...That None of Bryan Singer's Recently Announced Movie / Television Projects Will Be Profitable
Does Bryan Singer ever consult anybody as to the financial viability of all of these crap projects he routinely announces?
Bryan Singer seems to currently be on a "Dream Project Spree" of reckless abandon. Apparently driven by all of the old television shows and movies he used to watch as a kid, and wanting to make extremely expensive movies based on all of them.
Isn't it someone's job in Hollywood to take an objective "financial look" at all of these "personal dream projects" Bryan Singer wants to do and tell Bryan Singer what he doesn't want to hear? Such as...
"Sorry Bryan, there just isn't an existing commercial climate for a remake of "The Munsters" at the present time."
"Sorry Bryan, the very notion of Leonardo DiCaprio starring as Steve Austin in "The Six Million Dollar Man" is absolutely ludicrous."
Surely it must be someone's job in Hollywood...whether it be Bryan Singer's agent, his accountant, his parents, or maybe (ha!! ha!!) some level-headed studio executives at Universal Studios (The Black Tower) to tell Bryan Singer flat-out...face to face...man to man...that none of these stupid-ass projects he wants to make (projects that also aren't interesting in the slightest) will make anyone any serious money for any reason.
Someone to bring this guy back down to Earth and temper his endless infatuation with what he watched as a kid....with the economic realities of being a film director and working in Hollywood.
And someone also needs to tell Bryan Singer to try and come up with some original ideas for a change. Actually try to come up with some original ideas all his own.
The above lighted schematic display is from Ronald D. Moore's"GINO" (Galactica in Name Only) series. Does it look familar? As in..."Gee, where have I seen it before?" You have seen the same identical (type of) schematic display on the bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise in "Star Trek - The Next Generation", and on the bridge of the "Voyager" in "Star Trek: Voyager." Two shows conicidentally that Ronald D. Moore produced and/or wrote for.
Let's be blunt here. Ronald D. Moore's erroneously labeled "Battlestar Galactica" spaceship in his erroneously titled "Battlestar Galactica" tv series was nothing more than a Federation Starship.
The Federation Starship..."Battlestar Galactica."
There are a number of things going on here that even the SyFy Channel and Ronald D. Moore have eventually admitted to...
1. It's no secret that for years, Universal Studios / SyFy Channel had been foaming at the mouth with financial envy over Paramount Pictures "Star Trek" franchise:
a. Star Trek: The Next Generation b. Deep Space Nine c. Star Trek: Voyager d. Enterprise e. The Original Series (1966)
I can just hear the Universal Studios / SyFy Channel executives as to what they were thinking and saying back then...
"Gee, three of the newer series (Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager) ran for seven years each!! The last series (Enterprise) ran for four!! Do we have something like that in our ownership that we can dust off and do the identical thing to? Of course!! "Battlestar Galactica!!"
2. Ronald D. Moore has openly and naively admitted to (oblivious to the eventual critical backlash) that he wanted to do a television series which was a much darker version of "Star Trek: Voyager."
3. Both the SyFy Channel and Ronald D. Moore had rabid, contemptuous animosity towards the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series.
What was the eventual synergy and equation that resulted?
Universal Studios / SyFy Channel wanted a science fiction property ("Galactica") that could eventually (and hopefully) be spun off into three (seven years running) sequel series from a hopefully successful primary series ("GINO") which would hopefully also run for seven years. Just like "Star Trek." But they didn't want "Battlestar Galactica", they wanted "Star Trek."
Ronald D. Moore wanted to do a much darker version of "Star Trek: Voyager."
Universal / SyFy Channel and Ronald D. Moore both hated the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series.
A "Galactica in Name Only" series ("GINO") that flopped miserably unwilling to admit to anyone that it was in actuality a much darker "Star Trek" sequel series trying to follow in the footsteps of the "Star Trek" franchise. And this series was indeed a "Star Trek" sequel series. Right down to the minute detail of having the lighted schematic displays (pictured above) of the primary spaceship just as we had already seen in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Star Trek: Voyager."
