A buddy of mine DLed all the episodes, burned them to disc, and they arrived today. Yay me Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I am moist with happiness for you.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Damnation.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Just don't drip on the new couch, or your happiness will end very quickly.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The couch is old, so everyone wins!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Except the couch. Please, people, think of the couch.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I just wish I could find someone on this side of the pond who'd do that for me. But, hey, I have cats that buy me Lego!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Surely your new daughter is more than capable of dribbling on the couch?
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Hey, y'know, the other night I watched the episode Litmus, and I said, I've seen this before. Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
yeah but every good sci-fi show has an episode about the dangers of stripping people of their fundamental rights under the guise of increased security. It's like every Trek show had to have a non-corporeal entity episode or ten.
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Right now I think my favorite episode is "The Hand of God". Its a nice change of tone and the celebrations at the end of the episode are welcome.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Blogger Snay: Hey, y'know, the other night I watched the episode Litmus, and I said, I've seen this before.
I caught that episode last night. I agree that The Drumhead was the inspiration there, but I must admit, I liked the episode overall.
Probably because Starbuck is barely in it and Apollo was...er....fuck if I know where he was.
Good points: the CGI Cylon on Caprica was nicely done and looked "there" when it fought (half-assed) the colonial guy (no idea what his name is offhand). Solid acting on Olmos' part as well as the woman conducting the "witch-hunt". I noticed several of the OS support ships are in the fleet- including the "colonial movers" and livery ship. A nice touch that: those needed no update and the CGI models look good.
Dumb parts: the colonial warrior on Caprica never notices the two-three humanoid-cylons 50 feet away staring at him throught the episode?! I know if someone is staring at me in an airport for fuck's sake! These cylons are on top of a building overlooking his position but he never looks up once. Good thing they weren't snipers, I guess.
The flight crewman that soooo readily fell on his sword for the Flight Chief was a bit contrived: I can see coping to leaving the hatch open, but WHY would he say he's a collborator?!? That was a bit much.
Overall: not too bad. Worth my watching, but still not as good as The Drumhead. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As a modeler, I can only stare in awe at this guy's work.
Mabye the new version would look better with the red paint detailing? Less Andorian somehow? Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote: I agree that The Drumhead was the inspiration there, but I must admit, I liked the episode overall.
The McCarthy hearings in the 1950s are the real inspiration.
quote:In a 1950 speech, McCarthy entered the public spotlight by claiming that communists had "infested" the State Department, dramatically waving a sheet of paper which purportedly contained the traitors' names. A special Senate committee investigated the charges and found them groundless. Unfazed, McCarthy used his position to wage a relentless anti-communist crusade, denouncing numerous public figures and holding a series of highly confrontational hearings. With little if any proof of his charges, McCarthy relied on accusation, slander and innuendo to tarnish his opponents' reputations (a practice now known as "McCarthyism"). In 1954, televised hearings allowed millions to view McCarthy's methods for the first time, sparking a public backlash and official censure. He died at the age of 49 of complications related to alcoholism.
True, they inspired The Drumhead as well.
Arthur Miller wrote the play "The Crucible" as a commentary against McCarthy. Instead of Communists, however, the play focued on the Salem witch hunts.
Very timely that Litmus was shown this weekend, since Arthur Miller died last Thursday.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
As a modeler, I can only stare in awe at this guy's work.
Mabye the new version would look better with the red paint detailing? Less Andorian somehow?
I swear, I must be the only person in existence who can't stand the original Galactica. yeah, the guy did a great job recreating it, but the design itself is just...blech.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
So, does that mean you don't care much for the new Galactica? The basic shape is the same, after all.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
The basic shape is the same, yes, but the new Galactica is much better, IMO.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
According to the commentary on the miniseries DVD, Moore wanted to keep the look of the ship much closer to the original, and had to fight with somebody higher up to keep any resemblance at all.
Marian
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
I dunno, I just prefer the new design. It seems more balanced somehow. (shrugs)
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Here's the version I think Moore was referring to on the DVD commentary. Difference from the original is mostly in the greeblies.
I knew I had it somewhere...
For my part, while I always loved the old ship, I mostly like the new one too. I think it suits the look and feel of the new show pretty well.
Marian
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't know. I think the McCarthy remake of the Star Chamber was pretty much a lifeless, moneygrubbing affair. Joe can call it a "reimagining" all he wants, but I know for a fact that Richard Hatch wrote some incredible legislation that would have been truer to the source material.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sol.....the crack: it's bad for you.
YOu guys ever seen the Vipers and Galactica designs from the second Galactica series (the one that got canned just prior to filming)?
It's odd but almost the same thing happened to Galactica as Star Trek: Phase II.
