From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Unending has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
August 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Stargate (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stargate, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Stargate franchise on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality 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.

SG-1 films?[edit]

A line in the article states that there will be two SG-1 films following the series finale. This isn't technically true. The titles are "Stargate: The Ark of Truth" and "Stargate: Continuum". "SG-1" is not in the title. While it does continue the story from SG-1, it is not SG-1 itself.

Think of it this way: It would be very awkward if Star Trek: Generations were Star Trek: The Next Generation: Generations, followed by Star Trek: The Next Generation: First Contact. The post TNG Star Trek films are not "Next Generation movies". They are their own legitimate films, continuing the story PAST The Next Generation. Same as with SG-1 and these films. You could call this speculation, but the fact that SG-1 is not in the title should be evidence enough.


Well, the plots are known and are about SG1. mattbuck 10:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make a difference what they are called, look at Star Trek: Enterprise, are you saying that when they added star trek to the title, that the first 2.5 seasons, "Enterprise" are not the same series as Star Trek: Enterprise? That Star Trek: enterprise is only based off the original? You're splitting hairs, if the movies are continuing and concluding the stories of the series, then they're obviously of the same series. - Count23 10:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been explicitly stated by the producers that these are SG-1 movies in several different interviews, it's hard to avoid that fact that these are the conclusion of SG-1 that the series needs. - Count23 10:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
These are Stargate movies, not titled Stargate SG-1 movies. Matthew 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already said my bit that covers that part, you haven't said anything that counters the arguement. I see no point in adding anything further. - Count23 10:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The clue is in the title, there's obviously a reason why they did not title them Stargate SG-1. Matthew 10:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
When the producers state that its a pair SG-1 movies, the name is irrelevant. They could call them "the 5 people wearing similar cloths with a grey haired leader" and the movies would STILL be SG-1 - Count23 10:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The context of the text can just as easily be interpreted as them meaning SG-1 [the team] not SG-1 [the series]. Matthew 10:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It's directly acknowledged as concluding the Ori storyline, that's the series, not the team it's talking about. If the entire SG-1 team was recast, the series is being concluded by the Ori movie. - Count23 11:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is irrelevant... Star Trek: Generations concluded the story of the Enterprise-D, but wasn't called Star Trek: The Next Generation: Generations. The title says it all. Yes, they're SG-1 movies in that they continue the story of SG-1 the group... but SG-1 as a title refers specifically to the TV series. They're movies in their own right.

Hold Off on Editing[edit]

With the series finale tommorow, can we please refrain from editing this slide. The information currently posted is as acurate as we have it. Wait for tommorow to edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Time dialation field?[edit]

As far as I know, a time dialatation only slows down time, it doesn't/can't reverse it, so how does Teal'c save the ship by activating one? Not to mention, how did they even get a time dialation device anyway?

Vala M 13:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, we will find out tommorow, when in the preview, when Teal'c activates it, the explosion on the ship gets smaller, we know that it reverses time, somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I’m not going to get into a discussion about if a time dilatation field can only slow down time / doesn't / can't reverse it – I’ll just accept it as this is sci-fi. What I have a slight problem with is the following (It could just be that I’m being overly pedantic / missed something). Didn’t Carter say that everything would go back to the way it was at the instant the time dilation field was created (i.e. when she activated it), and that they could not go back past this point as, “we would have a paradox, and the technology couldn’t handle it”. So, my question is this: how come Teal'c is able to go back in time to BEFORE the instant that Carter activated the time dilation field, to stop her from activating it again?(RaGe 21:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

Pretty sure in one of the replicator episodes the replicators reversed the time dialation field to speed up time and create more ships? I'll go find and check... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The replicators did not reverse time, they altered the time dialiation field in "New Order" in order to accelerate time and escape the black hole

