Talk:Guess What's Coming to Dinner?/Archive 1

Into the West

I was just reading over the communique Brad just sent us, where he tells us that "Into the West" is not actually an episode of the fourth season, and I might know what happened. Apparently the source for the name of the episode comes from this report from an on-set reporter who glanced over a random script laying around, with the title "Into the West" on it back in June. With a little bit of research I discovered that frequent Battlestar director Sergio Mimica-Gezzan recently worked on project for Stephen Spielberg called "Into the West", and the writer for TV Addict might have glanced over one of Sergio's scripts. --OrionFour 03:57, 30 November 2007 (CST)

The "Deleted Discussions" tag

I removed the deleted discussions tag, since it was clear that this discussion page was originally the one for "Into the West", itself having been deleted. I did this to avoid any confusion. Thanks for the heads-up, Sasoriza! -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Two-parter?

According to imdb.com, this episode is the first half of a two-parter, which means "Guess What's Coming to Dinner part 2" will air next week, and Sine Qua Non airs only after that. Is that true? Do you have any information on this? -- Freevo 18:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a two-parter in the sense that there'll be a conclusion. However, the second part is "Sine Qua Non". Also, don't trust IMDb with new information... they for every one thing they get right, there are two to five things that are completely wrong, particularly for content that hasn't aired yet. (For instance, all the episodes for season 4.0 were credited as being written by RDM, when that isn't the case.) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Two-parters don't have to have the same title. See "Scattered"/"Valley of Darkness", "Occupation"/"Precipice", "Torn"/"A Measure of Salvation" or "The Eye of Jupiter"/"Rapture". There are more episodes that are clearly connected, like the whole first few episodes of Season 2. And that's just on this show. -- Serenity 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Serenity, since I watch the same show, I am absolutely aware of that. Imdb just listed "part 2" and "Sine Qua Non" as two different episodes. And, well, this "part 1-part 2" naming also had some credibility because of "Crossroads". But yes, I totally understand that imdb is a lousy source for any information. :) Thanks for clarifying this. -- Freevo 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't check the site. In that case, it's just them being lazy again. The episode titles and order have been known for some time and confirmed by official sources. -- Serenity 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That source would be this one. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

At Caprica City we had been listing GWCTD as a two-parter for many weeks. If I'm not mistaken, our "source" was a KR post on Skiffy. It wasn't until several days ago that we realized all this confusion probably arose from the fact that May 23rd is Memorial Day. --Pedda 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At last... Pedda is alive! :P yeah. I think it's pretty much confirmed by now that's it is a two-parter. There is so much stuff to be resolved, I doubt they can fit it in an hour show. Shane (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Faith podcast, Guess What's Coming to Dinner is the conclusion of a two-parter which started with Faith. -- Gordon Ecker 06:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing cast

I filled the gaps in the guest cast best I could, but there are two last names I'm not positive about because it took some detective work just to make out the most of the names in the closing credits. I believe the penultimate is Craig Veroni - a Vancouver actor. The last appears to be Lee Jeffery (or Jeffrey) who has ties to the show... at least according to IMDb. So both seem likely to be correct educated guesses. Can anyone confirm? And, of course, add character names because I cannot make that leap. --Mars 07:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Baltar and Gaeta

I disagree with this analysis in the article:

"Gaius Baltar is also drawn to see Gaeta, but the two do not interact; he is out of Gaeta's view and listening to him singing, suggesting that Baltar may have forgiven Gaeta for perjuring himself at Baltar's trial and for the earlier murder attempt."

I think that it's unreasonable to infer that from such a short scene with no dialogue between the characters. Should it be removed? FredTheDeadHead 09:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

More than likely, the two don't interact. Otherwise, Gaeta would have been clearly agitated, given that Gaeta:

1. perjured himself on the stand in an attempt to secure a guilty plea for Baltar that Roslin and Tigh had failed to do so;
2. stabbed Baltar in the neck.

Of course, once the podcast is released, we may learn more. :) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 15:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you agree it should be removed? FredTheDeadHead 18:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible Trial of Athena

Roslin's, Athena's, and Caprica Six's shared visions were a prominent feature in Guess What's Coming to Dinner. We saw all three having them simultaneously culminating in Athena shooting Natalie. We saw Roslin discussing them with Lee, Starbuck, Baltar and Foster. It is a subject of Baltar's radio show. I think it is going to be a major issue of a President, now abducted by the Cylons from the Colonial's point of view, having visions with the Cylons. Now Romo Lampkin is due to appear in the very next episode. Now he could be there for the unmentioned alleged mutiny and the shooting of Gaeta by Anders or even any succession battle between Lee and Zarek, but I doubt it given the clear line of succession established for the Presidency and the total lack of reaction by the Command Staff of the Galactica to Gaeta being shot or the so-called mutiny. I think from all the described build up of "Visiongate" with the shooting of Natalie at its head will be a major plot point. I of course could be TOTALLY off base, but that is my analysis and I think I have cited evidence for it. Hunter2005 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I removed it because I firmly believe that it is totally off-the-wall that Athena would be charged with anything in a civilian court of law. She would be brought up on military charges, which fall under Adama's purview. Romo Lampkin's deals with the civilian end of things, hence the whole hoopla about laws in Season 3. (There was none of this hoopla during the tribunal way back in the first season, since that was military.) Beyond that, this is a case of people using disparate evidence to come to a weak analysis based on a two second clip of Romo Lampkin's wearing his shades... Quite frankly, I would remove the "trial" analysis point and merely ask "Will Athena be brought up on charges?" in the questions section... but as it stands right now, it should be removed, no matter how much lipstick is put on this pig. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 01:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)