Topic: Battlestar Galactica Recording Alert for 9/23

[NJAntman]

Ratings for shows of the late 70s early 80s are a bit misleading. Back then if it wasn't on the one of the big three it probaly wasn't watched for the simple reason that it couldn't be watched. Remember when the rage was the cable top box atop the tv with a whopping 36 channels (if any were even available beyond the pay channel and local access)? To be at the bottom of the ratings back then was a death blow.

Now we have niche tv where the watchers of a "specialzed" channel may come near equal to size with the viewers of one the major 5. Imagine how a program following the formula of the original BSG would do today?

Either a rage or gone in a half season.

[EmeraldEdge]

There were a lot of reasons for Battlestar being the way it was.  Here's a link that recaps a lot of what I remember:

http://www.blast.net/hart/BG.htm

I can say that preempting series is a big killer.  They seem to do it for a lot of the really quirky niche shows, and then wonder why they fail.  Hmmmm.  Anyhow, BSG was hokey, but I believe that many of the concepts behind it are superior to what the new BSG has (at least what there is of it).  I will say that I did enjoy the rebroadcast, shortened version, of the miniseries on network TV much more than I did the full length version.  I definitely needed material cut.

Still, I have to say that 20 or 30 years from now, you'll look back at BSG today and say "Oh, my god!  That was so corny!".   I mean glowing spines when having sex?  C'mon.  I've seen a few episodes since and it continuesin the same vein.  Oh, well.

Different dynamics-> different stories -> more interesting.

Different doesn't equal better.  Just doesn't.  Different means different.  How many "reimaginings" have we seen as of late that are total duds.  Bewitched?  Dukes of Hazzard?  The list goes on, and they're all different, but not even close to better.  Now, I wouldn't say this goes as far down as some of those, but they are definitely lacking, imo.  I can't see what all the rage is about, that's for sure.  Could the original BSG be improved upon?  Absolutely, but the core mythology was solid, and they didn't need to touch certain aspects.  (I think it's interesting that the Col is now a white guy, and the main black pilot is an Asian chick?  Awful lot of white floating around that ship, don't ya think?  I normally don't care to comment on stuff like that, but c'mon.  At least give credit for the Original BSG having a "minority" as the second in command, and a cool one at that. I think they were the first, weren't they? Unless you count Vulcans as a minority.)

[Dash Jones]

By the end of the season, Battlestar Galactica finished at number 24. One week before the last episode aired, ABC announced its cancellation. Galactica fans were outraged. Protests were held outside ABC studios. A 15 year old boy jumped off of a bridge, committing suicide because of the cancellation.

Smirk...

Case in point...

BSG on Sci Fi hasn't even ever finished in the top 50...as far as I know, unless you discount the big three, sports, and prime time typically.

It did garner more than Enterprise however I believe in the first week making it perhaps in the top 50 of the Friday night...

AND when they showed the abbreviated version on one of the big three it did adequete, however nowhere close enough to have them put it as a regular series or anything.

IMO of course.

Why was the show cancelled however, afterall, even in todays forum with lowered expectation in the ratings game, #24 is respectable if not the best (at least better than most of the programs that appear on WB, and most of the WB programs rate higher than those on UPN...which is probably competing with Sci Fi overall for audiences...or was at least...though America's Next Top Model did respectfully okay, and I hate to admit I even watched a few episodes of it and of course was more entertained than by watching Enterprise or BSG some of the time).

Why was Galactica cancelled? The truth is that no one knows for sure. It was probably due to a number of reasons. ABC gambled Galactica would be the number one show on television. It wasn't. To finish the season at number 24 must have seemed to them as failure. The show lost money due to its one million-per-episode price tag, but the writing certainly would have gotten better had the show gone a second season, as science fiction author Isaac Asimov was going to be brought in. As a result, the ratings surely would have gone up.

As aforementioned, starting the show off as a weekly series was a mistake. For example, the syndicated hit show Hercules began as four television movies, which allowed it to develop a fan base. When it finally became a weekly show, it had enough fans that it was an instant hit. The same would likely have happened with Galactica had it been done the same way. Also, there would have been plenty of space battle footage from several movies that could have been reused in a weekly show without getting redundant.

