Talk:Miniseries, Night 1/Archive 1

Mini-Series -> Miniseries

Ok i've spend a little while changing all references (excluding talk pages) to mini-series and Mini-series so link correctly to Miniseries. However, there is a huge number of articles linking to the Mini-Series page as you can see here. Perhaps some of you lot could help out changing any references you can see to the correct Miniseries? Mercifull 07:21, 29 March 2006 (CST)

I did some small pages and a few big ones for you.--Gen00b 12:50, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Cheers, I did a load more today too but still a lot to go, over 100 articles left linking to the wrong page --Mercifull 10:44, 1 April 2006 (CST)

They're not really linking to the wrong page, since mini-series redirects to miniseries. --Gen00b 10:54, 1 April 2006 (CST)

Well thats them pretty much all gone. A few are still showing up but when looking at the edit code it doesnt appear that there is a reference so i dont know why that is happenening there? --Mercifull 04:12, 5 April 2006 (CDT)

Reason for Expansion

The analysis section needs to be expanded. I began working on it earlier, but never got around to finishing it. Obviously, anyone (including yours truly) can add their thoughts later on. -- Joe Beaudoin 17:05, 2 May 2005 (EDT)

OK, Now It Needs to be Condensed

I've begun the slow process of truncating this page to help in reducing it below the 32K preferred limit as well as to make the page less cumbersome to read. Information or speculation that has been answered ad nauseum has been removed. Questions that now have answers were updated. Ancillary information available en masse from other articles was trimned and links added. I created a new page for an empty link as well.

I think the two larger sections should be reviewed further and cut down. Likewise, the dialogue and notes may stand a cut as well. Spencerian 13:32, 25 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I'm looking into breaking down this page into some logical subarticles today. Main page links should remain fine; this will be the parent page. I want this page to look more like the episode pages in terms of plot summary, and then take the extended analysis and behind-the-scenes information to separate subarticles. More images will help as well, perhaps adding Lowdown information with behind the scenes, a long-asked for article. I will be using elements from other parent-child articles to make this work. We should be generally pleased with the results. --Spencerian 09:18, 26 January 2006 (EST)

I'm concerned about this. Are you convinced that it's impossible to summarize further? And if we have to split the article, I'd like to point out that Night One/Night Two is the most logical way to do so. --Peter Farago 11:04, 26 January 2006 (EST)

You're right; breaking it into part one and part two would be most logical. I'd rather see the behind-the-scenes, Lowdown or interview/commentary to the Battlestar Galactica (RDM) article, which would also reduce the clutter here and limit the analysis to the Night One/Two events and not the series birth, TOS comparisons, or background as a whole. There's also some insight from The Official Companion that can go there. I'll look at the pages and note my proposed adjustments before I dive in to ensure we're on the same page, so to speak. --Spencerian 12:47, 26 January 2006 (EST)

Cylon

I thought that the original Cylon Centurion was in the museum, not a cylon basestar. --Blacklight

They both are. --Peter Farago 01:15, 1 October 2005 (EDT)

Alright, I'll make the neccessary changes in the nod section then --Blacklight

Structural Consequences

"That nuclear hit will come back to haunt them later; there will be consequences to what happened to the ship structurally when it took that hit"

Are they referring to the episode Water or some other consequence not yet realized? Rocky8311 02:08, October 19, 2005 (EDT)

Water, almost certainly. --Peter Farago 02:17, 19 October 2005 (EDT)

I disagree in part. The water storage was above the flight pods, and Boomer's charges were planted from within, where an explosion would do the most damage since the water would magnify the shockwave. The show has not yet dealt with the fate of the starboard flight pod, which was converted into the museum but is not depressurized. Perhaps with the resources of Pegasus, Galactica will manage to reactivate the starboard flight pod--and maybe not a moment too soon if problems are still occurring from the hit on the port pod. --Spencerian 15:02, 2 December 2005 (EST)

Move

Can we please move this to Miniseries or Mini-series? The intercaps are driving me insane. --Peter Farago 19:47, 14 December 2005 (EST)

I concur. The SciFi Website uses it as if it were not even a proper noun: "Battlestar Galactica miniseries scheduled to air..." I think, at the least, we should move it to "Miniseries". Maybe, though, we should move it to "Miniseries (RDM)" or "Miniseries (2003-2004)". I realize there's no conflict, but there is for the seasons (which might should be "Season 1 (RDM)", etc.) and I like consistency. --Day 01:56, 17 December 2005 (EST)

No need for (RDM), I think. "Season 1" doesn't even need it, since a TOS Season one article would be entirely redundant with the main TOS article anyway. --Peter Farago 02:05, 17 December 2005 (EST)

"Episode" Data Template for this Article?

