Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Editing Talk:Exodus, Part II/Archive 1

Discussion page of Exodus, Part II/Archive 1
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
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 84: Line 84:
: I'll check on that... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 13:27, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
: I'll check on that... -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 13:27, 22 October 2006 (CDT)


:You're assuming they came in with no initial velocity, but as we've seen with various Raptor scenes, velocity is carried through a jump. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 13:30, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
:You're assuming they came in with no initial velocity, but as we've seen with various Raptor scenes, velocity is carried through a jump. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:30, 22 October 2006 (CDT)


::It was Captain Kelly, and he reads their altitude as "99,000 and falling like a rock". That's roughly 61 and a half miles up, which is ''frakking'' high. Seems a little ''too'' high, don't you think? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 14:56, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
::It was Captain Kelly, and he reads their altitude as "99,000 and falling like a rock". That's roughly 61 and a half miles up, which is ''frakking'' high. Seems a little ''too'' high, don't you think? --[[User:Madbrood|Madbrood]] 14:56, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
Line 169: Line 169:
I am removing all the "discussion" about continuity error(s). The question is should error discussions occur on this talk page or the [[Continuity errors (RDM)]] talk page? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:11, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
I am removing all the "discussion" about continuity error(s). The question is should error discussions occur on this talk page or the [[Continuity errors (RDM)]] talk page? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:11, 28 October 2006 (CDT)


Frankie, regarding your deletion of answered questions - I think we should keep old questions, even once later episodes answer them. It represents important issues that remained unresolved at the time of the episode's airing. I wouldn't object to some level of summary and redaction, but outright deleting them obscures the record of the audience response. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 20:48, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
Frankie, regarding your deletion of answered questions - I think we should keep old questions, even once later episodes answer them. It represents important issues that remained unresolved at the time of the episode's airing. I wouldn't object to some level of summary and redaction, but outright deleting them obscures the record of the audience response. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:48, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
:No problem, however, several of this question can not possibly be answered without speculation or opinion. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:53, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
:No problem, however, several of this question can not possibly be answered without speculation or opinion. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:53, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
::My opinion on speculation (and it's just mine) is that when grounded in good evidence and clearly within the realm of reason and plot mechanics, it's okay. It only really starts to bother me when we venture into outright absurdities. In any case, I think we should really work out a policy on [[BW:TANK]] ''before'' we start removing stuff. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 21:01, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
::My opinion on speculation (and it's just mine) is that when grounded in good evidence and clearly within the realm of reason and plot mechanics, it's okay. It only really starts to bother me when we venture into outright absurdities. In any case, I think we should really work out a policy on [[BW:TANK]] ''before'' we start removing stuff. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:01, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
:::I was removing speculation and opinion because Joe had early this evening. The continuity errors was discussed during [[BW:ES]]. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 21:12, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
:::I was removing speculation and opinion because Joe had early this evening. The continuity errors was discussed during [[BW:ES]]. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 21:12, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
::::I missed that discussion, so I suppose I'll have to defer to the consensus there. It seems like we should at least mention the error, perhaps with a link to a fuller discussion at a different article. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 21:23, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
::::I missed that discussion, so I suppose I'll have to defer to the consensus there. It seems like we should at least mention the error, perhaps with a link to a fuller discussion at a different article. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:23, 28 October 2006 (CDT)


In keeping the old questions, we should follow already established S&C guidelines on this, particularly point three of the [[BW:SC#Questions_Section|Questions Section]] at S&C. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:36, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
In keeping the old questions, we should follow already established S&C guidelines on this, particularly point three of the [[BW:SC#Questions_Section|Questions Section]] at S&C. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:36, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
:I was wondering where I misplaced that... --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 21:42, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
:I was wondering where I misplaced that... --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:42, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
::No worries. I am beginning to wonder, though, whether or not we should rework the S&C page so that it is better organized. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:44, 28 October 2006 (CDT)
::No worries. I am beginning to wonder, though, whether or not we should rework the S&C page so that it is better organized. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:44, 28 October 2006 (CDT)


Line 189: Line 189:
== Trivia ==
== Trivia ==


[[File:BattlestarGalacticaFrack.JPG|Adama shaving his moustache.|thumb]]
[[Image:BattlestarGalacticaFrack.JPG|Adama shaving his moustache.|thumb]]
Is there room for a trivia section on the episode pages? Not sure if anyone reads this anymore but I felt this was too weird to be a coincidence and had to tell someone. The mirror located in Adama's bathroom is sold in Ikea stores (in Australia at least) under the name [http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10103&storeId=18&langId=-26&productId=13145 FRÄCK]. -- [[User:KEBESTIFT|KLEBESTIFT]] 22:26, 10 May 2007 (whateverST)
Is there room for a trivia section on the episode pages? Not sure if anyone reads this anymore but I felt this was too weird to be a coincidence and had to tell someone. The mirror located in Adama's bathroom is sold in Ikea stores (in Australia at least) under the name [http://www.ikea.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10103&storeId=18&langId=-26&productId=13145 FRÄCK]. -- [[User:KEBESTIFT|KLEBESTIFT]] 22:26, 10 May 2007 (whateverST)
:Lol. Could go in the notes section, I guess. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 06:23, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
:Lol. Could go in the notes section, I guess. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 06:23, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Line 199: Line 199:
Awesome episode! --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Awesome episode! --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, such spoilers aren't always necessary, and should be avoided if possible. It depends on the case. Here, with the events of Season 4, this isn't true anymore anyways. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, such spoilers aren't always necessary, and should be avoided if possible. It depends on the case. Here, with the events of Season 4, this isn't true anymore anyways. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this entry under "Notes" necessary for this episde:
:This episode marks the supposed death of Ellen Tigh. However its later revealed that she's a Cylon and simply downloaded into a new body on a Resurrection Ship and remained a prisoner of John Cavil for eighteen months until Boomer helps her escape.
It's a major spoiler. I've recommended this site to people watching the episodes for the first time and I can't if this type of info is given before it is necessary.  [[User:Magpie|Magpie]] 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
::Ever since the series ended, I've been curious about how things are referenced in terms of future events. I've noticed spoilers for the last season making their way all the up to the first. My uncertainty keeps me from editing such things. It seems there's been an undertaking of grouping the answers to questions in separate place, but there are other things like this sprinkled throughout. I understand the need for helping to explain the in-and-outs of this story, but I'm struggling with the necessity of sticking spoilers so far in advance. Has there been a protocol on this established yet? --[[User:Mars|Mars]] 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
::There's what was laid out in [[BW:SPOILER|our spoiler policy]]. As to deal with the revelations given in the last half of Season 4... I do understand both sides of the issue, and the need for a "middle ground," since there will be people who are just picking up the show for the first time. However, I have no illusions that any decision made will please everyone. Still, any suggestions toward addressing this issue would be welcome. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


