 |
|
 |
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:57:28 -0400, FDR <FDR@fkfkdkfd
This is a few years old Ubi, don't they get the internet where you live?
>
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:36:21 GMT, David Johnston <...@block.net
Dirk Benedict appears to regard women with a certain amount of
hostility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:59:06 -0700 (PDT), efeatherston <...@gmail.com
If he thinks the current Battlestar sits well with the suits, I want
to know what world he lives in. If this had been on regular network
instead of cable, it never would have made it past the suits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:22:07 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
David Johnston;484733 Wrote:
That's B.S. and you know it! You evidently have a aganda to smear
Benedict, just b/c he's not a fan of the Moore's craptacular version of
BSG that was made against Larson's wishes. Fact is... most women are
different from most men. There are a handful of women that can go and
are willing to go toe-to-toe with most men in hand-to-hand combat, etc.
The fact is that most women can not do so and have no desire to do so.
If you don't believe me, see what happens if we ever have to evoke a
military draft and we made all women eligible for combat hand-to-hand
combat soldiering. There would be an uproar, and most of it would be
from the women in this country. Most women are feminine in nature and
most men are masuline.
Men and women are also built differently from each other, resulting in
advantages and disadvantages in physcial and psychological strength
within both genders. Women were also physically put together to be
impregnanted, carry and give birth to children. Of course, I'm not
saying that all women should do so, and of course women are more than
capable of excelling in other endeavors in life, many of those
categories, in which they exceed men. I think that is part of what Dirk
was trying to convey.
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:16:54 -0700 (PDT), Anlatt the Builder <...@aol.com
On Mar 19, 2:50 am, Ubiquitous <...@polaris.net
As the old quip goes: she's more woman than he'll ever have, and more
man than he'll ever be.
The character of Starbuck in the current BSG is better written, a more
interesting character, and more compellingly conflicted than anything
Dirk Benedict was ever given to work with. It also happens to be
better acted than anything he ever did.
The whole bit about "political correctness" is just garbage. Turn it
around: when the original BSG was created, the devil-may-care,
sexually-profligate, "wild" Starbuck HAD to be a male. The writers had
no choice back then. THAT was the "political correctness" of their
day. All today's writers have done is ask whether they are still stuck
with the sexist restrictions of an earlier day and, if not, whether it
might not be more interesting if this particular character was female?
And, lo and behold, it was.
That's not political correctness. That's taking advantage of
additional freedoms that were not available 30 years ago. If Dirk
Benedict wants to live in a decades-old status quo that limited the
roles of male and female characters, that's his right. But fortunately
the rest of us don't have to live there with him.
He sounds bitter, insecure, and threatened, like maybe the role of
Starbuck was the only thing he was holding on to. And now they went
and made "him" a GIRL? Does that somehow emasculate Dirk Benedict? Of
course not, but he sounds like he thinks it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Anlatt the Builder <...@aol.com
Thank you for very eloquently stating what my reaction was. "What a dick"
is more pithy though. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:07:49 -0400, Gisele <...@nospamlycos.com
Well said. The new BSG is a great show and Benedict is way off in his
analysis.
Gisele
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:55:43 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
Anlatt the Builder;485071 Wrote:
Oh, what a crock! Larson didn't create that atmosphere. That was how
it was back then. I'm a minority yet you don't see me venting at Steve
McQueen, Clint Eastwood, Chuckie Bronson, Charleton Heston, etc, about
the lack of minority roles back then. INSTEAD, I celebrate those actors
of yesteryear and how far Hollywood has come and the roles created for
minority actors, such as BLADE, etc.
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:08:14 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
Anlatt the Builder;485071 Wrote:
Oh, what a crock! Larson didn't create that atmosphere. That was how
it was back then. I'm a minority yet you don't see me venting at Steve
McQueen, Clint Eastwood, Chuckie Bronson, Charleton Heston, etc, about
the lack of minority roles back then. INSTEAD, I celebrate those actors
of yesteryear and how far Hollywood has come and the roles created for
minority actors, such as BLADE, etc.
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:52:34 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Ubiquitous <...@polaris.net
The message is restated in full, below, so it's readable.
Through the magic of filtering commands, I managed to turn this into a
plain text post. These things are easy to do for those of you concerned
about preparing plain text for the rest of us who have this crazy notion
that Usenet is a plain text medium, and not, oh, the Web.
Why isn't this readable for me? I don't want to hear any crap about how
I'm not using standards-compliant modern clients. Wrong. It's marked in
the MIME headers (usable but nonstandard for Usenet) as the Latin 1
character set, ISO-8859-1. This character set DOES NOT include certain
characters used in this message, particularly the non-ASCII single and
double quotes from typesetting, sometimes called "curly quotes". They
come in left and right flavors.
The character set was mismarked. It matters not that it's readable on
the terminals of SOME PEOPLE. The point is that it should be readable on
the terminals of EVERYONE, and that requires plain text. At the very
least, it should be readable on any terminal that can recognize MIME headers.
To make the message readable to all, I substituted plain text ' and "
for the typesetting-like left and right ' and ". In some fonts, ASCII
' and " are the same characters as right ' and ", but in other fonts,
they are different. In actual typesetting, there's no ", for those of
you who never worked at a newspaper.
For those of you who don't give a shit about making messages readable
for ALL Usenet users, carry on.
Lt. Starbuck: Lost In Castration.
by Dirk Benedict
Once upon a time, in what used to be a far away land called Hollywood (but is
now a state of mind and everywhere), a young actor was handed a script and
asked to bring to life a character called Starbuck. I am that actor. The
script was called "Battlestar Galactica."
Fortunately, I was young, my imagination fertile and adrenal glands strong,
because bringing Starbuck to life was over the dead imaginations of a lot of
Network Executives. Every character trait I struggled to give him was met with
vigorous resistance. A charming womanizer? The "Suits" (Network Executives)
hated it. A cigar (fumerello) smoker? The Suits hated it. A reluctant hero who
found humor in the bleakest of situations? The Suits hated it. All this
negative feedback convinced me I was on the right track.
Starbuck was meant to be a lovable rogue. It was best for the show, best for
the character and the best that I could do. The Suits didn't think so. "One
more cigar and he's fired," they told Glen Larson, the creator of the show.
