The scenes filmed in them are typically so utterly flawless that they come off as just another scene. They blend in. There's nothing visually interesting to look at. When something is created, it just appears. No projections or lasers or machinery of any kind. There's never any minor glitches to make me feel like I'm watching an amazing technology as opposed to actors just doing another scene. They had the right idea when Data threw the rock to show it's not unlimited. It informed the audience that the scene was more than just actors in a forest. Visual hints like that should've been used every time they were in one.
Agreed. And the plot where the crew is stuck in the holodeck with no way to get out and safeties off has been done to death. Once would have been enough. "Homeward" is one of the few exceptions, for once the holodeck isn't working perfectly, but without the safeties off...
The terrible concept and "acting" of the characters in Fair Haven always proved to me that it was just a simulation It was something that was over-used to the point of being ridiculous, especially with the number of faults it experienced. Then when you look at most of the characters (especially VOY but also TNG) they all seem to suffer from holo-addiction to some degree, but it's just gleamed over--only Barclay has to get therapy for it.
Is it holo-addiction though? It's not like these people had TV to unwind to at the end of the day. How many hours of holodeck use per day would qualify as addiction? I'd be curious to compare that with modern tv viewing habits.
I liked O'Brian and Bashier re-enacting famous battles at Quarks- they never showed the actual simulations but they never needed to. I do wish they had shown some of the Holodeck's limitations- as mentioned nothing fancy, just a glitch or something not quite right about the way it acts (like they did in the Matrix)
I thought some of the best holodeck sequences were in TNG: Hollow Pursuits. Barclay's forest fantasies are almost as if they're out of a painting, Wesley's Blue Boy notwithstanding, and don't always feel like they're just another set on a soundstage. I don't know if it's lighting, lenses, filters, or some sort of digital enhancement, but there's an unreality to them.
Wasn't Barclay's 'problem' not just that he was spending too much time in the holodeck, but that he was using his shipmates' images to create characters to live out his own fantasies of importance? IE, he wasn't using the tech as entertainment, he was deliberately blurring the lines between fantasy and reality to an extant that could easily be considered unhealthy.
What's worse? Barclay using physical likenesses of real people as fictional characters in his holodreams or Geordi creating a facsimile of Leah Abrams, falling in love with it and being chagrined when the real thing didn't match the fantasy? In which of those scenarios is the person more out of touch with reality?
Not time duration, addiction would be changes in your personal behaviour. Missing work to spend time on the holodeck would be one sign, avoiding real people to spend time with fantasy creations would be another. The first time that happened, Picard should have replaced the holodeck's power door with a loose shower curtain. We've seen the holodeck stay in operation when the door was open and people came and went, so the heavy locking door isn't even required.
That corner with the big door seemed to pull double duty as the holodeck door, shuttle bay door, and cargo bay door as needed.
Well, to be fair, Geordi didn't originally intend to create a hologram of Brahms. The computer did it for him. All Geordi did was, later on, ask the computer to update the hologram with Brahms' actual personality profile so it would be easier to talk to her. Which, in itself, is understandable. This doesn't excuse what happened later, but there we are. I feel Geordi should have 1) deleted the Brahms hologram altogether, or at least 2) warned the real Brahms it was there before she got the chance to walk in on it. Barclay's use of the holodeck, IMHO, was worse. There should be a safety mechanism in place which prevents anyone from simulating a crewmate without their consent. Otherwise it's a gross violation of privacy. People should have the absolute right to know when they're being simulated, and prevent it if they wish.
I forget which DS-9 episode it was, but an Alien fell for Kira and wanted Quark to build him a replica in the his Holosuite. When Kira found out it was edited to have Quark's head on her body- a funny as hell payback for having one's privacy violated...
Of course on Enterprise-D, part of the bridge officer test was to give simulations of crewmembers suicide orders. It might have been just as easy to tell them, "Before going off to recalibrate the antimatter flow which will kill you, take your uniform off."
I'd say the latter counts as addiction for an awful lot of people as well. Also online habits. It would have been cool if all holodeck scenes were color-tinted (as with the green-tinted Matrix), or filtered, or used some other unique visual effect. It would mess up episodes like "Ship In A Bottle" or other scenarios when you're not supposed to know it's the holodeck, but still.
He also lied about the nature of it to her. If he did fall in love with that hologram he kept that last part of it for a reason It's the equivalent of using someone's picture online without their permission, but there's not much you could do about it. But seriously, is it really so wrong to use it to live out a secret fantasy of a person you know? In a liberal, libertarian, open and free world where people have self control? Wouldn't getting lost in a holodeck fantasy be considered a success, the purpose of the people who designed the program and the holodeck in the first place?
^ Depends. There'll usually be a reason why people simulate other people in the holodeck. How somebody acts toward a simulated person may well affect how they treat the real thing, as it were. (For example, if I find out that somebody is simulating me in the holodeck so they can kill me, over and over, don't I have the right to know about that? It could mean they want the REAL me dead.)