his name is Aaron Pearl most recent things he's been in were Lost in space as Hapgood / Hilmi Farhan and Man in the high castle as Hank McCrae / Hank McCraie
Am a bit late to the party, but I like to think of this "Bootstrap Paradox" as a kind of "self stabilizing" Time-Line-Loop. SG already confirmed there are multi-verses, so this would fit in-universe too: There HAS to be an "original time-line" where Hamond never got a note to help SG1. But by chaos-theory the circumstances of the "original SG1" were ever so slightly different, maybe they weren't strapped as secure, or Hamond to decided to help them "on a whim" or "going by his guts". Either way the actions of SG1 and Hamond still saw them work together or at least to a "happy ending". This then gave General Hamond the conviction to write himself a note to "help them", and this note then "stabilized the time-line" instead of relying on random chances which would have lead into a different Paradox. This kind of logic can be applied to many time-travel movies and I sometimes humor myself imagining the "original timeline" :D
About like a Doctor Who episode where the Doctor brought a British soldier in 1917 into the Tardis, and then mistakenly called the war he was in, 'The First World War." Seeing that soldier catch that and then say 'First?' in such a deflated tone broke my heart.
They are from 30 years in the future. Even the young Hammond had to realize that his father would have a high chance for another heart attack in the next 30 years.
Jack O'neill: You watched it from your fathers bedside in his hospital room, just 2 days after his first heart attack. Hammond: What do you mean by "first"?
This is one of the most brilliant episodes. I've never liked time travel. But whenever the writers of Stargate do it, the episodes are always so ingenious.
I agree, i loved Star Trek, but used to hate the "crossing over into a parallel universe" stories in DS9. This one was brilliant, my only gripe, Cassie appeared at the end, but, blink and you would have missed her. I just didnt see the point in creating her character, and not developing it fully, she has just been waiting around for all these years, and just walks in and sends them home, how convinient.
@@DavidSmith-fs5qj actually I liked how they brought in Cassie because of exactly what you're talking about. She was a character that got a role and a focus in an episode and then hardly ever mentioned again , but here you see that she actually was an important part of Carter's life , even though that story was never really visited in the series.
@@pershop4950 Yes, there was so much potential, Cassie had some good early episodes, then that was pretty much it. One route the writer s could have gone down, would have explored a relationship between Daniel and Janet Fraiser. Sam and Jack, never happened and was never going to happen(exept in an alternate reality), but there wouldnt have been an issue with Daniel and Janet, he wasnt in the military. Initially, Daniel would ahve felt guilt over any feelings, believing that he was disrespecting the memory of his wife.I think it would have developed and expanded both characters, particularly Janet, and Daniel would have explored new territory. What do you think?
"Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was: "Oh no, not again". Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now"
It's because, for some unknown reason, that bowl of petunias was constantly reincarnating, trying to live out a satisfying life, and every time it was somehow killed by Arthur Dent. Hilariously enough, this particular instance was during a time in its existence that it had decided to give up on reincarnation and just float in limbo for a while...only for Arthur to inadvertently use the improbability drive to summon it right back out again only to immediately die.
It stuns with one shot, kills with two and apparently can disintegrate with three. Please explain why it's stupid. What am I missing or not understanding?
B20C0 what’s stupid is that the Jaffa and them Egypt terrestrials used staffs and those tasers. Like, why not just use the stupidly simple and overpowered pistol that can capture a enemy in a single shot or kill with two, and if there’s sensitive information just shoot it three times. Like it’s a fucking Deus ex machina in a handheld device
@@Hair2U The General did tell Jack when they got back how much he owed him. Something like 600 bucks. Think maybe they were just making that up, not a bad guess, since he probably didn't give them much from what I can see there.
@@erictaylor5462 Well If I recall the first episode/movie, Hammond almost immediately seemed to know how Jack was, and since he saw all of them in '69, I think that's how he guessed that the gate on Abydos wasn't destroyed, once he was read in on all that. Up till then, he didn't really know anything, even about the stargate, just that he met people under his command from the future, and something wonky went wrong. Not a lot to go on, I don't think they even told him their real names.
My theory with the zat gun is that it fires out some form of charged particles, this loosens the bonds between atoms with every shot and that most matter can only take three shots before the atoms are literally pulled apart. The first shot hurts like hell and could even cause long term damage, but mostly you'll heal from this over time, although too much exposure to zat energy can only have negative impacts on your long term health. The second shot causes too much damage to survive, in particular to your internal organs.
But why does the effect extend from first box to second box and the contents, but not to the truck as a whole, which is also touching the first box? It was a gun with an "I want this effect this time, so it'll work that way"...
Funny thing is, Hammond should have known that no matter the threat, no matter the danger, no matter the matter, it was all going to work out just fine for at the very least himself, sg1, and the earth right up until this mission. Because of the grandfather paradox.
