Lt. Starbuck: Lost In Castration.

[Ubiquitous]

by Dirk Benedict

Once upon a time, in what used to be a far away land called Hollywood (but is
now a state of mind and everywhere), a young actor was handed a script and
asked to bring to life a character called Starbuck. I am that actor. The
script was called “Battlestar Galactica.”

Fortunately, I was young, my imagination fertile and adrenal glands strong,
because bringing Starbuck to life was over the dead imaginations of a lot of
Network Executives. Every character trait I struggled to give him was met with
vigorous resistance. A charming womanizer? The “Suits” (Network Executives)
hated it. A cigar (fumerello) smoker? The Suits hated it. A reluctant hero who
found humor in the bleakest of situations? The Suits hated it. All this
negative feedback convinced me I was on the right track.

Starbuck was meant to be a lovable rogue. It was best for the show, best for
the character and the best that I could do. The Suits didn’t think so. “One
more cigar and he’s fired,” they told Glen Larson, the creator of the show.
“We want Starbuck to appeal to the female audience for crying out loud.” You
see, the Suits knew women were turned off by men who smoked cigars, especially
young men. How they “knew” this was never revealed. And they didn’t stop
there. “If Dirk doesn’t quit playing every scene with a girl like he wants to
get her in bed, he’s fired.” This was, well, it was blatant heterosexuality,
treating women like “sex objects.” I thought it was flirting. Never mind, they
wouldn’t have it. I wouldn’t have it any other way, or rather Starbuck
wouldn’t. So we persevered, Starbuck and I. The show, as the saying goes, went
on and the rest is history for, lo and behold, women from all over the world
sent me boxes of cigars, phone numbers, dinner requests, and marriage
proposals.

The Suits were not impressed. They would have their way, which is what Suits
do best, and after one season of puffing and flirting and gambling, Starbuck,
that loveable scoundrel, was indeed fired. Which is to say, “Battlestar
Galactica” was cancelled. Starbuck, however, would not stay cancelled, but
simply morphed into another flirting, cigar smoking, blatant heterosexual
called Faceman. Another show, another set of Suits, and of course, if The
“A-Team” movie rumors prove correct, another remake.

There was a time, I know I was there, when men were men, women were women and
sometimes a cigar was just a good smoke. But 40 years of feminism have taken
their toll. The war against masculinity has been won. Everything has turned
into its opposite, so that what was once flirting and smoking is now sexual
harassment and criminal. And everyone is more lonely and miserable as a
result.

Witness the “re-imagined” “Battlestar Galactica,” bleak, miserable,
despairing, angry and confused. Which is to say, it reflects in microcosm the
complete change in the politics and morality of today’s world, as opposed to
the world of yesterday. The world of Lorne Greene (Adama), Fred Astaire
(Starbuck’s Poppa) and Dirk Benedict (Starbuck). I would guess Lorne is glad
he’s in that Big Bonanza in the sky and well out of it. Starbuck, alas, has
not been so lucky. He’s not been left to pass quietly into that trivial world
of cancelled TV characters.

“Re-imagining”, they call it. “Un-imagining” is more accurate. To take what
once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show
based on hope, spiritual faith and family is un-imagined and regurgitated as a
show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction. To better reflect the
times of ambiguous morality in which we live, one would assume. A show in
which the aliens (Cylons) are justified in their desire to destroy human
civilization, one would assume. Indeed, let us not say who the good guys are
and who the bad are. That is being “judgmental,” taking sides, and that kind
of (simplistic) thinking went out with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and
Kathryn Hepburn and John Wayne and, well, the original “Battlestar Galactica.”

In the bleak and miserable “re-imagined” world of “Battlestar Galactica,”
things are never that simple. Maybe the Cylons are not evil and alien but in
fact enlightened and evolved? Let us not judge them so harshly. Maybe it is
they who deserve to live and Adama and his human ilk who deserve to die? And
what a way to go! For the re-imagined terrorists (Cylons) are not mechanical
robots void of soul, of sexuality, but rather humanoid six foot tall former
lingerie models who f**k you to death. (Poor old Starbuck, you were imagined
too early. Think of the fun you could have had ‘fighting’ with these
thong-clad aliens!) In the spirit of such soft-core, sci-fi porn I think a
more re-imaginative title would have been “F**cked by A Cylon.” (Apologies to
“Touched by an Angel.”)

One thing is certain. In the new un-imagined, re-imagined world of “Battlestar
Galactica” everything is female driven. The male characters, from Adama on
down, are confused, weak and wracked with indecision, while the female
characters are decisive, bold, angry as hell, puffing cigars (gasp!) and not
about to take it any more.

One can quickly surmise what a problem the original Starbuck created for the
re-imaginators. Starbuck was all charm and humor and flirting without an angry
bone in his womanizing body. Yes, he was definitely “female driven,” but not
in the politically correct ways of Re-imagined Television. What to do,
wondered the Re-imaginators? Keep him as he was, with a twinkle in his eye, a
stogie in his mouth and a girl in every galaxy? This could not be. He would
stick out like, well, like a jock strap in a drawer of thongs. Starbuck
refused to be re-imagined. It became the Great Dilemma. How to have your
Starbuck and delete him too?

The best minds in the world of un-imagination doubled their intake of Double
Soy Latte’s as they gathered in their smoke-free offices to curse the day that
this chauvinistic Viper Pilot was allowed to be. But never under-estimate the
power of the un-imaginative mind when it encounters an obstacle (character) it
subconsciously loathes. ”Re-inspiration” struck. Starbuck would go the way of
most men in today’s society. Starbuck would become “Stardoe.” What the Suits
of yesteryear had been incapable of doing to Starbuck 25 years ago was
accomplished quicker than you can say orchiectomy. Much quicker, as in, “Frak!
Gonads Gone!”

And the word went out to all the Suits in all the smoke-free offices
throughout the land of Un-imagination, “Starbuck is dead. Long live Stardoe!”

I’m not sure if a cigar in the mouth of Stardoe resonates in the same way it
did in the mouth of Starbuck. Perhaps. Perhaps it “resonates” more. Perhaps
that’s the point. I’m not sure. What I am sure of is this…

Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Hamlet does not scan as Hamletta. Nor
does Hans Solo as Hans Sally. Faceman is not the same as Facewoman. Nor does a
Stardoe a Starbuck make. Men hand out cigars. Women “hand out” babies. And
thus the world for thousands of years has gone’ round.

I am also sure that Show Business has been morphing for many decades now and
has finally become Biz Business. The creative artists have lost and the Suits
have won. Suits. Administrators. Technocrats. Metro-sexual money-men (and
women), who create ever more efficient formulas to guarantee profit margins.
Because movies and television shows are not made to enlighten or even
entertain, but simply to make money. They will tell you it is (still) about
story and character, but all it is really about is efficiency. About the
Formula. Because Harvard Business School Technocrats run Hollywood and what
Technocrats know is what must be removed from all business is Risk. And I tell
you, life, real life, is all about risk. I tell you that without risk you have
no creativity, no art. I tell you that without risk you have Remakes. You
have, “Charlie’s Angels,” “The Saint,” “Mission Impossible,” “The A Team”
(coming soon), and “Battlestar Galactica.”

All risk-free brand names, franchises.

For you see, TV shows (and movies) are made and sold according to the same
business formula as hamburger franchises. So that it matters not if it is the
“best” hamburger, what matters is that you “think” it is the best. And you do
“think” it is the best, because you have been told to; because all of your
favorite celebrities are seen munching it on TV. The big money is not spent on
making the hamburger or the television show, but on the marketing of the
hamburger/show. (One 60 second commercial can cost more than it does to film a
one-hour episode.) It matters not to Suits if it is Starbuck or Stardoe, if
the Cylons are robots or lingerie models, if the show is full of optimism and
morality or pessimism and amorality. What matters is that it is marketed well,
so that all you people out there in TV land know that you must see this show.
And after you see it, you are told that you should like it. That it is new and
bold and sleek and sexy and best of all … it is Re-imagined!

So grab a Coke from the fridge (not the Classic Coke, but the re-imagined kind
with fewer calories) and send out for a McDonald’s hamburger (the re-imagined
one with fewer carbs), and tune in to Stardoe and Cylon #6 (or was it #69?)
and Enjoy the Show.

And if you don’t enjoy the show, or the hamburger and coke, it’s not the fault
of those re-imaginative technocrats that brought them to you. It is your
fault. You and your individual instincts, tastes and judgment — your refusal
to let go of the memory of the show that once was. You just don’t know what is
good for you. But stay tuned. After another 13 episodes (and millions of
dollars of marketing), you will see the light. You, your instincts, your
judgment, are wrong. McDonald’s is the best hamburger on the planet, Coca-Cola
the best drink, and Stardoe is the best Viper Pilot in the Galaxy.

And “Battlestar Galactica,” contrary to what your memory tells you, never
existed before the Re-imagination of 2004.

I disagree. But perhaps, you had to be there.

[FDR]

This is a few years old Ubi, don't they get the internet where you live?