"We want Starbuck to appeal to the female audience for crying out loud." You
see, the Suits knew women were turned off by men who smoked cigars, especially
young men. How they "knew" this was never revealed. And they didn't stop
there. "If Dirk doesn't quit playing every scene with a girl like he wants to
get her in bed, he's fired." This was, well, it was blatant heterosexuality,
treating women like "sex objects." I thought it was flirting. Never mind, they
wouldn't have it. I wouldn't have it any other way, or rather Starbuck
wouldn't. So we persevered, Starbuck and I. The show, as the saying goes, went
on and the rest is history for, lo and behold, women from all over the world
sent me boxes of cigars, phone numbers, dinner requests, and marriage
proposals.
The Suits were not impressed. They would have their way, which is what Suits
do best, and after one season of puffing and flirting and gambling, Starbuck,
that loveable scoundrel, was indeed fired. Which is to say, "Battlestar
Galactica" was cancelled. Starbuck, however, would not stay cancelled, but
simply morphed into another flirting, cigar smoking, blatant heterosexual
called Faceman. Another show, another set of Suits, and of course, if The
"A-Team" movie rumors prove correct, another remake.
There was a time, I know I was there, when men were men, women were women and
sometimes a cigar was just a good smoke. But 40 years of feminism have taken
their toll. The war against masculinity has been won. Everything has turned
into its opposite, so that what was once flirting and smoking is now sexual
harassment and criminal. And everyone is more lonely and miserable as a
result.
Witness the "re-imagined" "Battlestar Galactica," bleak, miserable,
despairing, angry and confused. Which is to say, it reflects in microcosm the
complete change in the politics and morality of today's world, as opposed to
the world of yesterday. The world of Lorne Greene (Adama), Fred Astaire
(Starbuck's Poppa) and Dirk Benedict (Starbuck). I would guess Lorne is glad
he's in that Big Bonanza in the sky and well out of it. Starbuck, alas, has
not been so lucky. He's not been left to pass quietly into that trivial world
of cancelled TV characters.
"Re-imagining", they call it. "Un-imagining" is more accurate. To take what
once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show
based on hope, spiritual faith and family is un-imagined and regurgitated as a
show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction. To better reflect the
times of ambiguous morality in which we live, one would assume. A show in
which the aliens (Cylons) are justified in their desire to destroy human
civilization, one would assume. Indeed, let us not say who the good guys are
and who the bad are. That is being "judgmental," taking sides, and that kind
of (simplistic) thinking went out with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and
Kathryn Hepburn and John Wayne and, well, the original "Battlestar Galactica."
In the bleak and miserable "re-imagined" world of "Battlestar Galactica,"
things are never that simple. Maybe the Cylons are not evil and alien but in
fact enlightened and evolved? Let us not judge them so harshly. Maybe it is
they who deserve to live and Adama and his human ilk who deserve to die? And
what a way to go! For the re-imagined terrorists (Cylons) are not mechanical
robots void of soul, of sexuality, but rather humanoid six foot tall former
lingerie models who f**k you to death. (Poor old Starbuck, you were imagined
too early. Think of the fun you could have had 'fighting' with these
thong-clad aliens!) In the spirit of such soft-core, sci-fi porn I think a
more re-imaginative title would have been "F**cked by A Cylon." (Apologies to
"Touched by an Angel.")
One thing is certain. In the new un-imagined, re-imagined world of "Battlestar
Galactica" everything is female driven. The male characters, from Adama on
down, are confused, weak and wracked with indecision, while the female
characters are decisive, bold, angry as hell, puffing cigars (gasp!) and not
about to take it any more.
One can quickly surmise what a problem the original Starbuck created for the
re-imaginators. Starbuck was all charm and humor and flirting without an angry
bone in his womanizing body. Yes, he was definitely "female driven," but not
in the politically correct ways of Re-imagined Television. What to do,
wondered the Re-imaginators? Keep him as he was, with a twinkle in his eye, a
stogie in his mouth and a girl in every galaxy? This could not be. He would
stick out like, well, like a jock strap in a drawer of thongs. Starbuck
refused to be re-imagined. It became the Great Dilemma. How to have your
Starbuck and delete him too?
The best minds in the world of un-imagination doubled their intake of Double
Soy Latte's as they gathered in their smoke-free offices to curse the day that
this chauvinistic Viper Pilot was allowed to be. But never under-estimate the
power of the un-imaginative mind when it encounters an obstacle (character) it
subconsciously loathes. "Re-inspiration" struck. Starbuck would go the way of
most men in today's society. Starbuck would become "Stardoe." What the Suits
of yesteryear had been incapable of doing to Starbuck 25 years ago was
accomplished quicker than you can say orchiectomy. Much quicker, as in, "Frak!
Gonads Gone!"
And the word went out to all the Suits in all the smoke-free offices
throughout the land of Un-imagination, "Starbuck is dead. Long live Stardoe!"
I'm not sure if a cigar in the mouth of Stardoe resonates in the same way it
did in the mouth of Starbuck. Perhaps. Perhaps it "resonates" more. Perhaps
that's the point. I'm not sure. What I am sure of is this...
Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Hamlet does not scan as Hamletta. Nor
does Hans Solo as Hans Sally. Faceman is not the same as Facewoman. Nor does a
Stardoe a Starbuck make. Men hand out cigars. Women "hand out" babies. And
thus the world for thousands of years has gone' round.
I am also sure that Show Business has been morphing for many decades now and
has finally become Biz Business. The creative artists have lost and the Suits
have won. Suits. Administrators. Technocrats. Metro-sexual money-men (and
women), who create ever more efficient formulas to guarantee profit margins.
Because movies and television shows are not made to enlighten or even
entertain, but simply to make money. They will tell you it is (still) about
story and character, but all it is really about is efficiency. About the
Formula. Because Harvard Business School Technocrats run Hollywood and what
Technocrats know is what must be removed from all business is Risk. And I tell
you, life, real life, is all about risk. I tell you that without risk you have
no creativity, no art. I tell you that without risk you have Remakes. You
have, "Charlie's Angels," "The Saint," "Mission Impossible," "The A Team"
(coming soon), and "Battlestar Galactica."
All risk-free brand names, franchises.
