View Full Version : BSG in nothing but name
NamtarLives
November 5th, 2004, 07:34 PM
I've just had the opportunity to view the first three episodes of the new BSG series. I had seen the miniseries soon after it aired and found it somewhat interesting but not enough to warrant buying the DVD release or to keep up with the series developments.
I have to agree with many others that this show really doesn't capture much of the feel or flavor of the original. I would be much happier if they had given it a new name and renamed the characters and simply gave the following credit:
"Based on the television series Battlestar Galactica"
That being said, I have somewhat enjoyed the first few episodes, but I don't think I enjoy them nearly as much as I would if they hadn't chosen to so severely bastardize and ignore the original series.
What Ron Moore has given us is a grittier and more realistic version of what things would have been like for the galactica and the fleet. The one thing that seems to be lacking in this show, so far, is a sense of family, heroicism and most of all HOPE. If you don't have those things, I really don't think you should be using the Galactica name.
To a certain extent I can understand Ron Moores aversion to the original series. TOS contained quite a few embarassing scripts and honestly hasn't aged very well for most people. I get the feeling the only thing he's embraced from TOS is basic premise of humanity invaded and on the run with a ragtag fleet.
I have a feeling I'll keep up with the episodes sporadically, but I don't think I'll ever feel comfortable with the name of the show being "Battlestar Galactica".
Eric Paddon
November 5th, 2004, 07:44 PM
There is also something else missing which for many other Galactica fans is the real nub of the problem with Moore's vision: the total lack of moral clarity in this series which for me was the one thing that gave the original series it's special status. The "Cylons created by humans" dynamic and the contempt for religion is ultimately a bigger deal for me than the fact that Starbuck is a woman.
Gemini1999
November 5th, 2004, 07:53 PM
I was thinking on this today....
I've been watching the first few episodes as well and it does feel like something is missing. I think what's missing is a sense of scale. We hardly ever see anything of the close to fifty thousand refugees. In "33", we never saw the Doctor that could expose Baltar and we never saw the passengers or crew of the Olympic Carrier. In "Water", we never saw any of the people or their reaction to the imposed water rationing when the Galactica's water supply was dumped into space.
It's great seeing some of the familiar ships of the fleet, but it doesn't feel much like a society to me. I would like to see more of the living conditions of the refugees and how they are coping with their forced journey across the stars with limited fuel, food and water resources. I thought that was one of the things that Ron Moore wanted to focus on.
TNS is interesting to watch, but it feels a bit "small" to me when compared to TOS. We've only got to see such a small handful of people and we really haven't learned that much about the ones we have seen. I'm hoping that this part of the storytelling improves over the remaining 10 episodes, or it's gonna be a dull journey.
Best regards,
Bryan
thomas7g
November 5th, 2004, 08:08 PM
I think what you are describing Bryan is the feel from the dramatic cost saving measures enacted by this show. Like Andromeda, or the early days of Babylon 5, alot of the expensive scenes were talked about instead of seen. I still cringe from the coverage of the Mars War that was really cheaply done. Even Stargate must do a few flashback clip episodes to conserve budget for the big episodes. And the original `bg had to reuse footage.
I do miss the energy I got from the old show.
Namtar, I know exactly how you feel.
:D
Welcome to the Fleet!
Darth Marley
November 5th, 2004, 08:19 PM
Contempt for religion?
Have you been downloading the show? OR just making an assumption?
Eric Paddon
November 5th, 2004, 08:27 PM
The very premise of the series as laid down by the miniseries, which I have watched, is contemptuous of it. And I have seen nothing in the summaries of the episodes to indicate anything different from that approach.
Senmut
November 5th, 2004, 08:33 PM
Well, given RDM's contempt for the fans, his contempt for the faith issue in the original are no surprise. After all, he saw so little of it, how would he even know?
thomas7g
November 5th, 2004, 08:36 PM
I wouldn't say the series makes any commentary on religion itself.... Though Six and the cylons seems to have a wacky religion alltheir own. But that is treated seperately from any comment about any normal religion.
KJ
November 6th, 2004, 03:57 AM
What Ron Moore has given us is a grittier and more realistic version of what things would have been like for the galactica and the fleet. The one thing that seems to be lacking in this show, so far, is a sense of family, heroicism and most of all HOPE. If you don't have those things, I really don't think you should be using the Galactica name.
I personally believe Richard Hatch's Second Coming and Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto's Battlestar Galactica 2001 versions would have been "FAR" grittier and violent than the 1978 series with a more realistic tone yet still retaining the mythological/biblical elements the original show had. Without watering down or making the show "PC" by altering too many beloved things about it.
So far as Moore getting all this attention, saying he has done a grittier/darker version marlarkey. Radically different maybe but not darker. I saw enough of the mini to send me into a 'coma' it tore at me. Baby killings, drunk colonel's and body swaps was too much weirdness for me. while we understand, yeah Moore had to make his version different. But. It's so different it ain't our BG?
Well, given RDM's contempt for the fans, his contempt for the faith issue in the original are no surprise. After all, he saw so little of it, how would he even know?
Indeed, he may keep claiming to be a fan of the original. Be he isn't. No fan i know would ever do to Battlestar Galactica what he did, even if under orders from Bonnie Hammer. We keep hearing excuses from others defending him saying, wouldn't you do it for a paycheck? Yeah but, my paycheck usually comes with dignity, pride and honor! I wouldn't sell out.
The original was comparable to Star Wars (and it isn't a rip off)
TNS BG i wouldn't compare to Andromeda? let alone any other sci-fi, not even Lexx!
Namtarlives welcome to the CF boards :thumbsup:
KJ
gmd3d
November 6th, 2004, 04:22 AM
NamtarLives welcome to THE FLEET. :thumbsup:
I completcly argree with you , You have hit the nail on the head all that thing that mad up galactica tos are no longer there only the name remains , RDM pulled the heart out of the show and what we have is the hollow shell.
while I did enjoy the last 2 episodes showing the problems in trying to survive the escape from the cylons.
The TOS galactica was a product of it time in every sense from effect to scripts and style famly entertinment when heroes were heroes,
Lord Kingjason
I personally believe Richard Hatch's Second Coming and Bryan Singer and Tom DeSanto's Battlestar Galactica 2001 versions would have been "FAR" grittier and violent than the 1978 series with a more realistic tone yet still retaining the mythological/biblical elements the original show had. Without watering down or making the show "PC" by altering too many beloved things about it.
Yes I argee because the fans have grown with it , and expected a far more gritter
but with the same sense of Hope to survive to live to fight another day.
CommanderTaggart
November 6th, 2004, 10:07 AM
Little. Small. Tiny. A pimple on the ass of science fiction.
nextceo
November 6th, 2004, 10:28 AM
Look as hard core fans of TOS, I can understand your feelings. I was also a very big fan of TOS and was originally against TNS (the new series), however I have really warmed to it. I feel it has grown significantly from the mini, and is just now beginning to grow into its own. I mean geez you want it to be everything from the beginning, and anything new takes time for the actors, directors, etc. to grow into the show. Plus add into it the bias of hard core TOS fans (and trust me I understand it, we all have bias in our own ways), you may not like the show. You feel betrayed by sci-fi and Moore and I understand that, but if you put this in context when ST TNG came out there were the same outcries. How could they put the show in the future, how could any Star Trek series not have the original crew, or at least part of it! Hard core fans were livid! I watched TNG when it premeired and had some grudging admiration for it, but I also thought it was kind of stiff, etc., and the effects could be better. Do all of you remember the first few episodes of ST TNG? They were no where close to being as good as seasons 2+. Same with the new Galactica, it will take some time for the show to grow a bit. Also some people are complaining about the special effects and sets, I think they are quite good, what are your specific gripes? Then if there is upset about not enough FX, there is the complaint about not enough character development. Come on guys, in a mini and three eps, you can't have all of both. It takes some time for the characters of such a large cast to develop, and I think they are beginning to do so now with Bastille Day. Plus the final complaint is about all the sex and violence. You know what there were a couple of examples in the mini, that were a little gratuitous, but this has been toned down a lot in the series. There is the scene at the end of Bastille Day, but I do not feel it is gratuitous, I think they did a good job of giving you an understanding without going to over the top. IMHO, it is the BEST sci-fi show I have seen from its beginning, and will only get better as it develops, but you have to give it a little time as well. And there will also be people who just don't like the show. I love the Soprano's, other people don't like it. Some people like the West Wing, it has won a lot of awards, I personally can't stand the show, and a lot of that is my own personal political persuasion. So say we all! :salute:
nextceo
November 6th, 2004, 10:50 AM
:wtf: By the way.... In regards to a lack of moral clarity... Say what????? People act as if TOS was a beacon on a hill... Come on now. Baltar is beheaded in the original movie. Visit to the casino planet where it is an orgy of gambling, drinking and pleasure... Gambling is a constant issue throughout the show. Starbuck is a playboy trying to have both Athena and Cassie. Lies to both of them. Screws around with Cassie in the launch tube. Socialators are legal in the colonies. The council of the twelve are a bunch of passifist dimwits. We just got annihilated lets throw down our arms!!! The constant use of the word Frack! We all know what it means! BTW... Best use of a sci-fi word in history! :LOL:
Look was it tamer than the new show, yes it was, and I'm not trying to say it was the same, but it wasn't perfect morally either. As far as religion goes, the original TOS was not Christian, in fact the colonies beleived in GODS, not a GOD. It also made out the devil (Ibli) and Angels (the ship of lights) to be nothing more than an advanced civilization. In fact in the new BSG, the cylons talk of a GOD, and his purpose for all of us. If anything there is more talk of religion in the new BSG (whether you agree with it or not). If you take SG-1 or Atlantis, both are virtually totally devoid of religion, but I bet a number of people who claim that the moral compass of BSG is off would celebrate those shows. At least BSG TNS has the guts to talk about religion and make it an issue like the old BSG did. Now again, this is not to be a flame but at least in my view, you have to examine all sides of the morality and religious issues, and not just take pot shots at TNS, without putting it in context with what you are implying is superior. Mushies anyone????