The SyFy Channel and Ronald D. Moore failed miserably because:
1. "Galactica in Name Only" (GINO) ran for only four seasons, not seven seasons. And four low-rated seasons at that.
2. It's low rated sequel series, "Caprica" couldn't even complete it's first season due to low ratings and was cancelled.
3. The (in pre-production forever) follow-up to "Caprica" (Blood & Chrome) is the second attempt at a sequel series to an overall highly derivative concept (stolen from Paramount Pictures) long since proven to be a commercial flop.
Universal Studios / SyFy Channel still trails far behind Paramount Pictures in having a highly successful primary series and two highly successful sequel series running seven years each. And a highly successful third series running for four.
Universal - SyFy Channel - The same thing....right?
What we have with the SyFy Channel, is a failure to communicate with viewers.
1. A failure to communicate to viewers what sort of cable channel they are. They aren't a Science Fiction channel.
2. A failure to communicate to viewers its love of the "Battlestar Galactica" property. Actions always speak louder than words, don't they?
3. A failure to communicate to viewers any sort of respect for the Science Fiction genre.
4. A failure to communicate to viewers any sort of commitment to quality television programming. "WWF Wrestling" and "Ghost Hunters" anyone?
5. A failure to communicate to viewers any sort of commitment to hiring quality producers and quality actors in any of their productions. Ronald D. Moore and Edward James Olmos anyone?
6. A failure to communicate to viewers any sort of future commitment in defining what the hell they are (identity wise) as a cable channel.
7. A failure to communicate to viewers any sort of future commitment in moving beyond the core group of sub-standard producers and actors they routinely hire for their various original productions. Ronald D. Moore and Edward James Olmos anyone?
8. A failure to communicate to viewers any future point in time when they might begin displaying imagination and inspired thinking in television programming.
1. "CBS Digital" special effects personnel in the process of giving the "1966 Star Trek" series a much needed facelift in the special effects department.
2. The "1966 Star Trek" episode "A Taste of Armaggeddon" in the process of getting a special effects upgrade.
3. What you will never see from Universal Studios because "Black Tower" personnel will never be so forward thinking and logically minded. A state of the art, digital effects facility opened for the purpose of upgrading the special effects of the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series.
CBS-Paramount saw the wisdom in upgrading the special effects seen in the "1966 Star Trek" series because the original effects were shot on lower resolution film stock and a product of the limited technology at the time. Thanks to the upgrade, "Star Trek" circa 1966 absolutely sparkles with state of the art special effects shots of spaceships, planet-scapes, and laser beams. This upgrade of course, has lent tremendous credibility to the drama in every episode.
The "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series is also in dire need of such a special effects upgrade. The series was already using stock footage special effects shots 20 minutes into the pilot episode!! Being a fan of the series, I'm not blind to the fact that "Battlestar Galactica 1978" needs a complete special effects upgrade. And it needs such an upgrade even more than the "1966 Star Trek" series ever did for the following reasons:
1. Such an upgrade would free the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series from the "stock footage curse" that has plagued it for 34 years.
2. Such an upgrade would enhance the drama even more and make even the lesser liked episodes ("The Lost Warrior", "Greetings From Earth") more palatable to the senses during viewing. Imagine aerial shots of the celestial cow town Apollo crash-landed in ("The Lost Warrior") with brightly colored lights and twin moons clearly visible.
3. All new Battlestar, Basestar, Viper, Cylon Raider, and Rag-Tag Fleet ship shots throughout the series, with no clearly visible cylinders holding up the models. No matte lines either. No longer limited by primitive blue screen motion control, imagine how all of these ships would soar, zoom, and lumber now.
4. Re-do the explosion of "Carillon." As it stands now, it looks like a cartoon explosion in a "Road Runner" cartoon after an "Acme" product misfires on poor "Wile E. Coyote."
5. The aerial vehicles spotted by Starbuck in "Experiment in Terra" are obviously helicopters with search lights mounted on the front, filmed at night. Imagine how 21st Century special effects technology could fix that.
