Spoiler whore's thread! (enter at your own risk)

[Caprica_Six]

Posted by Q2UnME:
Well, if there ever was a thread title that would cause me to stop dead in my tracks, this one was it. I'm such a spoiler whore....

Insert_name_here was there anything in the original spoiler source to indicate what the disposition was of Sharron's cylon/human baby? Did Baltar do his "magic" without affecting the pregnancy? Inquiring Spoiler hound minds want to know...

Q2

There was nothing to indicate the baby would die or was damaged, but then there wasn't much mentioned about the baby at all. The article is from a seperate link then the script. Here is the link for the script:

link

It's similar to the script that was leaked before, just with more details this time. The script however doesn't mention any use of stem cells so I don't know where that fits in. But the link I originally gave at the top is from some interview so all the spoiler hounds will have to follow that up for me.

Even still not all the facts are in yet so we really don't know for sure how this story will play out on screen and what they might add or take out before filming.

[Starwind]

The baby doesn't die. Baltar tells Six that by saving Roslin he's saving her life as well.

[Caprica_Six]

Posted by Starwind:
The baby doesn't die. Baltar tells Six that by saving Roslin he's saving her life as well.

Oh yeah that's right, missed that bit. Yeah there is some talk at the end where Six thinks Baltar has given up his chance of presidentcy while he thinks Roslin will protect the child. Or something along those lines.

[Agent Richard07]

I can't see them setting up Sharon's pregnancy only to ditch it. There will be a baby and it'll be born premature given the pace of the show.

[nevermore]

Great idea for a thread!

And I'm sure the spoiler in the OP won't turn out nearly as lame as it sounds at this point!

[Rally_man]

See, I just don't want to read this thread, and then I'll end up like you guys, bunch of spoiler-junkies. We need to open up a thread for spoliercolics anonymous.

[Hobs202]

First of all, why is Starbuck not mentioned anywhere in the script? Secondly <span class="spoiler"><font class="small">Spoiler:</font><hr /><span>an evil terrorist/pacifist group that wants to SURRENDER to the Cylons??? Interesting... but what kind of idiots would even THINK about surrendering to a race that's devoted to wiping all humans out? </span><hr /></span> Also the whole plot with Lee looks kind of dull. I don't know why, but it just does.

[Dorian Thompson]

First of all, why is Starbuck not mentioned anywhere in the script?

My guess would be she's not in the episode.

[Jack Bauer]

Sounds too Star Trekky.

[Gattancha]

Sounds like a Red Herring to me IMHO..

[flux_29]

lets just hope for some good cgi.

[nevermore]

Posted by Hobs202:
First of all, why is Starbuck not mentioned anywhere in the script? Secondly <span class="spoiler"><font class="small">Spoiler:</font><hr /><span>an evil terrorist/pacifist group that wants to SURRENDER to the Cylons??? Interesting... but what kind of idiots would even THINK about surrendering to a race that's devoted to wiping all humans out? </span><hr /></span> Also the whole plot with Lee looks kind of dull. I don't know why, but it just does.

No need for that ugly spoiler code here! Anyway, I really think that the whole "idiot stupid peaceniks insist on a terribly self-destuctive and trgically naieve course of action" plot is something I probably won't like. It ties into something that has bothered me about Zarak since Colonial Day.

The depiction of so-called "liberals" in this show is really off-putting. They are depicted in both instances as being so blinded by their ideology and docterines that they are incapable of recognizing necessity and pragmatic priorities. In Colonial Day, Zarak's rhetoric regarding the gardener is a perfect example of this: "Why is he still working?" Well, because it's better than standing around with his thumb up his ass waiting to be obliterated, that's why. Why do we still have government? Well, because a society requires certain things in order to function, all the more so when the lives of every individual within that society depend, on and hour-to-hour basis upon the effectiveness of the leadership.

The whole "peacenik" story seems to be an exention of this theme that people whose ideals may not be necessarily comaptble with a changed circumtance, are incapable or recognizing that.

So, in brief, I guessing that I'm not gonna like this one so much. And Starbuck's not in it. That sucks too.

[frankncc72405a]

Posted by flamingliberal:
Anyway, I really think that the whole "idiot stupid peaceniks insist on a terribly self-destuctive and trgically naieve course of action" plot is something I probably won't like. It ties into something that has bothered me about Zarak since Colonial Day.

