"Don't Gimme That Star Trek Crap", Lister in DNA

This episode is a blatant rip-off of the 'Red Dwarf' episode "Thanks for the Memory." TNG lifted ideas from 'Red Dwarf' a few times, but this one was an entire plotline. - Kurt of North Bend

I would agree this episode's storyline is a riff on the same ideas as "Thanks For The Memory", but the way it is noted in Background Information in the Article seems as if Red Dwarf 'unintentionally' copied TNG when actually Red Dwarf got there first - Igotbit
Yes, I believe there was mention about this on a Red Dwarf writer's interview. I have attempted to correct the details:
The 1989 'Red Dwarf' episode "Thanks for the Memory" had a plot very similar to TNG 1991 "Clues". In each episode, the crews of both ships discover that their memories have been erased, and inexplicable injuries appeared. Both crews strive to determine the cause of this, only to discover they were better off not knowing. -Drogo
I would also add that there are SIGNIFICANT differences in the stories. One need only have actually watched both. I have, as you can see from my name I am a Red Dwarf fan. The only similarities are the ones said above. The differences are many. I don't remember memories of an old girlfriend being given to a hologram, or anyone for that matter, in the Star Trek episode. I don't remember any member of the Red Dwarf crew actually knowing what happened, and doing what they could to cover things up. I don't remember there being an alien force in the Red Dwarf episode that was the reason behind all of this, or the one who performed the memory wipe. I could go on and on. This is not a blatant rip off, just two stories with some similarities. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the Red Dwarf comment(reproduced below) as we generally don't list similarities to other shows unless it was done intentionally.

  • This episode shares a similar plot to the 1989 Red Dwarf episode "Thanks for the Memory". In each instance, the crews of both ships discover that their memories have been erased, and inexplicable injuries appeared. Both crews strive to determine the cause of this, only to discover they were better off not knowing.--31dot 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed Text

The following text was removed from the background information by an anon as "unsupported":

A scene in this episode has Picard explaining to Data that the android would be "stripped down to the wires" to learn why Data was apparently falsifying records, interfering with an investigation, and disobeying orders. This seems to be a contradiction of what was established in "The Measure Of A Man", in which it was ruled that Data was not the property of Starfleet.

I wanted to put it on here as a followup so that people know what was removed, and with the theory that the anon might return and put a quick explanation for such a removal as is the MA policy. -- Sulfur 13:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My text was removed within one minute (as seen below). Why is this, there wasn't time to check it -even though it is absolutely true! Please check it or at least read it before deletion, and a reason why would be appreciated too. Plenty of stuff on Background Information might be said to be 'unsupported' but this is an unarguable plot hole, and thus perfectly relevant.

And I should know, I only watched the episode last night.

"This episode has a fundamental plot hole; Data deletes a day from the ship's computer clock (twice) and the consequences are not questioned - yet the instant the Enterprise would next contact any Starbase (for example), the error would be found, defeating the object of the exercise."

  1. (cur) (last) 22:13, 4 September 2007 OuroborosCobra (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by (Talk); changed back to last version by Renegade54)
  2. (cur) (last) 22:12, 4 September 2007 (Talk) (→Background Information)

-- 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Being "unsupported" wasn't the problem. It was removed because it was decided long ago that episode summaries would not be used for nitpicks or individual viewers problems with episodes, or plot holes. It is non-encyclopedic to include them, therefore I removed it per MA policy. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a plot hole, anyway. Certainly not a "fundamental" one. The first time around, some mention is made of "making contact with [starfleet/starbase n]" to synchronise the ships clocks. The idea communicated to me was that some movement in time as well as space was to be expected as a probable effect of travel through the wormhole. I think this is a possible nitpick that was anticipated and addressed in the script already. 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I suppose this is what the talk pages are for. I was confused because of inconsistancies in the editorial policy, for example, look at the background Information for the episode "The Next Phase" and there is a critique of the illogical nature of one of the major plot points, the 'ghost paradox'.

I would consider this 'non-encyclopedic' as it is a comment on bad science writing in the show and thus up for deletion, however, it's also correct, and interesting so...?

The policy makes a lot of sense as it stops inane conjecture 'zomg in this ep wesley is a total fag lolz' against genuine plot chasms (a classic example is after "The Inner Light" when Picard almost never mentions, and seems fairly indifferent to, the 25 years he spent on the farm).

Meh, that's as much indignant defence as I can muster. -- 09:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also removed

Removed the following:

  • In the scene from the Dixon Hill holodeck program, a man holding "Dix" at gunpoint is killed and falls to the floor on his back. Picard turns the dead man's head to look at his face. The dead man is looking to his right as he lies there dead, and then moves his eyes to the left as his head is turned toward Picard. Nitpick.
  • There was a bit of controversy surrounding this episode, as another sci-fi show, Red Dwarf, had a similar story as a plotline for their episode "Thanks for the Memory", three years previous to the airing of this episode. In each case the crew awoke to find clues that time had passed that they were unaware of and came to regret it when they discovered the truth. Noteworthy differences are that in Red Dwarf there was no equivalent of Data's role in this episode nor was there a match for the Paxans. Controversy according to who? If there was such a thing and it can be cited, it can go back.--31dot 02:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

At the end does Picard actually realize whats actually going on?

When i first saw the episode I thought in the end of the episode he had a hunch something was amiss but ultimately dismissed it and continued on, not that he knew what was really happening. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

No, just like before, he had an inkling of a mystery, but no proof to act on it. 31dot (talk) 00:00, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
The last paragraph of Act Five still suggests that Picard remembered what happened and that THAT is the reason he ordered Data to drop the hazard beacon. Since you guys have said here that that isn't the case, which I agree with (that's why I came to the talk page, to see if it was discussed.) I'm going to change it. I don't edit wikis often so I figured I'd mention that I was changing it somewhere. 06:08, September 16, 2014 (UTC)

Paxans species name is an ontological paradox?

From a linear perspective, the first person to address by name the alien species encountered in this episode is Picard. It is in the flashback, after Data has referred to the Paxans by that name a few times already. But the flashback plays out in it's entirety from the time Troi is taken over until the order to conceal the Paxans existence is given to Data. The audience would understand that the aliens are the Paxans, but there would be no way for the captain to have that information at this point, as the alien in Troi's body never addresses themselves by name. The name is either an ontological paradox, or Data is an unreliable narrator. The latter is less likely, making this a production error.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Thanks, but we do not note production errors unless a citation is available for it. 31dot (talk) 12:13, January 12, 2015 (UTC)


After seeing this episode again, I come away with a gnawing question that I do not see in any discussion streams. Given that two days (two separate one day periods) are removed from the memories of the the entire crew and subsequently one period of 30 seconds is given as the period of time that has elapsed, how would this two day discrepancy be explained once the crew were to encounter another ship or arrive at a star base to discover two days missing from a common calendar? Actually, more than two days is missing if the time elapsed while scratching their heads and proceeding back to the scene of the incident was included. A great premise and story, but one with a huge hole of logic. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? 01:46, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

Please note that article talk pages are for discussing article changes only; specific questions can be asked at the Reference Desk, while open ended discussion should take place at a site geared towards that. Also, if you want to sign your posts with a username, you need to register one. 31dot (talk) 02:32, December 15, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+