Talk:Quantum Leap

Active discussions

Monkey PhotoEdit

Although it is quite adorable, I'm not sure what role the photo of the monkey holding a gun plays in this article? Does someone who is more into QL want to handle plz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.209.254 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo is there because of this episode:

59 7 "The Wrong Stuff" Joe Napolitano Paul Brown January 24, 1961 Cape Canaveral, Florida November 6, 1991
In a very bizarre out-of-the-human host, Sam leaps into Bobo, an astro-chimp whom he must get into the space program – or he'll disappear forever due to unethical helmet testing methods. (This is the only episode where Sam does not leap into a human being.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.214.99 (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hah, the last revert was for a good faith removal of this; I bet this is removed all the time, we really need a better caption to assure readers this is not a joke vandalizing and in fact, I'm about to go verify your assertion as you'd think I'd remember this episode! Boogerpatrol (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I missed the cite, and it was RIGHT THERE in the caption, what an awesome pic! Boogerpatrol (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
...Yeah, in the episode "The Wrong Stuff" indeed Sam leaps into a chimp and he steals a dart gun at one point, but that is NOT an image from the episode. The ability to use a weapon was not even a big deal in the episode (the other chimp, Cory, uses the dart gun at the end too). I'm sure someone thought adding that photo was really funny. Removed.189.238.213.249 (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

DoctoratesEdit

In part 2 of the pilot, Al states that Sam holds six doctorates and is prehaps the smartest man since Einstein. I am in the process of watching all of the episodes to find out what all of Sams doctorines are in hopes that this information about him can be added to the wikipedia article.

  1. Quantum Physics (confirmed in "Pilot")
  2. Medicine (confirmed in "Pilot")
  3. Ancient Languages (confirmed in "Star-Crossed")
  4. Law (confirmed in "So Help Me God")
  5. Music (confirmed in "A Song for the Soul")
  6. Currently Unknown


--Wesw02 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but number 4 is incorrect. So Help Me God confirms that "None of [Sam's] six degrees is in law" (my emphasis) and, in fact, Sam relies on what little he remembers of Perry Mason - plus his own detective skills - to complete his mission in that episode. --Zoe.R 14:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

--67.180.242.217 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For emphasis to #5, music, in "Blind Faith", Al comforts Sam about his ability to play the piano noting that he should have no problem playing at Carnegie Hall because he already done it before.

-- There's also a problem with number 3 -- Al claims that Sam has a doctorate in ancient languages and knows several as well as several modern languages. Hieroglyphics is only one of many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.129.75 (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Star TrekEdit

In the article:

"The fourth season episode "A Leap For Lisa" includes three coincidental tie-ins to the Star Trek franchise. In this episode, Sam leaps into young Al who is to stand trial for the rape and murder of Commander Riker's wife. Commander Riker is the name of one of the principal characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation series. Lisa was portrayed by Terry Farrell, who would later star in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Scott Bakula (Sam) would go on to play Captain Jonathan Archer in the Star Trek: Enterprise series."

Surely unnecessary? It's not as if this was a deliberate attempt at a ST/QL crossover. Jsteph 10:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

External linksEdit

A few weeks ago, several external links were removed, with reference to WP:EL ([1]). I understand the need for this general type of cleanup. However, one of the links that was removed (Al's Place - A Quantum Leap Fan Site), has been, in my experience, a particularly useful and comprehensive information source. In my opinion, it seems worthy of inclusion in the "External links" section. Do any others share this sentiment?--GregRM 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture ReferencesEdit

The Pop Culture references section lists a scene from How I Met Your Mother where one character says, "Oh Boy!" Is this really a QL reference? Based on the context, I really can't see how it would be. Elmorth 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Leap is mentioned by name during the conversation. You can't get much clearer than that.Raymondluxuryacht 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia "The Gang Turns Black" (TV EPISODE 2019) Scott Bakula guest stars as himself playing an out of work actor, forced to take low-end jobs after not receiving residuals from his work on Quantum Leap. The gang encounter both Scott and a situation similar to Quantum Leap in the episode, where they believe they've leapt into the bodies of four black teens, see themselves as such in the mirror, and are seen that way by other people. Frank and Dee Reynolds then go on a quest to help someone in the hopes it will allow them to leap back into their bodies, incorrectly remembering Ziggy as an all-powerful god-like being punishing them for their many misdeeds. Fallingflamingo 00:47, 12 March 2020 (EDT)

