- MA files from this episode (28)
- Episode data module and titles check:
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.
story[]
Is it just me or does the story seem to be disjointed? I got the impression that the clues pointed to O'Brien being in a holodeck or fictionalization of DS9, hence Bashir not remembering conversations between them and things of that sort, and the twist would be that the Parabans were testing him in some way. The replicant angle doesn't do anything to explain characters not knowing certain pieces of information, Quark being unable to recount a rule of acquisition is a big one.
- The characters were "playing dumb" to see if the O'Brien replicant would slip his secret. if you want to see if someone is who they claim to be, ask them about their mother whom you know has died. If they say that their mother is dead, seems like a good way to verify that they are in fact who they say they are -- an impostor wouldn't know their mother had died (unless he was as precise a copy as this replicant was). It was pretty obvious to me -- Captain M.K.B. 19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Paradan caves[]
Is it me or are the caves in the episode's final scenes a redress of the caves used in 'The Circle'? Especially the place the O'Brien replicant beams down to strongly reminds me of the place the DS9 away team materialises in 'The Circle', the team that comes to rescue Kira. -- Bakabaka 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's most likely. To my recollection, they used the same cave set for a majority of the cave scenes shown in Trek. - Enzo Aquarius 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Similar storyline[]
The story of this episode is the exact plot of a Philip K. Dick short story, except for a twist ending in the original. I haven't found the title of the story yet as there are a lot to look through. 24.83.216.77 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- For anyone interested, the story is "Imposter" (No, I'm not the IP user above) – Cleanse 08:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have not read the story or seen the episode in awhile, so I am going to ask, has someone else recently? I ask because in my experience, accusations of being "the exact same plot" or "blatant ripoff" usually don't pan out under scrutiny. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the episode, but I have read the story. I wasn't suggesting like the IP user that it was an "exact plot". I was just stating IMO what story was being referred to - I should have made that clearer. The two just share the concept of "robot programmed to think it is human". The actual courses of the plot are very different - in the short story the robot is told of its status early, but doesn't believe it. Here, it's the surprise ending. I personally think it might be a reference, at most. But it's equally possible the idea came from somewhere else, or was coincidental.– Cleanse 00:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Robert Hewitt Wolfe is a huge fan of Dick (no sniggering), and "Second Skin" was based on We Can Remember it for You Wholesale and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, so it's entirely possible they allowed Imposter to influence them. The reference to 'Replicant' is obviously a nod in the direction of DADES/Blade Runner. Indeed, the basic plot (an android that thinks its real) is also the main plot of Blade Runner (or is it?...) But I do agree with Cleanse, it is at most a reference, nothing more – Bertaut 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it is "Impostor" with an "o". There was a movie remake in 2002 staring Gary Sinise and Vincent D'Onofrio. I think it was pretty well done.--Morder 10:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Robert Hewitt Wolfe is a huge fan of Dick (no sniggering), and "Second Skin" was based on We Can Remember it for You Wholesale and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, so it's entirely possible they allowed Imposter to influence them. The reference to 'Replicant' is obviously a nod in the direction of DADES/Blade Runner. Indeed, the basic plot (an android that thinks its real) is also the main plot of Blade Runner (or is it?...) But I do agree with Cleanse, it is at most a reference, nothing more – Bertaut 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the episode, but I have read the story. I wasn't suggesting like the IP user that it was an "exact plot". I was just stating IMO what story was being referred to - I should have made that clearer. The two just share the concept of "robot programmed to think it is human". The actual courses of the plot are very different - in the short story the robot is told of its status early, but doesn't believe it. Here, it's the surprise ending. I personally think it might be a reference, at most. But it's equally possible the idea came from somewhere else, or was coincidental.– Cleanse 00:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have not read the story or seen the episode in awhile, so I am going to ask, has someone else recently? I ask because in my experience, accusations of being "the exact same plot" or "blatant ripoff" usually don't pan out under scrutiny. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Fourth wall?[]
"In a unique directorial and writing turn for the series, the audience is faced with more than just the fourth-wall concept of television. Rather, the audience becomes interactive. All the while, Chief Miles O'Brien is recording a personal log regarding the events of the last few days."
