Dear Chief--

First let me say that I like the new format. I didn't think I would, but it turns out I like the immediate gratification. (Note from Phil: I think it's kinda cool as well! ;-)

On to the show. This episode runs smack into a point you made in the guide--they made TV differenctly back then. I found all the scenes on the planet very odd. All of the closeups looked as though they were made for a different episodes; i.e., what the heck were they looking at? Kirk's et al expressions never synced with the medium shot's action.

Contrary to popular belief, the Germans never really had a chance to develop the A-Bomb. They had abandoned their experiments by the early 40's. Plus, since the alternate America is posited to be a bunch of peace-lovers, I would assume even more atomic scientists would move to the US.

My comments today are specifically about the Sci-Fi Channel presentation. I mention that because I was impressed that SFC was brave enough to have Harlan Ellison talk about TCOTEOF. Now that I've read his original teleplay, I'm amazed at the difference in the two. Roddenberry and Gene Coon must have written all the scenes on the planet, plus the "rice picker" scene.

I've never understood what killed the guy who stole McCoy's phaser. It makes the overload sound, but the man vaporizes as though hit with a phaser blast. Phasers on overload explode. This is another Roddenberry scene; he should have known better.

McCoy's seems to recover from his overdose just by riding it out. Why then does Kirk suggest they take the risky step of going back in time to stop him from OD'ing? You don't need a pardox, just restraints for MCCoy!

How exactly was Spock's tricorder able to get copies of the newspaper articles? Here's the time line: Spock records the images in the guardian. McCoy jumps through portal; images stop. Guardian starts up again; Spock starts recording (and playing back, I guess, since he knows when to jump). K&S jump through, end up in 1930. In both cases, images from the Guardian stop before they get to Joan Collin's "future" (her death or her meeting with FDR, plus the alternate Nazi earth). So where did Spock get all this information?

By Todd M. Pence on Wednesday, October 14, 1998 - 05:40 pm:

The question about this episode that nags at me is this one: How did Edith Keeler die in the original, unaltered timeline before McCoy came to muck things up - the timeline where none of the Enterprise men were present?
Keep this in mind as you watch the death scene of Edith as it is presented to us in this episode. First off, Edith is out on a date with Kirk! If Kirk had never existed in this time, would Edith have gone to the movie? Maybe, (after all remember she's a big Clark Gable fan), but look at what happens. Kirk and Edith SAFELY cross the street together. At this point, Edith mentions McCoy, which causes Kirk to flip out and run BACK across the street, telling Edith to stay put. At this point, Edith is naturally curious as to what is going on. She sees the three futuremen having a reunion on the other side of the street and HER ATTENTION IS DISTRACTED BY IT. This is what causes her to fail to notice the car bearing down on her. Without the presence of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, there is no reason for Edith not to pay attention to oncoming traffic or to recross a street she has already crossed safely. So how exactly did the original accident take place?

By Anonymous on Sunday, October 18, 1998 - 09:18 pm:

Also, why the heck didn't the car stop?
Couldn't the driver see her crossing the road.

Anyway, what is the perfect solution to
Kirk's dillema about whether or not
to let Edith die : BRING HER BACK TO
THE FUTURE WITH HIM. The timeline is
safe and Kirk has the woman.

By Murray Leeder on Sunday, October 18, 1998 - 11:20 pm:

I don't imagine the Guardian would allow Kirk to bring Edith back with him.

By Joe Griffin on Monday, October 19, 1998 - 11:29 am:

>How did Edith Keeler die in the original, unaltered timeline?>
This is where time travel stories really get hairy. Edith probably got hit by a car in the original timeline, for an entirely different set of reasons. She could've been crossing an entirely different street--she wouldn't have been on a date with Kirk. Or, she could've been on a date with someone she would have met in that timeline had Kirk not come along.
Or, (and this is what I consider most likely) there was never a timeline where Kirk and McCoy weren't there.
See also:
"Weren't those a gift from Dr. McCoy?"
"Yes, and they will be again; that's the beauty of it."
The glasses in question (from ST 3 and 4) were located by Dr. McCoy because they were in the antique shop where Kirk sold them, and Kirk was able to sell them in the antique shop because McCoy had given them to him. Within this time stream there is only Kirk selling the glasses and McCoy buying them. The time travel is integral to the events associated with the time travel.

>Also, why the heck didn't the car stop?
Couldn't the driver see her crossing the road. >

Perhaps the car was going too fast to stop in time. Perhaps the driver had his attention focused elsewhere and didn't actually see her. Perhaps he was talking on his cellphone like all the other morons who get into otherwise avoidable car wrecks. Things like this happen way too frequently for this to be considered a nit.

By Todd M. Pence on Sunday, October 25, 1998 - 03:45 am:

Here's another puzzler: If the Enterprise never existed in the time-line after McCoy changed history, by what conveyance did the landing party on the guardian's planet use to get there?

This is the first of eight original series episodes in which no stardate is given during the episode. However, it is also one of three of these episodes in which the Paramount video box, as well as other external sources, assigns a stardate (in this case 3134).

By Jack B. on Sunday, October 25, 1998 - 06:35 pm:

The away team is on the planet because there is a little "bubble" around the Gaurdian that protects all within from changes in history.

I'm not sure where I heard this, I just picked it up somewhere. It may not be cannon, but it makes sense.

By D.K. Henderson on Friday, November 06, 1998 - 06:31 am:

Personally, I think that if Harlan Ellison had not written the episode, and had only seen what showed on T.V, he would have thought it pretty darn good. (With the possible exception of the rice picker.) I haven't had the chance to read his original script, but I have read discussions about it and I understand that he used some premises which were unacceptable to Roddenberry's Star Trek universe. I have no doubt that Ellison's script would have been marvelous for a movie, but this was a one-hour show with a definite set of limitations.
Get over it, Harlan!

By Murray Leeder on Friday, November 06, 1998 - 08:52 am:

I agree. I have my problems with Ellison's script too. For instance, the scene of them beaming back to the Enterprise to find it's a pilot ship is unnecessary. First off, it's temporally improbable (why would the pirate ship be right there?). Also, I personal find it scaried to imagine being trapped on a planet with no way of escape than being trapped on a planet with cartoonish pirates upstairs. But still, he stubbornly holds onto the notion that his script was 100% better.

By Chris Franz on Friday, November 06, 1998 - 02:30 pm:

According to Ellison, the pirate ship was put in because Rodenberry told him that NBC insisted that they show the ship, and that it should be in danger.

I have read Ellison's script, and think that his IS better. In case anyone out there doesn't know, Ellison had Edith crossing the street as the truck was barreling down. Beckwith (the bad guy) starts to try to save Edith. Kirk, even though he knows it will change history, does nothing to stop Beckwith from saving Edith. It is Spock who stops Beckwith from saving Edith.

When I first heard about that I didn't like it. However after thinking about it, it made much more sense. Kirk ALWAYS looked for another way out. Spock was the logical one. In fact Harlen Ellison basically was doing Star Trek II 20 years early (remember, "The needs of the many outway the needs of the few, or the one).

