http://www.blastr.com/2014-12-12/exclusive-tricia-helfer-boarding-ascension-battlestar-galacticas-legacy
I'll go ahead and address the outrageous claims made in this article about Ronald D. Moore's "GINO" - (Galactica in Name Only) Series....
1. "But it all comes back to Number Six. Battlestar Galactica often appears on “Best Of” television lists, be it for dramas, cult shows or sci-fi offerings. The series is considered a high-water mark for Syfy and exemplifies a level of quality and cultural importance the network is striving to recapture. In particular, Helfer’s portrayal of the mystical Cylon(s) is typically ranked right up there as a great character on TV, and she earns notice as a feminist icon of the genre."
What..."Best Of"...lists has Ronald D. Moore's "GINO" - (Galactica in Name Only) series been appearing on? The..."Best Of"....lists written by SyFy Channel stealth Marketers? Or Ronald D. Moore's personal staff of stealth marketers on his behalf? What was "GINO" anyway? Let's go through the process of elimination, shall we? It wasn't...."Battlestar Galactica"....That honor still solely belongs to the 1978 series starring Lorne Greene, Richard Hatch, and Dirk Benedict. "GINO" wasn't legitimate drama either. It was melodramatic clap-trap with ugly and needless violence thrown into the mix. Was "GINO" a cult show? If by that it is meant that Ronald D. Moore's "GINO" series attracted nothing more than a miniscule viewership of stealth marketers working for the SyFy Channel with undiagnosed psychological problems still living in their parent's basements...then I supposed one could consider "GINO" a cult show. Was "GINO" a sci-fi show? If by that it is meant that severe budget limitations forced cast members to wear round the clock business suits. Severe budget limitations forced frequent location shooting in Vancouver with no attempts made to mask the location shooting (Is that an apartment complex I see on the corner with contemporary automobiles parked at the curb?) Severe budget limitations forced the show to frequently abandon what the core premise of what "Battlestar Galactica" is supposed to be (the 1978 series.) Severe budget limitations forced "GINO" to really not be a science fiction show and instead be a schizophrenic hodgepodge of Ronald D. Moore....making it up as he went along...then NO..."GINO" was not a science fiction show. It was ambiguous clap-trap like everything else on the SyFy Channel. "GINO" exemplifies a level of quality and cultural importance? Who came up with that outrageous lie and what was he/she smoking when they did so? "GINO" did nothing for culture at any sort of imaginary level of quality. Mass market audiences ignored the show en masse. Period. Translation? "GINO" was a mass market flop. Period.
2. The character of "Six" was a great character on TV and a feminist icon?
Really? A character who was nothing more than a rip-off of...."Seven of Nine"...from...."Star Trek: Voyager" who wore a skin tight red colored cocktail dress and was nothing more than...."Sex Dressing"....for a failed television show in order to try and pull in male viewers to try and boost the already embarrassingly low ratings was a feminist icon? Really? I'm sure feminists everywhere would appreciate the sleazy character of "Six" being placed within its ranks by mere mention.
3. As significant as BSG is considered within TV, do you get annoyed when journalists ask you questions tying you to the sci-fi genre?
Significant? In what sense? In the sense that "GINO" was ultmately nothing more than a mean spirited business deal between NBC-Universal and Ronald D. Moore to gut a potential "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" sized franchise that wasn't broken in the first place? Low ratings be damned for all four limping seasons of mass market rejection. Significant in the sense that "GINO" was yet another (ad nauseum) missed opportunity orchestrated by NBC-Universal to really bring back "Battlestar Galactica" (The 1978 Series?)
4. Yet BSG's traditional Nielsen ratings were low. This was also before Twitter had really become this influential water-cooler space for television. If it were airing today, would things be different?
Yes, "GINO's ratings were low as early as the first season. So why wasn't it cancelled long before the low rated fourth season? Here is something else the...."Einstein's"....working in the Syfy Channel's business department need to learn. People talking about your show around a water cooler while your ratings remain hopelessly low doesn't mean anything in the dollars and cents reality of the business world in which we all live (except the SyFy Channel.) Low advertising revenue due to low ratings means just as it unfortunately sounds. You have a flop on your hands as was the case with "GINO." Try telling the executive management of any other business except the dysfunctional SyFy Channel that...."Yes our ratings are low but some people talk about us aroung a water cooler instead"....and....You would get laughed right out of the room before getting fired. Which would have happened to "GINO" and Ronald D. Moore if the SyFy Channel were a normal running business and not dysfunctional. Causing a business to lose millions of dollars in advertising revenue tends to cause pink slips to be issued, and you being escorted out of the building by security after you clean out your desk. It isn't something to be laughed at or swept under the rug.
The...."Wish List"....for what the SyFy Channel wishes Ronald D. Moore's "GINO" - (Galactica in Name Only) was....and what it really was....are two entirely different things. In reality, it was nothing more than instantly disposable clap-trap with low ratings propped up by the watering eyes and the clenching of hearts by delusional SyFy Channel executives. And a decade later this hysteria still hasn't worn off within the SyFy Channel offices.
_______________________________________
Read the books Universal Studios has tried and failed to censor on Amazon.com...
http://languatron.freeforums.org/viewforum.php?f=60
And read these books at another location where Universal Studios executives and its stealth marketers won't be able to post negative, misleading (stealth marketed) reviews of the books via them purchasing candy and Rogaine Foam on Amazon.com (allowing them access to the Amazon book review section) and not actually buying and reading the books. I'll leave the other 150 global locations under wraps for now.
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/fullen1264
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.