Dear Mr. Hatch,

I completely agree with your viewpoint -- if only because I needed the show to portray terrorism in a more complex light. Most of the time, it did -- as by showing the desperation that motivated suicide bombers in the brilliant "Occupation"/"Precipice"; it's interesting to note that most media fails to mention the fact that the humans only felt a dilemma insofar as killing other humans; waging terrorism against cylons -- the occupier with parallels in Vichy France, the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and Palestine, the US occupation of Iraq, and just plain old colonialism -- was considered perfectly alright.

It seemed as though Ron Moore always had it in for Zarek, though -- in showing him to be the most selfishly motivated terrorist with either ambiguous or no redeeming motivation. It pains me that he did this. One rarely becomes a terrorist out of a desire to rule; that's more the impetus behind politicians who readily sacrifice principle. Terrorists are usually motivated by some perceived loftier ideals. Zarek wouldn't have blown up a government building as an act of Sagitarran defiance of Caprica when the consequences of imprisonment were so dire.

I suppose Ron did grant him the refusal to cooperate in the cylon occupation, though.

However, I really think it was a mistake to not show any inner struggle in the man; there was no moment of heartbreak that mirrored mine when he told the guards to "shoot [the Quorum members]." I have never felt so much dread in watching a show in my life; I kept saying to myself, "Oh, no...don't." I really think Zarek was somewhat motivated by a desire for freedom -- for the Sagitarron people at first, then the prison ship, and then the colonial fleet. It's right to show ambiguity, egocentrism, and darkness -- as Ron Moore always had with any terrorist character he's written, going back to Thomas Riker in the Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode "Defiant".

It felt like everything was always stacked against Zarek, but that the show's narrative never wanted to really emphasize that -- as though he were simply a thug who justified means with ends, and whose ends were elusive finally when he killed "Congress" so easily. Was he finally motivated by fear of the cylons, then, if there is to be some "principle" to his actions?

My fear is that this was a missed opportunity to educate the American public about the complicated nature of terrorists in the larger world -- specifically Hamas. Hamas' rightful election in Palestine was coerced out of existence by a US and Israeli-led Western community, then it was misportrayed by the US media (though not the BBC) as pushing the Israelis to attack when, in fact, even the pro-Israeli Jimmy Carter points out that Hamas obeyed the terms of the truce much more than Israel, which continued a brutalizing blockade in restricting food, medical supplies, and other essential resources from entering Gaza. Hamas reduced its rocket fire from hundreds to one a day in an area sure to reduce casualties and only 1 person died in several months, whereas the Israelis only lifted the blockade slightly and killed several Palestinians and carried out assassinations, which is a worse breach of the cease-fire.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10027

Hamas is not perfect, but stands in contrast to Al Qaeda's colonialism toward the Muslim world and racism toward the non-Muslim world.

In one fell swoop, the writers justified Adama and Roslin's worst impressions of Zarek as nothing more than a dangerous man and their violation of his rights. In reality, this character deserved more than that -- not only for the sake of internal consistency of him feeling true to life, but also as a parallel with the more justified elements of some terrorists in the world (Hamas, Hezbollah, Chechens, Latin American groups, etc), especially when states are allowed to massacre people in the name of "collateral damage" or "self defense".

Another problem was that I think Mr. Moore is wrong not to at least let the writers contribute in the editing of their final episodes -- at least for DVD; there is so much missing and rushed in these still-incredible episodes; Romo Lampkin was reduced to something barely more than a cameo and a weak resolution. Baltar's scenes were powerful stuff, especially that beautiful scene with Gaeta (thankfully the writers humanized his actions!) in which we realize that the guilt of what he did on New Caprica (he was still a victim of the occupation) drove him on this course in the face of Adama and Roslin's undemocratic leadership. There's so much missing and the fans and writers deserve cuts of these episodes that are freer than the time constraints just as Moore will do for his directorial debut and the finale; I think David Eick's promise for doubly long episodes -- or at least extra material within the episodes like with "Lay Down Your Burdens 2" -- should be carried through. WE NEED LONGER VERSIONS OF THESE EPISODES THAT GIVE THE STORIES MORE DRAMATIC WEIGHT.

Thanks so much for your work, Mr. Hatch. You are a fantastic actor, and I hope to see you in a miniseries that justifies your character; I have some fuzzy ideas about writing one after I graduate my history program. Hopefully we'll meet some day.

Being complicated doesn't make killing innocents any more right. It's not that complicated because selfish or just stupid they are wrong for what they do, and for you it's simple, you are an idiot.

I must agree with Jack here, Muldfeld you are a scary person. Murder is murder, no matter the justification. When we resort to killing each other as a means to settle our differences then there is no hope for the future of the situation. Neither terror or out right warfare can ever bring a positive outcome to governmental disagreements. I am not sure what "History Program" you are taking but you might want to reread some of your lessons. Not to mention you might want to try to separate yourself from the fantasy world that is Battlestar. Please snap the rubber band around your wrist twice and repeat after me, "It's only a TV show, It's only a TV show."

Remember this though folks, it's one thing to order someone to be killed, it's another thing completely to actually pull that trigger. What stunned me is the "faceless" Colonial marines that carried out the various deeds.

My God, the stupidity being typed onto this page by Muldfield is stunning. I will never understand the huge human capacity for self-delusion.
" pro-Israeli Jimmy Carter" -- says it all right there.

As for the character of Zarek; it was apparent throughout the entire series that the man would ultimately wind up like this. Never has Mr Moore been more clear about a character on BSG than he was with Zarek. Zarek was always a power-hungry terrorist. There was never been a single scene in BSG that showed anything other than contempt for Zarek, to feel otherwise is to have placed one's own wishes/desires onto a fictional character.

>>There was never been a single scene in BSG that showed anything other than contempt for Zarek,

There was one scene. On New Caprica, as he's about to be executed by Centurions alongside Roslin. For these brief moments, he's portrayed as a real human being, as he helps Laura to escape.

As for the early comment by Muldfeld and the response it generated, I'd remind everyone that there isn't a single western democracy that doesn't have its origin in violence and death. We may grow more virtuous and 'civilized' over time, but the heroes of our own revolutions were not pacifists.

Ok, so Mudfield's eulogy may have gone a bit too purple in its prose. Nevertheless Zarek was a compelling character, not simply a "power hungry terrorist." All the characters on BSG are "all too human". That is, deeply, deeply flawed individuals. Is it no coincidence that two of the shows biggest idealists, Lee and Gaeta, were his collaborators at different points in the series?

I think the shows portrayal of Zarek was a bit more nuanced than pure contempt. Even though most of the show is portrayed through the point of view of the fleet's power center (Adama/Roslin), the critics of the fleet's power structure do have a point in their criticism.

Muldfeld,

In the words of so many BSG characxters, "You're a frackin' idiot."

Yes, there's a terrorist subplot woven into the storyline,but the whole Hamas lecture is completely and utter idiocy.

Muldfeld,

Pro Israeli Jimmy Carter? You obviously know nothing about Israel. The only parallel between Zarek and Hamas is that they are both terrorists.

The Muldfeld Hath Spoken. Your petty comments are useless now.

My pet peeve is criticism without any justification--as much of what's been leveed against Muldfeld. We frequently use force in our government to settle differences--democracy is predicated on force--once the majority rules (for something as simple as faith-based charity programs), tax collectors take money for it, and if you refuse out of principle to give it, you are arrested or gunned down. It is true that an ideal society uses no force--only consent. But to make that argument, you have to understand it. It is very convenient to ignore implied force and to denigrate real force--and indeed, that was the most interesting thing about the episode and the most startling difference between Zarek and gaeta. Zarek understood that implied force is force-when he staged the coup, he knew who might die and thus didn't hesitate to kill the Quorum because he had already made that choice, as horrible as it is--it was inherent to his choice to use force, and also his fundamentally belief that the Adama administration was corrupt (and he has reason to believe that--we have a perspective on the cylons that makes them very sympathetic, the characters of the shows missed most of the episodes on board the base ship, remember). gaeta on the otherhand used the military structure and his own self-delusion (a common thread with the character) to fool himself into not seeing the implied force. He needs Adama's consent in his trial--to eliminate the appearance of force and render it instead justice, which implies a consent rended asunder. Adama won't comply--but it is common in history and tyranny for the tyrants to desperately need the consent of their victims, and the smart victims refuse to give it, forcing the gaetas to see themselves for what they are, and see the gun for what it is. As for the faceface military men--analyses of Nazi germany and other such atrocities are pretty clear--the hierarchy produces atrocities precisely because of its existence. Down the line, you follow orders--and thus alleviate yourself of responsibility. Up the line, you don't carry them out, you just issue them--and thus are alleved of responsibility. The more evil or tyrannical the system, the more vague the orders, so that more can be done by the people on the ground, and less said by the people at the top--and no one can be held accountable. Zarek makes a number of evil choices, and so does Adama over the shows history--and both demand absolute obedience in the environment, regardless of opinion about the order (remember when Adama left the supposed cylon to die in space--he was a cylon, but that was, as far as we can tell, a lucky coincidence).

And if you're going to say Muldfeld's Hamas parallel are toast--as may be the case--you have to explain that with reasons. If posters don't have reasons, please don't engage--there has always been a thin line between the mindless assertion of opinion and violence, as one usually leads to the other. Indeed, what divides a tyrant, I believe, from a leader tends to be the willingness or ability to justify actions with principles. Only tyrants try to rule with their gut, or by appeal to perceived public opinion.

You people are fraking idiots ..... IT'S A TV SHOW....Not a social experiment or commentary. It is designed for entertainment purposes and has no parallels to modern day middle east….GET A LIFE.

Its interesting that we insult people who try to make us think. I agree with Muldfeld. While I agree that murder is murder, the deeper question is this, what made someone come to this last resort? I would like to see what caused Zarek to go down the road he did and to just end this character they way they did seemed rushed.

Like Mr. Hatch, I was disappointed to see Zarek die as a "bad guy" as well, but that's in keeping with the BSG writers' stated goal of showing what's true, as opposed to what the fans might wish would happen. Having Zarek redeemed through some heroic action would have been fun to watch, but would probably ring false. BSG isn't the kind of show in which I expect everyone to end up in a happy place, with all the loose ends neatly tied up, by the last episode.

As for Zarek's character, I always saw him as being analogous to Yasser Arafat. Arafat was clearly motivated by a desire to help the Palestinian people early in his career, and was frequently called a terrorist by his detractors before he gained respectability and shook Israeli PM Rabin's hand in 1993. But after that, he became more selfish, stashing PLO money in secret bank accounts and he sometimes seemed more interested in securing his own political power than doing what was best for the Palestinians. Zarek, to me, had much of the same ambiguity to his character. He could be very noble or very selfish, depending on the circumstances.

It´s a TV show, yes. But what does that mean exactly? TV is a medium, as is , a movie, a play, a song, a novel. A medium transports ideas. On TV, in a lot of cases, those ideas are just crap. But there are some shows out there with writers who actually love to challenge the viewer with great ideas, believe it or not. It´s quite interesting how fast people refer to the - just a TV show - remark as soon as those ideas get uncomfortable.

