Comments on: Bryan Singer Re-Imagines Battlestar Galactica For The Big Screen

By: RAND

RAND — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 20:05:00 +0000

To me, Star Wars was a phenomena. Everyone was talking about it, you couldn’t pick up a magazine without reading about it. BSG, in both incarnations, has never had anywhere near as large a fan base. You can go up to people today and ask if they like classic of re-imagined BSG better and they’ll ask you what BSG is. Take care.

By: RAND

RAND — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:57:00 +0000

Jamie Bambler said, before the mini-series aired, that there was plenty of room for different versions of BSG. Ron Moore, the mooreron himself said the BSG universe was big enough for both versions. Ron Moore had his moment in the sun, I hated what he did but it’s over and done with. Now it’s Bryan Singer and Glen A Larson’s turn. If you don’t like the direction they want to take Galactica then don’t go to the movie, stay home and watch the re-imagined series on DVD.

By: Mr. Sleeper

Mr. Sleeper — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:29:32 +0000

As much as I loved Moore's reboot of Moore's Battlestar Galactica I would have to say thay I am very interested in Singer vision of the BSG franchise. He was pitching the renewel of BSG series before Moore came into the picture. Furthermore, the criticism on Superman Returns is begining to get tiresome. I loved SR and many other movie critics did as well, but the general audience seem to be divided. Rather you love it or hate it people need to let go and move on, because saying that Singer should never do another movie because of Superman Returns is just absurd.

By: americanidolepisodes

americanidolepisodes — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:02:15 +0000

same guy who did SUPERMAN RETURNS… you know that's a disaster! :D

By: Really?

Really? — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:36:38 +0000

This article is pretty narrow minded. According to Rob Hunter a continuation is a Bad Idea because he thinks so? He tries to speak for all of us by saying "who cares".

Should have done your homework chief. A lot of us care. A lot of us feel a continuation was the way to go from the start. A lot of us feel like a certain other show isn't really Battlestar Galactica at all...it just happens to share the name.

This is absolutely the worst type of journalism out there. Throw up a few more crappy articles like this one and they can change the name of the site to journalismrejects.com.

I personally can't wait to see Singer's take on Battlestar. I hope its a continuation of the original. A decent writer would be able to do just fine within those confines. All it takes is a little imagination.

Before anyone asks...I watched every single episode of Ron Moore's version of BSG. Phenomenon or not it just didn't feel like Battlestar Galactica. I just didn't feel it captured all that Battlestar Galactica could have been and was set up to be by the original. I can understand why Moore's fans like that show, and that if they like that show they probably won't like the original since the two are night and day different. Just don't make the mistake of thinking no one cares for the original. Remember...Moore's show, no matter how successful or not, it was only made because a lot of people love Battlestar Galactica. To assume otherwise is flat out ignorant.

By: sandra mutter

sandra mutter — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:26:47 +0000

just got a couple of comments here. first, tried to watch moore's crap but kept throwing things as it wasn't BSG and from what i've seen of the trailers his Caprica is barely even SciFi. two, people wonder why he didn't make a theatrical movie and the reason is he couldn't as glen a. larson owns those. third, i can't wait for true BSG to come to the movie screen with Larson back in charge and singer being on board is an added bonus as the only thing he has done wrong in movies as far as i can tell is to cast hallie berry as storm.

By: susan01

susan01 — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:49:10 +0000

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

By: Mr. Sleeper

Mr. Sleeper — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:09:48 +0000

“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.

By: Me

Me — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:48:02 +0000

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.

By: Ginny

Ginny — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:10:02 +0000

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.

By: Mr. Sleeper

Mr. Sleeper — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:24:01 +0000

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

By: Mr. Sleeper

Mr. Sleeper — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:22:40 +0000

“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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:56:00 +0000

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

By: RobHunter

RobHunter — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:52:12 +0000

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.

By: RobHunter

RobHunter — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:52:12 +0000

By: Don B.

Don B. — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:49:00 +0000

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.

By: Don B.

Don B. — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:35:42 +0000

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

By: rollo1

rollo1 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:46:30 +0000

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…

By: RobHunter

RobHunter — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:58:58 +0000

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.”

By: rollo1

rollo1 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:07:15 +0000

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 ratings that high has 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.