All Of This Happened 15 Years Ago


Before StarWarsGate, before ComicsGate, before GamersGate, before Ghostbusters 2016, indeed before any “gate” at all, and before the term SJW was coined, all of this happened to Battlestar Galactica roughly 15 years ago.  But to understand how, we must first go back to 1977.

In 1977 Star Wars was a massive success.  That success had studios scrambling to catch the wave in the newly invigorated science fiction genre in film, and cash in.  One of the better efforts was the Battlestar Galactica TV series, airing on network television in 1978.

The show was very successful initially, though not without its critics.  Some criticized the show for mimicking the Diesel Punk styles of Star Wars too closely.  Though this was a product of two things.  First, it was likely a mandate from the network which wanted to cash in on the Star Wars craze of the late 70s.  Second, the same artists worked on both productions.  Ralph McQuarrie did concept designs and John Dykstra worked on special effects.

But the target audience mostly enjoyed this show immensely.  For them, it wasn’t a knock-off.  For them, it was just another piece of science fiction to enjoy in addition to Star Wars.  There wasn’t competition between the two, or animosity between the two fanbases, Lucasfilm’s notorious lawsuits aside. Most fans liked both.

Whereas Star Wars is based primarily on the Hero’s Journey taken from Greek mythology and the Arthurian Legends, Battlestar Galactica was a retelling of the Exodus tale from the Bible, with an aged wise man leading his people out of bondage in search of a promised land.  It even had a symbolic parting of the Red Sea, where star fighters traversed a red nebula and shot down enemy mines to make the way safe for the Battlestar.  It also incorporated shades of the Von Daniken Ancient Astronaut theories that were popular at the time.

It was an ambitious production for 1978.  They produced Star Wars level special effects on a weekly basis at an unheard of $1 Million per episode in 1978 money.  Nothing like it had ever been attempted on network television before, and the initial premiere episode had gangbuster Nielson ratings.  It was such a success, that it had its own line of merchandising:

It even had its own tour at Universal Studios:

They even played the pilot episode in theaters.


But all good things come to an end.

Originally intended as a series of occasional tele-movies, the network forced the production into weekly episodes instead.  As a result, the one and only 1st season was an uneven one, with half the episodes being quite excellent and the other half not being so good.  So the show was canceled after only one season due to diminishing ratings, which were still respectable by network standards at the end of the run, but not what the CEOs wanted to see in Battlestar Galactica.

But the fans remained.  Reruns of the show did so well, that the network ordered a sequel series.  Unfortunately it was done on the cheap, with only a couple of the original cast members showing up.  The Battlestar had reached Earth, had flying motorcycles, and would help out local youth softball teams or fight the local motorcycle gang in those requisite 70s-era episode templates.  The core fanbase would be destined to eschew Galactica 1980, and it too would be canceled.


But the fanbase still remained, and remained very loyal.  Though many attempts to restart the series were made, a real effort wasn’t completed until the late 1990s, when Bryan Singer developed a sequel series with the original cast.  This sequel series would ignore Galactica 1980, and continue the story from the original show with the Apollo character taking on the Adama mantle.  Actors were ready to reprise their roles and sets had even been partially completed.





But then 9/11 happened, and the Bryan Singer production was put on ice.

In came Ronald D. Moore, who convinced SyFy to reboot the franchise instead.  They called it, a “re-imagining.”

Long time Battlestar Galactica fans were not happy, but many were willing to give this new production the benefit of the doubt, that it might somewhat resemble the original show in some way.

Then the news hit that the Starbuck character, the favorite character of most Battlestar Galactic fans, would be changed into a woman.  Fans were outraged.  They weren’t outraged by the presence of a woman, or even a female fighter pilot.  The original series had both.  Rather, they were outraged by the fundamental transformation of an established character instead.


His cigar may symbolize sexism and/or misogyny to the SJW dullards of 2018.

Ron Moore and his crew said that they wanted to see a woman in that kind of military role, that they had never seen it done before.  It had been done multiple times throughout decades, but the younger naive fans who were eager for the new show bought his reasoning hook, line, and sinker.  So it was apparent to older and wiser fans that Ron was being disingenuous, and that this was really an effort to enrage the fans thereby manufacturing a faux controversy, bringing publicity to the rebooted show.

After all, Ron could have just as easily wrote analogs to original female fighter pilot characters Athena and Sheba into his show, but chose not to.  This was all very deliberate and calculated of course.

galactica 1978 ladies

Female fighter pilots and military officers. 26 years before the reboot.

No one saw it coming at the time, but the actress who would play the penisless version of Starbuck in the rebooted series, would become the Damsel In Distress as defined in the Phases of a Geeker Gate.   Fans who criticized the transformation of this character, were maligned by cast and crew, and the media, as sexists and misogynists.  Katee Sackhoff, was granted the coveted victim status by the media, as they continued to lavishly praise her character and performance for the fact that the mere presence of her vagina angered all those sexist and misogynist fanboys, or so they put it.  The media criticized the original series, calling it outdated and a crappy Star Wars knock-off that needed rebooting anyway.

