Talk:Battlestar Galactica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Academic analysis[edit]

It would be nice to extend that section of the article: it only lists a pair of references, without any description of the thesis stated by the academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.84.252 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facts[edit]

The article states that the "franchise began with the original television series in 1978". I seem to recall as a child that there was a theatrically released movie before the TV series. Perhaps this needs to be fact checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.188.99 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Starbuck ?[edit]

There are still many unanswered questions about BattleStar Galatica that Glen A. Larson needs to sort out. I,e What happened to Starbuck when she died and returned from the dead? How did she get that new fighter? Where did she go? Who is she? Another 2 hour TV movie here.. and I can think of a dozen other things that need to be sorted out in the BattleStar Galatica series. - Lenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.28.79 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually resolved, and was tied into a plot device from TOS that isn't actually seen in the reimaging. If you really want to know, go find a "ROT13 decoding page" and paste this in: Fgneohpx jnf na natry, jbexvat sbe gur Fuvc bs Yvtugf. Na rkgenqvzrafvbany orvat yvxr Wbua jnf va GBF rcvfbqr Rkcrevzrag va Green. Gung vf jul fur jnf noyr gb whfg qvfnccrne va gur svany rcvfbqr. Markvs88 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing up series and producers. Glen Larson made the original series (and hates the new series), I think you mean Ron D. Moore/David Eick. ;) But who knows, maybe in another movie. --Marlisda (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==Lucas Suit?== oxford dictionary translation of the 40's"science fiction is science based on evidence yet to be prooven"

What the result was of the Lucas suit against BG's producers. Comments by the actors on the Region 1 DVD of the complete series seem to indicate it was settled with BG agreeing to make certain adjustments to the show, but since the commentary was recorded 25 years after the fact that could be just a guess. Anyone know? Ellsworth 17:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The lawsuit was dismissed by the judge as being "without merit" in 1980. See: http://www.brian-oshaughnessy.com/scifi/Battlestar-Galactica.html (and search text for "Lucas"). User:BillCook October 5, 2004

Hmm, the link you put directs to a fansite which doesn't contain any source citations. So if someone can come up with another source I'd say this could still be open to debate.

However, the fansite's point that BG's biggest rip-off of Lucas was that they were ripping off his being a rip-off, is well taken. Lucas brazenly stole from Tolkien, Kurosawa, Leni Riefenstahl and the list goes on for days. Ellsworth 22:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can actually find numerous articles, both recently written, and also written at the time scanned in from magazines, regarding the Lucas lawsuit at the following sites:

Jjrakman 20:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I saw a television documentary on BattleStar Galactica years ago, long before the new version came out. It mentioned they agreed that the guns would not fire lasers, they instead just having their puff of smoke or whatever it is they did. One of the things they sued over was Starbuck being too Han Solo like, but the creator said the character of the lovable rogue was used in many series for decades. It is odd that since Lucas got so many ideas from differant sources, someone then sued them for something so idiotic.

Dream Focus 23:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had the chance to talk to some of the key players Howard Kazanjian who lead the law suit for Lucasfilm and Richard Edlund who was in charge of filming the miniatures. It was one big mess. Companies sueing each other back and forth. The only ones that won were the lawyers, cashing thier big paychecks. Supposedly Glen Larson made agreements with George Lucas/Gary Kurtz in the use of ILM (concept artist, like Ralph McQuarrie and Joe Johnston and the technical team, with John Dykstra, Richard Edlund, Dennis Muren, Grant McCune and his model builders). Lucasfilm/Fox didn't want to break up the team after Star Wars: A New Hope and borrowing them out to Universal/ABC for Battlestar Galactica would perfectly bridge the period between A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back.
Problem was that Glen Larson, did EXACTLY what ABC asked him: he made Star Wars for TV, "forgetting" all he had agreed upon not to do so there wouldn't be copyright infringement. It's hard to avoid: you have the same creative people and ask to do "something similar". Larson commented once that it's like comparing two westerns and say they're similar. Nowadays when a laser pistol is fired and you see a streak of light, nobody will say: Hey, they stole that from Star Wars! Due to the fact that it was made shortly after Star Wars and by the same team, it looks very much the same (even on 34 points according the law suit).
Richard Edlund said that battlestar Galactica was merely a good learning experience after Star Wars: A New Hope and never was bothered by the copyright infringement problems. He said, they taught themselves new techniques on Star Wars: A New Hope, they perfected them on Battlestar Galactica and mastered them in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. He went as far as in stating that Star Wars: The Empire Strikes back wouldn't have been as good effects wise if Battlestar Galactica hadn't come along.