I absolutely agree with everybody who says that BSG was able to ask the right questions at the perfect moment. It WAS a mirror of Earth society, it asked the very questions a lot politicians don´t want to get asked, and everyone who closes his or her eyes before that fact is one less problem for those who don´t want you to think.

Characters like Zarek asked the right questions out of very legitimate motives. The way those questions were answered again and again by Adama and Roslin was what triggered the violent response. That doesn´t mean that I actually support what happened, I just say that everything that happened was breathtakingly well prepared, by story, acting, writing.

BSG is a modern metaphor about our civilization. You may well decide to think we´re not like that, but then maybe you should refrain from the few intelligent programs on TV and stay with casting shows, because those are much more about reality. Geez.

I think Richard Hatch was an excellent casting choice for Zarek. It's his desire for his character to be sympathetic and to be seen as a hero, which he talks about, that makes Zarek more human and more frightening. Zarek is ambitious, but he wants to be liked. Many other actors given the role would have played him up as a villain and that wouldn't have fit the show.

Once Adama united with Cylons, the show needed to have a bad guy. Zarek was the bad guy - and a good one, too! Now, if only they'll soot Baltar...

I must join the chorus of people who find fault with Mudfeld's post. Beyond what others have said about it, Mudfeld states: "In one fell swoop, the writers justified Adama and Roslin's worst impressions of Zarek as nothing more than a dangerous man and their violation of his rights " I'm not sure Mudfeld watched the same episodes I did. I clearly remember listening to Zarek's passionate speech to the Quorum in which he stated Roslin and Adama continually brushed aside the law in order to enact their own brand of leadership. Through Zarek, we were shown that our "heroes" aren't particularly heroic in retrospect. Zarek was not presented by RDM as a one-dimensional character. As has been seen on many of the posts, viewers found that Zarek had valid points - it was his further actions that made viewers uneasy. Once again, RDM showed us that there is some truth in everyone's POV - the character of Zarek allowed us to see that.

Good Science fiction is a discussion of politics. The authors have done with this character exactly what they should have done. They made you think. You look at his actions, motivations and results. You make a judgment about those actions and motivations. You see a different point of view and maybe expand your world. Not everybody is good. Not everybody is bad. Maybe someone thinks they are doing good, but are actually doing more harm.
Science fiction lets us explore or options and actions.

I’m supposed to believe that Tom Zarek, an uncompromising revolutionary who has no qualms about blowing away everyone on the Quorum, wouldn’t have killed Admiral Adama the first chance he gets?

Let's face it, there was a lot of good stuff, but there was also some conventional/cliche/weak writing in this episode. I call shenanigans.

Here's my review: http://tinyurl.com/d9nfxo

Mudlfeld is no mere moron; he's advocating frakkin' evil. The midieval Catholic Church had a phrase for Mudfeld's kind of thinking: anathema sit. Go away.

Tom ... you were pure evil ... and I'm glad to see you get what you deserve. Richard, on the other hand, you should have been Adama. After all, you are the real Apollo.

They could always do some backstory about how he became such a revolutionary hero.. Make him more sympathetic like they did with Kain/Razor. And what about Gaeta's boyfriend? No gay character is safe on that show.

Sad to see Richard leave, not so sad to see Zarek go. While a totally compelling and interesting character. The end doesn't justify the means. Zarek believed Adama and Roslyn where just another form of dictatorship, that had to be stopped in order to allow freedom of the people. However, a man like Zarek who seeks power and doesn't value life (callous murder of the Quorum for one). Plus, the so called trial of Adama, was nothing more than a lynching. Zarek, may have gone on about freedom of the people, but he was a power hungry nutjob. I couldn't have seen the fleet surviving with him as it's leader.
That said, while his actions were wrong, there is understanding behind them. Lets face it, who can blame those who mutinied, when it comes down to it Adama and Roslyn advocate an alliance with Cylons. Cylons who were once the enemy hell bent on destroying the human race. Yes, things have changed and humanities survival now might very well rest in the hands of those once called enemy, but doesn't take away the fact that billions of lives have been lost at their hands. Hard to reconcile that and for everyone just to accept it and go 'okay now, they are our friends. We forgive them.'

That is what is so great about this show, everything is complicated and the characters, like Zarek are multi-dimensional. Shades of grey. They can do really terrible things, but you can always understand the motivation behind them and perhaps while you know it's wrong, completely understand why.

Great job by Richard portraying such a complex and often times disagreeable, but amazing character.

I liked the death scene, but I thought a larger point was missed. Yeah Zarek and Geta deserved to die, but so did Adama for siding with the Cylons.

I think it would have been more courageous from a script view, to have someone like Lee or Romo come out and petition for clemency. The bigger issue is that humanity will destroy itself until it learns to forgive.

Hey Richard, now that this series is over and done with... how about we try a rematch for classic BSG? I still want to see it done, and the cylons are still on my hard drive....

I enjoyed your portrayal of Zarek very much, but I still think that your Apollo should return as in "Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming" and your novels.

Keeping the Faith!

Ken Thomson :)

Dear Mr Zarek. THANK YOU AND THANKS THE GODS YOU HAD THE COUNCIL ASSASSINATED BEFORE YOU DIED!!!

Dear Mr Zarek. THANK YOU AND THANKS THE GODS YOU HAD THE COUNCIL ASSASSINATED BEFORE YOU DIED!!!

Thank you Mr. Hatch for a fine acting performance. To the political postings: see, think, and act with sympathy and you are on the right path. Refrain from hate speech. No one knows truth.

I liked Mr. Hatch's comment on just who it was that was breaking the rules. I disagree with the notion that Ron Moore (there needs to be reverence quotes available whenever I invoke the name of my god, hero, and so on) had it out for Zarek. I believe that Moore used Zarek as a person of great ideals, who has lost not his way, but rather his intent. To me, he is an individual who formerly struggled to right wrongs, and when he failed to do so, struggled instead for simple recognition, to call attention to them. He has been hardened by those who constantly turn a blind eye to his cause, who have allowed him to be mistreated. I believe that long before he ever was ever discovered in the first season, that Mr. Zarek was fed up. To him, it's politics as usual and he wants desperately to turn the human race away from annihilating itself. However, he does not hold the power. Once more he finds himself crying to deaf ears. Tom Zarek is not unlike the President herself, or Adama. I would go so far as to say he is the same person with different beliefs, who simply has the unfortunate luck to not have any sway over the people. So devout is he in his belief that he is willing to kill those who would not listen. Let's not forget, that he gave the Quorum a chance to side with him, and when they did not, he left the room with the same visage you might expect from a father who must punish his child. It is not remorse that Mr. Zarek lacks. Instead it is self-reflexivity. So entrenched is he in his dogmatic pursuit of justice, that he cannot step back a moment or he will truly lose his way. Before anyone is quick to judge this trait of his as something only a terrorist might possess, one must realize that without outside influence, one cannot detect their own dogmatic ideals. Further, to be challenged in the way that Mr. Zarek was challenged, by being the whipping boy of Rosilin and Adama on manny occasions; to face such adversity, angers a person, clouds his/her judgment, and only strengthens resolve to the point of fanaticism. The fleet's leadership failed to see that, and failed to assuage any of his anger. Society saw fit to create a scapegoat out of him, and unfortunately a person such as Mr. Zarek will never take such punishment with head bowed and jaw clenched.

From the interview I could tell that Mr. Hatch was upset to have relinquished his role. I believe that is the most telling part of Mr. Zarek's situation. He is a man who once had beautiful ideals, and those types of human beings are few and far between. They can become either gods in our eyes, or they can become demons, there is no middle ground for a person like that. I think Ron Moore (his reverence) found that out, and it was more of Mr. Zarek's persona interacting with the storyline that set those moments into motion, rather than Ron Moore's own machinations. It was the only way for him to leave. Not because all terrorists and dictators must die, but because a man of unflinching loyalty to his beliefs will always stand where others would kneel. He didn't go out with a tear, he didn't beg for mercy, didn't even say a word. Instead he looked at Felix, smiled, and faced his demise like a hero would. Whether or not Mr. Zarek should be considered a hero is a matter of perspective. It is not an argument any person can hope to win. And that, is why Ron Moore, is my god. Mr. Hatch, you sir, played your part well, nobody else could have fulfilled the role in the same way that you did. Zarek was a fire that had burned too brightly, and you never let that go, right up until the final moment.

I don't know guys, but have anyone notice that there is a farewell fo Zarek on the website, yet not Gaeta? Hmmmmmm.

I must say that I'm very glad about the comments generated by my "controversial" statements. Quinn, Max, jpl1976, LongliveZarek, Nick, emhodew have made some excellent points. So, I hope the moderators appreciate that and don't censor things. Max particularly lent me a perspective on Gaeta and Zarek I would never have seen, which is why the episode needed more elaboration and I'm sure there was footage to provide it. I tried to watch the webisodes, but they looked terrible and I grew tired after the first 5; I don't even like the concept of webisodes' inferior story-telling.

I just think that it's too easy for viewers to dismiss Zarek's motivations as lies or manipulations, as Lee (someone who could very much have been seen as his idealistic mirror instead of his opporite) has often done in arguing that whatever Zarek says is merely an exploitation of others' views and weaknesses and not based in conviction. By the end of the arc, no character sympathized with him and I could not either because of how unflinchingly he behaved; I've had to rationalize his actions, based on what I know of Ron Moore's writing, even though this was written by the amazing Michael Angelli, who has done incredible work and who I'll miss if he doesn't join "Caprica". Ditto the unsung hero of the series, Mark Verheiden. I'll never understand why the simplistic melodrama and straightfoward dialogue of Weddle and Thompson are so widely praised.

Anyway, Moore joined in on the DS9 writers' decision (began by Michael Piller and my hero Ira Steven Behr) to call Kira Nerys a "terrorist" and not a "freedom fighter"; this decision was surely informed by the need to show audiences that those labelled "terrorist" may have justifiable actions; Moore's episodes about Kira's reaction to the occupation particularly justify terrorism in her case quite unequivocally.

In contrast, I was disappointed in how Zarek was treated especially in light of Lee Adama's morally ambiguous observations referring to the Pegasus crew and particularly Adm. Cain in a deleted scene for "Ressurection Ship" and by Adm. Adama in "Razor." They could find a sympathetic element in Cain's cruelty but not that of Zarek? That really upset me. Then again, maybe some of you are right and that the authors are deliberately being subtle. I just fear that most fans will stand by Adama and Roslin's gung-ho reaction and spiteful portrayal of Zarek as truth -- believing that any terrorist spouting principles is automatically worth ignoring and destroying -- proving Zarek's statement that history is written by the victors.

To the others, I'm glad you're being honest even if you disagree with me because that's the only way to have an honest dialogue (though the defense by others definitely helps my tolerance), but I think you've misunderstood some of what I've said. And some of you are just being bullies with slights and not defending what you say. I said that Hamas was imperfect and terrorism a "complex" and "complicated" issue. I did not say terrorism was automatically justified. Like war, terrorism must be judged on a case by case basis. Violence to achieve political ends is always a regrettable thing. However, it is sometimes justifiable as it was in fighting Nazi Germany. Hamas did not exist until 1987; Israel had 40 years of ethnic cleansing, colonization and occupation of Palestinian Muslims and Christians, instead of creating a fair compromise, to cause its creation. Again, I think Hamas has done some regrettable things, like insisting on increasing fundamentalism. However, most rebel groups turn more bitter and extreme when solutions are not found through more peaceful or less violent means. In Chechnya, those fighting for freedom against a brutal Russian state got to the point at which some took Russian school children hostage; it's a terrible act, but the Chechens had been brutalized and were driven to desperation. My statements about terrorism hold true of the Islamic world, too, as Turkey and Iran have long brutally suppressed the Kurds, who have waged terrorism.