As to the part about teal'c being able to get to the bridge before carter activated the time dialation devise, i believe she said she would try and send it back to around a minuite before the ship would be struck as any longer and the Asgard computer/core system wouldnt be able to handle the time paradox it would create.--Marshy12 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tealc didnt get to the bridge, the controls were surely located at the Asgard core, and Tealc is protected from the reversal in a shield in what appears to be the room that Daniel spent time reading Asgard writings. Its possible this room is closer to the core room, and he could have got there quickly. When the time dilation field is activated first time, Tealc is on the bridge, putting out a fire with a fire extinguisher, however, when time reverses, hes not putting out the fire, because he was not reversed to his previous position, you can see daniel looking behind him in this scene as if to say "Wheres Tealc" Baaleos 18:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Can somebody clean up this article? It's barely coherent. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

What exactly is wrong with it? It's perfectly coherant, if you be more specific, maybe we can do something about it. - Count23 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


one of the tv scedual mags says that the Asgard are involved would someone mined mentioning it please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kobol (talkcontribs) 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

We need the name of the magazine, a link to the article or a photo of the article and we need more then just the heresay of a gossip columnist before we can add it. That or the actual episode footage with the Asgard in it. - Count23 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode Aired[edit]

The episode just finished it's premier on British television. My initial reaction is that films or no... this was the worst episode in StarGate history. I will update the article tomorrow after I've had time to cool down and approach this objectively... because otherwise I'd seriously be tempted to breach the NPOV policy of the wiki... then we'd need nasty clean up and no-one wants that. If someone else wishes to update before then, feel free. - JohnDoe244 21:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The series isn't actually ending, so this is more of a season cliffhanger then a series finale, that's why it feels like such a kick in the nuts to fans. When the producers heard that the series was cancelled, they were told when "Talion" was being filmed and were told to wrap the series up in 3 episodes, it's not possible, that's why the ending seems cheap and abrupt. - Count23 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Error noticed in article: The last line of the Notes section states "This episode marks the destruction of three more Ori battlecruisers, making a total of four destroyed thus far." However I have just watched the episode, and I recall only two Ori ships were destroyed. The Odyssey was attacked by three Ori ships. They destroyed two and escaped at the end of the episode whilst being fired on by the third. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBadaboom0 (talkcontribs)

Odyssey destroyed the 3rd ship that chased them after the asgard world exploded. They took it out with the asgard "phasers" and then lept off into hyperspace. This, along with teh ship that was waxed in "The Pegasus Project" brings the total to 4. -Count23 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does the article say 4 this episode and 5 in total then? --Mr link 10:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Because i just rewatched the episodes after i made the comment and realized 4 ships were waxed in this episode, plus the one from pegasus project makes 5. I did write it up in teh edit summary too - Count23 10:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No, they didn't. The ship evaded the beam and jumped to hyperspace immediately, b/c of Carter's program. By my count, they destroyed 1 ship in their first battle with the Ori (when Orilla was destroyed), shot down none during their second encounter (Landry explicitly said they didn't wanna take 'em on, and one was seen firing on them as they jumped), shot down none on their third encounter (we see them as the Odyssey jumped away), then shot down one more just on their fourth encounter, before they activated the time dilation field. I was of the opinion that they were all the same three Ori ships--they destroyed one at Orilla while the other two jumped away, to track them later. Thus, I corrected the note to "at least two." --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I misinterpret what you just wrote, but they did kill one ship right after the planet exploded before jumping away. 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I said that. ;-) Here's an easier to read version:
  • At least One destroyed near the destroyed Orilla.
  • None destroyed during their second and third encounters with Ori ships (i.e., second and third times they left hyperspsace).
  • Only one destroyed just before the time dilation field activated (the other is seen as the Odyseey jumps at the end of the episode). --MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that to our knowledge 2 ori ships were destroyed at orilla by the explosion, they never made it clear if they were the ones to later engage the odyssey or if they were different ships.

ZPM, sugar cubes and vegetables[edit]

(This debate has been moved in its entirety to the sub-page Talk:Unending/ZPM to prevent overload of the main talk page. Please continue discussions there.)

