Home  

Random  

Nearby  



Log in  



Settings  



Donate  



About Wikipedia  

Disclaimers  



Wikipedia





Talk:Where No Fan Has Gone Before





Article  

Talk  



Language  

Watch  

Edit  


Latest comment: 9 months ago by Doniago in topic Removed content
 


Learn more about this page

(Translation)

edit

As a Welsh speaker, I can tell you that "Dwi wedi meddwi'n llwyr" means "I am completely drunk", not "I am very, very drunk"
That, however, is beside the point, because I'm certain he says "Aye, Dwi wedi meddwi'n chwyl chwil" which is a northern colloquialism for getting very drunk. I think the best translation would be "Yes, I am reeling drunk". I'm not sure that's what the writers wanted him to say, but that's what he does say.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.0.53 (talk) 20:51 & :53, 16 November 2006

Destruct sequence

edit

Lest anyone argue that the match is exact, Takei says "Destruct sequence 1-A-2-B-3" while the original was Captain: "1-1-A"; First Officer: "1-1-A-2-B"; Second Officer: "1-B-2-B-3"; Captain: "0-0-0-Destruct-0." BryanEkers 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, when he said that, didn't Bender's head explode?Bobo10512 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Star Trek References

edit

Interactions between the cast appear to reference a couple of themes from George Takei’s autobiography To The Stars. Firstly, when Melllvar distributes the scripts of his self-penned episode, he does not have enough copies for the entire cast, forcing Takei and Walter Koenig to share. To me this suggests Takei’s recount of being forced to share a dressing room first with Doohan and then with Koenig, whose arrival Takei initially greeted as an effort to replace him on the show. Secondly, after Takei is offended by Shatner’s suggestion that he perform a karate chop, he asks if Shatner has ever seen him demonstrate karate. Shatner responds that Takei does not speak about himself; Takei moans that Shanter should have asked to speak with him. This is a reoccurring theme throughout Takei’s autobiography: the distance which Shatener appeared to keep himself from getting to know his cast mates despite their best motivations. (207.81.164.238 20:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC))Reply

spores

edit

is there reely an episode where spock get high on spores? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I am Paranoid (talkcontribs) 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

This Side of Paradise (TOS episode) Stardust8212 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Foreshadowing the cancellation?

edit

Should it be added that there is a look into the future of the end of the series when Bender says, "Another Sci-Fi show cancelled before its time"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.129.45 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

Unless the creators themselves have stated that this was their intention then it probably doesn't belong here. I think it has been included before and removed as original research. I agree that that was probably the joke they were going for but at the same time if its an obvious joke there is no reason to explain it here. Stardust8212 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
You might consider chacking if this wasn't a Firefly reference. Bezier123 17:54, 27 May 2012 (GMT+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.11.254.132 (talk)

Continuity

edit

Article currently says Melvar "...found the tapes centuries ago." However the exact quote from the show: "Centuries ago the videotaped adventures of the enterprise crew rained down upon my planet..." which does not necessarily signify he is centuries old, rather that he (or others) knew when the tapes fell to the planet. Splitting hairs I know but should be deleted or at least expanded upon. JonBradbury 06:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree and removed it. It's a joke and not well defined in th episode itself. Also we don't need any guessing about Earth years vs Energy being years on this page. Stardust8212 12:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


Walter Koenig

edit

So, does he really hate Star Trek? 72.222.129.203 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removed content

edit

Just in case there was something important here that could be tweaked back to the article: --Duke B. Garland 15:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Continuity

edit

The central premise of the episode, that in the future Star Trek has become a proscribed religion, so much so that it was forbidden even to speak of it, was contradicted by Hermes in the episode Brannigan Begin Again. In that episode Hermes uses the Federation as an analogy to explain to Fry the concept behind the Democratic Order of Planets (DOOP). It is highly unlikely that Hermes, being both officious and pedantic in the extreme, would commit a crime by casually discussing Star Trek. A possible explanation for Hermes' omission could be found in his extensive exposure to Brain Slugs. However, an even less likely contradiction is found in the episode That's Lobstertainment!, as Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation is nominated for an Oscar for Best Product Placement.

Cultural references

edit
Star Trek references
edit

In the DVD audio commentary the writer for this episode notes his pride in having included a large number of references to the original series, particularly those items which he claims "the people on the internet" had not found on their own. In particular he noted that in "Shatner's Log", a play on the legendary captain's log, the line "The impossible has happened" is the same line given in the opening log in the episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before."[1] Other references to the Star Trek franchise, in order of appearance in the episode, are as follows:

