Talk:Messengers

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
For discussions prior to March 14, 2007, see this revision.

Major revision

This article was strewn with theories and fanwankery that cluttered the article. With the revelations of season 3, what is known about the nature of the virtual Six and Baltar reduces the probability of earlier speculation. Recent contributions have been more of possibility that is hardly supported by aired content, and reading the article as a whole was nearly impossible. As well, the article repeated informaation already present in the episode guides or a more relevant article. I have rewritten the article to keep sole focus on the origins, motivations and behavior of the virtual beings, removing all previous irrelevant, incorrect or otherwise inappropriate content on their nature or history.

As this article deals with the virtual beings related to Cylon activity, I eliminated the text on other character visions; they are more suited for a separate article to keep topics from blending.

With major revisions like this, there is always a possibility that something significant was lost. Contributors should feel free to add in significant notes of the virtual beings, but please do not repeat every instance of the being's presence or interject speculation that is not supported with episode content. The article, in my opinion and recommendation, should focus more on what they do to the actual characters and less on their nature until the show reveals more of their origin. Again, please be careful about excessive speculation; "theories" per se are not acceptable on Battlestar Wiki. --Spencerian 15:34, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Virtual Baltar Episodes

In the major edit, I botched the episode citation for virtual Baltar's visit to C-Six in her jail cell. One or both of the episode citations I noted are wrong. Corrections to this information are appreciated. --Spencerian 15:54, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

The visit is in "The Woman King". That's where the two kiss and they wonder what's going on.--Serenity 16:00, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

About this: "Neither character has revealed the presence of these images to each other or any other character as of the episode, "The Woman King" (where the virtual Baltar makes an appearance)."
Does this mean that it is the first instance where another character (here Roslin) really wonders what one of them is doing? --Serenity 16:09, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

It should say "Neither character has revealed the existence (...)." Other characters have witnessed the strange behavior, but to my memory, only Roslin has verbally wondered. --Spencerian 17:09, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Baltar and his Virtual Baltar

Virtual Baltar has appeared to Baltar. -- LicensedLunacy 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that Baltar seeing himself is just a unique way to convey he is thinking/ talking to himself, considering his options. Snorkel378

That might be a good way to look at it... Actually, it might be another part of his psyche he's talking to. It can be said that Virtual Six is the part of his subconscious mind, trying to deal with the fact that he's responsible for so many people's deaths in another light. But that's a topic for discussion at a forum. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Leoben

Shouldn't we add virtual Leoben? He's sort of important I'd say, and is not a part of Kara...--Sauron18 16:34, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

That's a good question. I would say "yes" but that also introduces other dream-related visions such as the ones I removed. I recommend "no" as the article should limit itself to visions that are experienced by characters in real-time and not while unconscious (sleeping or otherwise). That's my opinion and is open for more scrutiny. --Spencerian 17:09, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
No. There is a good chance that Head-Six and Head-Baltar are somehow Cylon-related. That chance is not so great with Maelstrom Leoben, since IMHO it's more likely just a representation of her own subconscious and not in any way whatsoever related to the real Leoben (it even says so in the episode). --Serenity 12:04, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
Maybe we should add at least a note about Maelstrom Leoben and A Day in Life Carolanne, though? 12:37, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
I concur with Serenity. The virtuals are definitely a unexpected (and unrevealed) side-effect of Cylon technology, that much is certain. The virtual Leoben isn't a Cylon, and doesn't appear in real time. He needs a separate article (and deserves it). --Spencerian 14:00, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
I've created a virtual Leoben article and updated the relevant pages where he it cited. --Spencerian 15:00, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
I have to disagree that the virtual Six and Baltar are definitely, or even probably, a result of Cylon technology. Their nature is as unknown as the virtual Leoben's. -- Noneofyourbusiness 11:37, 1 November 2007 (CDT)
Why wouldn't Leoben also be listed here. There's an entire page o the site called "Messenger Leoben." Shimel 07:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cylon Tech

Isn't this line: "Since the effect appears to occur only between Caprica-Six and Gaius Baltar, it is possible that their visions are an unknown side-effect of Cylon technology," complete specualtion? I think it should be removed, but before doing so, I thought I'd check to make sure there wasn't any concensus I wasn't aware of. If it happened with the other six members of the Significant Seven (or even a majority of them) I wouldn't have as much of a problem, but as it's only happened with Six and Baltar I think it's out of place. If anything, a more appropriate stateent would be something like it's an unkown side-effect of cylon-human intimacy.--RUSnooky 21:09, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

The way you phrase is still speculation, but is more precise to what we know, and would be more appropriate. --Spencerian
I completely agree, and I'd rather remove it outright, but was trying to be diplomatic. I'm going to remove it completely.--RUSnooky 10:25, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Virtual Ellen?

