Episode of the Week : The Enemy Within

[Silvercrest]

Any guesses what would have happened if they put 'evil' Kirk through the malfunctioning transporter by himself? Would it split him again? Into what?

 

[Delta Vega]

For me "The Enemy Within" is the first real miss.

Despite Shatner's great performance this episode is just kind of off.

There are too many inconsistency's.

They can't use the shuttlecraft?

Why not beam down some kind of shelter? Or Fire wood?

Why such a wide variation in the planets day/night temperature?

How/why does the transporter beam good kirk up, and then wait
to materialize bad kirk?

How does a repaired transporter "recombine" the 2 Kirks?

There are also the goofs with the scratch's on Kirks face switching sides and
Kirks command insignia reappearing in some shots.

Some of the good:

A good episode for Sulu

The Vulcan neck pinch

Overall I give it a 5

I love the episode, its a great piece of Trek, but hey, there are so many inconsistencies in the story as you`ve pointed out,

 

[Greg Cox]

I am, of course, contractually obligated to point out that this ep was written by the late Richard Matheson, who also gave us The Incredible Shrinking Man, I Am Legend, "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet," Somewhere in Time, Duel, Hell House, What Dreams May Come, The Night Stalker (script), Stir of Echoes, various Vincent Price movies, and many other classic books, movies, and TV episodes . . . .

 

[Harvey]

It is very sinister Grace was sexually assaulted by a studio exec around the same time and was then fired a few weeks later

It's well-understood now that the "executive" was the Great Bird, and by bringing it up publicly but never naming him, the victim cast a cloud of suspicion that hung in the air for years over a number of innocent men.

Not saying you're wrong, but how is this now "well understand?" What's the source for this assertion?

I haven't read anything which suggests it is "well understood" that Roddenberry was the assailant. I tend to believe that he was, based on a number of details in Whitney's memoir, but she (deliberately) doesn't name the man. That leaves a lot of doubt.

Unfortunately, this is yet another issue about the original series being muddied by Marc Cushman's work, since These Are The Voyages says that Whitney was assaulted by a "studio executive." Actually, Whitney simply refers to the man as "the executive" (Studio executive? Network executive? Executive producer?).

 

[ZapBrannigan]

It is very sinister Grace was sexually assaulted by a studio exec around the same time and was then fired a few weeks later

It's well-understood now that the "executive" was the Great Bird, and by bringing it up publicly but never naming him, the victim cast a cloud of suspicion that hung in the air for years over a number of innocent men.

Not saying you're wrong, but how is this now "well understand?" What's the source for this assertion?

I no longer have the book, but I think Inside Star Trek (Solow, Justman) is where I read the details that led to my firm belief on the subject. So much so that I figured everyone should have accepted the same conclusion.

 

[Harvey]

Inside Star Trek: The Real Story doesn't mention the assault, although it does say (on pages 243-44):

In discussions in early September, 1966, Roddenberry, Solow, and Weitzman agreed there was no artistic or financial justification to continue her very limited role in light of the show's serious budgetary problems. Strangely, Roddenberry evinced no interest in retaining his hand-picked yeoman, while Justman, opposed to "losing her," held out hope that she would return to guest star in future episodes. Roddenberry never contacted Whitney to give her the bad news. Her agent was formally advised by Desilu Business Affairs that her services were no longer required.

(Years later, there was talk of a sudden personal rift between Roddenberry that occurred just prior to her departure from the show. The rift supposedly guaranteed that she would never return to Star Trek. But she did return--in some of the Star Trek movies. And there was no appearance there of any ill will between them.)

There is, however, a memo in the UCLA archives from Roddenberry to Gene Coon (dated October 28, 1966; five weeks after Whitney was released from her contract), which suggests that Roddenberry may have wanted to bring back Whitney. It says, in part:

Bob Justman and I both think we should look for an opportunity to bring Grace Lee Whitney back as "Yeoman Rand" in some upcoming episode.

(The memo is in the Cushman book, but I can confirm its existence).

Also in the dread Cushman book, the author quotes a Whitney interview with the official Star Trek Fan Club from 1986:

Gene Roddenberry had told me that he let Rand go against his will. He did not want to let Rand go. He wanted to keep the [romantic] conflict [between Kirk and Rand] going."

It's useful to keep in mind, however, the source of this interview (the Official Fan Club) and the date (ten years before Whitney made her 1966 assault public in her memoir).

 

[T'Girl]

This episode as I understand it saw the origin of the Vulcan neck pinch because Nimoy felt it was out of character for Spock to hit the evil Kirk on the back of his head (in engineering) with the base Spock's phaser grip.