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict
Once upon a time, in what used to be a far away land called Hollywood (but is
now a state of mind and everywhere), a young actor was handed a script and
asked to bring to life a character called Starbuck. I am that actor. The
script was called “Battlestar Galactica.”
Fortunately, I was young, my imagination fertile and adrenal glands strong,
because bringing Starbuck to life was over the dead imaginations of a lot of
Network Executives. Every character trait I struggled to give him was met with
vigorous resistance. A charming womanizer? The “Suits” (Network Executives)
hated it. A cigar (fumerello) smoker? The Suits hated it. A reluctant hero who
found humor in the bleakest of situations? The Suits hated it. All this
negative feedback convinced me I was on the right track.
Starbuck was meant to be a lovable rogue. It was best for the show, best for
the character and the best that I could do. The Suits didn’t think so. “One
more cigar and he’s fired,” they told Glen Larson, the creator of the show.
“We want Starbuck to appeal to the female audience for crying out loud.” You
see, the Suits knew women were turned off by men who smoked cigars, especially
young men. How they “knew” this was never revealed. And they didn’t stop
there. “If Dirk doesn’t quit playing every scene with a girl like he wants to
get her in bed, he’s fired.” This was, well, it was blatant heterosexuality,
treating women like “sex objects.” I thought it was flirting. Never mind, they
wouldn’t have it. I wouldn’t have it any other way, or rather Starbuck
wouldn’t. So we persevered, Starbuck and I. The show, as the saying goes, went
on and the rest is history for, lo and behold, women from all over the world
sent me boxes of cigars, phone numbers, dinner requests, and marriage
proposals.
The Suits were not impressed. They would have their way, which is what Suits
do best, and after one season of puffing and flirting and gambling, Starbuck,
that loveable scoundrel, was indeed fired. Which is to say, “Battlestar
Galactica” was cancelled. Starbuck, however, would not stay cancelled, but
simply morphed into another flirting, cigar smoking, blatant heterosexual
called Faceman. Another show, another set of Suits, and of course, if The
“A-Team” movie rumors prove correct, another remake.
There was a time, I know I was there, when men were men, women were women and
sometimes a cigar was just a good smoke. But 40 years of feminism have taken
their toll. The war against masculinity has been won. Everything has turned
into its opposite, so that what was once flirting and smoking is now sexual
harassment and criminal. And everyone is more lonely and miserable as a
result.
Witness the “re-imagined” “Battlestar Galactica,” bleak, miserable,
despairing, angry and confused. Which is to say, it reflects in microcosm the
complete change in the politics and morality of today’s world, as opposed to
the world of yesterday. The world of Lorne Greene (Adama), Fred Astaire
(Starbuck’s Poppa) and Dirk Benedict (Starbuck). I would guess Lorne is glad
he’s in that Big Bonanza in the sky and well out of it. Starbuck, alas, has
not been so lucky. He’s not been left to pass quietly into that trivial world
of cancelled TV characters.
“Re-imagining”, they call it. “Un-imagining” is more accurate. To take what
once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show
based on hope, spiritual faith and family is un-imagined and regurgitated as a
show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction. To better reflect the
times of ambiguous morality in which we live, one would assume. A show in
which the aliens (Cylons) are justified in their desire to destroy human
civilization, one would assume. Indeed, let us not say who the good guys are
and who the bad are. That is being “judgmental,” taking sides, and that kind
of (simplistic) thinking went out with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and
Kathryn Hepburn and John Wayne and, well, the original “Battlestar Galactica.”
In the bleak and miserable “re-imagined” world of “Battlestar Galactica,”
things are never that simple. Maybe the Cylons are not evil and alien but in
fact enlightened and evolved? Let us not judge them so harshly. Maybe it is
they who deserve to live and Adama and his human ilk who deserve to die? And
what a way to go! For the re-imagined terrorists (Cylons) are not mechanical
robots void of soul, of sexuality, but rather humanoid six foot tall former
lingerie models who f**k you to death. (Poor old Starbuck, you were imagined
too early. Think of the fun you could have had ‘fighting’ with these
thong-clad aliens!) In the spirit of such soft-core, sci-fi porn I think a
more re-imaginative title would have been “F**cked by A Cylon.” (Apologies to
“Touched by an Angel.”)
One thing is certain. In the new un-imagined, re-imagined world of “Battlestar
Galactica” everything is female driven. The male characters, from Adama on
down, are confused, weak and wracked with indecision, while the female
characters are decisive, bold, angry as hell, puffing cigars (gasp!) and not
about to take it any more.
One can quickly surmise what a problem the original Starbuck created for the
re-imaginators. Starbuck was all charm and humor and flirting without an angry
bone in his womanizing body. Yes, he was definitely “female driven,” but not
in the politically correct ways of Re-imagined Television. What to do,
wondered the Re-imaginators? Keep him as he was, with a twinkle in his eye, a
stogie in his mouth and a girl in every galaxy? This could not be. He would
stick out like, well, like a jock strap in a drawer of thongs. Starbuck
refused to be re-imagined. It became the Great Dilemma. How to have your
Starbuck and delete him too?
The best minds in the world of un-imagination doubled their intake of Double
Soy Latte’s as they gathered in their smoke-free offices to curse the day that
this chauvinistic Viper Pilot was allowed to be. But never under-estimate the
power of the un-imaginative mind when it encounters an obstacle (character) it
subconsciously loathes. ”Re-inspiration” struck. Starbuck would go the way of
most men in today’s society. Starbuck would become “Stardoe.” What the Suits
of yesteryear had been incapable of doing to Starbuck 25 years ago was
accomplished quicker than you can say orchiectomy. Much quicker, as in, “Frak!
Gonads Gone!”
And the word went out to all the Suits in all the smoke-free offices
throughout the land of Un-imagination, “Starbuck is dead. Long live Stardoe!”
I’m not sure if a cigar in the mouth of Stardoe resonates in the same way it
did in the mouth of Starbuck. Perhaps. Perhaps it “resonates” more. Perhaps
that’s the point. I’m not sure. What I am sure of is this…
Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Hamlet does not scan as Hamletta. Nor
does Hans Solo as Hans Sally. Faceman is not the same as Facewoman. Nor does a
Stardoe a Starbuck make. Men hand out cigars. Women “hand out” babies. And
thus the world for thousands of years has gone’ round.
I am also sure that Show Business has been morphing for many decades now and
has finally become Biz Business. The creative artists have lost and the Suits
have won. Suits. Administrators. Technocrats. Metro-sexual money-men (and
women), who create ever more efficient formulas to guarantee profit margins.
Because movies and television shows are not made to enlighten or even
entertain, but simply to make money. They will tell you it is (still) about
story and character, but all it is really about is efficiency. About the
Formula. Because Harvard Business School Technocrats run Hollywood and what
Technocrats know is what must be removed from all business is Risk. And I tell
you, life, real life, is all about risk. I tell you that without risk you have
no creativity, no art. I tell you that without risk you have Remakes. You
have, “Charlie’s Angels,” “The Saint,” “Mission Impossible,” “The A Team”
(coming soon), and “Battlestar Galactica.”
All risk-free brand names, franchises.
For you see, TV shows (and movies) are made and sold according to the same
business formula as hamburger franchises. So that it matters not if it is the
“best” hamburger, what matters is that you “think” it is the best. And you do
“think” it is the best, because you have been told to; because all of your
favorite celebrities are seen munching it on TV. The big money is not spent on
making the hamburger or the television show, but on the marketing of the
hamburger/show. (One 60 second commercial can cost more than it does to film a
one-hour episode.) It matters not to Suits if it is Starbuck or Stardoe, if
the Cylons are robots or lingerie models, if the show is full of optimism and
morality or pessimism and amorality. What matters is that it is marketed well,
so that all you people out there in TV land know that you must see this show.
And after you see it, you are told that you should like it. That it is new and
bold and sleek and sexy and best of all … it is Re-imagined!
So grab a Coke from the fridge (not the Classic Coke, but the re-imagined kind
with fewer calories) and send out for a McDonald’s hamburger (the re-imagined
one with fewer carbs), and tune in to Stardoe and Cylon #6 (or was it #69?)
and Enjoy the Show.
And if you don’t enjoy the show, or the hamburger and coke, it’s not the fault
of those re-imaginative technocrats that brought them to you. It is your
fault. You and your individual instincts, tastes and judgment — your refusal
to let go of the memory of the show that once was. You just don’t know what is
good for you. But stay tuned. After another 13 episodes (and millions of
dollars of marketing), you will see the light. You, your instincts, your
judgment, are wrong. McDonald’s is the best hamburger on the planet, Coca-Cola
the best drink, and Stardoe is the best Viper Pilot in the Galaxy.
And “Battlestar Galactica,” contrary to what your memory tells you, never
existed before the Re-imagination of 2004.
I disagree. But perhaps, you had to be there.

[samson]

In article <***@giganews.com>,
***@polaris.net says...> Dirk Benedict
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

s

[p***@aol.com]

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?
s

It does seem a little sad that he takes so much pride in the fact that
"the best he could do" was to play the same cardboard stereotype in
two shows, and for that matter a stereotype that was already past its
sell-by date in the late 1970s.

I can see where he's coming from in complaining that the new show
isn't as happy and hopeful as its original incarnation, but to me
that's a flaw in the original series' execution - a story about a
"ragtag fleet" of refugees who are the last survivors of a holocaust
*shouldn't* be about "hope" and "family", where the greatest source of
tension is wondering when Cassopeia will find out about Starbuck's
latest womanising.

Phil

[EGK]

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by EGK

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator. He's not exactly
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.

I didn't really care for the original. Glen Larson was never my favorite
tv producer. Best thing he ever did was "Quincy" in my opinion, but
that's only because Jack Klugman's over the top performance cracked me up.
When the actor insisted on adding Alan Alda-inspired moralizing, it hurt
the drama. However, I still remember many of the simplistic medical
lessons the show was trying to teach (badly, perhaps).

But I thought very much the same thing when the show was first announced.
What is the point? If you are going to produce something entirely
different than the original, just give it a different name! It's not as
if the original didn't go where thousands of Western movies and tv episodes
had gone before.

[David Johnston]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:52:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator.

He didn't. More like one of Humphrey Bogarts lowlife with a heart of
gold characters.

He's not exactly

Post by Adam H. Kerman
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.
I didn't really care for the original. Glen Larson was never my favorite
tv producer. Best thing he ever did was "Quincy" in my opinion, but
that's only because Jack Klugman's over the top performance cracked me up.
When the actor insisted on adding Alan Alda-inspired moralizing, it hurt
the drama. However, I still remember many of the simplistic medical
lessons the show was trying to teach (badly, perhaps).
But I thought very much the same thing when the show was first announced.
What is the point? If you are going to produce something entirely
different than the original, just give it a different name! It's not as
if the original didn't go where thousands of Western movies and tv episodes
had gone before.

People would have been just as annoyed by how much it was like
Battlestar Galactica if it had a different name as they were at how
different it was with that name.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by David Johnston
People would have been just as annoyed by how much it was like
Battlestar Galactica if it had a different name as they were at how
different it was with that name.

Wow. It's Usenet. How did I know that someone would post exactly that
annoying refrain, pretending it's really a counter argument to anything
I said?

Considering we're talking about remakes, I suppose stock Usenet crap is
actually on topic. Why should anyone say what hasn't been said before?

[David Johnston]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:12:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by David Johnston
People would have been just as annoyed by how much it was like
Battlestar Galactica if it had a different name as they were at how
different it was with that name.

Wow. It's Usenet. How did I know that someone would post exactly that
annoying refrain, pretending it's really a counter argument to anything
I said?

Why isn't it a counter argument?

[SueB1863]

Didn't he appear on a pre-premiere promo show with Katie Sackhoff
(sp?), apparently endorsing the new version, back before it started?

[aemeijers]

Post by SueB1863
Didn't he appear on a pre-premiere promo show with Katie Sackhoff
(sp?), apparently endorsing the new version, back before it started?

I gotta ask- did anybody ever get verification that he actually wrote
the diatribe attributed to him? Internet is full of such screeds, and
most are fake.

Just sayin'

--
aem sends...

[EGK]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator. He's not exactly
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.

No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.

I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

[Brian Henderson]

Post by EGK
I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

Dexter, even with all the problems with that show, is head and shoulders
above even the best character on BSG. Hell, Dexter's crazy dead
half-brother serial killer from the first season is better than anyone
they have on BSG. Hell, even Lila, the detestable bitch from the second
season that was almost universally reviled is better than anyone on BSG.

It's because all of these characters, unlike BSG, have something in them
that makes them likeable. You'd go out for a beer with them, assuming
they didn't kill you. You could enjoy having a conversation with them.
That's just not true with anyone in BSG, all of whom I'd just want to
shove out an airlock.

[Magnus, Robot Fighter]

On Mar 19, 5:24 pm, Brian Henderson

Post by Brian Henderson

I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman.  I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV.  That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right.   How
exactly is that "better"?   Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that.  Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

Dexter, even with all the problems with that show, is head and shoulders
above even the best character on BSG.  Hell, Dexter's crazy dead
half-brother serial killer from the first season is better than anyone
they have on BSG.  Hell, even Lila, the detestable bitch from the second
season that was almost universally reviled is better than anyone on BSG.
It's because all of these characters, unlike BSG, have something in them
that makes them likeable.  You'd go out for a beer with them, assuming
they didn't kill you.  You could enjoy having a conversation with them.
  That's just not true with anyone in BSG, all of whom I'd just want to
shove out an airlock.

You wouldn't have a beer with Doc Cottle? What's wrong with you?

[shawn]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:26:17 -0700 (PDT), "Magnus, Robot Fighter"

Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
On Mar 19, 5:24 pm, Brian Henderson

Post by Brian Henderson

I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman.  I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV.  That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right.   How
exactly is that "better"?   Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that.  Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

Dexter, even with all the problems with that show, is head and shoulders
above even the best character on BSG.  Hell, Dexter's crazy dead
half-brother serial killer from the first season is better than anyone
they have on BSG.  Hell, even Lila, the detestable bitch from the second
season that was almost universally reviled is better than anyone on BSG.
It's because all of these characters, unlike BSG, have something in them
that makes them likeable.  You'd go out for a beer with them, assuming
they didn't kill you.  You could enjoy having a conversation with them.
  That's just not true with anyone in BSG, all of whom I'd just want to
shove out an airlock.

You wouldn't have a beer with Doc Cottle? What's wrong with you?

He smokes...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by EGK

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator. He's not exactly
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.

No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.

Fine. The original "Battlestar Galactica" attempted to cash in on an
apparent trend in movies.

Post by EGK
I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

Dexter is judge, jury, and executioner, but most weeks (with the
exception of the pivotal murder introducing Season 3) makes an effort to
find only worthy victims. It's oddly black and white a lot of the time.

[EGK]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator. He's not exactly
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.

