Connection to Enterprise finale Edit
Leaving the critical reaction to the Enterprise finale aside, does it fit accurately with this episode? It seems a bit strange that the Enterprise episode says it was the example of Archer etc that made Riker tell Picard about the Pegasus. Tough Little Ship 23:00, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Again, critical reaction aside, the events of "These Are the Voyages" are now part of canon, and Riker's dealing with his moral quandary by consulting the NX-01 crew has now been retconned into the events of this episode. Consequently, I think a mention of those events should be integrated into the synopsis -- although at what point is another question. Perhaps you say something like "Having participated in a holodeck re-creation of Captain Jonathan Archer's Enterprise NX-01, Riker decides to rat out Admiral Pressman..."
Pointless scene? Edit
Can anyone explain or speculate about the point of the scene in which Riker shows up in sickbay with an injury suffered during bat'leth practice? I didn't get that at all.
- Well this really isnt the forum for this type of comment, but in short, iirc, he was feeling guilty for what he did aboard the Pegasus and was applying it to his actions during practice-- "I knew what I was supposed to do... but I didn't do it." The script explains it a little better, but it is somewhat played off of the scene moments before it between Picard and Pressman. --Alan del Beccio 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Removed Note Edit
- The episode's plot is similar to that of The Philadelphia Experiment. Tests of an experimental type of cloaking device result in the deaths of most of the crew of the ship; in particular, some deceased crew members are found "fused" to parts of the ship, similar to deaths in the film.
Uncited similarity. By all means, it can be re-added if it was acknowledged somewhere as a homage/reference. But the sources I consulted stated the episode was inspired by Raise the Titanic!.– Cleanse 00:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Another similatity would be Battlestar Galactica's Battlestar Pegasus, a ship that is presumed to be lost in the Cylon attack but reappears some time afterwards. It's crew, however, was not dead, but very much alive and kicking Cylon butts, in both the original and re-imagined series. -not really a member-
Riker's actions Edit
Why was Riker not court-martialed for his involvement in the cover-up? He stayed silent about the cloak until the Enterprise was facing destruction in the asteroid. At the least he should have been convicted of conspiring to obstruct justice and participating in an illegal experiment. The entire crew of the Pegasus knew about the cloaking device. Syalantillesfel (talk) 22:23, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Article talk pages are for discussion related to changing the article only, and are not meant for general discussion of the subject, such as questioning the plot. Specific questions can be asked at the Reference Desk, while open-ended discussion should take place at a discussion site geared towards that. 31dot (talk) 01:48, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
Riker's Beard Edit
In this episode, Riker tells a story about how, on the Pegasus, he was nicknamed 'Ensign Babyface' and that this is the reason he grew a beard. This is a continuity error, as we see him beard-less for the entire first season of the show. I added a 'Continuity' section to Background Information to this episode and listed this error, but it was removed. Why? Is this not a clear continuity error? Please clarify why this edit was removed. Thanks. -- – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
- Firstly, we do not allow listing of continuity errors on this wiki. See MA:NIT for the policy in question. Secondly, your assessment of the discussion in question is actually incorrect - Pressman asks how long Riker has had the beard; Riker says "five years", which ties pretty much exactly to season two. He notes that it was because he was tired of hearing how young he looked, which then leads onto the discussion of the 'Ensign Babyface' moniker. Riker's reasoning does not stem directly from that nickname. Therefore, there is no continuity error. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:07, March 12, 2013 (UTC)