Some say that Universal put pressure on ABC to cancel the show. Others have speculated that ABC was jealous that Universal was receiving all of the profits on the vast amount of Galactica merchandise being sold. Certainly, the lawsuit from Twentieth Century Fox didn't help. Fox sued Universal, claiming that Galactica infringed on the copyrights of Star Wars. This was a ludicrous claim. While Galactica was certainly inspired by Star Wars, Star Wars was inspired by numerous science fiction stories before it. Just as the lawsuit was about to be thrown out, Universal countersued Fox, claiming that Star Wars infringed on Universal's 1972 science fiction film Silent Running. This claim was even more ridiculous than Fox's, and it only served to prolong the lawsuit until August 22, 1980, when the courts finally declared that Galactica was not an infringement on Star Wars.

Glen Larson has speculated that Mork and Mindy, which had better ratings, did more to hurt Galactica than anything else. ABC probably looked at Mork and Mindy and said, "Here's science fiction the way it ought to be done." When Mork and Mindy was placed in Galactica's Sunday time slot, its ratings plummeted to depths lower than Galactica's. This is when ABC realized they had made a mistake in canceling the show.

Dirk Benedict believes the show may have been canceled partly because he was hired to play the role of Starbuck. Larson wanted Benedict for the role, but ABC refused, saying he wasn't handsome enough for the part (In reality, they had another actor whom they wanted for the role). It came down to almost a war. Shooting for the show was about to begin, and Larson told ABC he would stop production of the show unless Benedict was hired. The network finally gave in, but there were hard feelings as a result. ABC was the number one network at the time, and the executives there were said to have been rather arrogant. Thus the show may have been canceled partly out of spite due to the incident. Because ABC was the number one network, the executives may have felt they didn't need Galactica. If the show had been on another network, it might have not been canceled.

John Colicos (Baltar) has said that the Galactica production crew used a special effects camera licensed exclusively to George Lucas, and Fox may have threatened to bring this into the lawsuit if the show wasn't canceled.

Ultimately, no one knows for sure why the show was canceled. The only thing certain is that ABC made a mistake, which they admitted to by quickly reviving the show as Galactica 1980.

Edited PS:  By the way, I DID hear that Galactica 1980 bombed the big one however.

Added PS PS:  Did you know Glen Larson was like the King of TV in the 80s though, Magnum PI, Knight Rider, and some others seemed to be on his plate, he had top series all over the place.  But with today's audiences either he can't make something grittier for today's grittier crowd, or he decided to stop...have no idea on that one.

Last Edit (hopefully):  It should be noted that just because something has better ratings or more mass appeal doesn't necessarily mean that it is better.  I think some of you are reading that into this, and I stated in my first post it doesn't necessarily mean that.  Afterall, Titanic had big mass appeal apparantly when it was released and I thought it stunk big burger noodles.  I'm stating what could be possibly wrong with the new one (which is of course dependant on your opinion).  That is that the series lacks mass appeal.  It's no...Faith and Hope, or Sunday Night Football, or anything of that nature).  This of course is fine by Sci Fi (which tends to pick up other series that are cast off after their ratings fall, but those ratings are just fine for Sci Fi, and are even given a new life and sometimes start picking up in ratings on Sci Fi (I believe SG-1 falls into that category).  This doesn't mean that it's worse, or better than the original, it just means that whether its better or not is in the eye of the beholder.

Hence I why I explained why it's ratings aren't really high.  It doesn't appeal to the mass audiences.  To those that it appeals to it might be the best show since...well ever.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

By the end of the season, Battlestar Galactica finished at number 24. One week before the last episode aired, ABC announced its cancellation. Galactica fans were outraged. Protests were held outside ABC studios. A 15 year old boy jumped off of a bridge, committing suicide because of the cancellation.

Smirk...

Case in point...

BSG on Sci Fi hasn't even ever finished in the top 50...as far as I know, unless you discount the big three, sports, and prime time typically.

It did garner more than Enterprise however I believe in the first week making it perhaps in the top 50 of the Friday night...

