“The Gamesters of Triskelion”

I had the opportunity to see the "Triskelion" episode over the last two days, and I unfortunately agree with your rating on it, for reasons unknown. I then saw the "Action" episode (the Chicago gangster one), and the premise of it made it far better and much more entertaining than "Triskelion."

The gamesters of Triskelion are such rapscallions!

Everyrhing you point out jammer is technically correct, but I still love this episode. The arena scene did it for me. Kirks "trainer" didnt hurt my eyes neither.

3 stars.

This is indeed pretty bad. I'm going to focus on the most interesting (and ultimately, most frustrating) element of the episode: the dynamic between Kirk and Shahna, his trainer.

As background, the "Providers," we eventually learn, are all brain, no brawn; they use fear and the threat of pain to manipulate the "Thralls" into their games. Their aim is their own entertainment, and they also arrogantly believe that the Thralls are unable to take care of themselves, until Kirk assures them at the end that they will learn.

So here's what happens: Shahna is Kirk's trainer. She seems to be his physical equal or superior, in skill if not necessarily in raw strength. The power dynamic is tilted to Shahna's side initially, as we are reminded by the crass act-break off-screen near-rape of Uhura by Lars (really, episode?). Kirk needs information that she has, in order to find out about the Providers, and, *hopefully*, to free himself and maybe her in the process.

Kirk starts talking about freedom and then eventually love. Now, I think Kirk does find Shahna attractive, but I think he's pretty clearly cynically bs-ing here. What is stronger than fear and pain? The hope for love. Kirk knows that Shahna's emotional/sexual needs aren't being met in this hell, and kisses her so as to bring her over to his "side," to tell her what will sway her: what freedom feels like, the importance of free thought, and loooove. Love, especially between a man and a woman! Kissy kissy kiss. The providers start injuring her when she talks about them, so Kirk yells that it's his fault, genuinely wanting to protect her; but he also keeps pursuing her, and back in his cell, he gets close to her again in order to knock her unconscious so that they can escape.

The thing is, Kirk is acting like the providers. He uses the carrot instead of the stick for the most part, but Kirk uses his superior brain (not necessarily that he's intrinsically smarter than Shahna, but that he has experience and cunning which Shahna has had no opportunity to develop while in slavery) is manipulating Shahna primarily for his own good, and secondarily because he believes he knows better than her what is good for her. This makes Kirk's love overtures particularly creepy, because fundamentally he doesn't and won't love her, but lays on the charm because it's in his best interests to do so. The key differences, of course, are that Kirk is acting out of self-preservation, and he is, fundamentally, right about what he wants to convince Shahna of -- that the providers are bad for her, that freedom is a real thing she should want, that love is something she should be free to seek out and would like. Unlike the providers, who steal people from all over the galaxy and pretty clearly don't have anyone's interests at heart but their own, Kirk is right in the things he's instructing Shahna -- except that he doesn't actually love her, and he claims he does in order to get close enough to knock her out, use her to escape.

This is what makes him fighting Shahna in the final fight a good dramatic move. Shahna has a legitimate beef against him. He made her believe he loved her, and it was a lie. He's made her existence under her harsh conditions more painful by giving her a taste of what freedom is like only to take it away from her. Shahna's anger at Kirk in the fight is partly misdirected anger at the Providers -- because Kirk's manipulation of her is way less severe than the Providers, who also claim, in their way, to care for ("provide" for) her. But Kirk's betrayal stings. This is what tyranny does: in order to survive, those who are slaves may eventually turn on each other, which distracts from the real enemy.

When Shahna hesitates, because she has feelings for Kirk which have awakened, Kirk has the opportunity to turn the battle around. While I don't think Shahna consciously "spares him," essentially she does emotionally -- had she killed him, that would be it. And Kirk returns the favour, and shows that he is not like the Providers deep down. It would be much safer for Kirk to just slit Shahna's throat, rather than claim that the contest is over, especially since the rules of the context are that he has to kill, and not merely wound, his opponents. At that moment, Kirk does put Shahna's needs above his own, or, at least, shows a willingness to opt for both of them to survive rather than just him. It proves that his lines to her were not all lines.

