Battlestar Galactica: Blood & Chrome

[jollyreaper]

Wow. Just wow. You nerds are talking about ships instead of the content of the web series. How does it compare to BSG with its themes and social commentary? I haven't had time to watch past the first episode, so I would love to hear about something other than goddamn ships.

It's . . . by-the-numbers formulaic "action" sci-fi. The characters and plotlines, so far, are all out of the Standard Encyclopedia of Action Cliches, Volume IV: Fighters In SPAAAACE. Literally, there's nothing to talk about right now but the ships.

Watched tonight. Omg if only there were a way to agree with you to 11.

Production values, at least for the space stuff, squee. Writing? It's pain upon pain. Infinite schlock.

The writing here makes 300 look nuanced and thoughtful.

[jollyreaper]

I just found it odd that for 1.5 pages people are talking about ships instead of the story. But like I said, I haven't had time to catch up no the webisodes. That's why I wanted to know if it is at all comparable to nBSG. I'll watch the episodes soon.

The sad thing is that there's plenty of space for interesting discussion in the BSG premise. Man creating life, that new life rebelling against him, man as god, new life declaring man not god, destiny, fate, personal consequences, it's all there. But the writers just default to soap opera and action movie cliches.

No different from the Moore series. He is trying to tell a mystery without knowing a thing about what the mystery is. X-files made the same mistake.

Because the writing is naff and we know that going in, we watch for the pew-pew.

[the atom]

So you're saying when a single weapon does serious internal damage, and dozens of another weapon make orange flashes, that in some way the second inherits the power of the first? I thought it meant that the regular missiles were way weaker than 15kt nukes. Silly me!

A few buckled plates and a few fires that were easily dealt with by a push of a button constitutes 'serious internal damage'? I'm just saying that when a nuclear missile is a relatively minor issue that can be dealt with by venting some corridors and some minor repairs (they didn't have a dry dock or any way to repair any major damage at all remember?), logic tells us that the conventional missiles used against these wonder ships with the expectation of causing some damage probably have a little more bang then people are giving them credit for. Or have you already established a value based on 'orange flashes' or something?

I mean its fine and dandy because nBSG is 'realistic' whatever that means, but typical cylon missiles are not fit for purpose, because they suck turds at actually killing battlestars. It blew me away when they were just pinging off missile after missile at Galactica instead of just using their actual ship-killer missiles (which I'm sure there's a brilliant plot excuse for). It makes it doubly embarrassing because by contrast basestars pop like zits. I don't really see this as great evidence that the Galactica is amazingly tough. In particular, aren't similar or better ships regularly destroyed, even without being surrounded at point blank range by superior numbers?

I might be coming at this from an entirely different angle. What exactly are we comparing nBSG to when we say 'tough'? Nuclear weapons are pretty serious business, and as far as I'm aware the ability to take 15 kilotons of canned sunshine to the face and wander away with nothing more then the naval equivalent to hurt feelings is generally known as 'fucking magic' in this day and age, but compared to some of the more swanky franchises talked about around these parts, I'll agree that's unimpressive to the point of pity.

And no, the only time I believe that's happened was when the fleet docked at the shipyards was plastered by waves of nuclear missiles.

It's ALMOST as if there was a narrative imperative for the Galactica to always survive and a huge screaming fanbase who loved watching orange flashes of futility spark outside the ship.

But are you trying to suggest that Moore didn't establish a series of well-thought out technical specifications relating to starship capabilities prior to the launching of the series? Slander!

[CaptJodan]

I don't think there's any doubt that the Cylons used weapons that weren't nuclear yield the majority of the time. Obviously launching nukes is a big deal if they still use the "turn key" method of firing them.

In particular, aren't similar or better ships regularly destroyed, even without being surrounded at point blank range by superior numbers?

Such as? The colonial fleet was wiped out by author's fiat at the destruction of the colonies, and we don't ever see that battle. The surviving warships of that time didn't seem to go down easily (mainly just Galactica and Pegasus).

It's ALMOST as if there was a narrative imperative for the Galactica to always survive and a huge screaming fanbase who loved watching orange flashes of futility spark outside the ship.

Thing is, colonial warships, when we see them in battle, have consistently shown themselves to be unnaturally tough. Galactica certainly has that hero ship status, and the survivability is jacked up to 11, but Pegasus displayed considerable robustness too. It took 3 nukes in Captain's Hand and was still operational enough to fight, and eventually run. The ship was repaired without a spacedock. Later, with a vastly reduced crew compliment and no fighter cover, it was pelted into submission until crashing into basestars.

Osiris isn't a battlestar (at least in the traditional term). It's crew is light at best, it's design looks as if every vital system is horribly exposed. It's small and has a pretty small fighter compliment from the looks of things. It's a space submarine with a few fighters, and had no business going up against a basestar (outnumbered 10 to 1). Yet even this ship survived not only several hull breaches and remained functional for several minutes, but then rammed an enemy vessel and parts of it were still operational.

It blew me away when they were just pinging off missile after missile at Galactica instead of just using their actual ship-killer missiles (which I'm sure there's a brilliant plot excuse for).

Nope, no excuse for this. It's just stupid.

What exactly are we comparing nBSG to when we say 'tough'?

