http://www.lucylawless.info/battlestar-galactica/index.php
According to that site, Lucy Lawless said that she was in episode #8, and its title was "Final Cut." Seems to me that that's either been moved to episode #9, or that Flight of the Phoenix is actually episode #9. Kuralyov 18:39, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- Huh? Lucy was in Final Cut as D'anna Biers which aired as episode #8 in the second season. Danaucpe 17:38, 19 September 2005 (EDT)
Hadrian?[edit]
Was it just me, or was there a glimpse of Hadrian when Sharon was being brought to the CIC? Kuralyov 23:37, 16 September 2005 (EDT)
- I have the episode on tape: it's not her. It's another female Marine wearing the tan Marine uniform which I guess if for NCO's like Seargents. She's also got dark har, and also wears it in a ponytail, but it's not her. --Ricimer, 17 Sept, 2005
Another Fine Episode[edit]
I can't think of a bad episode in the bunch this season. This one was one of the richest yet. Opinions? The interesting tension between Helo/Tyrol and Dualla/Lee are weird, as well as the new comeraderie (fondness?) growing between Commander Adama and Roslin? That's really going to hurt him when she passes on. The new ship is great, and it looks like you can practically build it out of nothing--which is what the Colonials have in near-abundance. And Tyrol...well, Tyrol's got the Scotty skillz, and that's saying a lot. Spencerian 01:15, 17 September 2005 (EDT)
- It was good. The Tyrol subplot, though, was my favorite part in any episode this season and high on my list of the entire series. The colonial march ending from Final Cut is a close second for this season. --Talos 01:37, 17 September 2005 (EDT)
Sprocketeer's Recent Entry, and A Better Way to Work With It[edit]
When I first saw Sprocketeer's entry on "his" perception on the episode, I had initially considered deleting it since it appeared more of a gripe than an analysis, but realized he had a few good points. I trimmed it to its high points, noted some arguments against it, to go along with some edits. At the same time, it seems Ricimer was editing the page and countered Sprocketeer's entry in what I interpreted as an inappropriate entry as well. But, rather than trying to incorporate Ricimer's comments, I did remove them at the moment. I'll be going back to the article to add Ricimer's thoughts back in (if he doesn't return first to do so) from history data.
We have to remember that the articles are designed to be encyclopedic; while you can express personal point-of-view in terms of analysis (provided you have have supporting points), you cannot WRITE as if you are speaking in an verbal argument to one person, as Ricimer and Sprocketeer appear to have done. This really makes the page unpleasant to read. See my interpretation on the article for my suggestion. I'm not really taking sides here in the debate beyond what was shown, but we have to keep the page from becoming a battlefield. Spencerian 19:02, 19 September 2005 (EDT)
- I agree, and think you've handled this quite tactfully. --Peter Farago 20:11, 19 September 2005 (EDT)
- We are in agreement. I was responding in like kind to perceived threat. Nothing the God of Bio-Mechanics wouldn't let me into heaven for. Ricimer, 19 Sept, 2005
D.E.M. Dilemma counter comments[edit]
"Some viewers may wonder why the Colonials have never built (or why viewers have never seen) a stealth craft to date, or why the Cylons haven't used them in their attacks. Generally speaking, technology usually appears when there is a need for it, and not merely a desire for it. Since both sides are very dependent on DRADIS for coordination and tactical advantage in a fight, the idea of commanding a squadron of ships you cannot see on your own tactical plot can be a bit challenging."
But here is the thing, steath craft are more ideal surgical roles where infiltration is the goal, as Starbuck showed by going off to visit the Cylon battlegroup, than they are for large scale head-on combat operations. Their very advantage is negated when thrown frontally and in large numbers at the enemy. ANd just because they are difficult to coordinate when used as regular fighters, doesn't mean that it would have excluded their deployment as recon or strike craft. It certainly has not precluded the deployment of aircraft like the American F-117 or F-22, despite American doctrine of using AWACs to coordinate airborne assets.
"Further, while the Colonials still had a standing force in case the Cylons returned, such sneaky technology may seem out of mind to defense strategists when there's no enemy about to test it--especially an enigmatic one such as the Cylons."