Care to explain why it is the considered the 3rd best TV advertising market on cable with such shotty ratings?

And if it is such a dismal ratings failure... why did SciFi just sign them up for a 3rd season?

BTW, for those who don't know, TNS surpassed TOS in total episodes made with Friday's episode.

Also, it is one of the top shows downloaded off the internet.

[Dash Jones]

By the end of the season, Battlestar Galactica finished at number 24. One week before the last episode aired, ABC announced its cancellation. Galactica fans were outraged. Protests were held outside ABC studios. A 15 year old boy jumped off of a bridge, committing suicide because of the cancellation.

Smirk...

Case in point...

BSG on Sci Fi hasn't even ever finished in the top 50...as far as I know, unless you discount the big three, sports, and prime time typically.

It did garner more than Enterprise however I believe in the first week making it perhaps in the top 50 of the Friday night...

Care to explain why it is the considered the 3rd best TV advertising market on cable with such shotty ratings?

And if it is such a dismal ratings failure... why did SciFi just sign them up for a 3rd season?

BTW, for those who don't know, TNS surpassed TOS in total episodes made with Friday's episode.

Also, it is one of the top shows downloaded off the internet.

Sci fi picked up Sliders...

Sci Fi still actually plays marathons of the original BSG,

Sci Fi plays TOS...

You don't have to have stellar ratings to be on Sci Fi...in fact, you don't even have to really have ratings.

as far as merchandising...I suppose it's not hard to beat CNN for merchandising, though I have to admit I see more CNN shirts than BSG in the general public.  It depends on what you say is Cable TV show.  I'm pretty certain Playboy and it's channels do better with their merchandising, same perhaps with some of the Pay Per Veiw Channels.

Then there's the actual Star Trek that still plays on Cable.  And it's merchandise still makes lots of money (though a lot is sunk into it in the making as well).

I'm pretty certain that NFL and it's merchandising do better.

Same goes for ESPN and it's sports.  I KNOW that the video games for the various sports probably do better.

What is your source that it has better merchandising than ESPN, CNN, Playboy, HBO, and their top programs?  I'm betting one Baseball game broadcast on WGN on a weekend near the playoffs has more in merchandising (heck at cheap tickets, let's say 30 dollars a pop, and with only 5000 seats sold which would mean empty stands, which is very UNLIKELY near the playoffs if they show the Cubs playing a team doing decently well, means they get 1.5 million just on the seats themselves not to mention all those who might be watching it on TV, or via other wise.  Then you have their merchandising.  You could say the TV is a merchandising off of the team...BUT...it's all relative.

Exactly how are you defining that idea that it has the third best on Cable TV?

Enterprise was consistently in the top ten, and many times the top in downloaded programs off the internet.  You saw how it's ratings were.

You seem to take offense at the very idea that BSG (new) might not be doing well in the ratings?

Unfortunately this link only goes to the top 20...

http://tv.yahoo.com/nielsen/

But as you can see...no BSG...

We can go to Nielsen themselves

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ratings/cable_programs.html

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ratings/syndicated_programs.html

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ratings/broadcast_programs.html

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ratings/among_african-americans.html

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ratings/among_hispanics.html

Unfortunately I can't find the sites that list the top 50 shows of the week that used to do it (Yahoo used to have much more expansive listings of ratings, why they don't anymore is beyond me).

So we can't really compare a 24 spot to whichever spot BSG (new) is or how far it is below #20 for last week.

However if you can trust this site

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/~springob/bsgratings.html

You can see just HOW FAR down the list they'd fall in comparison...

In fact for it's premiere on Sci Fi

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=2&id=30212

it only had a 2.6 which still might be just enough to nudge it onto exclusive cable tv top 50 programs...maybe...but isn't anywhere from what it appears on the lists and their ratings, to be in the top ten.

Does that bother you?

And here I thought people were saying it was great because of characterization and plot, not because of it's mass appeal (in fact there are those that say the more mass appeal a show has the less depth it has).