That's the key question here. You can go with the nuke example, but you can also go with a lot of the ramming that's been done. Galactica's entire skeletal support structure is falling apart and they still ram an asteroid base at flank speed, don't initially penetrate (the ship impacts, stops, then in a second effort punches through) and doesn't show much worse for wear in the process at the impact point. There wasn't even a noticeable hull breach.** So confident they were about the ship being able to take it that they packed their marines at the front end of the ship where the impact was going to occur. Osiris rams the basestar and at least holds together enough for people to still be alive aboard, for their to be power to run the lights and detonate the nukes, etc. Battlestar Archeron in the second episode was completely destroyed, yet somehow it's jump drives were still active that suggests a level of ludicrous redundancy or ruggedness. I don't think anyone is claiming that nBSG ships would necessarily hold up well against other scifi weapons, but the stresses involved in just slamming a multi-million or billion ton object into something else and have it survive mostly intact with many systems still functioning says a lot about it's structural strength. I don't think the fact that Cylon missiles are shit diminishes this fact.

**You can at least compare that performance to the Enterprise E and Scimitar performance in Nemesis, or general ramming in any ST series

[Stark]

Sorry I haven't watched much nBSG. Didn't a prequel or something show their fleet blown up PEARL HARBOUR STYLE? That suggested to me that the Cylons must have weapons that can reliably destroy battlestars (at least better than the stuff I saw in Exodus).

[Darksider]

Razor shows them trashing a bunch of Battlestars in drydock with what appear to be non-nuclear ordinance, at least there's no "flash" like you usually see when a Nuke goes off in nbsg.

[CaptJodan]

Razor shows them trashing a bunch of Battlestars in drydock with what appear to be non-nuclear ordinance, at least there's no "flash" like you usually see when a Nuke goes off in nbsg.

Not exactly a fair comparison. Hatches open, fuel supplies nearby, ordinance transfers, no defenses raised of any kind, no ECM (given how often Cylon missiles miss, including against Osiris at point blank range, either ECM is involved or their guidance system is piss poor, which would be ironic coming from Cylons), minimal crews aboard. It's not exactly a surprise that battlestars might blow up if damage isn't contained.

That's added to the fact that there were nukes involved in the strike against the shipyards.

Cain walks on the bridge. "What the hell hit us?"
XO: "Radiological alarm. Looks like nuclear detonation, multiple hits."

[Guardsman Bass]

I finally watched the most recent one. I liked it, although that "censored for Youtube" fade-to-black on the sex scene in the ski lodge was really obvious.

[the atom]

Razor shows them trashing a bunch of Battlestars in drydock with what appear to be non-nuclear ordinance, at least there's no "flash" like you usually see when a Nuke goes off in nbsg.

Eh..they sorta did away with the whole flash shebang when we see nukes used later in the series. The ones used against the Colony were just shown as gigantic explosions.

[Skylon]

I thought the most recent two were a dive, and that isn't saying much since we entered the realm of the characters being more visibly stupid and tactics took a turn for the really contrived. The ski lodge didn't seem all that secure, as all we saw were the Cylons hit one set of trip-wires and then suddenly at least three are in the place. Stock crazy soldier who had been holding the place himself, didn't seem to be doing all that well and Adama and co-pilot, rather than help the dude keep the building secure looked for the chick who is aimlessly wandering around. And apparently none of them have radios, or any way of communicating with each other which would have eliminated this entire "plot" from happening.

[CaptJodan]

I thought the most recent two were a dive, and that isn't saying much since we entered the realm of the characters being more visibly stupid and tactics took a turn for the really contrived. The ski lodge didn't seem all that secure, as all we saw were the Cylons hit one set of trip-wires and then suddenly at least three are in the place. Stock crazy soldier who had been holding the place himself, didn't seem to be doing all that well and Adama and co-pilot, rather than help the dude keep the building secure looked for the chick who is aimlessly wandering around. And apparently none of them have radios, or any way of communicating with each other which would have eliminated this entire "plot" from happening.

Pretty much. Also the "let's split up" meme, which always gets the heroes into sticky situations they don't need to be in. Given how many bullets it takes to take down a Cylon, you need concentrated firepower to ensure a kill, not splitting up, dividing your firepower and having no one watching your back.

This is why I am more interested in the tech. There's really nothing going on in this story but your standard action pieces and "it's a girl, I've gotta fuck her cause I'm horny" moments.

[the atom]

This is why I am more interested in the tech. There's really nothing going on in this story but your standard action pieces and "it's a girl, I've gotta fuck her cause I'm horny" moments.

You mean to say hotshot rookie pilot gets with the attractive scientist lady?! What a twist! And to think people call this series predictable...

[jollyreaper]

A paint by the numbers book is less predictable.

[Batman]

I rather think that was his point.

[jollyreaper]

I know, was agreeing.

[Themightytom]

So you're saying when a single weapon does serious internal damage, and dozens of another weapon make orange flashes, that in some way the second inherits the power of the first? I thought it meant that the regular missiles were way weaker than 15kt nukes. Silly me!

A few buckled plates and a few fires that were easily dealt with by a push of a button constitutes 'serious internal damage'? I'm just saying that when a nuclear missile is a relatively minor issue that can be dealt with by venting some corridors and some minor repairs (they didn't have a dry dock or any way to repair any major damage at all remember?), logic tells us that the conventional missiles used against these wonder ships with the expectation of causing some damage probably have a little more bang then people are giving them credit for. Or have you already established a value based on 'orange flashes' or something?

Sure I mean... in universe those buttons include venting hundreds of crew into space, but that's probably a decision made lightly.

Razor shows them trashing a bunch of Battlestars in drydock with what appear to be non-nuclear ordinance, at least there's no "flash" like you usually see when a Nuke goes off in nbsg.