No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.

Fine. The original "Battlestar Galactica" attempted to cash in on an
apparent trend in movies.

Sure, and the new BG attempted to cash in on the original movie's name. Most
all TV and film is an attempt to cash in one way or another.

To me this isn't a debate over which version was better. I'm old enough to
remember the original but I didn't watch it that much. You have to view TV
in context of the time it was made. Not that many shows of the past hold
up all that well today. I recently finished watching the second season of
The Invaders and though it's easy to see it as a forerunner of shows like
The X-Files, it's pretty campy now. Just like the original BG.

Benedict's Starbuck who I thought was the only good character in the
original version, sadly, puts it one up on the new version as far as having
a likeable character.

I do have to laugh at all those who see Benedict's rant as misogynist. To
me he's simply saying "vive la différence". Moore is the one who created
strong female characters then proceeded to make them all bitches. Of
course he made the male characters whiney bitches too.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK
I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

Dexter is judge, jury, and executioner, but most weeks (with the
exception of the pivotal murder introducing Season 3) makes an effort to
find only worthy victims. It's oddly black and white a lot of the time.

And still head and shoulders above BG. Either version.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by EGK

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a
steaming pile of dogshit for some time. That's also like saying Han
Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the sequels of the last
10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!! The original Starbuck was
meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator. He's not exactly
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.

No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.

Fine. The original "Battlestar Galactica" attempted to cash in on an
apparent trend in movies.

Sure, and the new BG attempted to cash in on the original movie's name. Most
all TV and film is an attempt to cash in one way or another.
To me this isn't a debate over which version was better.

I acknowledge that you aren't engaging in such a debate. My point
is limited to, If you are going to introduce major changes, call it
something else.

I am not arguing from the position taken by one of the theater critics
targeted by Vincent Price in "Theater of Blood": "He had the temerity to
rewrite Shakespeare?"

Glen Larson isn't Shakespeare. In my opinion, the original Battlestar
Galactica wasn't classic television. The character Dirk Benedict played
wasn't terribly original. But I agree with his basic point that, yes,
the character is male and that, yes, making the character female was
definitely to appease. His other points are weaker, and some of the rant
was wrong.

Post by EGK
You have to view TV in context of the time it was made.

I absoluetly agree with you.

Post by EGK
Benedict's Starbuck who I thought was the only good character in the
original version, sadly, puts it one up on the new version as far as having
a likeable character.

Interesting. If I liked him more as an actor, I might agree. I had
trouble liking the original show, but there was one episode I
particularly enjoyed, Starbuck alone on a planet, making friends with
the Cylon who had also crashed there (or building himself a friend).

Post by EGK
I do have to laugh at all those who see Benedict's rant as misogynist. To
me he's simply saying "vive la différence".

I agree with this, too.

[OM]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:12:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I am not arguing from the position taken by one of the theater critics
targeted by Vincent Price in "Theater of Blood": "He had the temerity to
rewrite Shakespeare?"

...Same thing happened to the guy who wrote the script for "Forbidden
Planet". Before he had a chance to explain as planned, several major
critics slammed him for doing a reimaging of "The Tempest". Of course,
had they actually given ol' Willy mention in the credits, things might
have been different.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

[Alric Knebel]

Post by OM
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:12:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I am not arguing from the position taken by one of the theater critics
targeted by Vincent Price in "Theater of Blood": "He had the temerity to
rewrite Shakespeare?"

...Same thing happened to the guy who wrote the script for "Forbidden
Planet". Before he had a chance to explain as planned, several major
critics slammed him for doing a reimaging of "The Tempest". Of course,
had they actually given ol' Willy mention in the credits, things might
have been different.

They do give him mention in the credits. I saw that movie about a month
ago. I might possibly be mixing this up with something I read, but I
believe it mentioned "The Tempest" in the beginning.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I acknowledge that you aren't engaging in such a debate. My point
is limited to, If you are going to introduce major changes, call it
something else.

I say, if you keep the very bones of the premise -- and it's a premise
worth remaking, considering the advances in attitude toward science
fiction -- you HAVE to keep the title. Making Starbuck female was a
nice change, reflecting the changed times. It was cool. He used this
as a jumping-off point to go into a riff that in the end sounded
ludicrous. The only people who'd agree with him are those people who
loved the Star Wars-like original over the darker modern version. I
liked the changes. But it was still the same basic premise. What are
you going to do? Are you going to have a series about a race of robots
seeking to destroy the remnants of humankind, chasing the humans across
deep space as they hunt for earth, then call the series SOMETHING ELSE?
The remake was definitely far more interesting than the original,
which had a 70s chicken-shit approach to telling stories, in that it
kept all the ideas mainstream and safe, black and white. I'm not a
child anymore, and I don't need -- or desire -- things to be that
simple. Here, the robots were monotheists while the humans believed in
multiple gods. Who could have seen THAT coming? The plot line didn't
stay the same year after year, but instead got more complex. I praise
this sort of creativity. In fact, I'm looking forward to the AMC's
remake of "The Prisoner" later this year.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by EGK

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator. He's not exactly
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.

No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.
I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

You're insane. You must live in a world of comic-book characters. I
liked the richer characterizations in the new BSG.

[EGK]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by EGK

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator. He's not exactly
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.

No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.
I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

You're insane. You must live in a world of comic-book characters. I
liked the richer characterizations in the new BSG.

Ad hominem argument noted. I can well understand how you enjoy the
"richer" characters on the new BG.

[OM]

Post by EGK
Ad hominem argument noted.

...Note that it's pretty much accepted these days that simply
replyiing "ad hominem" or "straw man" is nothing but the lazy man's
way out of having to actually come up with an unbeatable response in a
debate. In other words, you can't use them to "Godwin" your way out of
an argument and claim an automatic win. It just doesn't work anymore.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

[EGK]

Post by OM

Post by EGK
Ad hominem argument noted.

...Note that it's pretty much accepted these days that simply
replyiing "ad hominem" or "straw man" is nothing but the lazy man's
way out of having to actually come up with an unbeatable response in a
debate. In other words, you can't use them to "Godwin" your way out of
an argument and claim an automatic win. It just doesn't work anymore.

There was no debate. I made a point to which he issued nothing but ad
hominem reply. End of story.

[peachy ashie passion]

Post by OM

Post by EGK
Ad hominem argument noted.

...Note that it's pretty much accepted these days that simply
replyiing "ad hominem" or "straw man" is nothing but the lazy man's
way out of having to actually come up with an unbeatable response in a
debate. In other words, you can't use them to "Godwin" your way out of
an argument and claim an automatic win. It just doesn't work anymore.
OM

Uh, no.

I will note that it's standard for people who use those tactics to try
to claim that, though.

For those of us who actually know how to do reasoned discussion, those
are still meaningful terms.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by EGK

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by EGK

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by EGK

Post by samson
I wonder if Mr. Benedict will ever realize that the
"lovable rogue" stereotype wears thin quickly, maybe
even before it's remade, and that the new BSG is so
much better than the old one?

The new BG started much better in the mini-series but it's been a steaming
pile of dogshit for some time.
That's also like saying Han Solo wore thin in the original Star Wars and the
sequels of the last 10yrs are so much better. Blecchhhh!!!
The original Starbuck was meant to emulate Han Solo, after all.

You say that as if "Star Wars" wasn't movie making by formula and if Han
Solo didn't emulate, say, a WWII era naval aviator. He's not exactly
supposed to be the fictionalized Red Baron, who fights war as if it were
a sport played by gentlemen seeking nothing more than honor and glory,
but dogfights themselves were classic situations meant for movies.

No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.
I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

You're insane. You must live in a world of comic-book characters. I
liked the richer characterizations in the new BSG.

Ad hominem argument noted. I can well understand how you enjoy the
"richer" characters on the new BG.

My apology. I meant to actually respond to the person who called ME
insane.

[Ian Galbraith]

[snip]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by EGK
No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.
I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

You're insane. You must live in a world of comic-book characters. I
liked the richer characterizations in the new BSG.

Well a lot of us are insane then. And given he likes Dexter its a bit
ridiculous to accuse him of wanting comic book characterisation. The
characters in nuBSG on the whole are detestable. This doesn't
automatically make them richer characters than more sympathetic
characters. Plus they're detestable in a way that makes them
uninteresting.

[EGK]

Post by Ian Galbraith

Post by Alric Knebel
You're insane. You must live in a world of comic-book characters. I
liked the richer characterizations in the new BSG.

Well a lot of us are insane then. And given he likes Dexter its a bit
ridiculous to accuse him of wanting comic book characterisation. The
characters in nuBSG on the whole are detestable. This doesn't
automatically make them richer characters than more sympathetic
characters. Plus they're detestable in a way that makes them
uninteresting.

The "comic book" line is pretty funny anyway. Comics have long had much
more nuance of character than anything ever seen on BG. Buffy the Vampire
Slayer is now a comic and that show was head and shoulders above BG in both
story and characterization. Of course the producers and writers were
smart enough to actually give the audience characters they could root for.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Ian Galbraith
[snip]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by EGK
No, I'm saying that BECAUSE Star Wars was a classic variation of a well-used
movie and Han Solo was a classic take on the anti-hero.
I have no problem with the new show wanting to make Starbuck a woman. I do
think the character they "re-imagined" is one of the most vile and
detestable ever seen on TV. That's saying a lot when you consider the fact
every character on the new BG is pretty detestable in their own right. How
exactly is that "better"? Unless you happen to be a sadist and enjoy
watching people like that. Hell, Dexter is much easier to like as a serial
killer than the people who populate Moore's universe.

You're insane. You must live in a world of comic-book characters. I
liked the richer characterizations in the new BSG.

Well a lot of us are insane then. And given he likes Dexter its a bit
ridiculous to accuse him of wanting comic book characterisation. The
characters in nuBSG on the whole are detestable. This doesn't
automatically make them richer characters than more sympathetic
characters. Plus they're detestable in a way that makes them
uninteresting.

For some reason, I accidentally responded to HIS post, when I meant to
respond to Adam's.

[Brian Henderson]

Post by Alric Knebel
You're insane. You must live in a world of comic-book characters. I
liked the richer characterizations in the new BSG.

Only valid if you consider a bunch of self-involved assholes to be
"rich characterization".

I don't.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Brian Henderson

Post by Alric Knebel
You're insane. You must live in a world of comic-book characters. I
liked the richer characterizations in the new BSG.

Only valid if you consider a bunch of self-involved assholes to be
"rich characterization".
I don't.

Well, I don't consider them that, and I still consider it very strong
characterizations, and what you say is mischaracterization.

[David Johnston]

Dirk Benedict appears to regard women with a certain amount of
hostility.

[efeatherston]

If he thinks the current Battlestar sits well with the suits, I want
to know what world he lives in. If this had been on regular network
instead of cable, it never would have made it past the suits.

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict

[rant deleted].

What a dick. *

[i***@san.rr.com]

Post by pv+ (PV)

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict

[rant deleted].
What a dick.

Then you must find it a shame that he's right, then, about pretty much
all of it.

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by i***@san.rr.com

Post by pv+ (PV)
What a dick.

Then you must find it a shame that he's right, then, about pretty much
all of it.

If by "right about all of it" means "is a freaking fossil, and is wrong
about just about all of it". Season with sour grapes. *

[Brian Henderson]

Post by i***@san.rr.com

Post by pv+ (PV)

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict

[rant deleted].
What a dick.

Then you must find it a shame that he's right, then, about pretty much
all of it.

Pretty much, there wasn't a whole lot, at least conceptually, that he
said about new Craptacular that I disagreed with.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by i***@san.rr.com

Post by pv+ (PV)

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict

[rant deleted].
What a dick.

Then you must find it a shame that he's right, then, about pretty much
all of it.

He wasn't right about ANY of it.

[catpandaddy]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by i***@san.rr.com

Post by pv+ (PV)

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict

[rant deleted].
What a dick.

