close menu

Universal Hires Writer For New Big-Screen BATTLESTAR GALACTICA


Battlestar Galactica is about to get its third “re-imagining” in less than thirty-five years: In an exclusive at Variety, it’s been reported that Universal is gearing up a big-screen movie version of the classic sci-fi property, and they are set to develop the film as a complete re-imagining of the story. Transcendence writer Jack Paglen has signed on to write the screenplay. Paglen is also set to write the sequel to Ridley Scott’s Prometheus for Fox, which will start production towards the end of this year .Original 1978 Battlestar series creator Glen Larson will produce the film.

This isn’t the first time rumors of a revival of Battlestar Galactica have cropped up; a few years ago it was reported that director Bryan Singer of X-Men and The Usual Suspects fame was attached to a movie version, but those rumors seemed to go nowhere (he doesn’t seem to be attached to this version.)  This was just a few years after the revival series went off the air, and needless to say, reaction was mixed-to-bad to this idea.

Writer/producer Ronald D. Moore’s revival of Battlestar, which aired on the SyFy Channel from 2003-2009, was one of the most critically beloved science-fiction series of all time, with writing and acting that was usually on a whole other level than most television sci-fi fare, and gaining a legion of devoted fans, may of whom usually did not watch space opera. No doubt a movie version will cost a lot more, and focus more on spectacle than character, drawing very unfavorable comparisons. But Battlestar is a brand name, so if Universal feels they can make some money off this concept via a giant tentpole movie, it means we are gonna see this movie sooner rather than later.  Of course, the million dollar question will be, “is Starbuck 3.0 gonna be a girl or a boy?”


It’s Official: A Massive Shark (Probably) Ate The Missing Great White

It’s Official: A Massive Shark (Probably) Ate The Missing Great White



You Made It Weird

You Made It Weird : Matt Mira



  1. Mike says:

    Unfortunately, in todays movie industry, the products turned out are crap. For all the special effects, and money spent on the New Star Trek Movie, it had many a Trekies cringing. It was entertaining and it tried to tie in elements from previous canon, but it had some big flaws. This is more than likely what would happen to Galactica. Fans would end up disappointed if it were produced in the same manner as all the rest.I too would love to see the series get the respect and success it deserves but putting on rose colored glasses won’t disguise a turd. I would be very surprised if a movie was made that would spur a new wave of fans big enough to carry it to heights of Star Wars or Star Trek. Nice thought, but unrealistic I think.

  2. Mike says:

    “From the mouths of babes”. If you are old enough to have watched the original back when it aired in 78, you would understand the reason for the distaste with the new series. As I’ve stated in one of my other replies, the new BSG played to todays politically correct, culturally retarded audience. There was no REAL reason to change the gender of the  principle characters they chose to butcher. The original series had several female characters (Athena, Sheba, Cassiopeia, Flight Cpl. Rigel and a host of others), which could have been brought to the forefront without changing the characters of Starbuck, or Cain, or Boomer.  The only reason to change the latter was to placate the feminist, homosexuals, and minorities (respective to the characters), that the networks were afraid would feel alienated. It did nothing to further the plot. This is why some of us old timers have issue with the remake.  It’s about keeping true to the story. Yeah, I loved some of the special effects, but that’s not what makes a show great. Its proper casting and great acting driving a clenching plot. I know that 70’s TV shows were not known for their great acting; but for what they were doing, it was pretty good compared to lets say… Buck Rogers in the 25th Century.

  3. Mike says:

    Not sheltered, experienced. When you’ve been around long enough you see things younger people don’t.

  4. Mike says:

    Man-o-man, could I ramble on. Just check some of my other comments to get a HINT of what was wrong with the last series. The problem with doing something, new, is that the brain dead robots of Hollywierd can’t come up with anything fresh. They haven’t had an original idea for quite some time now. Television isn’t much better. When someone does come up with something, all the other networks jump on the band wagon and run the idea into the ground (with their own twist of course). Its really that bad.

  5. Mike says:

    As a product of the younger generation, I’m sure you did love “morons”, I mean Ron Moore’s, BSG. It simply did not stay true to the Original and therefore lost its base (older) fans.

  6. Mike says:

    I won’t address the Star Trek stuff except to say this. WHY CALL IT STAR TREK if your not going to stay true to canon? Why even base your movie on the franchise name if you don’t respect it? That’s pretty stupid. Your crapping on the fans who you want to come and see your movie. As for BSG I’ve responded to several of the comments posted here. Just read a few and you’ll know where I’m coming from.  I understand your affection for the 2nd series is probably because you didn’t grow up with the original. The younger generations are more in tuned with todays way of business. Political correctness and creative stagnation are the norm. This is where the new series and a new movie fail.

  7. Martin says:

    Everybody is entitled totheir opinion but to say that you wouldn’t look forward to Larson’s involvement is a massive contradiction,considering he had active input in to the re-imagined series,and actually created the show.This will sadly not happen now though.On a personal note I would like to see a return to the centurions and other alien races.Space opera is mostly boring,only Stargate Universe worked for that.