Long time fans would shortly realize that the entire point of this reboot was not to tell the story of Battlestar Galactica, but to use the brand name of Battlestar Galactica as a vehicle to push deeply moronic political and social agendas instead.

False accusations of racism did arise, but they weren’t nearly as pedestrian and commonplace as they are today.  This may be due to the fact the Colonel Tigh in the newly rebooted show was white rather than black.  Another change which also angered the long time fans.


The real Colonel Tigh.

This created heated infighting within the pre-existing online fanbase.  Younger fans were encouraged by cast, crew, and the media, to malign long time fans of the franchise as sexist and/or misogynist.  Heated battles arose on pre-social media bulletin boards, where trolls created multiple clone accounts, and used them to bully and mislead long time fans.  SyFy Channel mercilessly banned long times fans who were vocal critics from their online bulletin boards.  Bonnie Hammer was the Kathleen Kennedy of 2004.

The rebooted show would premiere on SyFy Channel in 2004 with moderate success, but the ratings would slide significantly over the course of its subsequent seasons.  What was once a show that was about hope and aspirations, devolved into a show about base human behavior and slimy sleaziness.

Eventually, the pre-existing online fanbase was left shattered, with many long time friends no longer able to speak to one another.  Many long time fans simply threw their hands up on the Battlestar Galactica franchise altogether, having been frustrated after engaging in multiple letter writing campaigns for years and decades to bring back the show with the original cast, only to be given a pale facsimile.  Some long time fans were so disgusted that they sold their collections; collections that they had been building since childhood.  Only a handful of hard core fans remained.  The new fans, mostly jumped ship for the next big thing after the cancellation of the rebooted series.

Currently online searches for Battlestar Galactica mainly turn up results for the rebooted show, rather than the original series.  The Original Series is now mostly forgotten, except by a few rag tag fans.  Hence the remaining 4 steps of the Geeker Gate:

17. CUSTOMER BASE OBLITERATION – The customer base is utterly destroyed, leaving behind only the small handful of SJWs who don’t make any purchases.

18. THE END – The new incarnation of the IP comes to an end. Since the majority of the customer base has abandoned it, there’s no more controversy or discussion about it. It’s over. The best case scenario is that the original IP is largely forgotten with the exception of a few die-hards who still carry the torch. The worst case scenario is that the new incarnation of the IP overwrites the original, and the original IP is forgotten altogether and overshadowed by the new incarnation in all future shill media mentions.

19. MIGRATION – The SJW is primarily interested in popular IPs that have a large audience, which can serve as a vehicle to spread their political message as widely as possible.  Therefore, the remaining SJWs jump ship from the decimated IP, to devour a new IP that is popular and undergoing a transitional phase that they can barnacle themselves to through entryism.

20. REBIRTH – The process begins again, in the newly targeted IP.

Today there are occasional rumblings that a Battlestar Galactica movie will be made.  But it’s likely that it won’t have much to do with the Original Series, or indeed even the rebooted series, if the current trend in Hollywood is any indication.

I present this as a cautionary tale to those who wish to protect their interests and hobbies.

Now, since I’ve taken the time to summarize this forgotten story, it will make the rounds on the internet.  Eventually it will fall into the hands of SJW writers in the garbage tier media, who recently graduated from college in the last few years or so and are completely unaware of it.  They will use this story to seek out Ron Moore and Katee Sackhoff, and interview them in an attempt to get them to confirm that the bogus Kelly Marie Tran Instagram Incident and the purely imaginary black stormtrooper controversy are old problems that have precedents, and that the fanbase has always been “toxic.”  Just as they attempted to concoct their own version of the Geeker Gate shortly after I published that.  They’ll then lionize Katee Sackhoff as the Godmother of Damseling, and her career may even enjoy a boost as a result.  We may even see Kelly Marie Tran and Katee Sackhoff interviewed together on the topic.  Rian Johnson is probably placing a call to Ronald D. Moore as we speak.

Be prepared for all of that, and for all of the accompanying SJW nonsense that will inevitably follow.  Watch for it.



An interesting post from a user named Brian Hague was posted on the Byrne Robotics forum.  He writes:

Greg, it might be possible for someone to write a more off-base, one-sided account of the two Galacticas than the blog you reference, but it would take serious effort.

In fact there’s nothing off-base about it at all.  Brian uses the term “off-base” incorrectly here, it simply just doesn’t apply.  One sided?  Perhaps.  But was I supposed to write about the other side rather than my side?

At this point, I don’t know if you can unplug from the outrage and counter-outrage involved and just enjoy Ron Moore’s reboot for what it has to offer, but it remains worth the attempt, should you choose to make it.

No.  It isn’t.

