Geez. I didn't even KNOW about a BSG remake until I read this post. And then I read the story about how the creators are... ahem... "reinterpreting" the storyline.
Well, I guess it is the producers' perogative to take creative license and change things up a bit (see multiple threads: "SFB is not SFC."
), but what really pi$$es me off about stuff like this is the blatant pandering.
I mean, let's call this what it is: the creative license that was used here, I strongly suspect, was NOT because it suddenly makes the BSG storyline much more interesting. It's to make it more marketable. Period.
That's the formula that post-Roddenberry Trek has gone by with [sarcasm/] great success [/sarcasm off].
For example, I have nothing against a strong, dominant, fighter-pilot female main character. But when it's deliberately done to replace "Starbuck" simply to make the show more palatable across more demographics, well, that just smacks of making creative changes for the wrong reasons. And I'm sure the rest of the show will do likewise.
Amazing that producers like these tap into a cult-phenomenon that's lasted 30+ years, with the goal of decimating everything that made it so appealing for 30+ years.
Then again, it's entirely likely that I'm becoming an old[er] fart. And against change for change's sake. After all, SFC3 was/is more fun than I initially gave it credit for, just a different experience than SFB/SFC/SFC2. Maybe the same will be true for BSG.
But I ain't holding my breathe.
So I WILL give BSG a chance. I'll watch as much as I can stomach. But at the first sign of blatant Demographic Pandering, the channel gets changed. I suspect that means I'll be changing the channel about 25% through the cast introduction sequence.
[more sarcasm/] Gee, I hope they change that lousy orchestral theme with a Bon Jovi vocal ballad! [/more sarcasm off].
-TF