Then you must find it a shame that he's right, then, about pretty much
all of it.

He wasn't right about ANY of it.

Well, he was right about the reimagining being done by "the suits"... no
wait, they never wore suits. Well at least the "soy lattes" part was
righ... nope, the producers were always sloshed on whiskey on the rocks.
Well, maybe the smoke-free offices... but wait, Moore was always chain
smoking. Dang, what DID he get right? Well, technically the part about
women birthing babies, but even that was him being an absolute ass about it.

Maybe if he had cut his Farrah hairdo and went for the mohawk look sported
by one of his co-actors on his next gig, his brain could have gotten more
nutrients.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by catpandaddy

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by i***@san.rr.com

Post by pv+ (PV)

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict

[rant deleted].
What a dick.

Then you must find it a shame that he's right, then, about pretty much
all of it.

He wasn't right about ANY of it.

Well, he was right about the reimagining being done by "the suits"... no
wait, they never wore suits. Well at least the "soy lattes" part was
righ... nope, the producers were always sloshed on whiskey on the rocks.
Well, maybe the smoke-free offices... but wait, Moore was always chain
smoking. Dang, what DID he get right? Well, technically the part about
women birthing babies, but even that was him being an absolute ass about it.
Maybe if he had cut his Farrah hairdo and went for the mohawk look
sported by one of his co-actors on his next gig, his brain could have
gotten more nutrients.

That was the CUTEST response.

[unknown]

Post by pv+ (PV)

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict

[rant deleted].
What a dick. *

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

[OM]

Post by unknown

Post by pv+ (PV)

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict

[rant deleted].
What a dick. *

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

..."PV" is basically Daffy Duck in drag. Just killfile the cowardly
troll and put him out of our misery.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by unknown

Post by pv+ (PV)
What a dick. *

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

That might sting a bit if I knew who the fuck you are, but probably not. *

[Narcissus Jones]

On 03/19/2009 17:21:46 -0600, pv+***@pobox.com (PV) wrote:

: Jherrod writes:
::: What a dick. *
::
:: That's the pot calling the kettle black.
:
: That might sting a bit if I knew who the fuck you are, but probably
:: not. *

So says the loudmouthed troll who posts using just "PV" and ends his
posts with a stupid asterisk. In other words, Jherrod was right, and
you are a black pot harasing a kettle about its color. And to prove my
point, every single post you've made on this group was posted in a
tone that was belligerant, obnoxious, inflammatory, and just down
right mean. It's bastards like you that have ruined usenet more than
the trolls have, and what you deserve is to have the living shit
beaten out of you just like any other shithead would be if they
behaved the way you do in a large gathering. But since you can hide
behind your monitor and modem, you feel you can mouth off with
impunity. Sadly, since nobody's nearby to bitchslap some sense back
into you, it's best to killfile you and be done with you and your
cowardly self.

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by Narcissus Jones
So says the loudmouthed troll who posts using just "PV" and ends his
posts with a stupid asterisk. In other words, Jherrod was right, and

Again, that would perhaps sting if I knew or cared who the fuck you were.

As for anonymous - it's my freaking initials, idiot. I suppose your name is
"Narcissus"? If so, give your mom a gold star for predicting an appropriate
name.

In brief, fuck off, loser. *

[Shelbe Smyth]

Post by pv+ (PV)
In brief, fuck off, loser. *

You're still posting with an alias. If 'PV' is your initials, what do
they stand for? Refusing to post that means you're hiding behind an
alias as much as those you're dissing on.

The others are correct. You are nothing but a loudmouthed troll. Into
the filters you go.

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by Shelbe Smyth
You're still posting with an alias. If 'PV' is your initials, what do
they stand for?

They stand for the first and last parts of my name, as I've signed posts on
the net for the last 22 years.

Post by Shelbe Smyth
The others are correct. You are nothing but a loudmouthed troll. Into
the filters you go.

Bye! *

[Shelbe Smyth]

Post by pv+ (PV)
They stand for the first and last parts of my name, as I've signed posts on
the net for the last 22 years.

You're not signing them now, so that doesn't count, and you're a
troll.

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by Shelbe Smyth

Post by pv+ (PV)
They stand for the first and last parts of my name, as I've signed posts on
the net for the last 22 years.

You're not signing them now, so that doesn't count, and you're a
troll.

Quite an effective killfile you have there, sparky. *

[Beowulf Bolt]

Post by Shelbe Smyth

Post by pv+ (PV)
In brief, fuck off, loser. *

You're still posting with an alias. If 'PV' is your initials, what do
they stand for? Refusing to post that means you're hiding behind an
alias as much as those you're dissing on.

Just because Paul doesn't sign every post with his full name does not
mean he has been hiding behind an alias. Hell, I've seen his full name
given in rec.arts.sf.tv within the last couple of months.

Only someone ignorant about 'PV's' posting history would be leveling
this charge against him.

(And I'll pre-empt any similar attack against me by 'outing' my name to
be James Ellis. Not every use of a handle or initials is an attempt to
hide.)

Biff

[Beowulf Bolt]

Post by Narcissus Jones
::: What a dick. *
:: That's the pot calling the kettle black.
: That might sting a bit if I knew who the fuck you are, but probably
:: not. *
So says the loudmouthed troll who posts using just "PV" and ends his
posts with a stupid asterisk. In other words, Jherrod was right, and
you are a black pot harasing a kettle about its color. And to prove my
point, every single post you've made on this group was posted in a
tone that was belligerant, obnoxious, inflammatory, and just down
right mean. It's bastards like you that have ruined usenet more than
the trolls have, and what you deserve is to have the living shit
beaten out of you just like any other shithead would be if they
behaved the way you do in a large gathering. But since you can hide
behind your monitor and modem, you feel you can mouth off with
impunity. Sadly, since nobody's nearby to bitchslap some sense back
into you, it's best to killfile you and be done with you and your
cowardly self.

Lighten up, Francis.

Biff

[OM]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:52:07 -0600, Beowulf Bolt

Post by Beowulf Bolt
Lighten up, Francis.

...Well, if PerVert wasn't, as pointed out, such an outright bastard
towards everyone, then he'd probably actually have more people
listening to his rants. Even though I've been known to bitchslap a
troll or twelve in my day, I rarely jump someone's shit like he does
over what are very minor points. People like that are just trolls in
Daffy's drag queen garb, and all that does is get them moved to the
front of the line leading into the Killfile Hell disco and sodomy bar.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

[Brad Templeton]

While this is an old piece, I always found it rather revisionist.

Benedict's lovable rogue was hardly his invention, nor do I suspect that
the suits, who funded the show based on the popularity of Star Wars,
were particularly opposed to it, though they might not have liked
certain tweaks of the character he did.

Benedict is right that the new show took the theme in an entirely
different direction. Back then when he wrote this, it was not as clear
how much critical judgement would say it was the far better direction.
Of course a few still disagree with that, and argument won't resolve it.

It's a shame he burned his bridges like this, though, for it is even
possible to have enjoyed both shows, something that the GINO crowd
doesn't accept very well. He could have pleased the fans with an
appearance, as Hatch did, possibly even as a loveable rogue, if he
wanted to.

[i***@san.rr.com]

Post by Brad Templeton
It's a shame he burned his bridges like this, though, for it is even
possible to have enjoyed both shows, something that the GINO crowd
doesn't accept very well.   He could have pleased the fans with an
appearance, as Hatch did, possibly even as a loveable rogue, if he
wanted to.

Why would he? - Like Dwight Schultz, Benedict has washed his hands of
Hollyweird.

Considering how much crap product they put out now, especially on the
movie end (though, if the All New! NEW!! BSG is in any way indicative
of future TV trends, TV will be heading the same way...), I can hardly
blame the sane people like Benedict and Schultz for telling Hollyweird
to "Shove it!"

[Alric Knebel]

Post by i***@san.rr.com

Post by Brad Templeton
It's a shame he burned his bridges like this, though, for it is even
possible to have enjoyed both shows, something that the GINO crowd
doesn't accept very well. He could have pleased the fans with an
appearance, as Hatch did, possibly even as a loveable rogue, if he
wanted to.

Why would he? - Like Dwight Schultz, Benedict has washed his hands of
Hollyweird.
Considering how much crap product they put out now, especially on the
movie end (though, if the All New! NEW!! BSG is in any way indicative
of future TV trends, TV will be heading the same way...), I can hardly
blame the sane people like Benedict and Schultz for telling Hollyweird
to "Shove it!"

I found that people who use the word "Hollyweird" -- from some idiotic
talk-show pie hole -- are generally stupid people who quit thinking a
long time ago.

[i***@san.rr.com]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by i***@san.rr.com

Post by Brad Templeton
It's a shame he burned his bridges like this, though, for it is even
possible to have enjoyed both shows, something that the GINO crowd
doesn't accept very well.   He could have pleased the fans with an
appearance, as Hatch did, possibly even as a loveable rogue, if he
wanted to.

Why would he? - Like Dwight Schultz, Benedict has washed his hands of
Hollyweird.
Considering how much crap product they put out now, especially on the
movie end (though, if the All New! NEW!! BSG is in any way indicative
of future TV trends, TV will be heading the same way...), I can hardly
blame the sane people like Benedict and Schultz for telling Hollyweird
to "Shove it!"

I found that people who use the word "Hollyweird" -- from some idiotic
talk-show pie hole -- are generally stupid people who quit thinking a
long time ago.

I'm sorry, who are you again?...

[Alric Knebel]

Post by i***@san.rr.com

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by i***@san.rr.com

Post by Brad Templeton
It's a shame he burned his bridges like this, though, for it is even
possible to have enjoyed both shows, something that the GINO crowd
doesn't accept very well. He could have pleased the fans with an
appearance, as Hatch did, possibly even as a loveable rogue, if he
wanted to.

Why would he? - Like Dwight Schultz, Benedict has washed his hands of
Hollyweird.
Considering how much crap product they put out now, especially on the
movie end (though, if the All New! NEW!! BSG is in any way indicative
of future TV trends, TV will be heading the same way...), I can hardly
blame the sane people like Benedict and Schultz for telling Hollyweird
to "Shove it!"

I found that people who use the word "Hollyweird" -- from some idiotic
talk-show pie hole -- are generally stupid people who quit thinking a
long time ago.

I'm sorry, who are you again?...

That YOU don't know me is supposed to indicate what?...

[Anlatt the Builder]

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict
Once upon a time, in what used to be a far away land called Hollywood (but is
now a state of mind and everywhere), a young actor was handed a script and
asked to bring to life a character called Starbuck. I am that actor. The
script was called “Battlestar Galactica....”

As the old quip goes: she's more woman than he'll ever have, and more
man than he'll ever be.

The character of Starbuck in the current BSG is better written, a more
interesting character, and more compellingly conflicted than anything
Dirk Benedict was ever given to work with. It also happens to be
better acted than anything he ever did.

The whole bit about "political correctness" is just garbage. Turn it
around: when the original BSG was created, the devil-may-care,
sexually-profligate, "wild" Starbuck HAD to be a male. The writers had
no choice back then. THAT was the "political correctness" of their
day. All today's writers have done is ask whether they are still stuck
with the sexist restrictions of an earlier day and, if not, whether it
might not be more interesting if this particular character was female?
And, lo and behold, it was.

That's not political correctness. That's taking advantage of
additional freedoms that were not available 30 years ago. If Dirk
Benedict wants to live in a decades-old status quo that limited the
roles of male and female characters, that's his right. But fortunately
the rest of us don't have to live there with him.

He sounds bitter, insecure, and threatened, like maybe the role of
Starbuck was the only thing he was holding on to. And now they went
and made "him" a GIRL? Does that somehow emasculate Dirk Benedict? Of
course not, but he sounds like he thinks it does.

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by Anlatt the Builder
He sounds bitter, insecure, and threatened, like maybe the role of
Starbuck was the only thing he was holding on to. And now they went
and made "him" a GIRL? Does that somehow emasculate Dirk Benedict? Of
course not, but he sounds like he thinks it does.