For you see, TV shows (and movies) are made and sold according to the same
business formula as hamburger franchises. So that it matters not if it is the
"best" hamburger, what matters is that you "think" it is the best. And you do
"think" it is the best, because you have been told to; because all of your
favorite celebrities are seen munching it on TV. The big money is not spent on
making the hamburger or the television show, but on the marketing of the
hamburger/show. (One 60 second commercial can cost more than it does to film a
one-hour episode.) It matters not to Suits if it is Starbuck or Stardoe, if
the Cylons are robots or lingerie models, if the show is full of optimism and
morality or pessimism and amorality. What matters is that it is marketed well,
so that all you people out there in TV land know that you must see this show.
And after you see it, you are told that you should like it. That it is new and
bold and sleek and sexy and best of all ... it is Re-imagined!
So grab a Coke from the fridge (not the Classic Coke, but the re-imagined kind
with fewer calories) and send out for a McDonald's hamburger (the re-imagined
one with fewer carbs), and tune in to Stardoe and Cylon #6 (or was it #69?)
and Enjoy the Show.
And if you don't enjoy the show, or the hamburger and coke, it's not the fault
of those re-imaginative technocrats that brought them to you. It is your
fault. You and your individual instincts, tastes and judgment - your refusal
to let go of the memory of the show that once was. You just don't know what is
good for you. But stay tuned. After another 13 episodes (and millions of
dollars of marketing), you will see the light. You, your instincts, your
judgment, are wrong. McDonald's is the best hamburger on the planet, Coca-Cola
the best drink, and Stardoe is the best Viper Pilot in the Galaxy.
And "Battlestar Galactica," contrary to what your memory tells you, never
existed before the Re-imagination of 2004.
I disagree. But perhaps, you had to be there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:45:46 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple. The
"un-imagned" BALLTLESTAR GALACTICA is far superior to the original, in
almost everyone's mind, young and old. The original wasn't much more
than an excuse to produce Star Wars-borrowed special effects, and ride
the craze that that movie was. Science fiction was still trying to find
its sea legs, and was limited by the very suits he was describing. It's
different now. He had it wrong. The suits are looking for something
that's bold, not some 1960s cliched Lothario. He made it sound like he
was presenting a bold new type of character, and really what he was
presenting a cardboard cutout of a human being. His choices in
presenting that character weren't expressions of his acting range; it
was evidence of his limitations. That fact is reiterated by his turning
in the same identical character in a different show. He wasn't acting;
he was mugging for the ladies, taking the cheap shot to fame.
His complaining is ridiculous. The "un-imagining" of BATTELSTAR
GALATICA is far superior to the original. Show me someone who says
otherwise.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:14:40 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
Alric Knebel;485126 Wrote:
You asked. How about the TOS had 29-65 millkon weekly viewers, as
opposed to the new show's less than 3 million.
-ALSO-
TOS does what GINO couldn't do make the Sky 1 Top 10!
Sky One Individuals 4+ Viewing (Including Timeshift) - w/e 22/06/2008
Programme 000's
1 GLADIATORS (Sun 1800) 671
2 DONT FORGET THE LYRICS (Sun 1903) 453
3 THE SIMPSONS (Wed 1933) 362
4 FILM: BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (1979) (Tue 2102) 308
5 THE SIMPSONS (Mon 1900) 289
6 THE SIMPSONS (Thu 1901) 286
7 THE SIMPSONS (Wed 1900) 280
8 THE SIMPSONS (Fri 2001) 278
9 THE SIMPSONS (Tue 1932) 269
10 TOP 50 CELEBRITY MELTDOWNS (Sun 2102) 252
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5868&p=109244&hilit=galactica+uk+tos+ratings&sid=41007b1c76e 23d396ceea9b75f3d8f5c#p109244
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:12:27 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.
That the movie in question was popular and started a trend, it didn't
erase the memory of other movies made a few years prior to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:54:44 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple, as were
most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime after). I'm talking
about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not CINEMA.
I never said a word about MOVIES. I was talking about TV series.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:16:29 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:17:58 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
No. I can't recall any standout series of the 70s.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
While this is an old piece, I always found it rather revisionist.
Benedict's lovable rogue was hardly his invention, nor do I suspect that
the suits, who funded the show based on the popularity of Star Wars,
were particularly opposed to it, though they might not have liked
certain tweaks of the character he did.
Benedict is right that the new show took the theme in an entirely
different direction. Back then when he wrote this, it was not as clear
how much critical judgement would say it was the far better direction.
Of course a few still disagree with that, and argument won't resolve it.
It's a shame he burned his bridges like this, though, for it is even
possible to have enjoyed both shows, something that the GINO crowd
doesn't accept very well. He could have pleased the fans with an
appearance, as Hatch did, possibly even as a loveable rogue, if he
wanted to.
--
Travel the coast of Oregon in my photojournals
http://www.templetons.com/brad/photo/oregon/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:40:38 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
Brad Templeton;485059 Wrote:
Why would he want to? Hammer & Eick backdoored and screwed over
Larson, the creator of BSG, and DeSanto and hijacked the continuation
BSG and turned it into something he never intended it to be against his
wishes. SciFi Channel, Moore, Eick, Hammer and the 3rd party internet
stealth marketing firm that hired to attack fans of TOS all can kiss off
for all I care.
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Why would he? - Like Dwight Schultz, Benedict has washed his hands of
Hollyweird.
Considering how much crap product they put out now, especially on the
movie end (though, if the All New! NEW!! BSG is in any way indicative
of future TV trends, TV will be heading the same way...), I can hardly
blame the sane people like Benedict and Schultz for telling Hollyweird
to "Shove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:56:58 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I found that people who use the word "Hollyweird" -- from some idiotic
talk-show pie hole -- are generally stupid people who quit thinking a
long time ago.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:56 pm, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I'm sorry, who are you again?...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:41:54 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
That YOU don't know me is supposed to indicate what?...
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:41:07 -0500, samson <...@nospam.spam
In article <...@news.albasani.net
For example?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:14:18 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
samson <...@nospam.spam
Are you serious? You can't think of any good television from an entire
decade?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:39:28 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
OM <...@ron_blows_DTH.com
You know, I don't remember "Name of the Game" when I was a kid. I have
no idea why we didn't watch it. And I don't recall the show turning up
in second run. I think I would have tuned in out of curiousity about the
title. And I don't think I was allowed to watch "I, Claudius". I've seen
it since.
