• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Space Seed: Yes, Chekov was on the ship. See Catspaw.

Chekov obviously wasn't on board in Mudd's Women since in I, Mudd he didn't know who Harry Mudd was. I don't care how big a ship it is or how large the crew is, word of the pimp with the three irresistable ladies is going to spread among the males of the crew.

So, Chekov was presumably assigned to the Enterprise at some point between Mudd's Women and Space Seed.
 
Production order is the order they were made, so since they didn't plan any inter-episode linkage, nothing that happened in the tenth episode produced could possibly affect what happens in the ninth. I always prefer to go according to what the original artists had in mind at the time, and that certainly wasn't the random numeral codes they tossed in there.

There’s no logical a priori reason why stardate order should work best artistically. Timo’s position as I understand it and which I am currently in the process of assessing is that, purely by happenstance, stardate order happens to work very well. I used stardate order for my Essential TOS Overview and was pleased with the results, but that was for a small subset of the whole series.

What about episodes like "Mudd's Women," where the stardates go backward?
An error that we must simply forgive without explanation, like the 900 years in The Squire of Gothos.
 
But are such things truely errors? It's not like they indended Stardates to have meaning or set a time period for TOS.
 
Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, Chekov wasn't on the ship in season one. The movie was in error, and it makes no difference to me. Somehow I'll sleep at night without there being an adequate explanation for Chekov knowing Khan.
 
Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, Chekov wasn't on the ship in season one. The movie was in error, and it makes no difference to me. Somehow I'll sleep at night without there being an adequate explanation for Chekov knowing Khan.

Oh please. Unless the episode purported to show every one of the 430 people aboard the ship, or every single moment Khan was on the ship, then Chekov was there.
Besides, why should we take the mostly freestanding stories of season 1 as though they occurred in production order?
 
What about episodes like "Mudd's Women," where the stardates go backward?
An error that we must simply forgive without explanation, like the 900 years in The Squire of Gothos.
But are such things truely errors? It's not like they indended Stardates to have meaning or set a time period for TOS.

When the episode begins with “Captain's log, Stardate 1329.8. The U.S.S. Enterprise in pursuit of an unidentified vessel,” and later has “Captain's log, Stardate 1329.1. We've taken aboard from unregistered transport vessel its captain and three unusual females,” then yeah, I regard it as an error. It may be a little bit more fanwankable than the 900 years in Gothos, but realistically, it’s just a frak up. I regard the huge range of stardates in Triskelion the same way.
 
Oh please. Unless the episode purported to show every one of the 430 people aboard the ship, or every single moment Khan was on the ship, then Chekov was there.
Besides, why should we take the mostly freestanding stories of season 1 as though they occurred in production order?
Why should we force a TV series from the 1960s to conform to a movie produced a decade and a half later by other people?
 
Oh please. Unless the episode purported to show every one of the 430 people aboard the ship, or every single moment Khan was on the ship, then Chekov was there.
Besides, why should we take the mostly freestanding stories of season 1 as though they occurred in production order?
Why should we force a TV series from the 1960s to conform to a movie produced a decade and a half later by other people?

Nice use of my own usual reasoning. It's sort of like a federalism analysis: A later production can

A. Be entirely consistent with the letter and unwritten subtext of TOS (be its source the performance, an element of the production or the implication of the script -- I'll continue to use "subtext" for short)

B. Be consistent with the letter but not the subtext of TOS, or

C. Violate the letter of TOS

This is an "A" situation. Most people on this board disagree with each other about how to handle the "B" situations.

In an "A" situation, I see no reason not to adopt the later development.

In Space Seed, there's nothing to say, or imply in any way, that Chekov was not on this ship. He just wasn't in the story.
 
Although it isn't canon of course, Greg Cox's third Khan book, To Reign in Hell, The Exile of Khan Noonien Singh, shows how Khan knew Chekov. When Khan and his followers were beamed down to Ceti Alpha V, Chekov was the security officer who beamed down with them. He had a scene with Khan and exchanged some dialogue with him.

So, that's one explanation. Regarding the OP, Chekov was on the ship, working security.
 
There’s no logical a priori reason why stardate order should work best artistically. Timo’s position as I understand it and which I am currently in the process of assessing is that, purely by happenstance, stardate order happens to work very well. I used stardate order for my Essential TOS Overview and was pleased with the results, but that was for a small subset of the whole series.

Well, sure, that's all fine. But there's a key difference between "works very well" and "most useful."

