- MA images from this episode
- Template:Titles/The Gamesters of Triskelion yields The Gamesters of Triskelion (TOS 2x17)
The 1981 The Star Trek Compendium lists this episode as being filmed in late October 1967 and the next episode, "Obsession" as being filmed in early and mid-October of that same year. As with "Space Seed" and "A Taste of Armageddon" I'm not sure whether the author mixed up the filming schedules, the episodes were filmed out of an assigned production order, or whether post-production work was being taken into account--Robert Treat 02:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC).
- This is an old riddle, and I was determined to look behind it, and found some proof that "Obsession" was filmed BEFORE "The Gamesters of Triskelion" and the two has switched production order. Director Ralph Senensky mentions on his blog that the fifth shooting day of "Obsession" was 13 October, 1967, a Friday (and the beginning of the Jewish feast of Yom Kippur for that year). This leads to the conclusion that the first day of filming for that episode was 9 October, 1967. And, also recently I've seen a 35mm film snippit from "The Gamesters of Triskelion" which shows a slate in a very detailed close-up, and it reads: 23 October, 1967. So, this is undoubtable proof for the fact that "Obsession" preceeded "The Gamesters of Triskelion" in production. Read and see it for yourselves:  and  (seventh image). I wonder on the editors' opinion on this. --Ltarex 12:24, 3 July 2010 (CET).
Rewording/Removal of Nits Edit
Reworded this nit:
- * Why it was necessary for Kirk to be part of a landing party for a check of an automated research station is perhaps a mystery on par with finding the Janus VI mining station backdrop painting from "The Devil in the Dark" under the surface of Triskelion.
And removed these (the second and third one are pointless and noncyclopedic):
- * At the beginning of the episode, the landing party end up flat on their backs. As a result, Kirk's communicator ends up with a badly bent antenna grid. This miraculously corrects itself a few moments later when he tries to contact the ship.
- * Much of the goings-on on the planet Triskelion are unpleasant, but there is enjoyable McCoy-Spock-Scott banter in this segment of the series. Walter Koenig has an interesting comic relief role with the flamboyant Tamoon.
- * Spock's very sardonic dialogue in this episode is matched only by that in "That Which Survives". - Bridge 23:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I also removed the following:
- * During his climactic fight, Kirk can be seen frequently stepping into the blue area of the triskelion playing field, contrary to the rules.
- So, unexplained gaffes and plot holes are not deserving of mention? I thought for sure the inability of the combatants to stay on the proper color would be pointed out. 18.104.22.168 03:45, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
"Scott to Bridge."
"Mr. Spock, the Captain, Lieutenant Uhura and Chekov -- they vanished! They got onto the transporter platform, and... they just vanished!"
"I presume you mean they vanished in a manner not consistent with the usual workings of the transporter, Mr. Scott."
"Aye, of course I mean that. Do you think I'd call you if they just beamed down?"
- - Scott and Spock
- "Mr. Spock, the Captain, Lieutenant Uhura and Chekov -- they vanished! They got onto the transporter platform, and... they just vanished!"
- "I presume you mean they vanished in a manner not consistent with the usual workings of the transporter, Mr. Scott."
- "Aye, of course I mean that. Do you think I'd call you if they just beamed down?"
- - Scott and Spock
- Does that better suit the MA:QUOTE?
- Also, many many pages don't come close to those standards. Numerous pages have meaningful lengthy quotes, which few people seem to mind.
- Scotty's final line always resonates with me as it shows his character and is also one of the few instances of a witty exchange between Scott and Spock. I'm still not sure if Spock is playing around or being serious, and if Scott is being fooled or is flabbergasted by Spock's apparent stupidity. The ambiguousness is brilliant.--Brumagnus 23:32, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
I could live with that, but let's remove some of the one-liners already there to make some room. Keep in mind that seeing lengthy quotes elsewhere is not a reason in and of itself to have others, it only means we are still going through articles to weed them out. Feel free to suggest such quotes for removal if you notice them.--31dot 23:37, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Just the opposite in fact! When I see such quotes, I rather enjoy them and am impressed to see the ones I think should be on the main pages already on there. --Brumagnus 20:51, January 15, 2011 (UTC)