[Dash Jones]

On the otherhand, the premiere ratings are disputed by this site (as stated above as well for season 2 ratings)


http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/~springob/bsgratingss1.html

Which have it at 3.8 and 3.2 for it's premiere for the New BSG.  Still FAAAAR below what the original BSG was rated on it's premiere...BUT enough to perhaps put it in the top 50 of the cable shows.

However, as you can see it's veiwership has never put it close to #1, or even #24 if the numbers can be respected.

If it makes you any happier, the original BSG was beaten out in the ratings by one of Larsen's own creations if what I've read about the shows accredited to him are accurate...Six Dollar man made the top ten shows(I believe it is overall ratings) of the YEAR, something which the original BSG DID NOT do.  Also in that list in the late seventies are Mork and Mindy, Happy Days, and, of all things...Sixty Minutes.

Edit:  It does show that BSG is at the top of the ratings for the Sci Fi channel...but looking at their ratings in general...I don't think ABC, NBC, or CBS, or even Fox or the WB would be impressed with those stats of their line up.  Good for Sci-Fi...but I don't think for a major network.   Which is why Lost is on one of the Big Three, and BSG is on Sci-Fi.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

LOL... Dash, I could really care less about what you think about BSG.

I enjoy the hell out of the show.  I still have some problems with holes in the show, but over all, it is very well done.  Add to it that Larson not only endorses the show saying that that he thinks it is a better & more detailed vision of what he wanted to create, but he is also the consulting producer of the show.

Anyways, the ratings for the show in this day and age of 300+ cable channels is damn good.

TOS BSG was on back in the day of the 'big 3' and PBS. (I know it is hard to comprehend life without cable, but trust me, there was life with black and white TV's at one point also) 

So there was not really much of a choice on what to watch. (Friday & Saturday's primetime TV between 7-10pm only had, at max, 18 1-hour shows contending and you said it was rated at what? 24th?)

So you are pretty much comparing apples to oranges. 

And NBC (owner of SciFi channel) was impressed enough with its first season to consider taking it away from SciFi and putting it on NBC to improve their ratings.

Oh, and I need to add, I remembered incorrectly, the article I read said that Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" is 3rd in the nation for advertising.  TNS BSG was 5th.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

http://www.blast.net/hart/BG.htm

Why was the show cancelled however, afterall, even in todays forum with lowered expectation in the ratings game, #24 is respectable if not the best

"Finishing 24 for the season" is a deceptive number.  It matches with the number I remember Lorne Green giving, but ignores the fact that it finished the last half of the season consistently running 62 or 63 out of a total of 65.  (Yes, boys and girls, in the days before cable, there were that few regular shows on the US airwaves during any week.)

Why the ratings dropped so low is debated in the article, but -- Mr. Bennedict's ego aside -- consistent ratings in the bottom five is why the show was cancelled.

I did enjoy reading the article, however.   It explains a lot of what I see now when I watch reruns.   I remember watching Sheba say lines in the episode where Galactica is on fire and thinking, "Jeez!  Is she reading this off a piece of paper on the wall??!!"

Now I know she was!

What's described are some impossible situatons to work in.  I loved that show as a kid.  I wish things had worked out better for it and it had run longer.   

-S'Cipio

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Which have it at 3.8 and 3.2 for it's premiere for the New BSG.  Still FAAAAR below what the original BSG was rated on it's premiere...BUT enough to perhaps put it in the top 50 of the cable shows.

Who cares?  It makes enough money to stay in production, and it has top-notch storytelling.   Loosen up and live a little.

Turn it on.  It won't bite, you know. 

-S'Cipio

[Javora]

On the otherhand, the premiere ratings are disputed by this site (as stated above as well for season 2 ratings)


http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/~springob/bsgratingss1.html

Which have it at 3.8 and 3.2 for it's premiere for the New BSG.  Still FAAAAR below what the original BSG was rated on it's premiere...BUT enough to perhaps put it in the top 50 of the cable shows.

You are compairing apples and oranges Dash.  During the time the original BSG aired there were only about ten or twenty stations including cable stations in the US.  Being that the original BSG aired on a major US network on a prime night time slot way back in 1977, it is only natural that the ratings were much higher.  The fact that Sci-Fi can post a 2.0+ rating is a big time hit for them, most of their other shows have a hard time getting above 1.5.