I agree that there was manipulation of fan expectations in making Starbuck female and Boomer Asian (and also female.) Public perception was apparently a factor in not making the new Colonel Tigh black, since the writers intended to make that character seriously flawed and alcoholic.

What public perception would Brian be talking about here?

However, to mis-characterize those decisions as solely manipulative and made in favor of some conspiratorial agenda is warped.

In fact it’s not warped at all.  It’s simply what happened.  This shouldn’t be surprising, given that we’re now seeing it happen repeatedly in multiple IPs.

Starbuck’s a woman because we hadn’t seen a cigar-smoking loose cannon female lead on television yet, and it was sexually provocative to tease the possibility of her and Apollo as a couple. 

In fact, we had seen a female lead like that repeatedly throughout the decades, as I explained above, and which Brian would know were he to read the blog post before arbitrarily calling it warped and off-base.

It would have been equally as provocative to tease the possibility of Apollo and Sheba, Cassiopeia, and/or Athena as a couple as well.

Did it tweak the noses of the original fans to do so? Undoubtedly, but they hardly comprised the majority of the audience. 

Maybe the original fans were just a “tiny vocal minority.”  But since Brian doesn’t provide any hard numbers as to their actual size, the fact that Ron Moore’s show received lackluster Nielson ratings for the bulk of the run suggests that the original fanbase may have been far larger in number than Brian gives them credit for.

Over in the “Shazam” thread I mention that the new guard at DC may have changed the character’s name in part to razz the fans who’ve stuck around too long (like myself,) and I believe they did, but even in that case those fans are not the primary audience. Offending them gets you some controversy and press, but to say that is the only reason to do so is absurd.

So it’s absurd and has a precedent all at the same time.  Fascinating.  Of course it was the only reason.  Otherwise equally as effective choices that wouldn’t have deliberately angered the original fan base would have been made.

To thwart some hated political agenda which was in its nascent form when the show was being created? 

The political agenda Brian may be referring to was hardly in its nascent form.

To stand tall by the fundamental ethic of fidelity to source material? 

Why not?  Would the show have been as mildly successful as it was with a different title?  The source material is the primary reason that anyone gave a damn to bother with it at all.

No one does that. At all. Anywhere*.

Except for Star Wars before Disney, and Star Trek which continued on for decades until JJ Abrams came around.

No one sets out to do this new thing exactly like the original thing, with no changes because, damn it, change is wrong and bad, and “we want no credit for any contribution we might have, but elected not to make.” 

Here Brian boldly argues against a point that no one has ever made.  No one expected Battlestar to be exactly like the original show, or expressed that they wanted it to be.  Certainly Bryan Singer’s version would have been different as well, and accounts of his show’s premise demonstrate that.  All fans wanted, was a continuation with the original cast taking on the elder mantles.  Everything else was open to change.

Other than those two (out of how many adaptations in the past thirty years?), no one came to Hollywood to be a stenographer.

What on Earth is Brian talking about?  Hollywood is primarily populated by stenographers.  The poor quality of the all too common content in reboots alone is evidence of that fact.

Ron Moore and company looked at the material they had and tried to make it as relevant and edgy as they could. The central theme they conceived was the question of whether or not humanity deserved to survive the Cylon attack, and they explored the question in an often brutal and ugly fashion. Terrorism, suicide bombings, genocide, murder, lying, torture, and political corruption are not Social Justice issues. They’re actual issues. The writer of that blog apparently cannot see beyond his exceedingly narrow P.O.V. to discern them as such. 

Ha!  Narrow point of view indeed.  Here Brian fails to understand the distinction between concept and execution.  Are terrorism, suicide bombings, genocide, murder, lying, torture, and political corruption, actual issues?  Sure.  But the problem isn’t the mere existence of actual issues.  The problem was Ron Moore’s poor execution in how he dealt with those actual issues.

Women on the new Galactica were not Mary Sues. Minorities were not righteously held above criticism (although they did veer sharply in that direction initially by changing Tigh.) Stories were not sanitized so that only the designated targets of social criticism suffered while all others were praised and empowered. The new Galactica told an ugly, harsh, and often surprising story of humanity doing its level best to outrun a murderous force looking to end its existence. That it managed humor and insight at the same time was one of its biggest surprises.

To suggest there was insight is being unduly generous.  For there to be real insight, it has to be somehow applicable in the real world.  But the reality is that leftist perspectives just never are.

And yes, they did run out of ideas, and the conclusion of the series was either disappointing or claw-your-own-face-off-god-awful depending upon your level of investment, but not for any reason having to do with Social Justice. They made themselves a comfy rabbit hole with their notion of a “Final Five” and buried themselves inside it, taking the show down with them. Hard.

That’s the second time that Brian references the pure snake oil ideology of social justice.  Interestingly, looking above at what I previously wrote, I don’t see that I made any reference to social justice in this blog post at all.  Who is it that has an agenda here?