The miniseries doesn't quite fit with the elements of the new episode template, but it certainly could use it to condense all the statistics as well as make this page look like the deservedly important page that it is--in effect, "episode 0." Can we rig a unique episode table just for this article (and maybe, the TOS opener as well) to condense the data here to fit the format of the series episodes? --Spencerian 16:49, 9 January 2006 (EST)

Must... apply... template. Wow. The guest stars alone would crush the normal template. The TOS "episode 0" (Saga of a Star World) fit fine into that box, but it had a very small guest star list, and fit in many other ways more neatly into the "episode" box. I guess if you left off the guest stars, the other mini-series data elements would line up ok with the template. The question would remain (as it does with Saga of a Star World) what you would put on the "previous" line. I put "None" for TOS, but it could theoretically point to the series home (but that seemed redundant with the "episode of" at the top of the template. --Steelviper 16:59, 9 January 2006 (EST)

A quick "demo" (preview might be more precise) looked pretty good. Thanks to the gigantic TOC, the template doesn't have much of an impact on the layout, and some of the clutter at the bottom gets cleaned up. My demo lacked the Guest Stars, though (as I figured it would be overwhelming). --Steelviper 17:11, 9 January 2006 (EST)

The one-off episode data table that Undc23 implemented looks pretty sweet. My only thought would be that any information contained in the episode data up top need not be retained in the stats section down below. --Steelviper 08:39, 26 January 2006 (EST)

God vs. Gods

I think it should be added to the "Bloopers" section that the whole Cylon "God" Vs. the Colonial "Gods" concept really hadn't been fleshed out during the miniseries, and possibly not thought up yet. No one says lines like "oh my Gods!", Adama, in his retirement speech said that in creating the Cylons they "Tried to play God" (as opposed to playing "Gods"), and when the Cylon at Ragnar Anchorage says "maybe God decided he made a mistake", Adama makes no effort to correct him (at least about their being only one God). To be fair, Starbuck does pray to the Lords of Kobal when she thinks Apollo is dead, but at best the usage is inconsistent throughout the miniseries, especially considering the big deal it is during the rest of the series. Ghost 00:44, 17 February 2006 (EST)

No. This extended into the regular series; you see, as polytheists, they could just be referring to a specific God of their choice when they swear using the sinugular "God", and as for "God" making a mistake, they kind of could view it as Zeus, etc. Point is, they as polytheists can get away with using the singular; the goof would be if the Cylons used the plural. --The Merovingian 04:25, 17 February 2006 (EST)

Exactly. The ancient Aztecs wouldn't have said "Oh my Gods" if it rained, they would say "Oh my God! / Oh my God of rain! / Oh my Tlaloc!" I mean they probably wouldn't say that at all but you get my point. --Mercifull 05:21, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Summary

How come there is no episode summary for this episode. I also think that this page would be better if it were split. --Grafix 08:12, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Reformating this Page

I would like to propose the miniseries article is split into 2 separate pages. The reason for this is that it is getting too long and I got an error message recently telling me this when I tried to edit it.

I therefore propose that on page 1 we have what happened in the miniseries and on page 2 comments and analysis.

It would look like:

Page 1

Overview

Backplot

Summary (at present we don't have one)

Questions

Noteworthy dialogue

Cast

Related Topics

External Links

Page 2

Analysis

Notes

Official Statements

Please put your comments here. If they are positive I would be happy to do the split. --Grafix 01:37, 12 March 2006 (CST)

Sounds good to me. --Shane 08:04, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I wish I'd noticed this last week. Wouldn't the more natural split be between night one and night two? --Peter Farago 18:14, 23 March 2006 (CST)

This was something I'd hoped to do some weeks ago. "Night One" and "Night Two" would be more appropriate. --Spencerian 13:54, 24 March 2006 (CST)

I thought the Miniseries was a single entity and as such the current layout reflects this. --Grafix 02:04, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

If it's a single entity, then it deserves to be on one page. Splitting the content across two pages arbitrarily is atrocious, no matter how big the combined page may be. However, splitting it across nights one and two would be logical and would help with length issues. --Peter Farago 02:09, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

