Talk:A Matter of Perspective (episode)

Episode talk page

Maintenance links

• MA files from this episode (0)
• Episode data module and titles check:

T: I AM ERROR
A: I AM ERROR	N: I AM ERROR	P: I AM ERROR	C: I AM ERROR	CP: I AM ERROR	CR: I AM ERROR	CT: I AM ERROR	D: I AM ERROR	M: I AM ERROR	Y: I AM ERROR

Votes from nomination for "A Matter of Perspective"

• Self nomination. This was one of my favourite all time TNG episodes. I feel that I've been exhaustive with writing this article without rambling on. I've written up most of the unwritten references as well to supplement the article.--Scimitar 12:30, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• Support Everything seems to be in order. Tobyk777 22:45, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• Support It's a very well written summary. Tough Little Ship 23:00, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support For starters, the main table wasn't formatted, and some spelling errors and needless pic sizing. But I cleaned alot of it up, and I think it's better. Something about it is still bothering me though... - AJHalliwell 21:45, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sold on this being a unanimous vote. I suggest that if any proposed changes or ideas are had to improve the article that they be made, rather than to let this comment to go on marinating for another 5 days. --Alan del Beccio 19:45, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Spelling errors? Well I'm not apologising for being a "limey", AJH. I think you're the one who's made spelling mistakes (e.g. alot). May I ask why you aren't fully satisfied with it, especially bearing in mind that you made a nomination for "Good Shepherd" yet at the time of your nomination, it was so deeply flawed? I'd say that "A Matter of Perspective" is as well written or would your articles be good enough and mine not be?--Scimitar 12:41, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • (In order...) I'm not asking you to, nor am I saying there's a problem with the British spelling of things. Spelling was not the reason I "weak support"ed it, as I said above. I've made many spelling mistakes yes, but at current MA's policy is that of American English when possible. And I'm not sure what I don't like about it, which is why I didn't vote Oppose, as that would be unfair. My earlier mishaps on "Good Shepherd" are unrelated to this vote. I never said anything about you or your writing style in comparison to mine. And in case you didn't notice, I did vote to Support this article's featured status, even if it wasn't an enthusiastic support, it was a support none-the-less. If you have any personal disputes with me, please post them on my talk page, and not on the Featured Articles forums please. - AJHalliwell 01:09, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

featured --Alan del Beccio 01:38, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Act Five" in this summary actually happened in Act Four - Jay Barasch, February 3, 2006, after watching this episode in syndication

Nitpicks/plot holes

I removed the following nitpicks (or plot holes, same thing). --From Andoria with Love 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

When the holodeck recreation was destroyed in the simulation, the table and chair that the crew was seated should have been destroyed along with other holographic matter. Also, when the simulation was not in use, the holodeck would have been turned off, which begs the question as to how the Krieger waves managed to damage parts of the ship without people in the holodeck noticing the visible beam from the generator.

Had Riker actually fired a phaser at the reactor onboard the space station, he might have materialized on the Enterprise in the same pose as when he fired (even though a handful of exceptional occurrences prove you can indeed move in the transporter, even though normally a person's pose is unchanged in the matter stream). Furthermore, the transporters should have detected that his phaser was in discharge. Given that no discharge was read from his phaser, it should have appeared unlikely he fired it.

Actually, having removed the above, are nitpicks and plot holes considered the same thing? I think they are basically one and the same (as in someone is nitpicking about a plot hole), but wanted to get clarification about it here. --From Andoria with Love 04:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a nit, not a plot hole. The first one assumes that the holodeck is turned off when not in use during the "trial". This is never actually shown, and is an assumption. It is just as likely in fact, given the effect on the ship, that the holodeck was left on. It also assumes knowledge on how Kreiger waves work that we do not have. When is it said that the beam is the main and only effect of the Kreiger wave? Never. Again, the episode would seem to indicate that, like microwaves, there is also an invisible effect, that which effected the Enterprise.

The second note on the phasers can also be mostly explained away. The sensors DID detect a power drain in the transporte

r beam. In fact, the chief investigator suggested that the power drain could be explained by the phaser discharge. The crew of the Enterprise initially offered no other explanation, and accepted that as a possible one. Therefore, that is explained. The ONLY thing not explained is the pose when transported, but I bet if I thought hard enough I could think of an explanation for that too.

Point being, these are nits, not plot holes, and they are badly written nits at that. Good day. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that bothers me is why would he take a phaser with him to a science station? --Ortzinator 05:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case it was attacked by Romulanz or Borgz... ITs pretty well established that TNG era officers carry the small pocket phasers on the bridge with them (Torres in "Encounter at Farpoint"), and on some away missions. Geordi even kept both a small phaser and a large phaser kicking around his quarters, in "The Mind's Eye" and "Aquiel", respectively. The palm-size phasers were carried by some officers on "supposedly-friendly" away missions like Cestus III. Remember Kirk and party were going to dinner in a Commodore's installation, and they still brought their phaser-ones. Apparently, Picard's assertion in "Conspiracy" that "one does not beam down to Starfllet Headquarters armed" establishes that SFHQ is one of the few places Starfleet doesnt carry phasers on them, no evidence exists that the (alien) Tanuga station would be a "no-phaser" zone. -- Captain M.K.B. 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it would make sense that the only time they wouldn't take a phaser would be in diplomatic missions where they don't want to appear threatening.

I thought the station was a Starfleet station? The panel in the quarters given to Riker appears to be Starfleet judging by the pill-shaped buttons typically seen on Starfleet ships. --Ortzinator 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a Federation station. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the plot points of the episode is that the Federation was giving the scientist technology -- presumably, the station and the technology onboard -- in exchange for his work trying to create the Krieger waves. It was heavily referenced that Apgar felt a failure in that the Federation was supplying him, but he wasnt able to provide results, despite needing more supplies. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Goof - Backwards Enterprise

• It's probably worth mentioning that at the end of the episode, just before the final piece of dialogue, the shot where the Enterprise is orbiting the planet, the ship is backwards. It is easy to see that the NCC-1701-D is reversed. 212.139.103.147 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another goof occurs whenever Appgar is seated at his workstation during the recreations and the scene is 'frozen'. The actors remain motionless while the digital numbers on the workstation continue to flicker randomly.– Vivec 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: High Tower

<Riker calls her a "princess in a very high tower"> is in one of the notes, followed by speculation about the wife's familiarity with the human story of Rapunzel, and what that might mean for Riker's truthfulness about who made moves on who.

Firstly, did he actually say this? Watching it today I heard "princess in an ivory tower" which would make it a reference to her status as a Scientist's wife rather than a reference to an Earth fairy tale. Even if it was "high tower", is Rapunzel the *only* possible story involving a princess trapped in a tower? Surely that's a fantasy story cliche, isn't it? 81.109.71.38 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Riker said "a princess in a very high tower" according to this script. -- Connor Cabal 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)