Pop culture references must be supported by citations to third-party sources that have discussed them, as an indicator of significance, as discussed at WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting information.Edit

In the "series conclusion" section it is stated that this show ended at season 4, yet near the bottom of the article it is shown that a 5th season is available on DVD. Some explanation would be nice

The show ran five seasons, not four. Someone keeps changing that one part to say it ended at season 4, even though that's wrong. I keep reverting it when I catch it, but for some reason, they keep changing it back.Raymondluxuryacht 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro Voice-OverEdit

The voice-over listed at the top of the article is significantly different from the one I am familiar with; after checking my S2 DVD (US Version), this is the intro as it is played:

"Theorizing that one can time travel within his own lifetime, Dr. Sam Beckett stepped into the Quantum Accelerator, and vanished.

He awoke to find himself trapped in the past, facing mirror images that were not his own; and driven by an unknown force to change history for the better.

His only guide in this journey is Al, an observer from his own time, who appears in the form of a hologram that only Sam can see and here.

And so Dr. Beckett finds himself, leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap home..."

Here is the version currently listed in the article, in case it needs to be re-entered. Is it possible different countries had a different intro?

"Theorizing that one could time-travel within his own lifetime, Dr. Sam Beckett led an elite group of scientists into the desert, to develop a top-secret project known as Quantum Leap. Pressured to prove his theories or lose funding, Dr. Beckett prematurely stepped into the project accelerator, and vanished...

He awoke to find himself in the past, suffering from partial amnesia and facing a mirror image that was not his own. Fortunately, contact with his own time was maintained through brain-wave transmissions with Al, the project observer, who appeared in the form of a hologram that only Dr. Beckett can see and hear. Trapped in the past, Dr. Beckett finds himself leaping from life to life, put things right that once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next Leap will be the Leap home.

The longer version (the "led an elite group of scientists" one) was the intro originally, and then was shortened to the version you know. However, in syndication, all episodes feature the shorter intro. What we need to do as far as the article goes, I don't know. It seems like it would be bloating the article to feature both versions, but if we don't, people are likely to keep changing it back and forth. Basically, I'm open to suggestions.Raymondluxuryacht 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
In the versions I have, season 1 doesn't really have an intro, season 2 uses the one in the article, and seasons 3+ use the one you show. It doesn't really matter which one we use, so I say either stick with the longer one or remove it entirely. Oren0 04:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

why does it say that the third season voice was changed to ziggy's voice from deborah pratt when the article clearly states she voiced ziggy.. kinda silly, No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.213.22 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am watching the HD repeats ("Another Mother" from series two) on SyFy UK right now and the opening narration is in a male voice. Back when I first saw the programme on BBC2 it was a woman's voice for the entire run. Is this a change for the HD version? Kelvingreen (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
To summarize: Season 1 originally had a first-person intro by Scott Bakula. In season 2, this was replaced with a third-person account by Deborah Pratt. This second intro by Deborah Pratt was shortened into the final intro for either season 3 or 4, and ever since the show's re-runs, only the final intro was used for all 5 seasons, up until the DVD boxes appeared which also included the earlier intros. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Leaping into the wrong bodyEdit

In series two (I'm going by the UK DVD releases here) there are several episodes ('A Portrait for Troika' is an example) where Sam is seen leaping into a host from a series one episode. In the next episode, however, Sam has lept into a new host and the apparent inconsistency is not mentioned. Does anyone know what the reason for this re-use of material was? I'm assuming it has something to do with the next episode not having been ready at the time of the previous one's broadcast, so stock footage was used to show Sam leaping? --jek 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When the episodes were originally broadcast on network, the leap-in at the end of each episode would always be to whatever episode was due to be broadcast next; if the next episode up was a repeat, the leap-in would be to that of the repeat episode rather than the next new episode in sequence. The DVDs obviously skip over the repeats and show only the new episodes.Raymondluxuryacht

Page moveEdit

It seems pretty clear that this article should be moved to Quantum Leap, since that page redirects here anyway. Are there any objections or concerns to doing this? If not, it seems easiest to just make the direct move immediately. If so, I'll propose a formal move request so we can discuss the options further. -Silence 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we do this already? Point 23 above. HalJor 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No Quantum leap is not just a redirect As it says - This article is about the physical phenomenon. For the television program, see Quantum Leap (TV series).