How is she different from Bill's hallucination of Carolanne Adama in "A Day in the Life"? OTW 18:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it could just be a normal hallucination. This might be more, but until it is confirmed, pushing her appearance so clearly into the direction of the virtual beings is POV. I reworded the section to make it more neutral and less certain. The term "Virtual Ellen" shouldn't be used so freely and always in quotation marks. -- Serenity 18:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends. I have a feeling we'll see more of her in future episodes. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 19:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Tigh could even be projecting her onto Caprica Six (seems a bit the wrong way round to me :D) but that doesn't make her a being like V.Six or V.Baltar who are all mystical or whatnot. Ellen's words and actions all seem to be what Caprica said and did anyway, wheras V.Six and V.Baltar are separate entities. OTW 19:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That's definitely a possibility. Maybe doing a "hallucinations" article would suffice... which would be a bit ironic, given that this article itself came from an article on Cylon based hallucinations, if I recall correctly. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 19:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You do. We used to describe hallucinations here, only to discover they were all virtual beings, and renamed the article accordingly. With Adama and Tigh hallucinating about their wives, that may not have been that good a choice (in hindsight). --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we move the "Virtual Ellen" section into the Ellen Tigh article until we have a reason to believe she is anything other than a hallucination/projection. OTW 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be more appropriate here or in the Saul Tigh article. -- Gordon Ecker 04:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Virtual?

I think the fact that we've seen direct physical intervention by "Virtual" Six onscreen in Escape Velocity throws the whole "virtual" concept right out the window. Could explain the sudden disappearance of Shelly Godfrey and Gina after their respective acts, as well. One could also infer some serious intervention on the part of "Virtual" Leoben during Starbuck's "death" but that's even further speculation. Anyway, just a thought I felt was worth mentioning. JubalHarshaw 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

She only interacted with Baltar. We've seen her push him into a wall or mirror before, so we know that she can force him to move in a certain way. I don't see how that makes her any less "virtual," since she exists in his mind. And Gina didn't suddenly dissapear, she blew herself up. INH 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The footage clearly shows intervention ... he's held up and forced towards the marines, moving quite unnaturally. Yes, Gina blew herself up, but I'm referring to how she removed herself from Pegasus after killing Cain. I'd love some episode reference for "We've seen her push him into a wall or mirror before" so I can review it. Thanks. JubalHarshaw 02:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, she's still virtual, and we don't really see whether or not Baltar's feet make it off the ground. I'm sure they did some wire work in the scene, but we don't really know what we're supposed to believe... This is where a podcast would definitely help. The only one that disappears unexpectedly is Shelly, and she could have easily flushed herself out an airlock, given how they aren't guarded. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
While it's the most extreme seemingly physical interaction so far, this isn't really too different from what happens in Fight Club for example, and not completely impossible to do alone. While it seems that he is held in the air, it's not actually shown. Could be either. Sure, it might be more, but it's not that certain. -- Serenity 08:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO anything which happens while Virtual Six is visible should be considered unreliable. In other words, I think that only movements which Baltar could not plasibly make under his own power occuring while Virtual Six is not in the shot should be considered conclusive evidence of physical interaction. -- Gordon Ecker 08:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't at all like the implication of an invisible "Six" physically lifting Baltar, but we have to acknowledge that setting up the shot the way they did was not at all trivial, and must have been done for a reason. Whether this was intended to be dramatic (and thus, demands a literal interpretation) or comic (and thus, just a sight gag) is unclear - it's a mirthless episode, but Olmos's previous episodes have demonstrated a taste for comedy. If it we have to interpret it literally, well, that's a challenge. --Peter Farago 17:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
To counter the point, had Baltar been lifted "off the ground", we'd see a variety of shocked reactions from those who witnessed this otherworldly event. So not only do we have to gauge what we see Baltar doing, but we also have to look at the entire picture. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand how this is in question. IIRC from the podcast for the episode..James Callis did all the movements under his own power..if the actor could do them, why is it in question the the character couldn't do them? Also from the podcast, Ron complained that the intent was not to look like he was lifted but under his own power. --Tritium 04:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Virtual > Head

