Wednesday, March 9, 2011
After Failing at Everything Else...The SyFy Channel is Slogging Ahead With Another Doomed Project...."Blood & Chrome"
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Studios-1978-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1434895408/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299689774&sr=1-2
You would think that after awhile, the SyFy Channel management would huddle together and admit to one another...."You know what? What we have been doing here at this cable channel just hasn't been working. We don't know what the hell we're doing. We don't know how to turn our financial prospects around for the better, and we sure as hell don't know how to break our bad habits of the past, or break ties with Ronald D. Moore and David Eick as we should have done years ago."
The SyFy Channel as incompetently managed by Bonnie Hammer, Mark Stern, and David Howe....has given us precisely the sorts of inane programming ideas one would expect from this trio of supremely untalented imbeciles who not only lack general all around good taste in the selection of television programming, but who also couldn't successfully program what is supposed to be a cable Science Fiction channel if their future bonuses depended on it. Bonnie Hammer, Mark Stern, and David Howe have given those who even bother to watch their channel anymore.....professional wrestling, stupid ass monster movies every Saturday night, Ronald D. Moore's repeated (and unwelcome) excursions into "Battlestar Galactica" territory, and underwhelming programming ideas (Warehouse 13.)
A cable channel with this much failure under its belt is not going to generate (and hasn't as yet) any excitement or enthusiasm for "Blood & Chrome." A sequel series to a previously unsuccessful sequel series ("Caprica")....to a previously unsuccessful sequel series ("GINO".) SyFy Channel is like a corporate clone machine, because it keeps cloning ad nauseum all of its previous failures of the past. Not just failures in television programing, but failures in their line of thinking, failures in their apprach to programming for the SyFy Channel, and the failures in their business relationships with Ronald D. Moore and David Eick. The upcoming "Blood & Chrome" is coming out of this highly troubled, corporate environment at the SyFy Channel. Is it any wonder why "Blood & Chrome" will fail as much as anything else as Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, and Mark Stern have done? Including "Caprica" and "Blood & Chrome?"
The cable channel formerly known as Sci-Fi Channel is simply not an exciting cable channel anymore. Not after Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, and Mark Stern have long since taken a wrecking ball to everything the previous owners of the Sci-Fi Channel had successfully established. So, when this troubled cable channel known as "SyFy" announces a new project called "Blood & Chrome"...a project conceived by the same troubled management (Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, Mark Stern)...and the same troubled television producers (Ronald D. Moore, David Eick)....the public response is not going to be in the realm of excitement or anticipation. The public response is going to be in the realm of......"meh." And indeed...this has been what the public response to "Blood & Chrome" has been thus far.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
How Much Longer Will The Galactica Property Be Owned By Dog Shit Copyright Owners?
http://www.amazon.com/Caprica-Sucks-Channel-Misfires-Ronald/dp/1451556225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299602104&sr=1-1
Universal Studios / SyFy Channel is not an intelligent corporation. To say that it is "cerebrally challenged" would be an understatement. By its very nature also....Universal Studios / SyFy Channel is not an "artsy" corporation. Any corporation that repeatedly fails to recognize the need on occasion to go the "artsy" route in movie or television production "isn't worth its weight in stock that Wall Street routinely trades on."
The "Battlestar Galactica" property by its very nature has always been "too artsy" for Universal Studios / SyFy Channel to deal with. The artistry, craftsmanship, and imagination that the "Battlestar Galactica" property demands has always been beyond the intellectual realms of Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, Mark Stern, Ronald D. Moore, and David Eick. This in itself has always made Universal Studios ownership of the "Battlestar Galactica" property incredulous at best. It also firmly and irrevocably labels Universal Studios / SyFy Channel as the "dog shit copyright owners of the Battlestar Galactica property."
