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.