Israel and the US-allied mainstream media criticize Hamas for not recognizing Israel's right to exist, but that is its only leverage and it would be dishonorable to promise to accept it only to resist its occupation later; Israel is hardly willing to renounce violence on Palestinians, and its actions in denying Palestinians' rights to exist speak louder than Hamas' words. The weaker the group, the more desperate the acts. Hamas would attack the Israeli leadership if it could, but it doesn't have the capacity to do so, so it attacks the people who elect it and that introduces moral questions, of course. Also, can we say those Zionists who voluntarily move from a well-off existence in Toronto or New York to live as settlers (colonizers) on disputed land and consistently wage violence themselves and use the Israeli army to do the same are innocent? Are they any better -- and perhaps worse than -- the white settlers who forcefully displaced native Americans from their habitat centuries ago and then labelled returning native marauders "barbarians"? By that same token, even if one disagrees with Hamas and finds it reprehensible, how is it that Israel is given carte blanche to murder over 1,300 people in Gaza (cf to 15 Israeli deaths) and over 1,000 in Lebanon in 2006 (cf to 100 Israelis)? How is it that Hamas is blamed for Palestinian civilian deaths, but that Israel is never held at fault for placing its citizens at stake in blockading the Palestinians and diverting their tax dollars and water, which only causes these terrorist acts in the first place? Why is Hamas' election to power -- which likely would have moderated its goals -- unacceptable and the election of the war criminal Ariel Sharon, which can also be said of many other Israeli leaders, perfectly okay? How was Bush's reelection acceptable? There's a dangerous hypocrisy here that the US media furthers in American minds by deliberately censoring footage of Palestinian suffering and by placing its journalists in Israel and in the protection of Israeli forces; this is in contrast to the excellent BBC World News. It's actually at the heart of the motivation behind those who would join Al Qaeda-type groups, which I want to prevent as much as you.

Picking up on what someone said, Adama and Roslin have done dehumanizing things to cylons and had no qualms about it. Similarly, many instances of terrorism are justifiable, such as the French Resistance in WWII (DS9's Maquis who fought Cardassian occupation and the Federation was named after them). Even the American Revolution involved terrorism; Nathaniel Greene led a campaign in the south that violated military rules of conduct to try to defeat the overwhelming British forces; US soldiers dishonorably engaged in guerilla warfare, dressed in plain clothes, hid among civilians, and shot at troops from tree tops instead of standing in "civilized" formation. They also spread propaganda about British-allied natives raping white women to scare people into supporting them. George Washington, a heroic figure in many ways, a decade earlier slaughtered an unarmed French expedition.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion folks!

CoachDee, I wondered about that, too, particularly as I had at the lack of any "good-bye" to Ellen Tigh in Season 3. However, I fear that it might have more to do with giving Tom Zarek the spotlight for a bit and then doing one for Gaeta.

PS Please make the encryption easier to do because it's my 7th time trying to do it this morning!
For all my criticisms, I have to say I'm really enjoying 4.5 in a way I didn't 4.0. The writing is far better now and I was thrilled that Gaeta and Zarek finally got a substantial arc.

Am I the only one who feels haunted by what happened? I can't stop thinking about it and I actually cried hours after the episode ended, which hasn't happened to me since finding out what happened to Samantha on The X-Files episode "Closure". I found it so disturbing when Tom murdered the Quorum, and when Gaeta ordered Adama's murder, and that they were murdered by Adama. It's all so tragic and painful. My stomach was in nots watching the episode. I never thought the show could make me feel so sad and restless -- more than that actually: traumatized. Still, that's powerful stuff and it's cool the show can do that.

I just cant wait to see what Ellen Tigh does to Adama when she finds out that, now Zarek has been executed, she can't get back the 2000 large that Zarek conned out of her that time they all got wasted on New Caprica with his "...oh for fraks sake, I must have left my wallet at home again...." excuse.

Stay Tuned.

Zarek murders the Quorum. After declaring himself president. Reminds me of Hitler, or Saddam. Gaeta disapproved completely! He's just a cylon hater and doesn't agree with Adama's command decisions. He's a weak character in my book. A total coward. If he disagreed and refused his duties he should spend some time in the brig. But to organize and take part in a mutiny he and Zarek got what they deserved. To compare this story to all this other worldly, political bunk and religous fanatacism is rediculous! Mutiny is punishable by death. In the military you are already under the command and sovereignty of a nation. What happens on a ship cannot be compared to rebellion in, or for a nation. You are already part of that nation. It would only be the same say if a large number of Union troops turned on their own and fought for the Confederacy during the Civil war. They're rebellion would be punishable by death. If they just went awol and went home, then they'd go to prison. If half of Hamas to to turn on their own or the Israelis to turn on their own, would be mutiny. It's only a rebellion if the whole nation takes part. How about the people of Palestine rebel against Hamas and stop the suicide bombers and rockets for a month and see what happens. Deliver truckloads of weapons to checkpoints and disarm and see what happens. Moldfeld and you other political flamers take it to a political forum where you can find some other haters to agree with you, and get out of SciFi land. You want conspiracy, watch the Star Wars saga and 20 years from now you'll be telling your kids about how George Lucas was right; it was the story of America. Comrade!

nteresting set of opinions. I recall an actress talking about how she saw the "good" in what was clearly a "bad" character. I thought that was interesting, because in order to play the character, the actress had to come to some rationalization or world view as the character. It sounds like Mr. Hatch also put some kind of emotional investment into this, which, for fans, is like candy of course.

It seems to me that the writers are taking fringe characters and making them archtypes. Fans invested emotion into even these secondary characters. If a "red shirt" ran a coup, we would see it as "kill the bad guy." Make Gaeta the "villian," and now we have mixed emotions, because we see him as more than one-dimensional, and because we have invested in his character. So Dee became the archtype for the depressed people who couldn't handle the failure of Earth, and Gaeta represented the people who couldn't grapple with the sudden shift of alliances. Sure, it could have been done with others, but it wouldn't have had the same power to the viewer.

Of course this show makes us think about the real world, and of course it comments on current events, etc. But the analogy only goes so far. This show is great to get one pondering, but in the end BSG is space opera and I think that the Gaeta/Zarak thing is more a character study than something to harp on for real-world parallels. I can understand Mr. Hatch's regret, but really, Zarek was a driven creature. He saw his opportunity to obtain a covetted goal of power and tried to roll a very hard six. Tom seemed to never have left the "field manual to revolution" in his past. He had a Machavellian world view. Remember, he was the one who authorized the secret courts, and he did this not for his sake per se, but because it was how he read it in his field guide. He was playing "clean up" to pave the way for the power system to return. It made him seem more a figure from South or Central America than some kind of Middle East parallel. I think if BSG hadn't so compressed the event, what would have been interesting would have been to see Tom Zarek with his army of former prisioners. Seeing Tom with his former cohorts would have allowed Zarek to reveal more of himself than as a one-dimensional plot vehicle.

With that, I'd like to thank Mr. Hatch for yet another enjoyable portrayal in our quest for SciFi gratification. I hope you get to play something in another SciFi venue where we can once again cheer you on.

Yeah, I didn't like the way the writers made everyone, who was on the logical side, practically evil, and everyone who was on the side of madness, good. Mutiny was totally justified here, given how often they've been betrayed by the Cylons. We're talking about machines who are capable of having sleeper programs activated at any time and most of the colonies reasonably voted against trusting them. I use to like Adama, but he's just a second-rate thug who was put in command of an obsolete ship. And Roslin is a looney school teacher who rigs elections in order to rule by hallucination. It makes it kind of hard for me to enjoy the show when the writers are so one-sided. There's no depth here, just surprise. They cheapened Zarek for me by having him blow away the Quorum. A Quorum that was on his side just one week ago.

I loved his character because it gave a since that even though they (BSG) move forward and done things out of courage, humility, and ect... that no matter what even if you have to learn form your past then you must also answer for it.

I praised the show's choice to cast Richard Hatch, if only to add a nostalgic tie to the original BSG. And, to portray him as a terrorist was a brilliant commentary to his former role as the heroic Captain Apollo. Then he had a chance to grow with the series and be involved with the many plots. His choices were shocking: he tried to kill Lee Adama, he gave a presidential order to form a council who killed human's that had the misfortune of aligning themselves with cylons during the cylon occupation. But for his latest shocking act, to order the execution of innocent members of the Quarem, his own execution was justified. Then there is Gaeta. Yes, Gaeta staged a coup and ordered the execution of Adama. Naturally it was Adama's human instinct to then have Gaeta killed in the same fashion. But, was it done democratically? Did Gaeta and Zarek have a fair trial? If not, then Adama is no better than Zarek and Gaeta. Also, it was at that same moment when I said to myself "that's not right, Gaeta should not be killed." You see while I felt Zarek's execution was justified, I did not have the same feeling toward Gaeta. Gaeta was an ideallist, and I'm not sure we can completely understand his sudden motivation to stage such a hostile takeover. But certainly he stood for humanity and independence from cylons to many in the fleet. Adama's blind if she doesn't see that his fleet is divided, and he could have taken the high road and unite his fleet as he had done before on many occasions. I'm sad for Gaeta, and feel even more resentment for Adama and his choice to partner with cylons to kill his own kind (did you count how many cylons were present at his execution?). After all, has Adama forgotten what the Cylons have done to the human race? Not only on Earth, but on New Caprica? Anyway, perhaps in follow up shows they will reflect on the gravity of their actions. And perhaps we will understand some of the mystery surrounding Gaeta in upcoming episodes (like the conspiracy theories going around on this website about his leg, and what exactly does Baltar know about Gaeta).

OK, Enough about Gaeta and Adama.

Farewell, Richard Hatch. You gave some of us SciFi fans some memorable moments, you made us think, and made us feel. You will be missed.

i just want to say that bsg is by far my most favourite show,possibly of all time.i find it to be brilliantly written,and acted.very realistic and gritty.at the end of the day it is a war story,and its portrayals of death and loss seem realistic.i,for one will be sad to see bsg end,but i am glad that the story will be finished.now on to my little bit of flaming here.........mulfeld,are you serious?i read your comments with a little bit of humour.you are aware this is a scifi site right?wth are you going on and on about hamas and israel for?not that i want to continue on with your drivel, but simply because you can write well,doesnt make you anything but a supporter of a world recognized terrorist organization.you spent enough time on bashing israeli goals in the middle east that i have to ask......are you getting paid by hamas to do internet pr work?if we go to say,martha stewarts website,can we see an essay on the glory of hamas written there by you?i take high offence to people such as you.this is bsg.it is a show.it entertained us,maybe worked to bring us closer together.it made me think about what if there were humans like us,out there.what i dont believe this is ,is a platform for people like you to attempt to put forward your own personal agenda.do you want to know a good definition of terrorism?anyone who takes a fight specifically to a civilian population.for example....a suicide bomber in a grocery store.now im sure you will bring up all the palestinian civilians killed in the last war.but considering that hamas fights amidst women and children,what would anyone expect?i think the idf does a pretty good job defending israel amidst hopeless conditions.funny........i think i just joined a political discussion on a scifi site.anyway,can we stick to the story here people?and leave our anti-israel,pro -hamas agenda at home.p.s. mulden,if you are actually a history student i hope for the rest of us that you stay that way.id hate to think that you might be teaching my kids anytime soon.history is similiar to reporting the news.a level of unbiasedness is required.something which you certainly do not possess.

