastly superior show to BSG). "American Idol" is (or at least was) a phenomenon because it captured the attention of tens of millions of viewers. On the other hand, BSG had about 5 million (or so) viewers for it's miniseries, and lost all but 1.5 million of them for the duration of it's run. Numbers like that get shows on real networks cancelled. Now, does having tens of millions of viewers equal excellence? Absolutely not (IDOL is proof of that). It just means that a show with ratings that high captured the attention of the vast majority of viewers. A show like BSG (and all of those other shows you mentioned) can't make that claim. It's not a testament of how good or bad the show is. It just means that most of the country didn't care to watch them. Shows with very low ratings have very small followings called cults. And "cults" don't make "phenomenons". Perhaps you fans of Ron Moore's version should take off your blinders and actually "read" what is being written before making such stupid statements in the future.

RobHunter · 3 months ago

Hey Rollo, I'm going to avoid the name-calling and just point out that no definition of "phenomenon" includes any reference at all to quantity or size. The applicable definitions are "exceptional, extraordinary, and amazing."

rollo1 · 3 months ago

When the word is used in reference to pop culture, it applies to something that has huge mass appeal. Some recent theatrical examples of this would be "Harry Potter", "Twilight", "The Dark Knight", etc. On TV, it would include "American Idol", "CSI", "Friends", etc. It has nothing to do with quality (as evidenced by "Twilight"). It has everything to do with popularity. I know this will come as a shock to almost all of the fans of Ron Moore's BSG, but it was hardly a phenomenon. It was a so-so show on a barely watched network. It's ratings were so low that it rarely made the top ten most viewed cable shows from week to week. In fact, it routinely had fewer viewers than reruns of "Enterprise". On SciFi, it's final episode was beaten for the week by an episode of "Ghost Hunters".

Hardly a phenomenon...

RobHunter · 3 months ago

This has really come down to nothing more than semantics and a difference of opinion on the quality of a show. I'll concede that maybe I used too strong of a word, but it wasn't used incorrectly. I loved the show, and therefore all three of the definitions I listed apply.

Don B. · 3 months ago

"Exceptional, extraordinary, and amazing." None of which are words that should be used to describe Ron Moore's "Battlestar Galactica".

Don B. · 3 months ago

Yes, mate, I have watched it. I found it to be incredibly boring and dull. The look of the show was unimaginative and cheap. The was no effort put into costumes or sets. The last straw for me was when I saw Starbuck drive out of her garage on Caprica in a red Hummer. I do agree with you that Firefly was an amazing show. It deserved better than it got while Galactica got better than it deserved.

teknokracy · 3 months ago

Was the new BSG good because 99% of people who saw it thought it was great, or was it great because it had mass appeal? I'm going to lean towards the former. Not that it wasn't a great show, but it was a great show for sci-fi fans who can handle six plot strings at once whereas the general public gets confused when more than 4 people are on screen at once. BSG is not a bad story however you imagine it, if they choose to do a completely different more mainstream story with different actors it will probably do well in the public eye because the people going to see it - the movie consuming public - will know little to nothing of the re-imagined cable-run series.

Why not link to the Variety story, because that's clearly where every ounce of your information comes from...

RobHunter · 3 months ago

Can't really argue with your first paragraph, but it doesn't make this a good idea. Could it end up being entertaining? Sure. Could it reach more people than either series did? Sure. I still think I'd rather see new ideas instead of rehashes of ones that have already been executed as well as they'll ever be.

And as an FYI, I had linked to Variety but it apparently got lost in the editing process. And if you read the post then you you know some of the information above clearly comes from other sources... hence the links to two other sites.

Icarus II · 3 months ago

Say what you want about the potential outcome of Singer's BSG, but I'm certain it will turn out better than the ending of the tv show. That was crap, and I blame everything on God...or God as created by Ron Moore.

atomicraj · 3 months ago

LEAVE BSG ALONE.
RONALD MOORE DID A FANTASTIC JOB ON BSG. WHY MESS IT UP?
IF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR AN UPDATED BSG THEN BUY THE RE-IMAGINED TV SERIES BOX SET.

Callahan · 3 months ago

Give the new Movie a Chance. You might like it....

Mark · 3 months ago

Hmm...why would the original fans dislike the Ron Moore show when the fans treat us so nicely and call us things like "twat".

I've seen every episode of the Ron Moore show. A lot of us want to see a something closer to the original. I can't wait to see Singer's take on Battelstar.

Aleric · 3 months ago

I see Bryan SInger doing for BSG what he did for Superman.

Jim3 · 3 months ago

"Crappy ideas all around"

Have you ever thought that Singer could pay homage to both Moore’s Battlestar Galactica and the original 70's series thus creating a completly different universe?

Jim3 · 3 months ago

To be fair we don't know what Bryan's ideas as of yet.

Ginny · 2 months ago

Brian Singer--really? The same Brian Singer who ruined the X-Men and Superman "re-imaginings?" No, I don't think so. Ronald Moore's BSG was too good a show to be trashed by that hack. I can only hope that these plans get scrapped - quickly.

Me · 2 months ago

A lot of us thought Battlestar Galactica was too good of a show to be ruined by the same hack that ruined Star Trek the Next Generation then made that wonderful "Star Trek Generations movie" (WTF????).

In case you missed that news flash that hack would be Ronald D. Moore.

A whole slew of people liked the first two X-men movies and thought Superman Returns was pretty decent.

Ron Moore didn't ruin Battlestar Galactica (he's not that powerful) but he certainly didn't get it either.

Jim3 · 2 months ago

"The same Bryan Singer who ruined the X-Men and Superman "re-imaginings?"

According to rotten tomatoes critics and general audience alike would disagree with you that Singer ruined X-Men and Superman.

susan01 · 2 months ago

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Margaret

http://businesseshome.net