I really wish that the original script could have been made. That being said, I still really like the version that was ultimately filmed. It's a very moving story.

By Adam Howarter on Friday, November 06, 1998 - 09:33 pm:

I like the shown version better too. I think Ellison is overthinking this one.
As for the question of how did she die originally? The answer is simple, she walked out in front of a car trying to get to Kirk. Thats the way it was suppose to happen. Kirk was suppose to go back in time and get her killed. He didn't save history, he fullfilled it.

By Chris Thomas on Saturday, November 07, 1998 - 12:39 am:

Point for Joe: there were no cellphones in 1930.

By Chris Thomas on Saturday, November 07, 1998 - 12:42 am:

By the way, I love the rice picker accident scene. I cack my pants every time I see it.
It's those touches of humour that have lingered on throughout the franchises and have helped to make it cover so many different styles.

By Paul T. on Monday, November 09, 1998 - 07:53 am:

I have a nit that is not mentioned in Phil's book. There is a scene in the middle of the episode, I belive just after kirk picks up Edith for their date, which shows a long shot of a building (probably Edith Keeler's apartment building)Look down at the corner of your TV screen and you can see a "fallout shelter" sign on the building. --Way before the A-Bomb was invented--

By Joe Griffin on Monday, November 09, 1998 - 12:39 pm:

Chris Thomas wrote:
>>>
Point for Joe: there were no cellphones in 1930.
>>>

Of course not. Call it hyperbole or _reductio ad absurdum_, I was sure I had made my point by that time, and engaged in a little light-hearted humor (Not to mention a little soapboxing).

By Chris Thomas on Tuesday, November 10, 1998 - 03:18 am:

Paul, surely the fallout shelter sign could simply mean it's a bomb shelter, protecting against the fallout from a normal bomb?

By Scott N on Tuesday, November 10, 1998 - 11:51 am:

Normal bombs don't have fallout! Also the radiation symbol didn't exist in 1930.

By Todd M. Pence on Tuesday, November 10, 1998 - 01:24 pm:

I don't know that Edith Keeler being killed while trying to get to Kirk is the way things were "originally" supposed to happen. If that's true, then how did McCoy ever change that history?

By Chris Thomas on Wednesday, November 11, 1998 - 01:21 am:

I'll concede the radiation symbol point but when bombs destroy buildings and all the rubble flies everywhere that could be considered fallout. The word fallout does not necessarily mean radioactive fallout.

By Paul T. on Thursday, November 12, 1998 - 08:31 am:

Sorry Chris, nice try. The fallout shelter sign means that the building has a shelter reserved inside in the event of a nuclear strike. They mean NUCLEAR RADIATION when they say "fallout". The signs were not invented until the early 1950's. When the scene in the episode was filmed it was probably done in a movie studio lot and some one neglected to notice the fallout shelter sign.

By Chris Thomas on Thursday, November 12, 1998 - 08:34 am:

I'll concede everything but just wanted to make the point fallout doesn't *always* refer to nuclear fallout. You know, it could be used in the context "Fallout from the Lewinsky scandal continues for Bill Clinton"

By Mf on Tuesday, November 24, 1998 - 02:10 pm:

Chris, that use of "fallout" is a modern linguistic extension of the radiation phenomenon.

As for how Edith was "supposed" to die, there are two strains of thought:
1. Timelines can be changed.
(a) and then everything changes.
(b) and only a few things change.
(c) and an alternate universe is created.

or

2. (my choice) Timelines cannot be changed (without the whole fabric of the universe unravelling, like changing only one side of an equation.) This theory is akin to predestination - Edith died "the first" time because she was walking back toward Captain Kirk. At the very begining of the episode, or 30 years earlier, or 200 years, there could have been a photo in an old newspaper with Kirk in the background. So when Kirk "later" goes into the past he is filling the role the "earlier" Kirk filled. It's an inescapable circle. It's supposed to happen that way, and simply cannot be changed.

By Chris Thomas on Wednesday, November 25, 1998 - 02:23 am:

If it's so modern how come World War I soldiers took cover from fallout in the trenches before there were atomic bombs?

By Johnny Veitch on Sunday, December 13, 1998 - 07:16 am:

At the beginning of the episode, Uhura wears this band on her sleeve just above her Lieutenant band-insignia. This band is not in any other episodes.

By Gordon Lawyer on Tuesday, December 15, 1998 - 10:17 am:

Does anyone REALLY think that Keeler's group could have prevented the US from entering WWII? One has to realize the impact of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese at the time showed that they were a big threat. When Congress voted on entering, there was just one dissenting vote. ONE! I think FDR would have realized that trying to stay out was not a realistic option anymore.

By Mf on Tuesday, December 15, 1998 - 10:56 am:

FDR never wanted to stay out. We were secretly in (supplies & arms) long before Pearl Harbor. But I have no desire to engage in a historical debate here. The issue is the story. Which is among the very best in all of filmed fiction, science or otherwise.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, December 22, 1998 - 02:46 pm:

It seems to me that Kirk displayed much more grief over the demise of Rayna than he did over the death of Edith Keeler.

By Kail on Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 12:21 pm:

I've read Harlan Ellison's book and he sure knows how to carry a grudge. Most of his book was pure venom. Anyway, I liked his script very much, but to me, the characters just didn't ring true. Our heroes just weren't themselves. The rewrite had to be done to make it 'Trek'. Truely one of the best Trek's ever.

By Mike Konzczewski on Saturday, February 27, 1999 - 08:16 pm:

Kail--I think you'd hold a grudge if people (Roddenberry, Shatner, etc.) continually told lies about you. For example, I had heard Roddenberry's "Scotty selling drugs" story for years. Since you've read the script, you know that's a bald-faced lie; Scotty never even appears in screenplay.

As to not ringing true, the characters don't ring right to you today because you're used to seeing them portrayed in the fashion dictated by Roddenberry. Had other writers been allowed to to develop the characters their way, you wouldn't know the difference.

Oh, and a b-board hint; if you post a message and get "Internal Server Error", you don't need to re-post. Reporting will only give you two entries.

By Chris Ashley on Sunday, February 28, 1999 - 02:18 pm:

So where can I find the original script to this thing (legally, preferably)? I'm not sure if I'd mail-order it, but is there a fan site someplace that has it posted?

By Kail on Thursday, January 07, 1999 - 03:23 pm:

Mike- Interesting point, this was early in the series and the characters COULD have developed in other ways then what they eventually did. But I still say Ellisons script could not have been filmed as written. It was up to Roddenberry to maintain character continuity, it's the producers job, not the writers. You can't have the leads act one way one week and another the next. Ellison may have legitimate grips with Roddenberry, but the essay's in his book are WAY over the top. It reads as bitter, and twisted.

Chris- Harlan Ellisons original script for this episode, plus his vitrol, are still available in most bookstores under the title "City on the Edge of Forever- the original teleplay"

By Mike Konczewski on Sunday, February 28, 1999 - 03:33 pm:

Kail--it is bitter, for the reasons I stated. I think Ellison has every right to be bitter. I disagree with the "twisted" statement. Ellison lists a number of instances where others twisted their statements to fit their views, not the facts. For example, Shatner's auto"biography", Roddenberry's oft-told tales, and Joan Collins' so-called memoirs.