6. Special effects shots especially in need of such an upgrade are:
a. POV shots of Viper pilots approaching the "Galactica's" landing bays in their Vipers. The "Galactica" wobbles slightly up and down during the approach POV.
b. The Viper crash landing in the snow in "Gun on Ice Planet Zero." Same with the shuttle crash.
c. Every special effects shot in "Lost Planet of the Gods."
d. Every special effects shot in "Hand of God." The final dogfight of the entire series should be especially spectacular.
e. Every special effects shot in "Gun on Ice Planet Zero."
f. Same with "The Long Patrol." Primarily at the beginning when the fleet comes out of the asteroid dust cloud.
g. Of course the pilot episode, "Saga of a Star World." Redo it all. New Battlestar shots, everything. Primarily re-storyboard the entire sequence where Zac is on final approach to the fleet just before being shot down.
Of course, Universal Studios would never ever greenlight such a project for the very series they have been trying to kill for the past 34 years.
And the reason why we have never seen a Bryan Singer "Battlestar Galactica" movie and never will is because...
If Universal Studios can't even upgrade the special effects in the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series as a precursor to such a movie...we will never see such a movie period.
1. Buck Rogers? 2. Their Third (Sham) take on (Battlestar Galactica) - "Blood & Chrome?" 3. Blade Runner? 4. The Shape of Things to Come? 5. Metropolis? 6. Roger Ramjet? 7. Dick Tracy? 8. Starlost? 9. James Bond? 10. Brenda Starr?
Identify any moment in time when Universal Studios did anything with the "Battlestar Galactica" copyright or Science Fiction in general that generated unanimous and overwhelming enthusiasm from the vast majority of the population. You can't, can you?
Universal Studios attitude towards "Battlestar Galactica" and Science Fiction in general remains permanently locked into what it always has been....
A corporation on sleeping pills. A corporation as of this late date and currently, has yet to produce a genuinely popular Science Fiction movie or television franchise of any sort (ala' "Star Trek") unanimously embraced by the global population with love.
They did it once and only once. The "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series. But, Universal Studios doesn't want to repeat its successes of the past because they are chronically afraid of money.
Universal Studios present "Lackadaisical" corporate state towards "Battlestar Galactica" and Science Fiction in general is both internal and external. Emanating both from the "Black Tower" and anyone they presently do business partnerships with (Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer.)
Universal Studios presently and for the longest time has lacked the following towards both:
1. The drive to do something excellent 2. Inspired thinking 3. Creative sparks 4. The desire to make money
All of the above stem from the fact that Universal Studios has always lacked quality people working in its "Black Tower." People lacking drive, ambition, and risk taking. Old war horse people (in mind and body) who have been working in the "Black Tower" for far too long in desperate need of retirement and pink-slipping.
So, Universal Studios remains what it always has been. An immobile "bump on a log" corporation announcing new "Battlestar Galactica" movies every two years that never even reach pre-production, and farting out new low budget (and crappy) monster movies for the SyFy Channel. Rounded out with their patented, corporate "obliviousness" to what Science Fiction is.
Battlestar Galactica - Bryan Singer proved for four consecutive times (2001, 2009, 2009, 2011) that his attention span and interest in this property is as fleeting as a summer breeze and as superficial as any promise a Republican politician routinely makes. In short, we will never see a Bryan Singer "Battlestar Galactica" movie. A movie he announced on October 17th, 2011. That date again!!
The Munsters - This project is "Dead on Arrival" for two reasons. (1) It's a stupid ass idea to try and remake this 1960s sitcom into a drama and call it "1313 Mockingbird Lane." (2) Bryan Singer's involvement in it instantaneously means..."It's a flop." The "Mocking" in "Mockingbird Lane" means to make fun of Bryan Singer's career at this point at all costs.
