Whistling in The Dark: Ronald D. Moore's Failed Attempt to Revive Battlestar Galactica
Read what the differing opinions about this book have to say...
These differing opinions by the way, were written by Universal Studios stealth marketers and employees who coerced Amazon.com into removing all of the favorable and legitimate book reviews restored below.
12 out of 18 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars I didn't know if I was watching Battlestar Galactica or Blade Runner., February 21st, 2010
By Buster Sword nickname Butch Crackheap This review is for Whistling in the Dark
Is this how Ronald D. Moore produces and writes a show? If this is the case then any high school kid could do what Moore did in throwing this show together. The look of this show is a joke. Contemporary objects and dwellings trying to be passed off as the future. Gosh, is that Edward James Olmos frowning again? He has been frowning for what, the past 50 years since he first got out of acting school and forgot everything he learned? The effects are great but the new ship designs suck. The uniforms look like Salvation Army rags. A word to the wise. Science Fiction television on a low budget has never worked and it doesn't work here.
14 out of 25 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars USA Networks and Bonnie Hammer shouldn't even have bothered or tried to run this cable network., March 25th, 2009
By Stallion_Cornell My Moist Box is your Moist Box This review is for Whistling in the Dark
There is bad television and then there is bad television. The cable network that really shouldn't exist the way it is being run by USA Networks and Bonnie Hammer has given us such forgettable junk as Scare Tactics and low budget originally produced monster movies took a stab at doing Battlestar Galactica. Not surprisingly, the Sci-Fi Channel and Ronald D. Moore failed miserably in the process. Of course, it's not surprising that everything else the Sci-Fi Channel tries fails miserably as well. The main problem is, USA Networks and Sci-Fi Channel simply lack the internal talent to think in Pop Culture sensibilities terms. This takes talent, to have your business finger on the pulse of what will be the next Pop Culture big thing. No such talent exists among Bonnie Hammer and Ronald D. Moore when it came time for them to tackle Battlestar Galactica. What the two of them collectively regurgitated instead, was a pastiche of science fiction cliches from the past badly produced and badly written here. This thing they called Battlestar Galactica also had the annoying habit of riffing on such movies and television shows as Blade Runner, Species, Space: Above and Beyond, Star Trek, and Star Wars. No doubt Bonnie Hammer and Ronald D. Moore never asked for permission beforehand to steal these ideas. Instead of getting a new Battlestar Galactica production, viewers were faced with a 'Greatest Hits Compilation' of every successful SciFi movie and television series from the past, since Bonnie Hammer and Ronald D. Moore are incapable of original thinking. This book pretty much sums up every legitimate beef I have ever had with the Bonnie Hammer era Sci-Fi Channel.
9 out of 34 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars I never watched this crap of Ronald D. Moore's but I'll take the author's word for it., September 27th, 2009
By Ronald Remington Meyer Read all of my reviews
Ronald D. Moore? I heard his shit on the Sci-Fi Channel is pretty bad, completely unwatchable. I never watched a minute of anything Ronald D. Moore did for the Sci-Fi Channel, but I'll take the author's here word for it that it's pretty bad because Ronald D. Moore has never done anything noteworthy in the past by himself in the arena of Science Fiction. G vs. E sucked and the only thing he ever did that was good was when he was part of Star Trek. No doubt due to the fact that he didn't have complete creative control. From what I hear, the more creative control Ronald D. Moore has over a project the more shitty it becomes. The casting in this GINO thing looks pretty shitty also. Edward James Olmos as Commander Adama. Since when did Adama become an illegal alien? That Seven of Nine clone called Six I hear is typical mindless eye candy ripped off from Star Trek. Thanks to this book, I'll stay away from Ronald D. Moore and Sci-Fi Channel and not give them my time of day. I'll stick with the only true Galactica series having aired 31 years ago.
7 out of 12 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars This GINO thing is the worst hunk of turd I ever watched., November 5th, 2010
By Blasphemous Butt-Hockey Read all of my reviews
What is this preoccupation Ronald D. Moore has with dark and gloomy shit, doing a show called Battlestar Galactica that really isn't Battlestar Galactica, hiring the worst actors on a budget, Edward James Olmos, and a show that doesn't convince me in the slightest it doesn't take place on location in Canada? Boy, does this show suck!! As if Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman were to smoke a dooby together and this shit is what they would come up with. This show is like a failed attempt at Science Fiction and Battlestar Galactica at the same time, ending up as a late night rerun on Spike TV sponsored by tampons and antacids. After reading this book, I wanted the Sci-Fi Channel and Ronald D. Moore to go out of business right now and never return to television. The sad thing is, the author is absolutely correct. Neither one of them should be doing what they do, and they both should be fined for polluting the cable airwaves if they ever do it again. This book has inspired me to write my own book about how much Ronald D. Moore and Sci-Fi Channel suck. I'm going to call it Ronald D. Moore and Sci-Fi Channel suck.