But the split wasn't abitary - page 1 describes what happened in the episode and page 2 contains notes and analysys. --Grafix 03:01, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

Template

What was wrong with using the normal episode template? --Day ^{(Talk - Admin)} 19:19, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

Nothing in my mind. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 19:27, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

The problem I found when trying to get it to work right was the "series" area. Since it was designed for Season X, Episode X of Series. The mini-series does not have a season. So I just subst the code so the whole table can be formated out, but I could edit the sections the miniseries did not need. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 19:31, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

That was a nice catch; the error was more subtle than I'd have guessed missing required fields was. Why didn't you just edit the template to omit the fields if they were blank, though? --CalculatinAvatar 19:51, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

Tried a whole bunch of combos. I think I spent a good 15 mintues on it. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:06, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

This is fixable. Shane, please don't flag substantive contributions to talk pages as minor. --Peter Farago 01:00, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

UK Airdate

Can someone confirm the airdate and timeslot of the UK premiere? --Peter Farago 15:08, 16 April 2006 (CDT)

Unsourced: Ammo destroyed in decommissioning ceremony

Where was that mentioned in the Miniseries? This needs a source. --Rafale 05:09, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

They destroyed the ammunition in a deleted scene. --Talos 08:00, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Update on HD Captures for Everyone

The BSG Miniseries was just posted up in 720p format, so i'm frantically downloading it before i have to move out and i lose this lovely 10mbit internet connection - be prepared for some BIIIIIIIIG Screencaps people! --Fordsierra4x4 22:37, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Great news! --Peter Farago 22:52, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

I been around for a while, but what is the 720p format? :) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:53, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

720p is an HDTV format. It means 720 vertical lines of resolution, transmitted at 60 full frames a second. 1080i is the other main HDTV format, which means 1080 vertical lines, but only transmitted at 30 full frames a second, or 60 half-frames. The upshot is that although a full 1080 line image can be reconstructed from a 1080i signal, few rippers have bothered to do this, so most of our HDTV captures are only available at a resolution of 540 vertical lines. 720p will be a considerable improvement over this. --Peter Farago 23:26, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Actually the reason for the 960x540 res on the captures i put up - is because the original 4.2 gig MPEG2 is too large to store even on my behemothic rig - so i downsize them to 960x540 700mb XVID. I could put up 1080i full frame captures of some episodes that i have the .TS or MPEG2 backed up on DVD, but they'd look MAHOOSIVE :D --Fordsierra4x4 18:22, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Okay - i just spent 3 days downloading it and of course, it's not an MPEG2 transport stream - it uses that stupid Matroska crap. I cant find any way of easily stripping out the video and audio so i can convert it to an AVI, and there looks to be no sign of a .ts coming (which 99.99% of all the other BSG's in HD have been) which i'd normally convert to an XviD. If i find the little "£$%* that decided to make my life (and ours, collectively) a misery, um, actually i dunno what i'll do - suggestions anyone? :) --Fordsierra4x4 17:15, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

I will look in my archive of goodies to see if I can help out. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:28, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/River_Past_Video_Cleaner_6860_p/ --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:34, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

http://www.riverpast.com/en/prod/videocleaner/download.php <-- Pro Version; What is ur email address? --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 17:44, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Cheers for the offer of help - but i'd rather not change the actual video encoding of it (x264), just the container format. However, i'll give it ago just in case! Send to <removed email> -Fordsierra4x4 17:48, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Sent. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 18:04, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Okay - Installed thanks - what i'm doing, is ripping the AC3 separately from the video, River Past is taking care of the video and i'm doing a 2-pass xvid at full HDTV 1280x720p and then i'll mux in the AC3 afterwards - this is going to take hours!!! --Fordsierra4x4 21:05, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

At least it works. :-D What is a few extra days. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:07, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

True - although its annoying that they're posted in such a shite format :/ --Fordsierra4x4 21:38, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Update 12/06/2006

Okay - finally managed to find a tool that'll re-encode the miniseries to XviD with AC3 audio - it should take about 4 hours to finish off as well. It would have been finished before had i not been stupid and caused Windows XP x64 to panic on me. Are there any specific screenies that people want off this - or should i go on a seek & upload mission? --Fordsierra4x4 09:10, 12 June 2006 (CDT)