Editing Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques/Archive2
From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{archive-message | {{archive-message | ||
| newarchive = | | newarchive = 04 | ||
|}} | |}} | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::As is usual in Fleet Air operations, the availability of operational aircraft is affected by scheduled maintenance, exceeded TBO's (Time Between Overhauls), pilot squawks, parts on hand (or due to be fabricated), glitches, etc. These headaches are why Tyrol looks frazzled a lot of the time. [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 19:59, 19 June 2006 (CDT) | ::As is usual in Fleet Air operations, the availability of operational aircraft is affected by scheduled maintenance, exceeded TBO's (Time Between Overhauls), pilot squawks, parts on hand (or due to be fabricated), glitches, etc. These headaches are why Tyrol looks frazzled a lot of the time. [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 19:59, 19 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
Do you keep informal track of statistics such as crew totals and raptors/vipers on hand? Is there a list of pilot and ship names to avoid verbally identifying more people or craft than are supposed to exist? --[[User: | Do you keep informal track of statistics such as crew totals and raptors/vipers on hand? Is there a list of pilot and ship names to avoid verbally identifying more people or craft than are supposed to exist? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:39, 18 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::The list does exist, but it reflects only one moment in the history of Galactica. With so few people and so much to do in a fleet under seige, accountants and future historians get the short end of the priority stick. It's been one of the President's complaints for over a year. [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 19:59, 19 June 2006 (CDT) | ::The list does exist, but it reflects only one moment in the history of Galactica. With so few people and so much to do in a fleet under seige, accountants and future historians get the short end of the priority stick. It's been one of the President's complaints for over a year. [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 19:59, 19 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
==Human sacrifice== | ==Human sacrifice== | ||
I've been wondering about this for some time: in "[[Valley of Darkness]]", Number Six shows Baltar a pile of old human skulls on the surface of [[ | I've been wondering about this for some time: in "[[Valley of Darkness]]", Number Six shows Baltar a pile of old human skulls on the surface of [[Kobol]], and tells him that human sacrifices used to be performed on Kobol, and the [[Sacred Scrolls]] are really just a bunch of lies to cover up the brutality of humanity's past. --->Should this scene be taken at face value? That is, did this entire scene "actually" happen, were there actually skulls there, or did all of this occurr as a Number Six induced manipulation inside of Baltar's head, to manipulate him and turn him more and more against humanity? --->Or (of course), is this one of those "we intentionally wanted the audience to be confused as to whether that scene was "real" or not, and it's still an open question with no answer" things? ---->Or, another possibility, were the skulls themselves there, but Number Six was just lying about them? I mean just by looking at them (assuming they were actually real) Baltar couldn't confirm Number Six's statements that they were the result of human sacrifice rituals: they could have been just bones lying around from some old war or cataclysm. (We don't need a definative answer given away, we just need to know if this was intentionally open to interpretation)...was what Number Six saying meant to be actually true, or is there the *possibilty* that she was lying about the skeletons Baltar found and it's open to audience interpretation?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 21:50, 21 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::The question at the bottom of this is: "Who is Six?" In such cases, I'm not going to embellish what Ron & David have put on the screen. - [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 18:39, 22 June 2006 (CDT) | :::The question at the bottom of this is: "Who is Six?" In such cases, I'm not going to embellish what Ron & David have put on the screen. - [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 18:39, 22 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
== Tom Zarek / Ellen Tigh involvement == | == Tom Zarek / Ellen Tigh involvement == | ||
"[[Colonial Day]]" made it very clear that Ellen Tigh furnished Zarek with the information he needed to have [[Valance]] killed, and later intended her husband to meet with his agents afterward. Why was this plot thread dropped, after making such a big deal of it in the episode? --[[User: | "[[Colonial Day]]" made it very clear that Ellen Tigh furnished Zarek with the information he needed to have [[Valance]] killed, and later intended her husband to meet with his agents afterward. Why was this plot thread dropped, after making such a big deal of it in the episode? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:09, 18 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:Zarek also stated that he had no connection with the death of Valance. And though we're not privvy to all of Tigh's bedroom conversations, we might assume that Ellen's machinations failed to gain her husband's co-operation. After all, she couldn't even get him to shake hands with the ex-terrorist. [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 19:40, 19 June 2006 (CDT) | :Zarek also stated that he had no connection with the death of Valance. And though we're not privvy to all of Tigh's bedroom conversations, we might assume that Ellen's machinations failed to gain her husband's co-operation. After all, she couldn't even get him to shake hands with the ex-terrorist. [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 19:40, 19 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::There are many plausible in-continuity explanations for why this wasn't followed up - I was more interested in what was going on in the writer's room, and if you all had plans to pursue this thread before the course of season 2 was settled upon. --[[User: | ::There are many plausible in-continuity explanations for why this wasn't followed up - I was more interested in what was going on in the writer's room, and if you all had plans to pursue this thread before the course of season 2 was settled upon. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:14, 20 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::Peter - There were many arguments pro and con as to where this would go. But events passed us by and we haven't returned to it. Sometimes we plant seeds without knowing whether they'll sprout. Like Boxey - who was written into several early episodes, then left on the cutting room floor because of time constraints. Giving Baltar a nuke was one of those seeds, and throughout the first two seasons we constantly wondered what he'd do with the thing. There were some pretty whacky ideas. But having it in our back pocket was really useful when "Lay Your Burdens Down" came up. It's part of the fun of writing the show - [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 21:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT) | :::Peter - There were many arguments pro and con as to where this would go. But events passed us by and we haven't returned to it. Sometimes we plant seeds without knowing whether they'll sprout. Like Boxey - who was written into several early episodes, then left on the cutting room floor because of time constraints. Giving Baltar a nuke was one of those seeds, and throughout the first two seasons we constantly wondered what he'd do with the thing. There were some pretty whacky ideas. But having it in our back pocket was really useful when "Lay Your Burdens Down" came up. It's part of the fun of writing the show - [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 21:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::Thanks. Your clarification will be helpful for closing out that line of speculation on Ellen's article. --[[User: | ::::Thanks. Your clarification will be helpful for closing out that line of speculation on Ellen's article. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:57, 21 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::::That isn't to say that WE have closed it out. :) - [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 16:50, 21 June 2006 (CDT) | ::::::That isn't to say that WE have closed it out. :) - [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 16:50, 21 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
==Timeline== | ==Timeline== | ||
The [[season two timeline discontinuity]] left us all a bit baffled. Can you help clarify matters? --[[User: | The [[season two timeline discontinuity]] left us all a bit baffled. Can you help clarify matters? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:40, 18 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::This one gives me a headache. We were advised by post-production that we may have goofed in the timeline. There were large pow-wows between writers and post trying to sort this out. If memory serves (and it is highly suspect), the issue was a chyron that was subsequently changed -- or not changed -- for the DVD release of Season 2.5. But don't hold me to that. These discussions went on for days and I'm not anxious to revisit them. I do know that what we came up with made sense at the time. [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 20:05, 19 June 2006 (CDT) | ::This one gives me a headache. We were advised by post-production that we may have goofed in the timeline. There were large pow-wows between writers and post trying to sort this out. If memory serves (and it is highly suspect), the issue was a chyron that was subsequently changed -- or not changed -- for the DVD release of Season 2.5. But don't hold me to that. These discussions went on for days and I'm not anxious to revisit them. I do know that what we came up with made sense at the time. [[User:Ngarenn|Ngarenn]] 20:05, 19 June 2006 (CDT) | ||