[Sirgod]

On the otherhand, the premiere ratings are disputed by this site (as stated above as well for season 2 ratings)


http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/~springob/bsgratingss1.html

Which have it at 3.8 and 3.2 for it's premiere for the New BSG.  Still FAAAAR below what the original BSG was rated on it's premiere...BUT enough to perhaps put it in the top 50 of the cable shows.

You are compairing apples and oranges Dash.  During the time the original BSG aired there were only about ten or twenty stations including cable stations in the US.  Being that the original BSG aired on a major US network on a prime night time slot way back in 1977, it is only natural that the ratings were much higher.  The fact that Sci-Fi can post a 2.0+ rating is a big time hit for them, most of their other shows have a hard time getting above 1.5.

Hijack. Also SciFi has made a Sequal to the D&D movie that will air on OCt. 15th.

Stephen

[Dash Jones]

Which have it at 3.8 and 3.2 for it's premiere for the New BSG.  Still FAAAAR below what the original BSG was rated on it's premiere...BUT enough to perhaps put it in the top 50 of the cable shows.

Who cares?  It makes enough money to stay in production, and it has top-notch storytelling.   Loosen up and live a little.

Turn it on.  It won't bite, you know. 

-S'Cipio

I take it you didn't read what I wrote in it's entirety, or you'd know I've tried.  You'd then also understand what I think is wrong with it.  In fact youd' understand I'm not saying it doesn't have good storytelling for those that it appeals too.  You'd understand the problems I think a majority of the rest of the audiences have with it...at least in a nutshell (I don't go into specifics).

But it seems people are so consumed with wanting to force others to think the new BSG is sooooo goooood that they have to defend it in every instance instead of saying what I've been saying the entire thread, it might be good for that minority that are really hardcore into it...but at the same time it can be really bad for those of us that are booooored to death by it. (and yes, I've given it a shot, and if you read my posts above, you'd see that I even know what's going on currently in the show).

[Javora]

Hijack. Also SciFi has made a Sequal to the D&D movie that will air on OCt. 15th.

Stephen

Are you serious??  I think of myself as sort of a D&D purest and I shudder to think what Sci-Fi will do to D&D.  If they based it on the Drizzit books then I might be interested, but with Sci-Fi handling things and the fact that it is based on 3rd addition books I'm really scared.

[Sirgod]

Hijack. Also SciFi has made a Sequal to the D&D movie that will air on OCt. 15th.

Stephen

Are you serious??  I think of myself as sort of a D&D purest and I shudder to think what Sci-Fi will do to D&D.  If they based it on the Drizzit books then I might be interested, but with Sci-Fi handling things and the fact that it is based on 3rd addition books I'm really scared.

As a heart attack. It will have Mark Dymond, Bruce payne & Clemency Burton Hill in It. D&D 2 Wrath of the Dragon God. http://scifi.com/dnd/

And I lied, It's October 8th.

BOT. Someone mentioned the Campiness earlier, But you got to remember what we had back then. CondorMan, The Greatest American Hero, there was plenty of Camp to go around.

Stephen

[Dash Jones]

Hijack. Also SciFi has made a Sequal to the D&D movie that will air on OCt. 15th.

Stephen

Are you serious??  I think of myself as sort of a D&D purest and I shudder to think what Sci-Fi will do to D&D.  If they based it on the Drizzit books then I might be interested, but with Sci-Fi handling things and the fact that it is based on 3rd addition books I'm really scared.

As a heart attack. It will have Mark Dymond, Bruce payne & Clemency Burton Hill in It. D&D 2 Wrath of the Dragon God. http://scifi.com/dnd/

And I lied, It's October 8th.

BOT. Someone mentioned the Campiness earlier, But you got to remember what we had back then. CondorMan, The Greatest American Hero, there was plenty of Camp to go around.

Stephen

 

I want to see Condorman.  My aunt(actually, more like cousin in law, but she's a lot older so you get the idea) talks about it, but I've never seen it.  It's some old movie from Disney?  It sounds interesting from how she describes it.