Thank you for very eloquently stating what my reaction was. "What a dick"
is more pithy though. *

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Ubiquitous
by Dirk Benedict
Once upon a time, in what used to be a far away land called Hollywood (but is
now a state of mind and everywhere), a young actor was handed a script and
asked to bring to life a character called Starbuck. I am that actor. The
script was called “Battlestar Galactica.”
Fortunately, I was young, my imagination fertile and adrenal glands strong,
because bringing Starbuck to life was over the dead imaginations of a lot of
Network Executives. Every character trait I struggled to give him was met with
vigorous resistance. A charming womanizer? The “Suits” (Network Executives)
hated it. A cigar (fumerello) smoker? The Suits hated it. A reluctant hero who
found humor in the bleakest of situations? The Suits hated it. All this
negative feedback convinced me I was on the right track.
Starbuck was meant to be a lovable rogue. It was best for the show, best for
the character and the best that I could do. The Suits didn’t think so. “One
more cigar and he’s fired,” they told Glen Larson, the creator of the show.
“We want Starbuck to appeal to the female audience for crying out loud.” You
see, the Suits knew women were turned off by men who smoked cigars, especially
young men. How they “knew” this was never revealed. And they didn’t stop
there. “If Dirk doesn’t quit playing every scene with a girl like he wants to
get her in bed, he’s fired.” This was, well, it was blatant heterosexuality,
treating women like “sex objects.” I thought it was flirting. Never mind, they
wouldn’t have it. I wouldn’t have it any other way, or rather Starbuck
wouldn’t. So we persevered, Starbuck and I. The show, as the saying goes, went
on and the rest is history for, lo and behold, women from all over the world
sent me boxes of cigars, phone numbers, dinner requests, and marriage
proposals.
The Suits were not impressed. They would have their way, which is what Suits
do best, and after one season of puffing and flirting and gambling, Starbuck,
that loveable scoundrel, was indeed fired. Which is to say, “Battlestar
Galactica” was cancelled. Starbuck, however, would not stay cancelled, but
simply morphed into another flirting, cigar smoking, blatant heterosexual
called Faceman. Another show, another set of Suits, and of course, if The
“A-Team” movie rumors prove correct, another remake.
There was a time, I know I was there, when men were men, women were women and
sometimes a cigar was just a good smoke. But 40 years of feminism have taken
their toll. The war against masculinity has been won. Everything has turned
into its opposite, so that what was once flirting and smoking is now sexual
harassment and criminal. And everyone is more lonely and miserable as a
result.
Witness the “re-imagined” “Battlestar Galactica,” bleak, miserable,
despairing, angry and confused. Which is to say, it reflects in microcosm the
complete change in the politics and morality of today’s world, as opposed to
the world of yesterday. The world of Lorne Greene (Adama), Fred Astaire
(Starbuck’s Poppa) and Dirk Benedict (Starbuck). I would guess Lorne is glad
he’s in that Big Bonanza in the sky and well out of it. Starbuck, alas, has
not been so lucky. He’s not been left to pass quietly into that trivial world
of cancelled TV characters.
“Re-imagining”, they call it. “Un-imagining” is more accurate. To take what
once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show
based on hope, spiritual faith and family is un-imagined and regurgitated as a
show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction. To better reflect the
times of ambiguous morality in which we live, one would assume. A show in
which the aliens (Cylons) are justified in their desire to destroy human
civilization, one would assume. Indeed, let us not say who the good guys are
and who the bad are. That is being “judgmental,” taking sides, and that kind
of (simplistic) thinking went out with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and
Kathryn Hepburn and John Wayne and, well, the original “Battlestar Galactica.”
In the bleak and miserable “re-imagined” world of “Battlestar Galactica,”
things are never that simple. Maybe the Cylons are not evil and alien but in
fact enlightened and evolved? Let us not judge them so harshly. Maybe it is
they who deserve to live and Adama and his human ilk who deserve to die? And
what a way to go! For the re-imagined terrorists (Cylons) are not mechanical
robots void of soul, of sexuality, but rather humanoid six foot tall former
lingerie models who f**k you to death. (Poor old Starbuck, you were imagined
too early. Think of the fun you could have had ‘fighting’ with these
thong-clad aliens!) In the spirit of such soft-core, sci-fi porn I think a
more re-imaginative title would have been “F**cked by A Cylon.” (Apologies to
“Touched by an Angel.”)
One thing is certain. In the new un-imagined, re-imagined world of “Battlestar
Galactica” everything is female driven. The male characters, from Adama on
down, are confused, weak and wracked with indecision, while the female
characters are decisive, bold, angry as hell, puffing cigars (gasp!) and not
about to take it any more.
One can quickly surmise what a problem the original Starbuck created for the
re-imaginators. Starbuck was all charm and humor and flirting without an angry
bone in his womanizing body. Yes, he was definitely “female driven,” but not
in the politically correct ways of Re-imagined Television. What to do,
wondered the Re-imaginators? Keep him as he was, with a twinkle in his eye, a
stogie in his mouth and a girl in every galaxy? This could not be. He would
stick out like, well, like a jock strap in a drawer of thongs. Starbuck
refused to be re-imagined. It became the Great Dilemma. How to have your
Starbuck and delete him too?
The best minds in the world of un-imagination doubled their intake of Double
Soy Latte’s as they gathered in their smoke-free offices to curse the day that
this chauvinistic Viper Pilot was allowed to be. But never under-estimate the
power of the un-imaginative mind when it encounters an obstacle (character) it
subconsciously loathes. ”Re-inspiration” struck. Starbuck would go the way of
most men in today’s society. Starbuck would become “Stardoe.” What the Suits
of yesteryear had been incapable of doing to Starbuck 25 years ago was
accomplished quicker than you can say orchiectomy. Much quicker, as in, “Frak!
Gonads Gone!”
And the word went out to all the Suits in all the smoke-free offices
throughout the land of Un-imagination, “Starbuck is dead. Long live Stardoe!”
I’m not sure if a cigar in the mouth of Stardoe resonates in the same way it
did in the mouth of Starbuck. Perhaps. Perhaps it “resonates” more. Perhaps
that’s the point. I’m not sure. What I am sure of is this…
Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Hamlet does not scan as Hamletta. Nor
does Hans Solo as Hans Sally. Faceman is not the same as Facewoman. Nor does a
Stardoe a Starbuck make. Men hand out cigars. Women “hand out” babies. And
thus the world for thousands of years has gone’ round.
I am also sure that Show Business has been morphing for many decades now and
has finally become Biz Business. The creative artists have lost and the Suits
have won. Suits. Administrators. Technocrats. Metro-sexual money-men (and
women), who create ever more efficient formulas to guarantee profit margins.
Because movies and television shows are not made to enlighten or even
entertain, but simply to make money. They will tell you it is (still) about
story and character, but all it is really about is efficiency. About the
Formula. Because Harvard Business School Technocrats run Hollywood and what
Technocrats know is what must be removed from all business is Risk. And I tell
you, life, real life, is all about risk. I tell you that without risk you have
no creativity, no art. I tell you that without risk you have Remakes. You
have, “Charlie’s Angels,” “The Saint,” “Mission Impossible,” “The A Team”
(coming soon), and “Battlestar Galactica.”
All risk-free brand names, franchises.
For you see, TV shows (and movies) are made and sold according to the same
business formula as hamburger franchises. So that it matters not if it is the
“best” hamburger, what matters is that you “think” it is the best. And you do
“think” it is the best, because you have been told to; because all of your
favorite celebrities are seen munching it on TV. The big money is not spent on
making the hamburger or the television show, but on the marketing of the
hamburger/show. (One 60 second commercial can cost more than it does to film a
one-hour episode.) It matters not to Suits if it is Starbuck or Stardoe, if
the Cylons are robots or lingerie models, if the show is full of optimism and
morality or pessimism and amorality. What matters is that it is marketed well,
so that all you people out there in TV land know that you must see this show.
And after you see it, you are told that you should like it. That it is new and
bold and sleek and sexy and best of all … it is Re-imagined!
So grab a Coke from the fridge (not the Classic Coke, but the re-imagined kind
with fewer calories) and send out for a McDonald’s hamburger (the re-imagined
one with fewer carbs), and tune in to Stardoe and Cylon #6 (or was it #69?)
and Enjoy the Show.
And if you don’t enjoy the show, or the hamburger and coke, it’s not the fault
of those re-imaginative technocrats that brought them to you. It is your
fault. You and your individual instincts, tastes and judgment — your refusal
to let go of the memory of the show that once was. You just don’t know what is
good for you. But stay tuned. After another 13 episodes (and millions of
dollars of marketing), you will see the light. You, your instincts, your
judgment, are wrong. McDonald’s is the best hamburger on the planet, Coca-Cola
the best drink, and Stardoe is the best Viper Pilot in the Galaxy.
And “Battlestar Galactica,” contrary to what your memory tells you, never
existed before the Re-imagination of 2004.
I disagree. But perhaps, you had to be there.

This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple. The
"un-imagned" BALLTLESTAR GALACTICA is far superior to the original, in
almost everyone's mind, young and old. The original wasn't much more
than an excuse to produce Star Wars-borrowed special effects, and ride
the craze that that movie was. Science fiction was still trying to find
its sea legs, and was limited by the very suits he was describing. It's
different now. He had it wrong. The suits are looking for something
that's bold, not some 1960s cliched Lothario. He made it sound like he
was presenting a bold new type of character, and really what he was
presenting a cardboard cutout of a human being. His choices in
presenting that character weren't expressions of his acting range; it
was evidence of his limitations. That fact is reiterated by his turning
in the same identical character in a different show. He wasn't acting;
he was mugging for the ladies, taking the cheap shot to fame.

His complaining is ridiculous. The "un-imagining" of BATTELSTAR
GALATICA is far superior to the original. Show me someone who says
otherwise.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

That the movie in question was popular and started a trend, it didn't
erase the memory of other movies made a few years prior to it.

[OM]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:12:27 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

...Not *totally* correct. BGOS also knocked off several big-budget
films, including "Guns of Navarone", "Magnificent Seven", and to some
extent "Patton" and "MacArthur".

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by OM

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

...Not *totally* correct. BGOS also knocked off several big-budget
films, including "Guns of Navarone", "Magnificent Seven", and to some
extent "Patton" and "MacArthur".

I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.

[OM]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:14:54 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.

...Depends on which half of the 70's we're talking about. After 1975,
they started getting more optimistic because viewers a) were starting
to get tired of the anti-hero, anti-war sentimentalities that Vietnam
had produced, and b) people needed some sort of a brief adventurous
escape from how shitty life under the Carter Misadministration had
become.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by OM

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.

...Depends on which half of the 70's we're talking about. After 1975,
they started getting more optimistic because viewers a) were starting
to get tired of the anti-hero, anti-war sentimentalities that Vietnam
had produced, and b) people needed some sort of a brief adventurous
escape from how shitty life under the Carter Misadministration had
become.

Oh. You were one of those who rooted for the shark in "Jaws".

[Exhibitionist]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:36:58 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.

...Depends on which half of the 70's we're talking about. After 1975,
they started getting more optimistic because viewers a) were starting
to get tired of the anti-hero, anti-war sentimentalities that Vietnam
had produced, and b) people needed some sort of a brief adventurous
escape from how shitty life under the Carter Misadministration had
become.

Oh. You were one of those who rooted for the shark in "Jaws".

Let's face it: nobody went to see Roy Schneider.

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by Exhibitionist

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Oh. You were one of those who rooted for the shark in "Jaws".

Let's face it: nobody went to see Roy Schneider.

I just recently watched Jaws after not seeing it for 20 years. The "three
men in a boat" part of the movie is amazingly good. Come for the shark,
stay for the male bonding. I don't remember the movie being as good as
this - I enjoyed the hell out of it. *

[Alric Knebel]

Post by OM
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:14:54 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.