Speaking of rabbit holes, the fellow writing that blog has gotten far too deeply into his own angry theories to speak rationally on this topic.

Oh come on now, Brian, you’re over reacting here.  I’m hardly frothing at the mouth in the same way you are in this paragraph that you’ve written.

Any point he may have once had in opposing Political Correctness is now lost in his rhetoric, media conspiracies, and bile. His agenda seems far more reactionary and nonsensical than any his despised SJW conspiracies may have conjured.  His agenda seems far more reactionary and nonsensical than any his despised SJW conspiracies may have conjured.

Brian seems to have a political chip on his shoulder.  But maybe if he types out the word “conspiracy” five more times, it might discredit my opinion for him, without him having to do the hard work of actually addressing the points I’ve made.

But the fact that we’re all watching all of this happen in real time to multiple IPs makes it very difficult to take Brian’s admonishments here with any degree of seriousness, no matter how flowery his deeply ignorant prose may be.

I also have to wonder, was Brian around when any of this happened?  Or was he 5 years old 15 years ago?  Because if he didn’t experience any of this, then he would have no way of knowing if this account is one-sided or off-base or anything else.

I’d recommend giving the new Galactica series a try, Greg.

I’d recommend remodeling your bathroom instead, Greg.  At least then you’ll be in the company of a clean toilet, rather than having to spend time with a filthy one.


Apparently the user Michael Roberts on the Byrne Robotics forums didn’t care for me responding to Brian Hagues initial criticisms about my blog post.  He amusingly referred to my response as an “attack.”

I see now that Brian Hague is being attacked on the StarWarsGate (seriously?) blog that Greg linked to. Who’s responsible for bringing that toxicity to the boards?

Well Michael, it would seem that the toxicity lies primarily with yourself and Brian.  So look to yourself for the answer to that question.

I’m concerned more of that GamerGate/ComicsGate/BullshitGate rhetoric is going to start showing up on the boards now, and I just hope the mods can keep the forum free from that.

Does that mean you hope to have your own post regarding the “toxicity” of others to be deleted then?

Now, let’s go ahead and examine some of Michael’s previous comments in response to Greg’s comments.  Greg wrote:

The difference between then and now is that Roddenberry and Serling respected the intelligence and opinions of their audience, and didn’t call them names when people disagreed or were critical. They also knew that they were producing escapist entertainment for the masses, and didn’t force ideologies down the audience’s throats. Or deflect legitimately terrible writing by generating an “Us vs. Them” atmosphere.

Indeed Greg.  What I’m also discovering in my research, is that personalities such as Roddenbury, Serling, and even George Lucas and James Cameron, were under adult supervision while working under the studio during their early careers.  This was the period when the filthy hippie generation, was still under supervision by the Greatest Generation.  So their ideas were tempered by those above to make them more consumable by a greater audience and less overtly preachy.  The basic concepts could then apply to just about anyone in any socio-economic status.  It’s why Twilight Zone is vastly superior to Night Gallery, which Serling undoubtedly had more control over later in his career.

But the Greatest Generation is mostly retired and gone now.  So the filthy hippie generation and their idiot SJW spawn are now in charge.  That’s why so much of what you see to today is so awful and thoughtless.  There’s no one to keep the hippie silliness in check.

I discuss some of that here.

Michael responded to Greg’s thoughtful post by saying:

Well, sure, because there was no internet back then. And sorry, the “Us vs Them” environment is not being generated by creators alone. I mean, take a look in the mirror. You’ve been inserting complaints about social agendas in every discussion lately, even when no one’s been discussing it.

This may be difficult for Michael to understand, but communication existed before the internet.  Creators and other celebrities routinely received what was referred to as fan mail.  Those celebrities also routinely did interviews on popular programs and with popular publications, and had every opportunity to call their critics names and have it be heard.  They didn’t, because SJW ideology wasn’t as widespread back then as it is today, and thus they were civilized.

In fact the “us vs. them” environment is in fact being generated by creators alone, when those creators misuse the terms racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobic, etc. to paint their critics in a bad light, particularly when those far too often parroted terms are simply inapplicable.

Greg also made the following observation:

The broad appeal of both STAR TREK and THE TWILIGHT ZONE comes down to the fact that they had aspects which appealed to a very broad variety of people, across the entire sociopolitical spectrum. These were stories about people and ideas, not preaching. And about asking questions, not pushing particular answers.

To which Michael responded:

Really? Because both STAR TREK and TWILIGHT ZONE could be pretty damn preachy. I think their success was being able to hide their messages in allegory so that the people they were preaching against could overlook them.  Watching Twilight Zone, Serling’s antiwar and racial equality stances are pretty clear to me. If the internet were around back then, there would be people breaking down certain episodes, complaining how Serling was shoving his pinko commie agenda down everyone’s throats.  