The Six Million Dollar Man - Why? Why remake it? I have the box set of the entire series and I'm perfectly happy with the perfect casting of Lee Majors and Richard Anderson in their roles. It was a series of its time (1974-1978) and that time has long since past. Leonardo CiCaprio as Steve Austin?? Let's make fun of Bryan Singer again!! Why not Dustin Diamond as Oscar Goldman? Screech!!
Star Trek - Now Bryan Singer is grasping for straws. "Star Trek" in all of its various incarnations were made by people infinitely more talented than he is (Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, Robert H. Justman, Rick Berman, and J.J. Abrams.) The world does not want Bryan Singer's amateurish take on "Star Trek" by any means. Why would we? J.J. Abrams is presently working out just fine for all of us.
X-Men - Bryan Singer wants to direct yet another "X-Men" movie? Didn't the first two he directed suck enough?
Bryan Singer should just vacate the entire Science Fiction / Fantasy realm (permanently) and make a sequel to "Valkyrie" with Tom Cruise. That would keep him out of trouble and out of everyone's hair. Since 99.9999% of every Science Fiction / Fantasy project he announces never comes to fruition anyway.
Very few people would dispute the fact that "Ghost Hunters" on the SyFy Channel is one of the worst television series ever made. Can it be that the idea for "Ghost Hunters" was stolen from someone else? I learned a long time ago to never put anything past the SyFy Channel. There is no depth of sleeze that this sad cable network has not and will not sink to.
If the idea was stolen, it's a safe bet that the actual creators of "Ghost Hunters" would have produced and written a much much better show.
This film announcement (in February 2009 no less!!) actually pre-dates Bryan Singer's August 2009"Battlestar Galactica" movie announcement by six months.
So, the actual tally (as of now) for all "Battlestar Galactica" movie announcements made (and then aborted by)Universal Studios and Bryan Singer is up to four!!
1. The 2001 "Galactica" movie supposedly aborted due to 9/11. 2. The February 2009 "Galactica" movie aborted with no reason given. 3. The August 2009 "Galactica" movie aborted with no reason given. 4. The October 2011 "Galactica" movie apparently aborted due to the "Munsters."
11 years together and this is what Universal Studios and Bryan Singer have accomplished together. Zip!! I wouldn't want such an era of zero productivity on my resume!!
Is anybody keeping track of all this bullshit endlessly coming from Universal Studios and Bryan Singer? I know I am!!
Isn't there a business that converts original film negatives into "toilet paper?" The SyFy Channel needs to take what little there is presently of the "Blood & Chrome" pilot film to one of their branch facilities, and do the deed...in order to put this long suffering project out of its misery once and for all.
I think after all of this time, NBC-Universal still considers it some sort of "coup" to have both Bryan Singer and Ronald D. Moore floating around their corporation here and there despite the fact that neither one of them have produced anything financially successful for the corporation.
Bryan Singer hasn't made a "Battlestar Galactica" movie for them in the 11 years he first announced one, yet NBC-Universal still likes having him around as a..."status symbol" of some sort? The most Ronald D. Moore ever did for NBC-Universal was make an extremely low rated "Galactica" named series for the SyFy Channel which developed an extremely rabid, miniscule, and insignificant fanbase of Internet stealth marketers working for "Abraham & Harrison."
I suspect that NBC-Universal likes having both Moore and Singer under their "corporate roof" previously and presently not doing anything particularly constructive in general or anything of note in the Science Fiction genre because somewhere along the way, NBC-Universal got the erroneous notion into their "corporate heads", that Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer are well thought of in the Science Fiction media genre, and that it would be a real "coup" for them to keep both men under their "corporate roof" even if neither of them ever produce a smash hit Science Fiction franchise for them, or anything else of note for that matter.
Perhaps it's a symptom of NBC-Universal always wanting to be loved by Science Fiction fanbases if they have under their "corporate roof" (what they erroneously believe to be) the two beloved titans of the Science Fiction genre among all fanbases. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Opinions have varied wildly towards Bryan Singer's two "X-Men" movies (for and against), and he completely blundered "Superman Returns."Ronald D. Moore remains what he always has been. A relative unknown, former "Star Trek" producer / writer who completely blundered "Battlestar Galactica." Neither of these two men are loved in any Science Fiction fan / media circles as NBC-Universal seems to want to believe.
