"Battlestar Galactica" Keeps Suffering From Crappy Filmmakers Putting Their Own Careers Ahead of What's Best For The Property

http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Studios-1978-Battlestar-Galactica/dp/1434895408/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320681892&sr=1-2

With Ronald D. Moore, it was never about "what is best for Battlestar Galactica?" It was everything about "what is best for Ronald D. Moore's career, ego, status among peers, and adulation." Of course, Moore failed to achieve all of that because he is a crappy producer and a crappy scriptwriter. During the unfortunate era of  "GINO" and "Caprica" (primarily "GINO"), I had never before witnessed in my life such a group of self indulgent low lifes (Universal Studios, the old Sci-Fi Channel, Bonnie Hammer, and Ronald D. Moore) lashing out at everyone (including the general public) in order to misuse the "Battlestar Galactica" brand name in order to try and further their own careers and status among peers. Let's also not forget that the lot of them were also seeking masturbatory adulation.

Somewhere along the way, what was best for the "Battlestar Galactica" brand name, such as mass market attractiveness, mass market acceptance, and good storytelling wasn't even considered. This was all about Bonnie Hammer and Ronald D. Moore wanting to be accepted within avant garde social circles because they were insane enough to depict infanticide on the television screen, having absolutely nothing to do with "Battlestar Galactica." Edward James Olmos was no better, ignorantly declaring that he would not do Ronald D. Moore's stupid ass show if it had any extra-terrestrial creatures in it. Gee, aren't Science Fiction television series always supposed to have extra-terrestrial creatures in it? Olmos no doubt feeling that appearing in the same television series as extra-terrestrial creatures would damage his career (what career?) Instead, Edward James Olmos damaged himself in "GINO" with his crappy acting. Was that 35 consecutive minutes in this week's episode where Edward James Olmos FROWNED?

Now we have Bryan Singer wanting to take his usual umpteenth stab at the "Battlestar Galactica" property because he bailed out on his first two opportunities to make such a movie (in 2001 and 2009.) So again, this isn't about what is best for the "Battlestar Galactica" property in terms of the necessity of reviving the original format, and doing what is best for the property in terms of mass market acceptance and profitability (the original format from the 1978 series), but this is about misusing the property in order for Bryan Singer to get what he personally wants from it (such as a long dormant career boost.) So, Singer is going to go in there and redesign everything with fresh (and far inferior to the original) spacecraft designs to try and market to the toy companies, with his name firmly attached to get a piece of the pie. Maybe from there, he might actually get more frequent directing assignments!! Certainly more than he gets now!! Could his history of bailing out on projects have something to do with that? Of course he will also want to change the format and characters to put his personal stamp on it in order to try and advance his own career.

Bonnie Hammer once infamously stated that "fans cannot drive the creative process." Of course they can't!! If they did, they would interfere with the likes of Bonnie Hammer, Ronald D. Moore, and Bryan Singer trying to be accepted within avante garde social circles via misusing the "Battlestar Galactica" property. If fans actually drove the creative process, we would get an appropriate and satisfying revival of "Battlestar Galactica" without all of the corporate egos involved. Imagine that!! A faithful and satisfying revival of the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series without Universal Studios involved, without SyFy Channel involved, without Bonnie Hammer involved, without Ronald D. Moore involved, and without Bryan Singer involved.

It would be NIRVANA to say the least.