== Nuclear Weapons ==
== Nuclear Weapons ==


I was just watching this episode, and I realised that both the Galactica and the Pegasus had nuclear weapons on board. My question is: Why didn't they use them? I'm sure one nuclear warhead would have been more than enough to destroy a basestar, and on the algae planet it's revealed that galactica has 4. It makes no sense  to me...  
I was just watching this episode, and I realised that both the Galactica and the Pegasus had nuclear weapons on board. My question is: Why didn't they use them? I'm sure one nuclear warhead would have been more than enough to destroy a basestar, and in on the algae planet it's revealed that galactica has 4. It makes no sense  to me...  
--> [[User:Evilforce|Evilforce]] 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
--> [[User:Evilforce|Evilforce]] 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:Well a nuclear warhead is more than capable of blowing a basestar to shreds when it's detonated ''inside'' the basestar, but when detonated on the ''outside'', one nuke is probably not enough. ''Galactica'' survived a nuclear hit with not too much material damage in the [[Miniseries]] (although they did loose about a hundred crew members, the only way they could lose the ship at that point was by letting the fire get to the fuel lines), and ''Pegasus'' survived being hit by two nukes while the ship was in condition five (they probably had some more damage than ''Galactica'' did, but evidenced by the [[Battle of the Communications Relay]], they were back to full offensive capability relatively quickly after [[Scylla|they got some parts]]). A basestar can probably take about the same as a battlestar, so I think it doesn't worry too much when hit by just one nuke (it does significant damage, but it's far from a one-hit kill).
:Also, bear in mind that a nuke doesn't necessarily reach its target, especially when there's hundreds (or, in the case of the [[Battle of New Caprica]], probably even two to three thousand) Raiders ready to shoot it down. Even out of seven nukes (not four, as you said), probably only one would get somewhere. Another disadvantage is that any Vipers in the vicinity of the blast would have their pilots fried (this probably applies to Raiders too, as the Cylons have never been seen going nuclear while they had Raiders in the air). In this case, I agree it would've made sense to use nukes, but I'd've targeted a large Raider wave instead (all Vipers were down on the planet, after all). --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 18:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point... but I was mostly thinking of the Pegasus... It jumped in, and had no visible obstacles between itself and one maybe two of the basestars. One basestar was destroyed by maybe 10-20 shots from the main battery...
Wouldn't it have made more sense to make the first strike using a nuclear missile? Or maybe all of them! I'm sure at least one basestar would have been destroyed, leaving the conventional weapons for another one of the four basestars...
Maybe the use of those warheads would have saved both battlestars...
--- [[User:Evilforce|Evilforce]] 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:There's no reason to use nukes when 20 shells will do the same job. Gun shells are cheap, plentiful and producible (there's a facility aboard ''Galactica'' producing Viper ammunition, they probably produce larger shells as well ([[Sacrifice]])) and easy to fire, nukes are expensive, not reproducible and require a hell of a lot of protocol stuff before they can be launched. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
:Not to mention the fact that DRADIS barely works in the New Caprica nebula... Also, the Cylons could more than likely intercept a ship-to-ship nuke before it could hit its target, which is why they went to the trouble of smuggling the nuke aboard the [[Guardian basestar]] in "[[Razor]]". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, the nukes on the Pegasus were wasted. The cylons could have possibly intercepted the nukes or they may have hit their target... But what happened is this: No nukes were used, either by Galactica or Pegasus... the obvious result? Pegasus was lost along with it's unused nuclear arsenal.
---> [[User:Evilforce|Evilforce]] 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah I forgot about the fact that ''Pegasus'' committed deliberate suicide, which means it would've made sense for them to fire everything they had as fast as possible. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 13:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To edit this page, please enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):

Refresh
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

  [] · [[]] · [[|]] · {{}} · · “” ‘’ «» ‹› „“ ‚‘ · ~ | ° &nbsp; · ± × ÷ ² ³ ½ · §
     [[Category:]] · [[:File:]] · [[Special:MyLanguage/]] · <code></code> · <nowiki></nowiki> <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> · <syntaxhighlight></syntaxhighlight> · <includeonly></includeonly> · <noinclude></noinclude> · #REDIRECT[[]] · <translate></translate> · <languages/> · {{#translation:}} · <tvar|></> · {{DEFAULTSORT:}} · <categorytree></categorytree> · <div style="clear:both;"></div> <s></s>


Your changes will be visible immediately.
  • For testing, please use the sandbox instead.
  • On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).