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)

In real life under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) a defendant can have outside civilian representation at a Court Martial if he pleases. Anyway you could be right and I am basing it on nothing and it could be related to something totally unrelated but I reiterate with all the build up with visions, Visiongate, and the lack of any mention of any legal proceedings regarding the alleged mutiny and/or Gaeta's shooting I think I am on pretty good grounds. Maybe Gaeta has come forward after all and Anders needs representation is the bases of Lampkin coming back with the next episode tilted Sine Qua Non. On the basis of the title alone some kind of major legal plot line is in the offing. Maybe Thrace was arrested on suspicion of aiding the Cylons in the President's abduction? That is a guess with even less to go on than my Athena angle. I do concede that another legal possibility is Tigh's apparent assault on Admiral Adama. It could be one thing to shoot a Cylon and be lightly punished for it, another to beat up the Admiral of the Fleet, so that is one real way Lampkin's services cold be needed. I don't think you can sweep that under the rug. Hunter2005 06:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I really should have put this up for discussion before I deleted it. Sorry 'bout that. If people feel I've pulled a Cavil, let me know. :) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider it a valid point. However, I think it's just too much analysis from too little to base it on. It's not that it's completely unlikely - it might happen - but mostly baseless from what we know at the moment. The stuff about the witnesses she uses in her defense could be removed for example. Saying that there is evidence that she truly experienced visions would be enough here IMO. -- Serenity 10:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether there is evidence that she was truly experiencing visions-we the audience know that she is-but whether the in show characters have evidence to present in any in show trial. Lee, Thrace and Caprica Six can give evidence backing Athena's possible defense and what is their credibility given the backgrounds of the witness. And while the killing of a Cylon has been handled by the Colonials in a casual manner in the past, there is much more at stake now. The possible killing of Natalie has a greater significance to Fleet security than the killing of Boomer. Also, since this is an analysis of an episode, the episode and what we know up to and including that episode is what we got to work with, nothing beyond. In other words, we are not going to go back and modify the analysis of Guess What's Coming to Dinner? after Sine Qua Non airs because that is going beyond what we knew up to that episode. Similarly I am not going to include a possible scenario for Lampkin to come back that includes Tigh assaulting Admiral Adama because he doesn't do it in Guess What's Coming to Dinner but in the next episode. The possibility of a legal fall out and what that could be has enough basis in GWCtD. Often all we got is sketchy information in one episode because the answer often lies a future episode. If we had the answers or even good evidence clearly pointing to a plot solution there wouldn't be much need for analysis. Hunter2005 17:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that's it's evidence from the characters' POV. That's what I meant. Still, that's all that's really needed here. Whether there are people who can act as witnesses in her defense is pretty irrelevant really unless there actually is a trial. For me, it's more interesting to point out that there may be reasons for a trial - or just an investigation - from both the Colonials' and Cylons' point of view and that Agathon has some arguments she can use in her defense. Analyzing the details of her hypothetical defense in a, yet, hypothetical trial is a bit over the top here. And with details I mean listing witnesses according to their credibility and availability. I wouldn't really remove much. Just the last two sentences, and only mention that those three people could support her story. -- Serenity 17:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Question mark

As in there is a question mark punctuating the title on the SciFi website. Shouldn't the title here follow suit? --Mars 11:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Bradley Thompson gave us this title without the question mark, and the movie ("Guess Who's Coming to Dinner") also doesn't have the question mark. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The title on the production script has a question mark at the end. I vote adding it. -- Mmm...toasty 21:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... If that's the case then, yes, add it. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved the page. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Whew, done with the renaming. One of these days I'm gonna throw together a search&replace bot for this. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have one with the interwiki bot. :P Shane (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but that uses the pywikipediabot, not the technically superior API ;) --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as you make it so you can interface bots on the Specialpage area, that would make it superior. Never have to go into Shell to run commands. :) Shane (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)