Talk:Resurrection Ship, Part I

From Battlestar Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

For source:

Kuralyov 17:09, 8 Jul 2005 (EDT)


Alan Smithee is not a real person. --Peter Farago 18:26, 16 November 2005 (EST)

  • Just a joke placeholder name; other pages had "suchandsuch" and "whoisit" etc for stuff so I just put in a placeholder. Besides, Mr. Smithee has brought us such wonderful works as the excellent 1984 adaptation of "Dune" and the animated 1978 Lord of the Rings. --Ricimer 21:32, 16 November 2005 (EST)
I think we should leave it blank until we know. What if a director really wants his name removed from an episode at some point? --Peter Farago 10:16, 17 November 2005 (EST)
Reminds me of this Eric Idle movie "Burn Hollywood Burn"; basically, he's the director of what's going to be the biggest movie of the decade...and also the biggest flop. It's got a gigantic special effects budget (like 3 disaster movies and 3 action movies roled into one). It's called "Trio" and it stars the action 'trio' of Slyvester Stallone, Jackie Chan, and Whoopi Goldberg (I kid you not, they actually appear in this thing; yeah, a gun-toting Whoopi Goldberg). Well, the idea behind "Allen Smithee" is it's an unusual made up name no one would really have, so that when a hollywood studio so butchers a director's project that it is A) not his creative vision at all and he was completely cut off from it and B) it would be career suicide to be associated with such a flop. Eric Idle's character the director of Trio who really has no control over it whatsover as the studio writers and execs are calling the shots (they put him in charge of camerawork and little else), so when he finally sees the finished rough cut he declares "It's worse than Showgirls!" and demands for it to be an "Allen Smithee production". Problem is, through blind luck Eric Idle's character's real name is "Allen Smithee"! And according to the director's guild rules the only name you can replace as director for the film is "Allen Smithee". So he goes berserk and steals the rough cuts of the film and hides them so the film can never be shown (it was a movie-in-a-movie thing about everyone trying to get the movie back). Dear god, the descriptions of "Trio" were like sitting in on a Berman and Braga writing session; Whoopi and Jackie's characters die in the end, while Stallone's character gets a sex change. However, Jackie Chan was so adamant that in his movies his character never dies that eventually they compromised by saying that his character does die, but gets reincarnated. Sort of like the old "We can never have enough time travel or parallel universes on Star Trek!" routine they pulled on us.--Ricimer 12:17, 17 November 2005 (EST)

New Template

Oh, that thing is SAWEEET! --Watcher 18:06, 6 January 2006 (EST)

Ain't it? Thank Joe--it was a last minute project he launched on us today. We've all been tinkering the afternoon away with it. --Spencerian 19:50, 6 January 2006 (EST)


Could the "Resurection Ship" refer to a ship where the conciousness of Humano-Cylons are transferred into new bodies? --Deadlygopher 21:58, 6 January 2006 (EST)

Welcome to the Wiki. I'm sorry, but we have known this for months. Please check around --23:32, 6 January 2006 (EST)
Actually, looking at this talk page, the suggestion was merely speculation; this episode confirmed it. It's a valid question from someone that doesn't want to be spoiled. --Sgtpayne 02:07, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Just how many "Resurrection Ships" are out there? This ship looked pretty big, and it would have to be to store multiple copies of the Humano-Cylons we've seen thus far. And, how does this fit into the "Rule of 12" that was mentioned in the Miniseries? --Sgtpayne 02:41, 7 January 2006 (EST)

There is apparently only the one. They don't seem to have anticipated following Galactica (and Pegasus) so far away from the Twelve Colonies and the Cylon homeworld, so they built a transmitter ship to boost the signal and allow Cylons to download into it. Yes, I would assume it stores several hundred copies of each Cylon: please read the article "Humano-Cylon", in which, after months of debate, it was conclusively proven after an interview with Ron D. Moore that there are indeed "12 Models" of Cylon (as per the 'rule' introduced in the Miniseries), but there can be several hundred (if not several thousand) copies of each model in existence. --Ricimer 02:57, 7 January 2006 (EST)
After looking at that information from RDM about the Humano-cylons, this raises some new questions, which I will posted in the Humano-cylon talk page. --Sgtpayne 16:04, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Analysis not Review

(Text from Analysis moved by Ricimer deleted for brevity of the talk page. --Spencerian)

"Analysis" is for making detailed, point by point observations, criticisms, speculations etc. It is not a "Review", which is more what you wrote seems like. --Ricimer 00:13, 7 January 2006 (EST)