The depiction of so-called "liberals" in this show is really off-putting. They are depicted in both instances as being so blinded by their ideology and docterines that they are incapable of recognizing necessity and pragmatic priorities. In Colonial Day, Zarak's rhetoric regarding the gardener is a perfect example of this: "Why is he still working?" Well, because it's better than standing around with his thumb up his ass waiting to be obliterated, that's why. Why do we still have government? Well, because a society requires certain things in order to function, all the more so when the lives of every individual within that society depend, on and hour-to-hour basis upon the effectiveness of the leadership.

The whole "peacenik" story seems to be an exention of this theme that people whose ideals may not be necessarily comaptble with a changed circumtance, are incapable or recognizing that.

I really don't think we have seen a "peacenik" in Zarek, more of a "Nelson Mandela-gone-haywire" type of opportunistic, anti-establishment character. The "Mandela" tie-in is solely based on his resorting to violence and subsequent imprisonment, so please don't overreact.
His motives are really not for the people but for himself, so that he can lead the people and become the guy in charge.
We saw it best in Home pt1&2 where he is using Roslin's religious interpretation to forward his own agenda. I have not seen this as a liberal or peacenik methodology.
Now, when the storyline concerning the groups that want to make peace with the cylons do show up on screen later this season, we will then truly see how RDM and DE view the "liberal/peacenik" mindset. Until then, hold your fire.

[nevermore]

Posted by frankncc72405a:

I really don't think we have seen a "peacenik" in Zarek, more of a "Nelson Mandela-gone-haywire" type of opportunistic, anti-establishment character. The "Mandela" tie-in is solely based on his resorting to violence and subsequent imprisonment, so please don't overreact.

A, I never overreact, don't worry about that!

B, I was unclear. I don't think of Zarak as a "peacenik", but believe that on a certain level, relating to generalized ideological stereotypes, he and the upcoming group of "peaceniks" are part of the same demographic so to speak.

His motives are really not for the people but for himself, so that he can lead the people and become the guy in charge.

See, I think there are more shades of grey to the character. While I will grant that your assesment seems to be the case now, I feel that we lack the background information on his actions in the Colonies to say one way or another whether he started out with altruistic goals or not. I refuse to believe that he had no reason for his revolutionary actions other than a power-grab. There has to be more to his story or he becomes a caracature.

We saw it best in Home pt1&2 where he is using Roslin's religious interpretation to forward his own agenda. I have not seen this as a liberal or peacenik methodology.

It certainly can be. In politics you use whatever you can to advance you agenda. That's just the way it works. In other words, sometimes the ends can justify the means. Now, for most, there is an ethical line that you just don't cross, but I would venture to say that Zarak's line, if he has one, is probably pretty vague and far away.

Now, when the storyline concerning the groups that want to make peace with the cylons do show up on screen later this season, we will then truly see how RDM and DE view the "liberal/peacenik" mindset. Until then, hold your fire.

Agreed. Heh, fire. Clever!

[Dorian Thompson]

Zarek is a fanatic who became what he once despised. It's not unheard of. I think the fact that Moore depicted Apollo more or less sympathetically even though he mutineed against his father for the sake of democratic principles is indicative that Moore does appreciate a "liberal" viewpoint to some degree.

Of course with Blanders and Caprica coming back I have my own problems with the later eps. What a dud Michael Trucco is. He can't act. He just can't act. He's so generic, romance of the week fodder except that he's a himbo instead of a bimbo. Those chicks from Star Trek: TOS were only meant to show up once for a reason. I'm extremely disappointed that Eick listened to Sackhoff. She must be....dating the guy. Yuck. Where exactly is he going to fit in anyway? I'm incensed that he'll take screentime from someone more deserving, all to make Kara more "feminine and gooey" and Lee all petulant and jealous. We don't need either of those to happen, and we certainly don't need to see Caprica again. Michael Trucco is not a good enough actor to compromise your storyline for. Have you seen the guy in Wishmaster 4? It's absurd. There's a reason that Jamie Bamber was in the Horation Hornblower series, that EJO and Mary McDonnell have won awards, and that Michael Trucco was in Wishmaster 4. If you want to ship Lee and Dualla like you hinted at, Ron, just ship Lee and Dualla. You don't need to have Kara/Blanders set it off. Sheesh.

On a more positive note, look at this still of Jamie Bamber from the next first run episode. What a lovely hipbone.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...rfan/skin2.jpg
No wonder he and his wife have had 3 kids in two years. I couldn't say no to this guy either.