Yes, Michael.  Really.  The notion that the original Star Trek and Twilight Zone series were overtly preachy or propagandist is revisionist nonsense.  It’s silly to make these claims since all anyone has to do is stream the shows and see for themselves that the claim is pure bunk.  Allegory was certainly part of it, but also presenting the issue in a manner in which anyone from any walk of life could gain some intellectual value from it.  This of course is opposed to the hacks of today who essentially write “grrrrrrr, Trump evil” as the transparent foundation of every television show and movie.

If the internet were around back then, there would be people breaking down certain episodes, complaining how Serling was shoving his pinko commie agenda down everyone’s throats.  

Well Michael, I present to you a thought experiment.  Go to YouTube and watch the series of animated Soviet propaganda that is available there.   Compare the rhetoric therein to both the messaging in Star Trek and Twilight Zone, and with the modern political rhetoric that you’ve been programmed in.  Ponder the results quietly to yourself.

In the same thread Matt Reed types out the following statement:

It’s a straight-up reboot of a series that was essentially dead-in-the-water that made its themes and characters more than a sad ripoff of Star Wars.

Note how I correctly explained this uneducated and predictable sentiment above.

Matt then admonishes Greg for using the term SJW as a pejorative:

I say this as a friend, Greg, but where I used to enjoy your views and reviews on pop culture I’ve increasingly found them tinged with political elements heretofore avoided.  And they’re brought up even when the discussion has absolutely nothing to do with politics at all.  Your go-to recently has been SJW for damn near everything without considering that, in this specific discussion, BSG premiered over a decade ago. You’re using the pejorative SJW that was considered coined in 2011.  That’s a recent internet creation dismissively born of a particular political bent that you toss around here willy-nilly.  Prior to 2011, SJW was used as a primarily positive term. To say that using it has no ties to politics and is neither an attack nor a admonishment is absolutely absurd.  It’s very nature and use is political.  SJW is not verbiage commonly used by anyone other than those of a particular political affiliation. It’s just not.  Neither is the phrase “virtue-signaling”.  You can’t honestly stand aghast that someone would call you on those phrases, Greg, if you’re being completely honest with yourself.

Matt is right, in that SJW is what social justice warriors called themselves.  But you see Greg, you’re not supposed to say anything bad about SJWs.  You’re only supposed to say “positive” things about SJWs.  That’s what the Collective demands.

Honestly though Matt, if SJWs are going to call themselves SJWs, then that’s how we refer to them in language when talking about them.  It’s not the fault of any “particular political bent” that SJWs are monumentally stupid, and have themselves turned the term into a pejorative through their own moronic misbehavioral antics and idiotic “activism.”  Don’t blame others for simply pointing out the obvious and using a label that SJWs themselves dreamt up to do so.


33 thoughts on “All Of This Happened 15 Years Ago

  1. I remember seeing something about the controversial Starbuck casting online. However once the show came on the air, all complaints dissolved as the new BG became a success. Now compare that to Disney Wars and it was the opposite: haughty star warriors (backed by the media) jumped for joy with the idea of Lucas out of the picture. Broke the internet viewing the TFA trailer on a loop. Bought tickets for everyone they knew… only to be slapped in the face by the new, “improved” characters. I’ve never seen BG, ’78 or ’03, but I can bet you Lady Starbuck (or should it have been Stardoe, that makes more sense?) is miles and miles above Rey in characterization.

    Liked by 3 people

    • “haughty star warriors (backed by the media) jumped for joy with the idea of Lucas out of the picture”

      For me, that was one of the most disgusting I’ve ever seen in any fandom. Fans celebrating the absence of the creator from his own franchise. Equally disgusting was the way these same people have treated him for decades.

      Granted, I don’t follow many franchises, but I don’t know any other fandom where a substantially vocal part of it treats its creator that way. It was nothing but a display of pure petulance, and all because he decided to tell his story of his fictional universe the way he saw fit. As a consequence of that (at least partially), the franchise was sold, an original story was arrogantly discarded, and the brand became nothing more than a propaganda machine for identity politics. With no story, no meaning, bland new characters, and an exercise in desecration of everything that was meaningful, consistent and true. There’s no going back from this, not matter how much they want to or try (and as of now, they don’t want to).

      Liked by 3 people

      • The tactics, prejudices and fallacies are the same, yes. I don’t know if all of them were SJWs. Maybe those in the media, with their racist and anti-semitic accusations. But some of these people were prevalent in fan boards, fan conventions, etc… Some focused on the “unaltered” original trilogy and making personal attacks because they were not getting what they wanted. And others focused on secondary products: basically the Expanded Universe, whose body of works always had a variable amount of disparity from the spirit, themes and ‘laws’ of the movies. Which I guess goes along with your conclusion that they were after their own preferences and personal whims materialized (at the expense, of course, of what Star Wars actually was).