Eric Paddon
November 6th, 2004, 12:07 PM
"As far as religion goes, the original TOS was not Christian, in fact the colonies beleived in GODS, not a GOD."
GOIPZ-"Is Ravashol God?"
WOTG-"Not even God?"
I think the monotheism of the prevailing religion in Galactica, certainly as expressed by Adama, ended up being self-evident in the series.
martok2112
November 25th, 2004, 09:53 AM
"As far as religion goes, the original TOS was not Christian, in fact the colonies beleived in GODS, not a GOD."
GOIPZ-"Is Ravashol God?"
WOTG-"Not even God?"
I think the monotheism of the prevailing religion in Galactica, certainly as expressed by Adama, ended up being self-evident in the series.
Yes, Adama of TOS did seem to practice a sort of monotheism, but several others seemed to say: "By the gods" or something on the side of pluralistic.
I would justify that as the diversity of beliefs among the other colonies.
Perhaps Capricans believed in one God. Perhaps Gemonese believed in multiple deities.
Perhaps a colony or two was agnostic.
Who knows?
Classic Galactica was written in a different time. Classic Galactica could survive into todays era with the appropriate tonal adjustments without going completely 180. Personally, I do not see the new series as a complete 180. Radically different in many areas...but not a complete 180.
I think that with the continued success of the new series, we will see the rise of heroes, the onset of true hope, and something gradually similar in tone (if not characters) to the original.
Respectfully,
Martok2112
BST
November 25th, 2004, 10:51 AM
Yes, Adama of TOS did seem to practice a sort of monotheism, but several others seemed to say: "By the gods" or something on the side of pluralistic.
Folks,
Let's not confuse the terminology, "by the Lords of Kobol", to indicate a reference to multitheism. The "Lords of Kobol" were the human leaders of the planet Kobol. In this case, "Lord" would be synonymous with "Ruler" not deity.
btw, Martok, the other examples that you provided would be entirely plausible. Drawing parallels to present-day Earth, not every Colony would have necessarily practiced the same religious customs (and some may not have practiced any at all.)
BST
November 25th, 2004, 10:57 AM
You feel betrayed by sci-fi and Moore and I understand that, but if you put this in context when ST TNG came out there were the same outcries. How could they put the show in the future, how could any Star Trek series not have the original crew, or at least part of it! Hard core fans were livid! I watched TNG when it premeired and had some grudging admiration for it, but I also thought it was kind of stiff, etc., and the effects could be better. Do all of you remember the first few episodes of ST TNG? They were no where close to being as good as seasons 2+.
Regardless of Trek fans' attitudes toward ST:TNG, the parallel being drawn here is invalid. BSG-TNS is NOT set in the future. It is NOT continuing the timeline. BSG-TNS is re-writing it. HUGE difference.
kingfish
November 25th, 2004, 12:50 PM
I believe the Colonials to be monotheistic.
Adama: What are you afraid of.
Iblis: I fear no one.
Adama: Not even God.
Iblis: What do you primitives know about God?
Adama: Only that we must follow a set of laws passed down to us.
Iblis: those laws don't apply to me.
Adama: I wonder.
IMHO the laws were the Ten Commandments.
Archangel
November 25th, 2004, 01:17 PM
Every religion has those pesky laws attached too them. To think of the show in Judeo-Christian terms... ;)
No flames, just saying that I'm undecided on this one. :)
martok2112
November 25th, 2004, 01:24 PM
As for me...I am a very spiritual man. Before I jump into a foxhole, I pray to God, Jesus, Allah, Mohammed, Buddah, Vishnu, and Elvis, just to make sure I have all my bases covered.
(paraphrase of R. Lee Ermey in Siege on Firebase Gloria)
Irreverently,
Martok2112
Sept17th
November 25th, 2004, 03:24 PM
Ditto Namtar, ditto.
Gunstar Aries
November 25th, 2004, 05:08 PM
One of the main elements I find missing in the Moore 'retelling' is the larger-than-life aspect of the heroes and the inherent potential of the Colonial people. Here is this spacefaring civilization, fighting a long war. They could be decadent, petty, and immoral, but as a whole, their civilization does not seem to have fallen prey to the more base human instincts.
Adama was a larger than life hero, as was his son, Caine, et al. Baltar was a larger than life villian, the ultimate betrayer, a worthy opponent for Adama in villany if not in honor or power. Colonial civilization seems to value their warriors, honor, the quest for knowledge, etc. In short, the better aspects of humanity. Now Adama is just a guy, not a leader of a people on the brink of extinction. Baltar is just a horny nerd who betrayed his race, not for power which has led man to subjigate man for millenia, but for sex.
Of all the things I have against the Moore version, the most powerful thing the pilot left me feeling was that these 'Colonials' are very, very much like....us. After the fall of the Colonies, Adama's number one priority was to save human lives. "In every vessel that will carry them," to paraphrase. Human life was precious. He put saving lives first and worried about feeding them second.
In the movie/pilot for the new movie, we see that scene when the 'president' is forced to abandon all the sublight vessels to their fate. She sits there, agonized by the decision, boo-hoo, ALONE in a compartement FULL of chairs that each could have held at least one additonal life to be saved. I understand Moore wanting the 'shot' of this 'weighty decision' and the remorse the goes with it, but logically if this character has this much remorse, she should be alone in a crowded compartment thinking about all the people that are being left to their fate.
I prefer my mythology larger than life. I don't want Bellerophon to chase girls, I want him to kill the Chimera. I want to see Hercules' Seven Labors, Jason, Perseus and Ulysses. I want to see a civilization that exist at a higher level than our own. I can turn on the TV anytime to see the current level of civilization. As for 'retelling', I let the DVD player do that, especially with the 'Hand of God.'
My rant/thoughts.
Gunstar Aries
KJ
November 25th, 2004, 07:48 PM
Very well said Gunstar Aries, very well said indeed. I'm sure TNS fans hate it when people rip'em a new one over the faults and flaws this Moore version has. Truth be told, the TOS has been lamblasted by people for over two decades?! While it is a sci-fi classic that is remembered. Unless a series or movie got "Trek" or "Wars" in it. Seems everything else is ripe for tearing down. In that case i'd say to Moore, Eick and Hammer welcome to the club?
The club of everything else that hasn't the mass pulling power of Star Trek or Star Wars in pop culture, but is equally entertaining in it's own right. While they did do the BG remake for egomaniac reasons (who are they kidding right?). If they have found their audience i.e. fans. They now know, the burn of feeling the negativity of bad press, bad critical reviews and hard feeling to their beloved 'Series' as fans of the TOS BG have felt for years. Battlestar Galactica loved by many, but it too has sci-fi fans that wouldn't bat an eye lid to whatever version is playing right now and don't give 'Two craps' about it period.
One of the main elements I find missing in the Moore 'retelling' is the larger-than-life aspect of the heroes and the inherent potential of the Colonial people. Here is this spacefaring civilization, fighting a long war. They could be decadent, petty, and immoral, but as a whole, their civilization does not seem to have fallen prey to the more base human instincts.
I feel that too. Many sci-fi shows have fantasy elements to them. With none whatsoever, Galactica is robbed of any great "what if" scenarios in my opinon. As you've stated their are a civilization out in space that came from "Kobol" not Earth! the whole reverse concept of "Life here began out there mankind's origins like a mystery, laidout but one has to put the puzzle together again. What came first the chicken or the egg?
I don't see Moore and co doing that in a series showing, Cylons in a red skirt, a horny human traitor, a drunk colonel with self pity, and cigar smoking pilots who think their tough but aren't? female Starbuck, hah let the groans begin many female fans of the TOS like the original "male" character who is liked by both sexes.
In the movie/pilot for the new movie, we see that scene when the 'president' is forced to abandon all the sublight vessels to their fate. She sits there, agonized by the decision, boo-hoo, ALONE in a compartement FULL of chairs that each could have held at least one additonal life to be saved. I understand Moore wanting the 'shot' of this 'weighty decision' and the remorse the goes with it, but logically if this character has this much remorse, she should be alone in a crowded compartment thinking about all the people that are being left to their fate.
Excellent review of those scenes Gunstar Aries. If an average "joe" can notice that, then professionals in the business should know better and thought the scene out better.
Realism has its place. unfortunately Ron Moore doesn't know how to do it. Making 99.9999...etc of the series characters flawed just for the sake of drama purposes is very weak. I've seen lighter shows with tons of dramatic depth than the mini i was disgusted at let alone any glimpses of the TNS show that pretends it doing what the original series did.
