Although We May Never See "Blood & Chrome", At Least We Can Read About How it Would Have "Sucked"

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Chrome-Interpretation-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1456493604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330372383&sr=1-1

And isn't that one of the many benefits of literature?

You Don't Have To Be a High Rolling Studio Executive in Hollywood To Realize Early On...

...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."

or....

"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.

Yeah, right!! (Ha!! Ha!!)

Universal Studios And Bryan Singer Would Prefer If Everyone Just Forget About Their Offcial Announcement On October 17th, 2011

Bryan Singer and Universal Studios have long since moved on to other such inconsequential projects as "The Munsters" and "The Six Billion Dollar Man" with Leonardo DiCaprio.

You have to hand it to both Universal Studios and Bryan Singer. Their continued non-commitment to a "Battlestar Galactica" movie they keep announcing every two years remains firmly in place.

Progress On The New "Star Trek" Movie Sequel

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/first-set-photos-star-trek-sequel-222928738.html

Where Paramount Pictures and J.J. Abrams excel, Universal Studios and Bryan Singer (of course) rot in intellectual, remedial academia.

We of course, will never see such progress on the (supposed) "Battlestar Galactica" movie announced by Universal Studios and Bryan Singer on October 17th, 2011. (That date again!!)

The Naivete And Laziness of The SyFy Channel & Ronald D. Moore Produced Nothing More Than a "Star Trek" Clone

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."

+ (plus)

Ronald D. Moore wanted to do a much darker version of "Star Trek: Voyager."

+ (plus)

Universal / SyFy Channel and Ronald D. Moore both hated the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series.

= (equals)

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.

I wonder why.

 

What We Have With The SyFy Channel, Is a Failure to Communicate

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.

Any questions?

If Universal Studios Is Unwilling To Do "This", They Sure As Hell Will Never Do "That"

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.