languatron
Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 689
Life could be this beautiful without NBC-TV in it.
|
Those who HATE Ronald D. Moore's "Crappy Star: Galactica" production have noted the EXTREME LOW BUDGET as being one of the reasons for their HATRED. In every sense of the word, Ronald D. Moore's "Crappy Star: Galactica" production is a CLAUSTROPHIC BOTTLE SHOW, not because the original intent was to write it that way, but because there SIMPLY ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY to make it any other way.
Ronald D. Moore got himself in way over his head with this production. As a result, Universal executives and Universal marketers have been working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the past 2 years POSING AS FANS on various Internet bulletin boards in order to CONVEY THE ILLUSION that Moore's production is doing well. Indeed, REMOVE all of the Universal executives and marketers from the Internet singing praises for Ron Moore's HUNK OF CRAP, and you are left with your typical LOW BUDGET, SCI-FI CHANNEL PRODUCTION that should have been CANCELLED the day after the mini series premiere in December 2003. Strip away all of the MISLEADING MARKETING of the Universal/Sci-Fi Channel corporation, and this production is revealed to be what it REALLY IS, just plain GOD AWFUL.
It's at the point now that Ronald D. Moore's production isn't building anymore sets. Not that the sets that they have already built are memorable in any way. They have that typical, LOW BUDGET/STYROFOAM LOOK of all Sci-Fi Channel productions. Ron Moore's production is now relying on LOCAL LOCATION SHOOTS to provide their sets. Abandoned warehouses around Vancouver, abandoned sugar refinieries around Vancouver, etc. You know these types of locations, right? The types of locations that Ron Moore's cast and crew can get into in TEN MINUTES after boarding Ron Moore's RENTED BUS. The GLARING LOW BUDGET STATUS of Ron Moore's production has already been noted in the LACK OF IMAGINATIVE COSTUME DESIGN. Indeed, cast members and extras just dress in their EVERYDAY STREET CLOTHES and film episodes wearing that attire. What is EVEN MORE GLARING, is the LACK OF MAKEUP that Ron Moore's cast members wear. Granted, you don't have to go overboard with makeup on any television production. However, just enough should be used to cover up how much of an unattractive woman Mary McDonnell is. THIS WOMAN NEEDS MAKEUP,..........BADLY. Ronald D. Moore may believe that the LACK OF MAKEUP adds more "gritty realism" to his production. What it actually does, is give his production the appearance that it is UNFINISHED. That the cast members just completed a script run through, and were RUSHED BEFORE THE CAMERAS withoug getting into the makeup chairs. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Ron Moore's production SIMPLY COULDN'T AFFORD A MAKEUP CREW. I'm not trying to pick on Mary McDonnell, but in an industry that worships physical attractiveness, SHE NEEDS A MAKEUP PERSON to apply makeup to her to at least make her presentable to the audience. In terms of McDonnell and the other cast members overall, the LACK OF MAKEUP is giving the cast members the appearance that they are LIGHTED BADLY BY THE GAFFERS. All of the cast members; have PALE, WASHED OUT COMPLEXIONS under the hot lights of the Vancouver soundstages as a result of THE LACK OF MAKEUP. The same thing happened to actor Scott Baio when he was filming "Charles In Charge." He told the producers that he didn't want to wear makeup. As a result, Baio looked PALE and WASHED OUT in each episode. Makeup in conjunction with gaffer lighting serves two important purposes in television and movie productions. It makes unattractive people attractive, and it makes the cast members look like they have NORMAL LOOKING COMPLEXIONS with NORMAL CIRCULATION going on in their faces.
The elimination of a makeup crew in Ron Moore's LOW BUDGET PRODUCTION was the last straw for many viewers WHO ALREADY HATED RONALD D. MOORE'S PRODUCTION. These viewers are not stupid. They know that Ron Moore's production is nothing more than a LOW BUDGET, HIGH SCHOOL PLAY. 
|
Author
Logged