Talk:Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battlestar Galactica mandala This article is within the scope of WikiProject Battlestar Galactica, which aims to improve the quality and depth of Battlestar Galactica articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please edit this or any other related article, visit the project page, or take part in the project's discussion.
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  • /Archive 1
  • /Archive 2


Contents

[edit] backlash

Should there be some discussion about some of the backlash from fans of the original? While I think the new Galactica is one of the best shows on TV there was a LOT of backlash from fans of the original who just could not adjust to the new version.

Yes, there definitely needs to be some mention of the reaction of the fans of the original Galactica. While most of it that I saw was negative,I'm sure that there were fans that liked the reimagining of the series.Hx823 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In a distant galaxy lie the twelve Colonies of Kobol...

How do we know it's a distant galaxy? In fact, isn't it supposed to be the same galaxy that Earth is in? Evercat 20:37, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the 'modern' version of Battlestar Galactica, we don't. In the original there was a line in the end about the rag-tag fleet at the edge of their galaxy and venturing across space to another one - something to that effect. It was very clear, at least, that they were to find Earth in a different galaxy in that episode (don't have the ep. title ATM). [We won't get into the sheer impossibility of the rag-tag fleet venturing through and across totally empty space to a different galaxy...]
Perhaps it should read: on a distant world lie the Twelve Colonies of Kobol... instead?
VigilancePrime 05:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
But that would imply they were all on the same world...

It would have to be the same galaxy. The planetarium in Athena's Tomb showed a nebula that the Galactica could also see, indicating they were in the same galaxy. — Phil Welch 05:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


In the last episode of season three we definitely see it's in the same galaxy, not too far away even.--80.146.21.189 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tradition of Star Trek?

The intro contains the line: "in the tradition of Star Trek, the writers use science fiction to examine contemporary social, moral and ethical issues in allegory."

It'd probably be more accurate to say: "in the tradition of science fiction, the writers use science fiction to examine contemporary social, moral and ethical issues in allegory." It's not like this is original or unique to Star Trek.

While it's true that the original series of star trek was not the first (nor the only) science fiction to explore societal issues (if I had to guess, that honor belongs to The Time Machine which explored differences between the worker class and rich; other obvious earlier examples would be A Canticle for Leibowitz and Stranger in A Strange Land). However, the difference is that (A) I believe star trek was the first TV science fiction show to do it, and (B) star trek built a franchise around it -- the whole basis of the show - the federation, the klingons, the romulans -- were allegories to the world of the late 1960s. Further, they also explored racism, class issues, and a whole range of stuff not touched by other TV shows of hte day. →Raul654 23:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The Twilight Zone did all those things and debuted 7 years before Star Trek. It wasn't entirely sci-fi, but a whole lot of it was.155.97.232.72 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


It is true that Star Trek wasn't the first to do so, but I think few would argue that Star Trek has in the long run been the most popular series to do so. That is probobly more of what the referance was aiming tword. FLJuJitsu

[edit] Renewal for a fourth season

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-galactica12feb12,1,7910575.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&ctrack=1&cset=true Please look into this http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=91282 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.0.185 (talk • contribs)

Here's an open site link (the LA Times requires signup): SyFyPortal --Ckatzchatspy 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Audience

Many articles have been written that touch on who the battlestar galactica audience is and how the show impacts them. We could totally write down a few things from those and then build a "Audience" subsection. Lotusduck 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4th Season Last

Producers Make It Official: 'Battlestar Galactica' Is Done [1]--88wolfmaster 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Choice of character names

Hi, I'm no Battlestar expert, but it seems to me that it would be really nice to have a section of the choice of character names in the series. Names such as Hadrian (the security officer who begins a kind of witch hunt) and Socinus clearly were not chosen by accident, and it would be a notable addition to the article to add some links to the origins of these names.. .I'm just not sure how best to go about it! --Tomhannen 09:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Country