Inside joke?[edit]

In the episode, Vala asks Daniel how they can distinguish the Asgard (when Thor is beamed in). Daniel replies: "it's the voice" The voice of Thor is done by Michael Shanks, who also plays Daniel. Am I seeing too much in this, or did the writers use this as an inside joke? Maybe it's something for the trivia section. 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the answer seemed pretty logical, it is the voice.. Matthew 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that kinda jumped into my head as well when I saw it.
  • I thought of that too, and it also explains how they distinguish the different asgard as most fans know they use the same puppets and CG models for all of them

Teal'c's age[edit]

Is it possible that Mitchell was just being sarcastic about Teal'c's age when he asked if he was 130? -- SFH 21:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In "The Light", "Teal'c says he is 101 years old. He also says he will be 102 in 47 days." (6 years ago) In "Grace", O'Neill guesses Teal'c is "like, what...140?" So Mitchell was either being sarcastic, didn't know Teal'c's real age, or there is some age inconstancy in the show.– sgeureka tc 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing Teal'c would be more sure of his age than two notably sarcasm prone Air Force Colonels...But I could be wrong. -- SFH 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Asgard Weapons[edit]

Are these Asgard weapons brand spanking new technological achievements of the Asgard, or were they the same weapons used at the battle in "Crusade" theyre Energy Weapons werent very effective in that episode. Baaleos 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Baaleos, can you please SIGN your posts as you make them, you just have to add 4 tildes after your comments, (~~~~) - Count23 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the energy beams fired by the Odyssey look remarkably similar to the energy beams that the Replicator ship fired at Apophis' mothership in Enemies. -- SFH 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies Count, I had few to drink last nite, so forgot bout the signing thing. Lol Baaleos 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they're new weapons and shields, devolped from the info gained by the Asgard ship that surived the first encounter with the Ori ships (Battle of P3Y-229)Ricky540 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

to quote from The Siege, Pt 2
this was also the basis of Echoes (Stargate Atlantis).
if ZPMs can strengthen shields, why can't they strengthen weapons? the Asgard may not have made much of a dent in the Battle of P3Y-229, but maybe they didn't get enough shots in to finish the job? maybe their own power sources aren't as good as ZPMs?
maybe they are new weapons, but i doubt it. the Asgard have probably been using all their intellect to stave off their own death (a task which they ultimately failed). i think the ZPM is a far more likely explanation.
In their battle with the replicators they hinted that the class of ship they used in the Crusade battle was an older class of ship with older technology. As they didn't want the repliucators to absorb the technology of their newest ships. Is it possible the Odyssey's upgrades were from this newer asgard technology? Wiki ian 04:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thor says that the Asgard modifications will not infringe upon the ships ZPM, so, that rules out the theory of the Weapons being strengthend with ZPM energy. Also, why would Gen Landry be talking bout talking to the president about reproducing the weaponry if they dont have additional ZPMs to power the weapons. Its more likely the weapons are just more advanced, and can pierce Ori shields, and we will never know why. An Inconsistancy, Yes. Baaleos 18:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
In real life, the USA is using (naval) ships that are decades old and out of date. Yet in battle they are still effective. America could (at great cost) build new and better battleships (and, in fact they are) but even the richest nation in the world cannot afford to completely overhaul it's entire fleet. Now take the Asgaurd. They are a dying race. When the call comes out to fight the Ori (in the Battle of P3Y-229) they respond with the old and clunky ships they have - they're a dying race, they don't have time to crank out a new starfleet. When it turns out that their race is going to die-out and that they need to pass on the best of their knowledge and technology, they pull out all the stops and spare no expense to kit out Earth with everything they have. Bear in mind how old the Asguard race is, and how long they've been on the brink of extinction. They haven't had the chance to build cool new ships for a long time (though I'd have liked to see how The O'Neil would have done against the Ori ships) but they've had plenty of time to improve their technology. - JohnDoe244 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say that they are not new weapons. remember the Asgard had devoted all they're resources into building ships and weapons capable of destroying replicators. The weapons are probably what the asgard used before the replicator scuffles —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ori Battleship count?[edit]