Well if the show's ending, might as well go with a bang. That's how I feel whenever a character dies in season 4...first Cally, but now that its only 10 episodes and closing from the end, even moreso.

Yes I sympathize with what he thought the show should go on for more years, but "the fact that the show is ending" is a different matter unto itself

the way I see if, if there's only....6 more episodes!...after this, you might as well go out with a bang, and has he says, have a good death scene

As he says, yeah, you always wish you turn into the anti-hero and not just a villain.

Nonetheless I think they made Zarek grey enough: he honestly thinks he doing the right thing, he even kills off the entire Quorum of Twelve because he thinks they've just become Roslin and Adama's pets, and while it is pretty stupid of a lot of fleet ships to reject superior technology even if its from the Cylons (they'd get left behind if they weren't fast enough)....in his view, they chose to reject it and that's "the will of the people" and that makes Adama and Roslin wrong. Further, he's not just this lone Iago-like villain, as a lot of people on Galactica sided with him (Racetrack, Narcho, etc.) so there was basically resentment and everyone going nuts because Earth wasn't what they thought it would be. So he "stayed true to his principles" even if they're different from Roslins; this wasn't "Character assassination" but logical progression.

But as I said; have a memorable death scene, particularly if the show is ending in 6 episodes.

If I were Adama, I would have shot Zarek and Gaeta both in the head the minute I walked on to the deck of the CIC. Their crimes, a mutiny and the murder of the council were un-forgivable, and the Galactica IS a military ship, governed by military rules... but they did get what they deserved. Cudos to Richard Hatch for being a great actor, and a consistant part of the Galactica family for the past 31 years.

IMO, Battlestar Galactica is not only the best SciFi TV show ever, but also one of the best of any shows ever. It will be missed and not easily replaced.

Mr. Hatch is awesome because he's so passionate about Battlestar and literally has been since the beginning of his role in the original series.

He's right in that the show could go on for a few more years and it's sad this his character and the show are ending :(

Spectacular work as Tom Zarek.

I think many looking to deep meanings behind the character Zarek are overlooking some subtleties of context. Take the hate of cylons, for example. One message presented by this plot device is that hate, even if "justified" is self-destructive if it's not tempered by reason.

Adama allied with the rebel cylons because he saw it as the only way to ensure the survival of his people. Those who wanted nothing to do with the cyclons-even when it became obvious their aid would improve greatly chances for survival-are archtypes of people who will "cut off their noses to spite their faces."

I can tell you, as a Native American, that the reality of survival is you set aside desire for revenge if the only chance your children and grandchildren have to live is to embrace former enemies as allies. We've done it for 5 centuries.

This said, I believe it places Zarek in a much less sympathetic light than some have. He is seeking power for his own sake, even if it means the destruction of humanity. One may attempt to excuse his flawed thinking by saying he too felt he was doing what he felt was best. But the fact remains we are looking at a character study of two men-Adama and Zarek. Both flawed, both with strong personal convictions. But frankly, Adama is the better man. The better man because he turned from his early desires to fight the cylons at all costs to leading the survivors. Adama never wanted to be a Moses-type figure: he wanted to command his ship in battle, and take as many cylons with him as he could.

Zarek never had to confront this sort of situation. For him it was merely a matter of gaining political power. IMO, attempting to ennoble Zarek too much is missing a major point of the whole plot line: the average person just wants to survive so much that he/she can be misled by those who use that desire for survival for their own means. Zarek catered to the foolishness that the hate for cylons engendered in many people. That is, that some would rather die hating cylons than live allied with them: just as Adama thought at the beginning of the series.

In short, the Zarek/Adama/Roslin conflict reflects how foolish the masses can be in such situations unless strong leaders of character (which Zarek was not) make the correct-but unpopular-decisions.

i never realy say tom zarek as evil, i saw him mostly as a true sociopath.
he seemed to want to manipulate any and every one arount him to get what he wanted, and if anything got in his way then he would kill them if he could.
i've never seen one instance where he seemed remorse for any loss of life, unless it was vained for the purpose of manipulating someone.
lee stood up for his rights, and was mostly the reason he was released from the penal ship, id bet zarek would have offed lee if he ever got in his way, like if lee was in the room with the corrum when zarek ordered the hit.
thats just my take any way.

Well, I don't completely agree with Richard's reading of the character, but I've certainly had my opinion that Richard Hatch is a consummate professional and a true gentleman confirmed once again.

Richard Hatch did a superb job in that last scene. Just when I was starting to get a sense Zarek was just power-hungry, Hatch does that little half-smile at Gaeta and he looks "relieved" as Hatch said; he looked more human there. He did a good job of conveying Zarek's conflicted nature, trying to do what he thought was best, by whatever means to that end. For a while there he didn't seem conflicted at all. For sure an under-appreciated role on the show.

I gotta defend "Muldfeld" here.

"Jack Bauer" says: "Being complicated doesn't make killing innocents any more right. It's not that complicated because selfish or just stupid they are wrong for what they do, and for you it's simple, you are an idiot."

So, why don't you apply this to what the United States has done in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know the statistics in Afghanistan, but I know that the number of INNOCENT Iraqi deaths is almost 100 times that of American soldiers killed since the invasion began in 2003.

And then consider what Israel has done over the years. The number of innocent Palestinians they have killed in cities, towns, villages and most especially REFUGEE camps is so proportionatley higher than the number of people killed by the Arab "terrorists."

If killing innocents makes you a terrorist, than our previous administration, and the current one in Israel, are both terrorist organizations.

Muldrem isn't the "frakking idiot," the rest of you who attack him are. You all seem to think that just because it is a GOVERNMENT taking these actions that they must be OKAY.

Frakking bull$#!T.

Our country has become so obsessed with calling OTHERS "terrorist" that we forget how we started. Try applying our modern idea of "terrorist" with what we did during the Revolutionary War. Our soldiers represented what was not a recognized government, with at the time no legal standing (note: Hamas is ACTUALLY the legitimate government of the Palestinian Territories) . Look at how the Brits took the actions of snipers (which violated every rule of "civilized warfare" at the time. It can EASILY be argued that our nation was FOUNDED by terrorists.

So typical of the vast majority of Americans to think that when somebody we don't like does something violent it is wrong, and a terrorist act; yet when we do the same it is fine.

And we wonder why so much of the world thinks of us as Stupid Americans. Because, most of Americans are, and believe whatever they are told to believe by the government.

Didn't the Bush administration teach you anything?

Don't you people ever learn from history? The French, Russia, Chinese Revolutions etc.. all followed the same boring and bloody path. They remove a despot and replace him with a system 100 times worse and with more people killed to boot. The dumb French even got a war mongering Corsican Emperor to further their Revolutionary Cause. LOL. And for all those people who argue that George Bush was worse - you're absolutely morons. He stepped down from power after his term in office you fools. And the US is going to pull out of Iraq leaving behind a civilian democratic administration. Why don't you lot just crawl back to Cuba. I heard the coffee is good there.

Uh, Muldfield? If there really were an actual terrorist problem, why exactly is it that no NeoCon leaders have been assassinated? I mean, it's not like they have Secret Service Protection. You get way, way too much of your worldview from presstitutes.

As for the episode, it felt to me like the writers were just getting rid of people. Gaeta's personality was all wrong for a mutiny leader; he's the type you make second in command, and he'll never be a commander for more than ad hoc needs; he's a born assistant, not a boss. The only male military character they've developed that could have run that mutiny was Tyrol, and he couldn't do it because he's a Cylon. With ten more minutes of screen time in previous episodes to develop him, Gage could have been the mutiny leader with no problem.

Zarek never knew anything about society except that he didn't like the way it was run, and showed that in his campaign speeches way back when. That's another area where Tyrol was the only one who might have carried the load, but couldn't because he was Cylon.

After this many years, and this much emotional investment, I'm kinda thinkin' I might be pretty doggone disgusted with the way this series ends up. I hope not, but it's startin' to look that way. For one thing, Bill Adama needs someone to hand him his head; he really lacks the depth and the win/loss record to justify the attitude he gives off. Lee's the only one who seems to have a grip, and he's been shuffled off to the political arena. It was good to see him get his hands on a gun and show Starbuck that he was still smarter and better at combat than her. Speaking of which, it's a very good thing that she's been kicked around so much, and been humbled; she was very unpleasant in her proud persona. Cute, though...

Uh, Muldfield? If there really were an actual terrorist problem, why exactly is it that no NeoCon leaders have been assassinated? I mean, it's not like they have Secret Service Protection. You get way, way too much of your worldview from presstitutes.

As for the episode, it felt to me like the writers were just getting rid of people. Gaeta's personality was all wrong for a mutiny leader; he's the type you make second in command, and he'll never be a commander for more than ad hoc needs; he's a born assistant, not a boss. The only male military character they've developed that could have run that mutiny was Tyrol, and he couldn't do it because he's a Cylon. With ten more minutes of screen time in previous episodes to develop him, Gage could have been the mutiny leader with no problem.

Zarek never knew anything about society except that he didn't like the way it was run, and showed that in his campaign speeches way back when. That's another area where Tyrol was the only one who might have carried the load, but couldn't because he was Cylon.

After this many years, and this much emotional investment, I'm kinda thinkin' I might be pretty doggone disgusted with the way this series ends up. I hope not, but it's startin' to look that way. For one thing, Bill Adama needs someone to hand him his head; he really lacks the depth and the win/loss record to justify the attitude he gives off. Lee's the only one who seems to have a grip, and he's been shuffled off to the political arena. It was good to see him get his hands on a gun and show Starbuck that he was still smarter and better at combat than her. Speaking of which, it's a very good thing that she's been kicked around so much, and been humbled; she was very unpleasant in her proud persona. Cute, though...

>>>So, why don't you apply this to what the United States has done in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know the statistics in Afghanistan, but I know that the number of INNOCENT Iraqi deaths is almost 100 times that of American soldiers killed since the invasion began in 2003.
Because there's a difference between accidentally killing civilians, and making the effort to avoid civilian deaths whenever possible, and PURPOSEFULLY TARGETING CIVILIANS, making civilian deaths your objective! The former is true of the US, and the latter is true of the people we're fighting. If you can't tell the difference between that, then you can't comment on what is or isn't moral.

In addition, something tells me that when you consider civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're probably counting those murdered by terrorists, too. What, you want to blame the US for the deaths of 50 Iraqis when a Baathist or al-Qaeda agent sets off a bomb that kills them? Something tells me you do.