It's a safe bet that the entire "Science Fiction Fanbase Infrastructure" of the world would gladly tell NBC-Universal that Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer would not be their first two choices in tackling any Science Fiction movie / television project. That honor would go to the likes of J. Michael Straczynski and Joss Whedon.
Chronic hypocrisy (dissemble) is never a good thing for anyone's reputation in Hollywood. It's bad for business and it's really bad for everyone's reputations involved. Just ask Universal Studios and Bryan Singer.
And now Bryan Singer wants to take yet another stab at a "Star Trek" television project if his supposed "Munsters" television project does well, which he abandoned a "Battlestar Galactica" movie project for (for the third time.) His most recent "Galactica" project he announced (and abandoned) in October 2011 (That magic month and year again.)
Is anyone keeping track of all of this? I know I am!!
There was no yielding of financial "fruit" for the cast and crew of Ronald D. Moore's"GINO" (Galactica In Name Only) series. A decade after "GINO" debuted, the cast and crew are not living in mansions, do not have a "Wall Street wardrobe", and do not have sparkling future employment prospects. Certainly not in the sense that any major movie studio or major television network would presently or at any time in the future throw millions of dollars behind any of the "GINO" cast and crew members shown above for any project.
Financially, "GINO" did precisely for Ronald D. Moore, James Callas, and Edward James Olmos what any poorly produced, poorly written, and low rated television series for a backwater badly managed cable network(SyFy Channel) would do. Render the lot of them "roaming raga-muffins" across the countryside on the outer fringes of Hollywood civility once the "GINO" series folded. Occasionally doing the comic book convention circuit in blue jeans and work shirts.
My how the mighty have fallen since the days of doing the cover photo for "Entertainment Weekly" magazine despite the astonishing low ratings for "GINO" at the time. And despite 95% of the mass market television audience being completely unaware of the "GINO" television series at the time. The "GINO" cast and crew are still "mass market unknowns" now just as they were then. The only difference now is, they don't have a "steroid induced, pumped-up stealth marketing future" ahead of them when the "GINO" television series was still brand new.
So the above film clip, (though intended to be humorous) is a remarkably accurate snapshot of the present prospects of the "GINO" cast and crew in Hollywood.
Have you ever noticed that every single person and / or thing that gets attached to NBC-Universalgoes down along with the rest of the corporation?
1. The "Battlestar Galactica" copyright 2. The "Knight Rider" copyright 3. The "Bionic Woman" copyright 4. The "Wonder Woman" copyright 5. The "Munsters" copyright 6. Bryan Singer 7. Ronald D. Moore 8. "Cowboys & Aliens" 9. Certain "cough" DVD sets 10. The SyFy Channel
Food for thought
The above ten of course, is just the tip of the iceberg. No pun intended.
Universal Studios and Bryan Singer aren't serious about the "Battlestar Galactica" feature film they announced on October 17th, 2011 because if they were, they would be assembling a production crew right now to make this movie while the supposed script is supposedly being written right now by John Orloff. It makes sense doesn't it? And it's standard procedure in Hollywood, isn't it? If you're serious about making a movie, you begin assembling your production crew while the script for your movie is being written. Universal Studios / Bryan Singer haven't lifted a finger to begin assembling a production crew for this movie since its announcement on October 17th, 2011. Instead, Universal Studios has been doing what it always has been doing towards "Battlestar Galactica" (nothing), and Bryan Singer has been bouncing all over the map trying to lap up as many dream projects he can which will ultimately never end up getting made because he doesn't have the clout to do so. Bryan Singer hasn't even been working on this "Battlestar Galactica" movie announced on October 17th, 2011.