Super Bowl XXXEdit

In the second season episode "All Americans", Al notes that he is watching Super Bowl XXX and that the Steelers are 3 points behind. The game was in fact played between the Dallas Cowboys and the Pittsburgh Steelers, though the Steelers never trailed by exactly three points. This is notable because the episode was filmed well in advance of any knowledge of what teams would play.

This is not true. The Cowboys scored a field goal on their first possession of the game, making the score 3-0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.203.52 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And not just that- they also trailed 20-17 late in the game.Raymondluxuryacht 18:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A Bold Leap ForwardEdit

Was it a hoax? Was it a genuine idea that just never got off the ground? Might it still happen? This could do with a mention if any more details are known, although I guess Scott Bakula knowing nothing about it counts for something. --84.9.197.88 (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)--84.9.197.88 (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Recommended reading"?Edit

This is an odd title for a section. Can anyone think of something better than Recommended reading? Gh5046 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of episodesEdit

hiya. thinking about buying the box set series 1-5 from play, and play have the episodes listed as 1 - 97 rather than the 96 listed on the article. Is this just for dvd? 86.146.30.72 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia article lists the first episode Genesis (the pilot) as one episode, but other sites consider it two episodes since it's a two parter. That's the discrepancy. It is 97 episodes. Gh5046 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Too LongEdit

I have added a "too long" box at the top of the article, as it seemed long-winded and full of a lot of semi-trivia. I am not an expert on QL, but I am a fan and am trying to create a more coherent article on a sci-fi landmark. Gdkh (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Planning to remove triviaEdit

I'm plan on removing the pop culture references section, and other similar trivia in this article. Having information about weak references from other television programs just doesn't add to the quality of the article. If anyone has issue with this, please let me know here. Gh5046 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Length/SizeEdit

To quote from Wikipedia:Article size "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose." Quantum Leap is only 52k, 2k is not much past the sugested size, the Too Long tag is not needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still over the recommended size, 2K is a lot of text. This article has a lot of complexity for such a simple subject. The plot section is too long, and other portions of the article can be cut down. This article doesn't need to be split up, so please don't think I'm suggesting that, but there is a lot of cruft that can still be cut. I'm adding the tag back. Gh5046 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There it has been cut. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Gh5046 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Once i get five minutes I'll trim more of the fat. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Stallone/PhiladelphiaEdit

While Stallone was born in NYC, he *did* grow up in Philadelphia and went to high school at Lincoln High. See the Wikipedia page on Stallone.134.243.211.185 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another changed premiseEdit

I think this should be mentioned in the article, probably falling best at the end of the Leaping: mind or body? section. Near the end of the episode Good Morning Peoria, Al stands near the radio station's antenna as it is powered up, causing Al to appear blue and electrified, much as Sam appears when he leaps. He exclaims, "Sam, I'm leaping!" and Sam replies, "No, you're standing too close to the antenna." However, in the series finale, when Sam gives credit to another patron at the bar for saving the miners in the mine shaft, he observes the other man leaping out of existence. He later asks Al, "When I leap, do I turn all blue...?" to which Al replies, "When you leap, I go back to the imaging chamber." This implies that neither Sam nor Al see this effect when Sam leaps, contrary to the implication in the radio episode. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 00:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither Sam or Al saw Al turn blue. What Al was seeing was himself fading out going back into the imaging chamber. Sam saw this too. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Main Character's Name?Edit

It occurred to me that the name of the title character is Samuel Beckett. Another famous Samuel Beckett is the author of the play Waiting for Godot, among other works.

So the question is, was the name of the main character named after the famous author?

Sixit (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe yes. There is at least one episode where he tells someone his name is Sam Beckett and they reply "Like the playwright?" or something to that effect. Unfortunately, it's been ages since I've seen the episode and I don't have any more authoritative cites to support the claim that he was intentionally named after Beckett, rather than it being a coincidence they realized later. --Cphoffman (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This was a running bit throughout the series and was mentioned in multiple episodes. I don't know if the creators ever specifically stated the name was chosen as a homage to the playwright but, if not, the connection was discovered very early on by the writers. --Bapaveza (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

InconsistenciesEdit

Two inconsistencies I noticed recently:

On this page "Mind or body : Blind faith" someone notes that "Al makes it clear that he is risking his own sight if he does not seek medical attention immediately". This comment was Speculation on part of Al from what he believed as a character, and not the world of the show. In that episode, Sam is barely recovering. We keep seeing glimpses of Sam's sight, giving an idea of how well / quickly recovering. Based on that, Sam was still almost completely blind when he leaps into a new body where, as usual, he is confronted with a mirror and made immediately clear that he has completely regained his sight.

