Talk:Turnabout Intruder (episode)

Episode talk page

Maintenance links

• MA files from this episode (0)
• Episode data module and titles check:

T: I AM ERROR
A: I AM ERROR	N: I AM ERROR	P: I AM ERROR	C: I AM ERROR	CP: I AM ERROR	CR: I AM ERROR	CT: I AM ERROR	D: I AM ERROR	M: I AM ERROR	Y: I AM ERROR

Is it necessary?

• Is the Nitpicks section in this article really necessary?--Scimitar 10:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Nope. However, it is a good example of how many of the character traits built up over the series vanished in season three (especially in the second half), what Dave Gerrold calls "hardening of the arteries" in the series. Witness the dismay of the security guards in "The Menagerie" as McCoy has them arrest Spock. They are concerned and puzzled. In "TI", by contrast, they are ignoring Janice/Kirk's over-the-top behavior and temper-tantrums like automotons and give the heave-to to critical thinking in the obsession to "follow orders."

(Of course, if they had rebelled right off the bat, the story would've been rather brief).

Plus, we expect better from Mr. Lemli, for crying out loud!  ;)

• Reviewing this episode again, I think the previous nitpick has little merit. We see Janice Lester's histrionics delivered in the person of Capt. Kirk being greeted with smirks and knowing glances between the security guards, and Sulu / Chekov. Of course the comment about Mr. Lemli is very true - he was a star never allowed to shine to his full potential.

Tholians

What's the Tholian reference in this episode? It doesn't seem to be on the Tholian page. Jaf 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf

• Kirk, in the body of Dr. Lester, says to Spock "When I was caught in the interspace (sic) of the Tholian sector, you risked your life and the Enterprise to get me back." 218.182.11.94 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Off Color

Whoever posted that Nurse Chapel is a redhead in the article had better buy a new TV set, or at least adjust the color on their old one. Majel Barrett had dark brown hair in it, not red. - Adambomb1701 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, she was definitely a brunette. I've changed it back. --From Andoria with Love 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the Star Trek Compendium said "auburn", and I agree. --GNDN 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Having checked out the differences between auburn and brunette hair, I would have to agree it's auburn... so "redhead" wasn't entirely incorrect. :P --From Andoria with Love 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I see Annorax's fingerprints on the events

• I'm sure Captain Erika Hernandez and the captain of the Saratoga (in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home) would not share Lester's assessment of women's status in Starfleet.
• Galloway is alive in this story.
• I don't know if the absence of Uhura constitutes an inconsistency or not.

All in all, this episode does not mesh well with the rest of the series. And I did notice that Annorax staved off Species 8472's invasion and then restored it (VOY: Before and After). – Korora 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If only...

"Her life could've been as rich as any woman's. If only... if only..."

- Kirk, referring to Dr. Janice Lester, and Star Trek as a whole (last line of The Original Series)

Well, that's got me curious. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to hear Kirk giving the series a proper send-off, but I'm a bit confused. How does this line refer to Star Trek as a whole? Caswin 22:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If only... it hadn't been cancelled?– Cleanse ^talk 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember that during it's original three year run (IIRC), TOS didn't have the biggest following, and didn't do very well. That is why it was canceled. The cult following got really going in the years later. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

True. And episodes like this one didn't help. 75.173.68.155 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed observation

I removed the following personal observation/opinion. If there is a need for it to be re-added, please discuss it here. --From Andoria with Love 07:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This episode may have been another example of Star Trek being ahead of its time, in this case, regarding sexual orientation. It often seems that Dr. Coleman loves Janice, no matter whose body she is in--male or female.

Would we edit a comment on "Let This be Your last Battlefield" if someone made an observation that Star Trek was ahead of its time regarding racial problems? A major issue in "Turnabout Intruder" was sexual (gender) equality. I think we might be pushing the boundaries of what the episode was intended to be about to assert that it was about homosexual rights, but art often transcends its original meanings. I've seen far worse background notes. Hossrex 09:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to begin with LTBYLB was indeed about racial strife/problems, etc., no ifs and or buts. It is spelled out, right in your face and subtle as a sledgehammer. TI was indeed about gender equality and again was about as subtle as a hammer to the forehead in stating this. However, TI does not make any statement regarding sexual orientation. The poster who originally posted the comment was only reading it that way, and even acknowledged this fact by resorting to the weasal words "may have been." Sir Rhosis 03:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words? Its a background note. The demands of canon aren't required for background notes. The episode is about sexual equality, where a woman becomes a man, and a man becomes a woman. We're talking about technobabble-transexuals here. Is an innocent comment about same sex relationship acceptance be so out of line in this context? Hossrex 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking that it be "canon," that it only be backed up by something, anything, any small, tiny, tiny, tiny bit of evidence stating this as a fact in the episode itself. The gender equality issue is obvious, the orientation issue is not supported at all except in wishful thinking. So to answer your final question, yes, it is unsupported and, imo, out of line in a factual encyclopedia. Now, if we allow background notes to say "In my opinion this may be," then include every opinion you want to throw in. But, until then, even these types of notes should be cited. EDIT, to add: Now, if there is an internet site or dissertation or article out there that explores the thought that the episode can be "seen" by some as supporting a forward thinking view of sexual orientation, then we could safely put a note saying, "While the episode says nothing about sexual orientation, this article by John Q. Public makes a strong statement that it can be viewed that way today." With a link to the article, site, what-have-you. And just to note, despite my strong stance, this is not directed as a personal attack. Best to you. Sir Rhosis 04:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir Rhosis said: the orientation issue is not supported at all except in wishful thinking. Except that the whole premise of the episode is about the reversal of gender orientations. The whole episode is about a person breaking from the norms of sexuality. Its more then a "small, tiny, tiny, tiny bit of evidence", its the point of the entire episode. There was no specific statement to the effect, which is why no one is asking for anything beyond a background note, but considering that the theme of the episode was a person breaking away from their typical sex roles, it becomes fairly obvious to anyone who cares to read between the lines. Reading between lines has no place in canonical statements, but there is precedent for it in background sections. Sir Rhosis said: So to answer your final question, yes, it is unsupported and, imo, out of line in a factual encyclopedia. Out of line for a factual encyclopedia? Thats like saying it would be out of line for a "factual encyclopedia" (as opposed to a "factless encyclopedia" I guess) to say anything more about Moby Dick than "This is a book about a Captain named Ahab, who goes out hunting whales". "Factual"? Yes. Complete? Not by a long shot. A part of the purpose of background notes is to point out the themes, and metaphors present in an episode. I'm certain this has nothing to do with the disagreement, but if I didn't know better, I'd think people were opposed to Star Trek making any sort of statement regarding sexuality, and against this deleted section on that basis. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it though. Right? Hossrex 06:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)