-Snowblind-

I think RDM said something to the effect that Black Market was the only episode he regrets and wishes he could take back. It's pretty much universally disliked.

...You joke, but apparently the writers seriously considered that at one point in the first season. O.o You know, back before he went all 'Battlestar Galactica is what's wrong with America!'...

You're not too far away from finding out from the sound of it.

The events in Razor took place during Season 2, but it wasn't produced/released until after Season 3. I'd recommend waiting until you finish watching Season 3 to see it if you're given the option.

There's also the uncensored co-ed shower room a la Starship Troopers that they've been teasing since the miniseries...

You haven't seen M7 yet, I'm guessing... Dynamite 7, that is.

Not sure if my reply deserves a spoiler strip, but better safe than sorry...

Season 3 (when you get there) starts out (okay, second episode, I think) with one of the best battle scenes in sci-fi television history (okay, maybe I exaggerate). The rest of the season is... different... from the preceding seasons, though. Will be interesting to see what a new watcher makes of it.

After. Funny thing is that when the new BSG was proposed, Hatch was against it and Benedict was for it (there's even a special feature on the first season or mini series DVDs with him and Katee Sackhoff talking about Starbuck together). By the end of the series their positions had reversed.

Not so much, no... O.o It's all about relative mass. The mass of the round fired is going to be a tiny fraction of the mass of a VF. Firing it without bracing it isn't going to send him tumbling. ...Not to mention that there are plenty of examples of the rifle being fired without being braced. Alto using it against Grace in the last episode, for example.

That's because the weapons tend to be guided and able to course correct... Not so much. Snipers wouldn't be involved in firefights at all unless something goes very, very wrong. They either stay well hidden, or well out of reach. They also choose their locations very, very carefully. Not if it can be avoided, no. ...All of that said, I'll agree that his perspective is probably off. A better analogy would probably be to a modern tank firing on the move (unguided projectile, movement of the target vehicle and firing vehicle). It won't be as accurate as firing from a static position, but with the use of modern fire control systems and optics it's entirely possible, and I'm sure that technology that far in the future, and in the Macross universe will be that much better than what we have now.

From what the producers have said? No. They're going for a more 'realistic' tone. No more cheesy 'rubber faced' (again, their words, not mine) aliens of the week.

I'm giving it a tentative thumbs up. I'm not a huge Stargate fan, but I've seen a number of episodes of both SG-1 and Atlantis over the years, so I have some idea of where it's coming from. They were definitely channeling BSG in their camera work and more mature content, but they didn't entirely toss the old Stargate feel. RDA, Amanda Tapping, and Michael Shanks all made cameo appearances to reinforce that this is the same old Stargate 'universe' (that could get confusing...) that we're familiar with. There was still humour to be found (RDA's and Shank's cameos were both played for comedic effect, and Eli seems to exist to lighten the mood). The producers have also said they want to avoid the rubber-faced alien bad guy (their words, not mine) shtick found in previous incarnations, but I don't see this as a bad thing. Is it a different take on the SG universe? Sure. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. The camp in the previous series could be fun, but it was also starting to get old.

Neither do I. I don't think it was explicitly stated, though. O.o Can anyone else confirm?

I'll be happy to second Eureka 7 and Planetes. Two of my favourites. I'll add RahXephon, too...

No District 9?

Even stranger things have flown... (it didn't fly well but it did get airborne) (...and yes, I know it was a glider, but the point stands...)

Well, odds are pretty good that there'll be a full on Disney imprint under Marvel, so we'll probably see a few more Disney properties pop up in comic form again. In the short term it's going to be business as usual. It's the long term Disney creative control creep that I'm worried about. I think Marvel Studios will see the most Disney involvement early on. More family friendly, more mainstream.

I agree that it was a pretty quick change of heart, but...

RDM's BSG started strong, but faded badly toward the end. I was mostly done with it by midway through the 3rd season and just kept watching through inertia. I'd be open to a movie, but I think it would only work as a lead in to a new series, or as a pre-determined series of movies. I think it's way too soon for another take on a series, though.

I wholeheartedly agree (with you, that is). Purely speculation, but I think that we've gotten used to 'Hollywood' movies either force-feeding us a message or being dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator that anything that makes some subtle social commentary looks incredibly intelligent by comparison. Like I said in an earlier post, I think this was a sci-fi action movie first and foremost, it just happened to provoke some thinking along the way. All in all a great approach.

Annnnnnd... Now it's official...

Ehh, I don't know. They left every opportunity open for a sequel that they possibly could. They practically telegraphed it through the nature of the ending. Sony has already said the money is there for two sequels if Blomkamp and Jackson want to do it. I also don't think that a sequel necessarily has to dilute the 'impact' of the original (it really depends on what you mean by impact - I don't think it was meant to be an art piece, I think it was meant to be a sci-fi action movie that showcased the writer/director's talents and raised some interesting moral and social questions in the process). A sequel, if well handled, could be just as good as the original. That said, the current track record for movie trilogies is really horrible. Not because trilogies are necessarily a bad idea, but because films become too commercialized, and the movies can't stand on their own (well, typically the second and third movies - witness the Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, and the last two Pirates of the Caribbean movies. The first movie is self contained, proves a success, gets funding for two more movies which are developed together... bleh).