        Just to clarify, there’s nothing wrong with liking the EU or the theatrical versions of the trilogy. It’s the next step some of these people chose to take that I’m criticizing. The media, of course, fed on that and took it to the next level with a decades-long smearing campaign.

        I’ve said this somewhere else, but it’s no secret that the media and Hollywood have a long history of collusion. And if there’s someone Hollywood never forgave was George Lucas. The independent filmmaker that got the best of them. The guy who broke out of their system. Lucas has payed the price for that to this day. Heck, we just saw this months ago when he revealed very vague details of what his sequel trilogy would delve into. Look at the headlines and articles made about it. And that excluding the various times when the media attacks him or his works to defend the Disney movies. That’s how low and dirty they are willing to go.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “…nothing but a display of pure petulance, and all because he decided to tell his story of his fictional universe the way he saw fit.”

        The real petulance was from a creator who got lucky, who succeeded because “his” original movies were a team effort, becoming a bloated caricature of everything he once fought against in the 1970s. After his prequels were soundly mocked for awful dialogue and poor storytelling, he became noticeably more contemptuous to the people who made him so rich, culminating in his shameful refusal to release the movies in true HD that made him famous. Lucas’s ego is fragile indeed, and his later years saw a tired, burned out, fat puppet atop a throne of wood painted gold.

        Lucas’ removal from SW was *long* overdue, it’s just a damn, DAMN shame Disney took an equally destructive and creatively bereft path.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Oh, please… “A creator who got lucky”? More like a creator who did something we all liked, that we all were willing to pay for. Movies are a team effort, but he was the one leading, financing and paying the very team he hired to materialize his vision. That includes the directors of TESB and ROTJ. Contrary to what’s commonplace, both were working for him, for his story and vision.

          If the movies and the people who worked on them were successful, it’s first and foremost because of Lucas. It was him who hired, who trusted and payed all of those people to deliver what he wanted and surpass what had been done. So let’s stop with the whole stupid, fallacious narrative of trying to give credit to everyone and their mother at the expense of the guy who created it all just because he didn’t give you something you want. That’s childish petulance on your part, not Lucas. Nobody does that with any other filmmaker or artist.

          He released the version of his movies that better represent his vision. We all have our preferences and desires, but the fact is that he didn’t (and doesn’t) owe any of us anything. The universe was his, the vision was his, the movies were his, the money was his.

          As far as Disney goes, it’s ironic that you’re complaining. You got what you wanted. He’s gone, and the expected consequences of that are visible to everyone. Congrats. It’s like the saying goes: careful with what you wish for, you might just get it. It’s only a pity that the rest of us that have always been respectful of his universe and vision (irrespective of our preferences) got this abominable treatment of the franchise as well.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Yeah, he got lucky. he had an amazing editor in his wife, who’s contribution is often ignored. And Empire succeeded in SPITE of him; his misguided battles against Kershner are well-documented.

            The consequences of Lucas idolization are what we got in 1999; a terribly-written, poorly directed, atrociously acted mess. And his refusal to release to the very people that made him shows what a small-minded, petty fool he is.

            It’s amusing, if pathetic, that his last troll acts to the fandom are Vaders’ “NOOOO” in “Jedi” and walking away $4bil richer.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Why do people keep using Marcia Lucas as the reason for the “brilliance” of the OT? Editing doesn’t automatically make a movie “good”. It’s THE STORY for which Lucas deserves the credit. If all these other people that worked on the OT were the key to it’s “brilliance” then why didn’t they go on to have successful careers? Name another memorable film Kershner did. And Lawrence Kasdan wrote the TFA which killed off Han Solo and ripped off ANH. And since when is Star Wars required to have “good acting” and “good dialogue”? If you want “good acting” and “good dialogue” then watch “The Twilight Zone” and “The Outer Limits” or the radio broadcast of “War of the Worlds”. Bad dialogue is more memorable than good dialogue. I can quote more lines from “Star Wars”, “Plan 9 From Outer Space”, “Faster Pussycat – Kill! Kill!” and “The Room” than “Double Indemnity”, “The Maltese Falcon” or “Paths of Glory” and I love those movies.

              Liked by 3 people

              • If Lucas fully had his way, the Rebel Alliance would have been overtly Vietcong expies who engaged in roadside bombings against civilians, and the Empire would have been singing Yankee-Doodle. Yeah, you read that right: George Lucas intended for Star Wars to be an explicit anti-Vietnam War/pro-Vietcong propaganda film (and what’s worse is that, if that AMC interview with James Cameron is of any indication, he based them on the VC knowing FULL well that he just endorsed a terrorist group and was proud of doing so). And let’s not forget, it’s thanks to Marcia Lucas that Obi-Wan Kenobi died a hero’s death instead of being relegated to computers.

