Battlestar Galactica has a unique history. It burst onto the scene and became an instant success, but like a bottle rocket it soon fizzled out and fell back down to Earth. With too few episodes for proper syndication, it became fodder for the occasional marathon, but otherwise was doomed to live among the pop culture flotsam and jetsam in the minds of Gen-Xers.
Flash forward nearly three decades and it was re-imagined to great critical acclaim and far longer and more sustained commercial success than its predecessor. I've never watched the rebooted version. It looked too self-serious and post 9/11 for my tastes. Lacking the space opera elements that defined the original. This may be unfair because, as I said I've never watched it. But what I do know for sure is that the original sits in the shadow of the re-imagined Galactica and is regarded as outdated, disposable and silly. But is this fair?
To be sure the original Battlestar Galactica is, in some ways, a product of its time. Beyond the hair and Starbuck's now frowned upon cigar chomping and womanizing, you will know that you're firmly in the zeitgeist of the late 70's. But no genre series of that decade, or perhaps the next two decades, felt as cinematic as Battlestar Galactica.
The special effects work here is stunning. Sure, there's a fair share of recycling, but that's just practical reality. Combined with an actual orchestrated score (also recycled in many places, I'm sure), the best episodes often feel like mini-movies.
Another notable feather in its cap is its mythology. Too often genre series of this era had a razor thin logic and backstory that was rarely if ever revisited and subject to change to serve the story of that week's episode. But Battlestar Galactica engaged in actual world building that carried over across the series. This was particularly true in the series' many two-part episodes, which were its strength. Played as one "episode", they were actually a good step or two above many of the era's theatrically released Star Wars knock-offs. Speaking of which, Battlestar Galactica isn't a straight rip-off of the former, despite many aesthetic similarities.
Battlestar Galactica is very different from the previous decade's defining sci-fi series, Star Trek. While Star Trek was about a sort of secular-humanistic utopia where humankind had moved beyond its many "flaws" and set out to explore the universe, Battlestar Galactica has very strong religious and mythological undertones. There is no moral relativism and war and mankind's fight to survive is at the heart of the story.
I'll let others decide which approach they enjoy more. But I'll submit that people shouldn't dismiss the original Battlestar Galactica the way so many seem to have over the last 40 plus years.
Flash forward nearly three decades and it was re-imagined to great critical acclaim and far longer and more sustained commercial success than its predecessor. I've never watched the rebooted version. It looked too self-serious and post 9/11 for my tastes. Lacking the space opera elements that defined the original. This may be unfair because, as I said I've never watched it. But what I do know for sure is that the original sits in the shadow of the re-imagined Galactica and is regarded as outdated, disposable and silly. But is this fair?
To be sure the original Battlestar Galactica is, in some ways, a product of its time. Beyond the hair and Starbuck's now frowned upon cigar chomping and womanizing, you will know that you're firmly in the zeitgeist of the late 70's. But no genre series of that decade, or perhaps the next two decades, felt as cinematic as Battlestar Galactica.
The special effects work here is stunning. Sure, there's a fair share of recycling, but that's just practical reality. Combined with an actual orchestrated score (also recycled in many places, I'm sure), the best episodes often feel like mini-movies.
Another notable feather in its cap is its mythology. Too often genre series of this era had a razor thin logic and backstory that was rarely if ever revisited and subject to change to serve the story of that week's episode. But Battlestar Galactica engaged in actual world building that carried over across the series. This was particularly true in the series' many two-part episodes, which were its strength. Played as one "episode", they were actually a good step or two above many of the era's theatrically released Star Wars knock-offs. Speaking of which, Battlestar Galactica isn't a straight rip-off of the former, despite many aesthetic similarities.
Battlestar Galactica is very different from the previous decade's defining sci-fi series, Star Trek. While Star Trek was about a sort of secular-humanistic utopia where humankind had moved beyond its many "flaws" and set out to explore the universe, Battlestar Galactica has very strong religious and mythological undertones. There is no moral relativism and war and mankind's fight to survive is at the heart of the story.
I'll let others decide which approach they enjoy more. But I'll submit that people shouldn't dismiss the original Battlestar Galactica the way so many seem to have over the last 40 plus years.