As for how our country started, your comparing the Founding Fathers to terrorists is ludicrous. The Founding Fathers didn't target schools and kill over 300 children and teachers as terrorists did in Beslan. The Founding Fathers didn't capture journalists and decapitate them as terrorists did to Daniel Pearl. The Founding Fathers didn't set off bombs which killed over 50 small children just to kill one or two British soldiers who were busy handing out candy.

Frankly, both you and Mudfeld have a monstrously skewed perspective, and don't have the slightest grasp of reality, nor any kind of moral sense, if you're comparing US soldiers or the Founding Fathers and how they waged war, and saying it's morally equivalent to terrorists and how THEY wage war.

-----So, why don't you apply this to what the United States has done in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't know the statistics in Afghanistan, but I know that the number of INNOCENT Iraqi deaths is almost 100 times that of American soldiers killed since the invasion began in 2003.-----

Because there's a difference between accidentally killing civilians, and making the effort to avoid civilian deaths whenever possible, and PURPOSEFULLY TARGETING CIVILIANS, making civilian deaths your objective! The former is true of the US, and the latter is true of the people we're fighting. If you can't tell the difference between that, then you can't comment on what is or isn't moral.

In addition, something tells me that when you consider civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're probably counting those murdered by terrorists, too. What, you want to blame the US for the deaths of 50 Iraqis when a Baathist or al-Qaeda agent sets off a bomb that kills them? Something tells me you do.

As for how our country started, your comparing the Founding Fathers to terrorists is ludicrous. The Founding Fathers didn't target schools and kill over 300 children and teachers as terrorists did in Beslan. The Founding Fathers didn't capture journalists and decapitate them as terrorists did to Daniel Pearl. The Founding Fathers didn't set off bombs which killed over 50 small children just to kill one or two British soldiers who were busy handing out candy.

Frankly, both you and Mudfeld have a monstrously skewed perspective, and don't have the slightest grasp of reality, nor any kind of moral sense. US soldiers and the Founding Fathers waged war. Terrorists, on the other hand, commit acts of mass murder and call it war. That you consider them comparable, or from appearances even consider the US to be the immoral side, shows how utterly repugnant you are morally.

Personally, I liked the way that they handled Zarek's character from beginning to end of the series, and, unlike some others, I don't think he was ever really meant as a positive character (even if he did show some human moments on New Caprica--just because he disliked the Cylons more than he disliked Rosilin, doesn't suddenly make him Mr. Nice Guy).

The thing we need to keep in mind with the Zarek character is that one of the main themes of the entire series has been the "us vs. them" comparison. Who is "human" and who is not. Who is the "bad guy." Who is the "terrorist." Throughout the entire series, humanity has been held up to the Cylons as a means of social and philosophical commentary, in the absolute best tradition of science fiction (remember the old Star Trek episidoe, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, where Frank Gorshin plays an alien who is white on one side and black on the other--one of the best criticisms of racism in America ever, and it was only really possible in a science fiction format). BSG has allowed us to look closely at, and think deeply about, some of the more troubling aspects of our times. Whether you agree with the opinions of others in this message thread or not, BSG has inspsired these discussions. But what the series did with the Zarek character was remind us that it isn't always an "us or them" situation. The "bad guys" aren't always on the outside. Even if we are on the side of right, there can be bad guys in our own midst. And maybe they feel that they have the best of intentions, and maybe they feel that they are right, but they are still ultimately bad guys (one can't help but wonder whether VP Zarek was meant to represent Cheney or not--don't jump all over me, anybody--I'm not making any political commentary, just pointing out a possible VP to VP connection). So I think Zarek had to be a bad guy. With all due respect to Richard Hatch's comments about wanting to see the character redeemed (perfectly understandable when you get that involved with a character over a long period of time) not every human being is capable of redemption. Some people are bad guys, and some of them are in our midst, and not merely those whose race and nationality and religion is different than ours. Nothing is so clear cut in the real world, and I applaud BSG for mirroring that in the series.

As for Gaeda, who I generally liked as a character, I personally think it was all summed up in his last words, which I thought was a brilliant and tragic way to end his character. Without those two words, I think things would have been much more ambiguous with his character. He had been a good guy for so long, and I was having trouble during these last two episodes wrapping my head around such a drastic change in him. Intellectually, I understand that some people will disagree with Adama's decisions, but the series has been so focused on Adama, that we get to see and understand his actions, and none of us will believe Gaeda's accusations of him. So it's hard to see a character that has been a loyal member of the crew so suddenly take on what can only seem to us as an unreasonable attitude. And it seems like such an odd way to end that character in the series.

But then he's in the launch tube at the wrong end of a firing squad and he looks down at his amputated leg and says, "It stopped." The phantom pain that had plagued him since he lost his leg (and maybe the itching, etc.) had stopped. It suddenly makes you wonder how much of this was driven by his pain (and not merely his physical pain, but also his psychololgical pain, based on what he was involved in when serving Baltar on New Caprica, and what was revealed to him in the webisodes about how he had actually colluded with a Sharon in a really twisted way). It actually makes you wonder if his entire involvement in this scheme of Zarek's was merely a complicated and unconscious means of suicide. Dee's suicide (easily the most tragic moment of the entire series) was clear and obvious, but it might not have been the last. Consider how calm and almost resigned he is just before Adama retakes the bridge. Zarek is frantic, and is trying to maintain his control, but not Gaeda. And when he says, "One day soon, there's going to be a reckoning," is he talking about what will happen to the humans in the future, or is he referring to himself. Makes you wonder.

And best of all, like so much of this series, it leaves you thinking. The one thing I absolutely agree with Richard Hatch about is that I would have loved to see a couple more years of the series, although I have to admit, I'm anxious to see how the series resolves.

It is sad to see any of the cast leave, but if you are going to leave, make sure you have a good exit. It was the perfect moment for Zarek to go. His death might have become more meaningless when caught up in the events coming up. Richard Hatch acts his socks off in every scene his is in and my only wish was he was in it more. I have met Richard a couple of times and I can say he is so very different from his character and one of the nicest people you could meet. Bon Voyage, Mr Hatch!

hey i think i can confidently predict the rest of the fleet going up the proverbial creek....i was hoping for more shocking deaths in this one alas.... at least the final five dont have to be worried about dying anymore :D

During the series it would have been great to see Zarek transform through some kind of self redemption. My take on Zarek's character was that he was a man pressing for his idea of change. Regrettebly, Zarek's motives were tainted with the thirst for power at all costs; a recurring theme through the whole series.

Hatch did a great job with this character in this series, just as he did with the classic BSG. Perhaps he can be the Admiral in the next remake of BSG.

Mr. Hatch,
I would like to thank you! Your acting ability is superb! You have placed your mark on both the original series and the new one. I will also remember you as the young Apollo but also add to those memories as the very cunning terrorist Tom Zarek! If Battlestar Galactica continues in a different form after these last shows I hope you will be a part of it. Also, find Dirk..... Get him back in the saddle somewhere in the Galactica universe!

I also want to say that I will miss Tom Zarek, Although I think he stepped over the line in the end, it was a very convincing portrayal of how a desperate person can cross that line.

But I am happy that I got to see more Richard Hatch than just the old series. The older series is now seen as a bit "cheesy", but really I think it had an excellent cast (as you've shown). I think the old series had a rocky start and was finding its stride when it was cancelled. Ah well.

In terms of Zarek, I felt like there was a missed opportunity because I think his character gave the best insight into the inner conflict of the Colonies which the other characters seem to gloss over. I think the roots of the Cylon problem are actually here. Maybe we'll see more in the Caprica prequel.

I understood why Adama executed him (especially after the Council was massacred), but I hope it will be remembered that he once save President Roslin on New Caprica. It is an accurate reflection of how alliances can rise and fall in turbulent times.

Captain America,

I understand you thinking this way; it took a long time for me to realize America's crimes. The fact is that America would never wage this kind of war among people for whom it cared. The terrorists of whom I spoke don't mean to kill innocent people, but they can't get to the leaders so they settle for this; I wasn't defending Al Qaeda-type groups and there's a big difference in brutality.

I also think Someone Else made excellent points.

Define what is terrorism and what is state-sanctioned violence.

There are two definitions of “terrorism” as far as I can tell. The scale definition relates to extreme strategies adopted by a weaker actor against state actors; the latter are able to enforce unjust laws and use overwhelming, selectively-targeted force to achieve their ends. American Revolutionaries shocked Britons by violating “civilized” warfare protocol with their guerrilla warfare. This definition provides no moral distinction from state violence, but is the real reason states object to terrorism: it challenges their authority.

The other definition is a behavioral one of using fear to provoke compliance. State actors like Blair or Bush – Putin or Pinochet -- claim this as their justification for opposing terrorism. Yet the history shows that terrorists can and do use restraint, as in the case of Hamas, which is not nearly as brutal as Al Qaeda-type groups in its goals and methods, no matter what Sen. McCain says in implying that all terrorism is equal. History is full of examples of states using coercion – terror – to carry out their objectives, including brutal violence, even if that damage is collateral. For Sen. McCain to claim Israel’s mostly civilian killings in Lebanon in 2006 were morally superior to the 100 or so military officer killings carried out by Hezbollah because they fall under the convenient rubric of “collateral damage” does not excuse them any more. We all know that when we wage war, innocents die. In this light, America criticizing Iran for sponsoring Hezbollah is hypocritical against America’s decades-long support for Israel’s terrorism against Palestinians, let alone its role in the brutality of Latin American regimes against leftist discontent in the name of the Cold War.

The fact is that America has supported regimes that execute people and enslave them, as the United Fruit Company did in Guatemala to Indios during the Cold War and before; it's a fact. The Founding Fathers did commit atrocities against native Americans, who would have been far better served by the British monarchy. They also kept blacks in slavery.

Do you have any idea of the atrocities committed by the US in Vietnam? Has the US ever apologized for these acts? Didn't Sarah Palin claim in one speech that Barack Obama was a threat for looking out for the rights of suspected terrorists and then say that those who tortured McCain in Vietnam were "evil", but didn't mention that McCain was bombing and murdering at least hundreds of people who wanted nothing more than to live in freedom from Western control?

To this day, children are born in Vietnam with birth defects because of the Agent Orange used there, and many Arab countries that America attacked know pollutants from explosions and the effects of war being waged there.

So, there's nothing civilized or morally superior about Western methods of oppression and coercion, only that most Western inhabitants have others pull the trigger and do the dirty work for us.

Max and Muldfeld, I wont flat out call you names or jump up and down on your views, this is America, your allowed to do that freely without fear of being thrown in jail or executed for speaking out like in so many other countries. I wont judge your faith or whatever you practice as here it's perfectly all right to do so, not so in many other countries.

Of course if your not in America and hiding behind the internet in your country and feel those eyes watching you, too bad. As a side note I have been to palastine i have friends there, i "know" what it is all about, and it is not the USA causing problems, though they stick their noses in far to frequently, it's decades of infighting and powergrabs and no one being satisfied that is the problem, throw faith in the mix and it's a lose lose situation all the time.

I suggest you try to evaluate situations with no faith and no religion involved as it is a crutch used by people to blame other people for their own failings and intolerance, things will be clearer, and then the biggest question will be why.

The next question you need to ask yourself is what you will do to help without blowing people up and see what it is like ten years down the road.

