Bryan Singer Re-Imagines Battlestar Galactica For The Big Screen

Posted by Rob Hunter (rob@filmschoolrejects.com) on August 14, 2009

bryan-singer-header

The next stage of Hollywood’s plan to remake everything ever made has begun… they’re now moving on to remaking remakes.  And while we can all agree that most remake announcements warrant more WTF’s than applause, this latest one seems more frakkin stupid than usual.

Per Variety, Universal Pictures has hired Bryan Singer to direct a Battlestar Galactica feature film. Universal says the film will be “a complete reimagination.”

Variety’s post has more info on Singer’s close calls with the BSG universe over the past decade, but that’s not the most relevant fact at play here.  What is important is the fact that Universal says Glen Larson is on-board to produce, but fails to mention Ronald Moore in any capacity. Moore of course is the man who took the cheesy entertainment found in the original 1978 series and turned it into four seasons of action, drama, sex, and moral quandaries… easily one of the best shows ever to grace the boob tube.

What Moore did, in essence, is to re-imagine a mildly entertaining sci-fi series and turn it into a phenomenon that received near-universal acclaim. Where can they go with this? How can this be improved? When this rumor first started making the rounds earlier this year, there was no word as to ‘where’ the new movie would take place? Would it be the old-school seventies BSG or would it be Moore’s complex and multi-layered creation? There’s still no official word, but /Film points out an interview with Tom DeSanto, a co-producer on a previous attempt at re-birthing BSG, who says the idea he originally had Singer intrigued by was a direct continuation of the original series. It’s an interesting read that thankfully never got off the ground…

So there are three options here.

One, the movie can take off from the original series… BAD IDEA because who really cares at this point? The show is fondly remembered more for it’s nostalgia factor than anything else. Some of the original actors are dead, the rest are ancient, and none of them are marquee names.

Two, the movie can take off from the recent series that just concluded a few months ago… BAD IDEA because that story already ended. Folks may disagree with how it ended, but the fact remains that it did end. The story is wrapped up. It’s done. And like option one this requires the audience have prior knowledge. Universal won’t want that if they’re after the largest audience possible.

Three, the movie can take the initial concept of a human/cylon war that sends humanity in search of a new home and just start fresh with new characters and stories… BAD IDEA because Moore’s series is still so resonant, and honestly, no two hour movie will be able to capture one-tenth of the show’s depth and creativity. That said, this will most likely be the path Universal and Singer choose. Using this summer’s Star Trek reboot as their model they’ll pack it full of young actors and lens flares and call it the birth of a new franchise.

Crappy ideas all around, but I guess it could be worse

What do you think about a Battlestar Galactica feature film? How should they do it (if they have to do it at all)?


Read more articles by Rob Hunter

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Don B.
    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?
  • Because clearly high or low ratings determines whether a show is good or not. Pull your head out of your ass, moron.
  • Don B.
    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.
  • 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.
    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
    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
    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.
  • 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
    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...
  • 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.
blog comments powered by Disqus