Not exactly a fair comparison. Hatches open, fuel supplies nearby, ordinance transfers, no defenses raised of any kind, no ECM (given how often Cylon missiles miss, including against Osiris at point blank range, either ECM is involved or their guidance system is piss poor, which would be ironic coming from Cylons), minimal crews aboard. It's not exactly a surprise that battlestars might blow up if damage isn't contained.

That's added to the fact that there were nukes involved in the strike against the shipyards.

Cain walks on the bridge. "What the hell hit us?"
XO: "Radiological alarm. Looks like nuclear detonation, multiple hits."

She didn't exactly walk on the bridge, she dragged Shaw to her feet after her escort was incapacitated by shrapnel, and they took a ton of casualties, I think colonial tech has been shown to be very hardy as long as it is maintained or operated, but they've been pretty consistent in showing how easily you can get killed as well, at least in the bg series.

I have a problem with Adama shucking his flight gear during flight so that he can pull it back on while trying to dodge Cylons because that affects what I described above. I'm not expecting shakespearean plot, honestly, the formulaic aspect of this story is a relief after the reDICULOUS crap they pulledn in season 4, but I would prefer that the other elements presented carry it. The valkyrie in the background was kind of sloppy, the Osiris' over sub homage was a little too cheesy, the utter... utter lack of chemistry between the commander and her XO was laughable.

"Brace for contact my friend..."
"Um... get your fracking hand off my shoulder you're creepy and I'll die alone."

The convenience of the jump drive still spinning away... how is that thing still working when the Acheron's guts almost seem aged out, no burning fires, no smoldering metal, everything there seemed long dead. I would have bought maybe a flyover of centurions stomping around the hull, or some sparks, maybe a burning battlestar with a few vipers getting stomped, I dunno, the jump drive didn't seem like it should work in a battlestar that torn apart.

EVERYBODY DIES on the way down to the planet was not well done either, thrown in six raiders, not three, Adama and Coker already took out three by themselves... now they barely manage it with an escort? Way to make the others look like chumps, "Coker, I'm going home!" really? When he told you you had a son and you got those few minutes of character developemene,t it was just so we'd care when you died? We don't you jerk, kill more cylons!"

I didn't have a problem with the ski lodge, because I kept imagining it as a video game level, that is probably not a good reflection on the plot, because I'm already disengaged, but again, I'm liking the action element because they need to stay awaaaay from complicated plots.

Anyone who complains about the simplicity of plot can go watch Caprica

[CaptJodan]

She didn't exactly walk on the bridge, she dragged Shaw to her feet after her escort was incapacitated by shrapnel, and they took a ton of casualties, I think colonial tech has been shown to be very hardy as long as it is maintained or operated, but they've been pretty consistent in showing how easily you can get killed as well, at least in the bg series.

What the hell is this a retort to? Are you just nitpicking, or do you have a point to make?
1. Cain did walk on the bridge after the scene you describe. I wasn't describing the scene before because it wasn't relevant. Nor was walking on the bridge the point of my quoting the scene. She didn't run to the bridge, storm on the bridge, get thrown into the bridge. What verb would you have liked? Jesus.
2. Pegasus was well maintained and operated, though vulnerable because she was in dry dock. A warship not at it's full fighting strength in drydock? I guess that means colonial ships are easy to kill.
3. There was damage and casualties after multiple nuke hits. Yeah, I guess Colonial battlestars are made of paper then.
4. Ships not well maintained and operated can be killed easier than ships well maintained and operated. You don't say.

I actually provided examples of Colonial warship ruggedness. Since you seem to think that there are numerous examples of how easy colonial warships are killed when they are operational, perhaps you'll cite some.

The convenience of the jump drive still spinning away... how is that thing still working when the Acheron's guts almost seem aged out, no burning fires, no smoldering metal, everything there seemed long dead. I would have bought maybe a flyover of centurions stomping around the hull, or some sparks, maybe a burning battlestar with a few vipers getting stomped, I dunno, the jump drive didn't seem like it should work in a battlestar that torn apart.

I actually agree, it's largely set there just to have Adama have a gutsy flight through moving machinery to show off his mad skills. What the hell is even powering it? Regardless, it's there, and it still demonstrates obscene ruggedness, even though it's stupid as fuck.

EVERYBODY DIES on the way down to the planet was not well done either, thrown in six raiders, not three, Adama and Coker already took out three by themselves... now they barely manage it with an escort? Way to make the others look like chumps, "Coker, I'm going home!" really? When he told you you had a son and you got those few minutes of character developemene,t it was just so we'd care when you died? We don't you jerk, kill more cylons!"

It was so obvious when Coker told him about his family that he was going to bite it in the upcoming battle. I'd take some pride in calling that earlier, but as others have noted previously, the whole thing is painfully predictable. Not much of an accomplishment.

Anyone who complains about the simplicity of plot can go watch Caprica

Not that it's exactly Shakespeare either, but if I want decent BSG, I'll actually, I'll watch seasons 1 and 2 of nBSG. I'm actually watching Capirca now because I never got through all of it the first go around and in honor of B&C being shown, I felt I should since some of it is referenced in there. I don't think Caprica's plot is much more complex, it's just slow without explosions and with characters that are forced together by writer's fiat, with so many diverging narratives going on at once that I don't give a shit about any of them.

When nBSG worked, it worked because you had character moments, and moments of action. The action might impact a character in a certain way (Olympic carrier) which would cause ripples for that character down the line and impact how they reacted later on. B&C certainly has none of that and Caprica never really felt like BSG. The daily lives of gangsters and billionaires isn't what people tuned into when they wanted to watch BSG.

