Talk:Black Market/Archive 1

Analysis

The criticism here needs to be toned down drastically. I personally enjoyed this episode much more than I had been expecting to. --Peter Farago 02:16, 28 January 2006 (EST)

I don't know exactly how to feel about this episode. Honestly, it wasn't all that bad -- it could have been much better executed, however. I can't really disagree with any of the critisms leveled at this episode, primarily because I hold them to be evident as well. -- Joe Beaudoin 09:45, 28 January 2006 (EST)

I'm in agreement, the analysis section does need to be toned down a little. Some of the criticisms are totally justified, while other parts seem unduly harsh. It wasn't a great episode but despite its flaws in did tell an interesting story. --Rexpop 10:12, 28 January 2006 (EST)

I've edited this article heavily to concise it from its overly play-by-play format, but it could still see a more concising eye. I've also toned down the analysis to provable (i.e., non-subjective) points of the episode, deleting redundant or highly subjective commentary. There was too much personal bias in the story, reading more like a review than an analysis. Despite the small story in this episode, this article is quite weighty than the others. --Spencerian 11:50, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Thank you for editing down my Analysis. Sometimes it's hard to do a write up, so I just let myself rant, and acutally hoped that others would heavily edit it down to something more concise, depending one whether they agreed or not. I was just getting the ball rolling. Thanks. --Ricimer 12:57, 28 January 2006 (EST)

I was about to say, the summary seems a bit lengthy. It's supposed to be a summary, not a play-by-play. I admire the fact the Noteworthy Dialogue's have been shorter lately, focusing on critical stuff. Thanks for the edit, but I still think its overly detailed. Read the summaries for "33" and "Water" and see that they focus on what happens during the episode and not why or reasoning. I feel like i'm reading an essay rather then a description, but thats just me. --Bane Grievver 18:10, 28 January 2006 (EST)

That's simply because there hasn't been as much quotable stuff in the past two episodes, while a LOT of Res Ship I and II was quoteable. Yeah, it was a little long but I was just trying to hurry and get it all on before I had to turn my computer off. I don't normally do summariies, besides; the plot was really confusing and took quite a few twists and turns. --Ricimer 20:08, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Whoa, look at that summary. I saw an earlier version this morning, and its better now, but its still exceptionally long when compared to other episodes. Someone needs to take to it with a flaming chainsaw. I'd do it, but I am somewhat unsure of how much would be too much, as Ricimer is correct - it was a complicated episode. Does anyone really like it the way it is now, or can I go in there and edit it? Remember, it can always be reverted. I'd rather shorten it too much, and then have us realize that some points were exceptionally important and replace them, then leave it too long with unimportant points left in. --BMS 20:18, 28 January 2006 (EST)

I actually pared it down a bit, and made it more chronologically correct. Any hint of analysis or reasoning in the Summary's content is not my doing -- I try to keep a very sterile "This happened, then that" approach in writing. I'm sure that a few "steps" can be condensed further, but looking it over at this point, it looks like it describes what transcended fairly well. -- Hawke 20:56, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Got rid of a few analysis points myself, looks a lot better now. --Bane Grievver 16:10, 29 January 2006 (EST)

I don't know if the flashbacks of Apollo's relationship from before the attack should be characterized as an "interesting turn." "Contrived" would make more sense. We've heard next to nothing about Apollo's relationships for 26 episodes, not to mention the miniseries, and all of a sudden he has a pregnant girlfriend that he misses terribly? I can excuse someone like Wallace Grey appearing out of nowhere, but this is just too much, and I think the analysis should reflect that. --Drumstick 13:37, 29 January 2006 (EST)

Regarding Drumstick's edit at 03:38, 30 January 2006: 'You have done well, grasshopper' --Ricimer 23:37, 29 January 2006 (EST)

Regular vs. Guest Star

I noticed that someone edited this and said that they "included Leah Cairns (Racetrack)" as a Guest Star. At what point are characters considered "regulars" versus just being a spot-on "guest star"? Personally, I consider characters like Racetrack, Cat, and Hot Dog as regulars by now, albeit in the minor, second-tier category. They are existing in the "Wedge factor"... or, to put it better, they are in that role that Boomer and Jolly held in The Old Series -- that of a regularly re-occuring peripheral character that the fan can follow, and aren't getting killed off every episode like the Star Trek "Redshirt". -- Hawke 10:50, 28 January 2006 (CST)