Pretty much every official source I see (including RDM's podcast) uses the phrases "Head-Six", and "Head-Baltar" rather than "Virtual". Shouldn't we follow suit? OTW 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lacks gravitas, but does seem more standard. What does RDM call them in the podcasts? --Peter Farago 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
He calls them Head-Six and Head-Baltar. -- Gordon Ecker 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
We can use both. And note the terminology here. But there isn't really much point in changing it throughout the wiki. I don't think it's too confusing to use both for some variety. -- Serenity 09:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
We should use both. "Head" is more colloquial but also has a loose ungrammatical and perjorative nature I find weird. I see "virtual" around the fansphere just as well. For this article and throughout the wiki, "virtual" should be used but references to "head" (yes, please) should be redirects to here. --Spencerian 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Such redirects are already in place :) -- Serenity 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that we should use "Head-Six" and "Head-Baltar". Frankly, this already presupposes that these are figments of a person's imagination; virtual is more ambiguous, and has a wider-range of meanings than "head" (which is another way of saying "glorified imaginary friend". So, Ron uses it... then again, he and Eick have diluted themselves into believing that "Hero" fits snugly into continuity when we all know that isn't the case. So... time to put on those critical thinking caps. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 21:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Cat

I find it curious that Romo Lampkin's virtual cat from Sine Qua Non isn't listed. Is this an oversight or is it deliberate? There can be no question that the cat was indeed virtual. That cat had been dead for a long enough time for Lee to question its time of death. The cat is never seen by Lee. Romo is the only one to interact with the cat, and then, only by voice. --Tritium 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there's a difference between a virtual being and a mere hallucination. -- Noneofyourbusiness 04:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I havent seen this distinction in the show. No virtual being has given any character any information that they didnt already know, or could have reasonably deduced by themselves. --Tritium 04:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The Virtual Six lifted Baltar off the ground in a manner that was physically impossible for him to do on his own. There are other examples too. The virtual beings aren't mere hallucinations. The presence of extra-corporeal entities and/or spiritual powers in this show is all but spelled out in giant letters for the audience. Blue Rook 08:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Not so. Baltar had no way of knowing that Hera would arrive or of her connection to the Opera House. -- Noneofyourbusiness 16:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
How could have a cylon known about the birth of hara? And if james callis could do the moves without outside assistence, so could baltar. And havent you noticed that when Ron Moore hits you over the head with a concept, its often wrong? And this still doesn't rule out a virtual cat. --Tritium 07:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What Cylon? Virtual Six isn't a Cylon. -- Noneofyourbusiness 16:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is a virtual being (or the virtual being as it has not been disproved that they are different, and when questioned on it the subject it was deflected, possibly the Cylon God). My reasoning for this is that every encounter with one has moved the story on often with a purpose (e.g. Baltar's Six being pissed at him for comforting Gina then telling him “God will not forgive this sin”, Caprica's Baltar for telling her to find the humans and then Baltar's Six telling him it is the reckoning when the ships land on New Caprica). In this case it forced Romo to be pissed at the loss of his cat and force Lee to take up the mantle of President and help the truce to occur. Chris etd 03:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

These Angels Making Life In This Galaxy Boringly Homogenous.

I slept on this, but my original impression after watching Daybreak Park # 2 is that these Angels make things boring:

They create pidgins, dogs, cats, foxes, people, oranges, tuna, et cetera. I would not be surprised if the Angels dropped a big rock on the dinosaurs just so they can have a clean slate for creating rats.

Once they create people, they make the people invent pianos, worship Zeus, Yahweh, Thor, et cetera. They make the people play “All Along The Watchtower”. They see to it that the people create Cylons.

We are not descended from apes, but from # 8s — a little wordplay because 8 and ape sound similar. the mitochondrial DNA of the # 8s is so similar to that of Homo neanderthalensis that we apparently have a common ancestor, Homo heidelbergensis half a million years ago even though that is impossible.

If we explore the Galaxy, will only find humans and cylons. ¿What is the point? ¿Why bother exploring?

Arthur C. Clarke in 2001 had a similar idea of lonely aliens helping intelligent life evolve, but the beings did not care about the final form. In other words, diversity is the rule in 2001.