The term "terrorism" is thrown around far to casually nowadays, the original intent is lost among both sides, and the leaders make no moves to correct it.

Wow, people really don't like the truth huh Muldfeld. People need to realize that America is one of if not the world's largest imperial regimes today. We've installed so many atrocious leaders around the world its mind boggling. Plus our pro Israel ties have perpetuated a never endng, one sided "war" between them and the palestinians. The zionists of both Israel and the United States have essentially declared a free for all against ANY country that doesn't support Israel and its massive banking agenda. I have nothing against the normal everyday citizen of Israel but their government along with ours is becoming the new Rome, complete with utter disregard for human life.

My recomendation is that everyone on this comments page go look up some history about Israel and America that doesn't come from our tainted media outlets. History never looks sweeter than through the lens of your own country.

I applaud Richard Hatch for his excellent work on "Battlestar Galactica." Tom Zarek brought a unique and uncompromising view of political power to the show. He balanced everyone else's viewpoint with hardline questions, often asking questions no one else wanted to touch with a long pole. He meant business and he stuck with his convictions. I enjoyed this about him.

Say what you want about the way Zarek died, but at least he never forgot the Holocaust or how murderously, genocidally manipulative the Cylons can be. Adama really, really needs to remember this too. I hope he does.

We'll see.

Thanks, Richard!

I applaud Richard Hatch for his excellent work on "Battlestar Galactica." Tom Zarek brought a unique and uncompromising view of political power to the show. He balanced everyone else's viewpoint with hardline questions, often asking questions no one else wanted to touch with a long pole. He meant business and he stuck with his convictions. I enjoyed this about him.

Say what you want about the way Zarek died, but at least he never forgot the Holocaust or how murderously, genocidally manipulative the Cylons can be. Adama really, really needs to remember this too. I hope he does.

We'll see.

Thanks, Richard!

I applaud Richard Hatch for his excellent work on "Battlestar Galactica." Tom Zarek brought a unique and uncompromising view of political power to the show. He balanced everyone else's viewpoint with hardline questions, often asking questions no one else wanted to touch with a long pole. He meant business and he stuck with his convictions. I enjoyed this about him.

Say what you want about the way Zarek died, but at least he never forgot the Holocaust or how murderously, genocidally manipulative the Cylons can be. Adama really, really needs to remember this too. I hope he does.

We'll see.

Thanks, Richard!

Sorry for the triple post. Isn't Vista wonderful?

Yuck.

Congratulations to Richard Hatch for his work here.
Zarek wasn't the original Apollo, but not a villain either, just a realist, in a genre that doesn't do realists well. Best of luck in your next projects.

And the sad thing, in the end....

They're all Cylons. As well as being humans.

mulder...........you are getting very boring.this world viewpoint you seem to have that has its roots up your own ass is ridiculous.get a life you whiner.if you love middle eastern type terrorists so much,especially those choir boys hamas....why not move to gaza?for all you halfwits who complain about government this,american that,who do you think keeps you safe in your little beds at night?you want the freedom of living in a country with little or no government intervention?try lebanon.i hear the weather is balmy.sorry to be getting steamed here.but this non stop anti american crap is getting to me.and muldy,i think you might make me sick the most because i suspect you are american.loser.

mulder...........you are getting very boring.this world viewpoint you seem to have that has its roots up your own ass is ridiculous.get a life you whiner.if you love middle eastern type terrorists so much,especially those choir boys hamas....why not move to gaza?for all you halfwits who complain about government this,american that,who do you think keeps you safe in your little beds at night?you want the freedom of living in a country with little or no government intervention?try lebanon.i hear the weather is balmy.sorry to be getting steamed here.but this non stop anti american crap is getting to me.and muldy,i think you might make me sick the most because i suspect you are american.loser.

I guess I missed the part about Zarick always being portrayed in a negative light. I saw him as the one character who strove for power in a world where the systems didn't recognize him as one of their power players. He wasn't in the military or a government official at the very beginning. He was a prisoner, someone disenfranchised by the power structure and yet he fought his way into their world and demanded to be given a place and he almost took over the whole damn thing. So he was portrayed ignobally as the power structure does to those who they don't recognize who challenge them for power. I thought the final scene where he ordered the assaination of the council went too far out of character but then I think in the rush to get this story to end the writers are doing a lot of shorchanging of characters and plots.

I have to dispute missingkara's statement about Zarek being, "someone disenfranchised by the power structure." That makes him sound like someone who has been wronged. But remember the reason he was a prisoner in the first place was because he blew up a govt. building on Sagittaron, with an unknown number of casualties. Regardless of your opinions on what is and what isn't terrorism, it's hard to argue that that isn't an example of it. In the end, ordering the deaths of the council was just his showing his true colors. Other than a brief moment on New Caprica, when he could relate to Rosilin because they were "both" being oppressed, his character always seemed to have nothing but disdain for others. As soon as he had the upper hand, his true self shone through and he killed the council (who, frankly, always annoyed the heck out of me, so I can't say that I'm sorry we'll never have to listen to them bicker again, but that's a whole different issue).

People are always going to disagree - that ain't going to change.

How they disagree says a lot about who they are.

If you think the best way to handle your opponents is to kill them then you are nothing but a thug IMO. I don't care how noble or right your cause truly is violence is never the way to get what you want.

Still having said that - everyone has the right to defend themselves from violence.

Whether you are the fictional Zarek or the real world equivalent violence never justifies your actions.

The middle east is a contest of wills. You have one side that will not even acknowledge the other's right to existence, whose idea of a truce is to cut down the random rocket attacks to two-a-day, deliberately targets civilians and attacks from and hides in heavily populated civilian areas. Then you have a side that has made peace with enemies that recognize their right to exist, tries to warn civilians prior to attacks, and sends their troops in without any civilian shields.

At this point I don't really care who is right or wrong - terrorists will not get my sympathy or support as long as they continue to act this way. Take a page from Ghandi's or Mandella's books - look what both of them achieved WITHOUT violence!

I swear if the Palestinians took that approach within a decade all of the UN resolutions that Israel has violated would be enforced. Oh and just as a reminder one of those resolutions is Israel has a right to exist.

I have two daughters when one hits the other - even for a good reason - I punish the violence FIRST, then I try to right the wrong. So say we all?

I haven't watched the interview yet (don't have the access while I'm at school), but wanted to point out that I think calling Zarek a straight-up bad guy is doing the character a serious disservice and undermining what RDM and Co. accomplished. Instead of the term 'bad guy', the term I associate with Zarek is 'antagonist', which, in its simplest form, means that he was placed at odds with the series' protagonists. One of the things that drew me to BSG is the fact that it transcended the usual paremeters of 'straight-up good guys' and 'straight-up bad guys' that you usually find in the Sci-Fi genre (and in most mainstream serial television). Every single character, including the protagonists, are flawed and make decisions which might, in the real world, get them branded with monikers like 'dictator', 'terrorist', or 'traitor', yet their actions were always, in some way, justifiable, even if they might not be necessarily morally correct.

Apollo awoke with a start, breathing heavily and sweating. He felt his chest where the bullets had struck as he sat bound for execution with Gaeta in the launch tube. Bullets? Execution? Who's Gaeta ? He turned to where Sheba lay sleeping peacefully and wondered what she would think of his nightmare. Especially of Starbuck being a girl.

It sure would have been nice to see the series continue on longer. I am very curious to see what would have happened between Zarak and the Eastern Alliance. I have a feeling they would have hit it off.

It would be interesting if it turns out the nuclear war that wiped out Earth involved an "Eastern Alliance".

I look at this reimagined BSG as just another version of a legend just as there are several versions of Superman and Batman. They all have the same basic premise but the Golden Age Superman is different from the George Reaves Superman who is different from the Silver Age comics version who is different from the Chris Reeve Superman who is different from the Lois & Clark Superman who is different from the Smallville .........

Do you see my point? There could be another version of Battlestar Galactica where Richard Hatch could play Count Iblis. Say! That would be really cool :)

now remember throughout the history of sci fi writers such as frank herbert or george lucas and hg wells have used the medium to address issues of their times.

and shows such as star trek and movies such as ai and star wars a star trek and many many others have used themselves as political platforms for current issues so back off people for pointing out that the current bsg has done so it is clear they have tried to explore both sides of the terrorism issue and of course they have in the post 9 11 world maybe they have helped us heal a bit or maybe just understand a little more from both sides of the issue

Bigmac.............well said.

Muldfed, are you an IDIOT? Isreal leaves Gaza Strip alone, a bomb goes off in a civilian (key word there civilian) area, killing men, women, and children, and they need to leave Hamas alone? How would you feel if they did that to you? They do what you would do if it was your kid that got killed. They hunt them down. As far as America goes, 9-11-01 the second time Al-Quida attacks the U.S. and this time we are fighting back. If you don't like the way that we are doing this, then give us that frackin idiot that killed our civilian men, women and children. We took out a few of his buddys, but because where not a "terroristic country" we have to repair that country that we blew the frack out of. That's what makes us a "civilized country". If your people want us out, let us finish fixing everything that we blew up and the stuff idiots blew up, and we will leave. If you want us to stay out, LEAVE US ALONE. Idoits started this and WE WILL FINISH IT.

It was too bad they resorted to in-fighting as opposed to fighting the Cylons. There just wasn't enough Cylons. The fact they couldn't even tell which was a Cylon and wasn't was very dumb.

However, I do like watching the show.

-"But what does that mean exactly? TV is a medium, as is , a movie, a play, a song, a novel. A medium transports ideas"

This was posted in a comment above (way above)...yes TV is a medium, and I find it interesting that up untill the year 2001 or so, TV held nothing for me. I'm a writer with several minor publications, and have studied art and literature, especially cinema for some time now. It's intriguing how much TV has changed from predictable, formulaic plotlines as those seen in Star Trek and even, I dare say...Twin Peaks (I'm a Lynch fan...sorry). At any rate, formulaic programming still exists, as in the show House, which I can't stand. Yes, BSG is on another level, the same level other shows like Dexter and Brotherhood, have brought to the table. My point is this--it's all IT. You people, including myself, get interested ina show, we post thousands and thouasands of comments, and that gets circulated through IT techs all the way up to directors and writers. What I'm saying is that TV is now a Wiki of sorts, allowing networks to vastly improve consumer satisfaction. I believe, due to the programmability of computers (yes, I'm a programmer, too...and jobless like everyone else), we have earned a new era of telivision. It will always be limited by budgetary restraints, but what the networks are learning is that after viewers have had a chance to watch a truly magnificent show like this, they can't go back to the formulaic and mostly lame television which has been served up now for more than two generations of humans.
At any rate, this thought has captivated me, and led me to the conclusion that SOME TV at the moment should be held as high art, whereas in the past (pre-2001), television was a mind-numbing and predictable bore. I find BSG, Dexter, and Brotherhood (HBO/Showtime), on the level of good cinema...and the acting this show has given us...BSG IS superior to Star Wars, the old BSG....the list goes on. Anyone else find the parallell between IT technology growth and the reinvention of TV as an actual artwork medium, more akin to film? Games are the next in line.

The real lesson is when you start something finish it fast. Don't pretend to hold court and pass any kind of judgment. The judgment was passed when the first action was taken.

