| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
| I think a location-based summary (i.e. "On ''Demetrius''", "On a baseship" and "On ''Galactica''") makes more sense than an act-based summary for this episode. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC) | | I think a location-based summary (i.e. "On ''Demetrius''", "On a baseship" and "On ''Galactica''") makes more sense than an act-based summary for this episode. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
| :Yeah, that would be better here. Any other opinions? | | :Yeah, that would be better here. Any other opinions? |
| ::I know things seem weird with acts vs. locations. It's a toss-up. Acts allow a reader to know how things move in an episode as they are revealed chronologically to the airing. Locations are less confusing to define what happens at a specific place, but destroy the ''when'' in relation to other locations, and even sometimes itself. I also find it easier to write ep summaries as they play.
| |
|
| |
| ::If we go location on this, it's important that the narrative language keep to strong emphasis on when things happen and approximately how long between events so readers don't think that, for instance, a small time passed before the Hybrid directly addressed Kara when the episode showed (through breaks and Galactica scenes) that some time passed. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Gas Giant == | | == Gas Giant == |
| Line 39: |
Line 36: |
|
| |
|
| I may have missed it in other comments, but should it not be 2. We lost both Emily Kowalski and Jean. | | I may have missed it in other comments, but should it not be 2. We lost both Emily Kowalski and Jean. |
| :The population count for [[Guess What's Coming to Dinner?]] will probably fall by two to account for this. I can't see where in this article it's inaccurate. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 09:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | | :The population count for [[Guess What's Coming to Dinner]] will probably fall by two to account for this. I can't see where in this article it's inaccurate. [[User:OTW|OTW]] 09:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| The article is flawless, what i meant was the change in the popluation. I am new here, so the population count reflects the last episode. [[The-Dude]] 10.24, 12 May 2008 (UTC) | | The article is flawless, what i meant was the change in the popluation. I am new here, so the population count reflects the last episode. [[The-Dude]] 10.24, 12 May 2008 (UTC) |
| Line 46: |
Line 43: |
| == Comment by Leoben re. Harbringer of Death == | | == Comment by Leoben re. Harbringer of Death == |
|
| |
|
| OK, I added a comment after the first time viewing this episode that Leoben appeared to directly mention the hybrid's "harbringer" line at the start of Act 4, as a subnote to the question section about whether Kara will tell anyone about the line (no need to tell if they already heard). I watched the episode a second time and he clearly states something about Kara leading them all to their death, although it was very quiet so it was difficult to make out every word. Yet I noticed today my note has been deleted. Is there a reason why? I don't see anything in the discussion section about it...thanks! {{unsigned|MathewBurrack}} | | OK, I added a comment after the first time viewing this episode that Leoben appeared to directly mention the hybrid's "harbringer" line at the start of Act 4, as a subnote to the question section about whether Kara will tell anyone about the line (no need to tell if they already heard). I watched the episode a second time and he clearly states something about Kara leading them all to their death, although it was very quiet so it was difficult to make out every word. Yet I noticed today my note has been deleted. Is there a reason why? I don't see anything in the discussion section about it...thanks! |
| :I checked the scene(s) and didn't hear anything, but maybe it's there after all. A timestamp would be good. Still, the question section is for questions only and shouldn't contain elaborations or comments such at that. That's what Analysis, or maybe Notes (if it's self-evident) is for. -- [[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Billy ? ==
| |
| | |
| During [[Roslin]]'s vision, I wondered if the tall blurry guy in a brown suit could have been [[Billy]].
| |
| Am I completely wrong, or did anyone think the same ?
| |
| --[[User:Vnz|Vnz]] 12:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == FTL system plot hole ==
| |
| It seems awfully contrived that the Cylons needed to use the Rader's FTL system. IMO the most likely possibilities are that Leoben's Raider was the only FTL-capable Raider which wasn't destroyed in the battle, or that the other FTL-capable raiders had their FTL computers rendered inoperable (or at least unreliable) due to EMP damage. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 07:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :All of their Raiders might have been destroyed in the battle. Why else did the Raptor approach the damaged battlestar unchallenged by a patrol? With no Raiders and a damaged FTL, Cavil's baseship might have decided to leave what's left of them behind for dead.-- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 07:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::Given their behaviour in [[He That Believeth In Me]], it seems likely that the non-lobotomized Raiders would once again retreat if ordered to attack the Cavil faction's Basestars and Raiders. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 08:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::But that assumes that the Raiders have no sense of self-preservation. I agree, non-lobotmized Raiders wouldn't attack other Cylons unprovoked, but when it's being fired upon? -- [[User:Fredmdbud|Fredmdbud]] 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Water depth markers on the ferry ==
| |
| Saw this mentioned somewhere. The Roslin ferry scene - the ferry as the depth markers 12-11-10-9 on the bow. Just another Admiral Tigh incident (doesn't really mean anything), but interesting. -- [[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :What's wrong with those markers? --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :The fact that four numbers of twelve are visible above the waterline seems like a clear reference to the four Cylons revealed in "Crossroads, Part II", but the significance eludes me. The Four are visible in some way that the Seven and the One is not? That doesn't seem to make sense. "Number Eight" is just below the surface? But we know who she is. And what of the placement in Roslin's dream, a plotline mostly unconnected to the Cylon mythology? I suppose it was probably a neat-looking throwaway, and that analyzing it as a plot clue is probably going to be fruitless. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::Right. I thought this was pointed out as an Admiral Tigh kind of mistake where 12 m (or 12 ft) would be ridiculously long/short. Trying to interpret it in terms of Cylon numbers doesn't make much sense. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::The reason that I mention it is that likely someone sometime will try to make a big deal about when, like Admiral Tigh, it means nothing. A preemptive strike. -- [[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Religious Parallels ==
| |
| The page mentions that Baltar's use of the river imagery for the passage to death "also parallels the rise of Christianity, which adopted things from other religions, including some rites of the established Roman polytheistic religions." This seems unsubstantiated, can we get a specific parallel? -- [[User:Turambar29|Turambar29]] 03:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :I agree. Christianity hasn't a lock on such paths. At the least, it's too general, and I agree it's unsubstantiated. Feel free to modify as you like to correct for the overgeneralization. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
