- MA files from this episode (22) • MA remastered files from this episode (30)
- Template:Titles/Assignment: Earth yields Assignment: Earth (TOS 2x26)
For general discussion on this episode, visit the TOS forum at The Trek BBS.
Cleanup Needed Edit
I'm all for thoroughness, but this episode summary is more detailed than if we just had the script. I was reading through it while the episode is on TV behind me, and there's so mch extra that I'm barely ahead of the TV. It's in need of some serious editing for conciseness, among other things.
4th Act Even Exist? Edit
As far as I can tell, all of the information provided is everything that happened in the episode when I watched it. The episode ends at act three. So, is there really an act 4 in this case, or is the informtion provided distributed wrongly through acts 1-3, leaving act 4 blank? In which case I'll gladly clarify what happened in each correctly corresponding act. I'm just not sure what has happened here.--Gravydude 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think the headers are wrong. we can probably remove them if they are problematic, and then do some research into how the episode script was actually structured. There should be a fourth act in an hour-long TV episode. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here is where each act ends:
- The Teaser ends when Gary Seven, holding Isis, materializes in the Enterprise transporter chamber
- Act I ends when Gary Seven escapes and beams off of the Enterprise.
- Act II ends when Gary Seven, using his own transporter, beams himself to the rocket base, and stands by the "roach coach" (food wagon), holding Isis, and stares up at the rocket onboard which is the warhead.
- Act III ends as Kirk and Spock, captive in the launch facility, watch as the rocket with the warhead blasts off.
- Act IV then covers the rest of the episode.Sir Rhosis 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not the outline that has the crew watching "Bonanza," it is in the actual first draft script, dated December 20, 1967. For a citation, put "The Star Trek Compendium," by Allan Asherman, 1981. I'd do it, but I'm not that proficient yet. Sir Rhosis 22:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Assignment: Earth - the seriesEdit
Was the proposed spin-off tv series also going to be called 'Assignment Earth'? If so, it should probably mention at the beginning of the article: 'Assignment: Earth is also the name of an undeveloped television spin-off of Star Trek'. Either that, or there should be a separate page for the undeveloped TV series, just as there are pages for other undeveloped Star Trek projects (Star Trek: IMAX, Star Trek: Planet of the Titans, etc.)Jayunderscorezero 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think that idea was attempted and ultimately failed. Since the series and this episode share the same name, such information could successfully be placed in the background, even as a sub-section, if necessary. --Alan del Beccio 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good to know. The reason I asked was because I was going to propose a category/template listing undeveloped star trek spin-offs and while it would make sense to link to the Phase II page, a link to a page about an episode might seem confusing. A sub-section of this page would sort that out, though.Jayunderscorezero 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Possible influences and odditiesEdit
There are a number of little touches in this episode that seem to be either up or downstream influences; anyone have anything to dispell/confirm any of these? -- Oliver Smith, 4/4/7
- I don't recall seeing a computer with a display like that Seven uses until Zen/Orac in Blakes 7.
- Was the cat perhaps chosen to give Seven a gold-fingerish (1964) aspect (and keep the viewer suspicious of him)? His office has a very Bond-like supervillain HQ feel.
- "Seven", The name? Seven (1968) bears something of a resemblance to  (1967) or is "Seven and Lincoln" some place special?
- The device/weapon Seven wields looks awfully like Dr Who's "sonic screwdriver". Assignment: Earth aired March 29 1968; the sonic screwdriver made its first appearance in an episode of [of the Deep]: between March 16th 1968 and April 20th.
- Until reading this article I didn't know for sure this episode was a spinoff trial, but I had a hunch. Between the format of Sevens office, his little pen-like device (sonic screw-driver?) and Teri Garr, it seemed awfully like a Doctor Who/Mission Impossible crossover (or perhaps Dr Who/U.N.C.L.E, hehe).
I put the wikipedia link back into the page for the NYPD because there is no Memory Alpha page for it. A question. Does it really matter on links like that if we use Memory Alpha links or use external links that might provide more information? Just curious for future reference. Thanks. --leandar
- The article for New York Police Department remains to be written, and when it is, there will be a link on that article to the Wikipedia article of the same name. A redirect from NYPD will also be created, which will fix the red link. Until then, the link should remain red as a flag that the article needs to be written. And to answer your larger question, one of the policies on MA is Don't use external links where we'll want Memory Alpha links. -- Renegade54 14:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to add that this page has been protected for a few days due to constant vandalism. Protection will be lifted tomorrow. --From Andoria with Love 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed quotes Edit
Coup in Asia Edit
In the "Story and Script" section it states that the coup in Asia did not pan out and that Iraq being the closest thing to it. I would like to note that technically Iraq is in Asia. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by C4g (talk • contribs).