I know I wasn't there, but I don't have to have been. Ellison presents authenticated facts vs. the hearsay of others.

I think you're also looking at the script from the point of view of the series, not the plot. It's irrelevant whether or not the characters portrayed in the script fit with the rest of the series. What's important is how they fit with the story of TCOTEF.

By Kail on Monday, March 01, 1999 - 12:23 am:

Ahhhh Mike! This is where your wrong. You MUST look at the script from the point of view of a series, because thats what he was paid to write. I've already stated that I liked his script, and the plot, and I'm sure it could have been great on an anthology show, like Outer Limits, or Twilight Zone, ect. But the nature of episodic television, at least in the 60's, requires that the leads remain consistant. TCOTEOF might have even been fleshed out into a GREAT novella, but it ain't Trek, which is what he was paid to write.

As far as Ellison's book, I don't doubt any of what he said. I believe it all. But I also believe that over the last 30 years the man has become twisted with hate. You can't read the book and not come away with the feeling that the man is both brilliant, and eccentric. I found it paradoxal that a man of such intelligence would spend so much of the book stooping to level of name calling. He should of titled the book "Gene Roddenberry: Why I hate that F******, no good, dirty, son-of-a-*****. I will admit though, he can be pretty funny. I've never heard more colorful cursing ("Gene Roddenberry couldn't write worth sour owl droppings") But it just goes on and on and on........

I was very happy to be able to finally read the original teleplay though, after hearing about it for so many years.

By MikeC on Saturday, January 16, 1999 - 04:11 pm:

GUEST STAR PATROL
Joan Collins (Keeler), I'm sure we all know as Alexis on "Dynasty". She also was the evil Siren on "Batman".

By MikeC on Saturday, February 06, 1999 - 07:26 am:

This is one of the few Classic Trek episodes I've seen (got it for free in a box with Judgment Rites game), and it is indeed one of the best. The climax is so powerful that one tends to forget the light humor in the beginning. The only complaint I really had with it was minor. The bum who stole McCoy's phaser, what exactly was he in the show for?

By Shane Tourtellotte on Saturday, February 06, 1999 - 08:17 pm:

I believe the bum was a holdover frm Ellison's original script. (Now we can start all *that* over again!) BTW, in the scene with McCoy and the bum, notice the ring on McCoy's left pinky. Did DeForest Kelley forget to take that off when he came in to work that day?

By Kail on Sunday, February 14, 1999 - 01:01 pm:

Yes, the bum played a rather large part in the original script.

By Todd M. Pence on Monday, February 15, 1999 - 07:49 am:

According to an article I read once in one of the old Trek magazine collections, the bum was actually Gene Roddenberry's father, and this explains why Star Trek the TV show never came about in the Star Trek universe!

By Charles Cabe (Ccabe) on Monday, February 15, 1999 - 09:25 am:

But, it did! Cochrane mentioned a show called "Star Trek". Although, It could have came much latter in the Star Trek Universe (possibly as late as 2030); and it could be totaly diffrent.

By Mike Konczewski on Monday, February 15, 1999 - 02:12 pm:

CCabe--if you're referring to Cochrane's comment about "star trek" in ST:FC, he was not talking about a TV show. He was describing what Picard & Co. do ("You mean you're on some sort of a star trek?").

By Jeff on Tuesday, February 16, 1999 - 07:13 pm:

Oh yes, the Bum. I think Ellison was using randomness and Social Darwinism to illustrate that some people's time lines are more important than others'. Not too nice a message, but it does get rid of the radical element of a 23rd century phaser discovered in the 1930's.

By Tim Brace on Thursday, February 18, 1999 - 02:33 am:

Here's my biggest pet peeve, as I wrote to Phil and Paramount previously:

Because of what I assume are copyright or similar problems, the home video version of this episode of the Star Trek original series has been re-edited with different music, specifically changing all sections where the theme from "Good Night, Sweetheart" is included, and replacing it with something else.

While this might seem to be insignificant in most cases, "City on the Edge of Forever" is generally considered the best Star Trek original series episode, as well as having been voted one of the top 100 episodes of ANY series by TV Guide.

Further, the music of this episode is integral to the story, as the lines of the music "Goodnight, Sweetheart" are a direct reference to the fact that the heroine will die at the end.

While many do not consider television to be art, such well-done work as this should be treated as such and not be altered. It is very sad for it to be sold in such a drastically-altered form. I did not realize that was the case when I bought my laserdisc version, and I am not content with a poor quality taped-from-tv version of it.

I urge people to write Paramount Home Video to do whatever it can to obtain the rights to use the original music in a home video version of this episode. It is the only right thing to do in respect for the artists who created it.

By Mike Konczewski on Thursday, February 18, 1999 - 07:38 am:

Jeff--in the original teleplay, the bum was a WWI vet now homeless and forgotten. He sacrificed his life to save Kirk's when the captain was shot at by the bad guy. Ellison wanted this sad character to be someone who's been forgotten by society, but his actions helped save the universe.

By the time of Roddenberry's rewrite, the bum had become a throwaway sounding board for McCoy's ravings.

By Iain Dmitrienko on Wednesday, March 03, 1999 - 06:26 pm:

Production Problem:

When Spock and Kirk "arrive" in the 1930s town, they appear out of thin air, and look like they've come through a hidden doorway.

McCoy, however, "appears", and then takes a running leap. It looks like he should have been "faded in" a semi-second later than he was.

Anyone agree?

By Iain Dmitrienko on Wednesday, March 03, 1999 - 06:29 pm:

Oh yeah, one more thing:

If anyone ever gets a hold of the PHOTONOVEL of this episode, look at the part where Kirk shouts for Spock (after finding that McCoy is there). Spock runs up, and says, "What it is, Jim?"

This is a typo, but it sure sounds "hip". (grin)

By Jeff on Friday, March 05, 1999 - 03:31 am:

Thanks Mike. From the sound of it, I like Ellison's plot a lot more. My problem is now squarely directed at Roddenberry.

By Nat Hefferman on Wednesday, March 10, 1999 - 02:08 pm:

Another bit which I found interesting: when Kirk and Edith are taking a walk, Kirk points out a star in the sky. He mentions a novelist who will be born in the future on a planet orbiting that star, whose books will contain the theme "Let me help" as being even more important words than "I love you". Is this from Ellison's script? If not, this seems an odd bit of detail that never really came up again in the series.

By mf on Monday, March 15, 1999 - 01:40 pm:

True . . . but I think I like it.

Besides, it fits in nicely with Federation ideals.