If Moore Eick and Hammer's TNS BG show was original, they wouldn't have lifted some episode ideas and titles for several TNS episodes. Thats what i find worse about the situation, if this thing is meant to be better than the preivous version, why lift from it. if its a do over, then do something that wasn't used or done before. And don't take the titles of past episodes either, for any reason.
I'd love to bring up the religion thing that everybody else is thinking and debating, but i wouldn't associate it with this show. Why bother? Do you actually want to see Ron Moore's version of Count Iblis and Seraph John in a possible season 2?
I 'shudder' at the thought!
:eek:
KJ
Gunstar Aries
November 26th, 2004, 06:48 AM
I specifically avoided the 'religion' debate in my post, LKJ. There are those of us with a spiritual and religious background and there are those of us without. I didn't want to to drag that difference into the comparison of the old and the new. Adama was a military/political/religious leader of his people. Yet there were characters that were less-than-holy, if you were, such as Starbuck. Cain I think would be another good example, not as religious as Adama. Sire Uri another. Yet that difference in belief system is never the source of conflict between these characters. Power, yes. Differences is what they think is the right course, yes.
That said, I think whether we're religious or not, we can all agree that there was a 'biblical' aspect to the original series. 12 colonies, 12 tribes, "Adama" as a play on "Adam", etc. I consider the original series very mytholigical in nature, as in classic mythology. Heroes fighting overwhelming odds, a spiritual background to the conflict. To reiterate, I didn't get that feel from the Moore version.
Two side notes on the Moore version. First, I don't have a problem with them making Starbuck or Boomer a woman because they wanted to 'have a strong female character.' I DO have a problem with 'having a strong female character' at the expense of strong female characters like Athena and Cassiopia. Moore wipes his feet on two strong female leads in the original series, than holds up a sex change as a evidence of how 'progressive' he is. As the D&D-ers used to say, I roll to disbelieve.
Second, as I've said in past discussions, what pained me most about the Moore version was what he did to the Galactica herself. In the Original, here's this type of warship that is so powerful, only a handful have ever existed. The entire Cyclon Empire is willing to devote every resource they can spare to hunt her down. The fate of the human race depends on one of their greatest creations, and the men and women who fight in her. In the Moore series, the fate of the human race depends on a second line ship, one that really should have been decommissioned years ago, has no business in a conflict situation and really should've been scrapped anyway. Make Adama a liar, make men women, make humans base animals, whatever. Why did the Galactica have to be torn down too?
Martok,
How are you or any other fan of the new series being relegated to second class citizenship by my criticism of the new series? I hold nothing against fans of TNS; my issues are with Moore. If you're enterained by him, you're entertained by him. I'm entertained by Bugs Bunny and Starblazers and Quark. While we may certainly not have those things in common, how does that create any animosity between us? Let me ask you this: If the new series weren't called Battlestar Galactica, would have watched it?
Regards,
Gunstar Aries
julix
November 26th, 2004, 07:24 AM
Gunstar ...
I think you made some very good points there, I especially agree with your point about "strong" female characters. In Moore's version it was not My and I say My version of what a strong woman should be. I know everyone has different views on this. But to me the women in TOS were much closer to the ideal I have.... especially Athena and most certainly Sheba(that is why she is my avi) You also make a great point about the Galactica itself, one which I hadn't thought of so thanks for pointing it out.
Martok,
I think there is a difference between what people think of the show and what people think of the fans. I know you have been subjected to much harshness and that is part of why you feel this way. But I do know we are all trying to get past it and hopefully we will. I know where your heart lies as do most people who know you.
Gunstar Aries
November 26th, 2004, 08:26 AM
Thanks for the kind words, Julix. I agree with you too; the female Starbuck isn't my idea of a strong woman, either. Sheba's is a great example, too. Probably the best example along with Athena, as you said. I could add Serina the list of good female characters as well.
Turning the Galactica from the greatest of warships to a vessel of suspect military value really stick in my craw. Here's a question on different Galacticas: Which fleet would you rather be in, the one shepherded by the preeminent military vessel of its time, or one guarded by a vessel so obsolete it was retired a few short hours ago? I know which one I'd pick...
Really like the avitar....
Regards,
GA
:salute:
:warrior:
martok2112
November 26th, 2004, 08:29 AM
Martok,
How are you or any other fan of the new series being relegated to second class citizenship by my criticism of the new series? I hold nothing against fans of TNS; my issues are with Moore. If you're enterained by him, you're entertained by him. I'm entertained by Bugs Bunny and Starblazers and Quark. While we may certainly not have those things in common, how does that create any animosity between us? Let me ask you this: If the new series weren't called Battlestar Galactica, would have watched it?
Regards,
Gunstar Aries
Aries,
:) It wasn't you, amigo.
After reading my response to someone else's comments, I just decided to withdraw it...but you were not the one to whom I was referring.
I do not desire animosity between the fandoms at all. And indeed, I welcome you to the Fleets. :salute:
As for whether I have watched it if it were titled something other than "Battlestar Galactica", the answer would still be yes. But it is titled "Battlestar Galactica", and in many TNS fans' humble opinions, it is rightfully named because it shares the premise, and other things with the original show.
All of us see different things in the values/merits of the new Galactica, and we also recognize its flaws. But for someone to state that TNS fans hate it when we get "ripped a new one" when the flaws of the new show are pointed out, suggests that blind animosity still exists toward supporters of the new show.
I can understand it if it were directed toward someone who constantly praised the new show at the expense of the original series. But I would say that a majority of the TNS fans do NOT feel that way. It has been repeatedly said that many TNS fans are ones who also have a rather healthy interest in the original show....but they still get blasted because they support something different.
Respectfully,
Martok2112
Archangel
November 26th, 2004, 08:31 AM
No wonder I couldn't find it... :D
BST
November 26th, 2004, 09:23 AM
Martok,
I understand your point and, yes, unfortunately the blade of the sword does cut both ways. The sentence that followed that remark illustrated the treatment of those preferring only TOS. In neither case, is it proper for folks to lambaste fans of either show.
I state this once, to ensure that there is NO misunderstanding of my remarks:
I am not pointing fingers. What I'm saying is in regards to people, in general.
It is absolutely wrong to condemn folks for their preference in a particular show. If there is any condemnation, it should be directed toward those who produced it. Unfortunately, sometimes the line is crossed where folks interpret criticism of a particular show as a criticism of their preference. For example, I can find much agreement with GA's opinion that the new show 'rips the heart and soul' out of what I feel is a very worthwhile, existing, story. I can also understand that there are folks who think that the new show 'does some things right, too'. In either circumstance, I don't have to harbor any conflict that somehow preferring one point of view is not harmonious with having another point of view.
I think the shorthand phrase for that would be "to each his own".
The only trouble that I foresee is how to critique the show(s) without criticizing the fans. It can be done, though.
BST
:)
repcisg
November 26th, 2004, 09:30 AM
Just my 2 cents;
The New series debases the basic premise of the original, in several ways. One being all the sex, the Cylons are machines, machines don’t need to have sex to reproduce, they need a factory. Sex was introduced simply to add a salacious value to the production, to make it an adult show. This reflects a low opinion of the viewing public by the management, to be an adult you must not only enjoy but crave erotic content.
The original show stood to a higher standard, no overt sex. Yes suggestions of it were there but behind closed doors.
In TOS the Galactica is a competent warship, occupying a slot in the main battle line, in TNS she is an obsolete relic heading for the scrap yard.
At the beginning of the Second World War the British sent their entire fleet after the Bismarck, the most advanced Battleship of its day. Would the British have done this if the Germans had sent a Pre-World War I relic into the North Atlantic?
In TOS the crew stood for a higher code of ethics, with respect for authority and honor. Even Starbuck knew where the line was. In TNS there is no line, authority is acknowledged only when confronted by it, and honor is not spoken of.
I find it ironic that TOS was produced at a time when the military of this country was held in low esteem and now TNS comes out with the military debased and yet the country views the military as filled with heroes.
Archangel
November 26th, 2004, 09:44 AM
Just my 2 cents;
The New series debases the basic premise of the original, in several ways. One being all the sex, the Cylons are machines, machines don’t need to have sex to reproduce, they need a factory. Sex was introduced simply to add a salacious value to the production, to make it an adult show. This reflects a low opinion of the viewing public by the management, to be an adult you must not only enjoy but crave erotic content.
The original show stood to a higher standard, no overt sex. Yes suggestions of it were there but behind closed doors.
In TOS the Galactica is a competent warship, occupying a slot in the main battle line, in TNS she is an obsolete relic heading for the scrap yard.
At the beginning of the Second World War the British sent their entire fleet after the Bismarck, the most advanced Battleship of its day. Would the British have done this if the Germans had sent a Pre-World War I relic into the North Atlantic?
In TOS the crew stood for a higher code of ethics, with respect for authority and honor. Even Starbuck knew where the line was. In TNS there is no line, authority is acknowledged only when confronted by it, and honor is not spoken of.
I find it ironic that TOS was produced at a time when the military of this country was held in low esteem and now TNS comes out with the military debased and yet the country views the military as filled with heroes.
