A question about "All Good Things"....

[JarodRussell]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

You really don't understand, do you?

Damn, sometimes I wish every forum was TNZ.

Why, because you could insult me there when you run out of arguments?

That's to say it had to grow into the "future" a bit before it could start to grow into the past (and thus shrink into the future.) Think of it as an explosion going off, displacing all of the air inside it's radius, and the shock-wave pushes everything around the explosion out then when the fire of the explosion is gone everything then gets pulled back towards the "center" of the explosion by the newly incoming rush of air to fill the void.

That makes even less sense, Drunk.

The Borg Queen's point was that in a linear timeline it should have been visible, growing into nothing, because it grows backwards in time. My point is that it wasn't a linear timeline, and that without an origin point, it didn't exist. The future timeline Q sent Picard to WAS the origin timeline. It was a timeline "before" the anomaly had been created by Picard. It was a puzzle created by Q. The anomaly not existing in the future WAS a part of that puzzle. The purpose of the "past" and "present" was to make sure that Picard created the anomaly in the "future".

 

[CoveTom]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

I don't think the syndication cut out this scene as it's part of the ending scene. The syndication cut DOES cut out a scene between Picard and Q in the Pasteur ready-room and I believe a scene on the Enterprise-D(readnought) where Picard needs a Yellow-Shirt in the corridor to tell him how to get to 10-Fwd (because, you see the future ship completely re-arranged the lay out and numbering system of the decks.)

There may have been another scene but I'm fairly certain in the syndication cut the final scene between Q and Picard is whole. But, granted, I have not seen the syndicated version of AGT in ages.

I could also be wrong, but I believe these four lines are cut from the syndicated version:

PICARD: Thank you.
Q: For what?
PICARD: You had a hand in helping me get out of this.
Q: I was the one that got you into it. A directive from the Continuum. The part about the helping hand, thought, was my idea.

 

[Anwar]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

I remember that scene though, with Q revealing that the Continuum was behind it all although he decided to help Picard.

 

[Winterwind]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

However, I will say, Star Trek does a superb job at series finales.

No, it doesn't.

TNG's was decent, and from what I hear, so was DS9's but the finale to VOY wasn't and ENT's was just a steaming pile any way you look at it. And TOS never had one.

I'd hardly consider 2/5 "superb".

 

[CoveTom]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

^ I suppose one could argue that TUC was the "finale" to TOS, but if you did that, then you'd have to say Nemesis was the finale for TNG, which I'd rather not do. Still, at least the TOS crew did eventually get a more fitting sendoff than they got in the actual series.

I agree with your basic sentiment, though. Really, TNG's finale is the only one I look at and say "wow, that was superb." Even DS9's, which is certainly the best of the rest, felt rushed and unsatisfying. I suppose with so many story threads to deal with, and so many recurring characters, it would be hard to make any finale that could satisfy. And the episode did have some very good moments. But, still, it just felt like there was too much to be done and not enough time.

And Voyager and Enterprise... well, let's not even go there.

 

[Kpnuts]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

LOL, no, there's no "should". The future timeline is the cause of the anomaly. You still think that the three timelines are dependant on each other, they are not. No timeline has an effect on the other.

Excellent point

No, the anomaly grows larger in the past, which means in the future, the anomaly is bigger 5 hours before the events that trigger it's creation, slightly smaller than that 4 hours before the events that trigger it's creation, smaller still at 3 hours, and at 2 hours, and a cute little baby anomaly an hour before it's created.

For the Pastur to arrive at the location of the anomaly, and the anomaly to NOT be there before they start scanning for it, is incorrect from both a temporal and logical perspective.

You are the one who's wrong, your arguements are incredibly short-sighted, obvious and basically a bit dim-witted. Try and understand JarodRussel's point, rather than rehashing the same tired explanations.

 

[The Borg Queen]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

You are the one who's wrong, your arguements are incredibly short-sighted, obvious and basically a bit dim-witted. Try and understand JarodRussel's point, rather than rehashing the same tired explanations.

Troll much?

After reading the comment:

The Borg Queen's point was that in a linear timeline it should have been visible, growing into nothing, because it grows backwards in time. My point is that it wasn't a linear timeline, and that without an origin point, it didn't exist. The future timeline Q sent Picard to WAS the origin timeline. It was a timeline "before" the anomaly had been created by Picard. It was a puzzle created by Q. The anomaly not existing in the future WAS a part of that puzzle. The purpose of the "past" and "present" was to make sure that Picard created the anomaly in the "future".

I began to understand where Jarod was getting his perspective from, although I disagree with his interpretation of the story.

But then you had to go and necro the thread and make it personal with comments like "basically a bit dim-witted".

So I have to ask, what the fuck is your problem?

 

[Kpnuts]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

Trolling? How?

I haven't got a problem, you're the one getting pointlessly hostile towards posters who disagree with you. You accuse me of making things personal when I questioned the wisdom of your argument, yet you're the one wishing this topic was in TNZ, basically so you can throw insults around. Nice. Not hypocritical at all.

 

[CoveTom]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

I am not a moderator, and I hope the mods don't get upset with me for commenting.

But, c'mon guys. Everyone is getting heated over a debate about the "truth" of what happened in a fictional episode of a fictional sci-fi show. There is no "right" or "wrong." It's all made up to begin with. The hostility in this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Holdfast]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

You are the one who's wrong, your arguements are incredibly short-sighted, obvious and basically a bit dim-witted.

Unsurprisingly, I received a notification on this post, more specifically this element of it, because it's entirely out of keeping with the tone of the TNG forum, which is generally a pleasant place where disagreements can be discussed in good spirits, without this degree of patronising condescension. Nobody is asking you to agree with anybody else, but merely to behave civilly in your disagreements. Calling others dim-witted, in the tone/manner you did, is unwelcome here.

I was also informed by other staff that you have a long and extensive track record of patronising and rude comments across this board, which have resulting in your gathering an inordinate number of infractions over the years, which inevitably made my task in reviewing this post more complex that it normally would be.

This does seem to be the first time I've had to look at a post of yours in this forum, so provisionally I'm not going to call it trolling at this stage. Bear in mind that a pattern of rude condescension can be considered trolling, so my firm advice would be against your allowing such a pattern to develop in this forum.

The hostility in this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

Amen to that. Borg Queen's post upthread about wishing he/she was in TNZ (presumably to flame the other party) is also precisely the kind of post that just ramps up the ridiculous level of hostility, esp. on an internet forum where it's impossible to tell light-hearted from serious.

 

[Kpnuts]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

Suggesting that an argument (note: not an individual) is dim-witted... deserves all that, wow. Thank you so much for not giving me a warning, after I suggested the Borg Queen's arguments were flawed in a perfectly normal way, for those who don't have paper-thin skin; how generous.

Please carry on ignoring comments like "what the fuck is your problem" and accusing innocent people of potentially trolling and being hostile, when others are not only being condescending, but clearly wishing to flame other members in TNZ style. Great stuff.

Moving on?

 

[Trekker4747]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

I am not a moderator, and I hope the mods don't get upset with me for commenting.

But, c'mon guys. Everyone is getting heated over a debate about the "truth" of what happened in a fictional episode of a fictional sci-fi show. There is no "right" or "wrong." It's all made up to begin with. The hostility in this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

Meta Posting: Trying to explain away in-universe inconsistencies with real-world answers.

Of course it's all just a show. Not being pre-school-aged kids we're all aware of the production elements of the series. The point of discussion is trying to find in-universe answers.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: A question about "All Good Things"....

Breath in -- breath out.

Visualize your chee.