Question about the following segment of the article:

How do we know that it's "two more" battlecruisers? Watching the episode I didn't notice any indication of the "others turning on the Asgard" or the "Asgard destroy... the Ori ships". My assumption was that there had been 3 ships arriving at the Asgard planet, the Odessey destroyed one of them, and the other two followed them in Hyperspace. Did I mis something? --Maelwys 11:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When I watched it, it looked like the 2 ori Ships were taking up orbit over the ship, the Ori were probably going to try and convert it, not knowing it was Asgard, or even if they did know, they probably would have wanted them dead because they were unbelievers. Im just assuming, because the Odessey now can penetrate the shields of the Ori BattleCruisers, that maybe on a grand scheme of things, the Odessey's shields might be just as tough? If the planet blowing up, took 30% of shield power, and the Odessey was a good distance from the planet, then its possible that the sheilds of the Ori Ships couldnt withstand the blast either, especially at that range. We saw 1 Ori Ship follow the Odessey, it got blown up by weapons fire, the 2 Ori Ships were definitly close to the Planet when it blew, they either survived the blast, and followed, or the 2 ships seen later were new ones. Either way, the 2 ships were in orbit of Orilla. Baaleos 11:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My belief was the Ori ships that went into a low orbit/attack position over Orilla were destroyed in the blast, we never saw them hyperspace or escape in any way. It was my assumption that the Ori ships chasing Odyssey were simply reenforcements for the 3 that initially attacked the planet. But apparently the Ori ships can survive having a planet blow up in their face, just not 4 shots from Odysseys phasers. - Count23 11:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
When you put it like that, how can we argue, Yeah those Ori Ships were toasted!!! Anyone know what that ball of light particles in the centre of the ship serves as? I mean, does it serve a purpose? We know the energy core of the ship is internal, not external.Baaleos 11:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we did not clearly see onscreen the second mothership blowing to smithereens, so maybe you should stop counting two kills.--Kamikaze 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

or perhaps we should because you see the Odyssey blow away the frakking thing and pull away at the last second from the blast. - Count23 23:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
but you see the blast that destroys the Ori vessel, just as I saw at the first one ? No, you don't. Sorry, pal.--Kamikaze 10:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is, when a ship is blown apart in a big explosion (the one over the planet), that it's not actually destroyed? What's it doing, hiding? It's done a very good impersonation of an exploding ship - Count23 12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you SEEEE it BLOWN APART? DID you see the bulk of the ship engulfed by the explosion like it happened at Orilla? Tell me you did, just tell me.--Kamikaze 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Timecode 13:02, shipsized explosion erupts from the Ori ships "bridge" while the Odyssey pulls up, hard. - Count23 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you know it's shipsized? The explosion could just have inflicted heavy damage to the frontal section you call "bridge", without affecting the Prior's control room. There is no visual indication it destroyed the vessel ffs.--Kamikaze 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about this arguments, but as far as I know the Odyssey destroyed 2 Ori ships: The first was destroyed at the former site of Orilla. Then the Odyssey fled with two Ori ship on it's tail. When the Odyssey stopped to fight against the two, it destroyed another one. Immidiately after that it got another hit wich disabled the shields -And this is the exact moment where old Teal'c goes back (in time) to give the crystal to young Carter... and the Odyssey menages to escape from the deadly hit -AFTER IT DESTROYED A SECOND ORI BATTLECRUSIER! So since the beginning of the Ori invasion, at least 3 ori ships were destroyed so far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bbenjoe (talkcontribs) 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
The first Ori ship showed no indecation that it was destroyed, except for a large explosion when the Odyssey attacked it. Aren't you then presuming on visual evidence that the first Ori ship was not destroyed, maybe it went and hid somewhere when the explosion went off? The ship was covered in explosions, we say a large one erupt from the front of the ship as the odssey pulled away. Further more, when the Odyssey was fleeing from the battlesite when time resumed, only one Ori ship was there around the planet, the second one was nowhere to be see. - Count23 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have removed the note about the Ori count. It's not particularly important, but (more to the point) it makes the page unstable as people argue about the exact number. This information is obviously unverifiable, since the editors can't agree on what was represented on-screen. If someone wants to restore it, fine, but this seems like the best solution. --Ckatzchatspy 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, keep it off the page. It's not that important, not verifiable, and given the reaction here, seems too controversial to be worth the trouble. --Maelwys 18:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