Can someone explain what this means, because as far as I can tell, this episode does not break the fourth wall, nor is the audience made 'interactive'. And what does 'more than just the fourth wall' mean - are there five walls?! The chronology is messed around a bit, which is reasonably unusual for Star trek, but that does not constitue a break of the fourth wall - the audenience is never acknowledged or addressed (as they are in "In the Pale Moonlight" for example, where Sisko talks direct to-camera). This episode has no real structural difference to "Necessary Evil" - they both contain temporal manipulation of the narrative, but nothing more. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I just can't make sense of this note – Bertaut 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't break the fourth wall. Oddly, neither does "In the Pale Moonlight". That one, the entire time, Sisko appears to be addressing the audience, but he's addressing the computer screen. -- Sulfur 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? That's interesting. I haven't seen that episode in ages (although it is my all time fav Trek show), but I'll be getting to it soon, I could have sworn he was speaking direct to camera. That's fascinating, I must look out for that, I must not have noticed the computer screen aspect the first time around – Bertaut 00:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- He's recording a log. And the camera just so happens to be placed inside the computer panel that he's recording from. -- Sulfur 01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we really know which Paradan faction kidnapped O'Brien?[]
- It is revealed that the Paradan government abducted O'Brien and created a replicant designed to assassinate the rebels' delegation at the peace talks.
I'm bothered by this. It is mentioned by Odo earlier in the episode that the station has received communications from the rebels, but do we know that all this was done by the Paradan government, and that the Starfleet officers involved are working only with the rebels? I'm sure that the one Paradan who speaks never says anything but "perhaps he was going to assassinate our delegation".
It seems much more likely to me that the people responsible for kidnapping O'Brien would have been an ultra section of the rebels who wished to destroy the peace conference, the rebel communications were from others in the organisation who found out about it, and that Starfleet was working with the aid of the official government and some rebel contacts to track down the real O'Brien. And of course, the script leaves all such matters deliberately vague, since the whole thing is shown from the replicant's point of view. I just don't think we know enough to make such a positive statement about who the bad guys are - and I simply can't imagine Starfleet working with the rebels with no contact or sanction at all from the official government. -AndroidFan 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed[]
Removed the following quote per MA:QUOTE, as I'm not sure what's really memorable about it.
"Computer, identify Mekong's new heading."
"41, mark 201"
"Probable destination?"
"Parada II"
(to self) "Parada II? What's on Parada II?"
"Specify parameters."
- - O'Brien and the computer
--31dot 23:44, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Also removed the following, as not particularly memorable:
"Computer: Coffee. Jamaican blend. Double strong, double sweet."--31dot 15:50, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Green "phasers"[]
When O'Brien flees DS9 the station fires its weapons but instead of the usual gold coloured phaser they are green. Was the station's "phasers" shown to be green in any other episode? Is it worth noting in the background section of the article? – 202.76.147.1 06:17, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Rene Auberjonois Injury[]
During Rene Auberjonois' appearance, specifically during the scene in Station Security, his right cheek appears swollen as though injured, and he seems to speak with very little movement of the right side of his mouth. While it's difficult to spot due to all the make-up, it is visible, indicating that Auberjonois suffered some injury to his face (or possibly dental work) just prior to filming this scene. Does anyone have any information on this? --Headrock 04:48, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Background Information[]
Does anyone have any magazines (Cinefantastique, Star Trek: Communicator etc) that include information on this episode so we can get a bit more background info? --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:07, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
Nipick removal[]
Just wanted to keep a record of this nitpick that was removed earlier by 31dot:
- There is a slip-up in the transporter's graphic effect when the O'Brien replicant beams from the cargo bay to the Rio Grande. The runabout's transporter pad, a Federation make, has the orange effect of a Cardassian transporter.
This isn't a nitpick anyway as O'Brien uses the station's transporters, not the runabout's, and so it would be the Cardassian effect. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:54, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
Removed episode ratings[]
I have removed the following from the article as per this previous discussion:
- As of March 2011:
- GEOS.tv users gave this episode an average rating of 8.31/10 based on 431 votes, ranking the episode ninth in the season and 71st of 175 episodes produced overall.
- TV.com users rated this episode 8.7/10 based on 153 votes.
- Ex Astris Scientia gave this episode a rating of 8/10.
- Jammer's Reviews.com gave this episode a 4-star "Excellent" rating.
--| TrekFan Open a channel 19:48, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
Who said a quote?[]
When O'Brien's listening to the logs, a female voice says, "Bajoran ministers--- which I think is ridiculous!". Was that Dax or Kira who said that? I think it's Kira, since the voice sounded irate and she's the grumpier one of the two, but does anyone know for sure?Discofurby (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)