If I recall correctly, the TOS Galactica was established as being over a century old (can't remember the name of the ep, but I believe it was the one where they picked up the moon-landing broadcast.) . It stands to reason that she would have been scrapped within a few years if the cylons hadn't destroyed the colonies and given her a new purpose. Going on in that vein, it could also be assumed that the competence of the ship could be due in large part to her leadership, Commander Adama and Colonel Tigh.
It's not the machines that are a danger to people (unless they're self aware AI's ;) ), but the people controlling them.
BST
November 26th, 2004, 09:49 AM
Archangel,
If memory serves, the age of the TOS Galactica was more like 500 yahren/years old. The life expectancy of the battlestars, Cylons notwithstanding, was never adequately determined, in the series.
(btw, it didn't appear ready for the scrap heap.)
;)
Eric Paddon
November 26th, 2004, 09:52 AM
If I recall correctly, the TOS Galactica was established as being over a century old (can't remember the name of the ep, but I believe it was the one where they picked up the moon-landing broadcast.) .
Apollo's exact line is, "When the old girl was launched over 500 yahrens ago...."
Archangel
November 26th, 2004, 09:53 AM
Thanks BST and Eric.
LOL! I really have to get the DVD's someday. :D Just to refresh all of my memories.
How many serviceable warships do Look ready for the scrap heap when they wind up there.
BST
November 26th, 2004, 09:59 AM
No problemo, Archangel. :D
Go get them, get them now, must have the precioussss!
OOPS, wrong show. :blush:
:LOL:
repcisg
November 26th, 2004, 09:59 AM
The Galactiaca was said to be 500 yarhen old, the actual length of a yarhen was never made clear. But the premise was she had been kept up to date and occupied a position in the fleet as a primary element.
As a primary element she represented a singular threat, one the Cylons could not afford to have running lose.
Archangel
November 26th, 2004, 10:06 AM
Yes, but eventually (If this were a real world situation ;) )she would succumb to things like metal fatigue and other problems associated with age in a however advanced machine, especially one that's been in an ongoing war for her entire existence. Eventually the cost for repairs and upgrades would be high. In the long run it would be more cost effective just to replace her with a new ship.
Archangel
November 26th, 2004, 10:06 AM
No problemo, Archangel. :D
Go get them, get them now, must have the precioussss!
OOPS, wrong show. :blush:
:LOL:
:rotf:
KJ
November 26th, 2004, 10:38 AM
It is absolutely wrong to condemn folks for their preference in a particular show. If there is any condemnation, it should be directed toward those who produced it.
Something the majority of TOS Galactica fans remind the producers of more or less every time we can and whenever possible!
:D :D :D ;)
Later guys (and gals)
KJ
:thumbsup:
justjackrandom
November 26th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Yes, but eventually (If this were a real world situation ;) )she would succumb to things like metal fatigue and other problems associated with age in a however advanced machine, especially one that's been in an ongoing war for her entire existence. Eventually the cost for repairs and upgrades would be high. In the long run it would be more cost effective just to replace her with a new ship.
This goes to another point I've made before, but it’s been awhile:
The Galactica was a powerful weapon, a representative of one of the most powerful weapons ever devised by the colonies. And she was a front-line ship, the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief of the Colonial military forces, and perhaps one of the newest of the battlestars in service (if you give any credence to the novelization). For all of that she was 500 “years” old. And yes, despite upgrades, etc, she was probably showing her age. The novelization tells us that the Galactica was to be retired after the peace conference (and if I remember correctly, was to become a museum!). This suggests that she is at the end of her service life...if she hasn't passed it, which I think is likely. Add to this a number of things about the battle of Caprica, and bits and pieces found in the rest of the series, and you are left with one inescapable conclusion: The Colonials were losing the war. They hadn’t replaced the Galactica, or any other battlestar, because they couldn’t.
JJR
--er..what was the subject of this thread again?... :/:
KJ
November 26th, 2004, 11:20 AM
The Galactica was a powerful weapon, a representative of one of the most powerful weapons ever devised by the colonies. And she was a front-line ship, the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief of the Colonial military forces, and perhaps one of the newest of the battlestars in service (if you give any credence to the novelization). For all of that she was 500 “years” old. And yes, despite upgrades, etc, she was probably showing her age. The novelization tells us that the Galactica was to be retired after the peace conference (and if I remember correctly, was to become a museum!). This suggests that she is at the end of her service life...if she hasn't passed it, which I think is likely. Add to this a number of things about the battle of Caprica, and bits and pieces found in the rest of the series, and you are left with one inescapable conclusion: The Colonials were losing the war. They hadn’t replaced the Galactica, or any other battlestar, because they couldn’t.
If you think the Galactica old, in the Living Legend novels when Starbuck and Apollo are being led back to the Pegasus (in awe and surprise) Starbuck sees the Pegasus is more beat up than the Galactica, so much so he says out loud, if "Spit" is holding her together somehow? Now thats old!
Far as the war goes, yeah i suppose so the Colonials were on the losing end. As they had around 5 Battlestars left at the peace conference. Or 6 if you include the Columbia along side the Acropolis, Pacifica, Galactica, Atlantia and Triton. (Solaria if you take into account the novel version)
As i've said in a recent post, unless you had an Armada; a Fleet of fleets. Even a mere 5 or Battlestars wouldn't ward off the entire Cylon Empire.
Anyway i think Justjackransom point is, while old, the original Galactica wasn't seen as a museum piece heading for the colonial scrap yards. The TNS Galactica already was a museum piece! And the older Pegasus is under command of a Living Legend, who goes head on with Cylons on the frontlines in the same class (model) of warship.
Hell the TNS Galactica still uses "nukes". In Experiment In Terra the TOS Galactica creates a forcefield to destroy said "nukes" launched from Terra. Quite easily only thing Adama worried about was Starbuck safety in a Viper?
Old, but still caperble warship baby!
KJ
:salute:
Archangel
November 26th, 2004, 11:38 AM
First, as I've never even seen the novels, much less read them, are they considered canon?
And yes, I hate mentioning canon issues in any sci'fi topic!
nextceo
November 26th, 2004, 12:36 PM
Well I guess I'll wade back in the waters here... As a fan of TOS and TNS it is disheartening to get smacked everytime you open your mouth in faint praise of TNS so I really empathize with Martok. Those of us TOS fans who have "gone to the darkside" and truly appreciate TNS kind of feel like the ugly stepchild of the group. I want to say I think this has definitely improved in the past few months, and a lot so because of places like fleets giving TNS fans a place to air their feelings. I think it is important that we continue to share and talk and appreciate our similarities and differences. I certainly bear no ill will to TOS fans as I am a TOS fan myself.
To answer a few questions, would I watch TNS if it was not called BSG? Most definitely. IMHO it is one of the best Sci-fi shows on TV now, if ever. I'm sure a few of you will roll your eyes at that one, but it is my opinion. Some of my favorite shows are in the sci-fi category: BSG TOS, BSG TNS, ST TNG, ST OS, Babylon 5, Space 1999, Stargate SG1, Buck Rogers (first half of season 1 over second half).
The darkness of the show and the lack of hope. I think you are starting to see it appear. I beleive RDM wants you to understand the precarious position the colonials are in, they face extinction. That facet is not always happy go lucky. However as the episodes go along I think you are starting to see the growth of a family feeling and more positives are starting to pick up. I think it was realistic the way it started. I love the Sopranos, and it is a very dark show with its lighthearted moments. I see TNS being brighter than that and will improve.
The Cylons and sex... How do we know the Cylons do not need sex to reproduce, or can reproduce that way. Evidently when looking at Human and Cylon cells under a microscope you can find no difference. How are new cylons created? If they are based on humans maybe they are interested in sex? Maybe Six uses it simply to control and get close to Baltar, so there is a reason for it. I also don't feel it was or is excessively graphic. More so that TOS of course, but ah, most TV is these days. Not to say it should be that way, just that it is. And TOS was full of innuendo, etc.
Comparing TNS to ST TNG... I never meant to imply anything about TNG not being a remake of the original series of Star Trek. Yes of course it was a future continued version. What I was trying to get at was there was still a significant outcry from fandom, and in some circles there still is (see the Trekkies vs. Trekkers fueds). The opinion at the time was if there was no Kirk or Spock it should not carry the Star Trek name. I think most can grudgingly say TNG turned into a good series. I think you have to give TNS some time to grow, geez we've only had one mini and 6 episodes and I think it is a lot farther ahead in the curve than TNG was at the same point in time.
Galactica as a frontline warship. In the original the Battlestars were very old, but yes were frontline. In the new series Galactica is ready for museum status, but that does not mean she is not a more than capable warship. With the colonials wanting to use the sharing of computer systems and networks again on their vessels, Galactica is not designed for such systems and thus does not fit in the colonial force strategy. It does not mean she is not every bit as capable as other ships in the fleet. Look at the Iowa class battleships of the US Navy. Two were returned to mothballs after Gulf War I, but most beleive they could serve admirably in service today (and did so some 40 years after first being commissioned in WWII), they simply do not fit in the current US force structure according to politicians and some high ranking Admirals, even though a number of people still recommend us using these Battleships for certain situations. With a cylon threat having disappeared for years, for all we know, Galactica could still have been one of the most powerful ships in the fleet, but the Colonials may feel she is overkill and not part of a "smaller faster smarter" strategy. We simply do not know enough about the other ships of the fleet in TNS to make an opinion on this yet.
