Talk:Caprica

Filming

Caprica is filming at UBC in Vancouver, BC, Canada on June 16 and 17: http://www.businessdevelopment.ubc.ca/film/film_notice.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.94.190 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hype

This show is going to be wrong from the beginning. It was reveled that there were Cylons 1,000 years before this, not 58yrs. The "final five" were the creators of all the other "human looking" Cylons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.198.104 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cylons that were created a 1000 years ago were from the 13th Colony. These Cylons evolved into the Human Cylons who then travelled (at subluminal speed hence the long time frame) to the other 12 Colonies to stop them from creating their own Cylons and continuing the cycle of war between humans and machines. They were, however, too late as the 12 Colonies had just created Cylons for the first time and this is the time line for this new series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.137.50 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds just like the fanboy excuse about Lucas and his Kessle Run/Parsec mistake. So thousands of years and millions/billions of light years away they happen to invent EXACTLY same same cylon including the problems, behavior, design and name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.70.110 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll feel like an ass for replying to this, but it'll kill me if muffle myself while this falls to the wayside. It's all perfectly rationalised by one phrase: "All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again." It's a major motif of the series!--Bacteria (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable for the two to have been created under different names, but the name from the 12 Colonies stuck because it was more recent and well-known. It's also reasonable to assume that the same mistake (enslaving artificial intelligence) would be made with a similar result (mass death). Webmaren (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be "perfectly reasonable" if the same type of stuff happened but calling them "cylons" making them look exactly the same...? I would buy a general revolt of robotic beings but when they make the EXACT same thing happen over and over. I'll stick with the Kessle Run/Parsec comment.

Adama must have a genetic trait that grants him extreme prejudice against Cylons, Data, and The Terminator. Maybe Kyle Reese can send Starbuck back in time to stop the holocaust of the 12 colonies.

Okay, so don't get me wrong, I love the series, but "television's first science fiction family saga"? How am can I control myself against such a statement? Assuming this isn't refering to the continued usage of the Adamas, how is Star Trek not "television's first science fiction family saga"? And why not Flash Gordon or Buck Rodgers? If being a "non remake" is a requirement, Star Trek still makes the grade. Can someone give me a definition/reason that does not include hype? --Trakon 08:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When I think of a "family sci-fi show" only "Lost in Space" comes to mind, and I'm assuming the statement means the show will based on the Adama family's point of view. which Star Trek is not a "family" show. It's a military/space opera. It's probably best, if whoever added the "family saga" comment put a reference to where it came from. If it was their personal opinion then it violates NPOV and should be deleted. Cyberia23 09:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This link might clear things up a little. http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=35773 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.88.108.127 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

--When they say 'Family Saga' they are referring to programs like Dallas & Dynasty. Its that type of program set in a sci-fi context -- malocite

sexual politics?

Caprica will incorporate corporate intrigue, techno-action and sexual politics.

Seriously, is this a joke or vandalism? What the hell are sexual politics? And, for that matter, what is "techno-action"? If the template existed, I'd be tempted to flag this for stupidity if it wasn't so hilarious. ericg ✈ 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Politics with the toasters? Remember, at the time there were no human cylons.

Perhaps sexual politics within the rival families and the leadership of the colonies. 80.47.142.28 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume this will be another take on the themes of Total Recall 2070 in terms of corporations, politics and the Aasimovian AI-Debate. Will conclude how the term Cylon came to be? I guess there will be some sort of mega-corporation, Cylon Industries, military contractor and world leader in the development of artificial intelligence. Or something along those lines. Do Cylons dream of electric sheep?

Sexual Politics are the personal interactions and intrigues linked to potential or actual sexual relationships between people. The whole Starbuck/Anders/Lee Adama/Dee thing? And how it spilled all the way over into every part of their lives? That's sexual politics. I have no clue on earth what techno-action is. I think it might just mean post-Braveheart action sequences so... sci-fi action sequences?--LKAdriaan (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe by sexual politics they mean this: "Both Moore and the network pinpoint the war in space backdrop as one of the major obstacles, deterring the female audience from tuning in"

In other words who cares that 50 percent of the population is male, and some of us actually enjoy space action. After all, George Lucas was not able to get rich from catering to us right? And you can never have enough chick-vampire series, or ugly betty, or any of the plethora of series which cater exclusively to girls. Come on Moore, cut the lame studio pandering and give your constituents what they want. Get the Adama's off caprica and into the first cylon war as fast as possible - then maybe we will watch this beyond the first three episodes. Otherwise, don't hold your breath for higher ratings, as for critical response, who needs yet another soap opera.

Call for deletion?