[Themightytom]

What the hell is this a retort to? Are you just nitpicking, or do you have a point to make?

yeah my point is cleverly hidden in plain sight.

Colonial tech is pretty hardy when it is well maintained. Nukes therefore, do plenty of damage, but battlestars can survive that damage and can still function. I don't think Colonial tech can just shrug off a nuke, but I don't think it's horrifically weak either.

1. Cain did walk on the bridge after the scene you describe. I wasn't describing the scene before because it wasn't relevant. Nor was walking on the bridge the point of my quoting the scene. She didn't run to the bridge, storm on the bridge, get thrown into the bridge. What verb would you have liked? Jesus.

Really? It wasn't relevant to describe the damage nukes did when you were trying to illustrate that nukes did the damage? o...k...

2. Pegasus was well maintained and operated, though vulnerable because she was in dry dock. A warship not at it's full fighting strength in drydock? I guess that means colonial ships are easy to kill.
3. There was damage and casualties after multiple nuke hits. Yeah, I guess Colonial battlestars are made of paper then.
4. Ships not well maintained and operated can be killed easier than ships well maintained and operated. You don't say.

Oh can the hysterics, you have a glorified view of Colonial durability.

I actually provided examples of Colonial warship ruggedness. Since you seem to think that there are numerous examples of how easy colonial warships are killed when they are operational, perhaps you'll cite some.

You provided an example of Cain receiving a report, I provided the example of the ruggedness by actually acknowledging that they take serious damage and keep fighting. I replied to the button pushing claim, because that step included the likely deaths of lots of people, they wouldn't make that decision lightly, it meant the ship was in danger, but capable of surviving it at a cost.

Not that it's exactly Shakespeare either, but if I want decent BSG, I'll actually, I'll watch seasons 1 and 2 of nBSG. I'm actually watching Capirca now because I never got through all of it the first go around and in honor of B&C being shown, I felt I should since some of it is referenced in there. I don't think Caprica's plot is much more complex, it's just slow without explosions and with characters that are forced together by writer's fiat, with so many diverging narratives going on at once that I don't give a shit about any of them.

I am confident you will see my point. Two roads diverged for the Battlestar Franchise, Craprica was the one NOT to go down. The religious complexity drones relentlessly on while one meaningless plot twist after another staggers the series on. Willy's fate was the icing on the cake, BUT once he and all of that bullshit was out of the way, the very last episode was not so bad.

When nBSG worked, it worked because you had character moments, and moments of action. The action might impact a character in a certain way (Olympic carrier) which would cause ripples for that character down the line and impact how they reacted later on. B&C certainly has none of that

and Caprica never really felt like BSG. The daily lives of gangsters and billionaires isn't what people tuned into when they wanted to watch BSG.[/quote]

Kind of? Babylon 5 managed to blend political intrigue, action, character building and even fictional culture into a well written story. BSG suffers from a lack of differentiation of mythos. The tribes all share basically the same beliefs so there's only the one religion. The writers get bored with it, and so does the audience, that affects the character depth. The characters most associated with religion were also the least consistently developed. Roslin's character was being utterly carried by Adama as a foil, half the series I just wanted them to kill her. Baltar stayed interesting only because it was fun watching him twist in the wind, but when head six was trying to convert him did it really change him? Starbuck was just... ugh.

I prefer the simplistic nature of Blood and Chrome, because I don't think you can do do convoluted archetypes very well in such a flat fictional setting. If the tribes were more diverse, it might help the character development, but I think it's a strength that they are sticking to a formula we know, because it's less offensive than when they try to be innovative and screw everything up.

[CaptJodan]

Really? It wasn't relevant to describe the damage nukes did when you were trying to illustrate that nukes did the damage? o...k...

It wasn't relevant to say she didn't just walk on the bridge (or CIC, if I'm to be accurate about it). She did just walk into CIC, after the events you describe. But those events weren't the main point of my referencing that scene. People made the claim that nukes weren't used at the shipyards, and my point was that they did use nukes. And then you come strolling in with "she didn't just walk into command, people were hurt too", which wasn't my point. No one claimed nukes couldn't damage battlestars.

Oh can the hysterics, you have a glorified view of Colonial durability.

Not in universe, I don't. We know from Captain's Hand that the Pegasus survives 3 nuclear strikes. We know she took "multiple hits" from the opening attack, whatever that means. We also know that the Colonials fired 4 nukes at the Resurrection hub. The hub didn't need 4 nukes to go boom, as after the first nuke it was already starting to break up. At most, 2 were probably needed, but the last two made sure the explosion was big enough to also destroy several nearby basestars from explosive effects, not direct hits. In universe, compared to their enemies, Battlestars are far more durable. This has been repeatedly shown.

You provided an example of Cain receiving a report, I provided the example of the ruggedness by actually acknowledging that they take serious damage and keep fighting. I replied to the button pushing claim, because that step included the likely deaths of lots of people, they wouldn't make that decision lightly, it meant the ship was in danger, but capable of surviving it at a cost.

