Stairway to Heaven

Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections: Seven Days: Season Three: Stairway to Heaven
Back in the 1970's, a young woman is out partying when she meets up with a boyfriend. They go out to earn some money by trading something illegal, but after thinking about her young daughter's future, the young woman takes off, leaving the guy to deal with the cops. On the way home, she crashes and starts dying, but is enveloped by a bright light.
Parker backteps in order to stop a toxic chemical spill in the Columbia River and to save Ramsey's dog, but when he lands, he finds that he has a visitor: the young woman. Together, they investigate what happened, as a rip in sapce-time starts enveloping the universe, beginning at Never Never Land. After teaming up with the now grown daughter to stop the daughter's business partners who are trading weapons, the daughter and mother make peace for abandondment decades earlier. The motehr steps back through the time portal and the unvierse is estored to it's normal self, with Frank contemplating life and death.
By Lee Jamilkowski on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 6:56 pm:

What was with the new opening? I see the producers trying to establish Seven Days as a show that people should watch, a "name brand" show, if you will.


By Anonymous on Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 9:58 pm:

I thought the episode was predictable myself. I guess we will not be seeing Ballard much after this episode. Or even Mentor.


By Len on Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 11:00 am:

If they're trying to make this a "brand name" show, airing stinkers like last night is NOT the way to do it!! What a lame "Highway..oops Stairway..to Heaven" episode!

Aside from the total schmaltz and lack of suspense or interesting plot developments, can they weaken Frank's character any more? Armageddon is moments away and he's stopping for a Kodak moment? Even id he IS a big-hearted guy, this was ridiculous!

And at a minimum, did they have to establish that she was DEAD?? Wouldn’t a simple grab-out-of-time moments BEFORE she crashed been 100 times more sensible and less preposterous?? Yuck!!


By Lee Jamilkowski on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 12:58 am:

I liked Ballard as a regular. This turn of events is for shame. Not that I'd want to be hang around Backstep after last night's events, not the rip in the space-time continuum, but Ramsey's going postal. Not that that happened now, thanks to the backstep...


By TomM on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 2:24 am:

I get the impression that Ballard will be taking over Mentnor's role as senior-but-rarely-seen scientist once Wesley Lucas Icheb Owsley shows up.


By Len on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 7:00 am:

Does anyone know WHY Mentnor is out? Is he definitely out? Or will he be back as a recurring guest star? Was it a writer or actor decision?

Same questions about Ballard's reduced staus. A shame, becasue he is one of the more unique characters around.


By Scott McClenny on Friday, October 13, 2000 - 4:44 pm:

Looks to me like they are prepping 7 DAYS to take
over from VOYAGER as THE Wednesday night show
after VOYAGER ends this season.

The question about Ballard is a good one.

I thought that adding the names of the characters
and their duty assignments at Operation Backstep
was a nice touch to the opening.I also liked it
that Olga was moved up to second on the opening
after Frank as a lot of the show IS about Frank
and Olga's relationship!:)

The ending when Ramsey's dog chases Frank around
the complex was pretty hilarious!!!!:)

Sooo...we are to believe the world almost ended
because one woman didn't complete her trip to
the other side?


By Lee Jamilkowski on Sunday, October 15, 2000 - 3:11 pm:

How many security people from Never Never Land has Frank alienated by this point? It seems like each week he is (pick one: injuring, annoying, beating up, other) the guards. Of course,that might make for an episode in itself. "The Guards' Revenge".


By Bob Brehm on Sunday, October 15, 2000 - 3:21 pm:

Or a fan-fic.


By RPGMaster on Sunday, October 15, 2000 - 4:46 pm:

Ballard mentions that one possibility for the "missing object" is an anti-positron. However, a positron is an anti-electron.


By Lee Jamilkowski on Sunday, October 15, 2000 - 9:15 pm:

Wait. So:

positron = anti-electron
anti-positron = anti-anti-electron

Isn't that an electron?

Do two wrongs make a right?

Thus proving I should avoid scientific thought at all cost. :-)


By Em on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 11:28 am:

a positron and electron are not the exact equals that they make them out to be, since of course a positron has mass and an electron does not.


By ScottN on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 11:35 am:

Say What?????

An electron certainly does have mass, I believe it is approximately 0.511 eV. (Use E=mc2 to convert to grams).

A photon has no mass. The positron is the antiparticle of the electron and vice-versa. Hence, an "anti-positron" is an electron.


By Matthew Patterson (Mpatterson) on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 11:35 am:

Um, actually, an electron does have mass. It's just extremely small, and so we normally don't factor it into our calculations. (I think it's something like 1/2000th that of a proton.)


By ScottN on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 11:36 am:

whoops! That should be 0.511 MeV or 511 KeV.


By Em on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 - 8:31 am:

Oops guys,

I mis-spoke as you all quickly realized. I meant that the electron has the extremely small mass.

I just don't buy on how a positron could be an anti-electron if they aren't the same mass.


By ScottN on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 - 10:09 am:

They *ARE* the same mass.


By ScottN on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 - 10:12 am:

You are probably thinking of the PROTON. The The proton does have different mass than the electron. Protons are in the nucleus. The antiparticle of a proton is the anti-proton. The antiparticle of an electron is the positron.


By Em on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 - 12:20 pm:

Oh sh**, I just realized you are right, I was thinking of Protons. I guess it's been too long since high school chemistry.


By Anonymous on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 - 3:17 pm:

Definitely too long. You still have the wrong particle. It's Photons, not Protons that you attempted to descibe.


By ScottN on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 - 10:45 pm:

Side note. The Photon is its own antiparticle.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password: