For general discussion on this episode, visit the VOY forum at The Trek BBS.
Does Neelix (Ethan Philips) appear in this episode? Edit
Neelix is mentioned in this episode (as looking like a leprachaun), but does Ethan Philips actaully appear? Kellyterryjones 12:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, he's in the briefing room scene when the crew is discussing what to do about the program. He makes a comment about how the Fair Haven characters must think that the Voyager crew are some kind of sorcerers. - Bridge 13:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Been uncited for a while... — Morder 08:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the holodeck have some kind of feature to prevent holograms from realising the outside world? Edit
I was aware that it did (from prev. episodes). --Icarusmatrix 14:28, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose you could say that it's more of a bug than a feature. :-) There are two things to keep a hologram from walking out of the holodeck: a) there usually aren't any holoprojectors outside the holodeck; b) the character may have subroutines installed to make him oblivious to anything outside the parameters of his program. The latter is not always the case, and depends on various factors such as the type of program and the program author's particular wishes regarding how much the characters should be aware of. At any rate, though, in this particular episode, the characters did have such subroutines installed, but they broke down and became nonfunctional due to overuse of the holodeck, thus allowing the characters to be aware of whatever was literally visible to them. When Michael Sullivan was beamed out of the holodeck, therefore, since he was running out of the Doctor's mobile emitter, he was able to both exist on the rest of the ship and notice where he was. -Mdettweiler 21:24, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Why did the holodeck allow the characters to disable it then? Although it was quite funny when the Paris says to freeze program and the computer says 62% compliance. Also, why when the panel is destroyed does the safeties go offline? Aren't those systems integrated into the ship. The panel is just an interface. It shouldn't cause the systems to go offline if it is destroyed? --Icarusmatrix 18:43, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
- The reason the characters were aware of and able to interact with them was because the subroutines obscuring such realities from them (more specifically, their perceptual filters) had broken down due to overuse of the holodeck. And as far as the panel goes, my guess is that shooting it caused something to short-circuit in it and sent some sort of feedback to the holodeck computer that made the safety protocols and controls go off-line. Granted, that may seem a little strange in our world today where computers are only connected to their input devices by little, simple wires and if something goes wrong with them they will very rarely mess up the master unit, but we've got to remember that in Star Trek their computers work on a completely different paradigm--it's 360 years in the future, after all. :-) Their input panels are connected to the computer in a much more direct way, it would seem, since they interact with the computer on a rather more advanced level than we do today. As such, we often see situations where damage to a console results in impairment of the computer's function in part or whole. -Mdettweiler 03:58, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Bar Sign in the last scene Edit
In the episode Fair Haven, Janeway mentions to Paris that the harp in the bar is backwards. I was wondering if this was changed in this episode, namely in the final scene when Janeway and Sullivan go into his bar, and the camera pulls back to show the harp.18.104.22.168 07:15, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Running Time not as long as Vic?! Edit
- The Voyager crew wouldn't know that, since Voyager was trapped in the Delta Quadrant long before the DS9 episode you mention.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:50, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't check the dates of the episodes... Flx50 16:16, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
About the Doctor's disclaimer before his parable: "I recently heard a tale of two farmers, who shall remain nameless for the sake of this sermon"