*I do love it when the people who go back in time, in any show, and tell others they've gone back in time, instead of some plausible story they come up with.*
instantly believe he is a young hammond. The way he says 'why?, and the fact he brings up court marshall - general hammond early on threatened jack with that often.
@IJN Yamato This is an accent that people from Missouri and areas around it tend to have. I knew a lady that spoke very similarly putting additional emphasis on the H in words. "you know wHuat (what)?" and she was a Missouri transplant just as Don Davis was.
And when those two soldiers wake up, they’re not gonna suspect Hammond had something to do with it when he opened the door and just stood by while they got zat??
This is a sci-fi fantasy show, i dont mind plot holes and leaps of logic as long as we get a well written and exiting episode. What really annoys me, is when you get an episode like Heroes in season seven, in which my favourite character, Janet Fraiser is killed, because the writers wanted to show that war has consequences. The main cast members spend the entire series being saved from consequences by plot armour, yet they sacrifice a character for no creative reason, just to show the gritty reality of war. If you want to see the gritty reality of war, watch Saving Private Ryan.
The first guy probably got zatted immediately before hammond pointed his firearm at the sky, unsure about second guy. Maybe he thought hammond was stunned in place?
30 years later .... "INCOMING TRAVLLER! ITS SG-1!" *SG-1 comes through* General Hammond. "Colonel Jack O'neill. You are hereby under arrest for attacking a member of the US army 30 years ago. Enjoy your court marshal." Jack "Thats....thats a good one sir...." General Hammond "Air-men, secure O'neill's firearm and detain him!"
If hammond for 30 years knew this would happen, why should he act against tealc as he is a stranger that must gain trust in first episodes.. he should already know he will be part of SG1 team.
He didn't know that Teal'c will be part of SG-1. By travelling back in time SG-1 created other timeline in which he gave Sam note so he will help them in past. In first timeline he probably didn't help them and only after Hammond meet them again he decided to help SG-1 and change the timeline.
if you saw a guy 30 years ago then he showed up again today would you recognise him? The first time he saw him as a General, Teal'c was in full Jaffa armour, not SG gear. 1696 Hammond never saw the symbiote or had much contact with Teal'c, he only spoke to Jack and Sam. He probably convinced himself it was all a soviet lie until the day he saw the cut on Sam's hand.
Young lieutenant George, a great episode. Whats weird is they reused the actor in what season 7 as a normal airforce officer with about the same amount of lines as this episode. Wonder how many times they reuse cast without us noticing
This was a beautifully written episide and an opportunity for the cast to have a lot of fun. I just think that it could have easily been a two parter. Parts of the episode just seem rushed, for instance, the telescope that Jack and Tealc use to predict the neaxt solar flare, its unmanned, is it open to the public 24/7, with no staff? Then there is the stargate itself, totally ungarded, how convienient, they just seenm to get home all to easily.
@@ianmoseley9910 So what. No one would have had it then. No one on earth used the term "video tape" in the year this was set. Every single person on earth would have said "film". Even the 5 people who might have had this hypothetical video tape machine that you suggest existed. They would each have still said. "film", because film was the predominant technology, and also ingrained in the language.
He should've asked Hammond to draw his weapon before being zapped as two of the soldiers saw him with his weapon drawn. Also, one has to wonder about the initial timeline where a message was not sent back in time and how that first timeline's Hammond remembered the prisoners well enough to recognize them in the present and hence send the note back in time to help them return from the past. It did not look like Hammond had a big role in interrogating and incarcerating them, just a subsidiary role in transporting them.
@@christinaclark9754 And Carters paper that Carter wrote but in the very first iteration no note was written and Hammond would only have searched their belongings and not even have met them so what made that first Hammond decide to write the note as he would not have even seen them or heard their time travel story. The cut and paper explains all other iterations of the timeline bit what in the very first iteration without the note triggered Hammond to write that note when his younger self would only have seen some uniforms and some strange devices.
Funny, the guy playing the Young General Hammond here, is also in another Stargate "Lockdown" S8 E3 & he's not playing General Hammond. In fact, O'Neill is General.
ian greenacre It was shot on film at least till season 9 when they switched to HD tv cameras. Most film will easily go on to 1080p if not 4K or even 8K. The main problem would be the stuff with the vis effects which probably was never intended to go to much above DVD quality. I'd love to see SG1 on bluray.
And it's just a couple more years until this episode itself is 30 years old. Would you, as a time-traveller, cope with being stranded in the strange past of 1999?
Regarding Jack's "30 year ago" line that has sparked debate, I think we can assume that Jack has not read Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's "Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations".