By Todd Pence on Thursday, April 01, 1999 - 06:10 pm:

I can think of one reason why Ellison's script couldn't be filmed . . . mainly, IT'S TOO LONG! I've tried reading it out while pacing it in real time and it seems to me that it would take at least an hour and a half, if not more, of TV time to show. It also would be very expensive to do all the things that Ellison described. This had to be a major problem which led to Roddenberry and Coon's revisions. Of course, the version of Ellison's script I'm reading is from the Roger Elwood anthology, and I understand there are some differences between this one and the one that appears in his recently-published book.
As to the relative quality of the two scripts: There are some very good scenes and lines of dialogue that I'm sorry didn't make it onto screen, particularly the tag scene with Kirk and Spock in Kirk's cabin (which thankfully does survive in the James Blish novelization). However, there are also some very corny and bad lines of dialogue in Ellison's script that I'm thankful did not make it onto screen!

By Johnny Veitch on Saturday, April 03, 1999 - 07:16 am:

It`s FOTONOVEL. Or were you worried about copyright?

By Gordon Lawyer on Saturday, April 03, 1999 - 09:10 am:

Ehm....What's FOTONOVEL? It's not in the nitpicker's glossary.

By Todd Pence on Saturday, April 03, 1999 - 05:57 pm:

A Fotonovel was a minor publishing fad which surfaced in the late 1970's. It consisted of using full-color photographic stills from a popular movie or TV show to present the story in comic-book form. Several episodes of the original Star Trek series were done in this manner, as well as (I believe) the first motion picture. However, the format proved way too expensive to produce, so the phenomenom died out quickly. Several more original series photonovels were planned, but never emerged.

By Mike Konczewski on Monday, April 05, 1999 - 07:30 am:

They are (or were) very popular in Italy, where they were known as fumetti.

By BrianB on Wednesday, April 07, 1999 - 12:15 am:

After reading the above nits spanning six months, here's my chance to add a few rocks to the throwing.
In Shatner's tv memories book on this episode, in his interviews with the surviving behind-the-scenes people; Herb Solow, Robert Justman, et al, they said that if the show hadn't be rewritten, there was no way the show could've been produced. They could "only afford 7 extras, no more", not the 1,000 people Ellison had chasing our heros. And so on. Hey Harlan, if your story is that great (I'm sure it is through a different prism), why don't you spend your energy on making it your own motion picture instead of the considerable amount you've spent on bittermess. Even Denise Crosby et al made a Star Trek documentery. So you know what you can do with your award.
* * *
I have a few probems with Edith Keeler's death: When Jim & Co. have a group hug and Edith crosses the street, Jim reacts, and pauses, and keeps pausing, and she's still crossing. What was she crossing, a freeway? Jim's hammy reaction should've tipped off Edith that she just stepped into danger. Why didn't the driver come out to help? Did he have a heart attack behind the wheel? Or was the Guardian the "pilot"? Does anyone find it strange that Kirk didn't get hit by any cars? Put Kirk and cars on the same set, and Kirk invariably just avoids getting hit. Just as it was when he first escorted Edith across the street. Not to mention Star Trek IV.

By Mike Konczewski on Wednesday, April 07, 1999 - 08:52 am:

BrianB--

If you'd take the trouble to read the original script, you'll see that there weren't "1000s" of extras, but actually about the same number as were in the final story. The only major addition was the guest star character (I forget his name, but he's the reason K&S go to the planet).

Ellison rewrote the script several times to meet other budgetary constraints, like the appearance of the Guardian. His complaint is the change to the ending. In the original story, Kirk tries to save Keeler, because he loved her enough to lose the world he knew. Shatner and Roddenberry wouldn't allow the Kirk character to look "weak" (their words), and rewrote the ending.

Ellison hasn't spent any money on this "vendetta." If anything, he's made money. He's a writer, and everytime he writes something about the making of "City", he gets paid. Money was never the issue; creative control was.

As to the nit about Keeler being hit by a car, I know it looks strange, but it happens all the time. Margaret Mitchell, author of "Gone with the Wind", died in that fashion.

Finally, posting challenges to Ellison on the internet is a foolish waste of time. He doesn't use the net.

By Johnny Veitch on Thursday, April 08, 1999 - 12:57 pm:

When Kirk and Edith Keeler leave the 21st street mission (I don`t think that`s the name of the building as such, but it was all I could think of to describe it) Kirk stops a car right in front of them. That`s how the original car accident happened! The other time was just coincidence.

By Keith Alan Morgan on Friday, April 16, 1999 - 06:56 am:

If this cordrasine is such "tricky stuff", then why does the hypo contain so much of the stuff? Wouldn't it make more sense to have smaller doses of the stuff to be used in an emergency, that way someone couldn't overdose on it?

How does Spock, at his station on the Bridge, know that the transporter coordinates were set for the center of the disturbances?

When Spock asks what rate of payment they will receive, he gives as an explanation his 'hobby.' I wondered why Edith Keeler did not comment on why two out of work guys would waste their money on a hobby instead of food, clothing, lodging, etc., but then she is a bit of a dreamer herself and might have assumed that this 'hobby' might pay off for them someday. (Not unlike some parents of would be writers, artists, painters, actors, etc., etc.)

McCoy is talking in the mission, then it is shown that Spock is in the kitchen. With his ears why didn't Spock hear McCoy's voice?

The last couple of times I watched this episode, I cracked up when they showed this scene. Edith Keeler is talking to McCoy, but each shot only features one of the actors at a time. When they film Joan Collins, they have clearly put some gauze over the camera lens, so that she looks beautiful and everything else is fuzzy and out of focus, but they filmed DeForest Kelley without any kind of filter so all of his wrinkles and creases are clearly in focus and you can see what is behind him. This description doesn't do this scene justice, but to watch the camera switch from one to the other with the focus becoming sharp then blurry, sharp then blurry, sharp then blurry, I just cracked up, it looked so ridiculous.

They return to the present and the Guardian says, "All is as it was before." Oh, really? When McCoy went back in time a bum took his phaser and vaporized himself. Are we supposed to believe that the bum always vaporized himself? (Well, I suppose the milk he was stealing could have been tainted and he died, but still, things are not exactly like they were.)

Edith Keeler's pacifist ways are considered ahead of their time. I wonder if that's why the writer had her work at the Twenty-first Street Mission? (21st Century.)

By MattS on Thursday, May 13, 1999 - 01:14 pm:

Just wanted to add one more nit to the lot:

Scott and Uhura are in the landing party for no good reason.

As far as the Roddenberry/Ellison peeing contest, I wish only to add that it is not necessary to take one side or the other. It is very possible that they were both arrogant s.o.b.'s. This doesn't mean that the original script wasn't great; and it doesn't mean the finished episode wasn't great. They did what they could with their limited resources shooting the show. "Inside Star Trek" by Solow and Justman has a reliable account of this whole story, if anybody is interested.

By Todd Pence on Thursday, May 13, 1999 - 01:25 pm:

Is there any reason why they can't use ship's sensors to locate McCoy? (Aside from the fact that then it would only be a five-minute show) He is, after all, the only life-form on the planet.

By MikeC on Tuesday, June 08, 1999 - 06:52 pm:

After reading "Captain's Logs", the book featuring recollections about the episodes from the crew and cast, I notice that in the section about "City", these little tidbits crop up.