This paralleling between Kirk and the "Providers," but with Kirk being ultimately morally better, extends into Kirk winning against the "Providers" by being better "gamesters" than they, and taking bigger risks at higher stakes. Kirk's strength, basically, is in being close enough to his opponents, or being able to "access" parts of himself close to his opponents, to use his opponents' values against them. I am pretty skeptical that Kirk risking his entire crew's security in order to free the Thralls (and how many Thralls are there?) is a wager he should be doing -- and, you know, his crew did sign up to be under his command, so it's not slavery, but it's pretty extreme that their lives are so forfeit to Kirk's gambling. But, you know, unlike the "Providers," a good cause, at least.

So, right -- I find Kirk's actions shady but ultimately probably the best he can do under the circumstances, until the very end. Here we have:

KIRK: I'm sorry, Shahna. I didn't lie. I did what was necessary. Someday, I hope you'll understand.
SHAHNA: I understand, a little. You will leave us now?
KIRK; Yes.
SHAHNA: To go back to the lights in the sky?
KIRK; Yes.
SHAHNA: I would like to go to those lights with you. Take me?
KIRK: I can't.
SHAHNA: Then teach me how, and I will follow you.
KIRK; There's so much you must learn here first. The Providers will teach you. Learn it, Shahna. all your people must learn before you can reach for the stars. Shahna. (he gives her a farewell kiss) Scotty!
SCOTT [OC]: Aye, sir.
KIRK: Beam us up.
(They disappear in a twinkle.)
SHAHNA: Goodbye, Jim Kirk. I will learn, and watch the lights in the sky, and remember.

What a bastard! Look. There are lots of reasons Kirk could have decided not to take Shahna with him. First of all, given that these people have been kidnapped from across the galaxy, I don't see why Kirk thinks it's a good idea to leave them behind anyway -- these aren't these people's actual homes anyway. But fine, let's say that it's the condition of the deal he made with the "Providers." Can he really not take Shahna with him? Shahna is not just one of the Thralls -- she particularly was hit with lots of pain in order to help Kirk, and even if she didn't directly spare him she more or less did during the fight, at great risk to herself. Maybe the Providers really wouldn't let her go with Kirk, and Kirk doesn't want to tempt fate, but then it's not exactly a real end to slavery, is it?

And I'm sure those Providers are going to be teaching these Thralls spaceflight any time now. Most likely, I think the Providers will go back to pitting them in gladiator fights "for their own good" in about a month. Kirk has an awful lot of optimism about the Providers to leave them in charge. But if it's the best he can do, I don't fault him for that -- I just wish he'd be honest, say, "I do care about you Shahna -- but I will never see you again, because I did the best I could, and most likely you will never get off this rock." Give her a *real* reason why she can't come with him, rather than this "you must learn!" b.s. that implies that if she studies real hard she and Kirk can be lovers (and, presumably, when it never happens, it will be her fault for not reading hard enough). Up until the very end, Kirk's actions really are from necessity, even if they are ugly, but there is an arrogance to his blase attitude once he has the freedom to leave that leaves a *very* bitter aftertaste.

The episode in general is quite bad -- the fight scenes are awfully dull, the "pain faces" with the collars so silly, the Enterprise scenes very dull. But in that Kirk/Shahna plot there is something interesting, and, finally, intensely frustrating. I think that this plot is interesting enough that I'd rate the episode slightly higher than Jammer -- 1.5 stars or so.

It is not one of the episodes I will watch again and again. Still Yes I was entertained. Slightly irritated that it was again a two man show, Kirk and Spock. It missed the opportunity to involve Uhura and Chekov more than their were. The two scenes where they jointly tried to escape was inspiring but they then just fell flat. So if I was entertained it was due to nostalgia and still to win without supreme violence.

This was a weird episode. It kind of came out of nowhere. It's like they wanted to address some kind of slavery narrative urgently. Also, it was way too Kirk-focused. Can Uhura and Chekhov fight at all? That was very disappointing to see Kirk fight their battles for them. I thought fighting was part of Federation training for everyone. Finally, the Shana character is extremely sexualized, even by today's standards. The fight scenes were decent but we already knew Kirk could fight. Just an odd episode in general. I would say 1.9 stars out of 4.