And again, you missed the point of that quote. I was responding to Darksider not being sure if nukes were involved. No one claimed that colonial warships can't be destroyed, or that they can't be damaged by nukes. Thing is, most of the combat that takes place in nBSG is conventional, non nuclear weapons. A Battlestar fires its guns at a basestar, a basestar returns fire with conventional warheads. In a slugging match one on one with a modern battlestar, a basestar is fragile. Their conventional weapons against a battlestar are also fairly pithy, which Stark pointed out. They cause damage, but they need numerical superiority to take down a battlestar, at least 3 to 1 (Adama felt they could hold off 2 basestars in Exodus but not all 4, and Pegasus held off 3 basestars (destroying or severely damaging one) before repairing her drives, but probably would have been destroyed if she'd stayed.) In ramming and their ability to take nukes, Colonial ships seem far more robust.

I am confident you will see my point. Two roads diverged for the Battlestar Franchise, Craprica was the one NOT to go down. The religious complexity drones relentlessly on while one meaningless plot twist after another staggers the series on. Willy's fate was the icing on the cake, BUT once he and all of that bullshit was out of the way, the very last episode was not so bad.

I haven't gotten to the last episode yet. But yes, Caprica was probably what RDM more enjoyed doing, but it was not what most fans tuned into see when they wanted to see BSG.

Kind of? Babylon 5 managed to blend political intrigue, action, character building and even fictional culture into a well written story. BSG suffers from a lack of differentiation of mythos. The tribes all share basically the same beliefs so there's only the one religion. The writers get bored with it, and so does the audience, that affects the character depth. The characters most associated with religion were also the least consistently developed. Roslin's character was being utterly carried by Adama as a foil, half the series I just wanted them to kill her. Baltar stayed interesting only because it was fun watching him twist in the wind, but when head six was trying to convert him did it really change him? Starbuck was just... ugh.

BSG might well have suffered from not having the base of Caprica to draw upon when it was first started. Caprica does show the colonies to be somewhat different, if not cookie-cutter archetypes ("farmer gangster world, financial world, religious nutjob world"), and that could have further played into the tensions of the fleet during non-Cylon attacks. Babylon 5 blended things very well, but also highlights what I think was the main flaw of BSG. Not so much a lack of mythos with just a complete lack of direction. RDM had no roadmap on where he wanted to go with the series. But I feel I'm getting too close to the discussion in that other "why nBSG failed" thread.

I prefer the simplistic nature of Blood and Chrome, because I don't think you can do do convoluted archetypes very well in such a flat fictional setting. If the tribes were more diverse, it might help the character development, but I think it's a strength that they are sticking to a formula we know, because it's less offensive than when they try to be innovative and screw everything up.

The nBSG miniseries is largely considered by many to be a success. Comparing B&C with the entirety of nBSG seems unfair, because it was originally designed to serve as a pilot for another series. Looking at it from that point of view, and taking the miniseries on just it's own merit, we see a more complex story than one told in B&C. You had more character development from Baltar in the first 20 minutes of that series than you have for young Adama in all of B&C. B&C is just one battle sequence after another. Certainly the story has the potential to give us more than a string of action sequences, and the mini showed that a good story could come from a few hours. But I think the creators looked at the disaster that was Caprica and said "they want action, we'll give them action", and went with that, forgetting that they needed a plan for where they wanted to take this story and these characters, and forgetting that it takes more than action alone to make a good story.

[Themightytom]

It wasn't relevant to say she didn't just walk on the bridge (or CIC, if I'm to be accurate about it). She did just walk into CIC, after the events you describe. But those events weren't the main point of my referencing that scene. People made the claim that nukes weren't used at the shipyards, and my point was that they did use nukes. And then you come strolling in with "she didn't just walk into command, people were hurt too", which wasn't my point. No one claimed nukes couldn't damage battlestars.

No one claimed nukes couldn't damage battlestars, you responded to Darksider's comment

Razor shows them trashing a bunch of Battlestars in drydock with what appear to be non-nuclear ordinance, at least there's no "flash" like you usually see when a Nuke goes off in nbsg.

Darksider's comment was a clarification to Stark's

In particular, aren't similar or better ships regularly destroyed, even without being surrounded at point blank range by superior numbers?

It's ALMOST as if there was a narrative imperative for the Galactica to always survive and a huge screaming fanbase who loved watching orange flashes of futility spark outside the ship.

Stark is arguing, as far as I can tell after extracting hyperbole, that Colonial technology is not particularly rugged or durable, but rather the Cylon weapons are ineffectual and weak. Except Cylon weapons ARE effective at causing damage, the Colonial CREW within them generally happens to be well trained in controlling the damage that happens, and maintaining the ability of the ship.

It seems like you are countering with a glorified view of the hardiness of colonial technology, they don't just shrug off nukes, they're taking serious damage, they are just very resilient as long as the crew maintains control of the ship. Surprise is obviously a factor, but even so it wasn't being in drydock that made them vulnerable, it was the computer Virus, Pegasus was still able to escape and regroup because her computers were offline and her crew was able to get control of the situation, all the other ships in drydock, or even out of drydock were just blown to pieces. that's why i am arguing that the scene immediately before it is confirmed that they are throwing nukes is important as well. Sure, establish that they are using nukes, talk about the special effects but don't get lost on a sidebar.

Oh can the hysterics, you have a glorified view of Colonial durability.

Not in universe, I don't. We know from Captain's Hand that the Pegasus survives 3 nuclear strikes. We know she took "multiple hits" from the opening attack, whatever that means. We also know that the Colonials fired 4 nukes at the Resurrection hub. The hub didn't need 4 nukes to go boom, as after the first nuke it was already starting to break up. At most, 2 were probably needed, but the last two made sure the explosion was big enough to also destroy several nearby basestars from explosive effects, not direct hits. In universe, compared to their enemies, Battlestars are far more durable. This has been repeatedly shown. [/quote]

Sure it might seem that way if you discount the entire colonial fleet being wiped out in round one? the score is still in favor of the Cylons if that's how you want to measure it. I think it makes more sense to consider that Colonial Technology can be durable if the crew maintains control of it.