"MASH" requires qualification...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:18:27 -0700, Anim8rFSK <...@cox.net
In article <...@news.albasani.net "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Might have been because it was 90 minutes. A lot of the 90 minute stuff
just didn't get watched because it was too darn long and opposite too
many other things.
--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
"Name of the Game" was a 60s series, not a 70s one. The pilot aired in
1966. Great show though. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:24:23 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
What does that mean? Not that it matters much to my claim, because I
was talking about dramatic TV, not sitcoms and documentaries.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:05:10 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I thought you were talking about movies, since a couple of us mentioned
"Star Wars"; no matter.
"MASH" was on the air much too long. Stories were funnier before the
original cast changed, but that was probably due to Larry Gelbart. Alan
Alda got way too much influence over the show, and when the show was
about Alan Alda versus the Viet Nam War or versus some other modern
political belief, the episode was boring. Unless you read the book or
saw the movie, you might forget that Hawkeye was married and cheating on
his wife, just like everyone else. Seasons later, Col Potter and B.J.
were married and NOT cheating on their wives, a huge variance from
"MASH". But the show never really recovered from the loss of Larry
Linville, in my opinion the greatest television foil of all, a lot
funnier than Ted Knight as Ted Baxter on "Mary Tyler Moore". But he was
bored of the show and didn't think there was anything else to do with
his character.
I didn't like the rhythm they used in the scripts in later seasons,
particularly Potter and Klinger's lines.
Considering how many seasons the show was on the air with the new cast,
most viewers must have enjoyed the post-Gelbart changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:00:04 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I pretty much agree with that. I agree too with the loss of Larry
Linville. The show took it's subtext too seriously that it became
pretext, and I got so tired of the "message" ("I'm sick of having to
pull shrapnel out of these kids"). And the ending was way too serious.I
liked it better when it was all conniving and quick banter.
As for my comment that initiated this, I meant only DRAMATIC television.
There were always great movies in the cinema, and some of the
made-for-TV series were fantastic. Of course there's ROOTS, and one of
the most memorable, JESUS OF NAZARETH for me. And in 1981 (it's AROUND
that same period), one of my all time favorites, EAST OF EDEN. But I
found standard series television extremely dull. Something about them
made them all alike.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:58:56 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
Those were both really cute segues. I don't remember the promos, though.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:35:26 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
LOL! Yeah. That's what it was all about, escaping the Carter
Administration, so they dumbed down the programming.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:36:58 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
OM <...@ron_blows_DTH.com
Oh. You were one of those who rooted for the shark in "Jaws".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:55:59 -0500, Exhibitionist <...@bullwinkle.org
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:36:58 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<...@chinet.com
Let's face it: nobody went to see Roy Schneider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Exhibitionist <...@bullwinkle.org
I just recently watched Jaws after not seeing it for 20 years. The "three
men in a boat" part of the movie is amazingly good. Come for the shark,
stay for the male bonding. I don't remember the movie being as good as
this - I enjoyed the hell out of it. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:14:54 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
OM <...@ron_blows_DTH.com
I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:23:06 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
"Cosmos" doesn't count as it's a documentary show, and the same with
"The World at War." When I made my comment, I was talking about
DRAMATIC series. Not sitcoms.
"I, Claudius" was a PBS miniseries, with a limited run. So of course
that was quality. The other shows you mentioned fall into the category
I was talking about. They were dull detective shows thrown together per
week, to fill a time slot. They weren't that good.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:21:57 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
It seems you have no clue what "Name of the Game" was and are just
spouting off, and I doubt you watched "Rockford" either, which generally
makes people's favorites lists among viewers who recall that era.
Name of the Game had a pilot movie in 1966 and three seasons, 68-69 to
70-71. I was a little young to have watched it. It counts only in part.
I Claudius was a serial, and considering it had 13 episodes it
wasn't a mini series. Produced by BBC, it was aired during the seventh
season of "Masterpiece Theater" in America, and the first and possibly
last time brief nudity was shown on American tv. While it was British
and doesn't fit your rant against American television, it's an example
that drama on American television wasn't the vaste wasteland you would
have the rest of us believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:13:43 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
Yes, I did watch those shows. I didn't really dislike them, but I
didn't care for them particularly either. By that time, I'd seen
hundreds of theatrical movies (I was 23), and the difference in quality
as expressed in style and vision is apparent. TV tends to be paced all
the same, with a glib style, which it is, because not much rehearsal is
performed, and it's just shoot and cut. It shows. The end product is
bland.
You mentioned THREE shows. THREE. And you can split a hair about I,
CLAUDIUS -- over what you'd like to call it, a serial or a miniseries --
the point remains, it wasn't a weekly series that was open-ended run. I
saw I, CLAUDIUS, and liked it a lot. Because it was an adaptation of a
novel, it was set for so many episodes, and was therefore a complete
concept. It didn't have to hunt for where it was going, because it was
already a well-written novel, with characters meticulously defined. But
weekly television was not very good. Most of series do not stand the
test of time. And that's MOST of them. You might have a nostalgic
affection for them -- I have such an affection for some 60s series TV
(THE WILD WILD WEST and THE INVADERS), but I can see that they're TV
series with typical production values. That I love them doesn't alter
that simple fact of what they are.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:36:44 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
Huh. So you learned that tv and movies are different media. Thanks for
the alert.
So you're not backing off your claim that "Name of the Game" was just
another dull detective show.
There's no point in bringing up additional examples to someone who keeps
declaring new parameters. It's an example of a high quality drama available
to discriminating viewers of '70's television that wasn't crap.
Oh, btw, just because it was imported doesn't make it better. One
assumes that a lot of foreign-produced programming fails to get sold in
the United States because it's even more highly selective than what's
chosen from American productions.
As long as we're being pedantic, a two-novel series.
Uh, yeah. The overall title of the anthology was "Masterpiece Theatre".
They weren't all masterpieces, but it did suggest that it was television
adaptations of novels. The famous "Upstairs Downstairs" was original to
television.
That it was all plotted out and had a concluding episode... thank ghod
for small favors. I wish every series was like that.
And we have yet another new parameter.