The "Battlestar Galactica" property has always deserved a lot better than the raw deal Universal Studios / SyFy Channel have shoveled its way: (1) Ronald D. Moore's lazy ass and sham interpretation of the property, (2) The lazy ass art direction and production design, (3) The lazy ass wardrobe. (Go to a local clothing store and shop for clothes just as you normally do and you will wind up with the same identical wardrobe as Ronald D. Moore's cast members have worn in "GINO" and "Caprica.") (4) Obvious location shooting in beautiful, low budget Vancouver. (5) The usual pool of low budget, sham actors from the Canadian Actor's Guild - Lucy Lawless, Michelle Forbes, Edward James Olmos, Katee Sackhoff, Mary McDonnell, and Jamie Bamber.
Universal Studios / SyFy Channel, Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, Mark Stern, Ronald D. Moore, and David Eick collectively suffer from the most insidious psychological problem that any bogus custodian of the "Battlestar Galactica" property could suffer from....A stunning and unprecedented lack of imagination. They could no more pull off a successful take on the "Battlestar Galactica" property than the Twin Towers could ever be rebuilt. There was no "creative process" that transpired in the throwing together of "GINO" or "Caprica" as Bonnie Hammer is fond of saying. "Creative process" involves an actual implementation of imagination and inspired thinking in what you do. There was neither in "GINO" and "Caprica", and there won't be any of it in "Blood & Chrome" either. To try and associate the term "creative process" with Bonnie Hammer would be the equivalent of trying to force a square wooden block into a round hole.
No one would disagree with me that the nightmare known as...Universal Studios / SyFy Channel's ownership of the "Battlestar Galactica" brand name needs to come to an end. How much more bullshit can this property possibly take from Universal Studios / SyFy Channel? Their bullshit, low budget, and highly forgettable television series crapped out of Ronald D. Moore's rear end that ultimately end up in long term cold storage in the Universal Studios film vaults because no one wants to purchase the "GINO" and "Caprica" reruns for syndication. And judging from the large number of copies of the "GINO" and "Caprica" season box sets endlessly collecting dust in Wal-Mart discount DVD bins across the country.....no one wants to take home "GINO" and "Caprica" either.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Hopefully, Comcast Will Expect More From The SyFy Channel Than Its Usual Level of Performance...."Most Unsuccessful Cable Channel Ever"
http://www.amazon.com/Caprica-Sucks-Channel-Misfires-Ronald/dp/1451556225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299531571&sr=1-1
Comcast definitely needs to set the bar alot higher for the SyFy Channel than NBC and Vivendi ever did. Quite frankly, and at the very least, Comcast needs to take this "rotting corpse of a cable channel" and turn it into a bare minimum performer with bare minimum business objectives met. This sad state of affairs which has plagued the SyFy Channel since Bonnie Hammer and her group came in and trashed everything about the channel....namely......"chronic failure and endless rewards for all of those who fail".....combined with a thorough decimation of the Science Fiction content of the channel.....is going to have to be weeded out and dealt with by Comcast sooner or later. And sooner or later Comcast will get around to dealing with the SyFy Channel and its present dysfunctional management....because there is only so long that failure of a subsidiary on the massive level that the SyFy Channel has suffered from....will be tolerated by a new corporate parent.
"Most unsuccessful cable channel ever." Bonnie Hammer's (and David Howe's & Mark Stern's) SyFy Channel has not earned that mark of shame lightly. The three of them worked at it.....hard.....over a period of time.....in order to mutate the SyFy Channel into a personal frathouse of management irresponsibility....management dysfunctionality.....management obliviousness as to what Science Fiction television programming and "Battlestar Galactica" is supposed to be.....and the most stupid ass excuses for television programming the entire medium has ever seen (broadcast or cable.)
Comcast needs to set the bar higher for the SyFy Channel....alot higher. Comcast needs to set the bar so high at the SyFy Channel....that Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, and Mark Stern will no longer be employed there. Comcast needs to set the bar so high at the SyFy Channel.....that the stupid ass programming ideas of Ronald D. Moore and David Eick will never see the light of day there ever again. Comcast needs to set the bar so high at the SyFy Channel....that honest to God Science Fiction television programming will return to the channel....and the likes of professional wrestling will never see the light of day there ever again. Perhaps most importantly....Comcast needs to set the bar so high at the SyFy Channel....that inferior and poorly qualified executives such as Bonnie Hammer.....David Howe....and Mark Stern....will never get hired there ever again....and inferior & cerebrally challenged television producers such as Ronald D. Moore and David Eick.....will never even get their foot in the door at the SyFy Channel ever again with their stupid ass programming ideas.