The only way Universal Studios would be able to compete with J.J. Abrams "Star Trek 2" coming out in the summer of 2013, is to begin assembling their production crew right now to make the "Battlestar Galactica" movie announced on October 17th, 2011. A production crew they should have started assembling 3 months ago when and while John Orloff supposedly began writing the screenplay. Instead, Universal Studios and Bryan Singer are going to ride this sham out (they created) like they always do, and just as they did in 2009 and 2001. Hoping that the passage of time will make everyone forget about October 17th, 2011. Standard operating procedure for Universal Studios and Bryan Singer when it comes to anything having to do with the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series.
I guess Bryan Singer just assumes that everyone is going to forget about his October 17th, 2011 annoucement of directing a new "Battlestar Galactica" feature film the more time passes and the more his career continues to bounce around like a pinball to its ultimate destination: Remake Obscurity.
Since his October 17th, 2011 announcement of wanting to devote his undivided attention to a "Battlestar Galactica" feature film, he has shifted his undivided attention to:
1. The Munsters 2. The Six Billion Dollar Man 3. X-Men 4 4. X-Men 5
Bryan Singer has now shifted his undivided attention once again to "Star Trek" for television.
October 17th, 2011 just isn't one of those dates that anyone is ever going to forget about because October 17th, 2011 was the date Bryan Singer announced his intent to devote his undivided attention to the "Battlestar Galactica" feature film. I would imagine that October 17th, 2011 was a special date in many other ways as well.
Perhaps on October 17th, 2011 there was a special cool front that rolled into Los Angeles with partly sunny skies. Or that on October 17th, 2011 a new flavor ice cream was introduced at "Baskin-Robbins" ice cream.
I wonder if even Steven Spielberg was aware of the special significance the date October 17th, 2011 would eventually hold in Bryan Singer's life while he was sponsoring Bryan Singer's internship in the Director's Guild. That October 17th, 2011 would signify Bryan Singer's sole interest in only directing everyone elses original ideas:
1. Battlestar Galactica 2. Six Million Dollar Man 3. X-Men 4. Star Trek 5. Superman 6. Excalibur 7. The Munsters
That since Mr. Spielberg represented Bryan Singer in the Director's Guild, Bryan Singer's original ideas for movies and television series have been as follows:
That's right. Bryan Singerhasn't had one original idea for a movie or television series since he began directing.
Bryan Singer now wants to direct "Star Trek" for television. Gee, hasn't "Star Trek" already been done to death by:
1. Gene Roddenberry? 2. Rick Berman? 3. J.J. Abrams?
Now, why would Bryan Singer want to do the "Star Trek" gig, when the "gig" isn't even his and the "gig" has already been done to death? Well, it certainly gets him out of the responsibility of following through with the "Battlestar Galactica" feature film he announced on October 17th, 2011...doesn't it? Special date that October 17th, 2011, isn't it?
What could Bryan Singer possibly bring to "Star Trek" that Gene Roddenberry, Rick Berman, and J.J. Abrams haven't already brought to it?
It's so funny. I vividly remember October 2003 when Ronald D. Moore's infamous "GINO" series debuted. Everyone at the old Sci-Fi Channel (with Bonnie Hammer at the helm) and the "GINO" cast & crew were so full of themselves with self love, self admiration, and chronic back-patting of one another because they thought that they had produced the mega-sensation of the century. "Imagine (so they thought!!) An incredibly brilliant take on "Battlestar Galactica" that simultaneously trashes the beloved "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series and its fanbase while Ronald D. Moore's incredibly brilliant take on the old show will make all of us filthy rich!! We have the makings of a super-duper cash cow franchise here!!" Of course, that didn't happen. Ronald D. Moore's "Galactica in Name Only" series (GINO) limped along for four low rated and highly forgettable seasons. Then came the clunker called "Caprica" after that. What is this mighty filmmaking team up to now? As you can see from the above photograph, they have fallen victim to their own technical limitations with the "green screen" process during the attempted production of "Blood & Chrome." You see, the SyFy Channel wants to do this series all in green screen so they won't have to spend a penny on building physical sets. The funny thing is, (and it truly is hilarious!!) these production veterans of "GINO" and "Caprica" can't figure out the "green screen" process. They can't figure out how to make it work!! ROTFLAO!!