Halcyon, you smell of someone that is in a nice warm world of their own, you say "lets go review history", well hero let's just do that, without the rose colored glasses you wear, and see what the real deal is.

Lets see, a terrorist? i wonder what the industrial wood chipper behind sadams sons house was for? kindling? The photos of the stuff underneath it sure werent twigs you hypocrit.

Lmao, one, I wasn't even talking about Iraq anywhere in my text block and 2, if you wanna talk atrocities, theres over a million Iraqi's dead because of our "war against terror", we've used millions of rounds of depleted uranium thats not only screwing our own men up but causing cancer epidemics and radiation poisoning all over the country and sorry, that stuff doesn't just disappear, it'll be there for many many years. This is the kind of thing I love about my fellow citizens, if you are an American, is that they listen to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News which WON'T report on anything important about the wars we're in or the wars we support...

Your obviously online possum, so why not check out the reliable news sources on it. Things like http://www.globalresearch.ca/ or http://www.indymedia.org are good sources to start with, unless you wanna just watch BSG and assume everthing is fine and dandy and that your governement is your friend, they'll fix everything right? Oh wait... Also I implore you to look up the CIA's history and then tell me that what we do is in the name of "freedom and democracy" pfft...

NRA4EVR!

oh great.................halcion,another muldeer.

First I would like to say, If your going to leave paragraphs of a post, do the rest of us a favor and proof read it. It's hard to take your views seriously if you can't spell or use bad grammar. Second, THIS IS AMERICA!! If you think It's so evil here, Get the FRAK out!! Maybe you should try living in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, or Afganistan....Your welcome and free to your opionions, because you live HERE. If you think the U.S. Military are Terrorists, then you are a terrorist. And Lastly, most of you ranting about Israel and the U.S. need to go take High School World History. EVERY single problem in the Middle East today, can be traced back to two countries, England and France. We here in the U.S. have been picking up the rest of the worlds mistakes since WW1. We stick our nose in because we have to. Those with the power to act, have the responsibilty to act. It would be nice to sit back and let the rest of the world watch it's own butt, but that just doesn't seem to work out too well.

Big Mac remember necklessing? A Mandella invention. Captain America remember when the human shields went to Iraq in 2002 and were flabbergasted that Saddam would really set up military operations next to schools, Masques and hospitals. The human shields decided they did not want to be human shields any more if they were going to really be human shields/casualties.

All Zarek wanted was power for power's sake. He would be happy if he had a couple of centurions to order around.
Though flawed, Roslin only wants the power until it can be handed off to one who respects the authority she has as much as she does. Real leaders respect the power/authority they wield. Adama allied with cylon/skin jobs that did not want to continue the war. Simply put he allied with the cylon Gandhis. Is that a bad thing?
Mudman:
When is the Gazakan and West Bankian Gandhi going to appear?
Why did BHO sign an executive order re-instating rendition?

You need to understand the objectives of a group or person to rationalize their actions. Hamas doesnt want the West Bank and Gaza they want to kill Jews and get rid of Israel. If you agree with Hamas you support this objective.

As for negotiations, the entire world knows the solution (two states, mutual recognition, no violence) but Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran dont want this. While Israel is not perfect, why should Israel give any inch to a group committed to its destruction.

Glorifing Hamas is supporting hate and murder.

If you dont beleive it, why wasnt there terrorism agaist Egypt and Jordan when they controlled Gaza and the West Bank?Becuase it is about hate towards Jews.

The way to peace is peace not violence. Hamas doesnt want peace as most of us know it.

You need to understand the objectives of a group or person to rationalize their actions. Hamas doesnt want the West Bank and Gaza they want to kill Jews and get rid of Israel. If you agree with Hamas you support this objective.

As for negotiations, the entire world knows the solution (two states, mutual recognition, no violence) but Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran dont want this. While Israel is not perfect, why should Israel give any inch to a group committed to its destruction.

Glorifing Hamas is supporting hate and murder.

If you dont beleive it, why wasnt there terrorism agaist Egypt and Jordan when they controlled Gaza and the West Bank?Becuase it is about hate towards Jews.

The way to peace is peace not violence. Hamas doesnt want peace as most of us know it.

It's very interesting and absorbing the Sci Fi programms, but I'd like to see more horror themes than I meet it now.
I've been written many short misteryous story in my webpage. Invite me!

Bye

I think many are missing the actual points of Zarek's character. He is a known radical from before the holocaust and like all the survivors, he has the choice to remake himself. I think that the characterization of Zarek is that of a powerfully driven individual who is determined that his vision of the world be made manifest. The failure of his character is that he chooses overt force over subtlety. He has popular opinion with the coup from the ruling political body, but then overplays his hand. This failing seems to be the fatal flaw of the character. Zarek's choices are not inevitable, and as Gaeta's choices highlight, there are more than only one way to achieve the goal. In the end, Zarek's belief in his own rightness in killing those who oppose him becomes his own undoing.

The one TRUE irony to this whole thing -

Remebering Richard Hatch as the original Apollo and then seeing him as Tom Zarek.

Now that's irony!

I know there are others of you who believed some where out there waiting to see if Dirk Benedict would show up in some form or fashion. Admit it!

Only true BSG fans need reply. LMAO

I find the 'Zarek is a terrorist' 'Adama is a traitor for working with the enemy and deserved to.. ' etc lines quite interesting.

Science Fiction has a long and rich history of being able to address social issues that we dont wish to discuss by putting the action in a setting that is mildly dissociated from our reality.

Adama was the military leader who led the battle against the Cylons, and Roslyn the political leader. They were 'traitors' by negotiating with the Cylons. It is important to remember that the military and military action is simply a method of diplomacy. Not a particularly warm and fuzzy method, but none the less a method. It takes brave and courageous leaders to realize that there is a time when you need to negotiate with your enemies. If our government were not willing to do that we would still be enemies with Great Britian. Israel would still be enemies with Egypt, and Nixon would never have been able to open up trade relations with China. Our current President has taken a less hard line approach with Korea, and they have taken a less hard line approach towards us.

It is only responsible that leaders, such as Adama, realize when it is time to stop fighting and when it is time to start understanding our enemies. Unfortunately, when a courageous decision to seek a new direction is made, there are those who do to their blind idealism (Gaita) or due to their desire for power (Zarek) are not willing to take a chance on peace. Drawing parallels to the Israel / Palestine situation here, we all need to realize that there are those on both sides who are not willing to take a chance on peace (either out of greed, desire for power, or hate), both right wing settlers in Israel, and leaders of Hamas. The time for freedom fighting or terrorism (pick your term) is over and it is time for the Israeli's and Palsetinians to disavow themselves of those who oppose peace.

In BSG, The Cylons who stood up and suggested peace were all but slaughtered by their kind, and the Humans who suggested peace were able to escape that fate.

If you want to draw parallels between this "Just a TV show" and reality, look one level deeper. I for one am glad that Obama is willing to 'talk' with 'terrorists' such as the North Koreans and other nations and groups. The sooner we realize that the diplomatic tool known as military action is less effective than the diplomatic took known as negotiation. The sooner the majority of all of us can live in peace.

So many interesting posts here! That is why BSG is the BEST show on TV. I don't even have a TV (watch online, thanks Scifi.com) and am still up-to-speed because this show makes us think, and sometimes debate, the themes. Science Fiction has always been a terrific hypothetical channel for this and BSG does it best as a visual medium.
I think Mr. Hatch had a great role in this story. Why? Because I am still not sure what his motivation was, and probably will never have a clue. At first glance, he acts as a power-hungry man who will do ANYTHING to get higher than he is. But then, you notice that he only does so in specific contexts! He may seek power, but within his own moral confines which makes him much more than evil.
Compare him to Felix. Felix was no doubt, especially after the webisode series, doing what he truly though was righteous. In that respect, his execution was a very sad affair since we have known and loved him since season one.
But Zarek? He was a very ambiguous person we could not quite figure out. In that sense, he is more like our modern-day terrorists, rebel-rousers, dictators, etc. in that... We just don't know this guy well enough! His motivations are highly ambiguous, and in a real-world situation, a rebellion against a Cylon alliance may be perfectly warranted (George Washington vs. Hitler?). Depending on the ending of this series, Tom Zarek may even be considered...a martyred?
Props to you though Mr. Hatch. Zarek may have made less appearances than “Apollo”, but he was among the most interesting and debate-conjuring characters on the show OR anywhere else. Truly a triumph!

I love Hatch's reference to the "Ships of Light" from the original BSG. The man is truly a fan of the show, as well as one of the great characters in both versions of it. Thanks for sharing your talents with us, Richard!

It's a stupid show. Stop trying to read all sots of crap, like arab terrorism, honor killing of women, comparison between arafat & hitler, muslim persecution of christians & dhimmi status, etc, into an enjoyable series. You can read whatever u like into it depending on ur point of view. So for those who only see their own narrow view into everything....get a life.

I see toally opposite from Mudfeld. I see a comparison with Hamass, dhimmi (servant) status of Chrisians & Jews in Islamic society,

I see toally opposite from Mudfeld. I see a comparison with Hamass, dhimmi (servant) status of Chrisians & Jews in Islamic society,

Dear Mr. Hatch,

sorrry that happen but you Character was evil so just be like didn't get throw out the near airlock

Dear Mr hatch i am sorry if you can't read what i am saying. I was trying to say in my chat is sorry that had to happen to you but you character was evil so just be like Adama did throw you out the near air lock.

Does anyone find it funny that Gaeta played a similar role/similar job as the character "Data" in Star Trek NG. I can't believe it was a concidence that Gay-ta turned out to be gay.

I loved the Zarek character and thought they could have done a season just on the rebellion. He will be sorely missed.

Time For Reality...

Join The Real Revolution.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Some great posts, thanks for contributing.

Props to Muldfeld for taking the time to talk rationally and clearly about the complexity of "terror", and the ambiguous relationship we have with violence...

The employment of violence is one of the many themes that BSG touches upon in interesting ways - that, and the motivations for doing so.

Justification for violence comes most often in the moment - and is then enshrined in history.

Whether or not we subscribe to the 'truth' of that history depends most often on where we were born, and on the culture we grew up in - not on what is 'right' or 'wrong', objectively speaking.

Objectively-speaking, what is 'right' for us at any given time, is the survival, and pro-creation of our people.

BSG compellingly illuminates the power of this truth in mainstream TV... and should be commended for it.

:)

Tom Zarek ends up of Cylon Ressurrection ship and finds out he is a cylon/human clone od the original Apollo. The new series ends when it is shown that Lorne Green is the real Adama, Dirk Benedict is really Starbuck, Terry Carter is the real Colonel Tighe, and these characters are Cylons who murdered everyone on Earth, then return to Caprica to start over again, not realising that the real Gallatica crew has been dead for centuaries. Notice terms like yarms(years), sentons(seconds) were not used but frak for f*u* ck was .

MinionPryme.

> Big Mac remember necklessing?

Yes I do and I also remember that NELSON Mandela never condoned it, and it can be debated if wife WINNIE did. For more info, check this link out: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing".

My primary points are:

1) Violence is wrong except when defending yourself from violence.

2) Many people have achieved great things without violence. I mentioned two, the article I linked to mentioned another, Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King also comes to mind and so many others.