Comcast needs better qualified (and much more intelligent) television executives working for the SyFy Channel in the very near future, and they need to look for such executives at any place other than the local "Dairy Queen".....where Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, and Mark Stern came from. Perhaps while Comcast is at it....they can get rid of the stupid ass name....."SyFy Channel"......and replace it with what never should have been changed in the first place....."Sci-Fi Channel." "SyFy Channel" is alot more than merely the "most unsuccessful cable channel ever".....The entire channel itself has become a toxic waste dump due to the unwelcome management presence of Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, and Mark Stern. This is a channel in dire need of being "gutted"....and "hosed down" from the inside / out. Any sliver of a "toxic management presence" from Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, and Mark Stern needs to be forcibly removed by Comcast.
After Comcast accomplishes all of these things.....the Sci-Fi Channel will return to being the money making force it once was long before the likes of Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, and Mark stern ever arrived.
The World Has Never Given a Damn About The Corporate Agendas of Universal Studios and SyFy Channel....as They Pertain to Battlestar Galactica
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Studios-1978-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1434895408/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299515111&sr=1-2
And the world has wholeheartedly rejected any stealth marketing attempts on the part of Universal Studios / SyFy Channel to try and force their corporate agendas (particularly their corporate agendas involving "Battlestar Galactica") into the mainstream of favorable, public opinion....haven't they? Universal Studios and SyFy Channel have never learned and never will learn that the general public simply does not think (and never will think) in the "fucked up" manner in which they do in matters involving the "Battlestar Galactica" property. And the world also doesn't give a damn that this "fucked up manner of thinking" is so important and vital to how Universal Studios and SyFy Channel does business on a daily business. The general public simply wants the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series to return....preferably with both Universal Studios and SyFy Channel out of the picture entirely....up to and including Ronald D. Moore and David Eick "hitting the road" along with them. I'm sure that if a poll were given today, the outcome of that poll would be that the general public would want as much of a distance as possible (in thousands of miles) between Universal Studios / SyFy Channel.....and the "Battlestar Galactica" property. And that is certainly a "mark of shame" that Universal Studios has worked towards during the past 33 years....and a "mark of shame" the SyFy Channel has worked towards during the past decade.
Universal Studios and SyFy Channel have wasted the past decade (and have blown hundreds of thousands of doallrs) on a "guerrilla stealth marketing campaign" directed against the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series, only to find out that the general public was against them all along. That....what Universal Studios and SyFy Channel hold so dear to themselves is simply not shared by mass market....public opinion. Universal Studios and SyFy Channel have been.....by themselves....for themselves.....during the past decade in their sham interpretation of "Battlestar Galactica"....their sham business dealings with Ronald D. Moore and David Eick...and their general all around incompetence with the "Battlestar Galactica" property.
Instead of building a profitable "Battlestar Galactica" franchise for themselves during the past decade, Universal Studios and SyFy Channel have merely (crapped out of their corporate rear ends) three low rated television series supplied to them by Ronald D. Moore that were (1) low rated during their original broadcasts, (2) unable to be sold to any cable or independent stations for syndication (3) ultimately end up in the discount DVD bins at Wal-Mart, and (4) the purpose of all three series being nothing more than ego masturbators foa all parties involved. For the purpose of foresight, I'm assuming that "Blood & Chrome" will be just as financially unsucccessful for all parties involved just as "Caprica" and "GINO" were.
