Talk:Resurrection Ship/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:42, 7 February 2006

I thought that the unknown cylon ship was shaped like a taurus? The ship that Starbuck took photos of in the blackbird was definintly not the same ship that was seen in Cain's earlier recon photos. Is this a completley different ship? Or did the writers just change the design of it because they didnt like the donut shaped one? --BMS 23:19, 6 January 2006 (EST)

Good question. That original shot in Pegasus looked different to me too. If you listen to the podcast for this episode it only gets more confusing. RDM says that the design for the Reurrection Ship was finalized quite a while back. --Watcher 23:27, 6 January 2006 (EST)

It is extremely blurred in the photos, as far as I can tell. Hence the recon op. -- Joe Beaudoin 23:33, 6 January 2006 (EST)

Perhaps. After looking at it carefully, the ship in the recon photo looks like it could be the ship we saw in Res Ship part 1, if you put it "on its side" in relation to the basestars. --BMS 23:42, 6 January 2006 (EST)

That was what I was thinking. It may look different from a different angle. Perhaps we should use this pic as another pic? Unless, ofcourse, someone has a better pic (hopefully). Blacklight

The Resurrection ship in The Pegasus episode look more like an original basestar rather than a triangalur Prism.

Correct for values of "more" == "not at all". --Peter Farago 02:20, 7 January 2006 (EST)

I think we should wait for Ragnar Anchorage or someone else to post better caps, if by the end of today no one has, I'll give a link to a site that does have them up already, though they are smaller (by format) than the ones RA normally posts..--Sauron18 7 January 2006

Is there either a suitable nomenclature to refer to any Cylon with a biological component? Since the resurrection ship can download both Humano-Cylons and Raiders, I wanted a way to refer to both with a single term. Bio-Cylon seemed appropriate, though I now see it's already been negatively hijacked by original series purists. Other than the blurb I added at the end, this article refers exclusively to the resurrection of the humanoid form, which, we now know from "Scar", is technically insufficient. I wouldn't want to clutter up the entire article with the hybrid reference; a single clarification would suffice. I don't think my addition quite does the trick, though. --Timtrout 02:33, 7 February 2006 (EST)

The matter was under fairly heated discussion recently. Humano-Cylon is the term currently in use, but I expect this to change in the near future. --Peter Farago 02:42, 7 February 2006 (EST)

Revision as of 07:33, 7 February 2006 view source Timtrout (talk \| contribs) 3 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 07:42, 7 February 2006 view source April Arcus (talk \| contribs) Chiefs 8,475 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Is there either a suitable nomenclature to refer to any Cylon with a biological component? Since the resurrection ship can download both Humano-Cylons and Raiders, I wanted a way to refer to both with a single term. Bio-Cylon seemed appropriate, though I now see it's already been negatively hijacked by original series purists. Other than the blurb I added at the end, this article refers exclusively to the resurrection of the humanoid form, which, we now know from "[[Scar]]", is technically insufficient. I wouldn't want to clutter up the entire article with the hybrid reference; a single clarification would suffice. I don't think my addition quite does the trick, though. --[[User:Timtrout\|Timtrout]] 02:33, 7 February 2006 (EST)		Is there either a suitable nomenclature to refer to any Cylon with a biological component? Since the resurrection ship can download both Humano-Cylons and Raiders, I wanted a way to refer to both with a single term. Bio-Cylon seemed appropriate, though I now see it's already been negatively hijacked by original series purists. Other than the blurb I added at the end, this article refers exclusively to the resurrection of the humanoid form, which, we now know from "[[Scar]]", is technically insufficient. I wouldn't want to clutter up the entire article with the hybrid reference; a single clarification would suffice. I don't think my addition quite does the trick, though. --[[User:Timtrout\|Timtrout]] 02:33, 7 February 2006 (EST)

			:The matter was under fairly heated discussion recently. [[Humano-Cylon]] is the term currently in use, but I expect this to change in the near future. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 02:42, 7 February 2006 (EST)