"will stop you being court-martialed" Zzap. Hammonds unconscious body tumbles to the floor, smacking his head on the ground, causing internal bleeding. Half an hour later while blood leaks from his ears and nose Hammond passes away alone on an empty country road, the entire timeline fades to black.🤦
good luck proving that in a court of law. "You see sir, i HAD to help them. They had a note, addressed to me, FROM me. And seeing as 30 years from now ill be a two general, that to me, is a order from a superior officer." Judge: Order! Order in the court! Colonel Hammond of Texas, you are hereby removed from active duty under grounds of mental health and hereby ordered to work in Cheynn Mountain with the other mentally unstable officers effected by the soviet lies. Who knows, one day you might actually make the rank of General.
Hehe. I'm just asking if an order to yourself from the future would constitute an order. Assume it is provable in court. You could just ask the court to wait 30 years. Also, a "two general" is a Major General. And yes, Hammond is the very model of a modern Major General. ruclips.net/video/Z2OcbeGqbpU/видео.html
If provable, yes it would be a legal order, but in effect, it becomes an unlawful order. I'm not military scholar but I'll take a crack at it. You are not the Hammond you are 30 years from now, that person is an entirely separate entity from you. As long as it's provable that you, in fact, sent that order and you, in fact, are in a timeline that won't be changed by your events then most likely it would be ruled that way. You would also need to present a reasonable chain of command structure at the time of the order, which in this situation is easy because you're a 5-star general and you only really answer to the president or possibly a few other figures. There's no precedence for time travel, and military justice works very differently from normal justice, but they'd likely rule if three two factors were in line. However you could likely find all your answers if you look up law based on old orders, i.e. orders issued prior to the dissolution of the chain of command. If you sent an order to all privates, and then demoted yourself from general, you very well might be subject to those orders. This wouldn't be 1-to-1 legal precedence, but these rules are close to usable and would be considered. However, in time travel, if by sending a message yourself to the past changes the future, it would not be viable, as you potentially might be acting without proper intelligence. Meanwhile what you did constitutes a rapid change in the chain of command and would not be viable. There would be discussion whether a future chain of command supercedes the present chain of command, but that likely would end up going nowhere in your case, and would spiral away from the initial question for these purposes. It is, in effect, a lawful order that if verified to be part of a command structure currently in the U.S. (even the future would constitute as "currently" as when the stargate opens, you are in fact dealing with two duplicate U.S. command structures and the future version would be considered more informed by up-to-date intelligence). Meanwhile all orders would be seen as a conflict of interest, because you have a personal relationship. That would be factored into the orders. The orders of the following commander, in this case your superior officer in the future, would likely be consulted for validity. In Hammond's case, he's a five star general during war time (I think they are perpetually considered at war) so.... the president would need to validate these orders or present conjecture at trial, and likely wouldn't. In any event, without precedence, if you accepted these orders as those of a superior officer, and they were reasonably sound, you likely would get leniency. You are not expected to be a scholar and would be recused by the fact that this presents exigent circumstances and an inexplicable conflict of military principle. HOWEVER "An order which is inherently unlawful (conflicting or not) a Soldier has an affirmative duty to disobey it, for example to fire indiscriminately into a crowd of unarmed civilians. Orders which require you to do something that cannot be accomplished are inherently null; for example an order to leap a tall building in single bound. An order unrelated to a military purpose (please keep in mind military purpose is very very broad) however “Show me a picture of your wife in a Bikini” is an unlawful order." Staging a prison escape is inherently unlawful, and you would get a court martial for that. So O'neill is correct in saying the cover-up would save him from a court martial, because regardless of its merit, he committed a crime and if prosecuted he'd be screwed. The cover-up, too, would be considered a crime - and probably one that'd only get you saved with a presidential pardon. That's really serious. So.... you'd end up in jail for this, if caught, despite it being an order - because in essence, it's not a valid order as it is inherently illegal. You wouldn't be insubordinate, but you would very likely be facing a court martial. The note also said "Help them" not "stage a prison break" so you'd be on your own. If it had said "stage a prison break" it would cease to be an order, as it is unlawful. I'm not sure how the rules change in clandestine groups as classified as SG-1 would be, but they would have their own standards and likely you'd still be held to them, and they would likely only extend to classification. You still get held to standards. I'm smelling a presidential pardon being required to get out of this the more I think about it, but that's not too hard when you're a five-star general... or are proven to be one in the future.
Игры
Ill tell you this.. the man they got to play young Hammond is spot on.
Exactly the same thing I was gonna say
he played with Leslie Nielsen in parody of The Fugitive in wich played Harrison Ford.
his name is Aaron Pearl most recent things he's been in were Lost in space as Hapgood / Hilmi Farhan and Man in the high castle as Hank McCrae / Hank McCraie
The producers were good when it came to that thing. Michael Welch, who played clone Jack, was fairly spot on in the mannerisms of Col. O'Neill.
Except his eye colour is wrong.
