Talk:Shore Leave (episode)

Maintenance links

• MA files from this episode (21) • MA remastered files from this episode (22)
• Episode data module and titles check:

T: Shore Leave
A: TOS	N: 1x17	P: 6149-17	C: 15/32	CP: 18	CR: 15	CT: 216	D: 29	M: December	Y: 1966

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.

---

Please click here to start a new discussion

---

Nitpick

I have a nitpick about this episode. The chain around the tiger's neck is very visible. Other than that, the whole thing was a real romp and a lot of fun. OS-Trek 14:28, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

• As Kirk chases Finnegan around Vasquez rocks just before the fight scene, obvious car tire marks can been seen in the sand just to the right of Kirk.

Removed nitpick — Morder 08:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Shore Leave II

The article says there was a Shore Leave 2 written but never filmed. Was this re-worked into TAS: "Once Upon a Planet"?--Robert Treat 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The honest answer is I don't know. I got the information from a listing of Roddenberry files. But given that Sturgeon drafted Shore Leave 2 and did NOT write Once Upon a Planet, it is probable that the stories were very different. Aholland 22:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a note of something along those lines in the BG info, also adding a like to the Planet episode. -- Sulfur 23:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Background notes

A removal of part of a note:

While the ship is orbiting in this direction in "Mirror, Mirror" for one brief scene, for some reason it's going the other way for the rest of the episode!

Doesn't belong in this episode's notes, and would need to be re-written to get rid of that cursed "!".

• Two of the World War II planes can be seen in the stock footage, although Rodriguez says, "That's one of them!"

For all we know, from his angle on the ground, he could only see one. Or he was just pointing to one. I can think of more explanations for this. It does not belong.

If we were to visit Sulu's quarters, there would likely be a gun collection on display.

This is pure speculation. It's removal does not effect the rest of the note it was part of. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, didn't we visit Sulu's quarters in "The Man Trap" and find it to be filled with plants rather than guns? *Jasper* 22:39, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

This is the episode where I feel everything started coming together. The actors became comfortable with their characters, the feel of this episode was more relaxed than the previous ones, as the cast and crew found their groove. Groovy. - Adambomb1701 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adambomb1701, we appreciate your comments, but talk pages are only to be used to discuss the content or quality of an article, not for discussing or reviewing what was good or bad about an episode or film or anything else. Please remember this in the future; thank you. --From Andoria with Love 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Comment in Background Section?

Still being a "newbie" here, I wasn't completely comfortable with just removing this, but does this comment really have any place here?

Emily Banks turned in an exceptional performance as Barrows. She was likeable and believable in addition to being beautiful - a marked improvement over Yeoman Mears in "The Galileo Seven". Unfortunately, this was Barrows' only appearance. Thereafter, the yeoman role became mostly thankless and typically sexist in accordance with the time. However, like Barrows, yeomen Janice Rand, Martha Landon (TOS: "The Apple") and Leslie Thompson (TOS: "By Any Other Name") also gave strong performances. Landon would have been a welcome recurring role (especially for Chekov), but Thompson was killed off.

I liked Miss Banks as much as the next guy, but is it our function to critique or praise her performance and physical appearance, especially when it involves a blatant backhanded insult to Phyllis Douglas? Or to point out which yeomen gave "superior" performances? And to whom the producers should have offered recurring roles?

Opinions on removing this? - Bridge 08:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Non-cyclopedic. Removed it. -- Sulfur 11:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Background information: Ruth

There is a background information point stating:

Assuming that Kirk is 33 years old in this episode (he says his age is 34 in "The Deadly Years"), Ruth must have been quite a bit older than he when he met her. He says she "hasn't aged" and that it has been "fifteen years" since he's seen her. This means Kirk lied when he said he never gets involved with older women in "Miri".

Now, I don't know what the piece actually means to tell us, but I don't see how it can be correct. Could someone clarify what this piece is saying? *Jasper* 22:35, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

It means that if it is true that Ruth never aged and the image he saw of her was the age she was 15 year ago when Kirk was 18 that he was at that time dating an older woman. Either way it is completely irrelevant between the lines nittish and shouldn't be in the article anyway. --Alan 22:44, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Nittish, Unprovable (we are telling her age by looks only) and possibly just incorrect (it's not a stretch for Kirk to say that just as flattery). I removed it. *Jasper* 22:55, January 8, 2010 (UTC)