Universal Studios Ends Yet Another Year Fumbling, Mismanaging, and Not Doing Anything Constructive With "Battlestar Galactica"

http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Studios-1978-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1434895408/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325368454&sr=1-2

What does Universal Studios have in store for the "Battlestar Galactica" property in 2012? Quite frankly, nothing constructive. What we will get from Universal Studios is their usual corporate nonsense with the "Battlestar Galactica" property:

1. The recently announced "Battlestar Galactica" movie (announced in October 2011) pushed to the side (once again) for their most inane excuse yet for not doing a "Galactica" movie. "The Munsters" remake.

2. Some snippets of rumors here and there (all through 2012) that a "Galactica" movie script might be being worked on.

3. At some point in 2012, Bryan Singer will finish up "The Munsters" pilot he is directing and QUIETLY move on to another project. Just not the "Battlestar Galactica" movie he announced in October 2011. That sucker (ever so conveniently) has been bumped back down to last place on everyone's priority ladder once again.

A Sympathetic, Mocking, and Casual Response to Russell Sanders. It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This, Folks

http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Studios-1978-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1434895408/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325265865&sr=1-2

http://www.phpbbplanet.com/languatron/viewtopic.php?t=946&mforum=languatron


What is that old saying?

"Never rub another man's rhubarb?"

Why Universal Studios, Ronald D. Moore, and Bryan Singer Always Fail to Achieve Pop Culture Adulation

http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Studios-1978-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1434895408/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325109626&sr=1-2

Generally speaking, the three of them either joined at the hip or working on their own never set out to make the best product they can make, but rather abuse every opportunity at making a movie or television series by turning the venture into an intensely personal favor they give to themselves. Combine this with their joint and individual typically common trait of never having their fingers on the pulse of what audiences want to see (and always could care less about it), and you have three entities who should not be in the professions that they are in, period.

Ronald D. Moore -

Technically, Ronald D. Moore may have been hired to produce and write a television series called "Battlestar Galactica" in 2003, but he clearly and transparently had other things on his mind when he took on the job. Doing a "Battlestar Galactica" television series was the farthest thing from his mind in 2003. Instead, he abused and misused the opportunity of continuing the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series pop culture was clamoring for by instead, doing a version of "Star Trek: Voyager" that Paramount Pictures and Rick Berman wouldn't let him do. What showed up on the old Sci-Fi Channel in 2003 wasn't "Battlestar Galactica" but rather...."Star Trek: Psychoses." Sci-Fi Channel and Universal Studios being no lovers of the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series said to Ronald D. Moore at the time...

"Groovy!! Let's do it!!"

and

"We'll try and pass it off as a 'Battlestar Galactica' series."

They got their reward with four unprecedented, low rated seasons on the old Sci-Fi Channel.

Of course, no one in the mass market domain wanted to see a dark, boring, and violent version of "Star Trek: Voyager"...but Ronald D. Moore and Sci-Fi Channel sure did.

Bryan Singer -

With so many projects on Bryan Singer's plate at any one time, he always gets remarkably little done. Right now, we have his verbal proclamation (in October 2011) of wanting to do a "Battlestar Galactica" feature film which we already know will never come to fruition because we all know Bryan Singer and how he lacks a fundamental work ethic, combined with Universal Studios life long desire of not wanting to do such a film despite their intentionally misleading, biennial announcements. We know he will indeed get "The Munsters" done because this is Universal Studios pet project (and excuse) for not wanting to do the "Galactica" feature film they announced in October 2011. So of course, Universal Studios will RAM "The Munsters" into the fast track of the production process. I predict "The Six Billion Dollar Man" will change producers and directors dozens of times before the project is abandoned. "X-Men 4", "X-Men 5", and the "X-Men Super Bowl 2013 Special with Lady GaGa" will probably all get done, but not by Bryan Singer.

Like Ronald D. Moore, Bryan Singer doesn't care about the directions pop culture winds are favoring but rather, makes the movies he makes (when he manages to make any at all) because it benefits and satisfies his personal tastes.

Universal Studios -

Universal Studios is the sworn arch enemy of whatever is popular in pop culture such as the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series. Just read the archived http://www.scifi.com/galactica board from 1999 to 2005. Never will you see such corporate hatred unleashed upon the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series, its fanbase, and anything remotely connected to both.

Universal Studios is without the doubt, the most pop-culture unfriendly Hollywood entity that has ever existed.

Without a doubt, the main reason why Universal Studios, Ronald D. Moore, and Bryan Singer will never achieve pop culture adulation, is because of the staggering lack of imagination and the staggering lack of inspired thinking among the three of them.

Let's Reminisce About The Good Old Days Of Two Months Ago, Shall We?

When it seemed like (for a few seconds at least), Bryan Singer was moving forward with a "Battlestar Galactica" film with his undivided attention.