--Marlisda (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

battlestar galactica and playboy[edit]

i was wondering if anybody out there is able to let me know in which magazine (name and volume/date) that a cylon centurion suit appeared in a playboy or penthouse layout next to a beautiful naked woman, as if to suggest that the naked woman was the cylon in a suit. you can reach me at ryandaveking@yahoo.ca it would answer a question i've had for about twenty years. i had seen it as a young man but cant remember in which publication or what year exactly. 70.83.94.79 (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not where you should be asking questions like this. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions related to the improvement of this article. Please look elsewhere for an answer to this question. — Val42 (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is exactly the problem I've been finding with Wikipedia in general the last couple years. Information that many would logically assume be located here, including trivia, is often frowned upon by the higher ups for whatever reason. Meaning that a lot of people are going to be turned away by the limited amount of information actually contained in the articles. I myself would love to hear more about the controversial opinions between fans of the old and new series. However, everything I've looked through here seems to try and avoid that subject with a ten foot pole, and the one person who was offering links to sites about this subject has been repeatedly turned away. I think Wikipedia needs to start recognizing that it is missing a lot of information. The amount of trivia and otherwise interesting information on Wikipedia pales in comparison to other wiki-esque sites like the Homestar Runner wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.138.115 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Western[edit]

What's the rationale behind putting this article in the Category:Space Westerns?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original series, especially the epsiodes The Lost Warrior and The Magnificent Warriors. 121.217.160.245 (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Caving In to Leftist Politics Destroy a "Gritty, Intelligent, and Pensive" TV Show?[edit]

Commentators like Jonah Goldberg have complained that the creators' eventual caving in to leftist politics led to the destruction of what was originally a "gritty, intelligent, and pensive" television show. See How Politics Destroyed a Great TV Show by Jonah Goldberg. Asteriks (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books[edit]

Is there a reason the books arn't covered on this page? There are comic books listed, I don't know why other print materials wouldn't also be covered. Centerone (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask the same thing. 121.217.160.245 (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The header in the book section mentions academic analysis, but there were no academic analysis books mentioned specifically in the underlying lists. I added one (the somewhat-dubiously-edited So Say We All by Richard Hatch, which like it or not does include some academic analysis), but it'd be great to see others. And if this one seems inappropriate and we can't find others, maybe we should remove "academic analysis" from the section head. Chuckcage (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Google Curiosity[edit]

If you google "wikipedia battlestar galactica" the description under the link is pranked somehow: "Battlestar Galactica is a homosexually oriented show American science fiction franchise created by Glen A. Larson an open homosexual. ..."

This is outside my limited knowledge of wiki-editing, but I suspect it ought be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.205.96 (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much Factual Information Deleted[edit]

Like many Wikipedia articles, this one has been heavily censored and turned into something akin to a fansite. Critical comments have been removed so that they entry is not accurate. For example, nothing is said about how BSG (reimaged) had rating difficulties and although it attracted a loyal following, it saw its rating diminish rather continuously. Nothing is said about the controversy over how the SyFy channel moved it around the TV schedule in order to boost its ratings. And nothing is said about the 'curious' way it was cancelled and the fact that some say it was cancelled (including many of its cast) whereas many fans insist this wasn't the case.