[Sirgod]

Heh, I know how you feel Dash. I was just looking at the Troma Entertainment site, and thinking in my Nostalgic way, I can't believe I liked some of these films when I was a young Kid.

Condorman wasn't that bad at all though. It's just Campy. another one you might look into was an old Picture called HeartBeebs. It had that guy Latka from the old Taxi series playing a robot.

Stephen

[EmeraldEdge]

Here's one of my big beefs is that Sci-fi just wants to throw sex out there to sell their programs.  I watched the commentary on Earth Sea, and the director mentioned frequently "I envisioned it like so.... but the sci-fi guys came back and said I had to put more sex into it, and make things sexier." and then they compromised a bit.  I've heard this a lot, and it's obvious from watching Sci-fi channel productions that it's as close to a rock solid policy.  I'm not against sex, but in every instance in every situation?  C'mon.  It just gets a little rediculous and was one of my problems with the BSG premiere (although they took some of the folks jumping on eachother out of the rebroadcast network premiere I think, which made it play a bit better.  Still had the glowing spine, though. lol)

I think it's interesting to note, as said earlier, the main network took a look at it and thought about putting it in their lineup but PASSED on it.  Hmmm, couldn't even make a network who's trying to find a way to bolster it's lagging ratings.  Hmmmm.  Now everyone in under the sun is bringing out sci-fi (and boy, they all seem like clones of eachother) stuff, and BSG is still on cable only.  I'm not saying it isn't it doesn't have any redeaming values at all, but it could have, should have been better, and the fans, and the main actors deserved better (just where did they dig up those deck crew actors anyway?) in my opinion.

[Sirgod]

I'll be the first to admit, That I didn't care for The mini-series or the Show when It first came out. It was only a few months ago, when they did an all day Marathon, and there was nothing else on TV, that I sat down and watched season one frome start to finish, that It grew on me. There's still a few things I'm uncomfortable with, But I still watch It when I can remember.

You are right about one thing, Sex and Sci-Fi is not something that has to go hand in hand. One of my Favorite Films, The Day the Earth Stood Still, not only told a great Scifi story, But also to this Day resonates Politicly. Dem's clame It's a Libral show, Rep's claim It's a Conservative show; But I digress.

Look at John Carpenters the Thing. No sex, but a solid good Movie. Now don't get me wrong,I don't mind sex at all, Shoot, I have a HD full of the stuff, I just think It should be tempered at times.

Stephen

[Chris Johnson]

But it seems people are so consumed with wanting to force others to think the new BSG is sooooo goooood that they have to defend it in every instance instead of saying what I've been saying the entire thread, it might be good for that minority that are really hardcore into it...

If you ask me, if there's any implication that there's a need to force others to think the new BSG is sooooo baaaaad (or boring), not too good a job is hiding it, but I'm likely wrong in this case, but in any case I will say this:  Infinate Diversity in Infinate Combinations; Not everyone will like it nor will everyone dislike it.  It's like with any other science fiction series, or even any series or movies or games at all.  You may be a FASA fan or love Adrias Sofia's stuff on Trek, but another may prefer SFB and/or Masao Okazaki's contribution to Trek: His SFM website.

If you also ask me, I believe a topic like this is a dead horse being beaten again and again.  Weren't there one or more forum threads concerning the popularity of the old and/or new BSG?  We all know our opinions of the show, we all understand.  Don't turn it into a battle where one tries to force his opponent to gulp down a certain belief that his opponent disagrees with.

[Ravok]

"Look at John Carpenters the Thing. No sex, but a solid good Movie. Now don't get me wrong,I don't mind sex at all, Shoot, I have a HD full of the stuff, I just think It should be tempered at times"

 Yes . But people where dieing horrible deaths through out the whole movie.

 Is this really better than people having sex?  People have sex. People like to have sex. Its part of who we are, and what we are.

 To deny it if favor of gratuitous violence. Is not what I would consider a healthy attitude.
 Horrible death & murder OK. Sex evil?

 ( And I just going to say this now, before somebody gets all carried away with them selves, I'm not in favor of all sex, more sex or porn quality sex.)

 You can't portray the human condition accurately with out it.