Battlestar Galactica Miniseries Review

Staff Writer: DL Mullan

2 1/2 out of 5 Shovels
Original Release Date: December 7-8, 2003

Forget everything you ever knew about the original series. The old references no longer apply. New facts need to be downloaded. Remember to download safely, use virus protectors -- If by chance the old, original series is not indelibly downloaded into your memory, then this miniseries is a wonderful production.

If however, the old series and its mythology are what you were looking for, nevermind . . . those motifs and mores no longer exist in this universe. Fans of the original series will be disappointed -if not down right outraged- with the liberties taken against the name Battlestar Galatica. New fans will not understand the fond memories held by the old fans and believe this miniseries is a long awaited and impressive undertaking for the genre. Unfortunately, the miniseries subtracts the mythology of its origins and interprets the formula into a grossly different and even defecating product. Sex anyone? There is a lot of it. Changed characters, got those types of malfeasance too.

What I don't understand is this: why call this miniseries Battlestar Galactica? Must be for the name recognition since this miniseries had all the elements of a great production, minus the sex, and nothing to do with the original series. We could have had toaster ovens change into the "Terminators" of the human race after forty years and call it The Final Bake-Off -or, whatever. Not to say the miniseries wasn't well thought out, scripted and acted, the film was. Not to say that the CGI was terrible, the special effects were just fine. Even though this miniseries has many positive qualities, the negative attributes stem from the complete lack of comprehension for the original quest that was forced upon our heroes looking for that small planet called Earth.

For an original miniseries, this telefilm would rate slightly above average. For a rendition, even a new one, this miniseries rates below average. Nice concept; wrong expression.

Tin Man Ain't Your Mother's Oz

Staff Writer: Grave Digger

3 out of 5 shovels
The 2007 miniseries again was shown on Scifi Channel today. The re-imaging of the Wizard of Oz takes a different path then the black and white version with Judy Garland.

Synopsis: "Dorothy Gale, a.k.a. DG, is all grown up and bored. She mopes around, works as a waitress, and goes to school part time. Before she knows it she's back in OZ (a.k.a. Outer Zone) and on the run from the evil sorceress Azkadellia and her storm troopers and clumsy bats. Along the way she falls in with some strange characters including the brainless Glitch, Raw, a cowardly and psychic lion-man hybrid, and, in the largest deviation, Wyatt Cain, a cowboy cop from Central City called a "tin man" because of his tin badge."

Sounds like a good view on a Sunday afternoon, however the Tin Man dragged. The writers contrived subplots in order to kill time. At 270 minutes, this miniseries could have done the job in half the time.

The missing pieces seem to be the heart and brains of the quartet. Dorothy appears dense and rebellious. The Tin Man is not heartbroken enough. Glitch and Raw are wasted characters and actors. If this miniseries is called Tin Man, then perhaps the focus should be on that character.

What kept the audience tuning in was the acting skills of Zooey Deschanel and Neal McDonough. Zooey has a bright spark to her eyes. Neal brings a redeeming quality to his character.

Cast includes: Zooey Deschanel, Neal McDonough, Alan Cumming, Raoul Trujillo, Kathleen Robertson, and Richard Dreyfus.

Source: IMDB and IMDB

Wrestling, Scifi Not a Marriage Make

Staff Writer: Grave Digger

A genre buff 'till the end, I go to the Scifi Channel for refuge. Tuesday nights I watch the reruns of Ghost Hunters International with glee. Then the hour strikes: no more ghosts, but wrestlers and dopes!

Scifi must make a lot of dough from these guys. A sport it is not. Entertainment, well, for the complacent. Still why wrestling on a genre flavored channel? Money I venture to guess.

As a genre geek, a few things I would like to see at the SyFy Channel (name change July 7th): First, no more wrestling. Second, better movies; why B rated flicks? Third, save shows from other networks (second season of Moonlight, anyone). Fourth, save shows from SyFy stupidity (Dresden Files). And last, but not least: no more wrestling!

Imagine Greater: Imagine a channel with good, smart, and sassy genre entertainment.

Now if I could only get the paid commercials off the channel, I would be set to watch in the middle of the night while I updated the site.

Same old Scifi; New Logo

Staff Writer: Grave Digger

July 7th and the Scifi Channel will become SyFy. What's the difference? Same old contempt for the genre, all new way of screwing up our favorite shows, novels, and movies.

Why the switch? According to the network, Scifi is so generic the name cannot be trademarked. Syfy however is unusual and can be trademarked.

To viewers the switch is a waste of money and the new logo with "Imagine Greater" is defunct. I have imagined greater, sent an email, and within six months those changes are employed. (Twice. Why am I not employed by Scifi?) Another reason why Universal, NBC, and their executives don't get the genre or the fans.

We're lucky the pencil pushers renew Ghost Hunters. Has anyone else seen Destination Truth? Neither have we. One more show disappears into the chasm known soon as the Syfy Channel.

Logo changes:







Source: The New York Times and Syfy