I love how Carter was so worried about a Grandfather Paradox that she didn't even raise the possibility of a Bootstrap Paradox.
Anybody who looks up Bootstrap paradox should like this comment. I did.
@@MrJasonWell Had to look it up but yeah, that fits. Almost everyone knows of the grandfather paradox but I'd never thought of a bootstrap one. Neat.
@@MrJasonWell I was going to like it, but I already did
Am a bit late to the party, but I like to think of this "Bootstrap Paradox" as a kind of "self stabilizing" Time-Line-Loop.
SG already confirmed there are multi-verses, so this would fit in-universe too:
There HAS to be an "original time-line" where Hamond never got a note to help SG1.
But by chaos-theory the circumstances of the "original SG1" were ever so slightly different, maybe they weren't strapped as secure, or Hamond to decided to help them "on a whim" or "going by his guts".
Either way the actions of SG1 and Hamond still saw them work together or at least to a "happy ending".
This then gave General Hamond the conviction to write himself a note to "help them", and this note then "stabilized the time-line" instead of relying on random chances which would have lead into a different Paradox.
This kind of logic can be applied to many time-travel movies and I sometimes humor myself imagining the "original timeline" :D
Oh yeah, the Bootstrap Paradox applies here..... i didn't even catch onto that. And I can I thank Doctor Who for explaining that one for me.
"Remember, Lieutenant Hammond, in December 1980 buy Apple Computer stock, and NEVER sell it!"
And what good is a stock you never sell?
@@becausebuzzbomb6133 Sell before Jobs dies, then buy after. Ride the dips.
@@becausebuzzbomb6133hodl people arent the brightest
@@becausebuzzbomb6133 you can always borrow money against it.
@@becausebuzzbomb6133 Getting payed dividend sounds interesting...
“After his *first* heart attack”
‘He’s gonna have more????’
About like a Doctor Who episode where the Doctor brought a British soldier in 1917 into the Tardis, and then mistakenly called the war he was in, 'The First World War." Seeing that soldier catch that and then say 'First?' in such a deflated tone broke my heart.
To be fair, it's reasonable that a heart attack would repeat.
They are from 30 years in the future. Even the young Hammond had to realize that his father would have a high chance for another heart attack in the next 30 years.
O sorry. Spoilers
@@samsonguy10k that was hitler
I love the actor they chose for Hammond's younger self
Ya he was perfect.
Yes, great casting!
I have to wonder if Don S Davis dubbed the younger actor's lines, because the voice was *perfect*. If so, they did an amazing job lip syncing.
Yeah he looks oddly like him, like ik that was the point but still it's dead on
Maybe they should do a prequel based on that actor...
Jack O'neill: You watched it from your fathers bedside in his hospital room, just 2 days after his first heart attack.
Hammond: What do you mean by "first"?
It's pretty normal for someone who has had a heart attack to have more later in life. Having a heart attack doesn't cure your heart problems...
Oh sorry spoilers
@@cristian-ionutapostol8018 Yeah but this is only a few weeks later, so he probably hasn't had another heart attack yet.
Only 43 people have gotten this reference, lol!
@@coyotehater reference to Dr Who?
They sure picked a good choice to play a younger Hammond. Really looks like him, and sounds like him, too.
This is one of the most brilliant episodes. I've never liked time travel. But whenever the writers of Stargate do it, the episodes are always so ingenious.
I agree, i loved Star Trek, but used to hate the "crossing over into a parallel universe" stories in DS9. This one was brilliant, my only gripe, Cassie appeared at the end, but, blink and you would have missed her. I just didnt see the point in creating her character, and not developing it fully, she has just been waiting around for all these years, and just walks in and sends them home, how convinient.
@@DavidSmith-fs5qj actually I liked how they brought in Cassie because of exactly what you're talking about. She was a character that got a role and a focus in an episode and then hardly ever mentioned again , but here you see that she actually was an important part of Carter's life , even though that story was never really visited in the series.
@@pershop4950 Yes, there was so much potential, Cassie had some good early episodes, then that was pretty much it. One route the writer s could have gone down, would have explored a relationship between Daniel and Janet Fraiser. Sam and Jack, never happened and was never going to happen(exept in an alternate reality), but there wouldnt have been an issue with Daniel and Janet, he wasnt in the military. Initially, Daniel would ahve felt guilt over any feelings, believing that he was disrespecting the memory of his wife.I think it would have developed and expanded both characters, particularly Janet, and Daniel would have explored new territory. What do you think?
This was a GREAT episode lol. Stargate was at its best with episodes like this. Character history and depth with a heavy dosage of sci fi thrown in
They don't make them like they used to
@@derekwarr8567 They don't make them at all.
"Well, if I'm going to be alive in 30 years, might as well eat like a savage."
