Comment Stream
Search comments | More tools ▼
Search Results: 2
Page 1 of 1
Re: TNG S6: Schisms
I'd just rewatched this episode before going back to watch S5's "Cause and Effect", which I'd missed out somehow. The fun thing is that in "Schisms", Dr Crusher prescribes Picard's Aunt's recipe for warm milk ... which Picard himself gives her in "Cause and Effect" -- a nice bit of continuity I'd never have noticed otherwise.
I liked the conceit of the episode, which evoked the Freudian dream interpretation of Hitchcock's Spellbound ... but the Holodeck reconstruction's spookiness was completely undermined by the computer's ridiculous leaps of logic in moving from conference table to weird blocky inclined table to metal operating table. I know it was dealing with a database of only a few thousand "tables", but how the heck was that the obvious choice?
(The same problem cropped up again soon afterwards with its version of an "articulated arm" or whatever.)
I'd just rewatched this episode before going back to watch S5's "Cause and Effect", which I'd missed out somehow. The fun thing is that in "Schisms", Dr Crusher prescribes Picard's Aunt's recipe for warm milk ... which Picard himself gives her in "Cause and Effect" -- a nice bit of continuity I'd never have noticed otherwise.
I liked the conceit of the episode, which evoked the Freudian dream interpretation of Hitchcock's Spellbound ... but the Holodeck reconstruction's spookiness was completely undermined by the computer's ridiculous leaps of logic in moving from conference table to weird blocky inclined table to metal operating table. I know it was dealing with a database of only a few thousand "tables", but how the heck was that the obvious choice?
(The same problem cropped up again soon afterwards with its version of an "articulated arm" or whatever.)
Re: TNG S5: Cause and Effect
Just rewatched this episode after several years & loved it. Again.
I agree with the suggestion *way* upthread that either Riker's or Data's suggestion could have worked, if implemented early enough. And that in the last iteration, Data spent way too long to change his mind and use Riker's idea for it to have helped.
I don't think the "17.4 days lost" makes any sense. The writers wanted to give us an idea of how many times Enterprise went through loop, but the last iteration should have taken place during the same day as the first.
A more minor annoyance to me, that I didn't see mentioned above: in the original poker game, they pass through several rounds of dealing, betting, and the reveal, after which Beverly gets a call from sick bay about Laforge showing up. In the second (perhaps third?) iteration, Beverly notes the odd familiarity of the cards/dialogue, early on ... and then gets a call from sick bay about Laforge showing up. This is a good couple of minutes earlier than the first time around, so why did Laforge show up earlier?
Just rewatched this episode after several years & loved it. Again.
I agree with the suggestion *way* upthread that either Riker's or Data's suggestion could have worked, if implemented early enough. And that in the last iteration, Data spent way too long to change his mind and use Riker's idea for it to have helped.
I don't think the "17.4 days lost" makes any sense. The writers wanted to give us an idea of how many times Enterprise went through loop, but the last iteration should have taken place during the same day as the first.
A more minor annoyance to me, that I didn't see mentioned above: in the original poker game, they pass through several rounds of dealing, betting, and the reveal, after which Beverly gets a call from sick bay about Laforge showing up. In the second (perhaps third?) iteration, Beverly notes the odd familiarity of the cards/dialogue, early on ... and then gets a call from sick bay about Laforge showing up. This is a good couple of minutes earlier than the first time around, so why did Laforge show up earlier?
Page 1 of 1