Battlestar Galactica On SciFi Channel

sachmo · #1 December 10th, 2003, 03:52 PM

Geo,

I thought the same thing about Six, but then I decided that a race of robots would probably "Version" their robots just like they did in the show...I doubt they would try to come up with interesting, futureistic sounding names.

gregebowman · #2 December 10th, 2003, 04:46 PM

Was it just me, or did all of those models looked familiar? I don't know if any or all of the models were CGI or not. If not, then someone went to several warehouses to salvage any and all sci-fi related models they could find. A lot of those ships looked like they were from the original show. That one ship with the plants looked like the same ship from Silent Running. I'm half-surprised they didn't use the original models for the Galactica and the base stars, especially if they were bound to a strict budget.

geoschmo · #3 December 10th, 2003, 04:59 PM

It's unfortunate they had to abandon the agro ship. That would have made a nice setting for some episodes when the series get's underway.

kalthalior · #4 December 10th, 2003, 08:19 PM

I tried really hard to keep an open mind about the new Version, but they jacked with too many things for my taste. That being said, there were some positives, namely the special effects (esp. the mechanical Cylons and their ships), Olmos acting, and the "realistic" tone and feel. I did find a useful site that explains some of the differences between the two Versions and the rationale behind some of the changes (posted below). Overall, I initially had high hopes, then determined that the changes weren't to my liking, decided to watch anyway and found it lacking, but better than I feared. Completely ambivalent about a possible series, although I have to say more scifi on TV is better than none.

OLD vs NEW Versions

[ December 10, 2003, 18:20: Message edited by: kalthalior ]

gregebowman · #5 December 11th, 2003, 04:55 PM

Speaking of Olmos, it looked like he went to the Richard Pryor school of free-basing. What's with all of the pock-marks on his face? I don't remember those being there during his Miami Vice days. I almost found it distracting just watching his face. I'm curious. does anyone know anything about it?

Wardad · #6 December 12th, 2003, 02:00 AM

I like his pock marked rugged look.
A military comandor does not need to be a pretty boy.

TV and Holloywood are brainashing us about looks.
Being ugly is the new predjudice. It is plain wrong. ask GEO... J/K

[ December 12, 2003, 00:01: Message edited by: Wardad ]

geoschmo · #7 December 12th, 2003, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregebowman:
Speaking of Olmos, it looked like he went to the Richard Pryor school of free-basing. What's with all of the pock-marks on his face? I don't remember those being there during his Miami Vice days. I almost found it distracting just watching his face. I'm curious. does anyone know anything about it?

He's always had that somewhat, although on his other shows they probably hid it more with makeup. People with that kind of complexion do commonly have the marks get deeper as they age. Also, the dark lighting in the show accentuates the effect.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wardad:
Being ugly is the new predjudice. It is plain wrong. ask GEO... J/K

Hey!

I'm not ugly, just fat.