Another inconsistency, same leap, the leap at the end of Blind Faith, Sam Leaps into a DJ. The same video footage (not to mention vinyl) is used at the end of "Blind Faith" as the Beginning of "Good Morning, Peoria" as usual Thwith a leap, but the music playing is different. I think a list would have historical and fan significance. MAYBE deserves its own page, conflicts and inconsistencies? 67.180.242.217 (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the end of an episode and begining of the next one, it is very common to have slightly different footage from one episode to the next. However, I wouldn´t rate ths as an inconsistency, since the footage is the same, only slightly altered in order and length.Mrkeked (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In regards to Sam being partially blinded by the flashbulb at the end of Blind Faith -- the Pilot episode makes it clear that while Sam's leaps appear instantaneous to him, they actually take several days (a week in the pilot) of real-time. This would more than enough time for Sam to regain his sight after the flash build incident and be just fine when he leaps in at the beginning of the next episode. --Bapaveza (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been rewatching the show looking for inconsistencies, and there's something inconsistent in how Al appears to other people. I've had the chance to put this on the page, but I believe some discussion on it would benefit a more accurate description of this particular inconsistency. In the pilot, Al states that he is a neurological projection, which would make Sam the only "viewer", since Al would appear only in Sam's mind. However, animals and even children under 5 years old can see and hear Al. In "Another Mother", a little girl is able to interact with Al and can even see Sam for who he is, which doesn't make much sense. Al's explanation is that "children can only see the truth" and babbles something about alpha waves. Maybe I'm being picky, since the show is partially based on the supernatural...Mrkeked (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been a while, but I recall reading something either from a sourcebook or the writers notes that explained it as childrens eyes being underdeveloped and not as discriminating. Surely this would not pass real science explanations, but it was their pseudo-science explanation. 70.179.142.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC).

its a common theory that children's minds are more open to things that adult minds would filter out, like ghosts other dimensions.. etc.. its a part of popular culture if not scientifically acurate.. the show fringe uses this concept alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.213.22 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The official explanation within the series is that brain waves of children up to age 5 (i. e. "their mesons and neurons") are in constant "alpha mode", which sort-of means that their "receiver" is scanning the entire frequency map, so they see Al and they see Sam as Sam. Same goes for animals and the mentally insane. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What??Edit

'A notable exception is in the episode "Dr. Ruth," in which the leap is shown from the leapees' point of view rather than Sam's. When the leap takes place, we are with Dr. Ruth in the waiting room, who gives Al counseling about his own relationships. This was most likely because the next person Sam leapt into was suspected(especially by Al) to be a vampire, and had to be shown directly(he removes Dr. Ruth's glasses and bares his fangs at the viewer) because of the superstition that vampires cast no reflection(But then, as a hologram, neither does Al, and Sam called him a vampire in the pilot when he couldn't see Al in the mirror).'

This passage is about as clear as mud. I'm pretty sure it actually makes no sense at all. I think the whole article needs trimming down and styling up

True, it's nonsense the camera's eye stays in the waiting chamber (which is not "the leapee's POV", because Dr. Ruth would never be able to see the next leapee) because Al would "suspect" the next leapee to be anything. The true reason is that the show's creators wanted to do a great cliffhanger by suddenly having a vampire appear. That's the actual reason why this is the only episode where we see the leap-out not from Sam's POV, but from within the waiting chamber. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Tru CallingEdit

Can somebody explain what Tru Calling is doing in the "See also" section?

Similar premise - lead character travels through time to correct 'mistakes'. 84.9.58.110 (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ratings.Edit