Except Galactica never became a movie and the series was dead untill this new version.
The Vipers were damn cool though nad the Galactica had a only a few detail changes.
Both Galactica designs suffer from "starblazers syndrome"- meaning they have all the imporntant stuff on the dorsal side and nothing on the ventral side....no weapons even.
I guess it's the moving landing bays that bug me on the new version: moving parts on giant spacecraft is goofy.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Weren't the landing bays meant to retract on the original as well, but they didn't end up doing it due to model or monetary constraints?
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I've never heard that.
Where does everyone love on the new Galactica? With the retractable bays, most of the interior of the ship would be empty to accomidate the machinery needed to retract them inward.
...though, if they had a higher level of technology, it could be done on magnetic rails, I suppose.
It'll be intresting to see if the new G has main guns like the old one did. I recall the old Galactica destroying a basestar on one occasion with it's forward weaponry. With a name like "battlestar", you think it's more than just an aircraft carrier. Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Where does everyone love on the new Galactica?
Judging from the miniseries, I'd say mostly in maintainance closets.
Marian
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
In the water storage chambers, too.
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: The basic shape is the same, yes, but the new Galactica is much better, IMO.
Earlier tonight I made a graphic comparing both by superimposing schematics of the old one on renderings of the new one. You may find it here.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Where does everyone love on the new Galactica?
Judging from the miniseries, I'd say mostly in maintainance closets.
Marian
That was not exactly a cozy, romantic lovenest though.
..and I (obviously) meant "Where does everyone live on the new Galactica" but as it's St. Valentine's Day, it works both ways and I'll play it off as intentional.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, this is just a guess, but I'm going to say 'on the inside.'
I AM ON THE FIRE!
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
If you don't say what you mean, how can you mean what you say? Jason, the edit button is not that scary. You can do it!
Marian Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
quote:Originally posted by machf: Earlier tonight I made a graphic comparing both by superimposing schematics of the old one on renderings of the new one. You may find it here.
Is it just a comparison of shape, or of size as well? And if the latter, what source did you base the dimensions on?
Apologies if you answered this in the thread. My Spanish is not so good.
Marian
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think there's enough scale shots on the new version to make a definite size-comparison yet, but that's a nicely done image.
...but there's the debate on the length of the original version as well. THe Viper launch tubes place the ship at only 600-640 meters while the series creators say it's a nautical mile long (that's darn big!).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: If you don't say what you mean, how can you mean what you say? Jason, the edit button is not that scary. You can do it! Marian
I do but I'm at work and not paying too much attention to spelliing while here (multi-tasking and slacking all at once).
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
@Jason: The retracting landing bays bug me too, for the exact same reason.
Though it hasn't been shown onscreen yet, IIRC someone pointed out some heavy turrets on the forward 'head' section. But heavy enough to take out a basestar? I dunno, I'd prefer to use nukes for that, even if there's only four left.
(Why didn't Ragnar have more nukes and why didn't Galactica pick up more if Ragnar did have more? In the event of a war on this scale, which is what Ragnar was built for, such weaponry would IMO seem quite useful, but oh well.)
EDIT: the site with the comparison pic doesn't seem to be loading for me...
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
Yes, I've noticed it has been acting strange lately, hence the "may find it"...
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Something that confused me. There is a line from the mini-series where they move the vipers from the port side to the starboard side (or vice-versa) because the launch tubes on the one sider were now blocked by a gift shop.
How did they move the vipers from the port to the starboard side? It's not like the two landing tubes are connected.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I've seen the debates about the original ship's length. As for the new version, Sci-Fi's website has a cool section showing stats on several of the ships. My only beef is that it's missing the stats for the Mark II.
The Galactica is listed as 4640 feet long. From what I've seen, the effects seem to back that up.
B.J.
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH:
quote:Originally posted by machf: Earlier tonight I made a graphic comparing both by superimposing schematics of the old one on renderings of the new one. You may find it here.
Is it just a comparison of shape, or of size as well? And if the latter, what source did you base the dimensions on?
Apologies if you answered this in the thread. My Spanish is not so good.
Marian
Well, basically, the whole thing started about a week ago when a friend claimed to have seen some graphic or schematic that proved to him that both were one and the same ship, only that the new one has been refitted with the retractable landing bays, armor plating on the hull, and FTL drive added on the aft. Unfortunately, neither did he save the picture nor could he find the page where he had seen it. I started looking for some comparison online, but didn't find any, so yesterday I decided to try to make a comparison myself. I resized both graphics so that certain details would more or less be of the same size, just to see if that theory was plausible to some degree, and that's how I made that picture. Seeing that it had ended being 1000x800, I also changed it a bit and made it into a 1024x768 wallpaper...
