Chekov and the Wrath of KhanEdit

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 7washroom 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. Barteltalk 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)


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 history. -- 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)
Still hard to reconcile. In the ENT episode, Carpenter Street, Archer and T'Pol visit Earth as it was in 2004. In that episode, no references appear to there having been a WWIII, despite the fact that the ST:ENT series expands at length on both the third World War and the Eugenics Wars. -- Josh 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Never was it stated that Michigan was affected by the Eugenics Wars...hence, it had no bearing on the plot of the episode. --Alan 23:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Err...come on dude. This sounds like you just made that up. The eugenics wars were an earth-wide phenomenon that went into the history books and really impacted earth history profoundly. Saying that it might not have affected Michigan seems almost like you are forcing the story line to make sense by making up stuff that is unsubstantiated by evidence/episodes. It's like saying maybe Chicago wasnt affected by World War II. Also note that the Voyager episode Future's End plays in circa 1996, and thus mid 1990s, but this time in California (Los Angeles) and in there, there is also no mention about any WWIII and eugenics wars having taken place. As a matter of fact, all mention about WWIII and eugenics wars is that it took place mid-late 21st century (TNG, ENT). – Distantlycharmed 03:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"it had no bearing on the plot of" "Carpenter Street". End of story. Nobody made that up. Same thing with "Future's End" bearing on the plot. And you're right, it's exactly "like saying maybe" fill in the blank "wasnt affected by World War II". Get this: an episode that takes place in Roswell just two years after WWII makes no mentions! Again, it had no bearing on the plot. Made-up fanboy apologism? Unforgivable writing hole? Disbelief too great to suspend? Err...come on lady. --TribbleFurSuit 05:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry man, i disagree. In this episode they talk about how the genetically enhanced people took over 40 nations etc. This would have an effect on at least the layout and backdrop. When Archer and T'Pol go to Michigan in mid 1990s - even though eugenics wars do not have an impact on the plot of that particular episode directly - there is no shown impact on society at all. Michigan doesnt look traumatized and as if they just a year ago had gone through their third world war. There is no indication of any of that there. The same thing in Future's End: it looks like Venice Beach still looks today - punks and characters of all sorts strolling around the beach; not like a society that just a year or 2 ago went through a world war that cost hundreds of millions of lives! A good story/script would have incorporated that into the backdrop at least to make the connection. Not an unforgivable writing hole, just an annoying one which I'm gonna pretend didnt happen.– Distantlycharmed 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
To throw in my own two cents, mostly from having read a lot of stuff on here – I am fairly certain that World War III and the Eugenics wars were mostly concentrated in the Eastern Hemisphere. Also, it seems fairly clear that the Western Hemisphere remained relatively untouched save for the nuclear warfare that occured just prior to Cochrane's launch. The United States of America at that time had the social problems like the Sanctuary Districts that populated cities like San Francisco. I mean look at our own time. Places like Iraq and Afghanistan are utterly decimated by war and yet the culture and look of the US is untouched. Fleurdelista 07:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Now who's making stuff up? First, the Michigan episode wasn't "mid 1990s", it was 2004. Second, let's just say WWIII did include battlegrounds or air raids in Detroit. That wouldn't be "their third world war", it would be their first. Some imagination. Telling somebody you think "you just made that up" when the perceived flaw isn't as big a deal to them as it is to you, and they're truthfully pointing out that it actually had nothing to do with the story anyway, is very close to uncivil. If you really are "gonna pretend it didnt happen", then you don't have anything to talk about, and certainly no reason to impugn anybody's integrity. --TribbleFurSuit 07:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
So fine it took place in 2004 - and not mid 1990s, my bad. But just the same. If records of that time are fragmented (as Spock states), then the impact of those wars most certainly was not confined to specific regions, leaving out the US. Records become unavailable when there is serious turmoil and chaos. Moreover, it still doesnt explain what we saw (or didnt see) in Future's End and numerous references in ENT and TNG about WWWIII taking place in the 21st century (2026 through 2053) and not in the 1990s, as this episode states. Spock says "the mid 1990s were the era of your last so-called world war". And McCoy supplements by saying "the eugenics wars". However, WWIII took place in the 21t century, which makes you wonder why Spock refers to this one as the last so-called world war, if in fact the world war took place in the 21st and not 20th century. Do you see the flaw here? Nothing uncivil about pointing that out. You dont go through a world war that killed hundreds of millions of people to the point of making records unavailable and then a year later scroll around Venice Beach in a mohawk like nothing happened. I dont really know what you mean with their first world war either. Who is they? Anyway with pretending that this didnt happen I mean I will not sweat it and let it bother me in terms of continuity by incessantly insisting that no matter how unsubstantiated, continuity is there. Generously filling in the gaps with my imagination to create continuity where by evidence there is none is called making stuff up. Filling in the gaps has to sort of follow from the plot, not be squeezed in painfully. I guess I simply acknowledge that every now and then we will run into little contradictions like that, and i dont see anything wrong with pointing that out. Doesnt take away anything from Star Trek being great in my book.– Distantlycharmed 08:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was that WWI and WWII definitely didn't happen at Detroit. "They" is Detroit. We don't even know whether the third (last?) world war was Detroit's first one, but it wouldn't have been their third one, which is what you said. --TribbleFurSuit 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't we all just pretend a little thing like the dating of what are by definition uncertain events (the records having been destroyed) doesn't matter? If anything I'd be much more concerned with the whole 2079 post atomic horror court mentioned in Encounter at Farpoint when this was after Cochrane's warp flight and things were supposed to have turned around.CleverAndKnowsIt 02:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Fun thing is that the German dubbed version changed 1996 to 2096. Apparently they knew that might be a problem, because 1996 was way too close to 1966.