We still do not know the nature of these Angels other than that Starbuck seems to be one of them

I do not know how this fits into the article, but it fits into the article somehow. I figure that I should but this on the talkpages for Virtual Beings and Daybreak # 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walabio (talk • contribs).

It is what it is, Walabio. :) For further discussion about the episode that's not relevant to the quality and content of the article's editorial content, perhaps you should redirect (and reproduce) your thoughts on the talk thread for the episode on the Battlestar Forum. --Spencerian 12:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Rename to "Messengers"

Hey guys, I was thinking, given the mention that RDM referred to them as "the messengers" in the podcast for No Exit and the fact that they are confirmed to be supernatural, without necessarily being angels or demons, that perhaps we should change the article name to more accurately reflect what they are.

"Virtual beings" has worked until now, because we didn't know if they were truly something supernatural, but since we now know they aren't, and we have a fairly decent term (from a good enough source) I think it might be fair to say that it's time to change to the more accurate term. Thoughts? --Sauron18 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no they have not been "confirmed to be supernatural." All we know is that they are messengers of an entity that does not like to be called "God." -- Troyian 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. The term "messengers" is certainly more semi-official than "virtual beings", a term which doesn't actually make that much sense. -- Noneofyourbusiness 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Strictly, the in-show term for them is Angels. This is what H6 calls herself, this is what Baltar calls them. In the writers room they were "head characters" and then called messengers in a podcast. Nothing is a clear winner, though as Caprica adds VR to the galactiverse, the term virtual may become less than ideal.--bradtem 00:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while, but I think the issue still stands: I think we should rename this page to "Messengers" or some variation of that. Yes, within the show they're always referenced as Angels, outside of it, however, "Messengers" is the most accurate post-revelation term applied to them, since the creators explicitly state that they don't consider them "angels" or "demons".

As for the "head character" terminology, it seems this was mainly used because of the mystery surrounding them (even to the writers back then, I guess), but it no longer really applies. In any case "Virtual beings" is certainly not the best of the available terms, as it is not only completely fan-made, but it also carries certain connotations which make it seem like a less than partial fanmade term at that.... --Sauron18 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, given the unfolding of Caprica, usage of the word "virtual" gives rise to connotations of the technological context of an avatar rather than a spiritual/incorporeal/supernatural one and I think steering away from such confusion should be the primary goal in a name-change. Personally, I've always preferred the application of the word "spectre" (you've got to admit that "Spectre Six" has a nice ring to it), but I nevertheless feel as though "Messengers" weighs the heaviest seeing as how every one of these categorised beings have indeed been messengers of a various sort.--Mars 17:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
In reviewing the above arguments and what's been introduced thus far in Caprica, I do have to agree that the term "virtual" should be dropped. Further, I concur with Mars that the term "Messengers" is for the best, since that's what they really are anyway. As for Angels, well... that's a bit up in the air. It's the first in-show term for these beings, I'll grant you that, but they don't exactly fit the whole idea—or definition, either—that angels are "benevolent" creatures. Still, let's not confuse anything here and go ahead and move this to "Messengers" with proper redirects from terms like "angels" and "head characters," and all that. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus 17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur. "Angel" derives from Latin and Greek words meaning "messenger" anyway. -- Noneofyourbusiness 22:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Virtual Baltar doesn't work for God

This paragraph is not strictly true and has been interpreted:

The two discuss the cycle of life and Virtual Baltar chides Virtual Six for calling the being they work for God, as it apparently doesn't like being called that. Virtual Baltar has the series last line, which is a response to Virtual Six's stern look: "silly me.... silly, silly me." The two then walk off together into present day New York City.

I suggest something more general and more literal because the last scene could also be interpreted as such:

The two discuss the cycle of life and Virtual Six declares she is optimistic about the future. Upon being asked why by Virtual Baltar, she declares that its a mathematical probability and THAT is part of God's plan. To which he jokingly appears affronted, saying menacingly; "You know he doesn't like that name.", insinuating that mathematical probability is actually part of his bosses, the Devil's, plan. When she retorts by way of a look of disdain, he feigns an apology, saying; "silly me .... silly, silly me."

