For general discussion on this episode, visit the VOY forum at The Trek BBS.
Don't anyone else think there is a real inconsistency in this episode? As I understood, holodeck is pretty uncommon in this year (2375) or at least a decade before. But Janeway told Nelix that she had flooded the forest when she was six!
A little guessing when that was: At the time of this episode Mulgrew was 43 (1998-1955), if we assume Janeway is the same, then she was six year old at 2338 (2375-43+6). Could holodeck be so common that kids had time to play in them? I suppose the Janeway family didn't own here own holodeck but like day nursery? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk).
- From what I recall from the TNG episode "The Big Goodbye", they only refer to the holodeck *upgrades* being a relatively recent thing, not holographic technology itself. It's entirely possible that like any invention (television and computer games, for example) it underwent a long period of development, perhaps only starting with rudimentary holo programs whose realism only approximated simple 3D cartoons with basic geometry. These would be more than sufficient for programs such as Flotter to be created for use in schools and other public places for recreational and educational purposes. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk).
The following apparently has something to do with the above. They're basically nits. --From Andoria with Love 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that holo-technology has been around for a few decades, but only in the last decade has it been used on Federation Star Ships for crew recreation, that is how Captain Janeway enjoyed the Flotter holo-tales herself as a child.
- At this point it has been 10 years since holo-decks were first seen aboard the USS Enterprise-D.
- The following seems like another holodeck nitpick, and the bottom a supposition. Should it be removed?
- "Harry Kim mentions that he really enjoyed the Flotter holodeck programs when he was a child, despite the fact that in TNG: "The Big Goodbye", when Kim was about fifteen, it is established that holodecks are a relatively new invention.
- Kim only tells that he was nuts about those "holostories" and ask if Neelix had "seen the one where Flotter suspects Trevis is a rubber-tree". Perhaps they were merely holographic displays on simple displays and not interactive holodeck-stories."
- Just seems like if the other holodeck inconsistancies were removed, these should be too.MajorTom1 06:52, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
- These don't really seem like nits to me. They could be reworded a bit since I would agree that the tone suggests a nitpick, not to mention the speculation in the ones already removed, but this is important information that counters the fan-canon that holo-technology was something completely new just before TNG. That this episode points out that holo-technology has been around for recreational use long before the 2360s is something I think should be included in the bg notes. - Archduk3 07:15, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree that it is important information overall, but I think the first note at the top sounds more appropriate than the note about Harry being fifteen at the time of "The Big Goodbye". At least the speculation point at the bottom should be removed, right? P.S. Thanks for responding so quickly!MajorTom1 07:40, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
- This is an old conversation, so I apologize if this is out of turn to add to it. But is TAS considered cannon? If so they had something that seemed very much like a holodeck in one of the episodes, and that was set in Kirks day. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk).
- Sorry, common spelling error of mine. Anyway, the rec room seemed close to one. An earlier version perhaps, like how the first TV was an early version to these "Super Duper TVs" of today? My point is they could have played flotter on that, couldn't they? Then no need for the "there was no holodeck" nitpick.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
- I'd let some others weigh in, but it'd probably be OK to remove it and place on this page. --31dot 14:17, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
- A supposedly incorrect act structure (which this is not) is no reason to slap a pna-incomlete on the summary. Once the summary correctly and comprehensively outlines the events of the episode, it is complete.– Watching... listening... 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- He didn't add a template saying it was incomplete, Eyes, he added a template saying that the section needed attention. Mike thought it needed attention so what he did was correct. For the record, the acts are separated by the moments when the show cut to commercial/faded to black during its original broadcast. If the acts are split in that way right now, then they are fine. If they are not, they will need reworking. --From Andoria with Love 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)