...Depends on which half of the 70's we're talking about. After 1975,
they started getting more optimistic because viewers a) were starting
to get tired of the anti-hero, anti-war sentimentalities that Vietnam
had produced, and b) people needed some sort of a brief adventurous
escape from how shitty life under the Carter Misadministration had
become.

LOL! Yeah. That's what it was all about, escaping the Carter
Administration, so they dumbed down the programming.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

...Not *totally* correct. BGOS also knocked off several big-budget
films, including "Guns of Navarone", "Magnificent Seven", and to some
extent "Patton" and "MacArthur".

I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.

I never even used the word "optimistic" in my response. I said it was
like everything else out at the time -- and since then, I've clarified,
that I meant DRAMATIC series -- that it was ham-handed and simple. What
I mean is, the writing depended on things like a womanizing Starbuck and
other gimmicks that appeal to the mass audiences. They were not
anything like the quality of cinema, with deep rich characters.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

...Not *totally* correct. BGOS also knocked off several big-budget
films, including "Guns of Navarone", "Magnificent Seven", and to some
extent "Patton" and "MacArthur".

I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.

I never even used the word "optimistic" in my response. I said it was
like everything else out at the time -- and since then, I've clarified,
that I meant DRAMATIC series -- that it was ham-handed and simple. What
I mean is, the writing depended on things like a womanizing Starbuck and
other gimmicks that appeal to the mass audiences. They were not
anything like the quality of cinema, with deep rich characters.

For the 20th time, not every dramatic program in the 1970's were like
that. But I can see how you might think that if you watched nothing but
what Glen Larson produced.

You're wrong. The '70's, like any era, had decent television for the
discriminating viewer. Just because YOU weren't that viewer, don't claim
that none of the rest of us was.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

...Not *totally* correct. BGOS also knocked off several big-budget
films, including "Guns of Navarone", "Magnificent Seven", and to some
extent "Patton" and "MacArthur".

I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.

I never even used the word "optimistic" in my response. I said it was
like everything else out at the time -- and since then, I've clarified,
that I meant DRAMATIC series -- that it was ham-handed and simple. What
I mean is, the writing depended on things like a womanizing Starbuck and
other gimmicks that appeal to the mass audiences. They were not
anything like the quality of cinema, with deep rich characters.

For the 20th time, not every dramatic program in the 1970's were like
that. But I can see how you might think that if you watched nothing but
what Glen Larson produced.

Don't be stupid. I was a big TV watcher. There was no marked
difference in quality from the 60s to the 70s. The fact that I can't
remember any exceptions -- COLUMBO sort of comes to mind, but that's
more of a fun show than real drama -- seems to make my point. Someone
mentioned ROCKFORD FILES, but I didn't think that show was in any way
exceptional. You either liked it or you didn't, but if you liked it, it
wasn't because it was this exceptional show. It was a typical detective
show, and those things had been on since nearly the inception of
broadcast TV.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You're wrong. The '70's, like any era, had decent television for the
discriminating viewer. Just because YOU weren't that viewer, don't claim
that none of the rest of us was.

Name those shows. I'm talking about a weekly series, not some special
event, made-for-TV thing into which they dumped a large budget. I'm
talking about weekly TV series with dramatic themes. I'm not saying
there are NONE, but the good ones are the rare exception. TV rarely
takes risks, because the programming is designed to attract advertising
dollars. They like to stay away from controversy. These days, TV is
far better because almost all of the series have some longer story arc
that allows the writers to develop characters beyond a single episode.

[Just go look it up!]

Post by Alric Knebel
Name those shows. I'm talking about a weekly series, not some special
event, made-for-TV thing into which they dumped a large budget. I'm
talking about weekly TV series with dramatic themes. I'm not saying
there are NONE, but the good ones are the rare exception. TV rarely
takes risks, because the programming is designed to attract advertising
dollars. They like to stay away from controversy. These days, TV is
far better because almost all of the series have some longer story arc
that allows the writers to develop characters beyond a single episode.

MASH?

I'd also throw in Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere but I don't
think they came along until the early 80s.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Just go look it up!

Post by Alric Knebel
Name those shows. I'm talking about a weekly series, not some special
event, made-for-TV thing into which they dumped a large budget. I'm
talking about weekly TV series with dramatic themes. I'm not saying
there are NONE, but the good ones are the rare exception. TV rarely
takes risks, because the programming is designed to attract advertising
dollars. They like to stay away from controversy. These days, TV is
far better because almost all of the series have some longer story arc
that allows the writers to develop characters beyond a single episode.

MASH?
I'd also throw in Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere but I don't
think they came along until the early 80s.

That's right. They did. And I believe that it was the development of
so much cable programming that raised the standard.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM

Post by Adam H. Kerman
You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

...Not *totally* correct. BGOS also knocked off several big-budget
films, including "Guns of Navarone", "Magnificent Seven", and to some
extent "Patton" and "MacArthur".

I know; not all of those were '70's movies. I just think he was nuts for
claiming '70's movies were optimistic, generally. The hell they were.

I never even used the word "optimistic" in my response. I said it was
like everything else out at the time -- and since then, I've clarified,
that I meant DRAMATIC series -- that it was ham-handed and simple. What
I mean is, the writing depended on things like a womanizing Starbuck and
other gimmicks that appeal to the mass audiences. They were not
anything like the quality of cinema, with deep rich characters.

For the 20th time, not every dramatic program in the 1970's were like
that. But I can see how you might think that if you watched nothing but
what Glen Larson produced.

Don't be stupid. I was a big TV watcher. There was no marked
difference in quality from the 60s to the 70s.

Goody. Did someone force you to watch crap? In our next episode, will it
be revealed that you were Anim's father?

Post by Alric Knebel
The fact that I can't remember any exceptions -- COLUMBO sort of comes
to mind, but that's more of a fun show than real drama -- seems to make
my point. Someone mentioned ROCKFORD FILES, but I didn't think that
show was in any way exceptional. You either liked it or you didn't,
but if you liked it, it wasn't because it was this exceptional show.
It was a typical detective show, and those things had been on since
nearly the inception of broadcast TV.

Please stop lecturing everybody. By admitting that you weren't a
discriminating viewer as the excuse for being unable to distinguish or
discern quality from what you watched, your opinion is hardly well
reasoned. You're simply loud and obnoxious.

Post by Alric Knebel
Name those shows. . . .

Forget it. You're unpleasant, predictable, so I can see where this
nondiscussion is going. I'm changing channels.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple, as were
most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime after). I'm talking
about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not CINEMA.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
That the movie in question was popular and started a trend, it didn't
erase the memory of other movies made a few years prior to it.

I never said a word about MOVIES. I was talking about TV series.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple, as were
most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime after). I'm talking
about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not CINEMA.

There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

[samson]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple, as were
most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime after). I'm talking
about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not CINEMA.

There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple, as were
most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime after). I'm talking
about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not CINEMA.

There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

Are you serious? You can't think of any good television from an entire
decade?

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple, as were
most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime after). I'm talking
about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not CINEMA.

There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

Are you serious? You can't think of any good television from an entire
decade?

I was serious when I said it. That you can think of one or two
exceptions means only that I oversimplified my statement. What I said
was generally true.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple, as were
most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime after). I'm talking
about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not CINEMA.

There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

Are you serious? You can't think of any good television from an entire
decade?

I was serious when I said it. That you can think of one or two
exceptions means only that I oversimplified my statement. What I said
was generally true.

I enjoyed for more than one or two programs, and I will not acknowledge
that they were exceptions.

It's like I'm talking to a 70 year old WQ.

In the opinion of many, the '70's were terrific for television comedy,
which has been a low point of late. "Big Bang Theory" has been an all
too rare exception.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple, as were
most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime after). I'm talking
about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not CINEMA.

There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

Are you serious? You can't think of any good television from an entire
decade?

I was serious when I said it. That you can think of one or two
exceptions means only that I oversimplified my statement. What I said
was generally true.

I enjoyed for more than one or two programs, and I will not acknowledge
that they were exceptions.
It's like I'm talking to a 70 year old WQ.
In the opinion of many, the '70's were terrific for television comedy,
which has been a low point of late. "Big Bang Theory" has been an all
too rare exception.

I feel like I'm talking to someone with extremely low tastes, if we must
get started with the insults. That gotten out of the way, I said
elsewhere that my generalization was intended toward DRAMA, the serious
fare. And whether your tastes can handle the truth or not, the good
ones were the exception. I even liked some of the things that I now see
weren't really all that good. As someone else in the thread said, take
a show like THE INVADERS. Absolutely loved it. I never missed a single
episode during its entire run. I bought the 1st Season set, and I liked
it a pretty good bit, but clearly, looking back, it was a show, churned
out by a media factory, on schedule, on budget, so the network can sell
air time for sponsors. But I was a teenager then, and what did I know?
I experienced the same reaction when I bought THE WILD WILD WEST. I
enjoyed seeing this again, in such pristine condition, but it was some
pretty campy stuff. It didn't stop me from enjoying it, but I
definitely understood how somebody wouldn't. I chose to ignore the
not-so-high production standards, and just enjoyed it, ignoring the camp
it was. And the thing is, at the time, I was the only one taking it
that seriously. It was typical of shows at the time, and the 70s were
no different. There are exceptions, but most of it was not very good.


And when I'm saying this, I'm talking strictly of drama-oriented
programs. Comedies, of course, weren't ever to be taken seriously.

[peachy ashie passion]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and
television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple,
as were most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime
after). I'm talking about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not
CINEMA.

There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

Are you serious? You can't think of any good television from an entire
decade?

I was serious when I said it. That you can think of one or two
exceptions means only that I oversimplified my statement. What I
said was generally true.

I enjoyed for more than one or two programs, and I will not acknowledge
that they were exceptions.
It's like I'm talking to a 70 year old WQ.
In the opinion of many, the '70's were terrific for television comedy,
which has been a low point of late. "Big Bang Theory" has been an all
too rare exception.

I feel like I'm talking to someone with extremely low tastes, if we must
get started with the insults. That gotten out of the way, I said
elsewhere that my generalization was intended toward DRAMA, the serious
fare. And whether your tastes can handle the truth or not, the good
ones were the exception.

Okay, but once you've watered it down this far, isn't that an eternal
truism?

Of course the high quality stuff was an exception in the 1970s. And
the 80s, 90s, and this decade too. And it always is.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and
television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple,
as were most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime
after). I'm talking about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not
CINEMA.

There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

Are you serious? You can't think of any good television from an entire
decade?

I was serious when I said it. That you can think of one or two
exceptions means only that I oversimplified my statement. What I
said was generally true.

I enjoyed for more than one or two programs, and I will not acknowledge
that they were exceptions.
It's like I'm talking to a 70 year old WQ.
In the opinion of many, the '70's were terrific for television comedy,
which has been a low point of late. "Big Bang Theory" has been an all
too rare exception.

I feel like I'm talking to someone with extremely low tastes, if we
must get started with the insults. That gotten out of the way, I said
elsewhere that my generalization was intended toward DRAMA, the
serious fare. And whether your tastes can handle the truth or not,
the good ones were the exception.

Okay, but once you've watered it down this far, isn't that an eternal
truism?
Of course the high quality stuff was an exception in the 1970s. And
the 80s, 90s, and this decade too. And it always is.

But a show with production values like the one I'm talking about, and
with scripts like those, wouldn't even last. Take ROCKFORD FILES. A
show like that wouldn't blip on the ratings radar more than a couple of
weeks with scripts like those. Everything seemed like it was based on
some remnant of an Agatha Christie novel.