Spock's awful comment on the end

The most likely explanation that I've come up with that make sense of what Spock said is if Spock and Rand were actually very close friends, it was exactly the kind of comment that one girlfriend would make to another following something bad happening to one of them.

Spock and Rand are "girlfriends."

 

[Pauln6]

Inside Star Trek: The Real Story doesn't mention the assault, although it does say (on pages 243-44):

In discussions in early September, 1966, Roddenberry, Solow, and Weitzman agreed there was no artistic or financial justification to continue her very limited role in light of the show's serious budgetary problems. Strangely, Roddenberry evinced no interest in retaining his hand-picked yeoman, while Justman, opposed to "losing her," held out hope that she would return to guest star in future episodes. Roddenberry never contacted Whitney to give her the bad news. Her agent was formally advised by Desilu Business Affairs that her services were no longer required.

(Years later, there was talk of a sudden personal rift between Roddenberry that occurred just prior to her departure from the show. The rift supposedly guaranteed that she would never return to Star Trek. But she did return--in some of the Star Trek movies. And there was no appearance there of any ill will between them.)

There is, however, a memo in the UCLA archives from Roddenberry to Gene Coon (dated October 28, 1966; five weeks after Whitney was released from her contract), which suggests that Roddenberry may have wanted to bring back Whitney. It says, in part:

Bob Justman and I both think we should look for an opportunity to bring Grace Lee Whitney back as "Yeoman Rand" in some upcoming episode.

(The memo is in the Cushman book, but I can confirm its existence).

Also in the dread Cushman book, the author quotes a Whitney interview with the official Star Trek Fan Club from 1986:

Gene Roddenberry had told me that he let Rand go against his will. He did not want to let Rand go. He wanted to keep the [romantic] conflict [between Kirk and Rand] going."

It's useful to keep in mind, however, the source of this interview (the Official Fan Club) and the date (ten years before Whitney made her 1966 assault public in her memoir).

There were many factors. Many of Rand's appearances were minor and hardly justified a higher wage than the day players I suppose. The Enemy within is one of the character's best appearances (although the meatiest is Charlie X and my favourite is the Man Trap). It would have been nice to see her return twice per season in a couple of meatier guest appearances though.

 

[Commishsleer]

The episode was so politically incorrect. Spock's remarks. Rand had no female counsellor. Everyone was more concerned about Kirk rather than Rand (even before they knew about the split). Its not even like they said to her we'll assign you a guard until this is sorted. Nope the captain attacked her in front of witnesses and she was just told to go back to her cabin or something. And then the guy was free to accost her later.
They even used animals for experiments.

However this is one of the classic episodes. One of those best remembered.
Sure it had some problems but overall its good enough to overcome these to make it one of the best TOS episodes IMO.

Yes and I even liked the unicorn poodle dog.

 

[Sir Rhosis]

In answer to Lance's question, evil twins have been with us for a long long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin


Also, after I wrote the Unseen article a number of years ago, a Youtube user recut the act to conform to the script. Results here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-olilLSyyYE

Sir Rhosis

 

[The Old Mixer]

The episode was so politically incorrect.

Naturally, since political correctness didn't exist in 1966.

Yes and I even liked the unicorn poodle dog.

It was better executed than "the Hand Plant".

 

[Maurice]

In answer to Lance's question, evil twins have been with us for a long long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin


Also, after I wrote the Unseen article a number of years ago, a Youtube user recut the act to conform to the script. Results here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-olilLSyyYE

Sir Rhosis

That actually points out a pet peeve of mine: how so many people seem to credit Star Trek with firsts which are, in fact, old tried and true conventions.

 

[Sir Rhosis]

We have a pretty good record here of setting the... record (Austin Powers moment, there) straight regarding Trek firsts, though. I used to see the old "Kirk used 'hell' first in City as a curse word" a lot, which was debunked, as well as many others.

Sir Rhosis

 

[CorporalCaptain]

They even used animals for experiments.

That's not even partially true, since the space dog was split accidentally to begin with. Its halves would have died, just like Kirk's were going to, if they hadn't tried rejoining it. The procedure would have been the same, even if it had been done after Kirk was rejoined, and the animal likely still would have died.

The charge of using animals for experiments would stick if they'd taken an initially healthy animal and split it on purpose, just to see if they could rejoin it.

 

[Commishsleer]

They even used animals for experiments.

That's not even partially true, since the space dog was split accidentally to begin with. Its halves would have died, just like Kirk's were going to, if they hadn't tried rejoining it. The procedure would have been the same, even if it had been done after Kirk was rejoined, and the animal likely still would have died.