HARLAN ELLISON: Thought Gene Roddenberry had lied to him about rewrites on his script. Realized that Gene was under budget pressures. Not happy. Eventually buried the hatchet with Roddenberry. Says that the TV version is 1/20 of the original thing.

GENE RODDENBERRY: Says that Ellison wrote a way overbudget story, refusing to cut back on his effects. Says that his rewrite won Ellison the Nebula Award.

GLEN LARSON (friend of Trek producer Gene L. Coon): Says that Gene Coon did the rewrite, not Roddenberry. Coon had stated that Ellison wrote a good plot, but he could not rewrite a script for television. Coon was very pained that Ellison won the award for the rewrite.

JOSEPH PEVNEY (Director of the show): Harlan had a great sense of truth, he says, and it was a well conceived and written show, but Harlan had no sense of theater. The script missed badly in the dramatic moments.

So, who is right? Nobody knows...

By George H. Daley Jr. on Friday, December 24, 1999 - 01:47 am:

Since many others have voiced their opinions on the issue I will do so as well. That is what we're here for after all.

Both versions (Trek and Ellison's original) were well crafted stories and very good in their own right. I've enjoyed them both. In fact, I like Ellison's ending better, probably because it's what I would've done. However, it would have been out of character for Kirk.

Ellison's version could NOT have been done on the show's budget. And he HAS been bitter and twisted over this whole thing for far too long. He's taken every opportunity possible over the past 30+ years to spew venom at all parties involved. The guy has to let it go and say. "They did me wrong. I know it and they know it, but it's over and done." This constant, obsessive whining makes him look like a fool.

By Anthony on Saturday, January 08, 2000 - 12:21 pm:

In response to Todd M. Pence, the theory in the article in the old "Trek" collection was not that the bum was Gene Roddenberry's father. The article suggested that the bum had a son whose life was ruined by his father's death, and that some years later the bum's son, while on a drinking binge or something, struck and killed Roddenberry with his car while Roddenberry was serving as a police officer.

By Shira Karp on Wednesday, May 24, 2000 - 01:21 pm:

I will start this thread here and continue it throughout several incarnations of Star Trek.

TIME TRAVEL AND HYGEINE!!!!

Anyone who has toured Shakespeare's Globe theater or has been treated to another description of hygeine 300-400 years ago will wince supportively when I say that life back then was (in a word) DISGUSTING!!! The usual cycle of the dinner dishes was as follows: take out of cupboard, use to eat off of, whisk off with a bundle of grass, let the dog lick "clean," put back in cupboard to re-use. People didn't wash their hands enough, municipal sanitation was non-existent, etc.

300-400 years from now, people will probably be wincing in the same way about our current standards of hygeine. Given that Kirk knows what a movie is and can operate a stick-shift car on his first try, he should know better than to eat processed meat in this filthy era. He has no idea what went into that bologna he's eating!

Where did McCoy pick up that history major? Believe me, I'm a historical costume buff, but if I woke up in 1702, my best estime would be no better than, "Um... 1680 thru 1730...?" Yet the good doctor can guess within five years of the true date based on a quick look-around!

By Anonymous on Monday, July 03, 2000 - 02:27 pm:

I think one of the problems with Ellison is not what happened to the script, but his attitude these years since. I saw an old interview with him and he was tearing Star Trek apart, calling it everything to awful. Now, let's say he's right and they did change his script. Does that make the episode itself awful? No. Does it make Star Trek a horrible show? Of course not. All he had to do was release his version, and let the people decide. How many times have people chosen between a novel and film based on it, and the film may be nothing like the novel but that does not take away from either one. Certainly you don't see author and screenwriter screaming at each other that one had wrecked the others work. I think he should calm down and let the fans decide. If it was me, altered or otherwise, I would be thrilled that something I wrote even in its vaguest form not only wound up on the screen but was considered one of the best eps ever. He has a serious ego problem.

By D.K. Henderson on Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 06:17 am:

Anonymous, you have a talent for understatement.

By George H. Daley Jr. on Friday, July 07, 2000 - 01:32 pm:

I absolutely concur. He's quite full of himself for the most part. Like I said he's a whiner. Besides that, how many good writers would give a kidney for the chance that he had? He has forgotten what his early years were like, no doubt.

By Todd Pence on Saturday, July 08, 2000 - 10:10 pm:

Someone get Ellison a new glass of wine, his is made from sour grapes. Harlan likes to paint himself as the noble artist wronged by the commercialistic evils of television, but he just doesn't seem able to compromise with the reality of the industry. I have great respect for the work he has done in this in other mediums, but . . . I must say, after hearing for years about how great his original script for CEF was, I finally got a copy of it via aquiring a used copy of Roger Elwood's anthology. I was struck by how unsuitable it was for Trek's format. For one thing, the running time is about one and a half times as long as a regular hour episode. In addition, it would require a budget that would be way over what the show's was at that time (depsite Harlan's claim that it would cost only "$1.98" to film). Also, the original script has a lot of embarrasingly bad dialogue. Roddenberry and Coon almost had no choice but to rewrite it.

By John A. Lang on Sunday, July 09, 2000 - 12:28 pm:

With McCoy running amok, why wasn't the transporter shut down?
(Short Show Syndrome)

Speaking of Fotonovels (R), the Fotonovel
for Star Trek II the Wrath of Khan was printed in black & white and had some of the pictures put in upside down.

Needless to say that was the "Death" of the Fotonovels (R)

By John A. Lang on Wednesday, July 12, 2000 - 06:33 pm:

For some strange reason, Uhura has a wide black stripe on her left sleeve during the opening sequence

By Padawan Nitpicker on Thursday, July 13, 2000 - 12:37 pm:

I said that earlier, I did! I`ll accept you taking my "nit" of Uhura`s voice appearing in The Enemy Within, but this is too much. I mentioned it! I did! I (injects self with sedative, but it`s really cordrazine!) Ah! Your in the Frank Conspiracy! Allaya! The Franks! The Franks! The Franks! The Franks! Your all against me! Allaya! (Another nitpicker hits me with a wrench) Oh, that`s better. No hard feelings, eh?

By Rene on Thursday, July 13, 2000 - 02:29 pm:

Okay...it took me awhile but I read all the comments about this episode. Why would it have been out of character for Kirk to try and save Edith? I mean, this is the same guy who fought an old man for the love of a "female" robot even though his crew was dying of a disease.

By Adam Bomb on Saturday, August 05, 2000 - 12:08 am:

The bum (also known as Rodent)you referred to before was originally written by Ellison as a legless WWI vet named "Trooper". Also, the actor that played the bum/rodent, John Harmon, was Tepo in "A Piece of the Action." He moans "Mother" as he is beamed in and his gun is taken away from him.

By Adam Bomb on Saturday, August 05, 2000 - 12:14 am:

I bought the Fotonovel of "The Wrath of Khan" with the pictures upside down. I foolishly exchanged it for a correct one. The upside down one is probably worth a fortune today. I was disappointed in the fotonovels, as the fotonovel for ST-TMP was in color, while the one for "TWOK" was in black and white. If anyone knows what they are worth now, please inform me, or post here. Thanks.