Blooper NotationEdit

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)
I've removed the note about McCoy looking at the dropped phaser. I watched this scene repeatedly before deciding on removal, and at least in the DVD release, he never looks at the floor. He's watching the tool he's supposed to take from Kirk. If someone decides to put this notation back, they need to note what version of the episode they're seeing it in.Spider 20:16, 4 January 2007 (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 Edit

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 Edit

  • 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.

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

just a heads up, someone added that back in. --ACES HIGH 00:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And away it goes. Thanks for the heads up Aces. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed that reference again, as well as the following:
  • Although Lt. Kyle is wearing a blue coverall in the transporter room, stock footage of James Doohan's hands and red sleeves (with Lt. Commander rank stripes) are inserted as the crew is beamed to the sleeper ship.
  • As the Enterprise takes the Botany Bay in tow, you can faintly see the draped stand the models were resting on floating along in space with them.
  • As William Shatner rings the court bell at the end of the episode, DeForest Kelley looks as though he is about to break into the giggles.
  • Perhaps the most-noted blooper in TOS occurs when Shatner knocks his phaser off his belt while smashing the glass on Khan's hibernation unit. Deforest Kelley notices this, reaches for the displaced phaser, then decides to ignore it, seemingly unsure if the take was going to be kept or reshot. Perhaps it was cost and/or time prohibitive to reshot Shatner shattering the plate glass that led to the decision to keep this shot.
  • Another blooper: As Kirk turns to leave Khan'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 bulkier and has less hair.
Why are these references being removed? They are all perfectly valid and interesting? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

They are being removed because it was decided that an encyclopedia should be an encyclopedia, not a nitpicker's guide to the universe. See this forum for more. --From Andoria with Love 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Remastered TOS Edit

I just had an interesting Idea for the remastered TOS episodes, OK so you know this bit: {{TOS nav|season=1|last={{e|A Taste of Armageddon}}|next={{e|This Side of Paradise}}|lastair={{e|The Return of the Archons}}|nextair={{e|A Taste of Armageddon}}}}

what if we added another set of boxes with the previous and next episodes remastered --ACES HIGH 12:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Forum:Sins of omission?Edit

I was watching the remastered "Space Seed" this week. I know they've cut things out from time to time, but this time they cut out something that seemed to be a moment of character development. Not technobabble, or unnecessary pleasantries, but an insight into a personality. I have the DVD's of the first season. When Khan holds a knife to Bone's throat, the Doctor makes a remark about how Khan could best use it to kill him cutting the carotid artery. I had noticed it on the discs because it struck me as an insight into McCoy having a strong will with a slight suicidal bent. Does it seem that this omission is less about running time and more about "sanitizing" the content of the series? --JCoyote 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but the editing of the episodes is the main reason why the so-called "remastered" episodes are best swept under a rug... at least until they're released on DVD, in their entirety. --From Andoria with Love 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


This needs to be cited:

  • In the event that Leonard Nimoy had decided to leave the series in the second season, Blaisdell Makee was one of the actors on the list of possible replacements. {{incite}}

Before getting readded. --Alan 15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • When talking about the 1990s, Spock refers to the Eugenics Wars as 'the last so-called World War', neglecting that they happened before the Third World War.
  • It is the first time after "Where No Man Has Gone Before" when Kirk mentions to Spock the feeling of "irritation". In both episodes Spock did not recognise the word.
Removed the above as nitpicks.--31dot 23:44, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Kirk's Commondations Edit

I suggest removing or rewording the long paragraph describing the bridge suffocation scene. There is no reason to assume Kirk is only listing members of the bridge crew. There could easily have been crewmembers trying to help them from other parts of the ship. By the book 08:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC) By The Book (Nov. 20, 2008)

Joan Johnson Edit

Before I get into another Alex Revan/Ensign Krane debacle, can anyone confirm that someone named Joan Johnson was indeed in this episode? --LauraCC (talk) 19:53, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

McCoy's line Edit

Sickbay to lab. Anything new on those bios? This is according to chakoteya. If anyone has access to the script for this episode, is that what he really said to the tech? (just before Khan attacks him)? --LauraCC (talk) 16:34, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

  • The 12-13-66 draft says: "Sickbay to Lab. Anything negative on those bios?" Sir Rhosis (talk) 04:48, April 24, 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is he requesting here? Some nebulous medi-babble or biographical info on the augments or what? --LauraCC (talk) 17:55, April 24, 2016 (UTC)


Khan was originally the result of "Your attempt to improve the race through selective breeding." In Wrath of Khan he was "a product of late twentieth century genetic engineering."

"The mid 1990s was the era of your last so-called World War." Later this is called the Eugenics War. In First Contact WWIII is moved to the 2050s and "Doctor Bashir, I Presume?" states that the Eugenic Wars happened "two centuries ago" putting it (and WWIII) in the 22nd century. --BruceGrubb (talk) 14:26, July 28, 2017 (UTC)