I just hope it doesn't turn into another Galactica (reboot), or for that matter, another "V: The Final Battle".  Both had exactly the same problem: scientifically plausible (or at least, consistent) realism in the beginning, replaced by religiously-explained "magic" in the end, deux ex machina at its worst.  Both series resolved themselves by magic, utterly throwing away the care to which the original works (V the original, and Galactica's mini-series and first season) had done to create a realistic, self-consistent world.  I flat-out refused to watch any Galactica after "2.5".

One can only hope this new V doesn't follow those examples of good writing gone bad.

Loved the original miniseries, series and finale. Just thought it was an awesome premise. Sure it was kind of hoaky and bad effects compared to nowadays. When I heard ABC was doing this series I was really excited. I really hope it delivers. I wonder if they are still lizards.

Personally I'm waiting for AMC's new imagining of THE PRISONER coming mid-November.  Although I'm not totally enamored of the "A"-frame cabins in the desert type look to the Village (Portmerion is far more the better location...not only historically due to the original series, but, visually for style...not to mention story continuity....)

Be seeing you....

I'm excited to see the new show I've read/watched a bunch of stuff on it and it looks promising.  I don't really like Jim Hill's impression of everything made in the 80's as being cheesy drivel...Hell NBC certainly didn't think so, when it had the highest rated mini-series ever (at the time).  

I do like the fact that ABC is rapidly becoming like a non-cable Sci-Fi/sports channel.  Between V, Flash Forward, and Lost and all of that football right now...it's skewing totally male 18-42.

Finally, while ID4 is a rip off of V (except V's lizards never had Sony monitors!) V is really like a rip off of Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End.  In fact ALOT of that book had an influence on the show.

I am VERY excited about this. I liked the original, but effects got worse as it progressed (and were TERRIBLE in the series, even by 80s standards), so I think this one has GREAT promise. If cable and syndicated shows like Galactica, Legend of the Seeker, etc can do good special effects, I have high hopes for this one.

I think the story for this one has better promise, since I believe the original was mostly made up as they went along (eg the end of "final battle" leaving no room for the series and them making up a ridiculous plot to make it work).

I'll be avoiding this series just like I avoid all TV series today. Why? It has less to do with what the show is all about than it has to do with the way the show looks. Just look at these frame grabs that accompany Jim's article. It would appear that the show stars the familiar bunch of blandly attractive, hip and edgy 20-somethings, completely devoid of real personality or onscreen charisma. Look at that group shot on the contents page - they're posing under that flying saucer like a bunch of humourless goddam rock stars! Secondly, look at the colour - everything is shot in that blue/silvery dim lighting with no warmth or richness to the colours. Sadly, this is what ALL series seem to look like these days! Doesn't anybody want to shoot in real glorious colour anymore? Must everything look like it's shot with flourescent lights? Why must all TV look so bleak and ugly?

Instead of watching this hip and edgy mediocrity that looks no different from all the other bleak dramas on TV today, I'd recommend watching "The Invaders" from 1967/68, starring Roy Thinnes. Great colour, great music, and guest actors (of all ages) with real charisma. Yep, I'm a curmudgeon and a proud one at that!