In our next episode, what will the new complaint be: Old fashioned
special effects? Discussion of social norms unlike today's society? Ugly
fashion trends? Big hair? Skinny ties? Lapels too wide or too narrow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 05:50:15 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
Thanks for being a fucking smart ass, smart ass; sans the "smart", of
course. I wasn't alerting you. I was merely informing you of the
difference in a something that's got a real vision attached to it, and
something that's a bland factory-producted product.
No. It was a typical TV show, with the same cranked-out production values.
I didn't move the parameter around. I was always talking about weekly
drama, and because that's what this thread was about, I failed to be
more precise. I did in a couple of posts reiterate more precisely what
I meant, and the parameters have been the same since.
I didn't even mention that it was imported, and had no bearing on my
comments. That was a miniseries (or serial). I'm talking about weekly
drama.
Okay. Good enough.
Okay. I'll give it to you. Everything isn't trash. Like I said, you
have those exceptions.
So to once again be a smart ass, you deleted the rest of my comment then
made it seem like something it wasn't. When I say "they don't stand the
test of time," it's the same parameter. Only some people see it for
what it is at the time, and others catch on later. By the time I became
an adult in the 70s, TV had almost completely lost its appeal to me.
You don't think there were people then who saw that "The Wild Wild West"
was a bit campy? I don't remember my parents watching it.
Today, TV is much better, and I think it has a lot to do with cable.
You might think "The Name of the Game" is topnotch TV. I don't. It's
light entertainment, and keep in mind, in those days, you didn't have to
be that good. All you had to do is be better than the other two networks.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:34:14 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I never even used the word "optimistic" in my response. I said it was
like everything else out at the time -- and since then, I've clarified,
that I meant DRAMATIC series -- that it was ham-handed and simple. What
I mean is, the writing depended on things like a womanizing Starbuck and
other gimmicks that appeal to the mass audiences. They were not
anything like the quality of cinema, with deep rich characters.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:52:12 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
For the 20th time, not every dramatic program in the 1970's were like
that. But I can see how you might think that if you watched nothing but
what Glen Larson produced.
You're wrong. The '70's, like any era, had decent television for the
discriminating viewer. Just because YOU weren't that viewer, don't claim
that none of the rest of us was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:51:22 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
Don't be stupid. I was a big TV watcher. There was no marked
difference in quality from the 60s to the 70s. The fact that I can't
remember any exceptions -- COLUMBO sort of comes to mind, but that's
more of a fun show than real drama -- seems to make my point. Someone
mentioned ROCKFORD FILES, but I didn't think that show was in any way
exceptional. You either liked it or you didn't, but if you liked it, it
wasn't because it was this exceptional show. It was a typical detective
show, and those things had been on since nearly the inception of
broadcast TV.
Name those shows. I'm talking about a weekly series, not some special
event, made-for-TV thing into which they dumped a large budget. I'm
talking about weekly TV series with dramatic themes. I'm not saying
there are NONE, but the good ones are the rare exception. TV rarely
takes risks, because the programming is designed to attract advertising
dollars. They like to stay away from controversy. These days, TV is
far better because almost all of the series have some longer story arc
that allows the writers to develop characters beyond a single episode.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:56:47 -0400, Just go look it up! <...@nowhere.spam
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:51:22 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.netwrote:
MASH?
I'd also throw in Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere but I don't
think they came along until the early 80s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:43:32 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
That's right. They did. And I believe that it was the development of
so much cable programming that raised the standard.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:55:38 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
Alric Knebel;485725 Wrote:
I guess you never saw the tv series COMBAT, starring Vic Morrow... ya
know.. the 70s tv show that did realistic and gritty (at least as far as
what they could get away back then) 30 years before the new BSG.
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:02:56 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
Does anyone think that today's television is filled with high brow
drama?? Most of it is reality tv garbage, game shows and cop dramas.
You don't really think today's tv is a highpoint for television do you?
All Moore did was take the shakey cam, low-lighting, video cam drama
that has been the standard for the last 20 years, especially typical in
cop dramas, starting with HILL STREET BLUES, and copy n paste onto a
pre-existing science ficton show, one he didn't creat, btw, and it
resulted in a huge continuity mess and a 69% steady plunge in ratings.
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:20:29 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
Goody. Did someone force you to watch crap? In our next episode, will it
be revealed that you were Anim's father?
Please stop lecturing everybody. By admitting that you weren't a
discriminating viewer as the excuse for being unable to distinguish or
discern quality from what you watched, your opinion is hardly well
reasoned. You're simply loud and obnoxious.
Forget it. You're unpleasant, predictable, so I can see where this
nondiscussion is going. I'm changing channels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 05:54:49 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
What the hells are you yapping about? No, no one forced me to watch
crap. I can't even figure out where you're going from here.
You know, you've turned out to be quite a silly person. I'm not
lecturing anyone here. I'm participating in this thread. And, really,
I'm not admitting I'm NOT a discriminating viewer. I'm saying the exact
opposite.
You came into this thread with a bad attitude, and don't let the door
hit you in the ass one the way out.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:20:29 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I was serious when I said it. That you can think of one or two
exceptions means only that I oversimplified my statement. What I said
was generally true.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:57:10 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I enjoyed for more than one or two programs, and I will not acknowledge
that they were exceptions.
It's like I'm talking to a 70 year old WQ.
In the opinion of many, the '70's were terrific for television comedy,
which has been a low point of late. "Big Bang Theory" has been an all
too rare exception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:43:14 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I feel like I'm talking to someone with extremely low tastes, if we must
get started with the insults. That gotten out of the way, I said
elsewhere that my generalization was intended toward DRAMA, the serious
fare. And whether your tastes can handle the truth or not, the good
ones were the exception. I even liked some of the things that I now see
weren't really all that good. As someone else in the thread said, take
a show like THE INVADERS. Absolutely loved it. I never missed a single
episode during its entire run. I bought the 1st Season set, and I liked
it a pretty good bit, but clearly, looking back, it was a show, churned
out by a media factory, on schedule, on budget, so the network can sell
air time for sponsors. But I was a teenager then, and what did I know?
I experienced the same reaction when I bought THE WILD WILD WEST. I
enjoyed seeing this again, in such pristine condition, but it was some
pretty campy stuff. It didn't stop me from enjoying it, but I
definitely understood how somebody wouldn't. I chose to ignore the
not-so-high production standards, and just enjoyed it, ignoring the camp
it was. And the thing is, at the time, I was the only one taking it
that seriously. It was typical of shows at the time, and the 70s were
no different. There are exceptions, but most of it was not very good.