This of course, was before a few weeks later when Bryan Singer's schedule (ever so strategically and conveniently, much to the detriment of the "Battlestar Galactica" property) began to stockpile with such superfluous projects as:

1. The Munsters
2. X-Men 4, 5 and the "X-Men Super Bowl Special with Lady GaGa."
3. The Six Billion Dollar Man with Leonardo DiCaprio

If it wasn't for Universal Studios and Bryan Singer, the Internet news woudn't get all too frequently littered and clogged up with their usual (and intentionally misleading) "Battlestar Galactica" announcements.

Universal Studios Uses "Mental Illness" Accusations to Repel Personal Responsibility Away From Themselves

http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Studios-1978-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1434895408/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324933646&sr=1-2


Don't take the stealth marketers (working for Universal Studios) word for it that the author is mentally ill. Come to your own conclusions. Read the above book yourself and discover to what extent Universal Studios has avoided facing personal responsibility while owning the "Battlestar Galactica" copyright. When you're finished reading the book, you'll more than likely discover that it's the Universal Studios executives deliberately mismanaging the "Battlestar Galactica" property who are the ones with the marbles kicking around in their heads.

Nothing says..."repelling personal responsibility away from themselves" more than the practice Universal Studios engaged in when they hired the stealth marketers from the stealth marketing firm "Abraham & Harrison" to leave deliberately misleading book reviews of the above book on http://www.amazon.com. Yes, your eyes aren't deceiving you. These deliberately misleading book reviews which Universal Studios is solely responsible for accuses the author of being "mentally ill." Apparently, in the world of stealth marketing (as practiced by Universal Studios), there is no such thing as the term "libel."

These deliberately misleading book reviews (on http://www.amazon.com no less) point to a sad fact about the entire Universal Studios corporation. That they will say and do anything in order to repel personal responsibility away from themselves in managing the "Battlestar Galactica" property much, much better than they have been doing for the past 33 years.

Universal Studios will say anything and do anything to avoid doing the following:

1. Manage the "Battlestar Galactica" property in an adult and mature manner.
2. Release a professionally produced DVD set of the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series.
3. Manage to get a theatrical film based upon the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series made.

Universal Studios isn't in the pro- "Battlestar Galactica" business. They are in the "avoid adult responsibility at all costs while inadverdently owning the 'Battlestar Galactica' property" business.

Wouldn't it have been easier for Universal Studios to have simply...

1. Made a "1978 Battlestar Galactica" theatrical film and released it ages ago?

2. Released a professionally produced DVD set of the 1978 series instead of that "hunk of junk"-(Battlestar Galactica - The Complete Epic Series) they released in October 2003?

3. Not spent the past decade and a half arguing with the general public on Internet bulletin boards (primarily the old http://www.scifi.com/galactica) over how much they think (as a corporation) the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series sucks?

4. Not hired the stealth marketing firm "Abraham & Harrison" to leave deliberately misleading and libelous book reviews of the above book on http://www.amazon.com?

I guess not.

According to Universal Studios Stealth Marketers Such As Russell Sanders, You're In a Delusional State of Mind If You Notice That This DVD Set Is a "Hunk of Junk"

http://www.amazon.com/Battlestar-Galactica-Complete-Lorne-Greene/product-reviews/B00018LTDI/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_recent?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

According to Universal Studios stealth marketers such as Russell Sanders, you're in a delusional state of mind if you notice what is physically in front of you with this DVD set:

1. That many discs are cracked.
2. That many discs can't be pried from their storage trays.
3. That many discs freeze in play mode.
4. That many episodes weren't digitally remastered.
5. That the pilot episode, "Saga of a Star World" is in terrible condition on this DVD set.

According to Universal Studios stealth marketer Russell Sanders, the manufacturer of this atrocious DVD set merely "did the best job he could do under the circumstances and resources available to him at the time."

Oooohh, poor baby. Would the manufacturer of this DVD set like a glass of warm milk and cookies before the consumers who were suckered into buying this DVD set (by Universal Studios) tuck him in for the night?

Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" is The Worst Superhero Movie Ever Made

At no other time in cinema history, has a superhero movie failed on so many levels to capture the essence of what a specific superhero is supposed to be. Bryan Singer had a hand in the absolute mess of the script, and he was solely responsible for directing this mess.

"Superman Returns" was Bryan Singer's misguided attempt at updating the "Superman" character for the 21st Century. His unprecedented failure in doing so is due in no small part to his failure in grasping the essence of who and what the character is. First and foremost, "Superman" is a family friendly, "Rated - G" character." "PG-13" if you want to begin pressing your luck. Parents should feel comfortable in bringing their children to see a "Superman" movie regardless of whether or not "Superman" has been updated for the 21st Century. What we got instead from Bryan Singer, is a "peeping tom Superman", "a manic-depressive Superman", "a Superman who barely speaks", and a "Superman" overall that movie audiences did not warm to and embrace as they did with Christopher Reeve in the starring role and Richard Donner directing.