This episode is on the "horror channel" on Sky in the UK right now. I'd forgotten how over-the-top Shatner is in this episode. The way he looks directly into the camera when he's being choked - mouth wide open, eyes bulging - never fails to make me laugh. And then when Shahna is being hurt, he screams to the providers "YOU'RE KILLING HER!!!!!". Two classic Kirk moments, but for all the wrong reasons. They are the highlights in a forgettable episode.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of all Trek fans, there's something I need to get off my chest. I'm halfway through my first full run-through of the original series, and quite frankly... Bones is not a very good character. For all the hype that the Kirk-Spock-Bones triumvirate gets, Bones just comes off as an irascible idiotic contrarian. He and Spock are supposed to represent emotion and logic, with Kirk as the perfect fusion between the two. Which strongly suggests that the emotional side is needed, and should be, if not equal to logic, then at least close to it. Yet in every single conflict with Spock so far (with the possible exception of Galileo Seven), he comes off poorly. Spock is ALWAYS correct. Always. Not only that, but Bones almost never has a good point when he argues. Look at the situation here. Kirk and company clearly disappeared by a very highly advanced technology, and they are clearly nowhere in the system. There is, however, one anomalous reading. The logical AND emotional response is to follow that one reading, since there was clearly no hope in that system and, since whatever happened is beyond their technology, there is no reason to believe they are still in that system. So why not follow the gas trail? But Bones argues against it just to be a jerk... again. I know Jammer complained about this too, but unlike him, I don't think it's a problem with just this episode. This exchange seems to have come up in a dozen other episodes before. And each time, he always looks stupid. And he always seems so angry about it too. Well, I can't blame him. I'd be angry too if the writers were giving me those lines...

As for the episode itself, so Kirk and company become gladiators for a bunch of talking muffins? There's a winning idea.

Actually, I thought the talking muffins were the best part of the episode. Their bemusement and disattachment over everything was a good characterization, and it made for a good foil to the normally in-charge Kirk. He's gone up against god-like beings before, but he always seemed to be able to grab their attention and talk to them as something akin to equals. Here, the muffins are clearly interested in Kirk, but are completely dismissive of all of his arguments and speechifying. He can't appeal to their better nature, he can't even convince them that there is a better nature. He basically has to stoop to their level to get anything done. They like to wager, so the only way to get their attention is to wager with them. I don't think they are even all that upset when they lose. It kept them from being too shallow of villains (given how shallow the slave-gladiator concept is to begin with), so I will give them props for that.

On the flip side, the "humans are special" bit was way overplayed. I can understand it if all the Thralls were natives of the planet and had lived in slavery for generations. Then, it makes sense if Kirk's appearance can cause that many disruptions. But it's clear that the Gamesters were kidnapping people from all over. So everyone else, as soon as they were kidnapped, just rolled over and became compliant? Does anyone think Vulcans would be like that? Could you imagine a Klingon being so meek? Kirk fought an Andorian at the end; so the Andorian never resisted? That doesn't mean other aliens wouldn't eventually comply, but the Gamesters act like everything Kirk does is completely novel. I know, I know, humans are special, but it was laid on pretty thick.

One final bit: what's with Shana surrendering at the end? Since when was that allowed? It just seemed to come out of nowhere. Battle to the death! Unless you say uncle, then it's cool... Don't get me wrong, I knew they would never let Kirk kill her. But I figured that rule at the beginning - about how Kirk had to stay on yellow and the others on green - would be the loophole that allows both of them to survive. Why set up that Chekhov's gun if you aren't going to use it? Wait, they took Chekov's gun after he beamed down, nevermind...

Anyway, it's a bad episode sandwiched between two hilariously awesome ones. So let's just move on. As strange as it may sound to say, if you really want "crewmember kidnapped and forced to become a gladiator", Voyager did it better (not by much, but still better).

