Note: This commentary is in response to the recent commentary by Michael Hinman, which can be found here.

By Matthew J. Timmerman

You make some very interesting and good points in your response to the current outpouring against the new "Battlestar Galactica" reimagining. However, there are a few contrary points I would like to point out as one of the fans of science-fiction who is against the Sci-Fi Channel's remake. I certainly hope you don't simply ignore and delete this message as you suggested actor Richard Hatch might be apt to do to your editorial.

First, you're right in what you say about waiting to see the final judgment on the final product before passing judgment. It could be a great miniseries. Heck, it could wind up as the best thing the Sci-Fi Channel has ever done, surpassing even their recent "Dune" programs. But, the judgment being made by fans against the new "Battlestar Galactica" has nothing to do with its quality. It's all about the name. Ronald D. Moore and Bonnie Hammer could've easily chosen to create their own original epic, yet the decision has been made to call it by the title "Galactica," adding in similarities to the original series that are so few and far apart, it could easily be changed into something that could stand on its own.

Why choose to name it "Battlestar Galactica"?

One possible reason is in part due to the efforts of Richard Hatch. He knows that there is a fan base that wants the series to return. In fact, he is one of those very fans. He knows there is a market for the show. And, most importantly, he showed the powers at Universal that there is a market.

But they don't understand the mystique that surrounds it, why people love it, and why it has survived. So, they have chosen to remake it in their image. And Richard Hatch isn't the only person whose Galactica ideas have been snubbed by Universal. Series creator Glen Larson has also been kept away from the new project, despite his own attempts to relauch the franchinse. The Sci-Fi Channel itself has become nothing but an action-horror station as of late, with programs targeted at teenage boys who are home from school on the weekends. Until they can appreciate classic sci-fi programs for what they are, they aren't ready to deal with something like "Battlestar Galactica."

In your article, you said the comments made by Edward James Olmos were take out of context. You may be right, but you seem to also have taken Richard Hatch's comments about the current condition of Star Trek out of context as well. When Mr. Hatch talked about Trek, he was referring to the way things have changed in recent years, pulling away from Gene Roddenberry's vision of an idylic future. When "Star Trek: The Next Generation" began, it was still being lead by Roddenberry and was treated as a spinoff, not a reimagining, set farther in the future than the original series or movies.

But when he left the show, things began to change -- more emphasis was placed on characterization than storytelling. This became even more apparent in the later Trek series.

In an interview, Majel Barrett-Roddenberry once said that she felt "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" was the spinoff that most went against Gene's intended Star Trek world. (Note: Ronald Moore was a writer for "Deep Space Nine.")

Today, with "Enterprise," Rick Berman and Brannon Braga seem to be attempting to rewrite Star Trek history in many ways.

Additionally, you said that Hatch was merely trying to cash-in on "Battlestar Galactica." Isn't Berman also continually trying to cash-in on Star Trek? So many plots have been recycled episode after episode, year after year, series after series. In many cases, before one Trek series ends, another begins. Is he so worried about keeping the money flowing that he won't grant the franchise a cooling off period, no matter what the cost is to the integrity of the show?

Moreover, you said that Berman has made boatloads of money for Paramount. That is a bit misleading. The Star Trek franchise itself is making the money and has been this "gift that keeps on giving" for years, even before Berman was on board. Each of Berman's spinoff programs and movies have been greeted with a slow decline in ratings and profits. In fact "Star Trek: Nemesis" was such a theatrical failure that many critics have claimed the Trek franchise is dead.

You also pointed out that
"Battlestar Galactica" merely lasted around 25 episodes, one full season. No matter how little time it was on the air, the show has survived. It certainly isn't the only "cult" sci-fi show to only be on for a only short while. "Space 1999" only lasted two seasons, "V" lasted two miniseries and 18 episodes, and UFO was only on for 26 episodes. In fact, "V" is on its way back to the airwaves as a new miniseries, complete with much of the original cast and the series creator Kenneth Johnson.

And the original "Battlestar Galactica" was not cancelled because it was failing in the ratings. Today, it remains one of the highest rated shows in television history. The reason ABC pulled the plug after one season was because they felt the existing cost of roughly $1 million per episode was too high, whether people were watching or not. And, once it was cancelled, ABC saw their viewership drop.

"Galactica 1980" was their attempt to bring the show back at a lower production price. The cheap route did not work.

In several places, you also commented on how things can turn out bad for a television show when the producers go by the will of the fans. Certainly, you are right -- it is impossible to follow the will of every viewer and to try to do so is futile. However, Universal is ignoring the fans of "Bttlestar Galactica" ltogether. They've even gone as far as to deny the existence of a fan following. There is a big difference between giving in to the fans' demands and failing to hear them altogether.

Still, the most important question to be asked is why remake "Battlestar Galactica"? In an interview a few years back, science-fiction author Harlan Ellison said he had been asked to help write a remake of "Forbidden Planet." His respose was something to the effect of, "Why remake it? The original is already perfect. Why not do a follow-up? After all, the aliens that built those machines couldn't have simply died out."

What if Paramount had decided to reimagine Star Trek instead of making the "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" we know today. Would Trek fans be reacting any differently than Galactica fans?

On one final note, Richard Hatch is much more than the "bored actor" your article refers to him as. He has been busy with various film and television projects throughout the years. Plus, his company is getting ready to premiere their trailer for "The Great War of Magellan" at the upcoming Galacticon convention. Just because he has shown a large personal interest in Galactica doesn't mean he has nothing else to do with his time. For instance, actors Fred Dryer and Stepanie Kramer were the driving force behind the recent "Hunter" reunion movies and short-lived TV series. And "Halloween H20" was made after being suggested by Jamie Lee Curtis.

Sometimes actors do care for and take a personal investment in a show they were a part of.

Good or bad, the upcoming "Battlestar Galactica" miniseries is going to draw a lot of negative comparisons to the original series with just cause. The new show isn't "Battlestar Galactica" just because it bears carries the name.

Talk about this story on the Airlock Alpha message boards. Click here!.