The SyFy Channel has two options. Spend alot (and I mean alot!!) more money to hire much, much better qualified technical people to solve their "green screen problems" (That will never happen!!) Or spend alot (and I mean alot!!) more money to build actual physical sets if they can't master green screen. (That will also never happen!!)
When was "Blood & Chrome" first announced by the SyFy Channel? 13 months ago? It's been an extremely long production process, hasn't it?
I was never a fan of Roland Emmerich's movies. I have found them to be pretentious with no character development whatsoever. He has achieved something however that Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer never will. Roland Emmerich actually gets his projects done. When he sets out to make a movie he wants to make, he actually goes out and gets it done. He has even carved a little niche for himself in his career. Successfully making movies he wants to make that no one really gives two hoots about (because of the boring subject matter) until they reach DVD. Nobody's perfect right? But hey!! The point is,he's doing a hell of alot better than Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer in the "actually finishing your intended projects" department.
What's the difference between Roland Emmerich and Ronald D. Moore & Bryan Singer?
Roland Emmerich has a solid work ethic. He gets done what he sets out to do. Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer appear to be all over the map with their work habits. They start projects and then suddenly abandon them. They start projects and then eventually abandon them. Of course, it may also be partially due to what I suspect. That Hollywood is presently being "icy" towards Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer due to "Superman Returns" and the SyFy Channel's sham take on "Battlestar Galactica" falling way below financial expectations. So most of their present projects never seem to see the light of day due to forces beyond their control ("The Powers That Be".) And I have enough confidence to conclude that we will never see Bryan Singer's "Battlestar Galactica" movie he announced in October 2011, or his "Munsters" re-boot. Out of the two projects, we would most definitely only see the "Munsters" re-boot if it did manage to get made. If it does manage to get made, it will take NBC and Singer so long to make it (simply because Singer seems to be going along at a snail's pace with all of his current, intended projects), that the show they're trying to cash in on with the "Munsters",("The Walking Dead") will be cancelled and out of style by the time the "Munster's debuts.
So, here's a toast to Roland Emmerich for far surpassing Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer in the "actually finishing your intended projects" department.
Remember the good old days when television producers and movie directors used to be genuinely talented, and they gradually built their careers up over a period of time based solely upon the talents they had? So that by the time they reached retirement age, not only were they filthy rich, but they also left behind a body of work that was genuinely good and permanently woven into our pop culture? Of course I'm speaking of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Ron Howard.
Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer have been going in the opposite direction. The more they work, the more they fade from public view and public awareness. The harder they try, the more resilient resistance is to their projects getting off of the ground. The more projects they announce, it's that many more projects that never see the light of day. And quite frankly, what projects Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer do manage to get off of the ground, just aren't very good.
The last we heard of Ronald D. Moore, he was trying to get his "Precinct 17" or whatever off of the ground with NBC-TV. That crashed and burned. And this was last year. The last we heard of Bryan Singer, he really truly wanted to devote his undivided attention to a "Battlestar Galactica" theatrical film, at least until the "Munsters" television pilot came along a month later with that supposedly being Bryan Singer's new passion in life. Not surprisingly, we haven't heard any further elaboration from either of these two projects Bryan Snger is supposedly helming.
It isn't difficult by any means to notice a parallel between the careers of Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer.(How could you not notice it unless you intentionally looked the other way?) These two guys are slowly fading away from the movie and television business. A lack of creative talent and inspired thinking tends to do that. Not only are these two guys going nowhere in the Science Fiction / Fantasy media business, but they're also going nowhere in Hollywood. Moore and Singer announce project after project that they want to do, yet none of them see the light of day.