And it's true that the truly great ones are the exception, but these
days, even most of the failures -- again, I'm talking DRAMA (and science
fiction) -- have pretty decent production values. In other words, with
all the competition, they have to make stellar effort, right out of the
starting gate. Back in the day of the ROCKFORD FILES, you had literally
three choices for entertainment, and so the three networks pretty much
used the same formulas year after year. Every now and then someone
would get a real pair of balls and try something bold, and I think THE
PRISONER was far ahead of everyone else in the balls department.
Generally, though, everything was safe, tried and true.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Alric Knebel
I feel like I'm talking to someone with extremely low tastes,

No! You started in on the condescension several rounds back. Oddly, you
admitted to watching lots of tv in the '70's. Something doesn't track.

[OM]

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by OM

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

You know, I don't remember "Name of the Game" when I was a kid. I have
no idea why we didn't watch it. And I don't recall the show turning up
in second run. I think I would have tuned in out of curiousity about the
title. And I don't think I was allowed to watch "I, Claudius". I've seen
it since.

"MASH" requires qualification...

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

You know, I don't remember "Name of the Game" when I was a kid. I have
no idea why we didn't watch it. And I don't recall the show turning up
in second run. I think I would have tuned in out of curiousity about the
title. And I don't think I was allowed to watch "I, Claudius". I've seen
it since.
"MASH" requires qualification...

What does that mean? Not that it matters much to my claim, because I
was talking about dramatic TV, not sitcoms and documentaries.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

You know, I don't remember "Name of the Game" when I was a kid. I have
no idea why we didn't watch it. And I don't recall the show turning up
in second run. I think I would have tuned in out of curiousity about the
title. And I don't think I was allowed to watch "I, Claudius". I've seen
it since.
"MASH" requires qualification...

What does that mean? Not that it matters much to my claim, because I
was talking about dramatic TV, not sitcoms and documentaries.

I thought you were talking about movies, since a couple of us mentioned
"Star Wars"; no matter.

"MASH" was on the air much too long. Stories were funnier before the
original cast changed, but that was probably due to Larry Gelbart. Alan
Alda got way too much influence over the show, and when the show was
about Alan Alda versus the Viet Nam War or versus some other modern
political belief, the episode was boring. Unless you read the book or
saw the movie, you might forget that Hawkeye was married and cheating on
his wife, just like everyone else. Seasons later, Col Potter and B.J.
were married and NOT cheating on their wives, a huge variance from
"MASH". But the show never really recovered from the loss of Larry
Linville, in my opinion the greatest television foil of all, a lot
funnier than Ted Knight as Ted Baxter on "Mary Tyler Moore". But he was
bored of the show and didn't think there was anything else to do with
his character.

I didn't like the rhythm they used in the scripts in later seasons,
particularly Potter and Klinger's lines.

Considering how many seasons the show was on the air with the new cast,
most viewers must have enjoyed the post-Gelbart changes.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

You know, I don't remember "Name of the Game" when I was a kid. I have
no idea why we didn't watch it. And I don't recall the show turning up
in second run. I think I would have tuned in out of curiousity about the
title. And I don't think I was allowed to watch "I, Claudius". I've seen
it since.
"MASH" requires qualification...

What does that mean? Not that it matters much to my claim, because I
was talking about dramatic TV, not sitcoms and documentaries.

I thought you were talking about movies, since a couple of us mentioned
"Star Wars"; no matter.
"MASH" was on the air much too long. Stories were funnier before the
original cast changed, but that was probably due to Larry Gelbart. Alan
Alda got way too much influence over the show, and when the show was
about Alan Alda versus the Viet Nam War or versus some other modern
political belief, the episode was boring. Unless you read the book or
saw the movie, you might forget that Hawkeye was married and cheating on
his wife, just like everyone else. Seasons later, Col Potter and B.J.
were married and NOT cheating on their wives, a huge variance from
"MASH". But the show never really recovered from the loss of Larry
Linville, in my opinion the greatest television foil of all, a lot
funnier than Ted Knight as Ted Baxter on "Mary Tyler Moore". But he was
bored of the show and didn't think there was anything else to do with
his character.
I didn't like the rhythm they used in the scripts in later seasons,
particularly Potter and Klinger's lines.
Considering how many seasons the show was on the air with the new cast,
most viewers must have enjoyed the post-Gelbart changes.

I pretty much agree with that. I agree too with the loss of Larry
Linville. The show took it's subtext too seriously that it became
pretext, and I got so tired of the "message" ("I'm sick of having to
pull shrapnel out of these kids"). And the ending was way too serious.I
liked it better when it was all conniving and quick banter.

As for my comment that initiated this, I meant only DRAMATIC television.
There were always great movies in the cinema, and some of the
made-for-TV series were fantastic. Of course there's ROOTS, and one of
the most memorable, JESUS OF NAZARETH for me. And in 1981 (it's AROUND
that same period), one of my all time favorites, EAST OF EDEN. But I
found standard series television extremely dull. Something about them
made them all alike.

[OM]

Post by Alric Knebel
Of course there's ROOTS, and one of
the most memorable, JESUS OF NAZARETH for me.

...Being a southern white honkey cracker, I can be forgiven for having
forgotten about "Roots", even though I won an award back when I worked
at a local TV station for "Best Caption of a Promotional Photo". They
had this pick of LeVar Burton as Kunta Kinte, after he'd been captured
and locked up to be sold. I took his eyes and in those
pre-Photochopping days, hand painted a VISOR over them, and added the
following caption:

"Data, there are some days I think we should just chunk the Holodeck,
kit and caboodle, out the airlock!"

...As for "Jesus", NBC hyped that one to the point that the promos are
still parody fodder today. "Tonight, NBC presents the most important
drama in the history of televison". it was good, but not *that* good.
Hell, even SNL got in trouble for trying to parody it with "Jesus of
Nashville".

OM

--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

[Alric Knebel]

Post by OM

Post by Alric Knebel
Of course there's ROOTS, and one of
the most memorable, JESUS OF NAZARETH for me.

...Being a southern white honkey cracker, I can be forgiven for having
forgotten about "Roots", even though I won an award back when I worked
at a local TV station for "Best Caption of a Promotional Photo". They
had this pick of LeVar Burton as Kunta Kinte, after he'd been captured
and locked up to be sold. I took his eyes and in those
pre-Photochopping days, hand painted a VISOR over them, and added the
"Data, there are some days I think we should just chunk the Holodeck,
kit and caboodle, out the airlock!"
...As for "Jesus", NBC hyped that one to the point that the promos are
still parody fodder today. "Tonight, NBC presents the most important
drama in the history of televison". it was good, but not *that* good.
Hell, even SNL got in trouble for trying to parody it with "Jesus of
Nashville".

Those were both really cute segues. I don't remember the promos, though.

[Anim8rFSK]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

You know, I don't remember "Name of the Game" when I was a kid. I have
no idea why we didn't watch it. And I don't recall the show turning up
in second run. I think I would have tuned in out of curiousity about the
title.

Might have been because it was 90 minutes. A lot of the 90 minute stuff
just didn't get watched because it was too darn long and opposite too
many other things.

[pv+ (PV)]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by OM
..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

You know, I don't remember "Name of the Game" when I was a kid. I have
no idea why we didn't watch it. And I don't recall the show turning up

"Name of the Game" was a 60s series, not a 70s one. The pilot aired in
1966. Great show though. *

[Alric Knebel]

Post by OM

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

"Cosmos" doesn't count as it's a documentary show, and the same with
"The World at War." When I made my comment, I was talking about
DRAMATIC series. Not sitcoms.

"I, Claudius" was a PBS miniseries, with a limited run. So of course
that was quality. The other shows you mentioned fall into the category
I was talking about. They were dull detective shows thrown together per
week, to fill a time slot. They weren't that good.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by OM

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

"Cosmos" doesn't count as it's a documentary show, and the same with
"The World at War." When I made my comment, I was talking about
DRAMATIC series. Not sitcoms.
"I, Claudius" was a PBS miniseries, with a limited run. So of course
that was quality. The other shows you mentioned fall into the category
I was talking about. They were dull detective shows thrown together per
week, to fill a time slot. They weren't that good.

It seems you have no clue what "Name of the Game" was and are just
spouting off, and I doubt you watched "Rockford" either, which generally
makes people's favorites lists among viewers who recall that era.

Name of the Game had a pilot movie in 1966 and three seasons, 68-69 to
70-71. I was a little young to have watched it. It counts only in part.

I Claudius was a serial, and considering it had 13 episodes it
wasn't a mini series. Produced by BBC, it was aired during the seventh
season of "Masterpiece Theater" in America, and the first and possibly
last time brief nudity was shown on American tv. While it was British
and doesn't fit your rant against American television, it's an example
that drama on American television wasn't the vaste wasteland you would
have the rest of us believe.

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by OM

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

"Cosmos" doesn't count as it's a documentary show, and the same with
"The World at War." When I made my comment, I was talking about
DRAMATIC series. Not sitcoms.
"I, Claudius" was a PBS miniseries, with a limited run. So of course
that was quality. The other shows you mentioned fall into the category
I was talking about. They were dull detective shows thrown together per
week, to fill a time slot. They weren't that good.

It seems you have no clue what "Name of the Game" was and are just
spouting off, and I doubt you watched "Rockford" either, which generally
makes people's favorites lists among viewers who recall that era.

Yes, I did watch those shows. I didn't really dislike them, but I
didn't care for them particularly either. By that time, I'd seen
hundreds of theatrical movies (I was 23), and the difference in quality
as expressed in style and vision is apparent. TV tends to be paced all
the same, with a glib style, which it is, because not much rehearsal is
performed, and it's just shoot and cut. It shows. The end product is
bland.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Name of the Game had a pilot movie in 1966 and three seasons, 68-69 to
70-71. I was a little young to have watched it. It counts only in part.
I Claudius was a serial, and considering it had 13 episodes it
wasn't a mini series. Produced by BBC, it was aired during the seventh
season of "Masterpiece Theater" in America, and the first and possibly
last time brief nudity was shown on American tv. While it was British
and doesn't fit your rant against American television, it's an example
that drama on American television wasn't the vaste wasteland you would
have the rest of us believe.

You mentioned THREE shows. THREE. And you can split a hair about I,
CLAUDIUS -- over what you'd like to call it, a serial or a miniseries --
the point remains, it wasn't a weekly series that was open-ended run. I
saw I, CLAUDIUS, and liked it a lot. Because it was an adaptation of a
novel, it was set for so many episodes, and was therefore a complete
concept. It didn't have to hunt for where it was going, because it was
already a well-written novel, with characters meticulously defined. But
weekly television was not very good. Most of series do not stand the
test of time. And that's MOST of them. You might have a nostalgic
affection for them -- I have such an affection for some 60s series TV
(THE WILD WILD WEST and THE INVADERS), but I can see that they're TV
series with typical production values. That I love them doesn't alter
that simple fact of what they are.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by OM

Post by samson

Post by Adam H. Kerman
There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

For example?

..."Cosmos", "M*A*S*H", "The World at War", "Name of the Game",
"Rockford Files", "I, Claudius", "All in the Family", just to name a
few.

"Cosmos" doesn't count as it's a documentary show, and the same with
"The World at War." When I made my comment, I was talking about
DRAMATIC series. Not sitcoms.
"I, Claudius" was a PBS miniseries, with a limited run. So of course
that was quality. The other shows you mentioned fall into the category
I was talking about. They were dull detective shows thrown together per
week, to fill a time slot. They weren't that good.

It seems you have no clue what "Name of the Game" was and are just
spouting off, and I doubt you watched "Rockford" either, which generally
makes people's favorites lists among viewers who recall that era.

Yes, I did watch those shows. I didn't really dislike them, but I
didn't care for them particularly either. By that time, I'd seen
hundreds of theatrical movies (I was 23), and the difference in quality
as expressed in style and vision is apparent. TV tends to be paced all
the same, with a glib style, which it is, because not much rehearsal is
performed, and it's just shoot and cut. It shows. The end product is
bland.

Huh. So you learned that tv and movies are different media. Thanks for
the alert.

So you're not backing off your claim that "Name of the Game" was just
another dull detective show.

