Talk:Battlestar Galactica (miniseries)

Plot section is terrible
The latest version of this article' plot is really bad. It's like a plot summery not a Plot. I know "a scene by scene" description is bad too, but this version leaves out half of what happened. Examples: there is no mention of the Armistice station and what happened in the opening scenes of the series. It just goes straight into a sneak attack on the colonies. There is no mention of the fact that they went to Ragnar Anchorage not Ragnar to restock their ordinance. The article reads like they just went there to hide in the gas giant from the Cylons. In fact Ragnar Anchorage isn't even mentioned (only Ragnar is). The fact that there is a Ragnar Anchorage page yet the Anchorage is not even mentioned is wrong. The events with Adama and Leoben on the station are not mentioned nor is Lee's supposed death. Yes, the article should flow, but it's not a "greatest hits" of what happened in the miniseries it's a plot section. Again, I'm NOT saying it should be written like a script. "Starbuck insults Tigh's wife and Tigh flips over the table" That would be too much. But I think every piece of the plot should be mentioned. I haven't read this article in a long time and I was shocked at how basic and actually inaccurate it has become. It's thin. I call for a total rewrite. What do you think? I'll do it but I wanted to discuss it first.DingoateMyBabyyy 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DingoateMyBabyyy (talk • contribs)
 * And another thing: should the plot synopsis be split into Ep1 and Ep2? -Anon

airdates
The air dates for the UK and US under the 'Miniseries air dates' and 'List of episodes' headings appear to be transposed ... Lee Elms 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Please be more specific. -- Run!  12:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Ragnar Anchorage
merge

Given that Ragnar Anchorage only ever makes an appearance in this miniseries, I can't see any reason why it can't be merged here. Much of the information on the Ragnar Anchorage article appears to be redundant, speculation, etc. anyway (I'll go into that in more detail if requested). -- Run! 12:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove merge templates without even making a comment, Xornok. If you want to oppose the merge, form an argument against it and post it here. -- Run!  10:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ragnar Anchorage is mentioned in passing several times in the TV series. I don't see much reason to merge it here since the miniseries and series are parts of a same canon. In worst case it will be featured again during Season 3 (I'm assuming it isn't in Season 2, which I have not seen yet) and we need to separate it again. I'm not opposed to trimming any fan speculation etc., maybe do that first and then see if there is enough text to warrant a separate article. jni 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in passing, yes, but such mentionings don't give any extra detail. Everything that can be said about Ragnar Anchorage can be said in this article, because the miniseries is where it is featured and where everything to do with it happens. It could be featured in series 3 but by no means is that a good reason to hang on to the article - if, indeed, it does reappear in the series, then the article can be recreated with no trouble at all (by reverting the redirect). I'll start trimming the article anyway, just to see what happens (initially I avoided it thinking it wouldn't be worth the time). -- Run!  10:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the article again, there is only a single sentence which describes what the Anchorage actually is. Everything else in that article details events that happen in the miniseries. I don't see any reason for repeating all this information. -- Run!  10:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree for reasons mentioned above, as a location in Battlestar Galactica little infomation is provided, the article just details events that occur there, and a lot of this is duplicated elsewhere. Very little information is provided in the series or miniseries to add to what is already covered here. In the unlikely event that it is refered to in more detail in upcoming series the article can be recreated.Provider uk 17:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to issue support for the merger, there is little information contained within this article which is not stated in the main mini series page.

Very sloppy written article
The plot summary of the mini-series needs to be cleaned up. It's too point-by-point in my opinion, and needs to be upgraded to a higher writing standard. --LifeStar 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As a story it's a bit shit, but it covers most of the events in a concise manner. Too much detail (or "passion") and it might get a bit crufty. That said, a few bits could do with expanding/explaining. I will probably return to it in a few weeks. -- Run!  21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article
I believe it might be a good idea to add a year number to the name of this article. There are just to many programs with the same name. Something like Battlestar Galactica (2003 TV program). What do you think? --84.178.93.205 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Battlestar Galactica (TV program) to Battlestar Galactica (TV miniseries)
move


 * move per WP naming conventions
 * 132.205.44.134 02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The DVD is entitled The Miniseries, how much clearer can you be?

Survey

 * Support. --Usgnus 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The move to "(TV program)" seems to have been done without consensus anyway. -- Fru1tbat 13:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * DONE. This should never have been moved in the first place. The person who performed the move clearly didn't understand the naming conventions properly. -- Scjessey 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ragnar = Ragnarok?!?
Is there evidence for the assertion in the trivia section that Ragnar is a reference to Ragnarok? Ragnar is a fairly common Norse name, isn't it? Applejuicefool 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Very common, or reasonably common anyway - but derived from the same lexical root(s) (whatever they are). A lot of the names had symbolic allusions - Ellen is Helen (of Troy), Gaius (Gaius Julius Ceasar, also Gaius Caligula, i.e. a Roman imperial-style name), Hera and Athena as Greek goddesses (in the original with Hera as Athena's sort-of-mother - Athena sprang from Zeus' brow, the original "immaculate conception"), Cavil (see Wiktionary "to cavile")....Helo for "holy"; if you go looking for meaning in Sam's name you'll probably find it, too....but bear in mind if Ragnar had been mamed Ingmar, Bergman comparisons woudl be being drawn, if he'd been Werner it would be Fassbinder....etc etc.  scriptwriters leave no stone (and no name) unturned....Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

four hour miniseries?
175 minutes does not equal 4 hours. Maybe when shown on a commercial network with periodic advertisements it takes 4 hours, but the miniseries itself runs for just under 3 hours - not 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.76.235 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Information in need of sources

 * When the miniseries aired on the Sci Fi Channel in 2003, it was the highest-rated cable miniseries of that year. The miniseries' success led to the commission of a new ongoing television program, the first episode of which drew an estimated 850,000 viewers — an 8% multichannel viewer share — on its world premiere on Sky One in the UK & Ireland. The subsequent reimagined Battlestar Galactica TV series remains the highest rated original program in the Sci Fi Channel's history.

Please help find a source for this information, which was on the reimaginning page when it was merged here. Thank you.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between "Reimagining" and "Remake"?
--91.10.30.167 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the term 'reimagining' is a specific type of remake, and also a bit more promotional (and thus less encyclopedic?). A summary at the TV Tropes website indicates why the newer BG is not a strict remake: "The new program, considerably darker and more adult-themed than the original, discarded the original series continuity and retooled many of the main characters while keeping many of the original show's themes and technology." El duderino (abides) 07:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Remakes were always (potentially) darker, they only followed the original's continuity in exceptional cases, and characters were always changed to meet the times. Is this anything more than a marketing term? If so, what is the reason to follow the marketing department of the studio? 217.248.42.164 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Reception section?
Should this article have a reception section? I'm surprised there isnt one already. Maybe something from the series article could be copied over? One example I'm thinking of is the big fan/critic reaction (both positive and negative) to female Starbuck, which is referenced several times in the DVD extras. El duderino (abides) 07:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Have at it, mate!  Azx2  04:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the article history but it seems as if no Reception section was ever added. I can only guess it is an oversight so I'm going to add the Rotten Tomatoes score for the mini series. -- 109.79.172.238 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)