You provided an example of Cain receiving a report, I provided the example of the ruggedness by actually acknowledging that they take serious damage and keep fighting. I replied to the button pushing claim, because that step included the likely deaths of lots of people, they wouldn't make that decision lightly, it meant the ship was in danger, but capable of surviving it at a cost.

And again, you missed the point of that quote. I was responding to Darksider not being sure if nukes were involved. No one claimed that colonial warships can't be destroyed, or that they can't be damaged by nukes.

I didn't miss the point at all, Darksider was himself clarifying Stark's statement about

Sorry I haven't watched much nBSG. Didn't a prequel or something show their fleet blown up PEARL HARBOUR STYLE? That suggested to me that the Cylons must have weapons that can reliably destroy battlestars (at least better than the stuff I saw in Exodus).

You're arguing the NAME of the weapon rather than whether it can reliably destroy battlestars, do you understand that based on your argument, the Cylons shouldn't have been able to defeat the colonies? You're calling it writers fiat because you're not considering the role computers plays in managing a battlestar's damage control efforts, as well as their propulsion and ability to escape. Sure they couldn't fight back, but they couldn't escape either.

Thing is, most of the combat that takes place in nBSG is conventional, non nuclear weapons. A Battlestar fires its guns at a basestar, a basestar returns fire with conventional warheads. In a slugging match one on one with a modern battlestar, a basestar is fragile. Their conventional weapons against a battlestar are also fairly pithy, which Stark pointed out. They cause damage, but they need numerical superiority to take down a battlestar, at least 3 to 1 (Adama felt they could hold off 2 basestars in Exodus but not all 4, and Pegasus held off 3 basestars (destroying or severely damaging one) before repairing her drives, but probably would have been destroyed if she'd stayed.) In ramming and their ability to take nukes, Colonial ships seem far more robust.

Only if there's a crew to manage the results, the Pegasus did not survive her collission, the Osiris didn't collide directly, it skimmed along the top, and the galactica was all but evacuated in the first place and definitely wasn't going anywhere after she jumped, though arguably the jump probably had a lot to do with that.

BSG might well have suffered from not having the base of Caprica to draw upon when it was first started. Caprica does show the colonies to be somewhat different, if not cookie-cutter archetypes ("farmer gangster world, financial world, religious nutjob world"), and that could have further played into the tensions of the fleet during non-Cylon attacks. Babylon 5 blended things very well, but also highlights what I think was the main flaw of BSG. Not so much a lack of mythos with just a complete lack of direction. RDM had no roadmap on where he wanted to go with the series. But I feel I'm getting too close to the discussion in that other "why nBSG failed" thread.

I think that's valid, B &C has a very straightforward direction, while i attribute the lack of direction to lack of context, it could just as easily be the other way around.

The nBSG miniseries is largely considered by many to be a success. Comparing B&C with the entirety of nBSG seems unfair, because it was originally designed to serve as a pilot for another series.

Oh certainly, we're overanalyzing a pilot because it's coming out in fifteen minute increments, I am pretty sure that B &C will do well on scifi when aired at once.

[CaptJodan]

It seems like you are countering with a glorified view of the hardiness of colonial technology,

And I don't see how my declarations are out of line. Compared to their adversaries, colonial ships do seem particularly well built. Both ramming and nuclear effects bare this out in the series. Now, does this generally depend on the ships being in good condition? For the most part, yes, though Galactica's final mission shows particular effectiveness even when vastly undercrewed and badly maintained.

Stark is arguing, as far as I can tell after extracting hyperbole, that Colonial technology is not particularly rugged or durable, but rather the Cylon weapons are ineffectual and weak. Except Cylon weapons ARE effective at causing damage, the Colonial CREW within them generally happens to be well trained in controlling the damage that happens, and maintaining the ability of the ship.

But I think Stark has a point. Throw a few nukes at a battlestar, and you can either severely damage or completely destroy it, though not as quickly as a battlestar can rip through a basestar with heavy guns (as seen on Pegasus in Captain's Hand and Exodus). Pummel it with conventional missiles, and the Cylons seem vastly undergunned. I think differentiating between a nuke attack and a non-nuke attack is important because the amount of hits a battlestar can take is much different than those conventional pissy missiles.

Of course, it always comes back to what you consider rugged. In universe, yes I do ideologically believe that colonial ships are considerably more durable and rugged than their cylon counterparts. I think one might be able to argue that they seem more rugged than some Star Trek ships, at least when ramming, though that would take more analysis of Delta V and so forth that I'm not qualified to make.

Sure it might seem that way if you discount the entire colonial fleet being wiped out in round one? the score is still in favor of the Cylons if that's how you want to measure it. I think it makes more sense to consider that Colonial Technology can be durable if the crew maintains control of it.

Yes, I do measure colonial ship effectiveness based on the fact that their crew continues to control it. Just as I consider the effectiveness of Cylon basestars based on when they are working, not necessarily measuring their effectiveness on the damaged rebel basestar. The virus was the exception, not the rule.

You're arguing the NAME of the weapon rather than whether it can reliably destroy battlestars, do you understand that based on your argument, the Cylons shouldn't have been able to defeat the colonies?