Post by Alric Knebel
You mentioned THREE shows. THREE. And you can split a hair about I,
CLAUDIUS -- over what you'd like to call it, a serial or a miniseries --
the point remains, it wasn't a weekly series that was open-ended run.

There's no point in bringing up additional examples to someone who keeps
declaring new parameters. It's an example of a high quality drama available
to discriminating viewers of '70's television that wasn't crap.

Oh, btw, just because it was imported doesn't make it better. One
assumes that a lot of foreign-produced programming fails to get sold in
the United States because it's even more highly selective than what's
chosen from American productions.

Post by Alric Knebel
Because it was an adaptation of a novel,

As long as we're being pedantic, a two-novel series.

Post by Alric Knebel
it was set for so many episodes, and was therefore a complete concept.

Uh, yeah. The overall title of the anthology was "Masterpiece Theatre".
They weren't all masterpieces, but it did suggest that it was television
adaptations of novels. The famous "Upstairs Downstairs" was original to
television.

That it was all plotted out and had a concluding episode... thank ghod
for small favors. I wish every series was like that.

Post by Alric Knebel
Most of series do not stand the test of time. . . .

And we have yet another new parameter.

In our next episode, what will the new complaint be: Old fashioned
special effects? Discussion of social norms unlike today's society? Ugly
fashion trends? Big hair? Skinny ties? Lapels too wide or too narrow?

[Alric Knebel]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Alric Knebel
This sounded like a bitter rant over nothing. The original show came
from an era in which everything was ham-handed and simple.

You're insane. Please rewatch 1970s movies. The show emulated ONE
PARTICULAR MOVIE that was emulated by other movies and television shows.

What's your point? That movie itself was ham-handed and simple, as were
most TV shows of that era and before (and sometime after). I'm talking
about NETWORK television. Not FILMS. Not CINEMA.

There was some damn good television in the '70's that was neither ham
handed nor simple, none of which was produced by Mr. Larson. You wanna
rethink your all-encompassing remark?

No. I can't recall any standout series of the 70s.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Lt. Starbuck: Lost In Castration.
by Dirk Benedict

The message is restated in full, below, so it's readable.

Through the magic of filtering commands, I managed to turn this into a
plain text post. These things are easy to do for those of you concerned
about preparing plain text for the rest of us who have this crazy notion
that Usenet is a plain text medium, and not, oh, the Web.

Why isn't this readable for me? I don't want to hear any crap about how
I'm not using standards-compliant modern clients. Wrong. It's marked in
the MIME headers (usable but nonstandard for Usenet) as the Latin 1
character set, ISO-8859-1. This character set DOES NOT include certain
characters used in this message, particularly the non-ASCII single and
double quotes from typesetting, sometimes called "curly quotes". They
come in left and right flavors.

The character set was mismarked. It matters not that it's readable on
the terminals of SOME PEOPLE. The point is that it should be readable on
the terminals of EVERYONE, and that requires plain text. At the very
least, it should be readable on any terminal that can recognize MIME headers.

To make the message readable to all, I substituted plain text ' and "
for the typesetting-like left and right ' and ". In some fonts, ASCII
' and " are the same characters as right ' and ", but in other fonts,
they are different. In actual typesetting, there's no ", for those of
you who never worked at a newspaper.

For those of you who don't give a shit about making messages readable
for ALL Usenet users, carry on.

Lt. Starbuck: Lost In Castration.
by Dirk Benedict

Once upon a time, in what used to be a far away land called Hollywood (but is
now a state of mind and everywhere), a young actor was handed a script and
asked to bring to life a character called Starbuck. I am that actor. The
script was called "Battlestar Galactica."

Fortunately, I was young, my imagination fertile and adrenal glands strong,
because bringing Starbuck to life was over the dead imaginations of a lot of
Network Executives. Every character trait I struggled to give him was met with
vigorous resistance. A charming womanizer? The "Suits" (Network Executives)
hated it. A cigar (fumerello) smoker? The Suits hated it. A reluctant hero who
found humor in the bleakest of situations? The Suits hated it. All this
negative feedback convinced me I was on the right track.

Starbuck was meant to be a lovable rogue. It was best for the show, best for
the character and the best that I could do. The Suits didn't think so. "One
more cigar and he's fired," they told Glen Larson, the creator of the show.
"We want Starbuck to appeal to the female audience for crying out loud." You
see, the Suits knew women were turned off by men who smoked cigars, especially
young men. How they "knew" this was never revealed. And they didn't stop
there. "If Dirk doesn't quit playing every scene with a girl like he wants to
get her in bed, he's fired." This was, well, it was blatant heterosexuality,
treating women like "sex objects." I thought it was flirting. Never mind, they
wouldn't have it. I wouldn't have it any other way, or rather Starbuck
wouldn't. So we persevered, Starbuck and I. The show, as the saying goes, went
on and the rest is history for, lo and behold, women from all over the world
sent me boxes of cigars, phone numbers, dinner requests, and marriage
proposals.

The Suits were not impressed. They would have their way, which is what Suits
do best, and after one season of puffing and flirting and gambling, Starbuck,
that loveable scoundrel, was indeed fired. Which is to say, "Battlestar
Galactica" was cancelled. Starbuck, however, would not stay cancelled, but
simply morphed into another flirting, cigar smoking, blatant heterosexual
called Faceman. Another show, another set of Suits, and of course, if The
"A-Team" movie rumors prove correct, another remake.

There was a time, I know I was there, when men were men, women were women and
sometimes a cigar was just a good smoke. But 40 years of feminism have taken
their toll. The war against masculinity has been won. Everything has turned
into its opposite, so that what was once flirting and smoking is now sexual
harassment and criminal. And everyone is more lonely and miserable as a
result.

Witness the "re-imagined" "Battlestar Galactica," bleak, miserable,
despairing, angry and confused. Which is to say, it reflects in microcosm the
complete change in the politics and morality of today's world, as opposed to
the world of yesterday. The world of Lorne Greene (Adama), Fred Astaire
(Starbuck's Poppa) and Dirk Benedict (Starbuck). I would guess Lorne is glad
he's in that Big Bonanza in the sky and well out of it. Starbuck, alas, has
not been so lucky. He's not been left to pass quietly into that trivial world
of cancelled TV characters.

"Re-imagining", they call it. "Un-imagining" is more accurate. To take what
once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show
based on hope, spiritual faith and family is un-imagined and regurgitated as a
show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction. To better reflect the
times of ambiguous morality in which we live, one would assume. A show in
which the aliens (Cylons) are justified in their desire to destroy human
civilization, one would assume. Indeed, let us not say who the good guys are
and who the bad are. That is being "judgmental," taking sides, and that kind
of (simplistic) thinking went out with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and
Kathryn Hepburn and John Wayne and, well, the original "Battlestar Galactica."

In the bleak and miserable "re-imagined" world of "Battlestar Galactica,"
things are never that simple. Maybe the Cylons are not evil and alien but in
fact enlightened and evolved? Let us not judge them so harshly. Maybe it is
they who deserve to live and Adama and his human ilk who deserve to die? And
what a way to go! For the re-imagined terrorists (Cylons) are not mechanical
robots void of soul, of sexuality, but rather humanoid six foot tall former
lingerie models who f**k you to death. (Poor old Starbuck, you were imagined
too early. Think of the fun you could have had 'fighting' with these
thong-clad aliens!) In the spirit of such soft-core, sci-fi porn I think a
more re-imaginative title would have been "F**cked by A Cylon." (Apologies to
"Touched by an Angel.")

One thing is certain. In the new un-imagined, re-imagined world of "Battlestar
Galactica" everything is female driven. The male characters, from Adama on
down, are confused, weak and wracked with indecision, while the female
characters are decisive, bold, angry as hell, puffing cigars (gasp!) and not
about to take it any more.

One can quickly surmise what a problem the original Starbuck created for the
re-imaginators. Starbuck was all charm and humor and flirting without an angry
bone in his womanizing body. Yes, he was definitely "female driven," but not
in the politically correct ways of Re-imagined Television. What to do,
wondered the Re-imaginators? Keep him as he was, with a twinkle in his eye, a
stogie in his mouth and a girl in every galaxy? This could not be. He would
stick out like, well, like a jock strap in a drawer of thongs. Starbuck
refused to be re-imagined. It became the Great Dilemma. How to have your
Starbuck and delete him too?

The best minds in the world of un-imagination doubled their intake of Double
Soy Latte's as they gathered in their smoke-free offices to curse the day that
this chauvinistic Viper Pilot was allowed to be. But never under-estimate the
power of the un-imaginative mind when it encounters an obstacle (character) it
subconsciously loathes. "Re-inspiration" struck. Starbuck would go the way of
most men in today's society. Starbuck would become "Stardoe." What the Suits
of yesteryear had been incapable of doing to Starbuck 25 years ago was
accomplished quicker than you can say orchiectomy. Much quicker, as in, "Frak!
Gonads Gone!"

And the word went out to all the Suits in all the smoke-free offices
throughout the land of Un-imagination, "Starbuck is dead. Long live Stardoe!"

I'm not sure if a cigar in the mouth of Stardoe resonates in the same way it
did in the mouth of Starbuck. Perhaps. Perhaps it "resonates" more. Perhaps
that's the point. I'm not sure. What I am sure of is this...

Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Hamlet does not scan as Hamletta. Nor
does Hans Solo as Hans Sally. Faceman is not the same as Facewoman. Nor does a
Stardoe a Starbuck make. Men hand out cigars. Women "hand out" babies. And
thus the world for thousands of years has gone' round.

I am also sure that Show Business has been morphing for many decades now and
has finally become Biz Business. The creative artists have lost and the Suits
have won. Suits. Administrators. Technocrats. Metro-sexual money-men (and
women), who create ever more efficient formulas to guarantee profit margins.
Because movies and television shows are not made to enlighten or even
entertain, but simply to make money. They will tell you it is (still) about
story and character, but all it is really about is efficiency. About the
Formula. Because Harvard Business School Technocrats run Hollywood and what
Technocrats know is what must be removed from all business is Risk. And I tell
you, life, real life, is all about risk. I tell you that without risk you have
no creativity, no art. I tell you that without risk you have Remakes. You
have, "Charlie's Angels," "The Saint," "Mission Impossible," "The A Team"
(coming soon), and "Battlestar Galactica."

All risk-free brand names, franchises.

For you see, TV shows (and movies) are made and sold according to the same
business formula as hamburger franchises. So that it matters not if it is the
"best" hamburger, what matters is that you "think" it is the best. And you do
"think" it is the best, because you have been told to; because all of your
favorite celebrities are seen munching it on TV. The big money is not spent on
making the hamburger or the television show, but on the marketing of the
hamburger/show. (One 60 second commercial can cost more than it does to film a
one-hour episode.) It matters not to Suits if it is Starbuck or Stardoe, if
the Cylons are robots or lingerie models, if the show is full of optimism and
morality or pessimism and amorality. What matters is that it is marketed well,
so that all you people out there in TV land know that you must see this show.
And after you see it, you are told that you should like it. That it is new and
bold and sleek and sexy and best of all ... it is Re-imagined!

So grab a Coke from the fridge (not the Classic Coke, but the re-imagined kind
with fewer calories) and send out for a McDonald's hamburger (the re-imagined
one with fewer carbs), and tune in to Stardoe and Cylon #6 (or was it #69?)
and Enjoy the Show.

And if you don't enjoy the show, or the hamburger and coke, it's not the fault
of those re-imaginative technocrats that brought them to you. It is your
fault. You and your individual instincts, tastes and judgment - your refusal
to let go of the memory of the show that once was. You just don't know what is
good for you. But stay tuned. After another 13 episodes (and millions of
dollars of marketing), you will see the light. You, your instincts, your
judgment, are wrong. McDonald's is the best hamburger on the planet, Coca-Cola
the best drink, and Stardoe is the best Viper Pilot in the Galaxy.

And "Battlestar Galactica," contrary to what your memory tells you, never
existed before the Re-imagination of 2004.

I disagree. But perhaps, you had to be there.