Jump to content

Talk:All Good Things... (Star Trek: The Next Generation): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Converting {{Startrekproject}} to {{WikiProject Star Trek|class = |importance = }} using AWB
Line 78: Line 78:


Can anyone verify that the nebula shown in the last few seconds is the [[Trifid Nebula]]? [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 16:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone verify that the nebula shown in the last few seconds is the [[Trifid Nebula]]? [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 16:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, it would appear so. Although rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise compared to the pictures in that article. [[Special:Contributions/77.250.97.191|77.250.97.191]] ([[User talk:77.250.97.191|talk]]) 00:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


== Inspiration? ==
== Inspiration? ==

Revision as of 00:46, 24 November 2011

WikiProject iconTelevision: Episode coverage B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject iconStar Trek B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Untitled

Holy cow, talk about too much detail. As this article stands today, the author clearly knows the episode well, but it reads more like a high school book review than an episode synopsis. This episode could have easily been covered in two, maybe three paragraphs if you include the ending.

Ellipsis

Does anyone object to me swapping the contents of this article with All Good Things..., i.e. making "All Good Things . . ." (with the spaces before each dot) redirect to "All Good Things..." (without the spaces), which would contain the article?

The episode title at startrek.com [1] doesn't have spaces between the dots, nor does the text on this article's image and it looks odd when some of the dots flow onto the next line (e.g. in List of Star Trek: TNG episodes). If no-one replies, I will move it in the next few days. Marky1981 00:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have now moved it and updated the important references. Marky1981 23:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Having just re-watched the episode, a few factual corrections...

  • Picard obtains 2 days worth of memories in "minutes", not hours
  • The previous Q trial was 7 years, not 6 years, ago.
  • The article asserts that the Q continuum didn't think Picard "had it in [him]" to sacrifice his crew 3 times. But the actual dialogue from the episode mentions nothing about the importance of sacrificing the crew; it was instead "realizing the paradox" that the continuum didn't think Picard "had in him".

Bloopers?

Maybe a section on bloopers could be added, maybe not. I just had to mention this zinger: When Picard's back in the past (and meets Data, for kinda the first time), Data has the rank of Lieutenant JG (this is just before Encounter at Farpoint). Yet in the pilot episode of TNG, Data is already a Lieutenant Commander? GoodDay 16:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about Data referring to Picard as 'the Captain' in the future timeline? Is his official title not 'Ambassador'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.245.99 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Not necessarily. The served together for a number of years....Data probably still thinks of Picard as "Captain." Remember, Geordi used the term on him before they went to look up Data. Worf used the term as well....although it could be argued he was referring to Beverly. It happens in real life as well. When I was in the Air Force, my shop supervisor at my base was a Chief Master Sgt....and the form of address is "Chief." He retired about 3 months after I arrived, and when he came back for a visit maybe 6 months later, we all called him "Chief"...but it was pretty clear his rank had become his nickname. I could never think of him -- even 25 years later -- as Gordon....I still think of him as Chief.

  • Here's one for you: in the earlier timeline, Data says that all 3 tachyon pulses were caused by the same ship (i.e., the Enterprise). But the pulse in the future timeline was actually caused by Beverly's medical ship, NOT the Enterprise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.138.40 (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas Carol

Would this be the right place to mention the similarities between All Good Things and A Christmas Carol?

France?

Probably a sarcasm by Q, based on JLP's [inconstant] francophilia. Take anything that Q says with a grain of salt. CFLeon 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia?

In the past and present timeline, the anomaly grows backwards in time, growing larger as it moves through anti-time, thus appearing to shrink from the perspective of Picard and his crew in normal time. However, in the future timeline, the anomaly does not exist until it is created, showing that at that point it is moving forward in normal time and, presumably, backward in anti-time. The reason for this difference is not explained in the episode.

- Doesn't Data mention a theory about how the anomoly is propogated in the future and then goes into the past and becomes larger?