hey when the ori found sg1 at orilla, it appears that all three were destroyed. 1 by the Oddesey and the other two appear to go towards the planet. Could we then assume that they were destroyed. 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ori Ship that everyone is debating whether or not it was destroyed, when they dropped out of hyperspace, OFF COURSE IT WAS DESTROYED. Look at the footage, the beams dont just cause explosions, they actually pierced the hull, and continued to travel through the other side of the ship into space. EXPOSED SPACE = Explosive Decompression, the ship got a big explosion on the bridge, and a beam passed out the otherside, its fair to say that the bridge was destroyed, and that any other explosions also had beams going out the other sides. Imagine it like this, ORI SHIP + Asgard Beams = Swiss Cheese'esq Ori Debris Baaleos 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Remember, the two ships could not have been chasing, Asgard Hyperspace technology is more advanced and allows intergalactic travel. If it was this easy for the Ori, they wouldn't need a supergate. 10:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That Cello piece[edit]

Does anybody know the piece carter plays on her Cello? I tried looking it up but found nothing. 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops forgot to sign in, the above coment was by me Darkcraft 12:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I found out it was written by one of the producers Darkcraft 10:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Song use[edit]

I deleted the {{fact}} from the song trivia note. The only other times that non-Joel Goldsmith/David Arnold music was used on Stargate SG-1 was in "Fragile Balance" (Lily Frost - Who Am I) and a piece of classical music in "Shades Of Grey" (with Maybourne coming to O'Neill in his garden, listening to the radio). So the claim that "This episode marks the first time in the program's history that a montage used a song rather than original music" is quite correct. – sgeureka tc 15:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the name of the song they used? I have heard it before on soundtracks but being born in the early 80s it was made a little before my time for most people my age to know the name of it. Can anyone help me out?Wscwildcat04 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The song is by Creedence clearwater revival - Have you ever seen the rain. i can post a link to a video but im not sure if it's within the rules Covbhoy 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


