Stallion Cornell's Moist Board

Read it here.
http://www.cylon.org/bsg/DeSanto-int01.html

_________________
"In the history of network television, no remake of a previous hit series has ever become a hit itself on network television. "

Nicely done. I don't agree with some of the logic about having two galactica's on at the same time being equivalent to having multiple star trek series on at the same time (because at least the star trek shows occured within the same continuity.) That quibble aside, that was a nice window into what might have been/might be.

Land of the Dead was made, in spite of the greenlit sequel to the remade Dawn.

I agree. Moore & co. knows that if a continuation Larson movie is made, it will be successful, therefore garnering interest in a continuation tv series, that they couldn't enough deny. ...then it will spell certain doom for nu/fake BSG, as NBC/Universal will go for the money in the end, hence real bSG.

_________________
"It takes years of practice to develop true Spidermiester style!"

Quick, write it down, Moustache said something sensible!

I know nothing about these movies, so could you fill me in? Were they simultaneous productions? How much did the remake stay true to the original?

Director George Romero made a trilogy of Dead movies:
Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead
In 2004 Universal remade Dawn of the Dead with out Romero's involvment and they are also making a sequel.
Goerge Romero who also owns the rights to the Dead trilogy pitched a sequel to Universal to make a sequel to the original Dead trilogy and Universal rejected.
Therefore Romero took his sequel to another studio and "Land of the Dead" was made released at the beginning of summer.
The difference is, George Romero is a bit more motivated than Glen Larson (assuming he really has any movie rights).

So it sounds like 2 simultaneous iterations of a movie franchise, not two television series with the same name but different continuities being on television at the same time. Not really looking for an arguement here, but that's not an equivalent comparison. Wasn't there a James Bond movie that had a couple of iterations as well?

It appears a few from the Skiffy Re-Education Center’s Proletariat Exchange Portal put down their Kool-Aid long enough to enjoy the interview.
Although one dude who caught the pod cast was not impressed with the TwoBrain

http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Ca ... =0#1138483

_________________

I think a perfect example are the Bond 007 and xXx franchises. ..and we all know how the latter turned out. I quote:
From EW.com: (picture at site)
''It's a Vin Diesel movie'' is how Vin Diesel describes it. Enough said. But here's a little more anyway: Diesel plays Xander Cage, a.k.a. XXX, a snarling, antisocial extreme-sports enthusiast who's recruited by a supersecret government agency (headed by Jackson) to put his unique athletic abilities to use as a spy. Director Cohen describes exactly what that means: ''He surfs down a stairway using a waiter's tray. He steals a senator's Corvette and drives it off a bridge and surfs on it all the way down. He does stunts on a motocross freestyle bike while being chased by a helicopter with a Vulcan cannon. Basically, we're reinventing the spy movie.''
And, they hope, inventing a franchise that, if all goes according to plan, will turn Diesel into the hottest secret agent since that English dude who's always shaking his martinis. It's an expensive gamble -- Sony is investing upwards of $90 million in the film -- but Diesel and Cohen do have a proven track record. The two teamed up for last year's ''The Fast and the Furious,'' which ended up reinventing the hot-rod movie to the tune of $145 million. Plus, there does seem to be an opening for a new big-screen spy these days.
''Look, James Bond is cool,'' says Diesel. ''He's the father of all movie spies. But James Bond is a leftover from the Clark Gable mentality. James Bond is a guy in a suit, and I don't know a kid today who wears a suit. My character is totally different. He doesn't give a s--- about anything but himself and his thrills. He's a guy who's proficient at what he does because of all the time he spent not doing his homework and instead learning how to do Superman seat grabs on a motocross.''
http://www.anycities.com/vindieselfancl ... riplex.htm
Spoken like a true visionary! ...yeah, Bond was never a special forces soldier in the past! Bond could only aspire for class like this! At least they didn't have the rights to use the Bond name! Can you imagine the backlash if they DID have the rights to title these movies, BOND 007? I remember the uproar when MGM threatened to give Halle Barry her own 007 spinnoff, of the urban character, JINX!:
Jinxed Halle May Get Bond Spinoff
by Josh Grossberg
Nov 11, 2002, 2:50 PM PT
Apparently, nobody does it better than Halle Berry.
The Oscar-winning actress made such a big splash playing Jinx in the upcoming 007 adventure, Die Another Day, that the filmmakers now want to give the butt-kicking Bond babe her own movie franchise.
Berry has revealed that she's in talks with MGM and 007 producers, Eon Productions, about reprising the Jinx role in what would become the first Bond-based spinoff series in the franchise's 40-year history.
"Isn't it just crazy?" Berry said to E! News Live. "If Jinx could stay just as she is and evolve even further, and if they'd put the loving care that they put into James Bond--I absolutely would--I'd do it in a heartbeat."
Eat your heart out, Pussy Galore.
MGM did not return phone calls seeking comment on the story, and reps for England-based Eon Productions were unavailable.
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,10823,00.html

_________________
"It takes years of practice to develop true Spidermiester style!"

I can kind of see your point, Cranky... but the fact that Roger Moore's Octopussy was out at the same time as Sean Connery's Never Say Never Again didn't "confuse" the Bond brand. There is a difference between features and television, of course, but we are talking about an animated series versus a live action production. I'm not seeing the problem. And from what I heard, DeSanto's "cartoon" would have featured cutting-edge 3-D animation, and would have featured adult-oriented scripts.
It was rejected b "Universal" because Eick didn't want the competition... he wants to keep force-feeding GINO as Galactica.

_________________
GINO sucks ass.

I think there's merit to the branding arguement. Also, TNS isn't going to last forever. I rather like the new series, but it's going to end at some point (just like everything else) and when it does the brand confusion arguement goes away with it.
It may be a matter of waiting for a turn in the marketplace, but if DeSanto rakes in a few million for the studios with his next few projects, maybe you all will get your wish. I'd tune in.

The "Confusing the public with two brands" excuse is a line of Happy Horseshit.
If they were so concerned about the confusing that two brands might have on the public, then why do a remake in the first place? Why get rid of the iconic Cylon image, in place of the forgettable and overplayed cocktail dress?

I don't understand. Why doesn't DeSanto go over David Eick's head? It's not like he owes him anything for hijacking his production.