Yeah, the anomaly should have been there when they looked for it in the future and then disappeared when they scanned it. I think there was a bit of parallel universe action as well, which could be used to explain it. --Surturz (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way of proving this, but I (Chuck Nichols) created a Futuristic Enterprise roughly a year before the final episode aired. I drew it up, and instead of mailing the original to myself and sending a copy to Paramount, I mailed off the Original to Paramount. The designers only changed one thing, I had the anti-proton cannon on the top of the Enterprise, they put it on the bottom for the show (A good idea in hindsight). This is the honest truth, I didn't get to watch the final episode broadcast because I had to work, so I taped it. My roommates got to watch the show as it aired and they were aware of my future Enterprise design because I showed it to them and got a positive response from them. When I got home they told me I was gonna freak out when I watched the show, They were right, I thought it was really cool they used something I created even though I didn't get any type of credit for it, but that was ok, Star Trek is my favorite show and I felt good knowing I contributed something. SteelRaptor24@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelRaptor (talkcontribs) 02:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My head hurts...

Reading this article has made my brain implode! Das654 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, better implode than explode! 24.222.8.32 20:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implode or explode, the important question is which direction in time is it doing it in? 121.44.142.90 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm even more confused! --Das654 (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Tachyon Pulse

Just made a slight clarification in the notes. It was DATA who mentioned that when scanning the inside of the anamoly it appeared that there were two other tachyon pulses all generated by the Enterprise, not Picard. Later on Picard simply said "we were the cause of the anamoly" not specifying exactly which ships were involved.....wrong again Data. Don't you just love it when data says a trademark "However...."? This episode features my all time favorite when he realizes an inverse tachyon pulse could scan the inside of the anamoly.

On the Inverse Tachyon Pulse bit, I'll need to pull out my copy of the episode, but I'm fairly certain all three pulses were generated by the Enterprise. There is a scene showing all three together around the anomaly, two Enterprises, and a third with the 3 nacelles. ...teddy 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a shot that shows the three Enterprises (including the one with three nacelles) but that is after Picard asks captain Riker to go back and re-establish the pulse. When they do go back, they find that the anomaly is there, and it was therefore created by the Pasteur when it used the inverse tachyon pulse. (under the theory that it grows both backwards and forwards in time from the point of creation by the Pasteur, otherwise there would be nothing there when they get back to it "later"...) --Jean seb 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities with other shows / episodes

I just saw the episode Parallels, and noted some similarities. This episode has Worf going from one "quantum reality" to another. Things change around him, first minor (a cake being chocolate first, then yellow; a painting being on another wall in his quarters; people standing in different places as they were a second before) then more important (people having died; changes in rank; Worf being married to Troi). Near the end, there is a scene that reminded me of All Good Things... where a large number of other Enterprises from the other realities around a quantum rift. It strikes me as odd that two episodes, both in season 7, would have so much in common; and it strikes me as equally odd that I hadn't noticed until today.

I also recently saw The Triangle, in which the Bermuda Triangle is explained as being a rift caused at a certain date and which gets bigger backwards in time. The military think that by blowing up a bomb in the rift, they will seal it, when in actuality it is what causes it. When the main protagonists convince them not to detonate the bomb, the world changes around them (à la Back to the Future) and the rift (hence the Bermuda Triangle) never existed, but they are somehow the only ones to remember it as well as all the events in the previous reality.

I just thought it would be interesting to add a section with these similarities. Comments? --Jean seb 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

At around 1800 words, the plot summary had been tagged as (much, much) too long. I've restored it to a version from an older revision [2] and now it's only a little too long. --Tony Sidaway 07:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trifid nebula??

Can anyone verify that the nebula shown in the last few seconds is the Trifid Nebula? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would appear so. Although rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise compared to the pictures in that article. 77.250.97.191 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration?

"The episodes title served for the inspiration for the title of the last episode of Red Dwarf, Only the Good...."

Are we sure about this? Given that they're two completely different expressions ("All good things must come to an end" versus "only the good die young"), I'm puzzled as to what the connection might be. Or is it simply the ellipsis that was supposedly 'inspired' here? In which case, do we have a cite, or are we assuming a link? - Skadus (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City of Death

This show's plot was clearly inspired by the Doctor Who episode City of Death. --Howdybob (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless there's a reliable and notable source that says so, I'm afraid! The similarities could easily be coincidence. 203.217.150.68 (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]