No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Two Galactica Types at Shipyards== | ==Two Galactica Types at Shipyards== | ||
I think there might have actually been two unnamed G type battlestars at the shipyards. The first is in the pic on the page, the second is hit by missiles later on. You can tell they are different battlestars because of their docking arrangements. --[[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 17:59, 13 December 2007 (CST) | I think there might have actually been two unnamed G type battlestars at the shipyards. The first is in the pic on the page, the second is hit by missiles later on. You can tell they are different battlestars because of their docking arrangements. --[[User:OrionFour|OrionFour]] 17:59, 13 December 2007 (CST) | ||
:Mhhh yeah, the one destroyed isn't enclosed on two sides. It depends on how much stock we want to put in that establishing shot. There are so many effects shots, that they don't necessarily need to be consistent. The battle footage ads up, but the establishing shot seems to be slightly different anyways. Also in regard to the ''Valkyrie'' types, though they can be mainly under the superstructure and thus partially obscured. I'd rather chalk it up as a slight discrepancy. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 18:12, 13 December 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 00:12, 14 December 2007
Two Galactica Types at Shipyards
I think there might have actually been two unnamed G type battlestars at the shipyards. The first is in the pic on the page, the second is hit by missiles later on. You can tell they are different battlestars because of their docking arrangements. --OrionFour 17:59, 13 December 2007 (CST)
- Mhhh yeah, the one destroyed isn't enclosed on two sides. It depends on how much stock we want to put in that establishing shot. There are so many effects shots, that they don't necessarily need to be consistent. The battle footage ads up, but the establishing shot seems to be slightly different anyways. Also in regard to the Valkyrie types, though they can be mainly under the superstructure and thus partially obscured. I'd rather chalk it up as a slight discrepancy. --Serenity 18:12, 13 December 2007 (CST)