Stealth marketing is a tricky mechanism, because when you take it outside of the realm of what it is solely intended to do (merely to promote an upcoming movie or television series) as Universal Studios and SyFy Channel have done, and turn it into a "guerrilla style assault" against the general public, you will ultimately end up in the predicamant that Universal Studios and SyFy Channel have put themselves into. (1) They don't have a profitable "Battlestar Galactica" franchise, (2) They have three low rated and financially unsuccessful (in every sense of the word) television series from Ronald D. Moore (3) The general public has long since abandoned them in droves, and (4) the only things Universal Studios and SyFy Channel have right now....is their financially unsuccessful "little old selves".....and their financially unsuccessful buddies (Ronald D. Moore and David Eick.) And the lot of them both individually and collectively are right now trying to figure out how they can make money.....any money. If their mighty labors together yielded .50 cents, that in itself would be a miracle of biblical proportions on the order of Moses parting the Red Sea.
If Universal Studios, SyFy Channel, Ronald D. Moore, and David Eick ever entertain the foolish notion again of actually making money together...maybe they might want to start thinking about....not fighting the general public that feeds them and keeps them in business. Maybe then and only then, will the loose change might possibly start trickling in for them.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Leslie Stevens is The Creator of "Battlestar Galactica"
http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Studios-1978-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1434895408/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299100512&sr=1-3
by languatron » 25 Sep 2010 21:49
http://www.battlestargalactica.com/classicdocs/pop_art0028.htm
The shadows lengthen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Susan J. Paxton
[ Reprinted with permission from Susan J. Paxton. Originally appeared on BattlestarFanClub.com. ]
quote-"It is my belief that Leslie Stevens, not Glen Larson, is the actual creator of Battlestar Galactica. Why is this important? After all, it's been over 22 years since Battlestar Galactica was canceled. Stevens is dead. The show remains in limbo. I believe it's important for several reasons. One involves simple justice. But another has more immediacy. Over the past several years, there have been movements to revive the series in some form, as a film, TV film, or even as a TV series, probably syndicated. One movement has been led by actor Richard Hatch and has taken the form of novels, a web site, and a professional-quality trailer proposal that has been widely hailed by BG fans wherever it has been shown. Whatever ones' personal views on Richard's novels, his revival plans feature the surviving original actors back in their original roles in a production set after the time of the series and ignoring the events of Galactica 1980 completely. He has backed this effort with his own time and money, showing real courage.
Richard's revival effort has attracted the support of a growing number, perhaps even a majority of BG fans. Executive Producer Glen A. Larson has spearheaded the other, predominantly reactive revival effort, originally in conjunction with Todd Moyer, director of the horrible film based on the game Wing Commander. Several years ago, BG composer Stu Phillips told me that Larson's reason for not producing a BG revival hinged on Larson's lack of ideas on how to handle the Galactica 1980 issue. It's obvious from Larson's proposals that he still lacks ideas. He's suggested basing a new BG production around the battlestar Pegasus and Commander Cain or, more recently, around a battlestar Atlantis, set thousands of years after or before the time of the original series, depending on which version you hear. Larson's claim to primacy in the BG revival stakes revolves around his claim to be the creator of the series. As creator, he believes it is his right to decide what form a revival should take. As creator, many fans would agree with him. But what if he isn't the creator?
When Battlestar Galactica was launched, Larson was the subject of many interviews. Over and over he told the same story of BG's origins. His original idea, he said, was for a series called Adam's Ark. Adam's Ark, Larson said, was "sort of about the origins of mankind in the universe, taking some of the Biblical stories and moving them off into space as if by the time we get to Earth they're really not about things that happened here but things that might have happened somewhere else in space." Note this carefully: "by the time we get to Earth." Larson told this story over and over, how he had approached the networks with this idea and been rejected.
Then, in the summer of 1977, when the success of Star Wars made the words "science fiction" once again safe to utter within network sanctums, Larson claimed he dusted this idea off, took it to Universal and ABC, and Adam's Ark then formed the basis of Battlestar Galactica. After all, Battlestar Galactica did touch on and suggest legends, Biblical and otherwise, and the fleet was indeed heading to Earth. Adam's Ark became part of the legend of BG's beginnings in spite of the fact that Larson never released a script or proposal to public view. More recently, Larson's story has changed, in interviews and most recently on the Sci-Fi Channel's Sciography special on BG. Adam's Ark is now, according to Larson, about a "Howard Hughes-like" character, a billionaire named Adam who believes Earth to be doomed and tricks Earth's best and brightest onto a spaceship and launches them to discover new worlds.