I've only recently gotten into this show. It's odd to me this lasted Five seasons and I had never heard of it before. Does anyone have information on the show's ratings over its lifespan to add to the article?--Occono (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this was a show with only two permanent cast members, and I believe it made extensive use of pre-existing sets and such. I imagine it would've been able to go a long way with a small-but-devoted fanbase, though obviously nowhere near the level of Mystery Science Theater 3000. --Shay Guy (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It must have had more than decent aproval, since I saw it when I was a kid here in Portugal, which means that it was picked up for international "sindication". I'm not sure about the official ratings, but Scott Bakula talked a lot about Quantum Leap when he was on Star Trek: Enterprise, so it did have a solid fan base, at least enough for him to be interested in pleasing Quantum Leap fans over on Enterprise. His interviews regarding this are out there and must be pretty easy to track down.Mrkeked (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As a German, I can confirm that the series obviously enjoyed a wide global distribution. And yes, it did always have a very dedicated fanbase, but so small that every new season required a "leap of faith", so to speak, on behalf of NBC to really allow it to go on for another six months. AFAIK, the main reason for the show to last as long as five seasons was the high acclaim NBC got especially from critics for it, for exactly the same reason as to why its fanbase was so small, which was the fact that the premise was too complex for most people. Rumors have it that Bellisario was the only one at NBC/Universal (as well as among cast & crew) who really understood the premise and the show's whole concept, and that even Bakula and Stockwell had "sorta understood half of it" only by about season 3.
The only reason NBC/Universal had granted Bellisario free range with this show to begin with and even allowed him to go on after the short test season 1 (which hadn't aired by that point), was Bellisario's image as a hitmaker with all his previous shows (Magnum or Airwolf) that all enjoyed stable terrific ratings from the get-go, so it had always been like: "We have no idea of what you're doing or what you're trying to do with this one, but based upon your prior successes, we hope you know what you're doing". The one thing that eventually saved the show after season 2 and beyond were always the glowing reviews by professional critics, while most of TV America never knew what to to do with this odd beast that only a handful of people even understood at the time. By the closing of season 5, NBC eventually decided to pull the plug on the show and did so on extremely short notice, so that the final episode had to be entirely re-cut, and rumor has it that at least part of the cliffhanger for season 6 had already been shot. I think part of the alternate ending is available for download from the website Al's Place. --84.180.255.151 (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and charactersEdit

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fan film sectionEdit

I'm not sure if this even warants inclusion per WP:NOTABILITY. At the very least, it needs to be wikified, but for the most part, I believe it ought to be deleted. Didn't want to delete it without soliciting others' comments, though. oknazevad (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It does involve Deborah Pratt. I think it is notable. However, yes, the section needs a lot of fixing. Belasted (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comics / ContinuityEdit

I understand that most additional works are generally considered non-continuity with the original work, in this case the comics in relation to the series, but has it ever been stated that the comics are or are not part of the same continuity? RedKnight (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Al sees Sam, not his hostEdit

In the Evil Leaper arc, Al is able to see Alia, and Zoey and Thames are able to see Sam when Sam and Alia touched. 178.93.98.37 (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Season 2 episode where he first leaps into a woman, Al sees the host. They changed it later.--occono (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of sequenceEdit

Is it noteworthy that most likely, we're not seeing Sam's leaps in sequence? In episode 49, Last dance before an execution (first broadcast 1 May 1991), Sam leaps into the year 1971 and he and Al say that Al's presence is "exactly 25 years from now", which would be 1996. However, only 4 episodes later in episode 53, The leap back (first broadcast 18 September 1991), it is stated that Al's presence is 1999 now. --79.193.32.73 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible. Or the producer missed the comment and inadvertently allowed a chronology mixup. Either way, I don't think it's notable unless you could find a reference from the actors or the producers/directors about how many "actual" years Sam was leaping throughout the run of the show. Ckruschke (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Just found another instance: At the end of The leap home, Al briefly tells Sam's wife Donna that Sam has now leapt into a comedian to get together with a waitress so they can raise a daughter together, and that Sam and Al are currently working on that, and that's when the episode ends. However, in the next episode, Play ball, we don't see that leap, and instead Sam has leapt into the aging baseball player "Doc" Fuller to help a young talent get into the major league. --79.193.37.188 (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
No, what Ckruschke meant was that you need to cite a source. Unfortunately, what you've provided qualifies as original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
So it constitutes OR to state that they're talking about one story as the next episode, but it doesn't come about as the next episode, and other such inconsistencies? --79.193.37.188 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Source CodeEdit

How do we know for sure that Source Code is really supposed to be the Quantum Leap movie that Bellisario was working on? All the linked source really confirms is that Scott Bakula is a faceless voice on the phone. Yes, the premise might be similar in that the protagonist leaps into people, but that's as little as to only warrant an "inspired by Quantum Leap" label...which, BTW, should also acknowledge Groundhog day, Inception and 12 Monkeys just as much as Quantum Leap.