Thoughts?
:viper2:
justjackrandom
November 26th, 2004, 02:52 PM
First, as I've never even seen the novels, much less read them, are they considered canon?
And yes, I hate mentioning canon issues in any sci'fi topic!
It's a matter of fan opinion on that one, since there was never a production house or official body to bless anything as canon. I personally don’t consider any novel canon, but that’s just me.
JJR :salute:
BST
November 26th, 2004, 04:09 PM
Comparing TNS to ST TNG... I never meant to imply anything about TNG not being a remake of the original series of Star Trek. Yes of course it was a future continued version. What I was trying to get at was there was still a significant outcry from fandom, and in some circles there still is (see the Trekkies vs. Trekkers fueds). The opinion at the time was if there was no Kirk or Spock it should not carry the Star Trek name. I think most can grudgingly say TNG turned into a good series. I think you have to give TNS some time to grow, geez we've only had one mini and 6 episodes and I think it is a lot farther ahead in the curve than TNG was at the same point in time.
Sorry to dwell on this point but, again, we are viewing 2 entirely different situations. ST:TNG was, as you mentioned, a "future continued version", i.e., it continued the timeline started by ST:TOS.
OTOH, BSG:TNS is not a "future continued version", it does not continue the timeline started by BSG:TOS, in fact, it replaces that timeline.
THAT is the primary reason why this comparison is invalid - it's of the apples to oranges variety. The outcry from the Trek fanbase was for an entirely different reason than the outcry from the BSG-TOS fanbase.
Whether the new show "grows" will only be determined by the suits at Universal through their affiliate, the Sci-FI network. It's only a numbers game to them as they have no loyalties to you, to me, or to anyone else for that matter, except to their shareholders. If the new show creates enough shareholder value, it stays. If not, it goes. Sorry to be so 'cold-blooded' with that last remark. Oft times, that's just the way it goes.
martok2112
November 26th, 2004, 04:27 PM
Sorry to dwell on this point but, again, we are viewing 2 entirely different situations. ST:TNG was, as you mentioned, a "future continued version", i.e., it continued the timeline started by ST:TOS.
OTOH, BSG:TNS is not a "future continued version", it does not continue the timeline started by BSG:TOS, in fact, it replaces that timeline.
THAT is the primary reason why this comparison is invalid - it's of the apples to oranges variety. The outcry from the Trek fanbase was for an entirely different reason than the outcry from the BSG-TOS fanbase.
Whether the new show "grows" will only be determined by the suits at Universal through their affiliate, the Sci-FI network. It's only a numbers game to them as they have no loyalties to you, to me, or to anyone else for that matter, except to their shareholders. If the new show creates enough shareholder value, it stays. If not, it goes. Sorry to be so 'cold-blooded' with that last remark. Oft times, that's just the way it goes.
Sad but true. (Alas, I don't think much of suits either ) :D
Respectfully,
Martok2112
Gunstar Aries
November 26th, 2004, 06:08 PM
Add to this a number of things about the battle of Caprica, and bits and pieces found in the rest of the series, and you are left with one inescapable conclusion: The Colonials were losing the war. They hadn’t replaced the Galactica, or any other battlestar, because they couldn’t.
I couldn't disagree more, JJR. The Colonies are loosing the war? I think the opposite conclusion is inescapable.
At very least, the Colonies have been had a thousand yaren stalemate with the Cylons. The Cylons, as machines, are logical and linear thinkers. They've been unable to defeat the humans. They've won battles, hurt them certainly, but not win the war.
And I say at least because the Cylons must have been loosing the war to accept Baltar's proposition. If the Cylons were winning the war, why would they resort to the treachery of the 'Peace Conference'? Logically, if they're winning, they should have simply killed Baltar, an esteemed member of the Colonial Government, and let attrition or inevitibility or whatever take its course.
Cannon is a grey area when it comes to the battlestars themselves. We know there have been 12, some count as many as 15-16. We know the Pacifica has been lost, and she and Atlantia were newer battlestars in the fleet. How do we know they didn't replace the Belleorphon or the Pegasus or the Rycon? We don't.
So with human civilization relatively intact, (relatively because we don't know of past Cylon military action against the 12 planets that make up the Colonies themselves), I would say the humans weren't replacing the battlestars because they didn't have to. Look at the state of Colonial Civilzation. People in Serina's video are going about their business, getting ready to celebrate peace. It's not like they're on a 'Total War' economy, nothing produced that doesn't help the war effort, etc. They look like more like a civilization at peace not one fighting for it's life.
Further, battlestars are so powerful they don't need any escorts. If the Colonies were fighting for their lives, and it takes x amount of time to build a battlestar, wouldn't they have tried to build more in a 1000 yarhen? Or at least come up with a 1/2 battlestar that would take 1/2 * x to build and could take advantage of the economy of scale and be built not only faster but cheaper? And then use these 1/2 battlestars as escorts for the remaining battlestars, or as force multiplier to be able to bring more fighters and firepower into battle? Or a 1/3 battlestar? Or a 1/4?
Archangel, I don't know if I buy the Galactica suffering from metal fatigue. Even in the last century on this planet, warship lives consistently increased. With good maintenance, some lasted over 50 years, in hard service. I'd think a ship in space would much less subject to metal fatigue or any other kind of materail stress beyond combat, as opposed to a ship at sea that is constantly being flexed. That said, many warships are refitted, updated, rebuilt, modified, etc. to keep pace with changing technology. We see Pegasus using missiles, for example, but Galactica doesn't have them when she engages a base ship in Hand of God, relying exclusivly on lasers. She must have been updated at some point and had the missiles replaced.
Similarly, it was not uncommon in the age of sail to replace parts of a vessel as nature wore them away. The USS Constitution in Boston Harbor is 200 years old. Only about 3% of the ship there now was there when she was launched in 1798. Numerous rebuild have replaced parts of the ship as age took their course.
I'm not saying Galactica is as fresh as the day she was launched, but there are reasons she's not a pile of junk and/or hopelessly obsolete. Maintenace of anything is a key to prolonging its life. And we do know Galatica's crew is proud of there ship and thus probably very meticulous in their maintenace of her.
Regards,
Gunstar Aries
Eric Paddon
November 26th, 2004, 06:24 PM
It's hard to get a handle on whether things were going good or bad for the Colonies at the time of the Destruction, but I think one thing has to be certain. Commander Cain's loss two yahrens before certainly must have been a jolt to the overall state of Colonial morale regarding their ability to keep fighting and it could well be that because of that demoralized state within some areas of the Colonial government, a phony peace offering would have been more easily snatched than at any other point in time.
And one has to ask what kind of peace terms were being offered by the Cylons in the deal that wasn't? Were the Cylons ostensibly making concessions they had never done before? Had there ever been any other kind of negotiations in the past?
BST
November 26th, 2004, 07:04 PM
Another item never fully explored was the actual size and scope of the Cylon war machine. Whenever we encountered a Cylon stronghold, it was usually planetary based, Ice Planet Zero, Gamoray, Carillon. So, perhaps the Cylon baseships were relatively few in number and only used for specific campaigns. Then, they would seem to have only been used for troop movement - the Raiders and Cylon footsoldiers did all the work. The base ship would only be needed if a larger vessel, i.e., a battlestar, were encountered. Once the planet / system was secured, the baseship would receive new orders or return to the Cylon homeworld.
To illustrate, go back to the events at the Peace Conference, the Cylons accomplished the destruction of both the Fleet and the Colonies, with just 3 base ships. The overwhelming number of raiders and the element of surprise were the keys to their victory.
Given this scenario, I give credence to the possibility that the Colonies and the Cylons were of similar military strength in terms of Base Ships vs. Battlestars but, the Cylons had the edge in Raiders vs Vipers. Another item in the Cylons' favor was pilot replacability. It was more difficult to replace a human pilot as there were only a finite number of humans that had skills to fly a Viper. On the other hand, with the Cylons, you would seat a Centurion in a Raider, tell him to shoot this thing:
viper
...and he would say, "By your command".
Just some random thoughts from an otherwise cluttered mind.
BST
:)
martok2112
November 26th, 2004, 10:48 PM
Conjecture of the state of the Colonies or the Cylon war machine is a beautiful thing...and that is the nature of space fantasy.
We are simply asked to suspend disbelief about a given situation. The simplicity of the story has been laid before us. The Colonies are prepared to celebrate an armistice with an enemy they have fought for a thousand yahrens. We know generally little about the Cylons until they launch their devious and devastating assault on humanity.
Although we are fed just a tad more info about the TNS Cylons, the state of the Cylon Alliance, and the Colonial Fleet is subject to equivalent conjecture.
In either case, no matter how hard or soft the sci-fi aspect of either show, all they ask is one simple thing: Suspend disbelief. :)
That is what allows me to enjoy both Galacticas equally. (I am currently enjoying the awesome --if hastilly edited-- Mission Galactica: The Cylon Attack...probably the FINEST that the Classic Galactica had to offer.)