And the country has come up yet again with people adding Canada and UK to the country in the infobox. Why? It's a US production made by a US studio and production company. It's shot in Canada yes, but that doesn't make it Canadian. And as for the claim that it's UK produced where has that come from? The only UK connection to the show other than a couple of actors is Sky One provides some of the funds, but they have nothing to do with the production. See also Talk:Battlestar_Galactica_(2004_TV_series)/Archive_3#Country_of_origin:_United_Kingdom.3F. Ben W Bell talk 08:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's produced in Canada... so it's a Canadian production. Sky One co-produce(d) and aired the show first, making them an original country, if not the original. Matthew 09:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sky One didn't co-produce, they gave money towards the production on the understanding of first airing rights. They didn't co-produce and had no hand whatsoever in the production of the show. Ben W Bell talk 10:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide your source? A press release I am looking at states "Battlestar Galactica is being produced exclusively for SCI FI, in association with SKY One, and will be distributed by USACE." We even have an article on the subject, but that offers little assistance (Country of origin). It's my personal belief that the UK and Canada are the original countries, as the UK co-produced (or "produced exclusively for SCI FI, in association with SKY One") and aired the series first and Canada is the filming location where everything happens. I'm not actually sure what role America plays, they just seem to pay money and air the episodes. Matthew 11:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well could you quote your source as it's impossible for me to prove a negative. If you have a valid source that can be referenced then fair enough under WP:V. Ben W Bell talk 11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll gladly add the source for the UK to the article, but I'd be interested in seeing your source for "Sky One didn't co-produce" as well. Matthew 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a source. I've never seen a source that reliably said that they did, only ones that say they gave money, especially since Sky One doesn't tend to make its own shows so I find it co-producing something to be very curious. However if you have a reliable source to the contrary then that's verifiability. Ben W Bell talk 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
They actually produce and co-produce a fair amount of programming for a digital channel. But it's mostly imports. I've added the source for the UK, I even added one for Canada. Both sources are highly reliable (NBC Universal and Sci Fi Channel's website). Matthew 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong about this, if it were a SkyOne production it would appear so in either the opening or ending credits of the show or miniseries. Sky One gave the SciFi Channel a cash advance to air the miniseries in England prior to its US primier. They didn't co-produce it or it would appear as such in the credits of the show, like any show.
Um actually Sky One didn't have anything to do with the mini-series to the best of my knowledge. The Mini series was shown in the US well before it was in the UK, and the first time it was in the UK was actually on DVD. Sky One didn't show it until much later. Sky One did part finance the first season of the series, and showed that before anyone else, but not the mini series. Ben W Bell talk 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
What does this disprove? My point still stands, if Skyone had production credits it would appear in the credits for the show's first season. Which it doesn't, you are clearly wrong on this. --68.236.57.106 22:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All: according to an article from the BBC News service, Sky One provided the necessary funding for the series launch in exchange for first airing rights of season 1, which aired in the UK in October 2004. The US would not see season 1 on the Sci Fi Channel until January 2005. Sky One did not provide any production work and therefore is not a producer of the show. Sky One's involvement with Battlestar production was limited to season 1 only, had no involvement with the miniseries except for its airing, and did not provide any other funding for the series after season 1. UK airings (by Sky One through licensing with NBC Universal) now occur after the US airings. Sky One receives some credit for its financial support for the series pre-production. Here is another link to Sky One on the Battlestar Wiki, where I am a bureaucrat. While Battlestar Wiki is not a news source itself, the wiki uses only credible news sources to aid in its articles, as does Wikipedia. --Spencerian 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

The lead section appears to be a tad bit long per WP:LEAD, and I think some of the sections could use a bit of restructuring. I'll give it a shot, let me know what you think... Dreadlocke ☥ 23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that on the Battlestar Galactica website, "reimagined' is a non-hyphenated word. [2], as well as the Sci Fi website. Even google corrected me when I put in re-imagined. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And Webster's online agrees: reimagine. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure passage

Executive producer Ronald D. Moore points out that the Cylons and Al Qaeda are not necessarily intended to be directly allegorical  : Al Qaeda is not intended to be directly allegorical ?? meaning ? --Anne97432 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Cylons are not exactly equivalent to Al Qaeda. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I propose that each of the incarnations of Galactica have its own article, one for the 1970's version encompassing all of that show's cannon plus Galactica 1980 (which some see as non-cannonical) and one for Galactica 2003 (or re-imangined or whatever title is decided on) which encompasses the mini-series, the re-imagined series, Razor and possibly Caprica (That will be subject to debate) along with the section under Destruction of the Tweleve Colonies that pertains to each version.Hx823 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers & headers

The current section References to modern society contains not just very general info, but spoilers for those that haven't watched Season 3. Part of the discussion around spoilers and deleting the {{spoiler}} template involved appropriate headers being used on sections that contain spoilers (so I added that to the guideline but don't know if it'll stick). I don't want to edit or rearrange it as I'm only up to season 2 myself. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] setting- time

it seems that 'the third planet of nine in a system on the northern rim of the milky-way' is to forgotten in this timeline. I frankly cannot believe that this society is having such a hard time finding earth. It would ahve to be set in like, 18897 ad or something closer for Earth to really be forgotten. i know i havn't seen the whole series, but i can't imagine with internet and archiving all history that somthing as precious as our planet's location.

my main question - when is this version of the show set? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.212.79 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Battlestar Galactica intro.jpg

The image Image:Battlestar Galactica intro.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)