The Wikipedia article for Source Code acknowledges no involvement whatsoever on Bellisario's side, in fact, it names Ben Ripley as the script writer instead. I also remember a posting on Al's Place which linked to a 2011 article where Bellisario said that he was still working on the script for the Quantum Leap movie in 2011, but that it was going forward nonetheless. --79.193.26.254 (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to Al's Place, I've come upon this article: [2] where director Duncan Jones says that all that Source Code is is an "intentional homage" to Quantum Leap, and according to him Scott Bakula's appearance is only a "cameo". Maybe a dip into the water to check audience responses towards a Quantum Leap-like antic, but nothing about Source Code being Bellissario's big planned Quantum Leap movie. --79.193.26.254 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I also remember a recent comment to a Quantum Leap blog, whereas the comment was written by one of the printed QL novel writers and said that Don's script for the movie is based on the script for the original pilot of season 6 that had already been written when Universal axed the series on short notice. The way the final episode of season 5 was supposed to end according to Don's original script (but never shot that way) was that Al returns to the bar Al's place, but Sam is already gone (having realized that it's him controlling his leaps and that due to his first leap, he's become some etheral being beyond space and time so he can go anywhere, not just within his own lifetime), and Al starts talking to his namesake bartender. The bartender tells Al, "I can show you where your friend is now, but you won't be just an oberserver this time." Al agrees and suddenly starts leaping himself. He leaps into a deep space bar in the distant future, looks into the bar mirror and sees he's leaped into a woman astronaut and goes, "Oh boy!" End of the final episode of season 5, foreshadowing the pilot of season 6.
The point of the final episode of season 5 originally was that Sam realizes that it's him controlling his leaps, and Al becoming another leaper just like him, so now they're ready for "bigger things to come". It's also why they have Al's photo leaping at the end of the final episode of season 5, it's because Al himself has become a leaper, but the way Universal has botched up the episode's script and cut after the sudden decision to ax the series, Al's photo leaping doesn't even make any sense anymore. And that, according to the QL novel author, is also Don's premise for the movie that's in pre-production. --79.193.34.221 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, found a copy of Don's script with this original ending: [3]. Now all we need to find is a mention of this as the premise to the movie that Don's working on. A post from the forum admin on Al's Place said around February 2012 that he'd just been in contact with Don's office and that Don was recovering from back surgery and after that he'll get back to the movie script. In any case, my main point was and is that Source Code is definitely not Quantum Leap: The Movie as someone had suggested in the article here. --79.193.55.87 (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Reason for ending the series?Edit

The series seems to have ended suddenly, and the last episode feels rushed. What were the circumstances surrounding the series' end? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It was cancelled by NBC at the last moment. As a result, what had been intended as a cryptic cliffhanger in preparation for a complex sixth season (references have been made on fan sites to the then-popular Twin Peaks) got clumsily turned into an unsatisfactory ending that left more questions unanswered and at least one answer ("Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home") totally unacceptable. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Find WP:RS cites for these claims and they might be useable in the article. Did Bellisario speak somewhere about a planned sixth season? If it's just fan-site chatter, of course, it rumor/gossip and unusable. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In-universeEdit

This article remains almost entirely told from an in-universe perspective of the characters' lives and adventures, with virtually nothing about the production, direction, cinematography or other real-world aspects of creating and producing the series. That's why the tag has been there and why, unless the very little real-world content here is beefed-up, it needs to remain. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It also had way too much in-universe speculation/discussion of how the in-universe physics worked. I've trimmed a lot of that down to basic, but we still need more on production and the like. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
*thumbs up* Great work. Just please don't take out the pic of the chimp with a gun. I like that pic. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be helpful to find a secondary source about that episode to better support that pic. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, done. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
My fellow editors: You rock!
Guess I'd better come back soon and join everyone in writing about the production history.... --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, all the credit goes to Masem, I just switched a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Airings twice a week (consecutive nights?)Edit

Somewhere around summer 1988, NBC employed a technique that ABC had used for Full House, in which they built up the audience by showing two episodes in the same week. I remember it because this was the first time in college that I had my own TV and, in that era when most college students didn't have cable, the gimmick was how I ended up watching both shows. (Not saying I'm proud of having been a regular FH viewer ...) Can we find documentation to show this was novel (if it was -- I realize I may just have thought it was novel due to the tunnel vision of youth) and what the effects were? Lawikitejana (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring anon IPEdit