Plowbeast That explains everything!
lol
This reminds me of the Time paradox when Admiral Riker when travelled back in time to save Deanna Troi and explained to Captain Picard
How did the General later calculate the interest?
With a calculator.
"Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was: "Oh no, not again". Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now"
42......
Do you know where your towel is?
It's because, for some unknown reason, that bowl of petunias was constantly reincarnating, trying to live out a satisfying life, and every time it was somehow killed by Arthur Dent. Hilariously enough, this particular instance was during a time in its existence that it had decided to give up on reincarnation and just float in limbo for a while...only for Arthur to inadvertently use the improbability drive to summon it right back out again only to immediately die.
my favorite part of this is Carter basically pulling rank on Hammond haha.
She saw her chance and she took it haha
And enjoying it immensly :D
Okay but imagine if Hammond's dad hasn't had his second heart attack yet and Jack's like '...his first heart attack'. You'd be absolutely bricking it.
"Uhh.. spoilers"
Imagine keeping a secret that big for most of your life.
Imagine finally being able to tell Jack how much money he owes
(Young) Hammond of Texas! I also loved how at the end of the episode when the general mentioned to Jack how much he owed him, including interest.
The good old days...when 3 shots disintegrated.....
The stupidest weapon in all sci-fi...
It stuns with one shot, kills with two and apparently can disintegrate with three. Please explain why it's stupid. What am I missing or not understanding?
@@blazerocker1734 Because it makes no fucking sense whatsoever no matter if it's some fancy shmancy future weapon or not? :D
B20C0 what’s stupid is that the Jaffa and them Egypt terrestrials used staffs and those tasers. Like, why not just use the stupidly simple and overpowered pistol that can capture a enemy in a single shot or kill with two, and if there’s sensitive information just shoot it three times. Like it’s a fucking Deus ex machina in a handheld device
It's both stupidly overpowered and crazy useful. That's the answer I was looking for. Thank you, Laser Sly Marbo.
How would you like to meet someone, then wait years before you can say, "Where's my money?"
Jack did say he'll pay back, with interest.
Imagine how much interest would accumulate after 30 years, and adjusted for inflation, lol.
hahaha. How does that work. Because to Hammond he met Jack years and YEARS before Jack met Hammond. Well, from his perspective.
Eric Taylor know who Riversong is? (Dr Who)
@@Hair2U The General did tell Jack when they got back how much he owed him. Something like 600 bucks. Think maybe they were just making that up, not a bad guess, since he probably didn't give them much from what I can see there.
@@erictaylor5462 Well If I recall the first episode/movie, Hammond almost immediately seemed to know how Jack was, and since he saw all of them in '69, I think that's how he guessed that the gate on Abydos wasn't destroyed, once he was read in on all that. Up till then, he didn't really know anything, even about the stargate, just that he met people under his command from the future, and something wonky went wrong. Not a lot to go on, I don't think they even told him their real names.
My theory with the zat gun is that it fires out some form of charged particles, this loosens the bonds between atoms with every shot and that most matter can only take three shots before the atoms are literally pulled apart. The first shot hurts like hell and could even cause long term damage, but mostly you'll heal from this over time, although too much exposure to zat energy can only have negative impacts on your long term health. The second shot causes too much damage to survive, in particular to your internal organs.
But why does the effect extend from first box to second box and the contents, but not to the truck as a whole, which is also touching the first box?
It was a gun with an "I want this effect this time, so it'll work that way"...
@@Krullespam i guess the truck is just a lot larger. You know, the weapon being made to work on humanoids and the two boxes representing roughly that
@@null643 It's a story, not science.
Nice theory
if the zat gun pulls atoms apart, anything you shoot three times would blow up like it was made of dynamite.
jack: you watched it in your fathers hospital bedside after his FIRST heart attack
Hammond...... what do you mean 'first?'
Sam: damn it jack
I thought that's where it was going to go too!
Funny thing is, Hammond should have known that no matter the threat, no matter the danger, no matter the matter, it was all going to work out just fine for at the very least himself, sg1, and the earth right up until this mission.
Because of the grandfather paradox.
This was a thoroughly interesting and enjoyable episode. Love time travel effects.
It's a thoroughly interesting and enjoyable series....lol
the guy they got to play CAPTIAN Hammond really nailed it
Captain?
Sounds just like a younger version of him.
Lieutenant*
*I do love it when the people who go back in time, in any show, and tell others they've gone back in time, instead of some plausible story they come up with.*
I never understood why go back in time is not a plausible story.
@@sTIc726 if someone told me they where from the future then i would need proof, which can be a pain in the ass to provide.
@@8vantor8I feel like the Zat was more than enough in this case.
Loved that episode. Epic look back to how we were in 1969. Excellent writing❤
Man I miss watching these new on tv.. always so exhilarating to see what was next, and they never disappointed
instantly believe he is a young hammond. The way he says 'why?, and the fact he brings up court marshall - general hammond early on threatened jack with that often.
