Talk:Requiem for Methuselah

Revert Reversion

This very brief stub was deleted due to "copyright violations" however I see no violations here or anything that should not be on Wikipedia. Indeed, if this article is a violation then so is every other Star Trek episode summary which is on this site. I alaso point out that the summary to this episode can be found on numerous webpages and websites. There should be no problem with having this on Wikipedia. -Husnock 26 Dec 04

The anonymous "contributor" in question was copying material from Memory Alpha left and right. You can write your own original summary on the temp page if you want. -- 07:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the summary in response to your fears. I truely do not see how a two sentence stub can be called a copywright violation. I would recommend looking at "Category:Star Trek episodes" if you feel someone is violating copyrights. If you were this concerned over the summary here, the dozens of other plot summaries might fall under your definition of copyright violations as well. -Husnock 27 Dec 04

Sexism in Star Trek

Whether Star Trek is sexist is one thing. To use the example of the reactions an android, which is basically a programed machine to make the point is pointless. Besides, Kirk also doubletalked Norman, Nomad and Landru to death. (All "male".) It seems to me Star Trek owes us one more defective female android, but it's silly to keep count. The point was that humans can be very cruel to each other and innocent creations suffered for it. Whether the machine had a female name or male name is irrelavent. One more point, Data's daughter could have just as easily had been his son. The choice of sex was made by the android. The son would have failed as well- it would have been the same android. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk • contribs)

You make a valid point but it should be kept in mind that none of the characters, including Lal, actually made ANY choices, the writers did. The choice was made that a "female" would better suit the story. It is an interesting aspect of Trek although opinions may differ as to the validity of the criticism. It holds some relevance to this episode as it, according to whomever it was who added this piece of trivia, has been used as an example of sexism in trek.

Unfortunately the entire section about it could use much better citations, at least there is a source for the claim that it is sexist, the statement that it isn't sexist because it's true that "men think and women feel" is oddly presented as indisputable fact. 83.255.75.227 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to Forbidden Planet

This episode shares many of the same elements as the classic sci-fi film Forbidden Planet, since both are based on The Tempest. Should this be mentioned? Jimaginator (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if cited. Alastairward (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when I saw it very recently I thought it showed more than passing similarities to Forbidden Planet, even though I am not familiar with The Tempest, although I agree this needs a source. PatGallacher (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Plot

The idea that Flint assumed Kirk was bluffing has no basis in the dialog, he sees the test of power as an interesting experiment and calls Kirks "enormous," Spock advises against such experiments. Nor does Flint "back down" rather he is moved by mercy or pity at the memories of the plague when McCoy compares the fever on the Enterprise to Bubonic plague. I suppose people can interpret things differently, but if so why should one take precedent in an encyclopedia. 75.191.151.75 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Its been a while since I've seen the episode, but you're right, if there's an interpretation in use in the plot section, we really need to cite it. Either that or revert to a literal depiction of what's shown on screen. Alastairward (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Kirk's last lines in the script, "We put on a pretty poor show. If only I could forget." are telling. A lot of the plot doesn't make much sense. McCoy could have detected immediately that Reyna was an android, etc. Let's not belabor it. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Source of "Ryetalyn" spelling?

Is there any known pre- circa 1980 source for the spelling "Ryetalyn" for that much-needed MacGuffin drug? The similarly spelled pharmaceutical Ritalin (which one who did not know otherwise might pronounce as "Ryetalyn") was first registered under that name in 1949 it seems, though of course it didn't become notorious before the 1980s. So I wonder if one of the script people at Star Trek might have known it, and then Paramount or whoever later invented the "Ryetalyn" spelling for the closed captions and the DVD subtitles to avoid trademark infringement? If so it could be noted here. -- 92.224.244.153 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why I came here, as I am watching it just now...2.101.148.23 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Lazarus

Abbythecat (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Flint says he was Lazarus; I guess they are saying Christ didn't really bring Lazarus back to life, as Flint can't die, and he was Lazarus. Perhaps someone should note this, as it is indeed a bold statement, especially for a '60's TV episode. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not as bold as the statement made in the original script (seen in Star Trek Log) that Flint was Jesus himself!--2606:A000:131D:4413:A9E3:D354:CDE9:8065 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)