Battlestar Galactica On SciFi Channel - Page 5

geoschmo · #41 October 14th, 2003, 03:49 PM

Well personally I don't think they would have to try that hard to make it better then the original. I loved BG as a kid, but I said it before in this thread, in retrospect and in comparison to the general level of quality in sci-fi these days it sucks. And I am not just talking about the effects, which were pretty bad even by 70's standards. I honestly think the show only did as well as it did at the time, which wasn't all that well Ratings wise, because it exsisted in an almost complete vacuum of sci-fi competition on TV.

Starhawk · #42 October 14th, 2003, 06:48 PM

Yeah I agree with Geoschmo I've seen the show in the 1990s and compared to other sci-fi shows that were running about at the time BG sucked raw meat.

And the date is monday december 8th I beleive.

And i know something you don't know

....I saw the new Cylons.

Atrocities · #43 October 14th, 2003, 09:02 PM

Actualy the Ratings on the show were excellent, and ABC opted to continue the series, but the cost was to high. Coupled with the added expense the production company was encuring because of the Lucas lawsuites and the fact that Richard Hatch reportedly wanted more money, the producers decided to get out while the getting was good.

Later, by popular demand, they came out with that utter crap show BSG 1980. Kids in space.

What is funny is that in one episode of the Original BSG they showed the Apollo moon landing. ---- The producer of BSG 1980 then figured that it took the fleet 10 years to get to earth from that moment. Which really PO a lot of smart people because radio waves travel so slowly that by the time they would have gotten that far out and then take another 10 years for the fleet to get back to earth, Earth date would have been something like 2340 or so. LOL.

By then we would have been dust or so advanced that the Cyclons would have been nothing to us.

[ October 14, 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

narf poit chez BOOM · #44 October 14th, 2003, 09:11 PM

don't count on it. the cylons had i think 1200 years of technological development.

Wardad · #45 October 14th, 2003, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Well personally I don't think they would have to try that hard to make it better then the original. I loved BG as a kid, but I said it before in this thread, in retrospect and in comparison to the general level of quality in sci-fi these days it sucks. And I am not just talking about the effects, which were pretty bad even by 70's standards. I honestly think the show only did as well as it did at the time, which wasn't all that well Ratings wise, because it exsisted in an almost complete vacuum of sci-fi competition on TV.

Yup

geoschmo · #46 October 14th, 2003, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starhawk:
Yeah I agree with Geoschmo I've seen the show in the 1990s and compared to other sci-fi shows that were running about at the time BG sucked raw meat.

I didn't say that. I said compared to the general level of quality today it sucked. For the time it wasn't bad.

What other sci-fi shows of the time? BG was about the only one wasn't it? Was Dr. Who on then? I think so. Although I don't remember seeing it over here.

gregebowman · #47 October 14th, 2003, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by Starhawk:
Yeah I agree with Geoschmo I've seen the show in the 1990s and compared to other sci-fi shows that were running about at the time BG sucked raw meat.

What other sci-fi shows of the time? BG was about the only one wasn't it? Was Dr. Who on then? I think so. Although I don't remember seeing it over here.

If I recall, about the only shows on the 3 networks back then were BG, Buck Rogers, and I think The 6 Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman (or whatever it was called) were about the only sci-fi shows on. There may have been the occassional tv sci-fi movie or failed pilot, but those are the only ones I remember from the late 70's.

As far as Dr. Who, I know it was on my local PBS, but I just never really watched it until the mid-80's when they started showing the episodes as a whole, instead of breaking it up over 4 to 6 segments.

[ October 14, 2003, 21:30: Message edited by: gregebowman ]

Atrocities · #48 October 14th, 2003, 10:29 PM

We should point out in all fairness that the first year for any series generally suck.

gregebowman · #49 October 14th, 2003, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
We should point out in all fairness that the first year for any series generally suck.

Generally that's true. I think the only ones I've seen that started out well and then sucked over time was Star Trek and The 6 Million Dollar Man. Both great 1st and 2nd years, and then tanked after that.

narf poit chez BOOM · #50 October 14th, 2003, 10:34 PM

john doe. didn't suck first year.