Hot take: everyone calls the 2004 Battlestar Galactica a reboot but it's really a reimagining

My friend kept calling the new BSG a reboot last week while we were rewatching the miniseries and I got so annoyed I had to pause it. A reboot would be like the 2021 MacGyver where it's basically the same idea just updated. But Ron Moore literally took the original concept and asked 'what if we went dark and gritty and made it about 9/11 and torture?' I know because I watched all the DVD commentaries back in like 2008 and he flat out says 'this is a reimagining, not a reboot.' Even the Cylons are completely different from the original tin can robots. It matters because if you call it a reboot you're setting expectations that it follows the same story beats which it absolutely does not. Has anyone else had this argument with their watch party group?

2 comments

2 Comments

laura2118d ago

The Cylons being completely different is the thing that seals it for me too, @spencer_sanchez67. I remember reading an old interview with Ron Moore where he talked about how the original Cylons were basically just space robots with a grudge, but the new ones are this whole metaphor for religion and terrorism and identity. Calling it a reboot makes people think they're getting the same plot, and then they get confused when Gaius Baltar is a sniveling traitor instead of just a pretty face. I also heard a film professor once break down how a reboot usually keeps the same genre and tone, but BSG 2004 went from a cheesy space opera to a bleak military drama. So yeah, I'm definitely on your side with this one. It's a small word choice but it changes everything about how you watch the show.

spencer_sanchez678d ago

I just tell people it's a 'reimagining' and if they argue I hit them with the Cylons being completely different and that usually shuts it down.