The entry also says the show received "critical acclaim". However, it completely ignores the real story: how the show was consistently denied mainstream awards. It finished its run without winning a single major Emmy or BAFTA award. It's cast were similarly ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.68.66 (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What's also missing is the criticism the new series generated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.153.175 (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...feel free to add any of that in (with valid citations, of course). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon/LDS based[edit]

Why is there no mention that the show is based on mormon/LDS theology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.149.230 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that this IS the basis for the show? Ckruschke (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
To the threadstarter, if this is just another one of those rants, it's be appreciated if you stop right away because we don't allow FORUM discussions here. Thank you! --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

¶ There are hints, only mere hints, of Mormon theology in the 1978 series. The good guys are refugees from the Planet Kobal (or maybe it was Cobol - a computer programming language then popular), and Mormon theology speaks of God's base of operations as a planet named Kolab. There was a council of Twelve, a lost tribe that had migrated across the galaxy much as the Book of Mormon talks about about a Biblical lost tribe that migrated to the Americas, etc. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movie omissions[edit]

The lack of information on this page is baffling. Like most Americans, I saw the initial movie - and not any of the early TV episodes. It is beyond bizarre that fanatics have removed all movie information from this page, leaving the only mention of some future (2014) movie. As of right now, no link exists at all on this page, to the original 1978 movie - despite the fact that this page title most reasonably should be about the initial movie, with the TV series as an ancillary page, IMHO. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the first main section, Battlestar Galactica#Battlestar Galactica (1978), it states: "A shortened version of the three-hour pilot, Saga of a Star World, was screened in Canadian theaters (before the TV series was telecast) and in American and European theaters later on." That's the movie you're referring to. There's more coverage of the cinematic version at Saga of a Star World. - BilCat (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle of history[edit]

There seem to be continued references to a time loop, where events about to happen are already remembered. Is this theme discussed anywhere.

Thepigdog (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-imagine?[edit]

I think that "re-imagine" is a marketing term. Re-imagine is forwarded to Remake, which does not even mention re-imagine. Two of the first three dictionaries found on Google have no entry for "re-imagine". It's a marketing term, not in wide use, and should thus be avoided in Wikipedia.

If you disagree, could you please describe what the difference is between "remake" and "re-imagine"?84.170.91.185 (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "re-imagine" is sometimes used in connection with BG, because it's a marketing term for BG. To show that it is indeed a valid expression in the English language, one had to show that the term was used in connection with other media.84.170.91.185 (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battlestar Galactica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

grammatical[edit]

Under "Cinema Releases," the second sentence is contradictory: "Both" conflicts with "respectively." Since the two series were not mixed in the movies, "Both" should be deleted, and maybe a comma before "respectively." thanks.ProfessorAndro (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battlestar Galactica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battlestar Galactica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Battlestar Galactica for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Battlestar Galactica is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Battlestar Galactica (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Kobol into Battlestar Galactica[edit]

This is more of a redirect proposal than a merge proposal. It appears to be one of those stupidly contentious AfD topics despite the article not having been improved after either AfD. The entire article is full of plot information or otherwise trivial information. TTN (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cost[edit]

Only one place in the article mentions anything about the dollar cost to produce the series --- "cost overruns."

I think it's a great disservice not to mention an actual dollar amount.

If I'm not mistaken, an article that appeared in TV Guide at the time stated that each episode of the '78-'79 series cost over 1 million dollars to produce --- mostly due to the sets and special effects.

Thoughts? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Battlestar Galactica franchise as a whole, and should not cover any of the individual series in too much detail. The details on costs per episode should already be in the series articles, if they are published in reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sagittaron" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sagittaron and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Sagittaron until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cubit (currency)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cubit (currency) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Cubit (currency) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Battlestar Galactica (2020 TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Battlestar Galactica (2020 TV series) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Battlestar Galactica (2020 TV series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Destruction of the Twelve Colonies" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Destruction of the Twelve Colonies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Destruction of the Twelve Colonies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Battlestar+Galactica" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Battlestar+Galactica and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Battlestar+Galactica until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battlestar_Galactica&oldid=1194316721"