By Adam Bomb on Thursday, August 17, 2000 - 05:08 pm:

To Matt S.-"Inside Star Trek" is a great book, probably the most detailed account of what went on behind the scenes of our favorite show. It showed that not everything was sweetness and light on the set, that egoes frequently got in the way, and the best explanation as to why the third season was substandard by "Trek" standards.(Although I would take a third season "Trek" over any insipid "Brady Bunch" or "Partridge Family" anytime.)

By LEn on Friday, August 18, 2000 - 03:23 pm:

In a nutshell, why WAS the 3rd season substandard?

By George H. Daley Jr. on Saturday, September 02, 2000 - 12:05 pm:

Mainly because Roddenberry was out of the picture by then. He was very excited about the third season, but then got word that the show was being moved to Fridays at 10 pm. (A time in which most of its audience was either asleep or out on weekend activities.) This was the death knell for the show. After that, Roddenberry gave up on Trek and went on to other projects.

Then there's also the fact that the budget was slashed so that one of every four shows had to take place entirely on the ship. This limited the types of stories that they could tell.

In regards to COTEOF it was felt by Rodenberry and Coon that one didn't rise to the rank of captain without the ability to make the tough decisions. At that point in the story Kirk was faced with two choices. If he saves Edith he will save the woman he loves, but "Millions will die who did not die before." and the Federation will cease to exist. In this case he did follow the axiom that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I submit that not only was Kirk's behavior in "Requiem for Methuselah" out of character, it was just plain dumb. His crew is dying and in the space of a few hours goes so gaga over this woman that he has to be REMINDED of his crew. Kirk at any other point in the series would've negotiated as long as possible, then done anything he had to do to get the Rytalin.

Star Trek III was in character because at the point he made the decision there was only the choice between bringing Spock home or sacrifice his career.

By Adam Bomb on Friday, September 29, 2000 - 10:19 pm:

Harlan Ellison is still bitter about what was done to his script? This was 34 years ago, almost half a lifetime. GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!

By George H. Daley Jr. on Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 01:39 pm:

You should hear the man talk. They interviewed him for the sci-fi channel special edition and he acts as if it happened yesterday.

By Todd Pence on Tuesday, October 03, 2000 - 08:20 pm:

Ellison ought to thank Roddenberry and Coon for rewriting his script. They spared us such drivel as the mysterious old men who run the guardian in Ellison's original and the way they speak in silly pointless riddles about Edith Keeler being the focal point in time that Kirk and Spock are supposed to try to set right when they know the details all along. Why not just tell Kirk straight out what he's supposed to do? Also, there is the scene where Kirk tells Spock he knows he's in love with Edith because he can talk to her about buying a pair of shoes. Hoo boy.

By Ruediger Landmann on Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 08:34 pm:

Including "Goodnight Sweetheart" on the home video version would presumably have meant Paramount having to pay for a new license from the copyright holder of the music and/or the recording (since the license fee they paid in 1966 almost certainly didn't cover a home video release... This, of course, means that the release is less profitable, therefore it's not going to happen - which I agree is a pity.

Whilst we're on the subject, has anyone noticed that while the episode is set in 1930, "Goodnight Sweetheart" wasn't written until 1931?

By Chris Thomas on Saturday, December 30, 2000 - 09:31 pm:

Must be McCoy botched the timeline.

By John A. Lang on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 02:26 am:

Other nits worth mentioning....

Note Uhura's outfit....it seems real, real short in the back...Her panties are fully visible.(Not that I'm complaining, mind you...nice tush, Nichelle!)

The rock in which McCoy leans against after Spock nerve-pinches him seems to behave rather strangely when McCoy rises...a portion of the rock springs outward!

Edith seems to say something to Kirk after she kisses him, but there are no words coming out of her mouth. (Looks like she's saying "Thanks")

Once again, the "End Credit Person" goofed and used the sentence: "Scpipt Supervisor...George A. Rutter"...c'mon...get a proofreader!

GREAT ACTING MOMENT: After Edith dies, Shatner (Kirk) puts on a great dramatic act of a man losing a lover that looks very convincing

By John A. Lang on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 09:11 am:

The censors must have been napping at the end of the episode when Shatner (Kirk) cussed "Let's get the **** out of here"..not 1960's standard at all.

By Todd Pence on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 04:20 pm:

>Note Uhura's outfit

I'm noting, I'm noting!

By Adam Bomb on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 04:08 pm:

The mysterious old man who runs the Guardian idea was apparently used in "All Our Yesterdays" as Mr. Atoz.

By Nove on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 01:00 am:

Did anyone notice Floyd's Barber Shop in the background?

By Adam Bomb on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 04:40 pm:

Should the title be changed to "Edith Keeler of Mayberry?" Actually, the Griffith show (and "Gomer Pyle") were both shot at Desilu, before the sale to Paramount. However, how hard would it have been to either scrape and repaint the window, or temporarily replace it with blank glass?
I think the DVD version does not have "Goodnight Sweetheart," as the disclaimer is on it, too. A shame.

By Derf on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 09:56 pm:

I own an audio copy of an Alien Voices production of "Spock versus Q", and during the discussion the Guardian of Forever is mentioned by Q as "that ... that lop-sided donut-thing". Spock (the intellectual giant he is) immediately recognizes what Q is referring to and says "Ah, the Guardian of Forever. You've heard of it." Q quips, "Been there, done that, got the T-shirt".

By Derf on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 08:29 pm:

When McCoy appears from the Guardian, he begins deliriously ranting about "needles ... sutures ...". With his disdain for 20th century medicine, I almost expected him to continue with "Dialysis ... Image Therapy ... Funduscopic Examinations". (having ST4 hindsight)

By John A. Lang on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 01:01 am:

At one point during McCoy's ranting (as mentioned above), he also says, "Oh, the pain!"

Was that a salute to Dr. Zachary Smith of "Lost In Space"?

By Adam Bomb on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 08:09 pm:

I don't have the chief's "Nitpicker's Guide to TOS" so I don't know if this was mentioned before. The milk delivery wagon has a small in-joke. It has "Widin Dairy" painted on the side. Bernard Widin was a member of TOS first season crew-I think he was the production manager.

By Anonymous on Friday, March 02, 2001 - 04:16 pm:

Murray Leeder says:I don't imagine the Guardian would allow Kirk to bring Edith back with him.

Perhaps; however, this is one of those details the audience should've been told upfront because I would certainly attempt this option first if I was in Kirk's place.
Otherwise, this episode was great with(arguably) the best Kirk/Spock scenes in the entire series.

For all its brilliance, though, this episode and its themes would be turned on its ear 20 years later by the Hercules episode "The End of the Beginning," a time travel episode with an ending which(IMHO) is more moving than that of "City"'s.

By John A. Lang on Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 07:29 pm:

Nove--I saw "Floyd's Barber Shop"...It'd been a hoot if Opie showed up in this episode.

NITS:

OK...the world as we know it is in living color. [Unless you're colorblind.] SO....why are all the Guardian's flashbacks shown in black & white?
Ditto for the tricorder playback.