There are seven regulars - Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell, James Callis, Tricia Helfer, Jamie Bamber, Katee Sakhoff, and Grace Park. They are contracted on a per-season basis. Everyone else is a guest star, paid on a per-episode basis. There are two types of guest star - those listed during the opening of Act 1, after the intro sequence, and those listed in the credits at the end of the episode. I'm not entirely sure what the difference is, but the larger roles tend to be the ones listed earlier. --Peter Farago 12:56, 28 January 2006 (EST)

It's a bit of a grey area; officially, there are 7 "regular cast" members, as stated above. There's also "recurring characters", in legalize, these are "guest stars" that appear in most episodes. Case in point, Colonel Tigh has been in every episode but ins't counted as a main cast member (something to do with salaries, etc) and Chief Tyrol has appeard in all but two episodes (he grew more as they went along), so he's kind of also a recurring character too. Cally kind of also grew into that, as well. So the line between "regular" and "recurring" is blurry for Col. Tigh and Tyrol. Similarly, there is a blurry line between "guest" and "recurring". Several "guest" characters reappear more than once (Elosh, Dr. Cottle, Cain and Fisk I guess). Meanwhile, Kat and Hot Dog were originally intended as one-shot guests, but according to the DVD commentary, RDM was surprised that other writers would then script them in whenever "another pilot" was required, and they've been building up Kat. Likewise, Racetrack was just a "guest" but I think has advanced to "recurring" becase of all the character development she got in Final Cut and Flight of the Phoenix and she's also appeared alot. At any rate, there's a blurry line and it's really subjective.

That said, I do want to add "Helo and Tyrol do not appear in this episode" to the notes for easy referrence, because even though they aren't "regulars", they have each only missed one maybe two episodes before this. Tyrol wasn't in "Home, Part I", and Helo wasn't in "Fragged". So I think that makes it significant enough to put down there.--Ricimer 13:33, 28 January 2006 (EST)

BSG also makes the distinction of "co-stars" which appear at the beginning of Act 1 but without the heading of "Guest Star" that all the other guest stars do. I think Racetrack, Kat, and Hot Dog are still listed as actual guest stars, though. --Redwall 13:26, 28 January 2006 (EST)

I still disagree. There's no expectation that guest characters like Helo and Tyrol will appear in every episode, so their absence here is really unremarkable. --Peter Farago 19:00, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Given that both of them have each appeared in all but one of the previous episodes, I would actually find it quite remarkable. --Ricimer 20:06, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Baltar's Treason

Seems to me there's a lot of "jumping the gun" vis-a-vis Baltar. For one thing, he did not knowingly have anything to do with the Cylon attack. While his actions were unethical, he clearly had no intention of committing genocide. He was a dupe in that respect. Nor is there any reason for the President to think him working with the Cylons on the basis of his having been with Six prior to the attack unless she also had some motive for believing he knew this woman to be a Cylon (which he did not). If confronted with this fact, he can (with complete honesty even) say: "Madame President, no less than two crewmembers of the Galactica fell in love with a Cylon. So did I. I admit this. And, like them, I did not know she was a Cylon. Nor can I say in total candor my feelings for the woman I knew are not still...tender. As well as not a little bit confused. This was not a matter I would share willingly. But if you examine the facts, you will realize it likely I was neither the first, the tenth, or even the hundredth human being to be so deceived by the nature of our enemy."

She may think him a selfish, unethical wild card (and I'd agree). She may dislike him personally and think he'd best be as far from any kind of political power as possible. That seems to me totally reasonable. But what reason has anyone to think he's an actual traitor? A Cylon himself? Ah, that would at least make some sense, as far as suspicions go. But how to prove it? And besides, what if he isn't? Zahir 12:21, 28 January 2006 (EST)

You're also talking about a woman who had an epiphany during a very traumatic situation, and like most of the people in the Fleet, Laura is human...and humans make mistakes. She might be "on the ball" in every way when it comes to her work as President, but her dislike of Baltar is on a personal level, and personal feelings, no matter how much people try to prevent it, will come into play in other aspects of their dealing with the situation. I suspect that will crystalize more as we go towards the season finale.