Respectfully,
Martok2112 (buzzed, and not sure if he made much sense)
Gunstar Aries
November 27th, 2004, 07:20 AM
Martok,
I agree, it is a lot of fun. One of the best things about Science Fiction. And I have to say, I like it when an author or creator leaves it to us to fill in some blanks. To swerve off topic for a short rant, this is what the old black-and-white Horror masters knew. Whatever your imagination could come up with was a helluva lot more scare than anything they could show you. What passes for modern horror, Jason, Freddie, Leatherface, and friends, is more gore than horror. OK, rant mode off.
BST,
One of the things left unsaid in the TOS is the extent to which the Colonies had destroyed the Cylon military machine. We know they sent the fighter with the tankers to the 'Peace Conference because they needed their base ships else where. Apollo estimates that they have 'maybe 1000'. A thousand Raiders would be about three base ships. Coincidentally, we see only three baseships attacking the Colonies. We know one battlestar isn't a match for three base ships (LL), and I suspect another reason Galactica didn't try to attack them with all their fighters occupied on the Colonies was Adama already had his survival of the race plan in mind. But lets say we didn't see all the base stars present. Maybe there were another three attacking the 'outer' Colonies. Even at twice the Cylon stregnth, that's still only six to face what were five Colonial battestars before the ambush. I rather like those odds, and I'm sure the Cylons don't. Hence the resorting to trechery instead of military superiority.
You're right about the Cylons frequently constructing bases, then polluting them with Raiders. So while they might have controlled a lot territory, I think it's very possible the Colonial Warriors might have destroyed an unhealthy (for them) portion of their fleet. Why don't the three basestars immediately start after Galactica after the Destruction of the Colonies? Perhaps they were withdrawn to defend the Cylon home world, or were involved in mopping up operations against other human outposts, like Borallis. Could be a result of their linear thinking, the plan is the fighters at Cymtar will destroy the Battlestars, the basestars will destory the Colonies then mop up the rest of humanity. With the Galactica escaping destruction, and getting away before the Cylons could catch her, perhaps their programming had them just following the plan...
Eric,
As I said to BST, we don't know how much the Colonies hurt the Cylons. We know the Fifth Fleet was lost, but we don't know how much of the Cylon 'Fleet' that engaged them was left afterward. Might have been a pyrrhic victory for the Cylons. Certainly no base star was in good enough shape to pursue the Pegasus. It could be they 'held the field' with a few badly damaged basestars, while the somewhat intact Pegasus escaped (my likely scenario, anyway.) If it were only a single damaged basestar, I think Cain would have destroyed it. Or perhaps there was only one but the fighters from several were still around causing Pegasus to withdraw. But the bottom line is no Cylon forces pursued Pegasus or if they did, they were not in sufficient strength to slow/catch/destroy her. Therefore I think the Fifth Fleet must have done quite a number on its Cylon opposition.
Great discussion, gents.
Regards,
G A
martok2112
November 27th, 2004, 08:31 AM
Martok,
I agree, it is a lot of fun. One of the best things about Science Fiction. And I have to say, I like it when an author or creator leaves it to us to fill in some blanks. To swerve off topic for a short rant, this is what the old black-and-white Horror masters knew. Whatever your imagination could come up with was a helluva lot more scare than anything they could show you. What passes for modern horror, Jason, Freddie, Leatherface, and friends, is more gore than horror. OK, rant mode off.
I entirely agree, Gunstar. And it seems that now, any movie that comes out that genuinely tries to be a horror film falls flat on its astrums because so many people have been desensitized to any sense of fear due to the graphic "chop a head off a minute" nature of Freddie, Jason, et al.
There is a saying among some directors that "Less is more" IIRC. Directors like Ridley Scott, when he made ALIEN in 1979, consciously kept the show's titular star in the dark, or off camera as much as possible. We rarely got to see the creature in its entirety. (The third and fourth movies of that series left little to the imagination about the creature, and became consistently gorrier.)
BST,
One of the things left unsaid in the TOS is the extent to which the Colonies had destroyed the Cylon military machine. We know they sent the fighter with the tankers to the 'Peace Conference because they needed their base ships else where. Apollo estimates that they have 'maybe 1000'. A thousand Raiders would be about three base ships. Coincidentally, we see only three baseships attacking the Colonies. We know one battlestar isn't a match for three base ships (LL), and I suspect another reason Galactica didn't try to attack them with all their fighters occupied on the Colonies was Adama already had his survival of the race plan in mind. But lets say we didn't see all the base stars present. Maybe there were another three attacking the 'outer' Colonies. Even at twice the Cylon stregnth, that's still only six to face what were five Colonial battestars before the ambush. I rather like those odds, and I'm sure the Cylons don't. Hence the resorting to trechery instead of military superiority.
You're right about the Cylons frequently constructing bases, then polluting them with Raiders. So while they might have controlled a lot territory, I think it's very possible the Colonial Warriors might have destroyed an unhealthy (for them) portion of their fleet. Why don't the three basestars immediately start after Galactica after the Destruction of the Colonies? Perhaps they were withdrawn to defend the Cylon home world, or were involved in mopping up operations against other human outposts, like Borallis. Could be a result of their linear thinking, the plan is the fighters at Cymtar will destroy the Battlestars, the basestars will destory the Colonies then mop up the rest of humanity. With the Galactica escaping destruction, and getting away before the Cylons could catch her, perhaps their programming had them just following the plan...
If three baseships can carry 1000 ships between them, then that is where I would have to force myself to "really" suspend disbelief. I would agree with the assessment that there were more baseships involved in the attack on the Fleets..baseships we did not see.
Assuming that a basestar is at least a mile in diameter, I doubt it could carry 333 fighters. Basestars and Battlestars have massive internal workings which would only allow so much room for launch/recovery/support bays for their carried craft. Personally, I do not believe a battlestar can carry more than 120. So, yes, if we go by this logic, there would have to have been more than just three baseships involved to deploy that many fighters. (And then at that, assuming Apollo's estimate was correct, the baeships only committed a partial number of their forces, because the rest of their fighters were dispatched to ravage the colonies.)
Now, to interject a little something from the new show, when the attack is being launched on the rag-tag fleet as they escape Ragnar Anchorage, Lt. Gaeta reports 72 Cylon raiders inbound. Although there are only two baseships (if I remember correctly) the number 72 would be consistent for a single basestar, assuming that it was a mile in length. (This is kind of in keeping with Star Wars' notion that an Imperial Star Destroyer --class I or II-- carries a wing of fighters...totaling 72 fighters, not counting various support craft like assault shuttles, etc.) Of course, this also assumes that ONLY a single basestar launched its fighters against the Galactica and the fleet.
I would agree that as far as the holocaust launched against the colonies in the new show is a little hard to swallow, simply because we do NOT see the Cylon forces present when they are attacking. All we see are nukes going off. (Did they deploy fighters? Were the baseships cloaked somehow? Did they cruise their nukes in from extreme range to avoid detection --like Boomer did with her Raptor-- and then fire up upon reentry into their intended targets?) The hows and whys of the holocaust in the new Battlestar Galactica are very vague at best...but I am hoping that perhaps we will see more in future episodes...some survivors with flashbacks.
Eric,
As I said to BST, we don't know how much the Colonies hurt the Cylons. We know the Fifth Fleet was lost, but we don't know how much of the Cylon 'Fleet' that engaged them was left afterward. Might have been a pyrrhic victory for the Cylons. Certainly no base star was in good enough shape to pursue the Pegasus. It could be they 'held the field' with a few badly damaged basestars, while the somewhat intact Pegasus escaped (my likely scenario, anyway.) If it were only a single damaged basestar, I think Cain would have destroyed it. Or perhaps there was only one but the fighters from several were still around causing Pegasus to withdraw. But the bottom line is no Cylon forces pursued Pegasus or if they did, they were not in sufficient strength to slow/catch/destroy her. Therefore I think the Fifth Fleet must have done quite a number on its Cylon opposition.
I would theorize that the Cylons actually assumed (as the ragtag fleet did) that the Pegasus perished along with the Fifth fleet.
However, if we go by the Pegasus crew's recounting of events, the Cylons would have to be scratching their tin domes trying to figure out where these mysterious fighter attacks on their fuel base were coming from. The Cylons had priority orders to focus on a rebel fleet escaping the destruction with a single battlestar shepherding them. This information (although unclear why to Commander Cain) gave him carte blanche to launch his hit and runs on Gammorray.
Now, let's assume (jeez, doing a lot of assuming lately :D ) that Cain only deploys a small fraction of his Silver Spar squadron, each and every time he launches a harrassing/pirating run against Gammorray or their tankers. This would be a good tactic if he can count on his pilots' high survival probability against greater odds, because that would force the Cylons to wonder how so few ships are able to inflict so much damage against a supposedly well fortified base. Cain, by hiding his numbers, can keep the Cylons guessing, and keep them from figuring out that there IS another battlestar out there. For Cain to deploy his full might would tip them off, and probably cause the Cylons to devote another contingent to hunt them down en masse.
Half-asleep when writing all this...so I am not sure if I made much sense.
Great discussion, gents.
Regards,
G A
Indeed....and again, welcome to the Fleets, Gunstar Aries.
Respectfully,
Martok2112
Eric Paddon
November 27th, 2004, 09:32 AM
"However, if we go by the Pegasus crew's recounting of events, the Cylons would have to be scratching their tin domes trying to figure out where these mysterious fighter attacks on their fuel base were coming from."