                I’ll give Lucas respect in the sense that he created the series, but him being the creator doesn’t mean that he is infallible, or that he is exempt from criticism. And quite frankly, when he started treating his audience like idiots and trying to push overtly left-wing themes in his movies. And quite frankly, I am NOT fond of the fact that he tried to trick American audiences into rooting for the Vietcong, Communists in other words, nor am I fond in the fact that he doubled down on the leftism in the Prequel Trilogy or even Return of the Jedi, where he pushed moral relativism, that truth is relative, basically demonized the entire concept of a military, and also demonized business owners.

                Don’t get me wrong, what Disney did to Star Wars is below the pale and deserves condemnation. But George Lucas wasn’t much better. In fact, I’d even go so far as to state that he if anything is the big SJW, as big of one as Disney at worst.


          • Lucas doesn’t owe us anything. We don’t owe him anything either beyond the ticket price. I bailed on this franchise after the third movie. I already saw where this was going well before The Phantom Menace. Glad the rest of you are finally catching up.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Because the original SW Trilogy is recognised as an important moment in cinema history. Because it was the sale of those three movies over 20 years that put Lucas where he is today.
            Because there are plenty of other films with more than one “version” that are available in HD- look at Blade Runner’s 5-version collection.

            Lucas’ “reasoning” doesn’t hold up at all, and it reeks of self-aggrandising and petty spite.


            • It doesn’t belong to you or anyone. The only thing that belongs to you is the experience you paid for at the box office.
              It being an important part of movie history, actually makes the case even more for George Lucas owning the whole of it rather than anybody else. He (and his crew) made it. Nobody else. You didn’t make it a success either. The whole collective of movie-goers did, and each individual paid only for his own ticket (friends, family excepted). You think paying somewhere around $10 gives you a claim to GL’s property?
              Maybe you think you are owed something because you paid 1000s of dollars for merchandise? Actually, you were owed merchandise, which you got.
              You don’t own or are owed anything other than the very specific experience or thing that you paid for. George Lucas can do with his creation whatever he wants. And you have the right to tell him to stuff it and walk away.


  2. Nice educational piece. The increased politicization of the GB reboots was apparent, but not nearly as destructive as they are today. You could criticize their choices without being branded a nazi. Post Obama, identity politics and ubiquitous social media have weaponized SJW media activism. The election of Trump has energized them into what amounts to a lynch mob.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. I think they simply rely on the next crop of fans, those who haven’t seen how things have gotten this bad, and are dazed by special effects and reinforcement of the propaganda. A good writer would shake up the conflict dynamic and make the viewer leave with a deeper understanding of things. But sadly this doesn’t happen as media/Hollywood is only about playing safe. And those independent creators who eventually make it big are only too happy to discard integrity.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Luckily for us, the “next crop of fans” can never be the type of fans the studios need to stay in business. Poor storytelling & characters, which is all modern studios are seemingly capable of, will not produce the “old style” fan who buys all the merchandise surrounding the IP. That’s famously how Lucas made the Big Bucks, and given the cost to make & market movies these days, it’s what the studios desperately need and aren’t getting with their schlock movies. So the studios can’t keep this up indefinitely and will run out of cash (or investors) sooner rather than later, as Lucas himself predicted a few years ago. I can’t wait for that to happen, so that independent filmmakers with modern, affordable tools that rival the pro equipment from a few decades ago will rebuild the movie industry.

      Liked by 3 people

        • “independent filmmakers with modern, affordable tools that rival the pro equipment from a few decades ago…”

          It’s what I’ve told my kids when I point to some of the higher quality Youtube videos. I do foresee a time when the big media will lose its stranglehold on media. Radio stations to downloadable content, Youtube videos having more appeal than schlock TV. Even news comes to us from people who are handling tougher issues, getting it to us in spite of how biased big TV stations shunt important issues aside, or bias viewers who simply don’t have time to research every article they read. The global media have gotten fat, lazy, biased and toxic.

          The biggest push required is getting creators to get past Lucas, Roddenberry, etc. and believe in their own creations. For example, Star Trek Axanar may have had pure genius in it. But such productions are ever under the pendulous swing of a sharp network axe.

          The above combined with the general audience’s disbelieve than anything worth watching could come from a non-Disney studio is what’s holding back a massive explosion of artistic creativity. But there’s hope, man! Ethan van Sciver passed the $650K line with his Indiegogo campaign. And more campaigns are on the way, some less successful, but let’s put our cash where our thoughts are. :^)


      • You gave me hope, damn you!

        But lol, thanks for that. I do feel sad it’s going to take so long, yet we already see hints of that now, with SC 38. Superb stuff!

        What had George Lucas said about that, exactly?


  4. “Why All-Female Reboots Do Not Work”
    by Matthew Kadish
    View at

    Mr. Kadish is a film director and author who discusses why, using polls and statistics, the latest “All-Female” reboots of previous successful films do not work.

    “Matthew Kadish is a published author & world-renowned evil genius. He’s the greatest writer ever. His mother tells him so every day.
    Aug 22 – 25 minute read”

    Or click the “Show Embed” button to display the audio reader.