Sulu gets his ultimate fantasy fulfilled...after he is knocked out, he is seen later resting his head on a beautiful Oriental yeoman's knees!

The typewriter in McCoy's 1930's "flop" looks simular to the one used in "Miri"

By Mike R on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 06:45 pm:

My DVD copy does have Good Night Sweetheart despite the muisc change notice.

Did anyone notice that seven people beamed up at the end of the show?

By Will S. on Wednesday, April 11, 2001 - 11:05 am:

There's a good 'What If...?' type story for this episode in the complilation 'Strange New Worlds II'.

By John A. Lang on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 09:06 pm:

The DVD version does away with McCoy's eye shadow.
(I saw the eye shadow on the RCA Videodisc edition of "City on the Edge of Forever")

Yes, kiddos...there WAS another format of "Star Trek" for video playback....RCA Videodiscs...very good format...until the needles wore out then the playback was jumpy...sometimes you got a cruddy disc too. Thank God they're dead.

By LUIGI NOVI on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 03:43 am:

Phil, from his Guide: PO#1: After Bones is injected with the drug, why does everyone just stand around and watch? Why does Spock just pinch him? And does anyone else find it amazing that Bones can throw off Spock's grip so easily and run away?
(Partial)Challenge to PO#1: You�re right about Spock�s lax attitude, Phil, but you�re wrong on the subject of McCoy�s shrugging off his grip. First of all, I would hardly even categorize Spock�s hold on McCoy as a "grip"(or for that matter, even a "hold"). Spock, like Kirk, was barely holding on to McCoy�s arm. Second, McCoy�s got a hundred times the normal dosage of a drug in his system, for crying out loud.
A Jackie Chan triple feature was on last night, and you just KNOW how people are the morning after watching those movies�
McCoy sure is a proficient fight technique expert, and even when not in control of his faculties. Not only does this "simple country doctor" easily incapacitate the transporter chief with two precisely placed, yet seemingly delicate karate chops to the waist and the back of the neck, but does so even though he has a hundred times the normal dosage of cordrazine in his system.
The "Southern doctor hopped up on drugs has just cold-cocked you and beamed down to the surface" sensor must be blinking on his console.
The transporter chief that Bones knocked out comes to, and tells Kirk via his control panel that the doctor beamed himself down. How does he know this? Bones hit him from behind where the chief couldn�t see him, and already is informing the captain of the transport before he even gets a first look at his control panel after coming around from his nap! Does he have eyes in the back of his head?
He�s been wearing those ears all season, and only now he feels like a fool?
When Spock realizes that he neglected to record much of the information the Guardian displayed, he chides himself, calling himself a "fool," an emotional response.
A gun that shoots itself? Does the NRA know about this?
The guy who takes Bones� phaser ends up phasering himself, and oddly, the phaser also ends up disintegrating itself, since we didn�t see it fall to the ground when the guy disappeared.

By Richard Davies on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 - 01:33 pm:

A few Spock related nits could be explained by the fact that his Pon Farr is starting.

By John A. Lang on Thursday, May 31, 2001 - 07:39 pm:

RUMINIATIONS This episode WON the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation in 1968.

Ellison's version won the Writer's Guild of America Award

By Adam Bomb on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 05:31 pm:

Being that Mr. Ellison still holds a grudge against Trek for something that happened half a lifetime ago, does he hold any other longtime grudges over other producers (TV or film) that he feels did him or his scripts wrong?

By LUIGI NOVI on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:08 pm:

One of the films he wrote, A Boy and His Dog, if I'm not mistaken, won some type of award (maybe a Hugo or a Nebula), and because the award goes to someone else in the creation process (like the director or producer, I forgot which), Harlan raised a big ruckus to the those who give out the award, and to get him off their backs, they took the trophy off its base, and gave part of it to Harlan (the base, I think), and the other part to the director or producer. Harlan often brags that he has more awards than any other science fiction writer, and has stated matter of factly that this means that he has worked harder and is better than any of the others (no, he was not joking), and brags that he's the only one who owns HALF of (whatever) award.

I would imagine there are similar stories regarding Harlan.

By Todd Pence on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 11:46 pm:

Harlan has a beef with just about every television series he's ever worked for. He seems to really love portraying himself as the wronged artist.

By John M. Malcom on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 06:21 am:

Met him once. He was mean to me. Don't like him.

By Meg on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 11:35 am:

He was a story person for Disney, and he was fired his very first day.

the story goes that he was at lunch with a few other people, and he starting makeing jokes that Disney should make an animated porn film. He started doing voices of characters adn such. What he didn't know what that Micheal Eisner was eating lunch at the same place, with a few other executives. Harlan went back to his desk to find a pinkslip.

By Brian Fitzgerald on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 01:32 pm:

It was a Hugo award for A Boy and His Dog. The award goes to the director, and he is the only person to ever win half a Hugo.

By LUIGI NOVI on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 02:00 pm:

John M. Malcom: Met him once. He was mean to me. Don't like him

What did he say to you, John?

By Randye J. on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 04:59 pm:

I have a nitpick I sent when I joined, but it still remains unshared.

At the end of the episode, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, and the two red shirts get into position and are beamed back to the ship. Remember, however, that the transporter room has only *SIX* positions. What did the seventh person beam onto?

By Todd Pence on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 07:56 pm:

Well, In "Day of the Dove", we see that more than six people can be beamed up at once (although the extra people have to wait their turn to be beamed onto the ship).

By Adam Bomb on Saturday, July 14, 2001 - 08:22 pm:

In his essay for TV Guide in 1995, he stated that he wrote a motion picture in 1966; he called the film "a wretched thing." While reading "His Way", the unauthorized Frank Sinatra bio, I surmised that he referred to the 1966 pic "The Oscar", starring Stephen Boyd and Tony Bennett, with a cameo appearance by Sinatra. I don't know if he said any more about the pic at any other time. I never heard of that pic's director, Russell Rouse.

By John M. Malcom on Sunday, July 15, 2001 - 07:03 pm:

Well, apparently Mr. Ellison doesn't like competition, Luigi. When I saw him, I told him that I had read several of his stories, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I then mentioned that I was in the process of writing a story. I did not ask for advice, help, or an autograph (as I had heard he does not like this) and was, in fact leaving, when he gave me some advice. He advised that I should not enter the field or writing, because it is a difficult field, and he could tell that I would never be suited to it. He then walked away. What a jerk.

By Stephen on Friday, August 03, 2001 - 10:29 am:

Edith Keeler said she's seeing a new Clark Gable movie. I went to the Internet movie database, and it gives these two movies in sequence:
Easiest Way, The (1931)
North Star (1926)

"The Easiest Way" was first released on Feb. 7th. Which movie was she seeing?? And Gable had bit parts at this point in his career. Why would she notice him particularly?

During the years between these two movies he was doing theatrical work, in case you wondered.

Too bad Harlan Ellison couldn't check up on it when he was writing the script. Does he ever nitpick himself?