And when I'm saying this, I'm talking strictly of drama-oriented
programs. Comedies, of course, weren't ever to be taken seriously.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:39:09 GMT, peachy ashie passion <...@hotmail.com
Okay, but once you've watered it down this far, isn't that an eternal
truism?
Of course the high quality stuff was an exception in the 1970s. And
the 80s, 90s, and this decade too. And it always is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:54:31 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
But a show with production values like the one I'm talking about, and
with scripts like those, wouldn't even last. Take ROCKFORD FILES. A
show like that wouldn't blip on the ratings radar more than a couple of
weeks with scripts like those. Everything seemed like it was based on
some remnant of an Agatha Christie novel.
And it's true that the truly great ones are the exception, but these
days, even most of the failures -- again, I'm talking DRAMA (and science
fiction) -- have pretty decent production values. In other words, with
all the competition, they have to make stellar effort, right out of the
starting gate. Back in the day of the ROCKFORD FILES, you had literally
three choices for entertainment, and so the three networks pretty much
used the same formulas year after year. Every now and then someone
would get a real pair of balls and try something bold, and I think THE
PRISONER was far ahead of everyone else in the balls department.
Generally, though, everything was safe, tried and true.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:22:33 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
No! You started in on the condescension several rounds back. Oddly, you
admitted to watching lots of tv in the '70's. Something doesn't track.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 05:59:29 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I have to watch it to see if there's anything I feel like becoming a fan
of. And my idea of LOTS might be different from yours. You've
constantly twisted this discussion into something it wasn't, twisting
and pulling on it until it said something YOU wanted it to say so you
could argue with it from the high ground. I look back on the 70s, and
very little of it was memorable. I can't think of any weekly dramatic
series I watched other than BSG with any regularity.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:01:57 -0500, samson <...@nospam.spam
In article <...@polaris.net says...
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?
s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:36:04 -0700 (PDT), "pbo...@aol.com" <...@aol.com
On 19 Mar, 16:01, samson <...@nospam.spam
It does seem a little sad that he takes so much pride in the fact that
"the best he could do" was to play the same cardboard stereotype in
two shows, and for that matter a stereotype that was already past its
sell-by date in the late 1970s.
I can see where he's coming from in complaining that the new show
isn't as happy and hopeful as its original incarnation, but to me
that's a flaw in the original series' execution - a story about a
"ragtag fleet" of refugees who are the last survivors of a holocaust
*shouldn't* be about "hope" and "family", where the greatest source of
tension is wondering when Cassopeia will find out about Starbuck's
latest womanising.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:35:08 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
samson;484695 Wrote:
Yeah, you're so right. Han Solo is the STAR WARS movies was
never very popular with yesterdays or today's audiences.
You do realize that Larson's creation, BSG, had 29-65 million weekly
viewers, don't you?
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:41:08 -0500, Exhibitionist <...@bullwinkle.org
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:35:08 -0400, spidersrevenge
<...@no-mx.coolscifi.comnapkin:
And there wer HOW MANY networks back then?
Oh... sorry. Those pesky facts keep popping up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:42:43 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
Exhibitionist;485061 Wrote:
There is such a thing as turning off the tv and doing something else,
if you don't like what's on. That's we did back then. Btw, how do you
account for the high sales in TOS BSG merchandising such as magazines,
novels, VCR tapes, posters, lunch boxes, toys, models, etc, then? Yeah,
those pesky facts sure are annoying. :rolleyes:
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:06:33 -0400, EGK <...@privacy.net
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:01:57 -0500, samson <...@nospam.spam
The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:52:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
EGK <...@privacy.net
You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator. He's not exactly
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.
I didn't really care for the original. Glen Larson was never my favorite
tv producer. Best thing he ever did was "Quincy" in my opinion, but
that's only because Jack Klugman's over the top performance cracked me up.
When the actor insisted on adding Alan Alda-inspired moralizing, it hurt
the drama. However, I still remember many of the simplistic medical
lessons the show was trying to teach (badly, perhaps).
But I thought very much the same thing when the show was first announced.
What is the point? If you are going to produce something entirely
different than the original, just give it a different name! It's not as
if the original didn't go where thousands of Western movies and tv episodes
had gone before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:04:22 GMT, David Johnston <...@block.net
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:52:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<...@chinet.com
He didn't. More like one of Humphrey Bogarts lowlife with a heart of
gold characters.
He's not exactly
People would have been just as annoyed by how much it was like
Battlestar Galactica if it had a different name as they were at how
different it was with that name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:12:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
David Johnston <...@block.net
Wow. It's Usenet. How did I know that someone would post exactly that
annoying refrain, pretending it's really a counter argument to anything
I said?
Considering we're talking about remakes, I suppose stock Usenet crap is
actually on topic. Why should anyone say what hasn't been said before?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:04:07 GMT, David Johnston <...@block.net
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:12:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<...@chinet.com
Why isn't it a counter argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:18:34 -0700 (PDT), SueB1863 <...@earthlink.net
Didn't he appear on a pre-premiere promo show with Katie Sackhoff
(sp?), apparently endorsing the new version, back before it started?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:09:39 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
SueB1863;485072 Wrote:
He wrote LOST IN CASTRATION after realized the major changes Moore made
to the show and Starbuck, which Larson tailored for him, specifically.
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:04:20 GMT, aemeijers <...@att.net
I gotta ask- did anybody ever get verification that he actually wrote
the diatribe attributed to him? Internet is full of such screeds, and
most are fake.
Just sayin'
--
aem sends...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:36:30 -0400, EGK <...@privacy.net
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:52:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.comwrote:
No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.
I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:24:43 GMT, Brian Henderson <...@NOSPAM.verizon.net
Dexter, even with all the problems with that show, is head and shoulders
above even the best character on BSG. Hell, Dexter's crazy dead
half-brother serial killer from the first season is better than anyone
they have on BSG. Hell, even Lila, the detestable bitch from the second
season that was almost universally reviled is better than anyone on BSG.
It's because all of these characters, unlike BSG, have something in them
that makes them likeable. You'd go out for a beer with them, assuming
they didn't kill you. You could enjoy having a conversation with them.
