Post by koenigrules on Jan 22, 2005 13:51:39 GMT -5
www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-tribtv.story
For a Jan. 21 feature on the new "Battlestar Galactica," Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune spoke to Ronald D. Moore, creator of Sci Fi Channel's new "Galactica" series (which airs Fridays at 9 p.m.), and to Richard Hatch, Apollo on the original "Galactica." Hatch guests on the Jan. 21 episode, "Bastille Day," playing a political prisoner named Tom Zarek. Excerpts from both interviews are below.
Richard Hatch
Eventually Universal decided to go with a brand new "Battlestar" created by executive producers Ronald D. Moore and David Eick: It became clear to me that "Battlestar Galactica" was on its own path. It was going to find its own way. Ultimately, I didn't own "BSG." It's something I love and believe in but the owners would make the final decision. They were going to do what they thought best, and follow their own vision, and I had to make my peace with that.
On Moore's "Galactica": When I met Ron Moore, he's an intelligent, down-to-earth man. Once the network decided they didn't want to do a continuation but a re-imagining, they hired an incredibly talented and gifted writing staff and crew and actors to put it together.
At a "Galactica" convention, Moore played scenes from the new miniseries: The hard part is, no matter how wonderful it is when you're dealing with something that came before, you have a lot of fans who really bonded to the original series. It's very difficult for them to cross over, the same way it was hard for "Star Trek" fans to open up to "Next Generation."
I have to say, I think similarly to Ron in terms of how he explores characters. We're all a combination of good and evil, there's no such thing as black and white. Human beings are rarely played as complex as we really are, but that's what he wanted to do with these characters, explore them at a deeper and more profound level. That's what I was hoping we'd be able to do with the original show. We'd made a good start against tremendous odds, but we needed that second year to get into those complex character and relationship issues. And that's what they're doing [on the new show].
I'm happy that they brought together this extraordinary group of writers and producers and actors to create this. Sometimes they put together people who don't care, and you get something cheesy. They chose to do something intelligent, with vision and complexity.
On wanting a juicy role on the new series: It's not about ego. If someone offers me a cameo... well, if you can't bite your teeth into something, [it's not worth it]. I got tired of roles that didn't move me. I wasn't really interested in doing something just for the sake of doing it.
You can read more of the Hatch interview at the above link.
Ronald D. Moore
On the philosophy behind reinventing "Battlestar": My overarching feeling about the original was that it had to be true to the roots of its own premise. The premise is the same as ours. The Cylons destroy the entire human race and only a handful of people survive. It's a scary premise, but within the first couple hours [on the original show], they go off to the casino planet. They retell the "Guns of Navarone," they retell "Shane." It became popcorn stuff, which I think is at odds with the premise of the show itself. The entire destruction of their race, then they're hanging out with casino showgirls?
But it was 1978, it was coming off Star Wars, they wanted to capture the escapism and fun of "Star Wars." "Star Trek" had not truly become a pop culture phenomenon. They really only had the old ["Star Trek"] series as a model and that was the plot of the week.
So for this production, [the idea was] let's take this situation seriously. Let's really play what would really happen if our civilization was really wiped out. Which after 9/11, is not such a farfetched idea. It's drawing on those emotions, those reactions in our country after that event, the issues we're dealing with – the war on terror, the war in Iraq, civil liberties and freedoms versus security. Play the show in that key. That's the show. It's a heavy premise.
But there's still life. People still try to enjoy themselves. One of my favorite beats is when [President Laura Roslin] is told that a baby has been born. Somehow that means so much.
On the themes of the show: The tension between security and freedom is inherent to democracy. When you're thrust into this situation where the survival of the race is in question...people want to save themselves, but what are they saving? They have to be careful that they're saving the right things for the right reasons.
On the future of the show: The [Sci Fi] Channel ordered six more scripts...It's an expensive show. They have to do a lot of bean counting to figure out what makes the show [worthwhile]. I'm hoping we get a second year. So far there's been a really good response in the UK, SkyOne there is very happy with the ratings and the critical response has been good.
On not being boxed in by the sci fi label: I try to talk about the show being a drama first. It's not about bumpy-headed aliens or weird mind control or body snatching or anything like that. I hope we've made something that fans of "The Shield" or "Nip/Tuck" would like.
On re-imagining key roles, especially that of Starbuck, as women: If you look at the old show, it's a very male show. In the original series, there's an episode where all the men get sick and it's, "We need pilots!" and they train the women [which is treated as a big deal]. Obviously we have a much more integrated military now.
And one of the first ideas I had when they approached me for the project was, "What if we make Starbuck a woman?" I thought, it'd be an interesting way to turn the rogue, hot-shot pilot [stereotype] on its head. How many times have we seen that before? And usually the woman is like Kelly McGillis' character in "Top Gun," the woman standing by the edge or the runway.
On Edward James Olmos as Commander Adama: He really grounds the show. When he walks into the [main command center] set, everyone stands up a little straighter. Eddy is definitely the commander. He has that certain gravity and weight and it plays in every scene.
On James Callis, who plays troubled scientist Gaius Baltar: He's the actor [whose role] changed the most from the script. In my mind, he was always this complicated, ambiguous, morally, ethically ambiguous guy, he had this weakness for women, he had an ego. What I didn't really write was that he was funny. James really brings that to the party, he gives the whole show a jolt. He's funny.
Hatch's role of Tom Zarek: I got really interested in Richard doing it. It's very different from his old role, it's a political character, a human antagonist within the fleet. He's the guy who'll say, "All you people are wrong, this society must be torn down."
Regarding bringing back other cast members from the original "Battlestar": I'm open to it. The trick is to do what we did for Richard, which was to find a good, rich role for them to play.
