Whatever Happened to The Pyramids and Ancient Egypt in Universal Studios "Sham" Renditions of "Battlestar Galactica?"

Having the routine, umitigated gall to label any project they so choose as "Battlestar Galactica" (as Universal Studios loves to do) and then gut the central premise of the original 1978 series (The pyramids and ancient Egypt) out of the proceedings is the equivalent of doing a version of "Star Wars" and removing "The Force" out of the central premise, or doing a version of "Star Trek" and removing "The United Federation of Planets" from the central premise.

Universal Studios sham renditions of "Battlestar Galactica" ("GINO", "Caprica", "Blood & Chrome") have never felt like "Battlestar Galactica" because they haven't been "Battlestar Galactica."

One of the infinite, fundamental incompatabilities that has always existed between the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series and Universal Studios horrific, misguided ownership of the property is that it would take massive amounts of imagination and inspired thinking to revive the "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series in such a way where it is done correctly. What Universal Studios has always lacked.

In order to seamlessly tie together a story about a Battlestar fleet representing 12 Worlds (Colonies) with origins in ancient Egypt and the pyramids (which is what "Battlestar Galactica" really is), massive doses of imagination and inspired thinking are necessary. Abilities that Universal Studios, Ronald D. Moore, David Eick, and Bryan Singer will never, ever possess. So, this misguided bunch of Hollywood rejects instead, pursue the easy route in intent and execution by merely slapping the "Battlestar Galactica" brand name onto lazily pastiched together rip-offs of "Blade Runner", "Alien", and every contemporary drama you can think of where the characters wear three-piece business suits.

My fundamental argument all along in Universal Studios having no moral right to own the "Battlestar Galactica" property, is that they don't have the imagination and inspired thinking to own it. ("GINO", "Caprica", and "Blood & Chrome" prove this.) So for logic's sake, they should simply sell the property to someone else. And they should have sold it to someone else decades ago.

Granted, Hollywood is a business where studios rarely sell what they own...but in the case of Universal Studios and their disastrous ownership of "Battlestar Galactica" (an extreme case of negative ownership) going back 34 years, exceptions to the rule do exist in Hollywood where there is such a disastrous incompatibility problem between a studio and what it owns, that only a permanent parting of the ways between a studio (Universal Studios) and a property ("Battlestar Galactica") could ever hope to remedy the problem.

Universal Studios is the corporate home of "Maury Povich", "Blind Date", and "Mockingbird Lane." The "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series (on the other hand) involves a Battlestar fleet ambushed by the Cylon Empire, and driven from their 12 Worlds in search of their ancestral home with ties to ancient Egypt and the Pyramids. See the fundamental incompatibility there?

The "1978 Battlestar Galactica" series is a plate of caviar owned by corporate street urchins living in a slum.