The base commander I think clearly never told any of the higher-ups in the Cylon chain of command, especially the Imperious Leader, that there was any such problem to begin with since he undoubtedly realized it meant he'd be "scavenged for spare parts."
martok2112
November 27th, 2004, 11:55 AM
"However, if we go by the Pegasus crew's recounting of events, the Cylons would have to be scratching their tin domes trying to figure out where these mysterious fighter attacks on their fuel base were coming from."
The base commander I think clearly never told any of the higher-ups in the Cylon chain of command, especially the Imperious Leader, that there was any such problem to begin with since he undoubtedly realized it meant he'd be "scavenged for spare parts."
True.
Gunstar Aries
November 28th, 2004, 07:34 AM
Martok,
In The Hand of God, Tigh says the basestar carries 300 fighters. (THoG is my favorite episode...)
At Gamoray when Pegasus is 'lost' for the second time, Baltar has three basestars, and Lucifer tells him there is the equivalent strength of another basestar on Gamoray.
I don't have a problem with a basestar carrying 300 fighters. Basestars are practically all landing bays anyway, and it isn't like the Centurions need personal or sleeping quarters or mess halls. Okay, maybe some repair shops, so we'll say maybe there as large as mess halls....
:)
You're right, another gray area (or grey for you B5 fans) is the capacity of a battlestar. IIRC, Galactica gets away from the Destruction of the Colonies with something like 70 fighters (67 sticks in my mind for some reason). Two thirds of her Vipers are gone, but she picks up more from the other battlestars that were lost at the ambush. Galactica's squadrons are organized into Red Squadron and Blue Squadron, though Starbuck is usually seen with a Red Squadron isignia and frequenly flies with Boomer and Starbuck, who wore Blue Squadron. So is one squadron about 35 Vipers?
From Pegasus we hear only of 'Silver Spar Suadron.' Does Pegasus have her Vipers organized into a single sqadron? Has she suffered enough losses that she has only squadron left, so all pilots are now in Silver Spar, like all the surviving Colonial pilots are amalgamated into Red and Blue on Galactica? Or does Pegasus have another squadron, but it's just not 'brought up in conversation' during the Living Legend? We do know Pegasus sends Silver spar to Galactica during the Battle of Gamoray. So where does this put Galactica at capacity-wise? 140 fighters (assuming all Pegasus Vipers are in 1 squadron)? 105 (assuming Pegasus has a second squadron of about 35 Vipers). Does she have a problem carrying so many? Is she over capacity with three (or four) squadrons worth of fighters?
As for Pegasus before encountering the Galactica, you may have something with Cain hiding his strength from the Cylons. Pirates are mentioned in "Saga of a Star World.' It's very likely there are human (or alien, for that matter) outcasts who acted as Pirates. Cain could have been trying to convince the Cylon's that he wasn't a Battlestar, but a Pirate force. I think it's plausible, especially after the Destruction of the Colonies. With the Cylon focus on Galactica, the 'pirates' afflicting Gamoray can be dealt with once the rag tag fleet is dealt with....
Eric has a good point about the Cylons at Molokay. They could have known Pegasus got away, but didn't report it, like Spectre in 'The Young Lords' exaggerated the uh, scope of the Empire's victory. In any case, whether Cylons were holding the field, stomping the humans or getting away with their lives, they didn't pursue the Pegasus.
My additional thoughts,
G A
repcisg
November 28th, 2004, 11:30 AM
Just thought I'd repost this.
Battlestars are BIG, Glen Larson asked John Dykstra to build a ship about a mile long. John Dykstra designed and built the Galactica on a scale of 1/960 (1 foot equals 960 feet) at 6 feet 4 inches, that makes her 6,080 feet long or one nautical mile in length. Books reporting the Galactica as being 2000 feet in length were written without consulting Dykstra or any of the production staff. Some fans have estimated her as being 4000 feet long, but these estimates are based on internal views, which were matt paintings, not done to scale, but rather what looked cool.
Based on the Dykstra’s scale the landing bays are 3,000 feet long, 720 feet wide and 315 feet high.
In total volume the center body contains a volume roughly equal to both landing bays combined, the head contains an equal volume of space.
It is important to remember, in 1978, details like this were not considered important. With the advent of VCR’s fans have been able to replay segments of films, extracting details and background information originally thrown in to add flavor to the over all story. These details were never intended to be a serious part of the story.
So pick your size.
A thought problem or simple exercise. At a scale of 1/960 a Viper (28 feet long by 16 feet wide) would be .35 (28/960*12) inches long by .2 (16/960*12) inches wide. The main landing deck would be 37.5 (3000/960*12) inches long and 9 (720/960*12) inches wide. The central landing strip down the center of the deck would be 4.5 inches wide. A 2.25 inch strip remains on either side, the outer edge will contain the launch tubes and the inner strip shops and storage. Because the landing bay is tapered at both ends, allow a setback from each end of about 4.5 inches.
If you want to play with the scale, you can make the deck bigger or the Viper and shuttle bigger. Just take the dimension and divide by the desired scale then multiply by 12. This will give the scale size in inches. For example a 3,000 foot long landing bay would be 3000/960 x 12 = 37.5 inches.
Make some miniature vipers, shuttles and conduct your own ops. See how many vipers you really could operate from just one deck. Then remember there should be one or two decks below and seven to eleven decks above. Throw in some elevators and things could get interesting.
As I recall a shuttle is 100 ft long, 40 ft wide and 50ft high, or there about.
If you don’t want to cut out tiny little vipers, cutout some paper squares, 1 inch by ¾ inch. This would be the space needed to park seven Vipers, four facing one way and three the other way. Or if you prefer an even simpler approach, a penny is a little larger than the space needed for five Vipers. Fifteen pennies equals 75 Vipers.
Just remember there are two (2) landing bays!
Have fun!
martok2112
November 28th, 2004, 11:32 AM
Gunstar,
Alll very good points. I need to be able to see Hand Of God again. Wow....if a basestar does indeed carry 300 fighters, then, well.....umm...... :yikes: YIKES!
Since I only sporadically get to view other episodes of Galactica, my memory is often shoddy about specifics of Galactica shows. (Until I get the boxed set, I need to do what I did when I wrote Dark Exodus, and start utilizing online source references to keep my facts straight.) :D
The number 67 rightly sticks out in your mind because that is what Flight Corporal Rigel reports to Col. Tigh in Saga when the fighters are returning from the Cylon ambush. (IIRC, she says : "67 fighters in all, sir. 25 of our own." )
Since Cain is somewhat of an elitist, I would assume too that he has organized all of his surviving fighters into a single squadron known as Silver Spar. (It is the only one we hear of...but he probably has several flights under that squadron in units we do not hear about: i.e., Silver Spar Alpha Flight, Silver Spar Beta Flight, etc)
I think Eric is correct also. It was probably something mentioned in the actual episode of "The Living Legend" that may have been edited out of the version I have which is "Mission Galactica: The Cylon Attack." (Eric, I realize you don't really like the novelizations of the episodes, but they do go into some considerable detail that I'd forgotten about until this was brought up, that the base commander tried to hide certain facts from the Imperious Leader, for fear of becoming scrap metal.)
Good discussion, everyone,
Respectfully,
Martok2112
martok2112
November 28th, 2004, 11:34 AM
Just thought I'd repost this.
Battlestars are BIG, Glen Larson asked John Dykstra to build a ship about a mile long. John Dykstra designed and built the Galactica on a scale of 1/960 (1 foot equals 960 feet) at 6 feet 4 inches, that makes her 6,080 feet long or one nautical mile in length. Books reporting the Galactica as being 2000 feet in length were written without consulting Dykstra or any of the production staff. Some fans have estimated her as being 4000 feet long, but these estimates are based on internal views, which were matt paintings, not done to scale, but rather what looked cool.
Based on the Dykstra’s scale the landing bays are 3,000 feet long, 720 feet wide and 315 feet high.
In total volume the center body contains a volume roughly equal to both landing bays combined, the head contains an equal volume of space.
It is important to remember, in 1978, details like this were not considered important. With the advent of VCR’s fans have been able to replay segments of films, extracting details and background information originally thrown in to add flavor to the over all story. These details were never intended to be a serious part of the story.
So pick your size.
A thought problem or simple exercise. At a scale of 1/960 a Viper (28 feet long by 16 feet wide) would be .35 (28/960*12) inches long by .2 (16/960*12) inches wide. The main landing deck would be 37.5 (3000/960*12) inches long and 9 (720/960*12) inches wide. The central landing strip down the center of the deck would be 4.5 inches wide. A 2.25 inch strip remains on either side, the outer edge will contain the launch tubes and the inner strip shops and storage. Because the landing bay is tapered at both ends, allow a setback from each end of about 4.5 inches.
If you want to play with the scale, you can make the deck bigger or the Viper and shuttle bigger. Just take the dimension and divide by the desired scale then multiply by 12. This will give the scale size in inches. For example a 3,000 foot long landing bay would be 3000/960 x 12 = 37.5 inches.
Make some miniature vipers, shuttles and conduct your own ops. See how many vipers you really could operate from just one deck. Then remember there should be one or two decks below and seven to eleven decks above. Throw in some elevators and things could get interesting.