I miss that show soo hard !!!
Celio Ribeiro Same!! And all of them!
I did myself a favor and bought all 10 seasons on DVD as a Christmas present for myself ^^
How many of the disks freeze and stutter.
Carters face when she realized she outrank Hammond by naming her rank and his
He really made me think he is Hammond. Great job. Also really should have let him lay down first before stunning him.
No, by falling flat he got bruising and bumps.
Just noticed that Jack tells young hammond "30 years ago you decided we'd need help" talking to him as though he was at that time the older general.
One of the best EPs
Fun fact: The same actor plays a Major in episode 3 of season 8... But O'Neill doesn't seem to realise he just looks like young Hammond!
This is my favorite episode!!!
I strangely just about forgot this was a clip, gonna have to find my DVDs...
he pronounces w's (eg. "Whorld") like general hammond.
Pepe's Kebabs it’s the whine/wine difference. Most accents say wine for both but proper British or American southern upper class differentiate.
@IJN Yamato This is an accent that people from Missouri and areas around it tend to have. I knew a lady that spoke very similarly putting additional emphasis on the H in words. "you know wHuat (what)?" and she was a Missouri transplant just as Don Davis was.
@Cliven Longsight it's definitely not a british thing. That's just family guy
Damn now I want to watch the full ep...
And when those two soldiers wake up, they’re not gonna suspect Hammond had something to do with it when he opened the door and just stood by while they got zat??
This is a sci-fi fantasy show, i dont mind plot holes and leaps of logic as long as we get a well written and exiting episode. What really annoys me, is when you get an episode like Heroes in season seven, in which my favourite character, Janet Fraiser is killed, because the writers wanted to show that war has consequences. The main cast members spend the entire series being saved from consequences by plot armour, yet they sacrifice a character for no creative reason, just to show the gritty reality of war. If you want to see the gritty reality of war, watch Saving Private Ryan.
The first guy probably got zatted immediately before hammond pointed his firearm at the sky, unsure about second guy. Maybe he thought hammond was stunned in place?
They could've taken cash from the other guards.
I thought the same thing they should take as much cash they could
But then that would have been stealing, and they're not the bad guys so they just asked young Hammond first.
@@remo687 Also, quite a low chance they could actually repay the two guys. They knew exactly when to find the third one.
This guy pulls off an awesome Don S. Davis.
This was a good episode I miss SG1
30 years later ....
"INCOMING TRAVLLER! ITS SG-1!"
*SG-1 comes through*
General Hammond. "Colonel Jack O'neill. You are hereby under arrest for attacking a member of the US army 30 years ago. Enjoy your court marshal."
Jack "Thats....thats a good one sir...."
General Hammond "Air-men, secure O'neill's firearm and detain him!"
more like... "Hi Jack, wheres my money with 30 years interest."
He had calculated the interest at the end of the episode.
He didn't attack anyone from the US Army.
Statute of limitations?
If hammond for 30 years knew this would happen, why should he act against tealc as he is a stranger that must gain trust in first episodes.. he should already know he will be part of SG1 team.
He didn't know that Teal'c will be part of SG-1. By travelling back in time SG-1 created other timeline in which he gave Sam note so he will help them in past. In first timeline he probably didn't help them and only after Hammond meet them again he decided to help SG-1 and change the timeline.
MKcLTM Because he had to act as if he knew nothing so that things would happen as they did. Don't want to create a paradox or causality loop.
Emotion, the man had just had his base attacked.
if you saw a guy 30 years ago then he showed up again today would you recognise him? The first time he saw him as a General, Teal'c was in full Jaffa armour, not SG gear. 1696 Hammond never saw the symbiote or had much contact with Teal'c, he only spoke to Jack and Sam. He probably convinced himself it was all a soviet lie until the day he saw the cut on Sam's hand.
MKcLTM it was in the script ... they hadn't plan this episode so they hoped no one would notice that fact
Well-chosen clip! This was one of my favorite moments, from one of my favorite episodes.
That hesitation after Jack said 'first' heart attack.
Young lieutenant George, a great episode. Whats weird is they reused the actor in what season 7 as a normal airforce officer with about the same amount of lines as this episode. Wonder how many times they reuse cast without us noticing
This is one of my favorites episodes!
One of my favourite episode!
Anyone else get some serious Nathan Fillion vibes from that guy playing Hammond?
yes I did also talking of Nathan Fillion, the brown coats will rise again
Hammond of Texas was a handsome dude when he was young. :D
"Wait, what do you mean, his *first* heart attack? "
*O'Neal comes back to the Future and sees Hammond** First things first, sorry for Tasing you and second I'll go get my wallet...
Im pretty sure in the actual episode, Hammond hands O'neill an invoice for the money with interest.