That's just not true with anyone in BSG, all of whom I'd just want to
shove out an airlock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:26:17 -0700 (PDT), "Magnus, Robot Fighter" <...@cox.net
On Mar 19, 5:24 pm, Brian Henderson
<...@NOSPAM.verizon.net
You wouldn't have a beer with Doc Cottle? What's wrong with you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:49:07 -0500, shawn <...@gmail.com
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:26:17 -0700 (PDT), "Magnus, Robot Fighter"
<...@cox.net
He smokes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:10:30 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
Brian Henderson;485075 Wrote:
Amen to that.
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:06:06 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
EGK <...@privacy.net
Fine. The original "Battlestar Galactica" attempted to cash in on an
apparent trend in movies.
Dexter is judge, jury, and executioner, but most weeks (with the
exception of the pivotal murder introducing Season 3) makes an effort to
find only worthy victims. It's oddly black and white a lot of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:31:40 -0400, EGK <...@privacy.net
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:06:06 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.comwrote:
Sure, and the new BG attempted to cash in on the original movie's name. Most
all TV and film is an attempt to cash in one way or another.
To me this isn't a debate over which version was better. I'm old enough to
remember the original but I didn't watch it that much. You have to view TV
in context of the time it was made. Not that many shows of the past hold
up all that well today. I recently finished watching the second season of
The Invaders and though it's easy to see it as a forerunner of shows like
The X-Files, it's pretty campy now. Just like the original BG.
Benedict's Starbuck who I thought was the only good character in the
original version, sadly, puts it one up on the new version as far as having
a likeable character.
I do have to laugh at all those who see Benedict's rant as misogynist. To
me he's simply saying "vive la différence". Moore is the one who created
strong female characters then proceeded to make them all bitches. Of
course he made the male characters whiney bitches too.
And still head and shoulders above BG. Either version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:12:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
EGK <...@privacy.net
I acknowledge that you aren't engaging in such a debate. My point
is limited to, If you are going to introduce major changes, call it
something else.
I am not arguing from the position taken by one of the theater critics
targeted by Vincent Price in "Theater of Blood": "He had the temerity to
rewrite Shakespeare?"
Glen Larson isn't Shakespeare. In my opinion, the original Battlestar
Galactica wasn't classic television. The character Dirk Benedict played
wasn't terribly original. But I agree with his basic point that, yes,
the character is male and that, yes, making the character female was
definitely to appease. His other points are weaker, and some of the rant
was wrong.
I absoluetly agree with you.
Interesting. If I liked him more as an actor, I might agree. I had
trouble liking the original show, but there was one episode I
particularly enjoyed, Starbuck alone on a planet, making friends with
the Cylon who had also crashed there (or building himself a friend).
I agree with this, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:39:22 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
They do give him mention in the credits. I saw that movie about a month
ago. I might possibly be mixing this up with something I read, but I
believe it mentioned "The Tempest" in the beginning.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:53:45 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
I say, if you keep the very bones of the premise -- and it's a premise
worth remaking, considering the advances in attitude toward science
fiction -- you HAVE to keep the title. Making Starbuck female was a
nice change, reflecting the changed times. It was cool. He used this
as a jumping-off point to go into a riff that in the end sounded
ludicrous. The only people who'd agree with him are those people who
loved the Star Wars-like original over the darker modern version. I
liked the changes. But it was still the same basic premise. What are
you going to do? Are you going to have a series about a race of robots
seeking to destroy the remnants of humankind, chasing the humans across
deep space as they hunt for earth, then call the series SOMETHING ELSE?
The remake was definitely far more interesting than the original,
which had a 70s chicken-shit approach to telling stories, in that it
kept all the ideas mainstream and safe, black and white. I'm not a
child anymore, and I don't need -- or desire -- things to be that
simple. Here, the robots were monotheists while the humans believed in
multiple gods. Who could have seen THAT coming? The plot line didn't
stay the same year after year, but instead got more complex. I praise
this sort of creativity. In fact, I'm looking forward to the AMC's
remake of "The Prisoner" later this year.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:01:23 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
You're insane. You must live in a world of comic-book characters. I
liked the richer characterizations in the new BSG.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:03:12 +1100, Ian Galbraith <...@privacy.net
Well a lot of us are insane then. And given he likes Dexter its a bit
ridiculous to accuse him of wanting comic book characterisation. The
characters in nuBSG on the whole are detestable. This doesn't
automatically make them richer characters than more sympathetic
characters. Plus they're detestable in a way that makes them
uninteresting.
--
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure, and the
intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:43:13 -0400, EGK <...@privacy.net
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:03:12 +1100, Ian Galbraith <...@privacy.net
The "comic book" line is pretty funny anyway. Comics have long had much
more nuance of character than anything ever seen on BG. Buffy the Vampire
Slayer is now a comic and that show was head and shoulders above BG in both
story and characterization. Of course the producers and writers were
smart enough to actually give the audience characters they could root for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:16:22 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
For some reason, I accidentally responded to HIS post, when I meant to
respond to Adam's.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:51:22 -0400, EGK <...@privacy.net
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:01:23 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
Ad hominem argument noted. I can well understand how you enjoy the
"richer" characters on the new BG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:15:35 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
My apology. I meant to actually respond to the person who called ME
insane.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:46:13 -0400, EGK <...@privacy.net
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:28:39 -0500, OM <...@ron_blows_DTH.com
There was no debate. I made a point to which he issued nothing but ad
hominem reply. End of story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:32:22 -0400, spidersrevenge <...@no-mx.coolscifi.com
How's this for a strawman argument?
a) Moore is a less than stellar, pompous, arrogant windbag
b) Moore hasn't created a successful show, penned from his own source
material
c) After Moore ran out of Larson & DeSanto BSG source material to
exploit, he turned GINO into a horrible mess, via the new material he
wrote for the show.
d) Moore did bring something new to the genre by inserting daytime soap
opera shipper garbage into science fiction and space fantasy.
e) Outside the laughfest called the SciFi Channel, under Bonnie
"Lifetime Channel" Hammer's reign, Moore most likely won't be exec
producing anyone's show after this 69% ratings plunge/1.2 ratings
disaster.
--
spidersrevenge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:43:57 GMT, peachy ashie passion <...@hotmail.com
Uh, no.
I will note that it's standard for people who use those tactics to try
to claim that, though.