I'm not sure what you mean by "arguing the name of the weapon" but yes I am making the distinction between nukes and non-nukes because it seems to make a difference in the series. Also, there's ample evidence to suggest that the Cylons might not have won against the colonies without the virus. It was the lynchpin in their plan (to attack the colonies, not the non-existent plan).

You're calling it writers fiat because you're not considering the role computers plays in managing a battlestar's damage control efforts, as well as their propulsion and ability to escape. Sure they couldn't fight back, but they couldn't escape either.

Yes, and then they are destroyed by nukes or even by conventional Cylon missiles, which was seen. But I fail to how a ship can be graded as non-robust and not rugged when it has been completely shut down to the point where the enemy can pummel it at will until it dies. It's just not a fair statement to make.

Only if there's a crew to manage the results, the Pegasus did not survive her collission, the Osiris didn't collide directly, it skimmed along the top, and the galactica was all but evacuated in the first place and definitely wasn't going anywhere after she jumped, though arguably the jump probably had a lot to do with that.

Pegasus definitely didn't survive the ramming, though she seemed to penetrate further into the basestar. The destruction mostly came from the reactor. Osiris didn't seem to penetrate the hull, but I think it's overall survival given what it did do was fairly impressive. I still think that much tons impacting like that and still having crew alive aboard and some systems still operational is impressive. Galactica's a case in the "is rugged" camp because it was undermanned and in disrepair, yet still survived being pummeled by conventional ordinance, then attacked by raiders, then jumping away and breaking her back, and in the end, life support and all 4 engines were still functioning...after the very bones of the ship had snapped.

[jollyreaper]

Plot invulnerability is the key here. If I went by WWII films, Americans are stronger than Germans and can take more damage. Note how the bad guy is killed with one shot but the hero takes a slug in the shoulder and muscles through.

Of course, if we model a story on something that actually happened then those are long odds but not impossible. Shot at and only got a flesh wound? It can happen. Shot down and walked away from the wreck? Possible. Captures by nazis and escaped? It can happen. Made it back across a hundred miles of defended territory? It has been done. The biographies of some people would be laughed right out of the fiction section.

What I can promise you is nobody on the BSG writing staff is pulling out Excel to figure out the odds on what they're selling. Personally, I would love continuity nods to have the model bear the scars of precious fights or so callbacks in engineering scenes. "We never got the port gadgets rewired after catching that nuke four months back. And now we've got additional damage from the boarding team. Not to mention those scrubbers haven't been overhauled since before the Fall."

Funny, Moore had specifically called out Voyager on having infinite shuttles.

[CaptJodan]

Plot invulnerability is the key here. If I went by WWII films, Americans are stronger than Germans and can take more damage. Note how the bad guy is killed with one shot but the hero takes a slug in the shoulder and muscles through.

Of course, if we model a story on something that actually happened then those are long odds but not impossible. Shot at and only got a flesh wound? It can happen. Shot down and walked away from the wreck? Possible. Captures by nazis and escaped? It can happen. Made it back across a hundred miles of defended territory? It has been done. The biographies of some people would be laughed right out of the fiction section.

What I can promise you is nobody on the BSG writing staff is pulling out Excel to figure out the odds on what they're selling. Personally, I would love continuity nods to have the model bear the scars of precious fights or so callbacks in engineering scenes. "We never got the port gadgets rewired after catching that nuke four months back. And now we've got additional damage from the boarding team. Not to mention those scrubbers haven't been overhauled since before the Fall."

Funny, Moore had specifically called out Voyager on having infinite shuttles.

To be fair, nBSG did do a better job of showing the scars of the ship than did Voyager, though the real scars didn't start to actually seem problematic until after they found nuked Earth. And in the early seasons they did talk about the problems getting replacement parts for vipers and having to scrap one to save others. They just dropped that after a while and went with "the ship is only as damaged as the plot". I had a hard time believing that the ship could jump even one more time, let alone twice, after it starting to groan and power flickered everywhere.

[Themightytom]

It seems like you are countering with a glorified view of the hardiness of colonial technology,

And I don't see how my declarations are out of line. Compared to their adversaries, colonial ships do seem particularly well built. Both ramming and nuclear effects bare this out in the series. Now, does this generally depend on the ships being in good condition? For the most part, yes, though Galactica's final mission shows particular effectiveness even when vastly undercrewed and badly maintained.

Galactica was very intentionally under crewed, they knew what they were going to do and prepared in advance. It was also not badly maintained at all, the Cylons had just finished fixing her ups ave for the structural issues that resulted from shoddy construction. you can have a shitty ford taurus that breaks down three times a day, that will keep driving forever if you keep an eye on it. It's the crew component that makes the difference. The human cylons don't wear UNIFORMS let alone pressure suits, and they've intentionally dumbed the centurions down to rely on them, that speaks to their ability to handle damage control. DC is overseen by the way by a barely lucid hybrid, there's no way to tell if they are particularly good at it.

These aren't even collisions on a level playing field, did you notice that the Cylon base star in Blood and Chrome ALSO survived the collision, it didn't even stop firing. The Pegasus out massed the first base ship it rammed, and given it's shape was better positioned to absorb impact, it's flight pod was a good chunk of the second base star's mass too, but just because they design their ships with lots o spindly arms doesn't mean that's the reason the Colonial's have better survivability.