An anon IP is edit-warring to remove a citation request, insert a WP:DATED vio, and change an active-voice phrase to a wordier passive-voice phrase with a separate parenthetical phrase, which generally considered poor writing. He does not discuss his edits either on this talk page or in edit summaries, and is now up to WP:3RR. I invite him to discuss these three issues here. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It is considered polite-practice to discuss your issuses before engaging in edit-war, as you have done now and several times before. This action alone clearly proves that you are not seeking consensus, because you obviously think that everyone else but you can ever be wrong. From what I have gathered from your attitude toward other editors, you believe that what you say is the ultimate truth even when opposite is the case - as it is here with who is edit-warring and issuing projected accusations on said editors, and I think sensible people wouldn't have anything to discuss on subjects with such persuasion.
Good day to you, Sir. 145.118.111.106 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I get along just fine with reasonable, experienced editors: [4]. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Once I start purchasing barns, I will be just as experienced as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.139.146.72 (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yet another sockpuppet. Admins take a very dim view of anon IPs attempting to game the system to get around blocks. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Nice threat. I just hope that you don't harm people physically, too. 82.119.101.118 (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Revert of incidental music issueEdit

First, I'd like to make clear that I'm not identical to the IP above engaged in an edit war in March. I never edit war within articles. Anyway, I was a bit surprised to see how my edits regarding the different use of incidental music with region 1 and region 2 releases was reverted, when you already have "original research" (as the reverter liked to call it, which is in fact only incomplete information in your case in how it remains in the article) regarding the issue in the article for years, without any references at all. So you can either have both or none, it's not one or the other. I could offer reliable third-party sources for the use of the original music as well as additional complete English audio tracks on the German releases, but they would be all in German.

I understand that various language versions of Wikipedia already condone or even openly welcome paid corporate editing on Wikipedia by considering it pretty much mostly harmless (see for instance this cross between an inofficial guideline and a portal: de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Umgang mit bezahltem Schreiben, where paid corporate editors officially organize themselves, as well as openly welcome and justify their behavior, you may run it through Google Translate in order to get the gist of it), and Universal may not like information regarding superior (most likely) out-of-print releases by a licensee which could hurt sales of their own available inferior releases, but calling things "original research" when you have the issue already covered in an incomplete fashion is not the way to do this.

I guess I should also remind you that that's not how Jimbo intended the guidelines on OR and WP:RS to be interpreted, which his judgment reserves to cases of a.) personal speculation and b.) information with dubious validity due to conflicting with material already on Wikipedia or general (also public) consensus on how things are, as illustrated by his famous Moon Example where we don't need a reliable source to say the moon exists and is Earth's satellite, because it's easily verifiable and does not conflict with other material already on Wikipedia. Which is also the reason as to why the "original research" regarding the issue of incidental music has never needed a reliable source link for years and demonstrably doesn't need one now (as the reverter chose to keep it in), because it's easily verifiable by ordering the DVDs from Amazon. The same goes for the UK and, to a lesser degree, the German releases (with the 2013 German whole-series box release more likely to be found on eBay by now because of it having been a limited release). There may be a special rule advising against online articles behind a paywall, but if we'd make that a general rule, all commercially sold books not readily available in a local libary could not be used as reliable sources and references anymore. The [citation tag] was originally introduced to the section because, AFAIK, it's dubious whether the disclaimer even exists on US releases because people couldn't find them on their copies. Nothing to do with the incidental music issue itself, which is easily verifiable.

I may come up with a number of precedence cases on many, many other English Wikipedia articles regarding films and series, but we'd first have to come to a settlement between deletionists and inclusionists (see Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia), for otherwise each camp will point towards WP:POINT and WP:WINARS in order to push their own biased agenda when it comes to precedence (most deletionists will point towards WP:POINT and WP:WINARS in order to justify not relying upon established practice and precedence), as I've seen happening on several Wikipedias for years. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

finale intertitleEdit

 
Dr. Sam Becket never returned home.

I've uploaded the intertitle that appeared at the end of the finale episode. I don't know where best to implement it, but it's worth noting that the creators misspelled Beckett's name. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they were in such a rush because of the last minute cancellation that it was a legitimate mistake? The ending of the series did seem rushed. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe this belongs in the article proper unless we have something significant to say about it. It could just as easily be handled in prose (assuming it isn't already). DonIago (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree. I don't think a misspelling is worth noting unless there were legitimate debate over the spelling of Beckett's name, which there isn't. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Return to "Quantum Leap" page.