Since this is no longer a sure thing, I'm wondering if this page has any right to exist. Do possible spin-offs deserve articles? (DrZarkov 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

It absolutely does, just as any other (just look in Category:Upcoming television series) Zisimos 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to delete knowledge off of the encyclopedia? Let's place it this way, the great war and world war II are no more, so lets delete any reference of them from this encyclopedia. Seem logical? --Turbinator 05:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if World War I and II were things that people thought WERE going to happen, and then DIDN'T, then it woulf make perfect sense. And there is a big difference between deleting information and giving an entire page over to something that doesn't, and probably won't, exist. This page should be deleted and all relevant information should be moved to a subheading of the main BSG article. (DrZarkov 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

This should DEFINETLY NOT be deleted. It's fate has not been yet decided. It might be turned into a made for TV movie or released to DVD. We shouldn't delete this until we are sure it will never be relesed. Tenio 00:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be "deleted", but I think the information can be condensed and folded into the larger article on the overall franchise. Doing a "redirect" would preserve the history, and if by some chance it ever gets picked up, then it can be resurrected. Frankly, does it pass WP:N if not picked up? I don't see any future ongoing media coverage of a proposed spinoff that never happens. --lquilter 01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the pilot is in production; it doesn't mean this page should've stood fallow an entire year as it did. (216.165.149.126 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

But no, someone wanted to delete this article. This is an encyclopedia people, not "The New York Times" when something happens in history, it gets recorded in to an encyclopedia and it stay there, even if the event has come and gone. Turbinator (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Caprica.gif

Image:Caprica.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Aired first in the UK/Ireland?

I find this idea absurd; And, I wonder who thought up this lame idea. I think there are a lot of people interested in Caprica because of Battlestar Galactica; And, I expect EZTV or VTV to facilitate the widespread download after the first episode is aired. I understand the need for commercials and for people to make money. That is why I hope they do a worldwide release in November; And, going against a worldwide release will just hurt the producer's pocketbook. I hope this because I want to see more of the Battlestar Galactica universe, and the best way for that to happen is for the show to make a lot of cash.

--Spike (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the link provided by the citation in the introduction "the two-hour prequel is tentatively scheduled to air on Sky1 and Sky1 HD in Spring 2009" and NOT November 2008. Chev (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Spike is using this to utter his/her opinions, but anyway, it is useful. I did the modification of the Sky1 air date and didn't check the US premiere date. Sorry =). The text now reads:

"It is expected to get its worldwide premiere on Sky1 in the UK and Ireland in Spring 2009.[1] In the United States the backdoor-pilot is currently scheduled to air in December 2008 on SCI FI, although this may well be pushed back to early 2009.[2]"

Clearly, the Worlwide premiere would no more be aired in UK/Ireland, but in US, if the schedules were met. The text should be changed to something like:

"It is expected to get its worldwide premiere either on Sky1 in the UK and Ireland in Spring 2009[1] or on SCI FI in the United States, where the backdoor-pilot is currently scheduled to air in December 2008, although this may well be pushed back to early 2009.[2]"

I am making this change, but leaving this note to clarify the situation. Elideb (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Moore, Ron D Moore or Ron D. Moore, Ronald Moore, Ronald D Moore, Ronald D. Moore?

Anyone drink enough coffee for an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Ronald D. Moore, or simply Moore when repeated in sentence. — Edokter • Talk • 11:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Anyone know if and how a cropped screenshot of http://www.scifi.com/caprica/ - showing the Caprica logo and principals - can be used?

Never done it before and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free gets confusing. It's promotional material, but in the form of a cropped screenshot of a (commercial) webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.24.118 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It won't pass WP:NFCC in that form. — Edokter • Talk • 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

SyFy v Sci Fi Channel

This show will never be broadcast on the "Sci Fi Channel" as that name is going away in July. Hence the change to SyFy. Anything other change would be giving out the wrong facts and be original research. If a reader is "confused" as to what the name "SyFy" which was the reason given for the revert, then they can click on the wikilink which redirects to "Sci Fi Channel" and explains the upcoming rebranding in the intro paragraph. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I assume that the station's change in name must be a response to large scale illiteracy in the US, or at least the perception of this by the studio execs and their feeling that their core audience are morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.3.162 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since notes on the development of the show and citations (appropriately) reference "Sci Fi", there should be an explanation of the change somewhere in the article. Perhaps, just "the first season [...] is expected to begin airing on SyFy (known as the Sci Fi Channel before July 2009)..." Clconway (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We should not change the name of the station until the rebrand has actually happened, because SyFy simply does not exist yet. And as Clconway noted, every reference still uses the name SciFi. — Edokter • Talk • 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And do we know for certain when Caprica will start? It may begin on SciFI, particularly given the ratings of the BSG finale and their tendency to shift airdates around. Drmargi (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Galactica and Caprica + Production Background

There's still a lot to be said about Caprica's identity, specifically how and why it differs from Galactica. Scattered throughout the reference sources are quotes by Moore and Eick about creative reasons as well as quotes from Sci-Fi execs on how Galactica's space backdrop was an obstacle in attracting a female audience, making a terra firma set-up prefferable. And a lot more.