As I recall a shuttle is 100 ft long, 40 ft wide and 50ft high, or there about.
If you don’t want to cut out tiny little vipers, cutout some paper squares, 1 inch by ¾ inch. This would be the space needed to park seven Vipers, four facing one way and three the other way. Or if you prefer an even simpler approach, a penny is a little larger than the space needed for five Vipers. Fifteen pennies equals 75 Vipers.
Just remember there are two (2) landing bays!
Have fun!
Wow...Rep, that's some serious figuring there. ;)
Well done :thumbsup:
Martok2112
Eric Paddon
November 28th, 2004, 11:49 AM
In "Hand Of God" not only does Tigh say that a baseship has 300 fighters, Adama then says later "You'll be outnumbered two to one" which suggests that the Galactica has in the vicinity of 150 fighters by this point.
The 67 number that Omega (not Rigel) reads off to Tigh in Saga I think should just be interepreted as a starting figure at that point in time. One would assume that more strays from other ships followed, and also vipers from ground based garrisons in the twelve worlds that never got a chance to get into action because of the sudden sneak attack.
repcisg
November 28th, 2004, 12:57 PM
Based on just the basic dimentions of the main deck of the landing bay, Battlestar should be able to handle about 600+ Vipers with little difficulty. Add to that about 500 shuttles and four 2400 man light infantry brigades and a Battlestar is one dangerous oppenent.
And that is a light load.
The Cylons have good reason to want the last Battlestar destroyed.
Gunstar Aries
November 29th, 2004, 04:33 PM
Eric,
Good point on that being a starting point...
repcisg,
I don't recall where, but I think in the novelization, there was upward of 200 Vipers that made it back. And I think the fleet numbered something like 2000 ships instead of just 220, but it's been so long since I read it, I don't recall exactly. Hopefully, someone with a copy at hand would weigh in...
I've read the various scale debates before; I like the big one myself. Makes the battlestar seem a much more menacing machine at a nautical mile instead of just a couple of supertanker in size. 600 isn't just a lot of Vipers, it's a lot of firepower as well. Really make her a ship to be reckoned with . Makes you wonder where a basestar would be then...
I can understand the height of the bays, especially with the Shuttles taking off from the open end instead of through a launch tube. Hmmm....That remind me. A viper doesn't necessarily need a launch tube. If a shuttle can take off that way, why can't a Viper? It would make sense if Galactica were overcapcity with Silver Spar to get them out that way in an emergency. Unless the Vipers are merely set upon a stand to for the launch tubes, in which more stands could be holding the third squadron so they could be ready for launch.....Hades, I don't know...
Well, after typing all that I must away. Still a great conversation....
Regards,
G A
jewels
November 29th, 2004, 08:05 PM
Gunstar,
I always thought the purpose of the tube was to control the blast from the turbos. Most likely the ship would be slid forward as the pilots did their preflights/warmed the engines. They'd enter the top of the tube. Then the bridge would tell them "launch when ready" and they'd hit the turbo to launch.
If the launch starts in the tube, you can have a blast door or a force field between the tube and the launch deck to deflect the blast out of the launch deck area (and likely out of the ship like a steam vent.)
Just a theory.
this thread has some great conversation. I've missed these sorts of threads! thanks whoever got the ball rolling this direction!
Jewels
Gemini1999
November 29th, 2004, 08:18 PM
Gunstar,
I always thought the purpose of the tube was to control the blast from the turbos. Most likely the ship would be slid forward as the pilots did their preflights/warmed the engines. They'd enter the top of the tube. Then the bridge would tell them "launch when ready" and they'd hit the turbo to launch.
If the launch starts in the tube, you can have a blast door or a force field between the tube and the launch deck to deflect the blast out of the launch deck area (and likely out of the ship like a steam vent.)
Julie -
It's interesting that you should bring this up.... I was watching an episode of TOS over the weekend and really started to look closely as to how Vipers are launched. I know that they are on a launching cradle of sorts when the pilots get in the ships, right? Well, right behind the Viper is some kind of "backstop" of sorts - I guess that is used to give the Viper something to push off against and also maybe a means to vector away the turbo blast when the ship takes off.
The one other thing that I also noticed is that the Viper appears to be on a "cradle platform" (we'll call it that) as it moves through the launch tube. Look closeley at the launch sequences from overhead and you'll see it. I guess that's how the entire process works from what I can see, but I got a question....
You know how the Viper lands on the flight deck from the rear of the bay, right? How do they get the Vipers from the landing bay to the launching bays and onto the launching cradles? From the way the cradle/track is configured, I don't see a way to just "wheel" the Viper into launch postion....
I imagine that some kind of "crane" or the Colonial equivalent is used, but I was just wondering what anyone else thought about it.
(By the way, I've never really looked at the show with this kind of detail, but it is fun talking about it!)
Best,
Bryan
BST
November 29th, 2004, 08:26 PM
How do they get the Vipers from the landing bay to the launching bays and onto the launching cradles?
Bryan,
Do you remember when Baltar's Raider was being brought out to the flight deck, in HOG? There was some sort of energy beam pulling it to the launch point. Maybe that is the method used to maneuver the Vipers from the landing bay to the launch tubes (and to the repair / maintenance areas, etc.)
:)
jewels
November 29th, 2004, 08:41 PM
Bryan,
Do you remember when Baltar's Raider was being brought out to the flight deck, in HOG? There was some sort of energy beam pulling it to the launch point. Maybe that is the method used to maneuver the Vipers from the landing bay to the launch tubes (and to the repair / maintenance areas, etc.)
:)
Wow, Pete! I've never noticed that!
Bryan, I wonder if the backstop couldn't move with the cradle then stop when the viper is completely in the tube (acting as something to sheild the bay from the blast), while the cradle moves with the viper on the launch rails as it launches. (Launch rails are seen in Man with 9 Lives when Chameleon fires the lasers into the launch tube.)
Jewels
martok2112
November 30th, 2004, 12:43 AM
That was something I liked about TNS too....as the Viper was loaded and set into launch position, you saw a blast deflector pop up behind its thrusters. :)
bsg1fan1975
November 30th, 2004, 03:46 AM
To my way of thinking the backstop behind the viper is similar to what the air craft carriers in the Navy use when they launch jets. It is plausible to say that the battlestar's bays have some sort of system to move the vipers back to their original launch area.
Gunstar Aries
November 30th, 2004, 06:15 AM
Jewels and Gemini1999,
Exactly what I was thinking, and in the landing bay area, they probably wouldn't want that kind of 'jetwash' throwing things around. But we do know Vipers can take off from an ordinary airfield, just like modern Navy Jets that can use a catapult or runway, (thanks for analogy, bsg1fan1975!).
Basically, I'm thinking anything a shuttle can do, a Viper can do, at least. So Viper taking off from the landing bay, using ordinary thrust instead of the turbos woudn't be traveling as fast a launchtube Viper, but as soon as it clear could hit the turbo... I guess it depends on how close the Cylons are at the point of launch. I wouldn't want to go out that way if they were swarming the Galactica, but if we had to intercept them at the Colonial Movers ship...
:salute:
BST, I bow to your superior memory!
Regareds,
GA
repcisg
November 30th, 2004, 10:27 AM
As I recall the Launch tubes were designed to lausnch the Vipers into space at combat speed and in combat formation. Instead of exiting the Bay low & slow.
BST
November 30th, 2004, 04:35 PM
:LOL:
GA,
Thanks. Something about that blue-beam stuck in my mind. I think it was the fact that I only associated that type of beam (tractor beam) with Star Trek. Maybe that was a little homage GL and crew gave to Trek.
Who knows?
:LOL:
BST
kingfish
November 30th, 2004, 05:29 PM
To my way of thinking the backstop behind the viper is similar to what the air craft carriers in the Navy use when they launch jets. It is plausible to say that the battlestar's bays have some sort of system to move the vipers back to their original launch area.
The Galactica was meant to be an aircraft carrier in space. As to the 67 figure. This is the final number after the battle at Simtar to be recovered. The Galactica then had to rely on the ragtag fleet to build replacements which were considered substandard. However great pilots could do miracles with the ships. Cain stated that he could never figure why they didn't send a full compliment of basestars to finish him at Gamorray. Something with a rebel fleet. However he couldn't crack the code. IMHO he didn't want to crack the code or did but decided to remain where he was knowing the Galactica and it's Commander Adama was heading his way. Cain smells victory. However Adama has other ideas and Cain is now subservient to Adama.
nextceo
November 30th, 2004, 11:07 PM
As far as TNS is concerned.... Any thoughts on Galactica's size and total viper complement. We know she only had the original complement of fighters in the museum (Mark II's), as the squadron of Mark VII's were destroyed, however we see Apollo in 33 and other Mark VII's in the fleet at the end of the mini... Any thoughts on the current Viper complement. I thought somewhere I read there are 3 raptors but I may be wrong.... :viper: :viper2:
bsg1fan1975
December 1st, 2004, 03:23 AM
Gunstar, thank you for your kind words. I know a little bit about the modern Navy and the way they launch jets as my hubby is in the Navy Reserves but he was regular Navy long before I met him. Yes, Kingfish you are correct. This was a feeble attempt on my part to give an anology between the show and something used in our modern military.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.