even though it may be fanwankery, I still believe the former paragraph is an 'interpretation' of the ending, not statement of fact. It could be re-written more generally and literally to avoid interpretation that they BOTH work for God.-- Barstuck 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think we should change it, I think that's the most simple and basic interpretation that the scene could have. Not to mention, of course, that RDM confirmed in an interview that the scene was meant to make the audience question the nature of "the Cylon God", so they were both definitely talking about the same entity, regardless of what this is. --Sauron18 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I suppose we have to expect there to be information from outside the show on the show's own wiki. But I like how wikipedia stated it. More loose - more open to the viewer's interpretation, and a satisfying factual explanation. I'll leave it at that. Thanks.--Barstuck 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which wikipedia article you may be referring to, but after looking over the article I realized that there are quite a few things that feel a bit....decisive, given the nature of their revelation. The main thing is that Moore specifically mentions wanting them being ambiguous beings working for an ambiguous power, yet the article doesn't necessarily reflect that, especially by referring to them as "angels" (which is, I'll admit, the only thing HS ever called herself, and what other characters called them near the end).

Do note that that conversation was truncated from the original script, which was shown in the readthrough video in Eick's podcast. The "silly me" line refers to Head Baltar's question as to what the stakes are in a bet over whether humanity destroys itself again.--bradtem 00:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, this connects more with my point above of changing the article title (and the references to "angels" and "virtual beings") into "Messengers", which, as mentioned before, is the "most official" and honestly most accurate term that would also serve to maintain the ambiguity. The other factor affecting this would be "God", but honestly there's little we can do with that and I think that the perviously suggested change might be enough to make it, without removing the references to them being "angels" by other characters (though not forgetting their ambiguity in the text). --Sauron18 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Starbuck

Shouldn't Starbuck be included somewhere here? Her disappearance seemed to indicate that once she died and returned, she too was a messenger (her page even links to the Messengers page). Shimel 19:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree. Pst001 09:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That stuff about Messenger Leoben being fundamentally different from the others is obviously not true now, so feel free to merge him in, I say. In regards to Starbuck, they made it intentionally ambiguous whether she was human, could be considered a messenger, or something related to a messenger but not quite the same. They've said as much when asked by fans. -- Noneofyourbusiness 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Starbuck is separate from the so-called "Messengers." No one knows exactly what she is, including Ron Moore. (Great planning, Ronnie.) So, keep it separate. Leoben is a different matter, and should be merged in. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 17:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I removed the link on Kara's page that led here, but I'm not sure how to redirect Leoben's page here (been awhile since I did any serious wiki editing), and I don't see it in the help section. Shimel 01:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One can only be a messenger when the original person who they portray is deceased?

-It seems that only after a specific individual has died they appear to someone as a messenger of sorts. For Gaius the obvious was Caprica Six who had died while saving Baltar during the Fall. The Roslin, she saw Enosha after she had died, and William Adama saw his deceased wife. And of course Starbuck, who had definitive proof that she was dead. The one I am not sure about was Gaius, maybe during the shock of the attack he briefly lost his pulse and regained it, so technically he would be dead for a short time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garrett4‎ (talk • contribs).

Interesting theory, but Gaius is a strike against it, as is Zoe, who hadn't died when Messenger Zoe first showed up. -- Noneofyourbusiness 22:44, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
I do agree that it would be a few strikes, of course for Baltar it could be possible his father looked like him at the same age Baltar is. So he could be representing him, at least physically. As for Zoe given her history in the show it seems more like a delusion in some ways. Of course I could be wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garrett4 (talk • contribs).
The Messengers aren't actually the people they present themselves to be. Head Six never was Caprica Six, or a Six of any kind. Head Baltar is not Gaius Baltar, or related to Gaius Baltar, either. The Messengers appear as Six and Baltar because, in their visage, they have a higher probability of affect the outcome in the physical realm. (In this case, saving the Fleet so that it could save Hera and bring her to Earth, even if there were a few bumps along the way.) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 10:07, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
So in other words it would be better to say that they chose those forms because it would be the easiest for the people they were messaging to process? Since Baltar and Six were very caring about themselves they could process seeing their idealized selves pretty easy. Whereas Roslin and a few others, if Kara is a messenger, view others. Wonder what they may say about Baltar and Six. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garrett4 (talk • contribs).
Well, Caprica Six just saw Messenger Baltar. She never saw Messenger Six until "Daybreak." As for Kara, she's markedly different from the other so-called beings as she and her magical pristine Viper did have a corporeal form, and no one (not even Ron Moore) knows what she is... and whatever post-"Maelstrom" Kara and her magic Viper are, they are meant to be an unsolved mystery. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 13:59, 19 May 2011 (EDT)