If Daniel and Vala were together for fifty years why did they never attempt to have children? Did anyone else gather that maybe Vala tried but couldn't or maybe miscarried and thus the sole scene of Vala crying in Daniel's arms during the CCR montage. I'm just saying, it was the first thing that came to my mind. Anyone else? --Evmore 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be logical to have children I wouldn't of thought, the gene pool is too small. Matthew 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
One may also want to consider, they know that the beam will hit the ship eventually (look how close it was getting after 60 years), there is a high probability that they didn't want to have children just to suffer a painful death with the ship is torn apart by the Ori beam. - Count23 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the beam, surely the dilation field is extending around the ship, meaning that once the beam entered the field, it too would move at normal speed? In which case it begs the question, would all of the beam move at normal speed, or would only the parts of the beam within the field, since the beam would only be moving at milimeters per day or week, then wouldnt the latter argument mean that the beam would only hit the ship perhaps a milimeter of energy per day or week? Meaning wouldnt the full strength of the beam be spread over the entire duration of the time it takes for the whole beam to impact? Perhaps with a time dilation field in effect, the beam strength would be reduced due to the increased duration at which it takes for it to finish impacting the ship?Baaleos 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought this too; however, I think we have to just say "it's a plot device" and move on, otherwise you could use the same line of reasoning to say the crew shouldn't have been able to see anything outside the ship because the light would have been dimmed by the same proportion. It's also not really clear why they couldn't activate the phase cloak before shutting down the time dilation field, or use the transporters to change the shape of the Odessy so that the beam wouldn't hit them (or hell, do it by hand: they had 50 years after all!) And while I think about it, why didn't they use the time to fix the shields and bring them back online? All the same answer: plot device. -- (User:Whitepaw, not logged in) 12:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My idea is that the beam that will destroy the ship is somewhat a reference to the end of the series; and the reverse time, the mean to reborn with the films. 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It could be that the beam is inside the 'bubble' of the shields, but outside the time dilation field. The time dilation field could be 'tighter' than the shields. About transporting off... I think Carter stated somewhere that they couldn't transport out because it would take too long before the ship exploded. Light wouldn't be 'dimmed'. Light travels at the same speed in all reference frames. Dimmer light is light at the same speed, just less of it. The effect of the time dilation field would make it so that the crew would see changes happen outside of the ship slower (although imperceptably so, because 186,000 miles per second minus whatever they slowed time down by is... still really fast). The result of the dilation field plus the delay would be that the crew sees slow movement delayed slightly. Not a big deal. Let me know if my general relativity is right here... soldierx40k 05:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
They didn't have children for the simple reason that it would have complicated the plot unneccesarily. Nodekeeper 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The episode just aired on Comet TV as one of the last re-runs they have for Stargate SG-1. The way Vala's crying in that scene seems to be more than a reaction to finding out she couldn't have any more kids. To me, that's the kind of heartbreak that comes from a miscarriage. Regardless of viability of being able to start new families with so few people, those few seconds in the episode show Vala's and Daniel's relationship continuing to grow. —RRabbit42 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi, the episode's trivia states that this is Thor's first appearance since 'Reckoning'. Does anyone know if Thor appeared in Part II of Reckoning? I do not have Series Eight on DVD with me.. Illyria05 (Talk  Contributions) 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thor did not appear in part II of Reckoning.--Kamikaze 18:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Crewman That Seemed Out of Place[edit]

Hey call me crazy but did anyone notice on of the science officers/airmen on the Odysee seem out of place? Might we later find out he wasa get in the gate winner? He not only seemed a bit out of shape compared to the other crew but also wore glasses. He seemed to nod his head very enthusiastically when carter told him to "run another diagnostic" Perhaps my mind is playing with me... perhaps another one of you knows? ( 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

I did not notice it at the time but he probably was the "get in the gate" contest winner where the winner gets an enviable spot on the show. Nodekeeper 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
yeah, you're right. This thread on gateworld has a screenshot: [1]-- (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Article states natural evolution is a requirement, however Rodney McKay and Khalek reached a state capable of ascension via technological means. Whether this constitutes a plot hole or just a poorly phrased section of the article I can't tell. Eban 18:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say poorly phrased. Jackson comments that the Asguard's tinkering with their genetics (presumably their The 6th Day-esque approach to immortality) is what prohibits them from Ascending. I would assume that all races naturally evolve towards ascension and that while this natural process may be sped up by techological means, technology may also be used to move a race away from the path of ascension. Khalek was genetically modified to encourage ascension. The Asgaurd were modified to encourage prolonged physical life which removed them from the path of ascension. - JohnDoe244 09:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe they did ascend. Since selfless sacrifice is one way of ascending. Only it wouldn't of been selfless if they knew they could. So in actuality, you only learn that the asgard and Daniel think they can't. Daniel's knowledge has been filtered/altered by the ascended ancients. Also Oma could of helped them, being she was the type to do stuff like that. And the ascended aren't linear in time. She did it before she jumped anubis, non-linear higher being, time means nothing, look at "Q" from startrek sort of way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