3) I don't care who is right or wrong - the violence has to stop FIRST before we can try to sort things out.

After having watched the orginal Battlestar Galactica series, I must say that the current series has gone far beyond watching a TV show for entertainment. To Richard Hatch, I have to say that his portrayal of Tom Zarek put a compelling perspective on radical leaders who seek liberation from percieved oppression, which brings my next point to remark on a couple of posts.
Although history records countless attrocites and acts of raw brutality from the vantage point of one person or a people, one issue that endless floats from one point of view to another is simply justification. It seems apparent that actions whether brutal or necessary requires justification in oerder to rational behaviors that really can't be rationalized. It is important to note that written word or spoken language into a thought or idea will always be biased in some form or fashion. There will always be different sides to an argument. And so, as flawed as human nature is, one must find justification in order to main a sense of "right" Aside from the outer fringes of deviant natures, a large proprtion of people requires a sense of right to maintin a grip of reality around them. What I just said was purely opinion, but there is some merit in the thgught that perspectives from one individual is comparatively different. Obvious as that is, I find that people with seeming rationla thought fail to see that. As with the posts from Muldfeld, his arguments are simply too biased to offer any fair creedence to his opinion. To say that one side is "worse" based on the writings from another person's perspective is simply feeding into a distorted sense of justification to faciltate one's own opinion.
Getting back to Tom Zarek and BSG, the show really throws in a pletora of ideas and social commentary, which brings me to my next point. In my humble opinion (which is based from my limited perspective), BSG really hashes out on the inner core of human nature through the convulated reitarations of imperfect records of history. The search of the meaning of existence; the need to expand beyond the limted human capacity of self; the need to unstand the nature of everything. From which, we get religion, politcs and the whole specttrum of human emtions. These thoughts based upon how the human mind percive the universe. yeah I know, this is just a show, but the writers really put a finger on some of these issue and in my opinion it seems to make the point of not making a point of human reaction to life and death. To the point that human nature is just that. The nature of the human experience. There is no justification. It is what it is.
My final note to Richard Hatch. His character was simply essential to the show. His character put a branch of twisted corners of the side of radical terrorsim, or the impression of rather. I loved Richard Hatch as Apollo from the origianl series watching as a kid and I loved watching him as Zarek as a example of complex leader of radical rebellion. He could not have potrayed the character any better given in the script. I have to agree I would have liked to seen a deeper introspective on Tom Zarek.

Lastly, Muldfeld, when you use words like "Zionism" and "pro-israeli", all you do is make your opinion, although well thought-out, completely biased and totatlly irrelavent. TO make a effective arguemnt, you need points from BOTH sides of the issue, not just the facts you care to report on.

The "ships of light" comment was absolutely awesome and I wonder how many fans of the new iteration of BSG even "got it".

The Israel/Hamas discussion is probably better suited to some other venue and I wonder how many people are really have all the facts.

Neither party is "innocent" and both have legitimate cause for some (not all) of their actions.

BSG is a television show...obviously. Anyone that thinks however, that this means it can't draw inspiration from real life events or that nothing that happens is the director/producer/writer's way of pointing out or making us think more about those real life events has obviously never directed, produced or written.

The Cynic, I don't think there's anything biased on what I say. I was criticizing Hamas, too, but you didn't pick up on that because of your bias...

I'm presenting a view that is so often unheard and no perceived in the West -- a view that I did not hold until a lot of Christian and Jewish American people pointed them out to me. Many American history professors and people like Noam Chomsky and fiction writers like Ira Steven Behr and gutsy actors like Vanessa Redgrave and the music producer Brian Eno who risk being called "anti-Semitic" (which is a taint far greater in the West than the ugly truth of Zionism) showed me America's wrongs and they love their country, but they (and now I) see a disjuncture between what is claimed in myth and what really happened. America is pro-Israeli and Zionism is as much a cause of the world's problems as Islamic fundamentalism. Where's your recognition of the flaws of "the West" and Israel? Isn't that the bias that then disqualifies your own posts, according to your own argument?

As long as Tom Zarek had control of the Quorum, fine. But, when he realized he had lost control, he had them executed to carry on his coup d'etat. In the end, both Zarek and Gaeta got what they deserved.

Muldfield, it's a crying shame when your point of view is so lame you can only attach it to a FICTIONAL character.

"...the pro-Israeli Jimmy Carter..."

Must be some great history books you've been reading in your "studies". Thanks for the laugh.

OMG,calling Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky and writers like Ira Steven Behr and actress Vanessa Redgrave and producer Brian Eno, tru americans who love there country. Is like calling Timothy Mcvae, A Patriotic AMERICAN FREEDOM FIGHTER..All are NUTS who hate america and what it stands for.Notice that only here in the USA is there Oral Diarrhea protected under our 1st amendment and tolerated with out there worthless ASS'S being send to some reeducation camp,like they would be in does bastions of free speach like Iran, N Korea, China, Venezuela, Cuba and every Islamice nation in the world.

The difference between an American soldier and a terrorist is that a terrorist, or a Despot or Socialist for that matter, targets the innocent on purpose. An American Soldier is trained to go out of his way to protest the innocent. Most US soldiers would die to protect an innocent life, because at our core we are good people. To compare the US recontruction of Iraq to Nazi occupation of Vichy France is dishonorable and displays a poor historical education. The Nazi's had to be removed from France by force. America will do what it has done for the last century, we liberate and then we leave. Any suggestion that we haven't or won't is ill informed.

I am, with two episodes left, extremely disappointed with this series. Not to say that I don't enjoy watching every episode, but I grew up watching the original series and even hung in for 1980. I feel that the shows of that era(especially those produced by Glen!), while inferior in special effects, had characters with far more dignity about them, though still flawed. While I was entertained by the plot variations and new style, I feel the show diverged entirely too far from the original. I truely hope that you get to make your 'second coming' series Richard. I would hope that after seeing what became of this series, the remaining members of the original cast (RIP Lorne!) would feel obligated to continue the legacy properly.
Although I do understand Zarak's character, I wish Richard could have played a more active role earlier on, such as Apollo's brother zak, if the ships of light arc were brought into the new version. Heck, if they remake it again ten years from now, he will be the right age for Adama!

@Richard

"we liberate and then we leave"

Then how do you explain our troops in Germany and South Korea? We so called "liberated", but never left.

Hey folks,

My feeling is "Thank you Richard" for playing such a fine part, you've made me a believer in your skills as an actor. Rather then debating issues I want to thank you for the hours of entertainment and pure delight you've brought to me.

I wish you well and look forward to your next role.

Richard F.
In Chicago, IL

Wow, there is some fierce debate a-raging. Kind of glad I missed the initial wave.

I sided with the mutiny. Zarek had some questionable motivations, but he was lawfully in charge of the government in the absense of Roslin. That Adama had him thrown in jail for supporting the rights of the people to govern themselves, even while allowing Roslin to hide out in his room and abandon her duties to the people when they needed her the most... that was simply unjustifiable.

I wish the mutiny had won, if only because it is INSANELY unrealistic to portray human beings as willing to ally themselves with a race of machines who UNANIMOUSLY voted to wipe out the entire human race. I am outraged that they allow Caprica-6 to wander the fleet freely. The fact that she's 'sorry' does not in any way excuse her role in the genocide. Ironically, the only skinjob NOT implicit in that plan was Boomer, who the administration planned to allow the other Cylons to execute. No wonder she sided with Cavil's faction. But that's a rant for another day.

If Roslin had not turned her back on her people, and if Adama had not enabled her in doing so, the mutiny would not have happened. It was an utter failure of leadership which led the fleet to this point. Both of them knew that Tom would be in charge in Laura's absense, and if they couldn't handle that, they should a) never have made him VP in the first place, and b) not have abandoned the people when they need reassured the most.

Does Laura deserve to enjoy the last of her life? Yes. But that does not give her the right to abandon her duties in such a horrifically irresponsible manner, and it certainly does not give Bill the right to ignore the will of the people simply because he disagrees and the only person he ever bothered listening to doesn't feel like arguing with him anymore. Gaeta and Zarek were right to rebel. On that issue, I remain firm.

The funny thing is, I was on the fence about the mutiny until it was over. I agreed with the principle, but the idea of Gaeta killing Adama and Roslin made my chest hurt. In spite of my love for Gaeta and my fascination with Zarek, I could have forgiven and understood their executions if the leaders of the fleet had taken the mutiny as the wake-up call it should have been. Instead, Adama turned into Season 1 Tigh, and Laura handed her responsibilities to her lover's son, yet another un-elected official. As soon as that happened, I stopped calling myself a "mutiny sympathizer" and placed myself firmly on the side of the rebellion.

Anyway. Kudos, Richard, on portraying one of the most intriguing antagonists I've seen in a long time. The show is considerably less interesting to me without that voice of dissent. Two more days, and then it will all be over. :(

I think it's most interesting how left leaning the Zarek sympathizers are here. :) Everyone who tries to defend his actions on this forum has to throw in some type of left leaning political comment. Funny how lefties always seem to defend the terrorist like Zarek and Hamas and stand with the racists like the colonists and Anti-Semites of the world.

Anyway, Zarek was a love/hate character for me. He, like most terrorists had a legitimate bone to pick with what was going on around him. On the other hand, he swept morality aside and became a true hypocrite, trading morality and civility for blind ambition like all terrorists. He was a useful tool to make this story more complete. I loved every part of his character. And hated every part.

Thank you so much, Mr. Hatch -- damn whatever anyone else thinks, I loved the Tom Zarek character. Always looked forward to episodes involving him, and was delighted that he stayed around until almost-the-very-end.

Another comment here referred to him as an "antagonist" -- and I think that's one label that actually does justice to him.

He constantly challenged the assumptions and actions of the characters that we were inclined to "like" -- when it came to the Adama/Rosalin administration, he voiced very important concerns no one else was bothering to voice. He forced these characters to wrestle with issues (particularly those relating to rights, democracy, and liberties) more seriously than they would have otherwise been inclined to. And forced the viewer, by extension, to look at more sides of the issue. He was the proverbial Socratic gadfly, and more power to him.

I also appreciated that he so often forced people to call a spade a spade...whether that meant calling out Adama/Rosalin on the fact that the fleet's representative democracy was mostly pretense, or whether it meant forcing Gaeta to understand what revolutions really entailed.

Was he ruthless and power hungry and opportunistic and ambitious? Sure. But he didn't delude himself, and he didn't tolerate self-delusion in others.

And, heck, I personally think that his death was ultimately redemptive. The mutiny forced an issue that needed to be forced, and it also served as a wake-up call to Rosalin, Adama, and everyone else who had abdicated their leadership responsibilities and gone off to wallow in narcissistic self-pity. Gaeta was very much right...in many ways, everything WAS a mess, and someone had to step up to the plate and turn things right side up again. The better leaders were failed to do so until the reality of a serious and committed challenger forced them to care again. It took Zarek (and Gaeta's) challenge -- to the point of arms and death -- to force the others into action and stop the downward spiral of the fleet.

Just as his opposition was needed before, to force the leaders of the fleet to wrestle with difficult issues, so it was needed again here. But this time, it needed to be on a far more serious level, and for the ultimate stakes.

R.I.P.