  5. > no one came to Hollywood to be a stenographer.
    What on Earth is Brian talking about?

    Well, there was a Soviet era joke…
    One [token minority] author comes to a publishing house. The editor have read the manuscript, but it cannot fit even generously lowered standards.
    — You see, it’s sort of weak. I think reading the classics may help. Did you read Turgenev? Tolstoy? Dostoevski?
    — Chukchee is not a reader, Chukchee is a writer!

    (in another variant, he’s simply illiterate, but the punchline is exactly the same) This line “for some reason” became a meme in its own right. So, returning to our sheep… ;]

    In fact, we had seen a female lead like that repeatedly throughout the decades,

    …but Brian didn’t see any. Because he didn’t watch at least one (possibly, either), nor even read decently detailed summaries before “comparing” them…

    and which Brian would know were he to read the blog post before arbitrarily calling it

    …and as the saying goes, “once is a Fluke, twice is a trend”, etc.

    In related non-news, Wong makes a good case (with illustrations) that some sloppiness is inevitable, and that’s why without a draconian continuity editor any Shared Universe is doomed to roll toward the lowest common denominator until it becomes an unfunny parody of itself, and beyond that. But then, there are clowns who manage to prat-fall below the lowest common denominator.

    > To stand tall by the fundamental ethic of fidelity to source material?
    Why not? Would the show have been as mildly successful as it was with a different title? The source material is the primary reason that anyone gave a damn to bother with it at all.

    The inevitable conclusion is that since the viewers who came for Shakespeare expects something better than “King’s Cameleopard”, de facto such a “reboot” is a blatant fraud (deliberate false advertisement), even if de jure King and Duke may claim that once a corporation gave the old logo to them, they have a right to sell anything at all under that logo.


  6. “Battlestar Galactica” is interesting. I had pretty much completely forgotten about this show and only thanks to this article fully realize it belongs in the canon of SJW crap.
    I should have known, though, if only i had remembered this show.
    I remember being mildly interested in it for its first few episodes, and remember how making Starbuck a woman was stupid (without connecting it to a specific political ideology at the time). But it was especially the excruciatingly obvious social and political messaging in the show that made me bored with it real quick. The analogy of Cylons with muslim immigrants was so obvious after 9/11. And with what they clearly thought was anti-muslim paranoia and prejudice at the time. “Yeah some Cylons are bad but some are good and just like you and me and by the way people can be mean too blah blah blah.”

    Liked by 2 people

      • The original Star Trek is still the real Star Trek. An egalitarian future where people were still people, and doing the right thing was the most important thing.

        A lot of the “vision” of Star Trek came after the fact, when people lionized Roddenberry for his “utopian vision”. At the end of the day, Star Trek was a drama- adventure show which posited a future where we’d gotten over petty bigotries, and were spreading truth, justice, and the American way throughout the cosmos. It was a show made by people with actual military service, who understood things like professionalism and honor. It was legitimately progressive, because it never made a meal about its interracial crew. You never saw Roddenberry or his writers attacking “racists” and “sexists” in interviews. They presented their integrated future as No Big Deal, and focused on telling great stories with great characters.

        Spreading far-Left messages was not the sole reason for the show’s existence, as it is now. Flash-forward to now, and it’s easy to see how the show’s original vision has been twisted into Socialist propaganda by people with no understanding of military service, professionalism, and honor.

        The real Star Trek was made by adults for adults, and appealed to a huge range of people, because it preached universal truths about tolerance, honor, and brotherhood. Modern Star Trek is segregationist garbage. Its vulgar stupidity is deeply offensive, and even dangerous. It needs to die.


  7. Its interesting how the reboot removed all the black characters from the show. Boomer was turn into an Asian woman and the caring Colonel Tigh was turn into angry white guy. I guess to Ron D Moore there no black people in space.


  8. The big problem with you is that however valid some of your points are, you’re narrow-minded, intolerant, arrogant, and just generally unpleasant. Even if many of your points are valid, you’re the WORST messenger to deliver them. You come off like a crackpot conspiracy nut. We have too many of those. And you’re alienating natural alliances. Way to be classy there, asshole.


    • I agree. Sounds more like he’s just concerned that the OG Battlestar Galactica is fading into pop culture obscurity, and that’s sadly a consistent trend for all media. But who isn’t convinced if it came back, there’d be a multiverse? Come on.

      I think Ron Moore deserves way better than the sneering contempt he has for him. That man is one of the greatest writers Star Trek has ever had, and to just lump him in with “revisionism-happy left-wing politics” is completely asinine at best, as mentally deranged as he labels SJWs at worst. Ron Moore is PROOF that left-wing politics isn’t a bad thing if you get a good writer.

      The ONLY people who would bash Ron Moore this way are triggered righties. Shame on him!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s