Re: Battlestar Galactica On SciFi Channel
 

I like his pock marked rugged look.
A military comandor does not need to be a pretty boy.

TV and Holloywood are brainashing us about looks.
Being ugly is the new predjudice. It is plain wrong. ask GEO... J/K

[ December 12, 2003, 00:01: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica On SciFi Channel
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">He's always had that somewhat, although on his other shows they probably hid it more with makeup. People with that kind of complexion do commonly have the marks get deeper as they age. Also, the dark lighting in the show accentuates the effect.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I'm not ugly, just fat.

Re: Battlestar Galactica On SciFi Channel
 

Olmos has great screen presence. Watch Stand and Deliver sometime for a good example of it.

Or maybe I like him because he was in Blade Runner! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica On SciFi Channel
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First of all that's harsh by anyone's standards man. Especially considering someone can't help having a severe case of Pocks and then getting really nasty acne on top of that when they are kids.
He's always had them but as you get older Pock marks tend to show more and he's not one of those self absorbed pretty boys so I had no problem with this.

Okay now as to Galactica it's self I greatly enjoyed this series because it was much more realistic and had much more "people" presence instead of just a bunch of space ships flying around blowing each other up in the same repeated scenes every two minutes.

Now as to the effects and Galactica being too "grey" well I hate to tell you pal but it's a warship and warships tend to be grey or a dull white not that shiney "Hit me" color of the original Galactica. And like they so clearly stated "Form follows function" so in the Colonial's weren't interested in making her a pretty girl but more of a tough kick your *** up between your shoulder blades kind of ship that looked intimidating instead of the star trekky "shiney" ships.

And anyone notice that this Galactica is far "younger" then the one from the Original series, she's only 50 years old the original was well over 600 (also nice touch as I can't imagine anyone keeping a ship in service for over 600+ years unless it was in the warhammer 40k universe).

Re: Battlestar Galactica On SciFi Channel
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First of all that's harsh by anyone's standards man. Especially considering someone can't help having a severe case of Pocks and then getting really nasty acne on top of that when they are kids.
He's always had them but as you get older Pock marks tend to show more and he's not one of those self absorbed pretty boys so I had no problem with this.

Okay now as to Galactica it's self I greatly enjoyed this series because it was much more realistic and had much more "people" presence instead of just a bunch of space ships flying around blowing each other up in the same repeated scenes every two minutes.

Now as to the effects and Galactica being too "grey" well I hate to tell you pal but it's a warship and warships tend to be grey or a dull white not that shiney "Hit me" color of the original Galactica. And like they so clearly stated "Form follows function" so in the Colonial's weren't interested in making her a pretty girl but more of a tough kick your *** up between your shoulder blades kind of ship that looked intimidating instead of the star trekky "shiney" ships.

And anyone notice that this Galactica is far "younger" then the one from the Original series, she's only 50 years old the original was well over 600 (also nice touch as I can't imagine anyone keeping a ship in service for over 600+ years unless it was in the warhammer 40k universe). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok, maybe I was being too harsh on Olmos's looks. It was just too distracting for me, but you're right, people can't help it if they have such looks.

As far as the age of the Galactica, unless it was mentioned in the background when they were going over the museum scene, I didn't catch that. I don't remember the original's age, but we're talking about an advance civilization who is probably using some sort of combination of technology and metallurgy that may have kept a ship in function for over 600 years. It will be interesting if a new series does develop to see how they keep the Galactica active when they're going into unknown space toward an unknown destination. Just the matter of logistics will be a nightmare, considering you have a ship the size of the Galactica, plus 50+ other ships. They might have to stay at a planet for months to reprovision the fleet, and that will give the Cylons plenty of opportunity to catch up to them.

Re: Battlestar Galactica On SciFi Channel
 

In that one ep of the origial BSG Apollo makes a reference to the Galactica's Last navigation pod where her orignal crew used to navigate the stars over 600 years ago...the Atlantia was even older then the Galactica so who knows how old that made her.

Now the big thing is even IF you use a combination of advanced tech and metalurgy it makes no sense to keep a ship active for over 600 years when you should be developing new ships and new techs every 10 or 20 years which means that a 50 year life span makes far more sense then 600+.

Re: Battlestar Galactica On SciFi Channel
 

But if memory serves me right, they were in a thousand year battle with the Cylons, so maybe they didn't have the luxury of research. I know during a war there's always research going on, but apparently it didn't go into ship research. they had these big 12 battlestars with massive weapons and fleets of fighters. Maybe they thought that would be enough. Who knows? I didn't write the show or create the bible they were supposed to use.