But I think Stark has a point. Throw a few nukes at a battlestar, and you can either severely damage or completely destroy it, though not as quickly as a battlestar can rip through a basestar with heavy guns (as seen on Pegasus in Captain's Hand and Exodus). Pummel it with conventional missiles, and the Cylons seem vastly undergunned. I think differentiating between a nuke attack and a non-nuke attack is important because the amount of hits a battlestar can take is much different than those conventional pissy missiles.

We have a counter example in Resurrection Ship, that was not a battlestar ripping through a base star that was a pitched battle, and while we saw explosions in Exodus are you really ready to claim taht abse star was destroyed, or just damaged. Those examples are both specific to the Mercury class as well, we haven't seen the Valkyrie pull that off, nor the Osiris, not even Galactica. Claiming that the Colonials are hardy because the Cylons are weak by comparison isn't a solid comparison.

Of course, it always comes back to what you consider rugged. In universe, yes I do ideologically believe that colonial ships are considerably more durable and rugged than their cylon counterparts. I think one might be able to argue that they seem more rugged than some Star Trek ships, at least when ramming, though that would take more analysis of Delta V and so forth that I'm not qualified to make.

They certainly look tougher, and I can see benefits to their compartmentalization, but with ST ships, it's more all or nothing, sure the life support is offline when Worf sneezes, but Data reroutes it through Wesley's console and everything's fine. BSG has a shit ton of guys running around with wrenches doing all of that. ST might break OR get back on it's feet faster, but BSG has more redundancy. We really can't compare beyond engineering philosophies though because the materials, weapons and even design priorities are totally different.

Yes, I do measure colonial ship effectiveness based on the fact that their crew continues to control it. Just as I consider the effectiveness of Cylon basestars based on when they are working, not necessarily measuring their effectiveness on the damaged rebel basestar. The virus was the exception, not the rule.

No it was definitely the rule, as it managed to take out the vast majority of the Colonial fleet, that was a systematic flaw that won the day.

I'm not sure what you mean by "arguing the name of the weapon" but yes I am making the distinction between nukes and non-nukes because it seems to make a difference in the series. Also, there's ample evidence to suggest that the Cylons might not have won against the colonies without the virus. It was the lynchpin in their plan (to attack the colonies, not the non-existent plan).

Why it makes a difference is important. Tigh referenced radiation right in the miniseries, and radiation treatment meds are standard in a raptor emergency kit, I think there's a pretty good case that while the explosive output of the nukes may or may not be higher, the Colonials are really worried about fall out. You might survive the attack but if your ship is radioactive, you're still screwed. The nukes seem really weak though I'd be surprised if they were that much more efective than what we see Pegasus' giant guns of doom do.

Yes, and then they are destroyed by nukes or even by conventional Cylon missiles, which was seen. But I fail to how a ship can be graded as non-robust and not rugged when it has been completely shut down to the point where the enemy can pummel it at will until it dies. It's just not a fair statement to make.

Well there could be a difference in opinion here, I think if something is rugged or robus it should be inherently sturdy, which is not how I would describe Battlestars, they have massive crews to keep them working.

Pegasus definitely didn't survive the ramming, though she seemed to penetrate further into the basestar. The destruction mostly came from the reactor. Osiris didn't seem to penetrate the hull, but I think it's overall survival given what it did do was fairly impressive. I still think that much tons impacting like that and still having crew alive aboard and some systems still operational is impressive. Galactica's a case in the "is rugged" camp because it was undermanned and in disrepair, yet still survived being pummeled by conventional ordinance, then attacked by raiders, then jumping away and breaking her back, and in the end, life support and all 4 engines were still functioning...after the very bones of the ship had snapped.

The Galactica didn't survive for that long, Sam turned off the Hybrid pretty fast, and Starbuck jumped them out pretty quickly as well, I think it was clear the galactica wasn't going to survive much. The Raiders were being held at bay by the vipers. The Galactica was broken accross, not lengthwise, and even though the structural members were cracked, the decks themselves could have been keeping her together, just not enough to do much more then plow forward in a straight line. The engine casings look self contained and reinforced.

I think it's fair to say that with the intel he had, Adama knew what he was doing, and did it on purpose. He had volunteers checking in from all over the ship, it might have been undermanned, but not for his purposes. They had enough soldiers to hold back Cylon boarding parties, provide medical care, and even fly vipers and raptors, it's not a stretch to believe he knew how to crash the ship, what was likely to break first, what areas to seal off, and what areas to use as bunkers.

The Colonials have plans procedures, and backups for EVERYTHING.

[jollyreaper]

To be fair, nBSG did do a better job of showing the scars of the ship than did Voyager, though the real scars didn't start to actually seem problematic until after they found nuked Earth. And in the early seasons they did talk about the problems getting replacement parts for vipers and having to scrap one to save others. They just dropped that after a while and went with "the ship is only as damaged as the plot". I had a hard time believing that the ship could jump even one more time, let alone twice, after it starting to groan and power flickered everywhere.

[/quote]

I would have liked to have seen where the show of season 1 and 2 went if they'd had a plan and followed along the lines of what we had been seeing. Given the definitions, technobabble may be factual and true while at the same time too much detail. When done well, it conveys authoritative knowledge to the casual audience member while one with more familiarity will be impressed with the accuracy. In Apollo 13, half the dialog is technobabble but I could follow along with some of it.

Treknobabble is completely inexcusable. I like the wikipedia definition: "quasi-scientific solutions to dramatic problems." I've always hated that. Instead of the means of characters driving the story, they become the story itself. Instead of a character doing something concrete, he's just waving a tricorder or a sonic screwdriver and we don't even understand what's going on because the problem is made of bullshit and resolved with bullshit.