Bryan Singer's "Superman" as he interpreted the character was extremely disturbing to watch because quite frankly the character had more than a few marbles kicking around in his head (much like all of the Universal Studios executives poorly disguised as members of the general public on the Colonial Fleets forum.) Bryan Singer's "Superman" was also more than a bit slow in street smarts. Do you mean to tell me that after all of the years "Superman" had Lex Luthor as an arch-enemy, he wouldn't expect to be stabbed by a kryptonite knife and then ambushed by Luthor's henchmen a short time later? That he wouldn't expect Lex Luthor to do something evil to him in more general terms when staring at him eye to eye in such close proximity in his "Fortress of Solitude?" That Luthor's henchmen wouldn't always be lurking in the shadows waiting for some supernatural device to render "Superman" mortal, and thus make him susceptible to an ass beating?

Bryan Singer's "Superman" also suffers from romantic delusions. Why would "Superman" expect Lois Lane to be waiting for him romantically after a five year absence, and not saying goodbye to her before that five year absence? Of course in logic terms, the five year absence really wasn't necessary anyway. He could fly at supersonic, super-duper speed to planet Krypton's remains in space, and fly back to the arms of Lois Lane at the same speed. Round trip time? Three minutes. He could have made hundreds of those round trip flights. He could even have kept in constant communication with Lois Lane during all of those flights via a suped up cell phone (taking cell phone pictures even) and constantly narrating to her what he was doing. And then be home for dinner with Lois Lane every night. Of course, "Superman" being "Superman", he could have any woman on Earth he wanted. So, why would he dwell on Lois Lane when it was apparent and written in stone that she had moved on to a new life with another man?

Bryan Singer's "Superman" is also a manic-depressive (much like all of the Universal Studios executives posting on the Colonial Fleets forum.) Isn't "Superman" supposed to be invulnerable to...everything? Even mental illness? (Attention: Russell Sanders.) Because of all of these blunders in "Superman Returns", Bryan Singer's "Superman" is without a doubt the most mass market, mass commercial unfriendly superhero put on the movie screen. There is no reason whatsoever for any demographic group to embrace Bryan Singer's "Superman" for any reason. The character is a self-absorbed, manically-depressed idiot with not one commercially attractive characteristic whatsoever for mass market audiences to warmly embrace. That is why at the end of the movie as Bryan Singer's "Superman" was soaring through the clouds with John Williams stolen theme music playing in the background (with a glum expression on his face) there were scant claps coming from the theater audience.

The Kid

Aaahh, yes. "The Kid." "Superman" has a son in this movie, and he has about as much acting talent as Brandon Routh does. Film critic Roger Ebert brought up a good point. "Why would a little boy with such superpowers be so sad all of the time? Staring blankly like a deer in headlights?" Wouldn't a little boy (or girl) with such powers be smiling all of the time with rosy cheeks and always getting into mischief? Wouldn't a child be thrilled with such powers even if the child was half Kryptonian? "Superman" and his son in this movie need intense psychiatric help (much like all of the Universal Studios executives posting on the Colonial Fleets forum.) These characters aren't normal, and they aren't mass market attractive. It also points to a disturbing aspect of Bryan Singer as a film director. He isn't versatile as a film director. He isn't able to conjure up and extract performances from actors involving happiness, ecstatic joy, spontaneity and normal interactions. Also, what should have been stellar acting talent in "Superman Returns" from everyone in the cast simply wasn't on display. Even the old war horse Frank Langella seemed as though he was reciting dialogue instead of acting. Not earning any browny points either for not correctly reciting the iconic sentence..."Truth, Justice, and the American Way." Bryan Singer and his script girl replaced it with the idiotic "Truth, Justice, and all that stuff." Brilliant move, Singer. Not.

Dialogue, dialogue. Where is the dialogue?

Roger Ebert pointed out that a man and woman who supposedly had a passionate love affair with one another have remarkably little to say to one another in this movie. Ebert called Bryan Singer's "Superman"....

"Monosyllabic and microsyllabic."

Roger Ebert also pointed out that Bryan Singer's "Superman" has scant dialogue throughout this movie overall.

Characters come alive and the audience gets inside of the character's heads with a shit load of dialogue. That's how an audience eventually warms to and bonds with characters. Perhaps Bryan Singer missed that class at filmmaking school during his "Steven Spielberg sponsored internship." I also think that Singer was trying to cover for the fact that some of his cast members (the younger actors) weren't the best actors in the world. So he kept the dialogue of certain cast members (including Brandon Routh and the kid) as scant as possible. I wouldn't be a bit suprised if the scant dialogue was ad libbed on the spot during the actual filming, scaled down from lengthy dialogue.

No original ideas, Bryan?

Bryan Singer swiped John Williams theme music for "Superman Returns", and swiped the crystal design of Krypton from the infinitely superior Richard Donner original. Why couldn't Singer simply have started from scratch with....originality and imagination? There's the problem. It's evident that he lacks both, much like Ronald D. Moore.

What is Bryan Singer working on now? "The Munsters" for NBC-TV.

It's becoming increasingly evident in the current generation of filmmakers including Bryan Singer and Ronald D. Moore, that they are trying to claim great ideas from the past as being their own. Thinking that no one for example, would remember the theme music and crystal design from Richard Donner's "Superman - The Movie" from 1978. They are doing this because they lack originality and imagination of their own.