That could be said for any Colonial technology against the Cylons, that there aren't any Cylons to test them with. However, it is obvious not the case that simply because there's no Cylon to test that technology would remain stagnant or simplistic. We've seen that Colonial military has ECMs and missile decoys, which require at least a certain estimate of the enemy's capabilities to develope. In fact, all Colonial military technology must be based on some sort of estimate of Cylon capability and the fact that they are using estimates rather than hard facts is not a sufficient reason for them to exclude the development of certain technology. This is especially true for steath. If the Blackbird, put together by a ragtag team of non-aerospace-engineers on their spare time with whatever they had lying around, is completely invisible to the DRADIS of the Galactica, the Mk. VII and possibly the Pegasus at nearly point-blank range, I can't possibly imagine how the Colonial military would not have at the very least developed stealth technology just so they can experiment with counter-stealth technology. If anything, being enigmatic and murderous super computers tends to make your opponents over-estimate you and do their damnedest to keep up with you technologically, not assume that because you're not around to test certain things that it's ok to let them slide.
I mean, if all it took to bypass Colonial detection was carbon-fibre skinned ships, why did the Cylons even bother with their elaborate plan of crippling Colonial military with computer software problems? And Apollo and Starbuck were certainly confident that the Blackbird would be invisible even to Cylon DRADIS! I'm not quite sure the writers had a solid understanding of the implications of making a completely invisible ship with the aeronautics equivilant of an old bicycle, a crowbar and some duct tape. Certainly they completely forgot other means of detection, such as IR. Infrared works exceptional well in space, where heat dissapation from such components as engines is extremely slow. I don't understand why there is DRADIS and only DRADIS, when Colonial technology is certainly capable of producing capable IR-based detection systems.
"The Colonials were more intent (at least, up until Baltar's time) to defend itself by using less sophisticated technology and basic war principles such as armor and superiority of numbers, not in making high-tech, fly-by-wire ships with complex evasive ability. As Starbuck seemed to prove in the Blackbird's maiden flight, no amount of technology will compensate for the power of a good pilot and her Mark One Eyeball."
That is a problematic hypothesis of Colonial military development. We don't know if there were Mk. III through VI Vipers in the years before the Mk. VII, nor do we have any idea what they are like. More likely there were a couple versions of the Viper between Mk. II and VII, even if not four. However, I think we can safely assume that they were progressively more advanced than each previous version. I can safely say this because there has been little evidence to support the idea that Colonial military has been technologically stagnant for the past 50 years. Baltar's role in Colonial defence developments (according to the miniseries) appears to be the development of more AI-oriented software and the wider use of networked and is quite a recent phenomenon. This is important, as it does suggest that the Colonial military has actually been only relying on so-called "less sophisticated technology and basic war principles such as armor and superiority of numbers".
It is hard to imagine that the Colonial military made a single technological jump from simply tougher versions of Mk. II and Battlestar Classic to the Mk. VII and the Mercury. In fact, it's extremely unlikely. What is more likely is a progressive development of Colonial military technology in every area except network and AI. Many technology can safely advance without the requiring networked systems, systems such as guns and missiles, FTL and engines, hull design and flight control. On the note of flight control, it should be pointed out that is inherently impossible to fly a spacecraft that isn't fly-by-wire, due to the very definition of fly-by-wire. FBW simply means that the your input through your controls reach the flaps or in this case thrusters in the form of electrical signals rather than mechanical (cable-pulling). Since FBW is a self-contained system with little to no access to external electromagnetic signals, I can't see why the Colonial military would try to avoid it or its advancement.
Nor is it possible to fly, much less fight in space primarily on Mk. I Eyeballs alone, since there is no accurate frame of reference to gauge movement or orientation. You need a navigational system to tell you where you are, where you're pointing and in what direction you're actually moving. If your ship starts tumbling, your navigational system is what will save you, not your eyeballs. I think people have to remember that no matter how basic the Colonials tried to keep their technology in fear of Cylon infiltration, they cannot completely get away from relying on technology. You need a certain level of technology to function in space, or else you might as well give up and stay home. David Templar --00:31, 22 October 2005 (EDT)~
- Interesting counterpoints. Welcome, David. I'd personally welcome any counterpoints you made here worked into the Dilemmas section. --Spencerian 01:31, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
- Thanks Spencerian. I hope someone less cynical and more tactful than me can work the points in. If I did it, I'm much too liable to liberally use terms like "plot holes" and "writer goofs". =P --David Templar 21:24, 22 October 2005 (EDT)
- That's OK. Call a spade a spade. If there is poor writing, do say so...I'm hoping TPTB read our comments or get word of them, and things can only change if feedback is given. Spencerian 14:00, 23 October 2005 (EDT)