In other words, leaving Earth, not coming to Earth, and suddenly no hint of Biblical legends. Why the change? Did Larson just forget what his proposal was about? Is there a loose copy floating around somewhere he's afraid will get into fandom? Whatever the reason for Larson's sudden reversal on Adam's Ark, one thing is brutally certain. This later concept has absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to Battlestar Galactica. Probably it is Larson's original concept. It's enough of a brainless cartoon to fit with his normal line of programming.
Frankly, it's a really stupid idea. Enter director Alan J. Levi. Levi is known to BG fans as the director of "Gun on Ice Planet Zero," but he also directed half of the premiere after Richard Colla was let go by Larson. Levi was a good friend of the late Leslie Stevens, the producer best known for the famous science fiction series The Outer Limits. Recently I interviewed Alan Levi. I had not planned to ask him any questions about the origins of Battlestar Galactica because he had not been involved early enough in the process to know about it. But, out of the blue, with no prompting from me whatsoever, he said, "Well, Leslie Stevens wrote the original script. Leslie was one of my best friends. I do know that Leslie had told me at one time way before he ever got into the script that he had this great idea for a script that he was going to take to Glen Larson and talk about."
In other words, sometime in 1977, Stevens had told Levi about an idea for a series he was going to discuss with Glen Larson, an idea that recognizably was Battlestar Galactica. Now before people start running around screaming that Larson "stole" BG from Stevens, it's clear that whatever happened, Stevens must have agreed with it, though for what reason we cannot at this time know. Perhaps Larson had more pull at Universal than Stevens did. If Stevens was for some reason out of favor at the time, his idea might have been discarded by Universal while the same idea with Glen Larson's name on it would have been viewed favorably.
Stevens also was working on what became the Buck Rogers TV series at this same time and may not have had enough time to spearhead both efforts. Whatever kind of agreement Larson and Stevens came to, it evidently was amicable. Stevens never publicly said a thing about it. With Leslie Stevens dead, there are only a few people who could confirm, amplify or deny Levi's version of events. The most obvious is, of course, Glen Larson himself. And we can be assured, I believe, that he will never do so. He has little else to his credit of the quality of BG, and he will continue to claim it as his own for that and other reasons. The first three people hired by Larson to work on BG might also know: John Dykstra, Joe Johnston, and Ralph McQuarrie. Two others possibly able to shed light on the situation are Don Bellisario and Michael Sloan. They must be interviewed and asked what they know.
And, of course, there is the matter of Leslie Stevens' papers. Whether these are still held by his family or were donated to a library or university or other institution after his death, they could very well contain the truth and, most precious of all, Stevens' first draft of the BG premiere. More investigation must follow to pin down the elusive truth of the origins of Battlestar Galactica. But for Glen Larson and his claim to be the series' creator, the shadows have begun to lengthen."-unquote
_______________________________________________
I would like to add additional comments to Susan J. Paxton's article. For starters, both concepts reiterated by Glen A. Larson as supposedly being the genesis for "Battlestar Galactica" ("Adam's Ark", and the "Howard Hughes" story) both have absolutely nothing to do with a Battlestar fleet assembling in deep space for a rendezvous with the Cylon Empire to sign a peace treaty. Both "Adam's Ark" and "Howard Hughes" also have absolutely nothing to do with a Ragtag Fleet of spaceships trailing behind a last surviving Battlestar called Galactica. Both "Adam's Ark" and "Howard Hughes" have absolutely nothing to do with Colonial Warriors, Cylon Centurions, Ovions, Colonial Blasters, Landrams, an Imperious Leader, Colonial Vipers, Cylon Raiders, the 12 Worlds of Mankind (named after the Zodiac signs), a family with the name Adama serving together aboard a Battlestar called Galactica, a Council of 12, and the Nova of Madagon.