The charge of using animals for experiments would stick if they'd taken an initially healthy animal and split it on purpose, just to see if they could rejoin it.

So why was the dog there?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

They even used animals for experiments.

That's not even partially true, since the space dog was split accidentally to begin with. Its halves would have died, just like Kirk's were going to, if they hadn't tried rejoining it. The procedure would have been the same, even if it had been done after Kirk was rejoined, and the animal likely still would have died.

The charge of using animals for experiments would stick if they'd taken an initially healthy animal and split it on purpose, just to see if they could rejoin it.

So why was the dog there?

Sulu's holding the dog in the very first scene on the planet surface. Kirk says:

KIRK: That should make a good specimen.

Later on:

[Transporter room]

KIRK: What is it, Scotty?
SCOTT: Transporter breakdown. Continue circuit testing. We beamed up this animal and, well, look for yourself. It's in this specimen case. (opens lid to reveal angry pink animal)
KIRK: Yes?
SCOTT: A few seconds after they sent this one up through the transporter, that duplicate appeared. Except it's not a duplicate, it's an opposite. Two of the same animal, but different. One gentle, this. One mean and fierce, that. Some kind of savage, ferocious opposite. Captain, we don't dare send Mister Sulu and the landing party up. If this should happen to a man.
KIRK: Oh, my.

I think we can accuse them of taking animals out of their natural habitats for study back at base that they may not ever have intended to return. If there's a crime here relating to mistreating animals, it was kidnapping.

 

[Commishsleer]

That's not even partially true, since the space dog was split accidentally to begin with. Its halves would have died, just like Kirk's were going to, if they hadn't tried rejoining it. The procedure would have been the same, even if it had been done after Kirk was rejoined, and the animal likely still would have died.

The charge of using animals for experiments would stick if they'd taken an initially healthy animal and split it on purpose, just to see if they could rejoin it.

So why was the dog there?

Sulu's holding the dog in the very first scene on the planet surface. Kirk says:

KIRK: That should make a good specimen.

Later on:

[Transporter room]

KIRK: What is it, Scotty?
SCOTT: Transporter breakdown. Continue circuit testing. We beamed up this animal and, well, look for yourself. It's in this specimen case. (opens lid to reveal angry pink animal)
KIRK: Yes?
SCOTT: A few seconds after they sent this one up through the transporter, that duplicate appeared. Except it's not a duplicate, it's an opposite. Two of the same animal, but different. One gentle, this. One mean and fierce, that. Some kind of savage, ferocious opposite. Captain, we don't dare send Mister Sulu and the landing party up. If this should happen to a man.
KIRK: Oh, my.

I think we can accuse them of taking animals out of their natural habitats for study back at base that they may not ever have intended to return. If there's a crime here relating to mistreating animals, it was kidnapping.

You raise your charge to kidnapping. I reduce my charge to animal testing.

They tested the solution on the animal before testing it on Kirk.

Not that I really have any problem with that

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This situation isn't like The Andromeda Strain. Not that what they did in that film was unjustified, but they actually took healthy animals and exposed them to a space disease, in order to understand its pathology and find a cure.

It's true that they took advantage of already having the split animal to test the procedure for Kirk, but all they did was try to cure a space dog that needed curing, and they didn't sacrifice an otherwise viable animal just for Kirk's benefit. That's not even animal testing; it's experimental exoveterinary medicine.

Yes, I don't believe that they'd just randomly snatch space dogs, especially not as isolated specimens. That's a strike against the episode right there. The only reasons the space dog was in the episode were to reveal to the rest of the crew what was going on to Kirk and to amplify the jeopardy that Kirk was in.

 

[T'Girl]

That actually points out a pet peeve of mine: how so many people seem to credit Star Trek with firsts which are, in fact, old tried and true conventions.

The way Star trek generated the "evil twin" you have to admit was unique, employing a technological device.

It's not like born twins. Or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde who was simply one man under the influence of a mind altering drug.

 

[Greg Cox]

In answer to Lance's question, evil twins have been with us for a long long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin


Also, after I wrote the Unseen article a number of years ago, a Youtube user recut the act to conform to the script. Results here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-olilLSyyYE

Sir Rhosis

That actually points out a pet peeve of mine: how so many people seem to credit Star Trek with firsts which are, in fact, old tried and true conventions.

I can't resist pointing out that Bette Davis made at least two "evil twin" movies: A Stolen Life (1946) and Dead Ringers (1964). And Boris Karloff did it at least once: The Black Room (1935).

But, yeah, the transporter twist was new.