You can read more of the Moore interview at the above link.
For a Jan. 21 feature on the new "Battlestar Galactica," Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune spoke to Ronald D. Moore, creator of Sci Fi Channel's new "Galactica" series (which airs Fridays at 9 p.m.), and to Richard Hatch, Apollo on the original "Galactica." Hatch guests on the Jan. 21 episode, "Bastille Day," playing a political prisoner named Tom Zarek. Excerpts from both interviews are below.
Richard Hatch
Eventually Universal decided to go with a brand new "Battlestar" created by executive producers Ronald D. Moore and David Eick: It became clear to me that "Battlestar Galactica" was on its own path. It was going to find its own way. Ultimately, I didn't own "BSG." It's something I love and believe in but the owners would make the final decision. They were going to do what they thought best, and follow their own vision, and I had to make my peace with that.
On Moore's "Galactica": When I met Ron Moore, he's an intelligent, down-to-earth man. Once the network decided they didn't want to do a continuation but a re-imagining, they hired an incredibly talented and gifted writing staff and crew and actors to put it together.
At a "Galactica" convention, Moore played scenes from the new miniseries: The hard part is, no matter how wonderful it is when you're dealing with something that came before, you have a lot of fans who really bonded to the original series. It's very difficult for them to cross over, the same way it was hard for "Star Trek" fans to open up to "Next Generation."
I have to say, I think similarly to Ron in terms of how he explores characters. We're all a combination of good and evil, there's no such thing as black and white. Human beings are rarely played as complex as we really are, but that's what he wanted to do with these characters, explore them at a deeper and more profound level. That's what I was hoping we'd be able to do with the original show. We'd made a good start against tremendous odds, but we needed that second year to get into those complex character and relationship issues. And that's what they're doing [on the new show].
I'm happy that they brought together this extraordinary group of writers and producers and actors to create this. Sometimes they put together people who don't care, and you get something cheesy. They chose to do something intelligent, with vision and complexity.
On wanting a juicy role on the new series: It's not about ego. If someone offers me a cameo... well, if you can't bite your teeth into something, [it's not worth it]. I got tired of roles that didn't move me. I wasn't really interested in doing something just for the sake of doing it.
You can read more of the Hatch interview at the above link.
Ronald D. Moore
On the philosophy behind reinventing "Battlestar": My overarching feeling about the original was that it had to be true to the roots of its own premise. The premise is the same as ours. The Cylons destroy the entire human race and only a handful of people survive. It's a scary premise, but within the first couple hours [on the original show], they go off to the casino planet. They retell the "Guns of Navarone," they retell "Shane." It became popcorn stuff, which I think is at odds with the premise of the show itself. The entire destruction of their race, then they're hanging out with casino showgirls?
But it was 1978, it was coming off Star Wars, they wanted to capture the escapism and fun of "Star Wars." "Star Trek" had not truly become a pop culture phenomenon. They really only had the old ["Star Trek"] series as a model and that was the plot of the week.
So for this production, [the idea was] let's take this situation seriously. Let's really play what would really happen if our civilization was really wiped out. Which after 9/11, is not such a farfetched idea. It's drawing on those emotions, those reactions in our country after that event, the issues we're dealing with – the war on terror, the war in Iraq, civil liberties and freedoms versus security. Play the show in that key. That's the show. It's a heavy premise.
But there's still life. People still try to enjoy themselves. One of my favorite beats is when [President Laura Roslin] is told that a baby has been born. Somehow that means so much.
On the themes of the show: The tension between security and freedom is inherent to democracy. When you're thrust into this situation where the survival of the race is in question...people want to save themselves, but what are they saving? They have to be careful that they're saving the right things for the right reasons.
On the future of the show: The [Sci Fi] Channel ordered six more scripts...It's an expensive show. They have to do a lot of bean counting to figure out what makes the show [worthwhile]. I'm hoping we get a second year. So far there's been a really good response in the UK, SkyOne there is very happy with the ratings and the critical response has been good.
On not being boxed in by the sci fi label: I try to talk about the show being a drama first. It's not about bumpy-headed aliens or weird mind control or body snatching or anything like that. I hope we've made something that fans of "The Shield" or "Nip/Tuck" would like.
On re-imagining key roles, especially that of Starbuck, as women: If you look at the old show, it's a very male show. In the original series, there's an episode where all the men get sick and it's, "We need pilots!" and they train the women [which is treated as a big deal]. Obviously we have a much more integrated military now.
And one of the first ideas I had when they approached me for the project was, "What if we make Starbuck a woman?" I thought, it'd be an interesting way to turn the rogue, hot-shot pilot [stereotype] on its head. How many times have we seen that before? And usually the woman is like Kelly McGillis' character in "Top Gun," the woman standing by the edge or the runway.
On Edward James Olmos as Commander Adama: He really grounds the show. When he walks into the [main command center] set, everyone stands up a little straighter. Eddy is definitely the commander. He has that certain gravity and weight and it plays in every scene.
On James Callis, who plays troubled scientist Gaius Baltar: He's the actor [whose role] changed the most from the script. In my mind, he was always this complicated, ambiguous, morally, ethically ambiguous guy, he had this weakness for women, he had an ego. What I didn't really write was that he was funny. James really brings that to the party, he gives the whole show a jolt. He's funny.
Hatch's role of Tom Zarek: I got really interested in Richard doing it. It's very different from his old role, it's a political character, a human antagonist within the fleet. He's the guy who'll say, "All you people are wrong, this society must be torn down."
Regarding bringing back other cast members from the original "Battlestar": I'm open to it. The trick is to do what we did for Richard, which was to find a good, rich role for them to play.
You can read more of the Moore interview at the above link.