9 out of 12 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Ronald D. Moore has been unemployed since this junk of his. What does that tell you?, January 13, 2010
By Black Tower Fuzzy Slippers This review is from Whistling in The Dark
My first impressions of watching this thing called Battlestar Galactica was that Sci-Fi Channel and Ronald D. Moore didn't have the adequate budget to do what this sort of show demanded, it was an odd smorgasbord of every science fiction cliche I had already seen for decades, this show wasn't Battlestar Galactica by any stretch of the imagination, and sour puss Edward James Olmos was an eccentric choice to play Commander Adama to say the least. Additionally, the acting was bad, the cast had no chemistry with each other, the entire enterprise was a slap-dash job, and Ronald D. Moore producing and writing science fiction of any sort on his own without any sort of level-headed oversight particularly Battlestar Galactica is an unpleasant prospect for any television viewer to have to sit thru.
My negative opinions of this show haven't changed a decade later. This "GINO" series of Ronald D. Moore's hasn't aged well in the past decade, primarily because it wasn't hip and state of the art popcorn fare during its original broadcasts. During its original run, it instead came across as how Corporate America views science fiction television programming with all of that Wall Street condescension involved. That unpleasant odor about "GINO" hasn't changed in the past decade and never will because Wall Street imbeciles working at places like Universal Studios and Sci-Fi Channel never evolve psycholoogically. I also never cared for the outright hostility this series and its makers at Sci-Fi Channel held towards the source material, which of course was the Battlestar Galactica series from 1978. Ironic since this eccentric oddity from Ronald D. Moore and Sci-Fi Channel wasn't as well thought out and as well made as the original and only true series from 1978.
15 out of 45 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars I find it disgusting and quite sad that Universal Studios is what it is., February 8, 2010
By Mark Howe aka Trunk Slamchest Read all of my reviews
I find it quite disgusting and quite sad that the only way Universal Studios can conduct business in the science fiction and Battlestar Galactica arenas is to be a dishonest thug of a corporation. They can't simply put out a Battlestar Galactica production for example for public consumption. Instead, they have to hire stealth marketers from Abraham and Harrison to argue with the general public on internet forums, then they hire the least talented idiots in the industry for their science fiction and Battlestar Galactica productions such as Ronald D. Moore and David Eick. Then Universal Studios proceeds to give the consumer masses precisely the exact opposite of what they're always clamoring for. Universal Studios has a word for it. They call it business. I call it sadism. I would also wager Universal Studios gets its rocks off doing it even if it means losses of profits in the hundred of millions of dollars. Universal Studios primary target for its sadism has been Battlestar Galactica. You can't tell me that the best Universal Studios could ever do with Battlestar Galactica is hire the former Star Trek hack Ronald D. Moore, ship him over to Canada, give him a shoestring budget, and quite bluntly tell him 'do whatever you have always wanted to do with Star Trek and we'll just slap the Battlestar Galactica logo on it after you're done.' This is worse than sadism, this is quite frankly artistic selling out on the part of Universal Studios and Ronald D. Moore. The cruddy production they came up with together has also been telling and has offered insight into how Universal Studios and Ronald D. Moore approach Battlestar Galactica. One, they hate the property and two, they have no imagination whatsoever to approach the property. So Universal Studios and Ronald D. Moore did nothing more than turn Battlestar Galactica into a low budget location shoot in British Columbia and they didn't hire a costume designer either. No doubt just off the rack clothing for the actors from a local British Columbia shopping mall. Not just with me me but with many others by the millions I would wager, Universal Studios and Ronald D. Moore are fired from the science fiction and Battlestar Galactica businesses. No one watched their crud either.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Universal Studios lifeblood is the favorable, false impression they always try to create for themselves on the Internet. It seems Universal Studios didn't like the favorable, legitimate reviews of specific books criticizing them on Amazon.com. All of the favorable reviews of these books deleted by Universal Studios and Amazon.com were luckily saved, and have been restored here!! Enjoy!!