I considered your viewpoint after huffing about this emotionally at first, then having a beer. Then I reverted your edit, Ricimer. For one, such analyses are prevalent throughout the episode pages. I made a similar analysis on "Final Cut" if memory serves and yet this did sit well with others. Analyses like this cannot HELP but take on a singular viewpoint at first. But, as others edit it, it will take on the consensus viewpoint. An analysis like this also gets the conversation started. If you see something noted that did not happen, by all means do remove or modify it and perhaps add your take on it too. "Battlestar Galactica" is fiction, not fact--an analysis here is by function, a review. Allow others to add, modify, or delete their 2 cents to my 2 cents on the episode before making such a dramatic edit (which, if you reread, does not contain any speculation but a take on what was seen). --Spencerian 00:35, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Beer's a wonderful thing ain't it? --Watcher 00:40, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Actually I prefer stims, they take the edge off. Actually, I was observing good etiquette for moving something I questioned to the talk page rather than deleting it out of hand. I have done nothing outrageous. Upon further thought, I guess it can stay. I will make my own comments under "Analysis" as I get to them. As you were, 5x5. --Ricimer 00:46, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Breaking it down into bullet points would be nice, though. --Peter Farago 00:42, 7 January 2006 (EST)
I agree; this was my biggest complaint, yet I did not want to be so presumptuous as to change things Spencerian had actually written by adding in my own bulleted points (putting words in his mouth as it were, much worse than moving to talk page). Punch this up if at all possible with some handy bullet points. --Ricimer 00:46, 7 January 2006 (EST)
In the future, you shouldn't hesitate. Constructive modifications are much better than deleting useful content outright. --Peter Farago 00:58, 7 January 2006 (EST)
I am sorry. I thought the one was more offensive than the other. --Ricimer 01:06, 7 January 2006 (EST)

I also wanted to chime in regarding this issue. Over the past 8-10 hours, I have put a couple of observations to respond to particular questions, as well as some points about the episode. And, in that time, I see that through a couple of edits, they were removed. While some have been gracious to explain why the information was removed, some individuals, such as Ricimer feel fit to remove the information without any proper explanation. As stated earlier, analysis is a certain type of review, and it would be proper to allow the information to be seen to be edited, or at least if it's not correct provide and explanation as to why to allow for possible rebuttal. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it certainly helps to understand why changes are made. --Sgtpayne 12:05, 7 January 2006 (EST)

I am sorry that you are new to using wikis and unfamiliar with this, but things get edited or changed for accuracy, but more to the point, Your accusation is simply wrong, as the history pages will point out ; "such as Ricimer feel fit to remove the information without any proper explanation" As you have seen IN THE TEXT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THIS, I *gave* a *reason* for removing Spencerian's analysis (and as you can see in the already finished conversation above, I've decided it's okay if it stays, and I thought I WAS observing proper etiquette by moving it here [thanks for the heads-up on that Farago, and once again sorry for the hastiness, Spencerian]; in either case, at no time did I simply delete something outright, or without explanation, as you have accused;.
Next, check the "History" pages for the edits made. Everyone don't be shy. As you can see, AT NO TIME have I ever outright deleted anything SgtPayne has written, and anything I changed I do believe there were reasons for. More to the point, SgtPayne, rather than making vague accusations against my reputation, could you please cite specific examples of something I've done against you?. Frankly, the *ONE* example of anyting *I* edited which was yours was when I changed a ":" to a "*" to fit it into the bulleted list format! (no text changed at all).
Perhaps I misundertsood your syntax; are you accusing others of making rude deletions? Because I've looked through the logs and the changed Peter Farago and Spencerian made were fine. Please, if you're going to start the witchunt, give a specific example. Otherwise, you give the impression that you are an inexperienced editor pouting that something you wrote was changed; please, I am giving you the opportunity to avoid this impression, if you will please just give specific examples of things you honestly feel were wrongfully deleted. --Ricimer 13:36, 7 January 2006 (EST)
I have reviewed the history of items that I have contributed, veruses what was deleted for this episode. In particular, the edit logged at 08:18 on 1/7 removing my comment from an earlier posted question. No reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page, the original comment was an interpretation to the question presented. An earlier revision from Peter Farago (07:09 on 1/7/06) showed my statement was removed on the grounds that other episodes contradicted the statement, which I am perfectly happy to accept. In regards to protocol, I am taking considerable time to ensure that format and ettiquite is done correctly. My only wish is to contribute my interpretations to this project. And if that interpretation is incorrect in some way, I'm only asking for a reason why. --Sgtpayne 14:26, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Ricimer, you're out of line. Cool it. --Peter Farago 14:33, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Rationally, and now no longer angry, I'm really just confused now (?); when I checked the edit on 08:18 January 7, it lists you comment "**Looking at the conversation, none of the future events..." (etc). Anyway, when I clicked on the History button, it showed that I changed a colon sign, to a double-asterisk sign, to fit it under the question it was refering to (that is, when an answer of further question is posited to an existing question, an extra asterisk is added to shift it under is my understanding). Anyay, you said "no reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page"....but, nothing was removed; I mean click on the history for edit at time 08:18; nothing has been removed, it just got indented....are you looking at it right? Are you certain that (on your computer at least), you're not seeing it on your end there? Could there just be some technical problem here? Because looking at the edit history you directed me to...nothing has been removed at all. Someone else please check on this. --Ricimer 14:55, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Upon closer inspection (and thank you for giving a specific time--08:18--to check on SgtPayne, sorry for going at it above but I do not like being accused of something I have not done, but this is confusing), when I checked the edit for January 7th at "08:18" I found that I had only indented SgtPayne's material; I hadn't "removed" anything, but when I checked the further edits, I found out that SgtPayne's question material WAS indeed removed, without any explanation in the edit column, by Peter Farago at 08:21. --Ricimer 15:01, 7 January 2006 (EST)
After looking at the subsequent edits (particularly from Peter Farago), I did receive the information I was looking for with regards to the removal of material. I concede the above issue, and consider the matter settled. My apologies if I ruffled any undue feathers. --Sgtpayne 16:00, 7 January 2006 (EST)
No problem. Now, we've got a lot of work to do...--Ricimer 21:20, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Oh goody! Nothing like making Wiki people --23:27, 7 January 2006 (EST)