Where did all of this outer space stuff come from? It sure as hell didn't come from Glen A. Larson's "Adam's Ark" concept, and it sure as hell didn't come from Glen A. Larson's "Howard Hughes" concept. The only place where all of this outer space stuff could have come from, was a script not written by Glen A. Larson. It could only have come from the Leslie Stevens script that Alan J. Levi confirmed existed before Leslie Stevens ever took it to Glen A. Larson.
The shadows lengthen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Susan J. Paxton
[ Reprinted with permission from Susan J. Paxton. Originally appeared on BattlestarFanClub.com. ]
quote-"It is my belief that Leslie Stevens, not Glen Larson, is the actual creator of Battlestar Galactica. Why is this important? After all, it's been over 22 years since Battlestar Galactica was canceled. Stevens is dead. The show remains in limbo. I believe it's important for several reasons. One involves simple justice. But another has more immediacy. Over the past several years, there have been movements to revive the series in some form, as a film, TV film, or even as a TV series, probably syndicated. One movement has been led by actor Richard Hatch and has taken the form of novels, a web site, and a professional-quality trailer proposal that has been widely hailed by BG fans wherever it has been shown. Whatever ones' personal views on Richard's novels, his revival plans feature the surviving original actors back in their original roles in a production set after the time of the series and ignoring the events of Galactica 1980 completely. He has backed this effort with his own time and money, showing real courage.
Richard's revival effort has attracted the support of a growing number, perhaps even a majority of BG fans. Executive Producer Glen A. Larson has spearheaded the other, predominantly reactive revival effort, originally in conjunction with Todd Moyer, director of the horrible film based on the game Wing Commander. Several years ago, BG composer Stu Phillips told me that Larson's reason for not producing a BG revival hinged on Larson's lack of ideas on how to handle the Galactica 1980 issue. It's obvious from Larson's proposals that he still lacks ideas. He's suggested basing a new BG production around the battlestar Pegasus and Commander Cain or, more recently, around a battlestar Atlantis, set thousands of years after or before the time of the original series, depending on which version you hear. Larson's claim to primacy in the BG revival stakes revolves around his claim to be the creator of the series. As creator, he believes it is his right to decide what form a revival should take. As creator, many fans would agree with him. But what if he isn't the creator?
When Battlestar Galactica was launched, Larson was the subject of many interviews. Over and over he told the same story of BG's origins. His original idea, he said, was for a series called Adam's Ark. Adam's Ark, Larson said, was "sort of about the origins of mankind in the universe, taking some of the Biblical stories and moving them off into space as if by the time we get to Earth they're really not about things that happened here but things that might have happened somewhere else in space." Note this carefully: "by the time we get to Earth." Larson told this story over and over, how he had approached the networks with this idea and been rejected.
Then, in the summer of 1977, when the success of Star Wars made the words "science fiction" once again safe to utter within network sanctums, Larson claimed he dusted this idea off, took it to Universal and ABC, and Adam's Ark then formed the basis of Battlestar Galactica. After all, Battlestar Galactica did touch on and suggest legends, Biblical and otherwise, and the fleet was indeed heading to Earth. Adam's Ark became part of the legend of BG's beginnings in spite of the fact that Larson never released a script or proposal to public view. More recently, Larson's story has changed, in interviews and most recently on the Sci-Fi Channel's Sciography special on BG. Adam's Ark is now, according to Larson, about a "Howard Hughes-like" character, a billionaire named Adam who believes Earth to be doomed and tricks Earth's best and brightest onto a spaceship and launches them to discover new worlds.
In other words, leaving Earth, not coming to Earth, and suddenly no hint of Biblical legends. Why the change? Did Larson just forget what his proposal was about? Is there a loose copy floating around somewhere he's afraid will get into fandom? Whatever the reason for Larson's sudden reversal on Adam's Ark, one thing is brutally certain. This later concept has absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to Battlestar Galactica. Probably it is Larson's original concept. It's enough of a brainless cartoon to fit with his normal line of programming.