  • They really all need secondary sources. It's not our job to point out what we perceive as similarities, as that would be original research, but rather to point out intended similarities, as supported by reliable sources. Otherwise, how can we know that something we believe to be an intentional reference isn't merely coincidental? DonIago (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Goodman, David A. (2003). Futurama season 4 DVD commentary for the episode "Where No Fan Has Gone Before" (DVD). 20th Century Fox. {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • ^ Cohen, David X. (2003). Futurama season 4 DVD commentary for the episode "Where No Fan Has Gone Before" (DVD). 20th Century Fox. {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • Welshy

    edit

    It's probably to trivial to go in the article, but it's interesting that they included the late DeForrest Kelly and simply didn't have him speak, but when James Doohan turned it down, they responded by creating a completely new character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daibhid C (talkcontribs) 16:51, 28 May 2008


    Spelling: Welshy/Welshie

    edit

    My survey suggests little basis for either spelling; i doubt IMDb is reliable on char names (presumably often supplied by fans who've heard the name in the work but not seen a full cast list, esp w/ TV), and the start of my Google search

    208 for Welshie OR Welshy Futurama OR " Where No Fan Has Gone Before"

    starts with abt 30 sites unrated (for security) by Norton... Specific credible sources would be a very good thing.
    --Jerzyt 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

    (Melllvar)

    edit

    He's not a child, he's 34.
    that is melllvar's age on his planet, but if that planet can support humans it might be close to earth years.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.123.168 (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2009

    Future Imperfect similarities

    edit

    Does anyone else see the similarities between Melllvar and Barash from the TNG episode Future Imperfect? -Jaardon (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

    Way more references

    edit

    I just saw this episode for the first time and as someone with a good memory who has seen all the episodes of the original series, I saw quite the number of references not described in this article. Some were unquestionable, while others were quite questionable and I don't have sources for many of them. I actually think this article takes a good path in listing a lot of the references made, without trying to give an exhaustive list.

    However, I feel the article is written as if the given list is exhaustive. Perhaps this article could use some rewriting to make it clearer that the given examples are just that, some examples of references in the episode... My name is Jasper (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

    GA Review

    edit
    This review is transcluded from Talk:Where No Fan Has Gone Before/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

    Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 01:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

    Hi again! Should review quite soon with the GA Cup starting! Johanna(talk to me!) 01:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

    Comments

    @Miyagawa: Nice work! The only "major" thing for this article is the non-free file up top. Johanna(talk to me!) 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

    @Johanna: Thanks for the review. The non-free file isn't a big issue for me, it was simply there from prior to my work on this article and I would agree that it isn't a point of discussion so I've removed it. I've made those edits as suggested and pulled apart the director bit into two separate sentences. Thanks for pointing out that other image, as I'd missed that one - I've inserted it now. Miyagawa (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
    @Miyagawa: Wonderful work! Pass. Johanna(talk to me!) 03:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
    GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
    1. It is reasonably well written.
      a(prose, spelling, and grammar):  b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
      a(reference section):  b(citations to reliable sources):  c(OR):  d(copyvio and plagiarism):  
    3. It is broad in its coverage.
      a(major aspects):  b(focused):  
    4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
      Fair representation without bias:  
    5. It is stable.
      No edit wars, etc.:  
    6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
      a(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b(appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    7. Overall:
      Pass/Fail:  

    Production vs broadcast order

    edit

    This probably applies to a bunch of articles, but I've only seen this here, so far. I was about to correct the episode number, then saw this comment: "Please do not change. Production order, not airing order, is used here."

    I'm leaving it alone, but I don't entirely agree with this decision. I know there are complications like broadcast order being different from the order on DVD releases (Firefly comes to mind), but in cases where there aren't discrepancies, intuitively people are going to think this refers to the broadcast order or episode number on the home release. The very next line is the production code, which can be deciphered pretty easily, so it's not like the information would be lost. I think changing the label from "Episode number" to something like "Broadcast order" (but less awkward sounding) is possibly a cleaner solution.

    In this case, this is listed as episode 11, but it is the 12th episode on the home release (and I imagine, but don't actually know that it was broadcast 12th). Actually, I might be opening a can of worms with that point. Somebody would have to do the research.. All I'm saying is that the information is misleading as presented. Maybe it's a different label fix, and some of the information in that comment should be shown to the user. I thought it was wrong when I saw it. Thoughts?

    ...dissimilar username... (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

    Given that this is an issue that would affect every single episode's article, I would recommend discussing the matter here rather than on this page. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

    Bird of Prey

    edit

    Its romulan, not klingon KhlavKhalash (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

    It links to an article about Klingon ships. If that article's incorrect, you should probably discuss the matter at the Talk page for it. DonIago (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Wrong episode number

    edit

    I believe this was episode 12 2601:547:8100:4FB0:21D5:416A:26F9:D37F (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

    List of Futurama episodes. DonIago (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

    Add topic

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Where_No_Fan_Has_Gone_Before&oldid=1210613142"
     



    Last edited on 27 February 2024, at 13:32  


    Languages

     



    This page is not available in other languages.
     

    Wikipedia


    This page was last edited on 27 February 2024, at 13:32 (UTC).

    Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Terms of Use

    Desktop