What about episodes like "Mudd's Women," where the stardates go backward?
An error that we must simply forgive without explanation, like the 900 years in The Squire of Gothos.
But are such things truely errors? It's not like they indended Stardates to have meaning or set a time period for TOS.

When the episode begins with “Captain's log, Stardate 1329.8. The U.S.S. Enterprise in pursuit of an unidentified vessel,” and later has “Captain's log, Stardate 1329.1. We've taken aboard from unregistered transport vessel its captain and three unusual females,” then yeah, I regard it as an error.

Unless they had the stardates go backward there specifically to indicate to audiences that they didn't always go forward. I see no reason that couldn't be the case, since it's consistent with the way the creator/producer described the system elsewhere.
"900 years in the future," is in error we can just forgive, and I won't lose any sleep over it. But there's nothing to forgive here, if it's not an error in the first place.
 
There’s no logical a priori reason why stardate order should work best artistically. Timo’s position as I understand it and which I am currently in the process of assessing is that, purely by happenstance, stardate order happens to work very well. I used stardate order for my Essential TOS Overview and was pleased with the results, but that was for a small subset of the whole series.

Well, sure, that's all fine. But there's a key difference between "works very well" and "most useful."

Only to the pedantic.

But are such things truely errors? It's not like they indended Stardates to have meaning or set a time period for TOS.

When the episode begins with “Captain's log, Stardate 1329.8. The U.S.S. Enterprise in pursuit of an unidentified vessel,” and later has “Captain's log, Stardate 1329.1. We've taken aboard from unregistered transport vessel its captain and three unusual females,” then yeah, I regard it as an error.

Unless they had the stardates go backward there specifically to indicate to audiences that they didn't always go forward. I see no reason that couldn't be the case, since it's consistent with the way the creator/producer described the system elsewhere.
You really think they did that on purpose, to make that point? They did it very rarely (I am actually aware of only that one instance) and it’s so subtle that only the very observant would notice it. Likewise the huge stardate range in Gamesters, which is unique to that episode. According to my nose, the notion that they did it on purpose doesn’t pass the smell test.
 
Well, sure, that's all fine. But there's a key difference between "works very well" and "most useful."

Only to the pedantic.
Okay. I think there's a difference between something being good, and being better than everything else. If that makes me pedantic, then I'll wear it with pride.

You really think they did that on purpose, to make that point?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't make any huge bets on it. But couldn't you at least agree that it's a possibility, given that it does fit with the producer's mindset?

They did it very rarely (I am actually aware of only that one instance) and it’s so subtle that only the very observant would notice it.

I don't think its frequency is really indicative one way or the other. And my impression was that it was meant to be subtle, since the "very observant" are probably the only ones who would care.

According to my nose, the notion that they did it on purpose doesn’t pass the smell test.

Well, your mileage may vary, as they say. But I think it would actually be more unlikely for them to miss something like that, as often as the scripts and footage would've been gone over.
 
Last edited:
Well, sure, that's all fine. But there's a key difference between "works very well" and "most useful."

Only to the pedantic.
Okay. I think there's a difference between something being good, and being better than everything else. If that makes me pedantic, then I'll wear it with pride.

Heh. OK, I misunderstood what you meant and I think you misunderstood what I meant. You’re right, he does say that stardate order works better than both of the other orderings to which it is being compared (airdate order and production order).

I think it would actually be more unlikely for them to miss something like that, as often as the scripts and footage would've been gone over.
You’d be surprised what can be missed on set. Just look at the IMDB “goofs” section of almost any very popular movie.

Here’s another example from the same episode. Note what McCoy is wearing at the 5:43 mark of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_pS6q8UGcY and what he’s wearing in the rest of the scene. Kelley’s wearing different uniforms in different takes of the same scene. How does something like that happen? This particular goof is similar to one that occurs in the last scene of TMP, in which Spock and McCoy switch jackets in a single shot.

If that can slip by unnoticed, then so can a slight flub in dialog when somebody’s supposed to say 1328.9 and says 1329.8.
 
Last edited:
You’d be surprised what can be missed on set. Just look at the IMDB “goofs” section of almost any very popular movie.

Yeah, I know stuff happens. But things like that aren't a small string of numbers that could be caught not only in editing, but also in the script revision phase...

If that can slip by unnoticed, then so can a slight flub in dialog when somebody’s supposed to say 1328.9 and says 1329.8.