Frankly, it's a really stupid idea. Enter director Alan J. Levi. Levi is known to BG fans as the director of "Gun on Ice Planet Zero," but he also directed half of the premiere after Richard Colla was let go by Larson. Levi was a good friend of the late Leslie Stevens, the producer best known for the famous science fiction series The Outer Limits. Recently I interviewed Alan Levi. I had not planned to ask him any questions about the origins of Battlestar Galactica because he had not been involved early enough in the process to know about it. But, out of the blue, with no prompting from me whatsoever, he said, "Well, Leslie Stevens wrote the original script. Leslie was one of my best friends. I do know that Leslie had told me at one time way before he ever got into the script that he had this great idea for a script that he was going to take to Glen Larson and talk about."
In other words, sometime in 1977, Stevens had told Levi about an idea for a series he was going to discuss with Glen Larson, an idea that recognizably was Battlestar Galactica. Now before people start running around screaming that Larson "stole" BG from Stevens, it's clear that whatever happened, Stevens must have agreed with it, though for what reason we cannot at this time know. Perhaps Larson had more pull at Universal than Stevens did. If Stevens was for some reason out of favor at the time, his idea might have been discarded by Universal while the same idea with Glen Larson's name on it would have been viewed favorably.
Stevens also was working on what became the Buck Rogers TV series at this same time and may not have had enough time to spearhead both efforts. Whatever kind of agreement Larson and Stevens came to, it evidently was amicable. Stevens never publicly said a thing about it. With Leslie Stevens dead, there are only a few people who could confirm, amplify or deny Levi's version of events. The most obvious is, of course, Glen Larson himself. And we can be assured, I believe, that he will never do so. He has little else to his credit of the quality of BG, and he will continue to claim it as his own for that and other reasons. The first three people hired by Larson to work on BG might also know: John Dykstra, Joe Johnston, and Ralph McQuarrie. Two others possibly able to shed light on the situation are Don Bellisario and Michael Sloan. They must be interviewed and asked what they know.
And, of course, there is the matter of Leslie Stevens' papers. Whether these are still held by his family or were donated to a library or university or other institution after his death, they could very well contain the truth and, most precious of all, Stevens' first draft of the BG premiere. More investigation must follow to pin down the elusive truth of the origins of Battlestar Galactica. But for Glen Larson and his claim to be the series' creator, the shadows have begun to lengthen."-unquote
_______________________________________________
I would like to add additional comments to Susan J. Paxton's article. For starters, both concepts reiterated by Glen A. Larson as supposedly being the genesis for "Battlestar Galactica" ("Adam's Ark", and the "Howard Hughes" story) both have absolutely nothing to do with a Battlestar fleet assembling in deep space for a rendezvous with the Cylon Empire to sign a peace treaty. Both "Adam's Ark" and "Howard Hughes" also have absolutely nothing to do with a Ragtag Fleet of spaceships trailing behind a last surviving Battlestar called Galactica. Both "Adam's Ark" and "Howard Hughes" have absolutely nothing to do with Colonial Warriors, Cylon Centurions, Ovions, Colonial Blasters, Landrams, an Imperious Leader, Colonial Vipers, Cylon Raiders, the 12 Worlds of Mankind (named after the Zodiac signs), a family with the name Adama serving together aboard a Battlestar called Galactica, a Council of 12, and the Nova of Madagon.
Where did all of this outer space stuff come from? It sure as hell didn't come from Glen A. Larson's "Adam's Ark" concept, and it sure as hell didn't come from Glen A. Larson's "Howard Hughes" concept. The only place where all of this outer space stuff could have come from, was a script not written by Glen A. Larson. It could only have come from the Leslie Stevens script that Alan J. Levi confirmed existed before Leslie Stevens ever took it to Glen A. Larson.
Will "Blood & Chrome" Perform Any Differently For SyFy Channel Than "GINO" and "Caprica" Did?
http://www.amazon.com/Caprica-Sucks-Channel-Misfires-Ronald/dp/1451556225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299017300&sr=1-1
Of course not. There were no rational business decisions involved in green lighting "Blood & Chrome." The back door pilot (and inevitable dreaded series) is nothing more than an ongoing symptom of the collective mismanagement fiasco of the "Battlestar Galactica" property involving Universal Studios, SyFy Channel, Glen A. Larson, Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, Mark Stern, Ronald D. Moore, and David Eick. These aren't Science Fiction people and they aren't "Battlestar Galactica" people. They are irrational and incompetent custodians of the "Battlestar Galactica" property that Leslie Stevens created back in the summer of 1977. By some cruel twist of fate, they got their "corporate dufus" hands on the property, and have been mismanaging it ever since.
