Editing Talk:Hero/Archive1
Discussion page of Hero/Archive1
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 127: | Line 127: | ||
:'''Adama:''' She [Valerii] was more than that to us. She was more than that to me. She was a vital, living person... aboard my ship for almost two years. She couldn’t have been just a machine. Could you love a machine? ([[The Farm]]) | :'''Adama:''' She [Valerii] was more than that to us. She was more than that to me. She was a vital, living person... aboard my ship for almost two years. She couldn’t have been just a machine. Could you love a machine? ([[The Farm]]) | ||
:Also, note that the timeline in Adama's dossier (which seems to be accurate based on other data points) puts his transfer to ''Galactica'' at six years prior to the miniseries. | :Also, note that the timeline in Adama's dossier (which seems to be accurate based on other data points) puts his transfer to ''Galactica'' at six years prior to the miniseries. | ||
:--[[User: | :--[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:48, 20 November 2006 (CST) | ||
| Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
::*If there was no network on ''Valkyrie'', then why wasn't there one? It appears extremely unlikely that the networks were all installed in the time between the incident and the attack, though the decision cannot have been made to long before Adama took command of ''Galactica'', because the previous commander would probably have had it installed. And given that it must have been a major decision to put networks on battlestars once more it's hard to believe that the Admirality would allow commanders to pull the plug on it as they see fit. I can imagine Adamas opposition being tolerated on ''Galactica'', because it was an old battlestar nearing it's decommissioning with a design that may have been especially hard to upgrade (regardless of Gaetas patchwork in [[Scattered]]). They could have simply decided that it was not worth the effort to force Adama to accept the upgrade. But that would be hard to believe for ''Valkyrie'', if you are sending a battlestar on such a sensitive mission you want it at maximum performance. [[User:Nevfennas|Nevfennas]] 14:49, 20 November 2006 (CST) | ::*If there was no network on ''Valkyrie'', then why wasn't there one? It appears extremely unlikely that the networks were all installed in the time between the incident and the attack, though the decision cannot have been made to long before Adama took command of ''Galactica'', because the previous commander would probably have had it installed. And given that it must have been a major decision to put networks on battlestars once more it's hard to believe that the Admirality would allow commanders to pull the plug on it as they see fit. I can imagine Adamas opposition being tolerated on ''Galactica'', because it was an old battlestar nearing it's decommissioning with a design that may have been especially hard to upgrade (regardless of Gaetas patchwork in [[Scattered]]). They could have simply decided that it was not worth the effort to force Adama to accept the upgrade. But that would be hard to believe for ''Valkyrie'', if you are sending a battlestar on such a sensitive mission you want it at maximum performance. [[User:Nevfennas|Nevfennas]] 14:49, 20 November 2006 (CST) | ||
:::The network thing isn't hugely problematic. We have no notion of how old ''Valkyrie'' was. ''Atlantia'' was at least 17 years old at the time of the attack (based on Adama's dossier), and was still worthy to serve as Nagala's flagship in the Miniseries. ''Galactica'' was even older. --[[User: | :::The network thing isn't hugely problematic. We have no notion of how old ''Valkyrie'' was. ''Atlantia'' was at least 17 years old at the time of the attack (based on Adama's dossier), and was still worthy to serve as Nagala's flagship in the Miniseries. ''Galactica'' was even older. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:44, 21 November 2006 (CST) | ||
:Adama's dossier may or may not help matters. If the screencap interpretation in the article is correct, then it is currently 21356 - based on the 45th anniversary of Adama's commissioning - which is consistent with what we know about Colonial Day and the Armistice. Therefore the Fall of the Colonies occurred in 21354, and that means the Valkyrie incident occurred in 21353 or thereabouts. However, the dossier goes on to state that Adama took command of Valkyrie in 21345, and Galactica in 21348. If the dossier is correct, then the Valkyrie incident had to take place in 21347 or 21348...which means that Adama's "graceful retirement" lasted for 6 years until the Fall. If this timeline is correct, then it basically blows all the dialogue in this episode out of the water, but validates everything we've seen and heard in the first two seasons. Of course, this is all contingent on the dossier being correctly interpreted - and I personally cannot make out the last two dates on screen. --[[User:Xenophon10k|Xenophon10k]] 19:55, 21 November 2006 (CST) | :Adama's dossier may or may not help matters. If the screencap interpretation in the article is correct, then it is currently 21356 - based on the 45th anniversary of Adama's commissioning - which is consistent with what we know about Colonial Day and the Armistice. Therefore the Fall of the Colonies occurred in 21354, and that means the Valkyrie incident occurred in 21353 or thereabouts. However, the dossier goes on to state that Adama took command of Valkyrie in 21345, and Galactica in 21348. If the dossier is correct, then the Valkyrie incident had to take place in 21347 or 21348...which means that Adama's "graceful retirement" lasted for 6 years until the Fall. If this timeline is correct, then it basically blows all the dialogue in this episode out of the water, but validates everything we've seen and heard in the first two seasons. Of course, this is all contingent on the dossier being correctly interpreted - and I personally cannot make out the last two dates on screen. --[[User:Xenophon10k|Xenophon10k]] 19:55, 21 November 2006 (CST) | ||
::That was the conclusion we came to above. The Dossier is [[:image:dossier.png|entirely legible]] and is visible on screen for over sixty frames. --[[User: | ::That was the conclusion we came to above. The Dossier is [[:image:dossier.png|entirely legible]] and is visible on screen for over sixty frames. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:31, 21 November 2006 (CST) | ||
:::I missed that part. That image is a lot clearer than the screenshot I had, as well. --[[User:Xenophon10k|Xenophon10k]] 10:24, 22 November 2006 (CST) | :::I missed that part. That image is a lot clearer than the screenshot I had, as well. --[[User:Xenophon10k|Xenophon10k]] 10:24, 22 November 2006 (CST) | ||
| Line 212: | Line 212: | ||
:--[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 12:06, 25 November 2006 (CST) | :--[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 12:06, 25 November 2006 (CST) | ||
did anyone see left side one of five figures has a neckless or medal--[[User:mustah|mustah]] | did anyone see left side one of five figures has a neckless or medal--[[User:mustah|mustah]] | ||
::I'll try to remember to put a podcast citation "hook" in the transcript around the part where he mentions the five figures for the note | ::I'll try to remember to put a podcast citation "hook" in the transcript around the part where he mentions the five figures for the note Peter just added. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 12:18, 1 December 2006 (CST) | ||
Here's a screencap. As you can see, they're pure white silhouettes. - no black eyes or necklaces or other decorations. | Here's a screencap. As you can see, they're pure white silhouettes. - no black eyes or necklaces or other decorations. | ||
[[ | [[Image:Five figures.jpg]] | ||
--[[User: | --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:27, 1 December 2006 (CST) | ||
== No Definitive Proof of "Cylon" (removed Question) == | == No Definitive Proof of "Cylon" (removed Question) == | ||
| Line 258: | Line 258: | ||
:That would be fanwanky. It's simply an error. I changed all other articles to assume that the mission took place ''six'' years before the Cylon attack. That fits with the document seen in the episode (although these aren't always reliable by themselves) and the dialogue established in other episodes. And there is just no reason why he would have to change ships for one mission. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 05:17, 25 November 2007 (CST) | :That would be fanwanky. It's simply an error. I changed all other articles to assume that the mission took place ''six'' years before the Cylon attack. That fits with the document seen in the episode (although these aren't always reliable by themselves) and the dialogue established in other episodes. And there is just no reason why he would have to change ships for one mission. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 05:17, 25 November 2007 (CST) | ||