4

Glen Larson To Battlestar Galactica Fans: Drop Dead

fb share tweet share

cylonvsIt’s no secret that Glen Larson, one of the minds behind the original, cheesy, 80s version of Battlestar Galactica hates Ron Moore’s current, much more successful version of the show. In fact for years now he’s stood in the way of turning that version into a movie. He owns the film rights, and he’s blocked all attempts to take Adama theatrical. Tonight, Universal Pictures finally threw up their hands and decided to let him screw us all over.

HR is reporting that Larson has been given the greenlight by Universal to make a Battlestar Galactica movie with no connection at all, to the current, mega-successful, much beloved television series currently finishing up its run on the Sci Fi channel. That’s right, before the new BSG’s final season has even finished, they’re already doing a remake.

Now it’s one thing to remake or reboot an unsuccessful franchise. For instance Marvel attempted it with Hulk, after the Ang Lee version received tepid reaction. That’s bad enough. But to actively seek to snuff out a popular, hugely successful version of something, a burgeoning, still fairly new franchise fresh with newly converted fans and all the excitement that goes along with that, by selfishly rebooting it so you can put everyone in 80s legwarmers is an insult. It’s a big fuck you to everyone who loves the current, massively more successful (critically and in popularity) version of BSG.

Maybe Larson has deluded himself into thinking there’s this huge following of haters reading to spit on the grave of Ronald Moore’s critically acclaimed version and slip back into his cheese fest. Well I’m sure there’s some. But they’re vastly outnumbered. How many times are we going to redo the same idea over and over and over again? How many times are we going to watch the colonies destroyed, when it’s already been done right, when there’s a perfect version out there right now, a perfect version screaming, crying out for a proper cinematic sequel.

It’s one thing to do a sequel, to continue the ideas kicked off in the original and supplement them with new ones, new adventures. But it’s the height of arrogance and cyncism to reboot something like this, to keep recycling the same idea over and over and over again simply because you, yes you Glen Larson, are unable to accept that someone might have done it better than you.

So sit back, relax, and enjoy as the movie version of BSG happens… without any of the people or characters you love about BSG. Get ready for robot dogs and sniveling one-dimensional villains. Battlestar Galactica is back in the hands of Glen Larson and his message to fans is: Drop dead.

Comments

  • jmcs

    First, JT, you should moderate your language. Second, the original BSG is not a version, it's the original. Third, the new version should be called something else, but battlestar galactica, since you have the whole fleet of battlestars. Fourth, the original was top technology at the time, so comparing the two would be comparing a Toyota Corolla with a Toyota MR2, or a Toyota Cellica. If the man holds the rights over that project, it's because it's his and he fought for it when Star Wars accused him of copyright theft. Otherwise you wouldn't have the so called re-imagined series or what sort of word you call it. Finally, since the technology has developed, He is using His right of His idea and His concept to create an updated version of a project that is His. Maybe you are afraid that the film based on the original can be so good that shows how pathetic your version is. Just to give you an example to transform one of two best friends into a woman and making them have an affair is not even laughable for the ridiculous that it is. Sounds a bit like Appollo having a relationship with a transexual Starbuck. And the list goes on and on from there.

    • http://www.cinemablend.com JT

      Moderate my language? Are we in elementary school here? Grow up.

      • tiberius

        I personally am glad that Larson is getting a chance at finishing his vision. If you've ever bothered to look at his original vision for the series, it was a lot darker than what ABC Happy Family Time allowed him to do, thus things such as the robot dog and the annoying bastard child of Jane Seymour polluted what could've been a good series for the time. The Cylons were supposed to be half-lizard half robotic, but ABC said they couldn't kill more than 10 things per episode but robots were fair game. Thus Larson had to concede more and more to his show until it because a pathetic white-washed happy fun time version. And DESPITE that, it found a proper fan base that has held true for many years. Now I'm not going bash the new BSG because I enjoyed it as well, but Ronald Moore got about as preachy as Alan Alda did in the waning seasons of M*A*S*H. And for what point? “What is human?” haven't we already covered that “profound social commentary” at least 15 times in the past twenty years? Seriously. If we want to be brutally honest, Ronald Moore is unoriginal and so is Glen Larson. But at least Glen Larson didn't kill Captain Kirk…

  • tiberius

    I personally am glad that Larson is getting a chance at finishing his vision. If you've ever bothered to look at his original vision for the series, it was a lot darker than what ABC Happy Family Time allowed him to do, thus things such as the robot dog and the annoying bastard child of Jane Seymour polluted what could've been a good series for the time. The Cylons were supposed to be half-lizard half robotic, but ABC said they couldn't kill more than 10 things per episode but robots were fair game. Thus Larson had to concede more and more to his show until it become a pathetic white-washed happy fun time version. And DESPITE that, it found a proper fan base that has held true for many years. Now I'm not going bash the new BSG because I enjoyed it as well, but Ronald Moore got about as preachy as Alan Alda did in the waning seasons of M*A*S*H. And for what point? “What is human?” haven't we already covered that “profound social commentary” at least 15 times in the past twenty years? Seriously. Ronald Moore did all the damage he could to Gene Roddenberry's vision with Star Trek, so I guess he decide he'd go and take someone else's vision and make it his own, too. Ronald Moore is an art forger. He may be so profoundly brilliant at it that it ends up better than the original, but by the end of the day, he's still banking off of things other people started. Maybe he's just physically incapable of creating a successful franchise of his own with his own characters, storyline etc.

    But at least Larson didn't kill Kirk…