Talk:Earth: Final Conflict

"created by" Roddenberry?

Gene Roddenberry died 6 years before the pilot was screened. I wonder to what extent this was 'created' by him. Morwen 20:21, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

I seem to recall hearing that the plot for the pilot episode was written by Gene Roddenberry, however the following episodes were written by other people. I could be wrong, though. Mike Peel 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Variously explained as Majel Roddenberry collecting source material together after Gene's death (including a pilot script) Voideater 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Read Childhoods End by Arthur C. Clarke. The first chapters lay out the series initial season almost word for word. There may be Rodenberry, but it would not exist without Clarke's novel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelhoof (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Taelons on VfD

nb, newly created article Taelons is on VfD. Could someone who's actually watched enough of this stuff for it to make sense pop by that article and improve it a bit. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Move the "List of Episodes" to this page

Wouldn't it be a good idea to move the list of episodes here? Or is this uncommon in the english wikipedia? -- 80.238.207.152 08:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an official policy, but I've generally found that episode lists are kept separate to keep page size down, especially if they add little to main article. Perhaps a more prominant link to the list of episodes would be in order? --Lox (t,c) 12:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Atavus or Avatus?

In the Season 5 section it is spelled both ways numerous times, such as from this excerpt:

...Atavus chambers, fighting off the Avatus...

Which one is it? Someone please correct and provide a source.

It is Atavus. The series itself is the source ("Avatus" is not used at all in the series), but this page shall do: http://www.efc.com/episodes/ep501.html Luis Dantas 12:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

--Ihmhi 05:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There were two "atavus" on E:FC. As I recall Da'an turns into one for a time in one episode. Then when they just turned around the whole story, the Taelons dissapear and the "atavus" race appears, which seems totally different from the previous "atavus", which only adds to the confusion.Tuxley 08:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually three versions - Season 2 shows one as the result of a Taelon being separated from the Commonality, Season 4 shows one as a (temporary) melding of a Taelon and a Jaridian, and Season 5 shows an "ancient colonial" version Voideater 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of quote box

As requested by FrankWilliams in the page history, I'm putting this comment here to explain my removal of the quote box containing the season 1 introduction to the show from the top of the page (this time - the previous times it was removed by Otto4711). There are three reasons for this.

• First, I've just rearranged the page a fair bit, and have moved the introductions to each of the seasons to the start of the sections on those seasons - this means that they are closer to the top, and thus will be read by the reader earlier.
• Second, the 'setting' section gives a much better introduction to the show than the 'official' introduction - it explains the back story better, and explains exactly who the 'they' is in 'Three years ago they came'. The 'official' introduction did this by displaying images of the Taelons.
• Finally (and thirdly), having a quote box in the centre of the page, with an infobox to the right and text to the left, just seems un-wikipedian to me.

Mike Peel 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation Explaination

The statement: The distributer of these DVDs, ADV Films, currently only has the DVD rights for these seasons; they have made the statement that "negotiations are underway for the remaining seasons". was made by me FrankWilliams from a phone conversation with ADV Films. FrankWilliams 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense to your credibility, but Wiki user quotes are really not enough to warrant being official. If that were the case, there would be edits all over the place saying this person or that person spoke to this producer or that studio and everyone would just have to take their word on it. If it doesn't come from a reliable, credible, widely accepted and verifiable source, it really shouldn't be added. --P shadoh (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dates?

Did the series ever establish when it was set apart from "in the 21st century" or "in the new millenium"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.214.143.84 (talk • contribs) 6:45, 14 July, 2006 (UTC).

No Voideater 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The smart and cunning viewer will discover that the series must be set around 2010 to 2015. Why? Boone is around forty years old. He was around his mid to late teens in the mid to late 80s. So he was born in the early 70s. Thus 2010 to 2015 ish. - Augur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augur (talk • contribs) 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The series never established a specific date, and in-universe evidence is often contradictory. For example, in the fifth season episode "Guilty Conscience," a one-off character (Zachary Winslow) was described as being "on the Nobel shortlist in '22 for his work in genetics." That implies that the fifth season at least is set after 2022. On the other hand, the fourth season episode "Trapped by Time" focuses on three time travelers retrieved "thirty years ago" by the top secret Apollo 20 mission. The real-world Apollo 20 was scheduled to launch in 1972 before being canceled. This would place the events of the fourth season around 2002, the actual air date. The writers never set a date for the series in stone, and I believe that was intentional, so that the events would always be just around the corner. YardsGreen (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

60 min.?