One of my favorite episodes
O’neil, “I apologize for this. I want to prevent you from being court-marital.”
4:49
They later got this guy playing Hammond (spot-on, btw.) to play a Major.
This was a beautifully written episide and an opportunity for the cast to have a lot of fun. I just think that it could have easily been a two parter. Parts of the episode just seem rushed, for instance, the telescope that Jack and Tealc use to predict the neaxt solar flare, its unmanned, is it open to the public 24/7, with no staff? Then there is the stargate itself, totally ungarded, how convienient, they just seenm to get home all to easily.
"Video tape? What's video tape? We don't have anything called that with you recorded on it. Do you mean film?" 😁
DuckDuckGo Ismuchbetter This is set in 1969 - first commercial videotape machine was on the market in 1959
@@ianmoseley9910 So what. No one would have had it then. No one on earth used the term "video tape" in the year this was set. Every single person on earth would have said "film". Even the 5 people who might have had this hypothetical video tape machine that you suggest existed. They would each have still said. "film", because film was the predominant technology, and also ingrained in the language.
He should've asked Hammond to draw his weapon before being zapped as two of the soldiers saw him with his weapon drawn. Also, one has to wonder about the initial timeline where a message was not sent back in time and how that first timeline's Hammond remembered the prisoners well enough to recognize them in the present and hence send the note back in time to help them return from the past. It did not look like Hammond had a big role in interrogating and incarcerating them, just a subsidiary role in transporting them.
If I remember right it had something to do with the cut on Carters hand. Thats how he knew to give her the note for that mission.
@@christinaclark9754 And Carters paper that Carter wrote but in the very first iteration no note was written and Hammond would only have searched their belongings and not even have met them so what made that first Hammond decide to write the note as he would not have even seen them or heard their time travel story. The cut and paper explains all other iterations of the timeline bit what in the very first iteration without the note triggered Hammond to write that note when his younger self would only have seen some uniforms and some strange devices.
There was no first timeline.
Zat gun does everything lol
(1) stuns
(2) kills
(3) disintegrates
(4) disables machines
(4) unlocks things
(5) keeps bugs away
What else did I miss?
Funny, the guy playing the Young General Hammond here, is also in another Stargate "Lockdown" S8 E3 & he's not playing General Hammond. In fact, O'Neill is General.
spot on young hammond!!
miss this show . the closed it when they got stuck in a time loop. the network that shown this moved it around too and didnt help anything.
I sooooo miss good sci-fi. ST, SW, and Dr Who are all ruined beyond repair. I could cry…
Be nice if SG1 got the 4K treatment
ian greenacre It was shot on film at least till season 9 when they switched to HD tv cameras. Most film will easily go on to 1080p if not 4K or even 8K. The main problem would be the stuff with the vis effects which probably was never intended to go to much above DVD quality.
I'd love to see SG1 on bluray.
1969 my favorite episode
Think this was the last time the Zat was used in 3 times to make things "Disintegrate"
And it's just a couple more years until this episode itself is 30 years old.
Would you, as a time-traveller, cope with being stranded in the strange past of 1999?
It was so stupid that the zat disintegrated the boxes. They could have just as easily changed it to "they buried the boxes in the forrest".
Regarding Jack's "30 year ago" line that has sparked debate, I think we can assume that Jack has not read Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's "Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations".
they had the potentiel to do a lot better with this one
I miss General Hammond
"Wait.... first heart attack?........."
one of my favourite episode
That could almost *be* Don S. Davis!
3:30 I guess the Zed can unlock locks now? How convenient!
I like the way O'Neill manage it because he is most graduate.
"will stop you being court-martialed" Zzap. Hammonds unconscious body tumbles to the floor, smacking his head on the ground, causing internal bleeding. Half an hour later while blood leaks from his ears and nose Hammond passes away alone on an empty country road, the entire timeline fades to black.🤦
it took me until he said general hammond to realise who he was
Ah, I've done parodies of some episodes...love the show!
wait what....was that a younger hammond?
sounds just like him.
Back in time moon landing❤❤❤❤
I loved this episode
so why didn't they check the other men for cash and/or supplies ?
Ironically, he also died from a heart attack, and this was the year after Rodney was born😊
Another meaning of listen to yourself
Jack only really needed two more Zats on the chest.
"The things I do for these people..."
Do not ever judge my friends and my family as we are so damn nice.
Gotta love Hammond from Texas!
All ten years of SG-1 are on Amazon Prime
www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B07KLT2Z68/ref=atv_hm_hom_1_c_iEgOEZ_2_4
.
Lol why would George possibly have any reason to assume the completely unknown object he’s handing them, would knock someone out???
Hammond of Texas.... Classy in any time
Thanks again
Would the note constitute an order from a superior officer?
good luck proving that in a court of law.
