Talk: Space Seed (episode)

1996?

How do we justify this date with our own history? --The Rev 17:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Trek history vs real life history. So not the same. There are a number of events covered in "historical" Trek episodes that have little (if anything) to do with real world hisory. -- Sulfur 17:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just like we deal with Chronowerx Industries or the Voth; accept that Trek is a fictional universe that resembles but is not exactly our own and move on. :) Aholland 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Chekov and the Wrath of Khan

Mister Chekov does not appear in this episode either, yet he is 'remembered' by Khan in the sequel movie. He and Sulu were probably off-duty when Khan was busy taking over the ship. OS-Trek 14:29, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Walter Koenig once said (I believe on the STII DVD?) that Chekov was in the washroom during the episode. ;) --IanWatson 01:26, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Considering also that "Space Seed" had a stardate which numerically comes after "Catspaw", i don't think its entirely unbelievable that he was assigned to the Enterprise before his first bridge appearance. We don't assume that Sulu wasn't on the ship because he wasn't on the bridge -- why make that assumption with Chekov? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 15:04, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It's simply something that should be noted in the Background section in my opinion. STII modifed the Chekov backstory, pushing his Enterprise tour date back to 2266 (by whomever decides this sort of thing as canon) in order to accomodate the change. Koenig wasn't signed on at the time Space Seed was filmed and this is an interesting anomoly. OS-Trek 17:08, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Though the thing to remember is that just because Koenig wasn't on at the time, that the character wasn't onboard. Chekov may have simply been a minor crewman at the time that Khan had seen on his visit (Of course, off-screen ;)). - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 22:18, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Blooper Notation

Someone has added a second, more minor, production inconsistency to the article. I had thought - perhaps erroneously - that bloopers and nitpicks and the like were not appropriate for articles. Am I wrong, or should that addition be pulled? Aholland 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I know nitpicks in regard to writing aren't appropriate... I'm not sure about bloopers, though. I would imagine they would be the same. --From Andoria with Love 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to pulling the nitpick/mistake/blooper notations? Aholland 02:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If its a straight observation of what happened, keep it... ("McCoy looked down at Kirk's dropped phaser" as opposed to "The producers made a huge mistake! you can see a dropped phaser" -- the latter is a nitpick to remove. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I had not intended to suggest removal of the dropped phaser note. Just the other one. Aholland 03:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if you could elaborate as to which one you mean. im not sure i ever knew which you are talking about. -- Captain M.K.B. 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The one that reads "Another blooper: As Kirk turns to leave Kahn's quarters and the door slides open, we see a security guard in the corridor. When the scene cuts to Kirk exiting into the corridor, the guard is played by another actor—Bobby Bass, who is huskier and has less hair." Aholland 05:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Security guards get replaced all the time -- this note seems extraneous. You are absolutely right.. good catch! -- Captain M.K.B. 17:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New background note

Someone recently added the following background note:

In Book 1 of Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan finds himself and the rebellious angels cast into the pit of hell and declares: "Here we may reign secure; and in my choice / To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell: / Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" (261-63).

Can whoever added it also add the connection to the episode, to make its relevance clear? Otherwise, I am not sure it belongs, and I think it should be removed. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct quote from the episode:

It's a shame for a good Scotsman to admit it, but I'm not up on Milton.

The statement Lucifer made when he fell into the pit.

"It is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven." --Jörg 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then the note should say something like "X person's line is a quote of this" or something, anything to make the connection to the epsisode, and not just have what looks like a random quote. --OuroborosCobra ^talk

16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Done! I've added some context to the background note, and put the Scotty & Kirk dialog in the Memorable Quotes section as well. --TommyRaiko 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming nitpick

The following was removed as per the Ten Forward discussion not to include nitpicks in articles. --From Andoria with Love 23:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency in planet nomenclature in this episode. Normally, Star Trek planets are named first with a Greek letter, then the name of the constellation that the planet is in, then the number, e.g. "Gamma Trianguli VI" and "Omicron Ceti III". But the planet to which Kirk exiles Khan is "Ceti Alpha V". By all rights, it should be "Alpha Ceti V". And indeed, this is how Vonda McIntyre refers to it in the novelization of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

just a heads up, someone added that back in. --ACES HIGH 00:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)