"This marks the last time on the series that Daniel Jackson will be brought back from the dead." - As this is the last episode of the series (discounting the two movies)... is this really required in the notes? - JohnDoe244 09:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed it. Matthew 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL, yeah that's a pretty useless bit of trivia. Hey, this also marks the last time in the series that Carter will save the day. And the last time that Teal'c will say "Indeed". And this is the last episode of the series that didn't include O'Neill. And it's the last ... yeah, somehow "las times" aren't that notable in the last episode, are they? --Maelwys 13:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Matthew 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


The Odyssey has shields that can widthstand the Ori weapon hits for a set amount of time. The shields then regenerate, it is shown as they drop out of hyperspace for the 2nd time and the shields have gone from 28% to 52%.

Now if the ship is in a bubble, that would mean the shields would recharge within this time, and the blast would not damage the ship when it hits, correct? ~ SleweD 10:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Except they're diverting pretty much all their power to the time-dilation field. It depleted their ZPM in fifty years, and it took the weight of Lantea's ocean three thousand years to take down the power of one ZPM when Atlantis was submerged. It's pretty safe to assume that they can't spare ayny energy to pp into their shields (At least, not enough to make any difference)JBK405 03:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The shields being able to regenerate pretty much defeats the original plot ideas. I.e. that they have to spend a lot of time overcoming the time dilation problem and the fact that the Ori had made a shot that would have destroyed the ship. Plus, they would have not been able to reverse all the years that they aged. Nodekeeper 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Asgard technology[edit]

When I first watched the episode I was disappointed that we had to get rid of the Asgard technology but now I am wondering did we end up losing the technology or did they just turn of the Asgard core and still keep the technology? Or is it simply an unanswered question that the episode has left us with. If it is an unanswered question I think it is one worth noting in the article somewhere. HotOne121 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They kept it but they just switched back to their old systems that were not part of the upgrades, they still have them though.

Vala M 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is something worth noting in the article then as it is not 100% apparent to the casual fan. HotOne121 17:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Already there. "Teal'c prevents Colonel Carter from activating the time dilation field and gives her the control crystal that disconnects the Asgard computer core from the hyperdrive. They leave before they are destroyed, saving themselves and the Asgard's legacy." --Maelwys 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Asgard Knowledge Base[edit]

I believe the real question to this episode is whether (or how much of) the Asgard Knowledge Base survived.

Nerusai 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

All of it. Why would any of it have been lost?

Vala M 14:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Having recently re-watched it for the first time since the original UK&I airing, I have to say that the relationship between the "Asgard core" and the "Asgard legacy" is far from clear in much of the episode. Alai 04:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could the Asgard be downloaded into new bodies if a new hoast was found, Because you saw thor appear like a hologram like o'neal did in "New Order"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The holgram that appears is only the asgard core communicating to the user rather than being an actual conciousness of an asgard as they all died in their bodies on Orilla.Hdrit (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


"On its first airing on the Sci Fi Channel on March 13, 2007, "Unending" attracted approximately 2.2 million viewers on its American broadcast, the best performance for SG-1 since the September 22, 2006 mid-season finale." It didn't air on Skiffy in March, it aired on Sky One. This should be kept in, just fixed Also should we put something about it coming 3rd in Sky One's ratings that week? there's the link, you need to go to w/e 18/03/07 Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please just fix what I screwed up. ;-) And sure, add the SkyOne ratings, and do whatever you think improves the articles. I'll eventually get around polishing the article for GA, but it's currently in the same bad state as it was after my first uncoordinated expansion session a few weeks ago, and something else always came up to prevent me from further work here. – sgeureka tc 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok I did that but I was a little confused on how the dates work on the referencing, is it YYYY/DD/MM (this is what I assumed, DD/MM is how we do things in England) or YYYY/MM/DD. Also is the date retrieved the day it was published or they day it was added to this page (i assumed the latter)Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses the YYYY-MM-DD system, but I sometimes need to check myself (fixed now). Using the Preview and looking how the refs look helps the fastest. – sgeureka tc 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut a hole in the ship[edit]