Definitely not one of the memorable TOS episodes although it might be thought of as one for trying to do what TOS is supposed to stand for.
It's well-intentioned - trying to talk about human freedoms, abolishing slavery, men and women etc. but those messages won't really resonate here.
The superior beings, despite tremendous powers, don't have the wisdom to go beyond amusing themselves by gambling. I find it hard to believe that they will live up to their promise to Kirk to train the thralls etc. but whatever.
Regarding one of Spock and McCoy's interactions - this is one of them where McCoy comes across as unreasonable and overly emotional to me - Spock's logic is fine as usual and he does ask for McCoy's suggestions at times. I always enjoy these and they're a part of what makes TOS so great.
I think the viewer does have to feel for Shahna at the end who is left on the planet and had developed feelings for Kirk.
I think this one just barely makes it to 2 stars out of 4. The episode has good intentions and some of Kirk's discussions with Shahna are well done as he means to help but also get him and his crew out of trouble, but the episode is also a bit cheesy and has full of cliches overall.

I may be incorrect, but is this the first(and last time) that a guest star(Angelique Pettyjohn) gets the last bit of dialog in a Star Trek TOS episode? If so, congrats to her.

oops, I was wrong. The other time was when The Keeper communicated to Kirk at the end of "The Menagerie Part II".

I saw a YouTube video of a Trek marathon in California where a diverse group of people watched all of TOS, ranking each episode out of 10 and averaging the scores for each episode to rank them all. And you know what? "Gamesters of Triskelion" got a very high rating. Indeed, this offbeat and unusually pulpy entry in the series recalls the popular camp stereotypes of the series as represented in the Abrams reboots pretty strongly, and I gave it 3 or 3 1/2 stars for its pure enjoyability.

The obedience collars, fighting arena, and disembodied brains betting on gladiatorial fights make "Gamesters" a uniquely memorable outing. All the camp images of Trek are turned up to 11 (ala Abrams) here: The social critique of an absurdly authoritarian slave-based society, the clashes of logical Spock with emotive Bones on rescue strategy, Kirk seducing a green-haired alien babe to facilitate escape, colorful alien barbarians, etc. It's good to see Chekov and Uhura feature in the main story here; Uhura brings defiant attitude and Chekov's look when his manly drill thrall promises the possibility of breeding with him is hysterical. Finally, the scenes in the Triad fight arena remind us that TOS really invented many of the oft-parodied Sci-Fi tropes imitated countless times in the past 50 years leading up to "Hunger Games" and so many other things.

Granted, there are problems here: The story isn't terribly deep or original. If you're not in the mood for something REALLY different from what we've seen earlier on Season Two, this one may catch you in a foul and unforgiving mood. But if you, like many of us, are getting tired of Trek's self-seriousness by this point in the series, you may groove on the glorious absurdities of "Gamesters." It's not a subtle show, but it's a fun one in its weird way, and it's very different from the usual "Kirk-Spock-McCoy beam down to a new planet" episode. If the scene of William Shatner as Kirk gambling the lives of his crew against three colored brains doesn't entertain you, you must be made of ice!

PS - i have to echo what someone else said earlier in this thread: the shipboard scenes in "Gamesters" are a bit stronger than usual, as Spock actually succeeds in locating the captain through a fairly logical process that we as viewers can follow. It doesn't feel like filler. And I love the little throwaway bit where Spock wags his finger at Scotty and Bones, playfully beckoning them to lean down toward the bridge railing where he invites them to stage a mutiny if they don't like his way of doing things. Scotty's abashed reaction is priceless; even McCoy seems chastened. Anyway, Nimoy and Kelly are clearly having fun in this one; Doohan is more along for the ride in echoing McCoy. But in any event, these shipboard scenes have a certain bite and energy that makes them fun in a way that is lacking from the B-story shipboard filler in many Trek episodes of any series.

This episode was the apex of over-the-top Trek trash.

It took great elements (the Amok Time music) and inserted them into a gladiator match that must have been run by the same proprietor who used to parade The Elephant Man around.

Other reliable Trek tropes were executed in the most dull manner impossible:

Shatner, seizure-pausing with abandon, as he talks to three overgrown cauiflower stubs about the rights of man. Some of the Kirk speeches along those lines were good, in season 1, anyway.

The nothingness that are the scenes of Scotty, McCoy and Spock arguing about whether and how to search for Kirk and Co. Remember when Scotty said, in a similar situation, "Aye, the haggis is in the fire for sure!"? This episode doesn't.

The brain-dead (pardon the pun?) romance between Kirk and Pamperella, who managed to impressively both run around in a diaper and with a big pointy-looking weapon at the same time. Actually, there is no "good" equivalent for this one.