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manticore: (Why didn't Ragnar have more nukes and why didn't Galactica pick up more if Ragnar did have more? In the event of a war on this scale, which is what Ragnar was built for, such weaponry would IMO seem quite useful, but oh well.)
Well, I've only seen the miniseries, but I didn't see anything to suggest Ragnar didn't have nukes, or that Galactica didn't take them.
If I were in Adama's shoes, I wouldn't have used them either. Galactica didn't need to destroy the base stars, just endure them long enough for everyone to escape, and heavy weapons that could have been fired could also be saved for when they're really needed.
Even if some of the ships have a manufacturing ability, it can't be all that much. Galactica needs to expend as little ordnance as possible to accomplish any given mission.
Marian
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
SPOILERS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In Bastille Day, Adama tells Baltar that Galactica only has 5 nukes, though it's 4 now.
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Jason,
But those pylon landing docks only take up, maybe, half the length of the ship. So you've still got the whole front of the ship to house people. And as we've seen, this isn't Star Trek, where every junior enlisted guy gets a two-bedroom apartment -- the pilots rack six to a room, and for all we know, many of the enlisted crew hot-bunk.
I think the size of the military force was given at about 2,500 to 3,000. Galactica seems more than big enough to hold everything.
Herb:
I was under the impression that they'd torn or knocked down the gift shop to get the Vipers through. Were they talking about launch tubes, though? I was under the impression there was some sort of connection shaft between the hanger decks.
Posted by RLF (Member # 1396) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manticore: {Why didn't Ragnar have more nukes and why didn't Galactica pick up more if Ragnar did have more? In the event of a war on this scale, which is what Ragnar was built for, such weaponry would IMO seem quite useful, but oh well.)
Nobody on Ragnar to maintain them. Nukes are precision instruments, not something that can be left unattended for long periods.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Ah, see, I didn't know that. You learn something new every day.
Seriously, thanks. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Blogger Snay: Jason,
But those pylon landing docks only take up, maybe, half the length of the ship. So you've still got the whole front of the ship to house people. And as we've seen, this isn't Star Trek, where every junior enlisted guy gets a two-bedroom apartment -- the pilots rack six to a room, and for all we know, many of the enlisted crew hot-bunk.
It just seems a huge waste of space for minimal defensive gain. THey could have just made blast doors over the launchbay entrances.
It reminds me of the silly way the USS Typhon contracts during battle in the PS1 game ST: Invasion. Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
It's not for defense. They only retract just before a jump, meaning it's somehow necessary to do so in order to jump, kinda like Voyager's warp nacelles. I'm on the fence on this one - it looks cool, but seems contrived. Then of course, what would happen if the machinery that retacts the bays got knocked out? (And if this has happened already in the shows broadcast outside the US, please don't tell me!!!)
B.J.
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
It might have more to do with fuel consumption - they can FTL with the pylons out, but it adds 20% to the fuel they use to jump - or something like that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I considered that, but it's not consistant with the other ships remaining static during FTL transit.
My best explanation: it's to avoid damage to the less-armored launchbays during the FTL jump (though they dont cycle up gradully to FTL speeds, they could pop out among a debris cloud or something, I suppose).
Mabye they use the giant empty interior space needed for the retracted launchbays for zero-G maintence on the Vipers (because the way they repair them onscreen is pointless!).
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Or ... it's to avoid damage to the ship in case of a damaged Viper coming in for a landing. If the landing stip is farther from the main ship, there's less chance of a Viper pilot crashing into the ship itself.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That still does not explain why they retract though.
A neat idea would be if the battlestar had AA guns and afew milliles along the length of the launchbay and the battlestar could detach/deploy the launchbay as a stationary defensive platform high in a planet's orbit.
It'd be sort of a defense outpost (with fighters!).
After all, it's silly to think that a lone spaceship (regardless of how large it is) can defend an entire planet and the colonies only made an initial run of 12 battlestars (one for each colony).
Heck, with detachable/modular bays, it would be possible to have a third launchbay attach along the ventral side of the battlestar....hmm.....
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: ... the colonies only made an initial run of 12 battlestars (one for each colony).
Source!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
meh. Somewhere on the BSG official site (and in something Glen Larson established about the OS).
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
As for the new series, Sci-Fi's site mentions that Galactica was one of the 12 *original* battlestars, each representing one of the colonies. Somewhere I seem to remember hearing that Galactica represented Caprica - can't remember where, but I think it was in the series. From galactica.tv, it says that there were eventually 120 battlestars. I seem to remember hearing something like that in the mini's dialogue.