There is also the fact that while Baltar may have been a dupe in the beginning, he's cleaning perilously close to the pit of darkness now, and today's dupe may well end up being season three's traitor.--み使い Mitsukai 19:34, 28 January 2006 (EST)

RDM notes in his podcast for Epiphanies and implies in his podcast for Black Market that it was his intention that the viewer understand Roslin's reaction in Epiphanies as her realization that Baltar "had something to do with it." "It" being the Cylon Attack. Whether RDM pulled that off or not is, of course, up to the viewer. --Watcher 19:39, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Regardless, she doesn't have physical "evidence" against him, so acting on what she remembered might be harder to do. --Ricimer 20:11, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Not to mention that in a case of law, it's merely "he said, she said". Yeah, few in the fleet like him, and they'd probably love to bounce him out the first airlock sans space suit, but as long as they have courts, laws and a (slightly flagging) desire for order, he's got the law on his side.--み使い Mitsukai 03:53, 29 January 2006 (EST)

Baltar could even confirm every single fact Roselyn might offer, yet still realistically claim innocence. The simple facts are that, while there is something fishy going on, no one has any real evidence that Baltar is guilty of anything. And I still suspect he's going to end up in a real sense saving the day--because life is like that. Some of the greatest leaders have had repellant qualities while sometimes those with nothing but good intentions really frak things up. Besides, look at it this way. This war has only three possible ends: (1) Humanity is wiped out, very possible. (2) The Cylons are wiped out, highly unlikely. (3) Cylons and Humans find a way to share the universe. Between them, Baltar seems to be working for option number three.

Also Baltar has already been publicly accused of treason and managed to demonstrate that the accusation was false. Roselyn would require some solid evidence (which at the moment she doesn't have) to publicly accuse him otherwise it could easily be dismissed as another attempt to smear his name. --Rexpop 18:45, 29 January 2006 (EST)

Shevon's name?

Minor question here: are we sure about the spelling of her name? Watching the episode, I assumed it was Siobhan, a fairly common name of (I think) Irish origin, which is pronounced approximately like "Shevon". Was surprised to see "Shevon" listed as the actual spelling.--Ashe

Ashe, I ran into you saying this before on the official messageboard, where I man known as "The Merovingian". I had assumed you were being sarcastic. I really, REALLY don't want to be rude in any way, but simply list what I feel are the facts, and I say this without being condescending: 1) Multiple Galactiaca news sites and previews like Gateworld refer to her as "Shevon" 2) It sounds like "Shevon" 3) No one that I have myself encountered ever thought that was anything like an Irish name. It seems to me like you are letting personal feelings get in the way of your interpretations. If anyone else would like to comment on this to clear things up, please do so. --Ricimer 12:19, 30 January 2006 (EST)

Sorry, that was not me. Please make sure you're flaming the right person, hmm?

I have never asked this question (or seen it addressed) anywhere else. Let me take your points in reverse order. #3: According to www.babynamesofireland.com, Siobhan is currently their number-one most popular girl's name. #2: Siobhan is pronounced like "Shevon", as I already said. #1: If official BSG sites list this character's name as "Shevon" then I'm not arguing otherwise. Just needed clarification, which you have provided. On to other topics, then. --Ashe

Please sign your names to things. Thank you for seeing that it's on other Galactica sites too, but I want to point out that your logic doesn't make sense there. You said that you though that "Shevon" might be the Irish name "Siobhan". I said it wasn't. Your counterpoint to this was to point out that, in Ireland, the Irish name Siobhan is the most popular female baby name? That doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. --Ricimer 15:27, 30 January 2006 (EST)

Not gonna fight this one with you. My goal was, and is, to help improve the contents of the wiki, which sometimes includes asking questions about things. Sorry for not knowing how to generate the name/date/timestamp before now. -- Ashe 17:23, 30 January 2006 (EST)

Ricimer, you're overreacting again. A simple explanation would have sufficed. Remember to assume good faith. --Peter Farago 19:17, 30 January 2006 (EST)

Indeed. But I felt I might as well be definative; the Tyrol v. Hadrian rank thing has dragged out for some time because we didn't list all evidence at the beginning. --Ricimer 19:35, 30 January 2006 (EST)