The New Style (Part I)
Last night I watched the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica ("Six Degrees of separation"), bringing me entirely up to date on the new version of the show. (Many thanks to my homegirl Cass for taping these for me - your next SoCo n' Coke is one me.) Naturally I have an opinion on Ron Moore's vision of the Galactica saga. Short version? It's excellent, serving with Firefly as an example of huge story-telling possibilities of science fiction. Long version? Well, you'll get that in this and probably several other posts. I have much to say on this particular topic. Get ready for some serious geek action here.
First, let's deal with the dreaded 'R' word: remake. Loud and long were the shrieks of outrage when fans learned that Moore and company would not picking up where the original series left off, but would "reimagine" the Galactica mythos from the very beginning. Oh the horror, the sacrilege! To which I reply: get a grip. Take a deep, deep breath, get a grip, and stifle that flow of indignation.
Now I have much love for the original Battlestar Galactica. I quivered with joy when I learned that the entire run of the original series was being made available. I bought said DVD (DVDs actually) as soon I could. But let's be clear what we're talking about here: a cheesy TV show. A delightfully cheesy TV show but still... we're not talking about a pillar of Western civilization here. I can no more work myself into a state of righteous fury over the remake of Battlestar Galactica than I could over a remake of CHiPs or The Dukes of Hazzard. The very notion is preposterous.
And consider this, oh ye doubters: the idea of remakes, of different artists putting different spins on the same material, is about as old as Western civilization. Ancient Greek playwrights indulged in remakes and thus we're left with Sophocles' and Euripides' Electra. Some scholars believe that Shakespeare's Hamlet was based on an earlier Hamlet play (known as the Ur-Hamlet) by Thomas Kyd. This, of course, would make Shakespeare's Hamlet a remake. Setting the Wayback Machine for a more recent decade, think upon the John Huston-directed Maltese Falcon. I doubt anyone would deny that this a classic film - yet it is a remake of a remake. Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars, the film that made Clint Eastwood a star? A remake.*
I could go on, but why bother? To automatically condemn a film or TV show because it is a remake is to deny yourself some damn fine entertainment; such works should be judged on their own merits. John Huston's Falcon is the definitive version of that story, while Alec Baldwin is unable to get out from Steve McQueen's shadow in the later version of The Getaway.
Ron Moore's second great heresy was to change the gender of the character of Starbuck, from male to female. He transgendered the character of Boomer as well, but that does not seem to have angered some fans as much as the tampering with Starbuck. Oh well. I have yet to see a worthwhile argument against this change. Most such arguments I've come across boil down to variations of how dare they alter our beloved character and now Starbuck won't be such cool/dashing/heroic character anymore (and I suggest such folks rewatch the original Galactica again - Dirk Benedict's Starbuck was as much lounge lizard as he was ace pilot) and this is a change. I am automatically against change in general, so I am against this specifically. In the end it doesn't matter. The fanboy segment, wedded to the original version of BSG, isn't going to accept the entire new version of the show, let alone changes to the characters. They hate it, and will continue to hate it, because the new BSG is not the continuation of the original they were hoping for.
Finally, apparently there has been some criticism of the show's sexual content, to which I'll let Mr. Moore himself reply:
More ruminations on the new Battlestar Galatica to follow when I get around to organizing my thoughts...
*Coincidentally, both The Maltese Falcon and A Fistful of Dollars are film versions of novels by Dashiell Hammett, which perhaps compounds their sins as remakes in the eyes of some.
First, let's deal with the dreaded 'R' word: remake. Loud and long were the shrieks of outrage when fans learned that Moore and company would not picking up where the original series left off, but would "reimagine" the Galactica mythos from the very beginning. Oh the horror, the sacrilege! To which I reply: get a grip. Take a deep, deep breath, get a grip, and stifle that flow of indignation.
Now I have much love for the original Battlestar Galactica. I quivered with joy when I learned that the entire run of the original series was being made available. I bought said DVD (DVDs actually) as soon I could. But let's be clear what we're talking about here: a cheesy TV show. A delightfully cheesy TV show but still... we're not talking about a pillar of Western civilization here. I can no more work myself into a state of righteous fury over the remake of Battlestar Galactica than I could over a remake of CHiPs or The Dukes of Hazzard. The very notion is preposterous.
And consider this, oh ye doubters: the idea of remakes, of different artists putting different spins on the same material, is about as old as Western civilization. Ancient Greek playwrights indulged in remakes and thus we're left with Sophocles' and Euripides' Electra. Some scholars believe that Shakespeare's Hamlet was based on an earlier Hamlet play (known as the Ur-Hamlet) by Thomas Kyd. This, of course, would make Shakespeare's Hamlet a remake. Setting the Wayback Machine for a more recent decade, think upon the John Huston-directed Maltese Falcon. I doubt anyone would deny that this a classic film - yet it is a remake of a remake. Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars, the film that made Clint Eastwood a star? A remake.*
I could go on, but why bother? To automatically condemn a film or TV show because it is a remake is to deny yourself some damn fine entertainment; such works should be judged on their own merits. John Huston's Falcon is the definitive version of that story, while Alec Baldwin is unable to get out from Steve McQueen's shadow in the later version of The Getaway.
Ron Moore's second great heresy was to change the gender of the character of Starbuck, from male to female. He transgendered the character of Boomer as well, but that does not seem to have angered some fans as much as the tampering with Starbuck. Oh well. I have yet to see a worthwhile argument against this change. Most such arguments I've come across boil down to variations of how dare they alter our beloved character and now Starbuck won't be such cool/dashing/heroic character anymore (and I suggest such folks rewatch the original Galactica again - Dirk Benedict's Starbuck was as much lounge lizard as he was ace pilot) and this is a change. I am automatically against change in general, so I am against this specifically. In the end it doesn't matter. The fanboy segment, wedded to the original version of BSG, isn't going to accept the entire new version of the show, let alone changes to the characters. They hate it, and will continue to hate it, because the new BSG is not the continuation of the original they were hoping for.
Finally, apparently there has been some criticism of the show's sexual content, to which I'll let Mr. Moore himself reply:
Second of all, I disagree that the sexuality is intended to be exploitative or that it's somehow not integral to the story. We're presenting adult human beings as adults, and their sexuality is a key part of their lives. Baltar's sexual weaknesses, Sharon & Tyrol's forbidden love affair, and Starbuck's promiscuity are part of who and what they are. I think the only reason this gets the kind of attention is does is that we're not used to seeing sex treated maturely in science fiction -- nine times out of ten, any sex is either something to snigger at or to make fun of. Somehow it's okay to fetishize sex by putting women in S&M leather "space" outfits or have Carrie Fisher run around in harem clothes (not that there's anything wrong with that), but to portray two mature adults simply having sex is somehow controversial in sci-fi circles.
I'd also point out, as I have many times before, the strange standards of American audiences, who can become red-faced with indignation over nudity, but find no problem with slasher films or chains-saw massacres. I mean, Galactica's premised on a massive genocide, and the pilot deals with violent, shocking deaths over and over again, but people get upset about the sex? Weird....
More ruminations on the new Battlestar Galatica to follow when I get around to organizing my thoughts...
*Coincidentally, both The Maltese Falcon and A Fistful of Dollars are film versions of novels by Dashiell Hammett, which perhaps compounds their sins as remakes in the eyes of some.
<< Home