About the only thing that "Blood & Chrome" will accomplish, is that it will give the SyFy Channel's hired stealth marketers (employees of the stealth marketing firm "Abraham & Harrison" posing as members of the general public) something to talk about on the http://forums.syfy.com/ boards. "Blood & Chrome" will be a "Dead on Arrival" series just as "GINO" and "Caprica" have been and presently are....but that won't stop the SyFy Channel's hired stealth marketers from talking about and praising the "hardly worthy of praise" series because the SyFy Channel's hired stealth marketers on the http://forums.syfy.com/ boards love to talk about all of the cancelled series of Ronald D. Moore that have been long since dead due to cancellations caused by low ratings.
"Blood & Chrome" won't perform any differently (ratings wise) for SyFy Channel than "GINO" or "Caprica" did because the series is being made by the same idiots who made "GINO" and "Caprica", the series will be aired on the same idiotic cable network that aired "GINO" and "Caprica", and the same idiots who managed the SyFy Channel at the time "GINO" and "Caprica" aired will still be there when "Blood & Chrome" airs. Let's also not forget that "Blood & Chrome" will contain the same errors in a fractured and incoherent premise that "GINO" and "Caprica" did. The same individual (flawed) elements in wardrobe, art direction, and production design that contributed to "GINO" and "Caprica" being commercial failures.
Yes, "Blood & Chrome" will fail because SyFy Channel management doesn't know when to quit, and they don't know when to lay a commercial failing property to rest. As for the producers of "Blood & Chrome", they won't quit because their alternative to quitting is instantaneous unemployment due to the fact that no one else in the television industry will hire them for anything....for any reason. Their only alternative is to keep recycling Ronald D. Moore's flawed and long since proven to be "not a commercial success" sham interpretation of "Battlestar Galactica."
This has been the perfect example of what can happen when a group of supremely untalented and incompetent television executives (Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, Mark Stern) latch onto a group of supremely untalented television producers (Ronald D. Moore, David Eick) and have no choice but to continue endlessly recycling an inferior product because the alternative would be chronic unemployment for the television producers (Ronald D. Moore, David Eick) and bruised egos among the incompetent execs (Bonnie Hammer, David Howe, Mark Stern) who (for some God unknown reason) stubbornly believed in the product.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
SyFy Channel? Why to Y?
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Chrome-Interpretation-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1456493604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299127645&sr=1-1
My television pretty much stays dark during the week, so it took until the weekend for me to twig to it.
The Sci Fi channel has vanished. The same shows were there, but the name wasn't. In its place is something called the Syfy channel. Whose dopey, dumbed-down idea was this, anyway? Do the network honchos think this is the next, hip iteration of the texting-literate generation? Or that we R 2 dum 2 no betr?
Sci fi. the venerable shorthand for science fiction -- a noble genre of literature and art and entertainment in its own right, with giants like Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, Ursula K. Le Guin -- has been reduced by this phonetic and simple-minded un-word to something that looks like it's traded on the stock market.
I read that the execs who thought of this say it will allow them a ''broader range of content'' in programming. Terrifying words, those. Don't think for a minute that they mean more original programming, or more film classics like ''2001: A Space Odyssey'' and ``Blade Runner'' and even ''Barbarella.'' More likely infomercials. The slick thinking must go that spelling it ''Syfy'' absolves them of any responsibility to the spirit of ''sci fi.'' The Syfy channel exhorts me to ''imagine greater.''All right, I will: I am imagining Rod Serling siccing the Kanamits on whoever thought this was a great idea. ``Let's do lunch,'' they'll say. ``You be lunch.''
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/07/syfy-channel-language-abuse.html?cid=6a00d8341c7de353ef011571fcac32970b
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