B.J.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: As for the new series, Sci-Fi's site mentions that Galactica was one of the 12 *original* battlestars, each representing one of the colonies. Somewhere I seem to remember hearing that Galactica represented Caprica - can't remember where, but I think it was in the series. From galactica.tv, it says that there were eventually 120 battlestars. I seem to remember hearing something like that in the mini's dialogue.
The Galactica representing Caprica was mentioned in the remake miniseries, right at the start - I think you hear it being mentioned in the scene at the start where Starbuck is jogging through the corridors and you hear a lot of conversations as she moves through the various sections of the ship. I might be wrong in remembering where is it mentioned, but it definitely is.
As for the 120 Battlestars thing, again if my memory serves I don't think the actual figure of 120 is given, but Adama refers at one point to the Colonies losing 30 Battlestars in the initial assault, to which Starbuck makes a reply along the lines of "That's a quarter of the fleet", giving us the rough estimate of 120 Battlestars.
Of course we don't know if the fleet was all Battlestars or there were other dedicated destroyers etc (since the Battlestar seems roughly analogous to a battleship and carrier combined) but it does give us that upper number to work with.
I wonder if season 2 will deal with finding one or more other Battlestars?
FD
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye they'll finf something like a frigate: not enough to detract from Galactica's dramatic imporntance (as another Battlestar surely would)but enough to help defend the fleet.
Besides, they'll wait to play the "Pegasus" option as a ratings boost.
Who should play Commander Cain though?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Who should play Commander Cain though?
I nominate you Jason.... Then the Pegasus would only be in 1/2500 Scale.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Perhaps they could get Jeff Bridges to do it. Or even Beau. For a laugh.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If you're going for laughs, get Lloyd bridges.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I do think they need to have a few ancillary vessels for support (AND believability). even Andromeda had a number of ship types.
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Sure, Jason, except he's been dead for seven years.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mighty Blogger Snay: Sure, Jason, except he's been dead for seven years.
Well ...yeah. That was the idea.
(Bridges played Cain in the OS, you know).
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Cain? From "Kung Fu"? No, that was Carradine, dumbass.
(Yes, I know, Caine from the Pegasus ...) Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
[BUMP]
Got my own BSG marathon going on - been doing some heavy torrentin', although I think I'm still going to get the DVD, I just object to paying the prices they're charging for it right now. It's the same for the Crusade and Firefly sets, you're paying the same price for a 13-ep season as you are for a full season of various other shows. Stuff that.
Anyway, so far, I love it. Each episode represents a great way to spend 45 minutes, as opposed to the long-drawn-out chore that watching later Trek could be. I was even impressed with Richard Hatch's part on the show, I wasn't looking forward to it since the one other recent thing I've seen him in, he was a puffy badly-aged embarrassment.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Michelle Forbes is playing Cain this time around... I'm now wondering how many Trek veterans will pass through the BSG universe at this point.
I'm also wondering how extensive the modifications will be to the BSG sets to represent Pegasus... after all, the ship might be the very latest Battlestar version with a whole lot of high-tech additions that Galactica doesn't have.
I'm seeing way too many Trek tie-ins right now... I need sleep.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
They're actually doing the Pegasus storyline? I hope they do a new wrinkle on the story, there has to be more to it than just psychotic-Commander-more-interested-in-taking-revenge-against-Cylons-than-protecting-remaining-humanity. Perhaps the whole ship is a Cylon Trojan Horse - an, if you will, Cylon Horse? It would be very interesting if the Peggie was a new-model Battlestar, with all the bells and whistles, and was welcomed by the fleet, leaving Adama & Co feeling a bit underappreciated.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, how much of season one have you seen at this point? Because the way the season ends suggests a few possible twists on the story.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I've got the last three to watch.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
If the Pegasus is the newest battlestar, and it was within range of the Twelve Colonies, it would surely be fried by now but the Cylon's handy EMP-thingy. But if it was outside of the range of the things than it would've avoided the slaughter...
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Spoiler I read indicated that the BS-Pegasus was in dock at the base on Scorpion when the Cylons attacked. Pegasus took heavy damage before executing a blind FTL jump with no planned coordinates.
She's been wandering around ever since.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Pretty freaking massive coincidence that it just happens to run into the fleet. But then, the show's just full of those so far, ain't it?
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
No more coincidence than TOS Galactica findng Pegasus.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I have slightly higher expectations of realism from this one.
Besides, that wasn't intended to be a complaint, just an observation. I think there's actually a huge plan behind the coincidences, and this might be part of that.
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
So basically all the coincidences are prophetic predestination? Just like how it was coincidental to blow up the USS Saratoga and kill Jennifer Sisko to bring good ole Ben to DS9...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Not necessarily. But I'd hate to spoil Lee.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)