"You see sir, i HAD to help them. They had a note, addressed to me, FROM me. And seeing as 30 years from now ill be a two general, that to me, is a order from a superior officer."
Judge: Order! Order in the court! Colonel Hammond of Texas, you are hereby removed from active duty under grounds of mental health and hereby ordered to work in Cheynn Mountain with the other mentally unstable officers effected by the soviet lies. Who knows, one day you might actually make the rank of General.
Hehe. I'm just asking if an order to yourself from the future would constitute an order. Assume it is provable in court.
You could just ask the court to wait 30 years.
Also, a "two general" is a Major General. And yes, Hammond is the very model of a modern Major General.
ruclips.net/video/Z2OcbeGqbpU/видео.html
If provable, yes it would be a legal order, but in effect, it becomes an unlawful order. I'm not military scholar but I'll take a crack at it.
You are not the Hammond you are 30 years from now, that person is an entirely separate entity from you. As long as it's provable that you, in fact, sent that order and you, in fact, are in a timeline that won't be changed by your events then most likely it would be ruled that way. You would also need to present a reasonable chain of command structure at the time of the order, which in this situation is easy because you're a 5-star general and you only really answer to the president or possibly a few other figures.
There's no precedence for time travel, and military justice works very differently from normal justice, but they'd likely rule if three two factors were in line. However you could likely find all your answers if you look up law based on old orders, i.e. orders issued prior to the dissolution of the chain of command.
If you sent an order to all privates, and then demoted yourself from general, you very well might be subject to those orders. This wouldn't be 1-to-1 legal precedence, but these rules are close to usable and would be considered.
However, in time travel, if by sending a message yourself to the past changes the future, it would not be viable, as you potentially might be acting without proper intelligence. Meanwhile what you did constitutes a rapid change in the chain of command and would not be viable. There would be discussion whether a future chain of command supercedes the present chain of command, but that likely would end up going nowhere in your case, and would spiral away from the initial question for these purposes.
It is, in effect, a lawful order that if verified to be part of a command structure currently in the U.S. (even the future would constitute as "currently" as when the stargate opens, you are in fact dealing with two duplicate U.S. command structures and the future version would be considered more informed by up-to-date intelligence).
Meanwhile all orders would be seen as a conflict of interest, because you have a personal relationship. That would be factored into the orders. The orders of the following commander, in this case your superior officer in the future, would likely be consulted for validity.
In Hammond's case, he's a five star general during war time (I think they are perpetually considered at war) so.... the president would need to validate these orders or present conjecture at trial, and likely wouldn't.
In any event, without precedence, if you accepted these orders as those of a superior officer, and they were reasonably sound, you likely would get leniency. You are not expected to be a scholar and would be recused by the fact that this presents exigent circumstances and an inexplicable conflict of military principle.
HOWEVER
"An order which is inherently unlawful (conflicting or not) a Soldier has an affirmative duty to disobey it, for example to fire indiscriminately into a crowd of unarmed civilians.
Orders which require you to do something that cannot be accomplished are inherently null; for example an order to leap a tall building in single bound.
An order unrelated to a military purpose (please keep in mind military purpose is very very broad) however “Show me a picture of your wife in a Bikini” is an unlawful order."
Staging a prison escape is inherently unlawful, and you would get a court martial for that. So O'neill is correct in saying the cover-up would save him from a court martial, because regardless of its merit, he committed a crime and if prosecuted he'd be screwed. The cover-up, too, would be considered a crime - and probably one that'd only get you saved with a presidential pardon. That's really serious.
So.... you'd end up in jail for this, if caught, despite it being an order - because in essence, it's not a valid order as it is inherently illegal.
You wouldn't be insubordinate, but you would very likely be facing a court martial. The note also said "Help them" not "stage a prison break" so you'd be on your own. If it had said "stage a prison break" it would cease to be an order, as it is unlawful.
I'm not sure how the rules change in clandestine groups as classified as SG-1 would be, but they would have their own standards and likely you'd still be held to them, and they would likely only extend to classification. You still get held to standards.
I'm smelling a presidential pardon being required to get out of this the more I think about it, but that's not too hard when you're a five-star general... or are proven to be one in the future.
Thank you
4:00 So at some point, somebody will happen upon a pair of invisible boxes and throw them out?
3 shots disintegrates so there is nothing to find. www.reddit.com/r/Stargate/comments/3ottb7/2_shots_kills_3_disintegrate_from_a_zatbut_i_have/
Why didn't they roll the other guards for money ?
4:07. . The Major had *VIDEOTAPE* evidence. . in 1969??
Videotapes were invented in 1951.
Why didn’t they check the other guards pockets for money?
They didn't rob the guys, geez.
@@Darkside007 It’s not robbing. It called making use of the available resources.
Guys... it's me