For those of us who actually know how to do reasoned discussion, those
are still meaningful terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:48:10 GMT, Brian Henderson <...@NOSPAM.verizon.net
Only valid if you consider a bunch of self-involved assholes to be
"rich characterization".
I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:40:55 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
Well, I don't consider them that, and I still consider it very strong
characterizations, and what you say is mischaracterization.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:42:10 -0500, Rob Jensen <...@aol.com
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:06:33 -0400, EGK <...@privacy.net
You seem incapable of recognizing (much less appreciating) the irony
in your statement regarding the unmitigated fact that Star Wars was an
homage to Flash Gordon.
-- Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:52:53 -0400, EGK <...@privacy.net
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:42:10 -0500, Rob Jensen <...@aol.com
Condescending much, Rob? I made no mention of Flash Gordon for the simple
reason that Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo in particular. Battlestar
Galactica was created to piggyback on the success of Star Wars in
particular. The character itself was nothing original as I mentioned (and
you snipped). He was meant to be an anti-hero as was Han Solo. They were
both meant to be likeable rogues. Nothing new about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 05:06:07 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Rob Jensen <...@aol.com
I don't know about Flash Gordon. It was supposed to be lifted from a
Japanese movie whose name I've forgotten. But there's absolutely nothing
original about any of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:17:47 -0400, EGK <...@privacy.net
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 05:06:07 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.comwrote:
Exactly. Starbuck was simply patterned after Han Solo in particular because
Star Wars was so popular at the time. The whole series was riding on the
coattails of Star Wars popularity..
At the time of the original series, I always thought Dirk Benedict would
have made a great choice to play Errol Flynn in a biography. Both Han Solo
and Starbuck owed a lot to many of his movie roles too. There was nothing
original about a likeable rogue. Entertaining but not original.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:30:28 GMT, Brian Henderson <...@NOSPAM.verizon.net
If not specifically to Flash Gordon, at least to the serials of the 30s
and 40s. George Lucas has been quite clear on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:31:27 -0500, "catpandaddy" <...@cat.pan.net
"Brian Henderson" <...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Mix well with the Seven Samauri and a sprinkling of Joseph Campbell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Ubiquitous <...@polaris.net
[rant deleted].
What a dick. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Then you must find it a shame that he's right, then, about pretty much
all of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
ibal...@san.rr.com writes:
If by "right about all of it" means "is a freaking fossil, and is wrong
about just about all of it". Season with sour grapes. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:59:40 -0500, "Magnus, Robot Fighter" <...@Key.com
Yeah...especially the part about "Women hand out babies" :\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:43:12 -0500, Exhibitionist <...@bullwinkle.org
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:59:40 -0500, "Magnus, Robot Fighter"
<...@Key.com
except for that Chevy with Ford fenders thing that Baba Wahwah put on
her show as the "pregnant man."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:20:27 GMT, Brian Henderson <...@NOSPAM.verizon.net
Pretty much, there wasn't a whole lot, at least conceptually, that he
said about new Craptacular that I disagreed with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:05:20 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
He wasn't right about ANY of it.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:29:32 -0500, "catpandaddy" <...@cat.pan.net
"Alric Knebel" <...@giganews.com...
Well, he was right about the reimagining being done by "the suits"... no
wait, they never wore suits. Well at least the "soy lattes" part was
righ... nope, the producers were always sloshed on whiskey on the rocks.
Well, maybe the smoke-free offices... but wait, Moore was always chain
smoking. Dang, what DID he get right? Well, technically the part about
women birthing babies, but even that was him being an absolute ass about it.
Maybe if he had cut his Farrah hairdo and went for the mohawk look sported
by one of his co-actors on his next gig, his brain could have gotten more
nutrients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:55:17 -0500, Alric Knebel <...@cableone.net
That was the CUTEST response.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Jherrod writes:
That might sting a bit if I knew who the fuck you are, but probably not. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Narcissus Jones <...@hotmail.NOSPAM.net
Again, that would perhaps sting if I knew or cared who the fuck you were.
As for anonymous - it's my freaking initials, idiot. I suppose your name is
"Narcissus"? If so, give your mom a gold star for predicting an appropriate
name.
In brief, fuck off, loser. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Shelbe Smyth <...@ya.biz
They stand for the first and last parts of my name, as I've signed posts on
the net for the last 22 years.
Bye! *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Shelbe Smyth <...@ya.biz
Quite an effective killfile you have there, sparky. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:59:08 -0600, Beowulf Bolt <...@shaw.ca
Just because Paul doesn't sign every post with his full name does not
mean he has been hiding behind an alias. Hell, I've seen his full name
given in rec.arts.sf.tv within the last couple of months.
Only someone ignorant about 'PV's' posting history would be leveling
this charge against him.
(And I'll pre-empt any similar attack against me by 'outing' my name to
be James Ellis. Not every use of a handle or initials is an attempt to
hide.)
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:52:07 -0600, Beowulf Bolt <...@shaw.ca
Lighten up, Francis.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:01:57 -0600, Beowulf Bolt <...@shaw.ca
Whereas from my POV, it is yourself, Narcissus and Shelbe who are
"jumping his shit" for minor stuff. You can really tell that we
frequent different newsgroups and have only been brought into contact by
this cross-posted rant posted by the trollish 'Ubiquitous'.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:54:26 -0600, Beowulf Bolt <...@shaw.ca
It's not a matter of it not *belonging* in a particular group. It's a
matter that cross-posts often lead to flamewars as different group
cultures clash. PV's posts are not particularly "misanthropic" (or even
noteworthy) by the standards of rec.arts.sf.tv. It is simply a bad idea
to start a widely cross-posted thread nowadays.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Beowulf Bolt <...@shaw.ca
Or in fact ever. Who was the incredible dumbass that put the
alt.politics.correct cesspool of idiots into the newsgroups list? *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:33:50 -0600, Beowulf Bolt <...@shaw.ca
I don't think it was such a bad idea way back when usenet was sparkly
and new before the spammers and trolls moved in. Nowadays, however, the
defenses that each newsgroup have developed against such lowlifes trip
over cross-postings.
Ubiquitous. Aka the guy who for many, many years has been using the
.sig line about how only 'libruls' think that Iraq is some sort of
quagmire. A politically-motivated dumbass, in other words.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|