There is a much easier solution than reversing time in a localized field. They could of just cut a hole in the ship in the area where the ori beam was going to hit. Then they could of just flown away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

BC-304 Crew Requirements[edit]

i recently re watched this episode and it occurred to me that this new fancy Tau'r battlecruiser was being flown in battle by only SIX people (SG-1 plus Landry) only THREE of which are actually using controls: Mitchell piloting, Daniel on sensors and Carter in engineering, whilst Vala helps Carter, Landry gives orders and Teal'c puts out small fires.

Lets run the mathematics shall we? a big badass ship, normally crewed by 100+ people (Prometheus had at least 80), being run, EFFECTIVLY, by 6 people? WEIRD

Come to think of it, it has happenned before. in Ripple Effect, the alternate SG-1 fully expect to run Prometheus with just 4 people, same with Unnatural Selection and Prometheus episodes from season 6. very odd indeed

Griffin 2-6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffin 2-6 (talkcontribs) 21:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unending/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Okay, the article's looking awesome right now, and there are just a few little things that need fixing to achieve GA status:

  • As the episode – and the series – comes to a close -> use emdashes here.
    • Per WP:DASH, ndashes can be used in place of mdashes at any time, and since I am averse to mdashes (they don't exist in my mothertongue), I have reverted to ndashes after Mastrchf 's change. – sgeureka tc 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • by having them sleep together without a confrontation -> do we need the euphemism for sex?
  • Claudia Black and Michael Shanks protested this intended story -> I usually would say that "somebody protests something", but rather they protest against something, just as one would disagree with or object to.
  • VisFX matte extention were used -> "extension"?
  • making Stargate SG-1 the third most-watched programme for Sky One -> we're talking about a British channel but we've used American spelling up till this point, so keep it consistent and use "program".
  • IGN does not need italicising.
  • Image:Stargate SG-1 Unending.jpg is currently twice the size as it is used in the article, which seems unnecessary per resolution restrictions under fair use.

You've got a week to make any necessary changes to the article - good luck :) —97198 talk 07:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done everything except the image resizing, which I should be able to do soon. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Image resized to 400x225 (0.09 megapixels), which should be alright per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#NFCC #3b - how low is 'low-res'?. The make-up is discussed in the article, so a little extra zooming-in should be allowed. Oh, and thanks for the review, 97198. – sgeureka tc 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Article looks pretty good, my only real issue that has yet to be brought up is the removal of the second paragraph in the lead section. I do not feel that it is necessary or really adds much to the article.--88wolfmaster (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As the lead section is supposed to summarise an article, I think it's absolutely fine and necessary to provide a wholistic synopsis of the article. All other changes look good, and so does the low-res, and at this point I'm happy to promote :) —97198 talk 10:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Episode Chronology in infobox[edit]

This is supposed to be the last episode of the TV programme, but the Infobox states a direct-to-DVD movie as the following episode. Should this stay? I think the Episode Chronology in the Infobox should end after this episode, and it could be mentioned somewhere else in the article that this episode was followed up by a movie. Dylan (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As the editor who improved this article to Good Article status, I am completely neutral. Points could be made for either position. – sgeureka tc 18:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning is that it says Episode Chronology whereas the Dvd is obviously a movie. As one comparison, Star Trek has a somewhat similar premise to this program. Even though there were many variations of the Star Trek TV series' (Voyager, Enterprise, Deep Space 9 etc.) Star Trek: Enterprise was the final series, with These Are the Voyages being the last ever episode. The Episode Chronology for this episode ends after this and does not mention the Star Trek movie made in 2009. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is also omitted from any of the previous series' Episode chronology. I think Unending should be changed for consistency. (Apologies for the messy over use of inter-Wiki links, I used these to make it easy for you to navigate to the several pages I am referring to.) Dylan (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unending. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unending. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)