How long are the episodes? I assume that there are ads and episodes aren't really an hour long like the infobox says. --Arctic Gnome 21:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Most episodes are now available on Youtube and other sites. They are typically about 45 minutes each. 173.180.197.244 (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ra'jel

I don't think Ra'jel needs to be added to the main page. Logic is that other characters have their own articles such as: Da'an, Zo'or, and Juda. If no one objects after a reasonable amount of time I propose the merge statement in the main article be removed. FrankWilliams 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - While the Ra'Jel article is sparse, it should have its page per other similar subjects and potential reference-ability Voideater 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Originally set in the Star Trek universe?

We're having a discussion over at the Andromeda (TV series) talk page about how that series was supposedly planned to be set in the Star Trek universe by Roddenberry, but was altered to be non-Trek by the producers after his death. I say "apparently" because neither of us has a source handy for this assertion; just our memories (which I must say are VERY vivid, because I remember thinking "Wow, that would've been awesome! The last ship in Starfleet running around, trying to save the tattered remains of the Federation... Why the hell did they change it?!"

Anyway, this other guy also claims reading the same thing about Earth: Final Conflict. While I don't see how this would have worked (how could the Taelons--or their Star Trek-universe equivalents--POSSIBLY be retconned into the Star Trek universe? Would they bring in a new race or use an existing race, e.g. the Vulcans? Either way, they would've had to completely reboot the entire franchise.), it's still interesting and worthy of mention, in my opinion. At the very least, it merits a few lines in the "trivia" section. I'm especially curious as to why both series were altered to be non-Trek, apparently against Roddenberry's original intentions, and then were plastered with Roddenberry's name in an attempt to retain the Trek connection.

So... does anyone have any sources for this? Is it actually true? Are we delusional? Is it an urban legend?

Google is being shockingly unhelpful today. --Lode Runner

Have no info on retcon, reboot or production notes; highly unlikely EFC could be made over into the ST franchise due to competing ownership of intellectual property Voideater 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

...I'm not sure why people keep misunderstanding this point. We're not arguing that either show, in their current forms, has anything to do with Star Trek, nor that they could be retconned/rebooted to be in the Star Trek universe (though an entirely new show based on Roddenberry's ORIGINAL Trek-based vision might work, that's beside the point.) What we are saying is that, according to our memories, Andromeda and/or EFC were ORIGINALLY set in the Star Trek universe by Roddenberry and were subsequently de-Trekified after his death. If this is true, I think it's interesting enough to merit inclusion in both articles. I've done extensive Googling but so far have come up with nothing to support our memories, but I'm still far from convinced that I'm hallucinating the entire thing. Unfortuately, there are several non-Andromeda (the TV show) related Trek products out there that nonetheless have "Andromeda" in their title (Star Trek: Andromeda, Andromeda Trek RPG, etc.) and it seems as though "star trek", "star trek universe", etc. is mentioned on virtually EVERY SINGLE PAGE that mentions EFC, though not one of them mentions the possibility of EFC originally being set in the Trek universe. -Lode Runner 22:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found no evidence that suggests Andromeda or EFC were intended to be part of the ST "universe". The articles I have read refer to EFC as being another series idea, not a spin-off or continuation of ST, and in this way is similar to Genesis II, The Questor Tapes and Spectre. ST's initial lack of commercial success at a large scale and Roddenberry's pattern of creating divergent productions suggest that EFC (and by extension Andromeda) were envisioned as independent productions. Voideater 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember this is indeed true, on both counts. Consider these two species, the Taelons and the Perseids. Both are logical, scientific, and superior seeming. Both are Earth's first contact with aliens. Does this sound vaguely Star Trek like? It should. It's the Vulcans. The notes about the Taelons were originally undoubtedly meant to be about the Vulcans, who just like the Taelons have split from their less rational less spiritual savage brethren (Romulans/Jaridians). Obviously being different series, and being developed just from story notes into a divergent reality, we don't see a perfect resemblance, but it's there, if you look. You can see the remnant of vague ideas that G.R. had about the history of the human race and its first interactions with aliens (humans and taelons being necessary for one another's survival, humans and vulcans at first being on not-so-easy ground but eventually becoming the close core of the federation). The same is somewhat true in Andromeda, too, tho less so indeed. No, Gene never intended what became E:FC nor Andromeda, but he never intended them to be separate universes either, so really it's not surprising that the stories are separate. - Augur