The "obedience collar." The Talosians' method of mind-control-as-punishment was better, if only for the reason we didn't get to witness Shatner panotiming asphyxiation.

Kirk's instruction to the fight team of "hand to hand," after he observes other methods of attack don't work. In past episodes, Kirk would just go for the instinctive drop-kick when all else failed.

If the actors were having a good time, it must have been because they were REALLY trying to keep a straight face between takes but just couldn't contain the repressed emotions.

I want my quatloos back

An absolute load of old nonsense. Possibly the worst season 2 episode. Nuff said.

Doc McCoy is at again screaming and blaming Spock for the team disappearing. McCoy should have been placed in charge of driving the Enterprise and shouting out orders. The ship would have been lost in space for sure just the way it was when the desk bureaucrats mutinied and took over.

The actress who played Shana was a newly married young woman when she got this role and Shatner had chased her around the studio for sex and when he she did not lay down he spent the rest of his life telling ... and writing in his books ... how sorry she was as an actress and making fun of her. This was verified in Nichelle Nichols book also.

Sex on the lot was why Roddenberry was kicked off the show though it was his creation and Gene Coon was given the reins.

Now this episode makes me really mad not just because of McCoy's antics but the way Kirk was all over Shana. In those days women really were a lesser person. That is the reason the men sneered at them not only on this show but everything on television in the 1960's and worse in the 1970's. I was a child in the 1950's so.......and I do not watch reruns of that era even though they are being run now in 2018.

I AM SO GLAD THAT THINGS DID CHANGE and it began in 1968 where I lived.

I have to completely disagree with Jammer and most of the commenters here. After reading this 1-Star review, I expected a real stinker like Alternative Factor in Season 1 with a nonsensical/thin storyline but this episode is surprisingly sound plotwise and has quite memorable dialogue.

I was quite surprised how direct Trek handled the slavery topic, I didnt expect that they could or would pull it off that way in 60s American TV. The decision to force the viewer into the victim-perspective by letting Kirk and his crew getting actually enslaved is quite bold, because it is not entertaining or fun at all (at first) to experience slavery through your beloved Trek crew. I was especially surprised of the rape-scene with Uhura, this went quite far, but was nicely handled by making a cut at the right time and then repeating the scene a bit with a (luckily for Uhura) different outcome. Quite remarkable for the 60s.

Especially the first 20 minutes of the episode are unusually grim and emotional demanding for the viewer, but it fits the topic. I dont see how it could be handled differently in a serious way. It was a good decision of the writers to alleviate the heavy scenes with Kirks Romance with Shana which went further than usual in TOS episodes so far. Luckily, those scenes are played out well from both actors and the dialogue is believable enough to avoid being (overly) cheesy. Kirk leaving her in the end is kind of a dick move, of course the usual plot device to keep Kirk as captain unoccupied, but was at least handled well in its execution. I liked how the writers let the Shana character react and the way they gave her the last statement of this episode.

The Plot of this episode is quite solid, especially in the end how the writers solved the issue of getting Kirks crew free. The dialogue between Kirk and the providers belongs to the better ones I've seen in TOS so far, Kirk does a good job confronting the alleged superiority of the providers, which quite well parallels superiority thinking of slaveholders or racist people in general. Seems like the writers put some effort into the plotting of the episode, probably because they handled a controversial topic and wanted to get their message through. Teasing the providers into a gamble for their freedom and abolishment of slavery was a clever way of avoiding that Kirk and his crew free themselves by overpowering their opponents - because the whole point in constructing a slavery setting is that slaves don't have the necessary power to force other people to see them as human beings. To show disparity of power, the providers have the ability to immobilize the Enterprise, to beam their victims lightyears through the galaxy and let the thrall master pop out of thin air. These are not cheap plot devices as someone might think.

The whole subplot on the Enterprise is solid as well. We have some good dialogue between Spock and McCoy and Spock acting for the first time consequently in command, putting McCoys mutinous behaviour in its place.

I generally dont like fighting-scene action episodes that much and find especially the alien costumes often cringeworthy from todays perspective, but the scenes - average in execution - fit at least into the plot, so they bothered me not that much.