General Comments

Wow. Did anyone else find Kara and Cain's relationship kind of spooky? I'd like to make mention of their connection on the page but I'm not sure how to word it... --Redwall 00:24, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Yes. Remember that Kara has issues of violence of her own. It's what makes her a strong pilot, but she is mentally, a barely caged psyche. At the same time, she may have been going along with Cain, realizing she's a nut. --Spencerian 00:35, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Disagree. That chick was gettin' sucked in like nobody's business. (If she wasn't why would/will she speak so kindly of Cain at her coming funeral?) --Watcher 00:44, 7 January 2006 (EST)
I don't think it's so much "spooky" from what I've seeen; simply, Starbuck is drunk on the idea of going back to Caprica; Cain read the logs, she knew about this ALREADY, Cain knew what strings to pull to win Starbuck over to her side. Battlefield promotion and a token compromise (returning Apollo to flight status) didn't hurt either (like Cain would ground ANY able-bodied pilots, much less Apollo whose one of their best, before quite possibly the biggest attack EVER made against the Cylons). --Ricimer 00:48, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Yep. That does sound like Cain. At first I didn't want to give her credit for those kind of tactical chops because of her (in the end) self-destructive tendencies (much like Starbuck BTW), but... who am I kiddin'? She's a pitbull. --Watcher 00:57, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Quite a funny scene when Adama and Cain are sitting in Roslin's office. Two sulky children in front of the teacher. Even the reply of Adama after Roslins comment on how the Pegasus would kick Galactica's ass fits into the scene, imho. -- Xbruce 14:08, 15 February 2006 (EST)

Die Cast or Plastic?

Apparently Galactica has a small contingent of bored, fugitive employees of Revell on board... 'cuz they sure as heck had shiny new models of both the Blackbird and the R.S. on hand in short order. And just in time for that military strategy session. --Watcher 02:17, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Yeah, I've always wondered how they managed to get those little models completed and what they are made out of. Its cool to see small replica models used in the planning. -- Blacklight
They probably just painted a viper model black for the Blackbird. No idea how they would have the R.S. though. --Deadlygopher 05:18, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Actually, they're all the same color and the Blackbird model isn't shaped like a Viper. --Ricimer 11:13, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Speaking as a model builder, those models lack detail and could be slapped together quickly. Remember, they had 47,000 people, most of whom didn't have much to do. With the RS model, Galactica is supposed to have a machine shop so all they need is a die cutter to replicate the same shape many times. --Talos 09:03, 7 January 2006 (EST)
They came up with models for the Autonomous Raider in time to plan the Battle for the Tylium Asteroid, so it's not even unprecedented within the series. --Peter Farago 17:09, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Guest cast

Ah, once again Scifi is scrunching their credits, making it hard for us to see. The characters specifically listed in the credits were Kat, Laird, and that "Hoshi" fellow again. Also, there was some other pilot; Lieutenant, couldn't make out the name. --Ricimer 11:38, 7 January 2006 (EST)

I believe the picture...

... should be used in Resurrection Ship, Part II. Unless I blinked somewhere, the scene pictured is never seen in part one. Can someone grab a picture applicable to this ep? Thank you! -- Joe Beaudoin 13:23, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Done, Joe. Before I even saw this comment. I also noted the action on that image's talk page. --Day 04:26, 18 January 2006 (EST)

Philip Glass contribution

Does anyone know what Philip Glass piece is audible in this episode? I've heard the "Glassworks" collection, but what piece is it and where does it appear in the episode?