No female actorsEdit

In response to the following bit of background info:

This is the only episode of TOS in which no female actors appear. The Horta does qualify as a female character, but even it is performed by a man.

An anon stated:

Correction, there is a Human female yeoman in a red starfleet uniform on the bridge at the end of the episode.

I don't know which is correct, so I leave it here for discussion. So on with it! :P –From Andoria with Love 17:52, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I made the correction, I neglected to login when I made the addition. I just watched this episode last week; and the episode is an all male cast - until the end shot on the bridge. There, next to Captain Kirk - is a Brunette Human female yeoman in a red starfleet uniform. She is only on screen for the short scene, and is uncredited. –Gorn-Borg

Well, that being the case, I don't think we need to put the background info in there at all, do we? I mean, the original info suggested that "no female actors appear" in the episode. If that's not true, I don't think it's necessary to include the info at all. –From Andoria with Love 21:52, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's still a significant bit of trivia -- it may be the only episode in any Trek series in which no women have speaking roles. Can someone verify this? –Heath 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed comment Edit

This episode partially "corrects" what could be viewed as a "wrong" from "The Man Trap". The Horta and the Salt Vampire both acted on their survival instincts (for different reasons), but this time, the Horta survives in the end, mostly because it took a chance and tried to communicate with Kirk and Spock (the Salt Vampire did not). Regardless, Kirk's initial instinct was "shoot to kill," which says something about Starfleet training in the mid-23rd century. It also "deflates" Gene Roddenberry's basic presumption that in Star Trek, humans aren't so quick to kill.

I removed the [above] commentary from the background information, since A.) it's not background (i.e. production) information, and B.) is based on opinion and is basically nitpicking "The Man Trap", neither of which are permitted in the article. –From Andoria with Love 05:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Phasers Edit

  • Note the all black Phaser II used by the miners, once it was decided that Phaser I was ineffective against the Horta (a clear shot can be seen at approx. 24:30). While many other early episodes displayed the black Phaser II with a white handle, these phasers were all black, including the handle. It also appears that the attached Phaser I was designed slightly differently than the classic Black & Gray Phaser II also used in this episode. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt. Crunch (talk • contribs).
  • I'm not certain what is being stated here, but some clarification may be required if the entry is meant to indicate that there is more power with a phaser II rather than a phaser I. If this is merely an indication of the option between the units, I believe that Return of the Archons is the first episode where it is explicitly stated that the landing party equip phaser I side arms as they are more easily hidden. –Redknight 15:05, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

De Forest Research Edit

The trivia about de forest changing Gene Coon's original chemical substance to silicon needs verification. It is not in the book inside star trek. If it is in the video version, I cannot find the clip. The original outline says silicon. I think this tidbit is erroneous. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I also couldn't find it in the book, though it could be in there somewhere, as the book tends to jump around. I looked at all the refs from the index to "The Devil in the Dark" and "Kellam De Forest" with no luck. I've thus put an incite for now pending a citation. If someone can find it, please put a page number so others can verify. Thanks. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
That is in the video version. If you notice, Inside Star Trek: The Real Story is the book, Inside Star Trek - The Real Story is the video. So the second sourcing always refers to the film and not the book. Please do not confuse the two. Here's the video and the required information is from 33:41. –Ltarex, 17:26 20 August, 2012 (CET)

Thanks for the time-stamp; I was scrubbing through the video last night on an ipad but couldn't seem to find the clip. I still think De Forest's recollection in this case is incorrect. Coon's earliest story outline (November 29, 1966) indicates that the life-form is silicon-based. The De Forest research report held at UCLA (December 22, 1966 -- probably correcting the first draft teleplay from December 19, 1966; alas, not the report based on the story outline) has plenty of problems with the scripts use of this idea, too. I'll have to look at the other story lines and various teleplays to see how the idea evolved, though. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I spoke with Mr. de forest last week in Santa Barbara. He indicated to me that he would speak with writers before they had committed story ideas to paper. It seems, then, that he just remembered the details of the episode incorrectly in the video interview; Gene Coon must have consulted with him before going to story outline to get the proper scientific basis for the story. –Harvey On My Mind (talk) 20:26, October 22, 2012 (UTC)