At the risk of offending every Gene Roddenberry fan out there, has it occurred to those involved in this conversation that Mr. Roddenberry's stories may all be parallel because that was what he was capable of? As a fair-to-middlin' wordsmith myself, I am acquainted with several folks who, for lack of a better term, write the same story over and over again ... just with different names, dates and places. The plots are all the same. We are all so overwhelmed with the dominance of the Star Trek universe that we may not see that Mr. Roddenberry was only capable of writing one plot. Definitive? By no means. Possible? Certainly. And since his death, we will never know. But it's a concept I think is worth considering .... F117-A (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with your assessment that Andromeda is the more likely candidate, as it certainly shares a lot more with regard to setting, aesthetics, and thematic elements in common with Star Trek than either does with EFC. It's possible though that EFC too was conceptually originally a Star Trek story about humanity coping with it's adjustment to opening itself up to the larger universe after the point of first contact but before the era of starships. However, if this is the case, it was certainly altered significantly from Bradbury's Star Trek vision. Whereas in Star Trek humanity is discovered by a benevolent race and from there rises to prominence as a core member of a virtuous alliance, in EFC humanity's initial contact with a wider universe is with much more hostile and manipulative forces. In any account, though both were highly publicized as being the brain children of Rodenberry – as related through materials that Majel Rodenberry was in possession of, I seem to recall – I’d never before heard of either being originally intended for the Star Trek continuity. I just assumed Rodenberry had formulated these two stories as alternate visions for the future, but the idea that both concepts were originally supposed to be consistent with the Star Trek continuity seems more likely given Rodenberry's consistently upbeat personal vision. It's a pity, as both concepts could have given much more depth and realism to the franchise by taking a look at humanity during more uncertain moments. Both shows started out depicting these elements fairly well for a show of their budgets on network television, but both also steadily took a nose dive into unwatchability. Snow-THA (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time, but my to respond has sorta come around here. I think it worthwhile to note that the series 'Enterprise' did a bit of Trek universe EFC stuff with the Vulcans, a more disimilar but striking example being the introduction to the ~3rd last episode in a Mirror darkly pt1 where the suspicious and violent Humans board their ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.67.30 (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote Boxes

I'd like to see quote boxes around the opening narration intro just prior to the each of the season intros. It has been proposed that this leaves too much white space but having viewed the page in both Internet Explorer and the Firefox browser I don't see excessive white space. Furthermore I think the boxes make the intro's stand out and it helps separate each of the season summaries. FrankWilliams 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

official website

I am going to remove the link on the article page to the official website since it has been down since early march and as such is leading to a blank page, if the page returns feel free to put it back on but for now I don't see any reason for it to be there. Doctoroxenbriery (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Check/X cycling graphics

Why are there checks and xs that are cycling back and forth in the table? ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Recurring characters instead of main as they were.

Plot summary

Looking at this article, I would like to make some improvements. WP:NOT suggests that a short, concise plot summary is beneficial to the article. All of the plot summary sections, especially that of the first season, are overly long. Some people have interpreted WP:NOT to mean that its alright to just shorten or remove long summary sections without discussion, this has been controversial and even resulted in a discussion at WP:AN/I, so I figured i'd bring it up here first and see if anyone objects. Is it alright if I condense the plot summaries somewhat so that they don't overwhelm the article? Firestorm (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the plot summary to be exactly what I was looking for (I wanted to know what happens without watching the series). I don't see any practical reason for shortening it, other than to follow rules? If it must be shortened, this detailed version should be preserved, and linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.33.181 (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Web component to show

I remember watching the entire first season of this series when it initially came out. At the time, I stumbled on its Web site. The Web site was set up as a tie-in to the series, where fans could sign up as part of the "Resistance." It was quite extensive.

Question: Is this the first show to use the Web in the way that it did, as an extension to the show itself?

mariox19 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)mariox19

A slight mistake, with spoiler

Boone's wife is killed in episode one. In episode 2, Sandoval reveals that he killed her so Boone would not have to go through what he went through, where the process that enhanced him made him see her as far less than him, so he lost interest in her.

However Boone said he did not want to join the companions. It was the death of his wife that changed his mind. (Cyberia3 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Style/NPOV?

The following bullet point under the Alien Species section strikes me as particularly bad:

The character Liam is from the Wooden-top school of acting and directing and the series, whilst progressing well as a combination of good action and relational story in series 1, dives into the vaults of adolescent nonsense isolating a wider audience. Its ratings slumped heavily in series 2 and was only sustained to a full five series as the producers found a network with much lower requisites for both ratings and overall quality of character, direction, plot and script.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with the alien species in the series. Secondly, this does not seem to have a neutral point-of-view style to me, it's more like something from a bad review. Thirdly, none of it is even sourced. I suggest we remove this point entirely. ChibiKareshi (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth: Final Conflict. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424231408/http://www.viavision.com.au/tv/190-efc-s1 to http://www.viavision.com.au/tv/190-efc-s1

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• https://web.archive.org/web/20130517143838/http://www.thefreelibrary.com/%5b0%5d+SCI+FI+Prepares+for+Earth%3a+Final+Conflict+From+Tribune...-a066927806