- The whole coincidences comment should probably just be removed. Why is this episode treated any differently? — Morder (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Explanation missing Edit
In Section "Background Information," "Story and Script," penultimate paragraph assumes knowledge of who the f---- are Lucy and Ricky Ricardo by the reader. A brief explanation is in order, IMHO. Lacking such knowledge myself, I cannot fix it. --Leonard James Akaar 23:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the note as it is only speculation ("could well be"). It needs a source stating it was an intentional homage:
- The address of Gary Seven's headquarters isn't that far from the fictional address of Lucy and Ricky Ricardo, who also lived on East 68th Street in Manhattan. (Considering that Star Trek started out as a production of Desilu, the studio owned by I Love Lucy stars Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, this could well be an intentional homage.) 811 East 68th Street doesn't exist in Manhattan in our reality as the street ends just short of what would be 600 E. 68th and the East River. There is a separate, unrelated and unconnected 800 block of East 68th Street in the Bay Ridge area of Brooklyn, well south of the southern tip of Manhattan Island.
- Thanks. As for the note itself, I guess its inclusion here on the talk page is sufficient. --Leonard James Akaar 01:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed notes Edit
Per MA:NIT, we don't make comparisons to reality. As such, I have moved the following two comments here.
Additionally, Spock's claim that the major superpowers, as a result of the events of this episode, would eventually sign a treaty banning the use of orbital weapons systems did also eventually come true, although not until 1979, with the signing of the SALT II agreement.
There is no 811 East 68th street in New York City, the borough of Manhattan, where the skyline indicates this part of the story occurs. 811 East 68th would be somewhere in the East River. In the scene where Gary Seven peers outside the window, there are clearly grates at the sidewalk level, normally used as subway tunnel vents (this would be the same IRT line as the 4-5-6 trains of "Pelham 1 2 3" fame.) This would be consistent with a view towards Lexington Avenue. In fact 811 Lexington Avenue is a valid address in New York City and would be found near the intersection of Lex and 63rd street. The only problem is the traffic runs in the wrong direction from Gary's window vantage point.--31dot 22:17, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
Languages and Orbital View Edit
Durng the emergency when the warhead is descending into earth's atmospher, there is a very clear view of some landscape and coastal region (probably the Middle East)? Also we hear several languages on the radio as military powers go to alert status. Figuring out what region that was as well as what languages were spoken would be very helpful and open up the door to everal new articles. -FC 14:31, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
Mission Control Announcer Edit
James Doohan is listed uncredited as the Mission Control announcer.
The announcer sounds an awful lot like Bart LaRue. Could this be another voice part mistakenly attributed to Doohan?
188.8.131.52 02:55, January 27, 2010 (UTC)shideg
Removed speculation Edit
I removed the following as complete speculation (some based on non-canon sources):
- Gary comments, upon seeing Mr. Spock, about Vulcans and Humans have not yet met. It is possible, he knows of the events to transpire ninety-five years from now, (in the "correct" timeline, assuming he knew little or nothing of what happend eleven years ago). As well as his agency having Vulcanoid members (in Assignment: Eternity), Gary therefore would be tolerant to a neck pinch.
Would it be reasonable to have a page for "348" (under "Fictional characters"), the "agent" Roberta speculates 347 is with? She doesn't necessarily know that 347 and therefore a possible 348 are individuals, and judging by Seven's reaction, "Two oh one, code responses are not necessary." 348 may not be an actual assigned designation for any of the agents existing. The question is whether either of them think of this term as representing a person. --LauraCC (talk) 17:00, November 26, 2016 (UTC)
- It's more complicated still : if Seven interpreted it as her mentioning an actual agent, then it doesn't belong under fictional characters.
- Given that Roberta didn't think of "348" as a person, just as an actual number to offer in response to a puzzling mention of another number, and we can basically only guess if Gary thought of it as an (actual) person, I'd say we have nothing concrete to base an entry on and my answer to your question would be no. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:42, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
He considered it a code, seeming confused by her response (which he wouldn't have been if it was a person, unless that person wasn't supposed to be there at the time) and she considered it a meaningless number. Understood. Thanks for answering. --LauraCC (talk) 18:45, December 1, 2016 (UTC)