The problem with Ronald D. Moore is, he can only come up with endlessly recycled "Star Trek" ideas for projects erroneously titled "Battlestar Galactica" and for anything else he wants to peddle around Hollywood. The problem with Bryan Singer is, he can't get any project off of the ground he announces, period. We will never see the "Battlestar Galactica" movie Bryan Singer announced in October 2011 because that is just how he is. He can't get anything off of the ground he announces. To be fair, in the case of "Battlestar Galactica", Bryan Singer is getting a shit load of help from Universal Studios in keeping that project dead.
I think two old projects have come back to haunt the careers of Ronald D. Moore and Bryan Singer that they didn't produce and direct very well at all. And the lack of financial success of these two projects is putting up road blocks (in Hollywood) for these two guys in getting anything else off of the ground. Of course I'm speaking of Ronald D. Moore's failed attempt at reviving "Battlestar Galactica", and Bryan Singer's failed attempt at making a sequel to Richard Donner's two "Superman" movies originally starring Christopher Reeve. The horrific "Superman Returns."
It's a simple money and numbers game in Hollywood that I believe has not only stalled the careers of both of these guys, but is causing their careers to slowly fade away.
October 21st, 2003 has remained the definitive date of infamy for fans of the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series. For it was on this date that Universal Studios unleashed its full hatred and fury for the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series by releasing the hunk of junk pictured above. Prior to this shameful DVD release, Universal Studios corporate hatred for the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series had already been simmering for decades...in the late 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s. This "hunk of junk" DVD set was Universal Studios full corporate hatred and fury for the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series come full circle, and released in a nuclear blast of contempt for the series unprecedented in its intensity.
What makes this DVD set so intensely problematic, is the transfers for every episode, primarily the "3-hour pilot." Heavy grain, dirt, specs, floaties are only a fraction of the problem. In many episodes, primarily "The Long Patrol", you actually see what looks to be "snowy reception." Those pesky white specs which were the hallmark of bad reception television sets with "rabbit ear antennas" in the 1970s.Universal Studios really took us back to the era in which this series originally aired, didn't they? It's as though this transfer of "The Long Patrol" was recorded on VHS tape off of an actual UHF television station broadcast in the early 1980s, and this is the recording we see on the DVD set, transferred to disc.
By simple rational logic, the "3-hour pilot episode" on this DVD set should have been the most lovingly cared for episode during the transfer process. It should have been crystal clear with no imperfections whatsoever. No such luck. Universal Studios dumped the "3-hour pilot episode" onto disc with the typical lack of care evident for all of the other episodes on this DVD set. In short, the "3-hour pilot episode" especially looks like shit on this DVD set. Some scenes look better than others (from mediocre to not tolerable) and the transfer quality shifts back and forth between the two. Turning down the brightness on your tv set hides maybe 50% of the heavy grain, the other 50% is still evident even with the brightness turned down.
I have come to realize through experience and observation with DVD technology, that there is no such thing as an "an accidentally terrible DVD set." When something like this happens, the copyright owner has a personal vendetta against the property being placed on DVD, or just doesn't care one way or the other how the property looks on DVD. Universal Studios is guilty of both in this case. Universal Studios knew precisely what they were doing during the production of this DVD set, and they knew well in advance how the episodes on this DVD set would look to consumers (unacceptable) prior to the release. I believe that the technology existed in 2003 (and technology Universal Studios had full access to as an option) to make the episodes on this DVD set look a hell of alot better than what they turned out to be.
Let's also not forget how "Battlestar Galactica - The Complete Epic Series" rolled off of the assembly line with cracked discs firmly stuck in their storage trays.
As a corporation, I believe Universal Studios allowed its personal, corporate feelings (animosity) towards the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series dictate what condition this DVD set would be in once it rolled off of the assembly line in 2003.
The "Battlestar Galactica" theatrical film announced by Universal Studios in 2009 has now reached the "36 Month" mark of never getting made.
And the "Battlestar Galactica" theatrical film announced by Universal Studios and Bryan Singer in October 2011 shows no signs of progress after being sidelined by the "Munster" television pilot one month later.
Thank God both of the above forums exist to keep a chronological record of both projects never coming to fruition.