"GINO" And "Caprica" Suffered From Low Ratings. So, Why Does SyFy Channel Want To Repeat The Unpleasant Experience With "Blood & Chrome?"

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Chrome-Interpretation-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1456493604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313344163&sr=1-1

Not that the SyFy Channel has ever had a series of momentous options in its television programming, but why would this piss-pot little cable network drain what little financial resources they do have by returning to the "Ronald D. Moore Well of Boredom" for a third time by trying to make his severely flawed take on "Battlestar Galactica?" work?

Ronald D. Moore's "GINO" (Galactica in Name Only) series...with the ever frowning and extremely unpleasant to look at Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell...limped along for four extremely forgettable and boring seasons...was finally cancelled (due to low ratings) in its fourth season. "Caprica" didn't fare any better...getting mercifully cancelled (due to low ratings) after what? Seven episodes? Two failed television series from Ronald D. Moore wasn't enough for the SyFy Channel. They want to give his flawed and sham take on "Battlestar Galactica" yet another go round with "Blood & Chrome."

The SyFy Channel has obviously never benefitted financially from anything they have done with Ronald D. Moore, so why do they keep returning to this "well" of low ratings? Could it be that all parties involved are benefitting in ways other than money? Like say, internal corporate politics of some sort? Internal corporate politics that "GINO" and "Caprica" have satisfied, and "Blood & Chrome" will eventually satisfy? What sorts of internal corporate politics might be at play here within the SyFy Channel?

1. The friendship between Ronald D. Moore and SyFy Channel. A friendship the SyFy Channel decided at some point would never be torn apart by low ratings due to misfired television series repeatedly concocted between the two of them?

2. It has become increasingly apparent to me (through observation) that the SyFy Channel's "Battlestar Galactica relationship" with Ronald D. Moore has been partially due to them wanting to extract as much of the ownership rights away from Glen A. Larson as they possibly can. And, NBC-Universal / SyFy Channel will stop at nothing in order to achieve that. Even if it means making television series with Ronald D. Moore that are perhaps...intentionally bad and offensive to the senses? Intentionally badly produced and written. Intentionally...badly cast (Edward James Olmos.) Even if it means...perhaps....only utilizing character and locale names from the "Battlestar Galactica" copyright without the substance. For example, the planet "Caprica" in Ronald D. Moore's television series is nothing more than gangster era location shooting in Vancouver instead of its marvelous depiction in the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series as a technological ancient Egypt complete with pyramid shaped office buildings.

3. Keep George Lucas and Steven Spielberg happy. If George Lucas is happy, Steven Spielberg is happy. If Steven Spielberg is happy, he keeps bringing Universal Studios those really cool potential tent pole projects such as "Cowboys & Aliens." How do you keep George Lucas and Steven Spielberg simultaneously happy? By not reviving the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series in its original form.

The mindset here of NBC-Universal / SyFy Channel obviously, partially being, "let's stop at nothing to own as much of "Battlestar Galactica" as we possibly can" (while navigating through this three pronged obstacle course.) Even it means suffering long term low ratings from the likes of "GINO", "Caprica",  And the inevitably low rated...and upcoming...."Blood & Chrome." Even it means making "Battlestar Galactica" named television series as bad and as repulsive as we can possibly make them.

What better man is there for the job of making bad television than Ronald D. Moore?