There are some possible solutions to this. McCoy wakes up in a daze and tries to guess where he is. "This looks like 1920, 25..." Edith says, "Would you care to try for 30?" She says that because it's an increment of 5 years. His guesses were in increments of five years, so she gives one more increment of 5 years instead of 6. She's teasing a bit, and not bothering to say it's actually 1931 instead of 1930.

Or, "The Easiest Way" was released 4 months earlier in this timeline. That could be "The easiest way" of explaining it. ;)

As for Clark Gable...his role in "The Easiest Way" wasn't a starring one, but she mentions him because they'd gone to the same high school.

Maybe they knew each other, but she knew he was a ladies' man and wouldn't stick with her, so she left to do other things. Maybe they were still writing letters to each other on occassion.

Somewhere I read another nitpick on this episode. In some version, a WW I vet tells Kirk he was at a certain battle, Verdun, I think. But the US wasn't in the war when that battle took place. There are several explanations for this.

The soldier forgot, or confused about where he was and when. He might have been at Verdun before, during or after the war but not during the battle. He might have been a mercenary. He might have been in the French Foreign Legion.

By John A. Lang on Tuesday, August 07, 2001 - 07:31 pm:

TRIVIA: Who's the transporter technician in this episode?

John Winston...other known as Lt. Kyle (or Kowel, depending on your POV)

So...the big question is....why doesn't the end credits list him as being "Lt. Kyle" (or Kowel) instead of "Transporter crewman"?

Answer: The creators didn't have a name for Winston's character yet!

By Del on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 - 06:37 am:

Really grungy nit time - on the tricorder screen when the newspaper says "social worker killed" above that article there's an article with the headline about americans being thrown out. The article says "Bangkok, Thailand" just beneath. Thailand wasn't called Thailand till 1939.

I'd like to dedicate this nit to my DVD player's pause and zoom functions.

By glenn of nas on Thursday, January 24, 2002 - 06:13 pm:

Just noted the date on the last entry....Wow....City on the Edge of Eternity

By Maquis Lawyer on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 01:40 pm:

While Harlan Ellison's reaction to the re-write of his "City on the Edge of Forever" script may be excessive, he has good reasons for disliking television writing. Case in point: During the mid-1980's, the producers of the "new" Twilight Zone series convinced Ellison to do some scripts for them. While looking for material, Ellison came across a short story by Donald Westlake titled "Nackles". The story was about an abusive and alcoholic father who creates the story of an "anti-Santa" (Nackles) to intimidate his children. At the end of the story, Nackles comes to life and takes the father as his first victim. Ellison's script cast the main character as a bigotted slumlord who told minority children that "Nackles" (the anti-Santa) was coming to eat them at Christmas. Naturally, he got his in the end.
The Twilight Zone producers liked the script, and even got Ed Asner to play the main character. However, someone at CBS got cold feet, fearing that viewers might take offense at a bigotted and evil Santa Claus. Ellison rewrote the script, but CBS still interfered, and the story was shelved. Ellison was quite rightly infuritated by the experience, and along with his experience with Roddenberry, declared that this was why he hated working for television. So while Ellison's bitterness about Star Trek may be excessive, he does have some justification for his feelings about television in general.
BTW: Twilight Zone Magazine (now defunct) ran this story in 1985 or 1986, and included Westlake's original story along with two versions of Ellison's script. The Westlake story was superior to Ellison's scripts, but unfortunately it wouldn't have filmed well. Ellison's scripts were good, but not really outstanding. The slumlord really had no reason to be spreading the "Nackles" story other than he was an a**hole, and that just diminished the impact of what he was doing. Surprisingly, the rewrite (done at the behest of CBS) did improve some other aspects of the script.

By ScottN on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 - 12:59 am:

Mike R. and Randye J.:

I just watched it on the SciFi Chain Reaction and was going to post the 7 person transport.

This, of course, raises the question, what exactly do the transporter pads do, if they can beam up 7?

By TWS Garrison on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 - 03:47 am:

Where did McCoy pick up that history major? Believe me, I'm a historical costume buff, but if I woke up in 1702, my best estime would be no better than, "Um... 1680 thru 1730...?" Yet the good doctor can guess within five years of the true date based on a quick look-around!

Spock's good, too. He and Kirk wandered into a Desilu backlot that looked to me like it could pass for a city street on Earth at some time between 1910 and 1960, but Spock somehow quickly ascertained that they had arrived during the Depression.

Was it explained why only two people at a time could go through the Guardian of Forever? As it was, the other four members of the away team couldn't go back to the right time or figure out what to do when they got there, because Spock had the only tricorder. If there was a two person limit, Kirk and Spock should have sent two-person teams in before they went, since Spock could use his tricorder to tell the teams exactly when to jump.

Did Kirk and Spock really take rooms in the same building as Edith Keeler? Remember, this is a time when there really were "flophouses" (before stricter zoning and codes forced out the bottom rung of housing); there were places (which would, admittedly, make the YMCA look like the Hilton) which would be "acceptable" for two single, able-bodied men who are penniless, homeless, and holding charity jobs. Somehow, I think Keeler's building would be too. . .middle-income for the paupers that Kirk and Spock are (and, more importantly, appear to be to Keeler).

By Butch Brookshier on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 - 06:31 pm:

They only sent 2 person teams so if the 1st failed, a 2nd team could try again and if they failed a 3rd and so on. Also they wouldn't all be trapped in the same period if the teams mis-judged the jump. Remember Kirk and Spock arrived ahead of McCoy by a few days. They might easily have landed far ahead or behind him given how quickly the passage of time was being displayed.

By TWS Garrison on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 - 07:33 pm:

But if Spock took the only tricorder, how would the next two-person team have any idea when to jump through the Guardian? Only Spock's tricorder has a record of when McCoy went through (and you would need a computer to accurately judge when to jump, even if you knew for which time period to aim).

By Butch Brookshier on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 - 08:01 pm:

Just watched the relevant scene again. Uhura is also recording the activities of the team. She is also recording at the moment Kirk and Spock go thru the Guardian. She would be able to do the timing for the rest, leaving herself as the last one to go.

By Andy H. on Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 11:15 pm:

On the lighter side... has anybody ever noticed that just after McCoy injects himself with Cordrazine on the bridge, he collides with the bridge railing in front of Scotty's station and nearly tears it from its moorings? The entire section recoils from his impact. I guess those old Constitution-class ships just weren't that sturdy.

By John A. Lang on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 04:30 pm:

The fire escape that Kirk climbs up on to get the clothes is the same fire escape seen in "Miri".(Same alley too)

LESLIE ALERT: Mr. Leslie is at the Engineer's station on the Bridge.

OK...Kirk, McCoy & Spock jump thru the Guardian's doorway on the Guardian's Planet to get into the past. How do they get back? They're on Earth!

By Lolar Windrunner on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 08:41 pm:

I always though there was a "magic" doorway on the otherside that they go through or otherwise the guardian somehow pulls them back.

By Todd Pence on Saturday, November 30, 2002 - 09:11 pm:

Same principle as in "All Our Yesterdays", the doorway in the past is invisible, although it is there.