This story can be told as part of Caprica's Production section (Genesis) or a side-by-side comparison of Battlestar and Caprica.

Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrzzrr (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Split

This article should be split in two. The pilot DVD should be at Caprica (film), because it was released first as a direct-to-video film. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't be split unless they're too long, or too obviously about different things. There's no rationale for it (other than, perhaps, obsessively wanting to increase article count or something). Philwelch (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I also do not believe it should be split - at least not yet anyway. Once the series starts, however, and an episode list article has been created, then there should be an episode page for the "Pilot" episode or whatever it will be called. At the moment though, I believe there simply isn't a need or enough information to go splitting this article up yet. --Myles Trundle (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As the straight to DVD movie represents the first two episodes of the series I do not see any reason for splitting it at this point, perhaps when the show starts airing, but even then it seems pointless Tenarei (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, when the show starts there should be a general Caprica TV series page and a Pilot page for the first 2 episodes (which, as a side not, may also be called "Caprica"). --Myles Trundle (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The articles should be split apart. We have articles for "The Plan", and "Razor" because they are films. The DVD as it stands is also a "film" and should get an article. If there were no TV show, it'd be a Battlestar Galactica movie, and there isn't a TV show now, so having this at TV show instead of film is a bit of WP:CRYSTAL. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Move

I propose this article be moved to Caprica and the current Caprica disambiguation page be moved to Caprica (disambiguation), per WP:DISAMBIG this is the primary topic. The others are minor topics in the BSG series. Rehevkor ✉ 03:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No opposition? Nothing at all? Rehevkor ✉ 05:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for it. I reckon it would be more appropriate when make the change when the series begins airing but I can't see the harm in making the change now. --Myles Trundle (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't proposed to at WP:RM so no one will ever see your suggestion, since the TV series isn't out, and the DVD came out some time back. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Neither usage is particularly more notable. In fact most of the references on Wikipedia are likely referring directly to the planets in either of the two universes, or Caprica Six, rather than the expected series as a whole. - BalthCat (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose there is no way this is the primary usage. If WP:RECENTISM then the DVD is primary usage. If from the recent TV show, then Caprica Six is the primary usage, if the last 30 years, then the fictional planet is primary usage. But the TV series is not primary usage. It won't be unless the TV show is a hit. If it tanks, then at most the direct-to-video film (pilot on DVD) might be primary, but probably not. Caprica Six gets more press than the TV show or the DVD. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview with producer Jane Espenson in HPlusMagazine

Of possible interest, an interview with producer Jane Espenson in HPlusMagazine: http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/art-entertainment/down-earth-interview-caprica-executive-producer-jane-espenson Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Airdate

The airdate is not clear. It was marked as January 15 last week and an editor changed it back to January 15 explaining "first episode aired on January 15, 2010 on SyFy" but then others have changed it to January 22 with little or no explanation. Better edit summaries would really help.
Rather than messing about making any further reverts and rollbacks to what seem like good faith edits I'm asking here for clarification.
From what I can tell Jan 15 (or possibly the 14) was when Caprica became available as video on demand from Amazon and others. Was it also shown on tv? Or like other articles is this a case of Canada airing the episode before the US? I'll assume for now the television airdate still takes precedence over any advance release online but without some kind of explanation to that effect the article is quite confusing. The article List of Caprica episodes also suffered poorly explained edits and changes to the airdates.
It would be great if someone could clear this up, there must be someone here who knows what's happening. I'm not overly concerned about citations, just a comment in the source to make it clear to editors what's going on would be great. -- Horkana (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Caprica," the new series that takes place 50 years before the events of "Battlestar Galactica," will debut Jan. 22 on Syfy with a 2-hour premiere. That pilot episode is already available on DVD. http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2009/07/caprica-gets-a-release-date.html

The named reference for that citation is actually January 15 oddly enough. The article says the DVD is already released, so was Jan 15 the DVD release date? (That's what I guessed last week before this got all confusing, adding to it even more the Amazon.com release date bizarrely claims to be "DVD Release Date: April 21, 2009"

My brain hurts. -- Horkana (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)