Now, that's an interesting point. You're approaching this from the likelihood that the actor flubbed the line, and I'm approaching it from the belief that that was how it was written in the script (which also could've been an error, but there would be a lot more opportunity to notice it). I wonder if anyone around here has a copy of the shooting script for this episode. That would certainly be the most direct way to settle that part of the debate. If an original shooting script had a stardate that was beyond the first date (different from what was said in the second log entry), I would absolutely concede it was just error. But if that's the way it was in the script, then I'm sticking with the theory that it was intentional.
 
Chekov obviously wasn't on board in Mudd's Women since in I, Mudd he didn't know who Harry Mudd was. I don't care how big a ship it is or how large the crew is, word of the pimp with the three irresistable ladies is going to spread among the males of the crew.

So, Chekov was presumably assigned to the Enterprise at some point between Mudd's Women and Space Seed.

Yeah, that's what I think. They never did a "Chekov's arrival" scene, so he could easily have been on the Enterprise well before the first time we saw him.

My personal thought is that he arrived during Court Martial. That episode's between Mudd's Women and Space Seed, the Enterprise is at a starbase where new crew can come aboard, and they would be making crew changes since they lost records officer Ben Finney. And I like the idea of Chekov's reaction when he's assigned to the Enterprise just when his new captain is being court-martialed for the death of a member of the crew.
 
But if that's the way it was in the script, then I'm sticking with the theory that it was intentional.

Or then a typo. Never attribute to malice etc. etc.

Really, back then, there would probably have been no person in Desilu or Paramount employ, or otherwise hanging around the sets, who would have been interested in keeping the stardates straight. Likewise, there would not have existed a person who wanted to make a statement with the stardates. But there would have existed writers for whom the natural assumption would be that stardates progressed by growing larger, and who would attempt to write the dates into the episodes in this fashion. If a specific person was responsible for inserting the stardates into all the scripts, the above also applies: he'd not be interested in any sort of trickery (proof: 99% of the dates progress as expected), and he'd not be motivated to be extra careful, either.

Timo Saloniemi
 
I'm of the mind that people just weren't paying much attention to stardates. As it has been pointed out many times before, these episodes were meant to be watched once or twice, then forgotten. They were put into the episodes to make the show sound futuristic, to keep the series from being grounded in a particular century, and to point up the fact that actual dates are meaningless in a spaceship traveling faster than light and carrying people from other planets. This doesn't mean they were careless, or decided to screw with people, or show that stardates can moves in any direction. It's just that they weren't important, unless they were factored into a story, like those with "no stardate" or "stardate unknown" or something. Look at James R. Kirk's tombstone with his birth stardate. Makes no real sense.

Was Chekov on the ship during Space Seed? No, not if you think in real world terms. The character wasn't created at the time. However, if you think of Star Trek as its own "reality" then why not? He certainly could have been. Do you accept Marla McGivers was on the ship during episodes filmed before Space Seed? Or Lt. Spinelli? Or did they only join the ship just prior to the events depicted? If there was a line of dialog in TWOK which said Chekov was down in security or something when Khan was found, you'd probably buy it then, and all that would be is a line of dialog written by someone 15 years later. But in the Star Trek universe, it would be a concrete fact instead of fan supposition.

The way I see it, unless a character is specifically introduced, then there's no way to tell how long we're supposed to believe he/she has been on board. While Walter Koenig joined the cast in Catspaw, Chekov was assigned duty on Enterprise sometime after Mudd's Women. That's all we know.
 
Unless we assume that news don't travel on that ship without authorization.

Then again, the whole male crew seemed to be ogling Mudd's women, whereas corbomite was only mentioned by Kirk in the privacy of his bridge, during a tense situation where people were at general quarters and not moving around a lot. Yet Chekov doesn't know about Mudd, but apparently ("Deadly Years") does know about corbomite...

In any case, if Chekov was on board during "Space Seed", then it's only natural that Khan would know him and he would know Khan. Khan was a photogenic personality, and it seemed everybody shook hands with him, asked for autographs on their private parts, etc. Kirk might have kept the final fate of Khan and his followers secret from his crew, but not Khan's existence.

Mudd would have been almost as photogenic - or at least his troupe would have been. Chekov not knowing about him certainly requires a specific explanation!

Timo Saloniemi
 
Never had a problem with Chekov being on the E (well not always but i don't now.) My problem was always with Khan knowing him. Just didn't fit, to me, that Khan, with his ego, would remember some Ensign that was so unimportant to his story that even we never see him. :lol:
My workaround is that he was aboard the BB as the lone security guard (or as one of the people on the survey team) when Khan beams aboard to free his people.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top