This is classic Science Fiction which takes controversial topics from present or past and projects it into a future context and is therefore Star Trek at its best. I give this episode 4 of 5 stars. This episode should be more noted for its progressiveness and its bold decision to let the audience experience also unpleasant scenes and does not really deserve a 1-Star rating.

I am really a bit disappointed with Jammer here, comments like "cheap entertainment","slavery handled in overly broad manner" and "arrogant episode" give me the taste of somebody who seemed more offended by the chosen topic for the episode than its execution. The cliches mentioned could be brought against nearly every episode of TOS.

@Roxxin

The "slavery" scenes were put in to titillate the audience. I never thought this episode was intended as, or came off as, a probing anti-slavery tract.

The characters' becoming slaves allowed for the cheap Uhura almost-rape scene; for Shatner to cram his tongue down Angelique Pettyjohn's throat, and for Chekov to be called 'Chee-koo."

Can you quote a single memorable line of dialogue (uttered on Triskelion) in this episode?

Sure, other episodes had cliches, many the same ones, but their presentation and usage were used in the service of something non-meretricious

@Roxxin

The "slavery" scenes were put in to titillate the audience. I never thought this episode was intended as, or came off as, a probing anti-slavery tract.

The characters' becoming slaves allowed for the cheap Uhura almost-rape scene; for Shatner to cram his tongue down Angelique Pettyjohn's throat, and for Chekov to be called 'Chee-koo."

Can you quote a single memorable line of dialogue (uttered on Triskelion) in this episode?

Sure, other episodes had cliches, many the same ones, but their presentation and usage were used in the service of something non-meretricious

terrible episode, give me spocks brain over this anytime.

@Pamrl

Exactly so, the slavery scenes were put in to to titillate. The scenes with Angelique Pettyjohn with the diaper and the rest of her outfit and the obedience collar no doubt served as an inducement for Shatner to verbally and physically demean the actress. The sexism in this one was quite pronounced, even by Roddenberrian standards (he was describing his conception of the Ferengi, years later, to Robert Justman, by descrIbing Ferengi male gonads and codpieces, leading Justman to shout, “Gene, this is supposed to be a family show!”

I do remember one line of dialogue uttered on Triskelion: “Goodbye Jim Kirk.” The only thing Shana seems to have “learned” is not that slavery is wrong because It is wrong, but rather that it is wrong because it gets in the way of Kirk/Shatner’s ability to treat her like garbage.

@Trek fan

In ancient times, bear-baiting was regarded as highly entertaining, as was watching gladiators get mauled and maimed. The YouTube voters may have thought the episode was so bad it was good, and rated it accordingly. I thought it was so bad it was bad. Stringing cliches found in episode A with others in Episode B and with still others from Episode C resulted in three times the headache, not three times the excitement. Parts of the episode are unintentionally hilarious, I will concede

Bad.

Preachy Kirk is never a good thing. Overpoweringly sexy Kirk is never a good thing. Combined - yeeee. Cringy.

Was struck by Shana's resemblance to Lady Gaga.

Near the bottom of the heap.

It's hard to take any episode seriously as an anti-slavery tract or as anything else when they couldn't even be bothered to have Shatner look like he was TRYING not to "step on the opposing color" in the climactic contest.

This episode wasn't a serious anything.

Pretty awful, except for high-angle shot of Shahna's last words:

'Goodbye, Jim Kirk. I will learn...and watch the lights in the sky... and remember.'

I was unexpectedly moved to tears. It was a magic moment, that humanised the slave girl trope. She proved herself beyond anger at being used by Kirk, seeing the best of it.

A 4 star moment, in a 1.5 star ep. Particularly, as there was no comic round up on board ship, to cheapen her message of love, hope and forgiveness.

There could be a great follow up episode, where we meet the ancestors of the freed-slaves. Imagine in Discovery (or whatever it turns into), finding a dreamy paradise world, and its Triskelion! But it would have to be far in the futures, since Discovery is set before these events. They could be morally more advanced than the Federation, based on the legacy of Shahna's love and aspiration.

@Fur

Totally agree with your comment.

That final moment when Shahna looks up at the sky in tears and says those words to Kirk are truly touching -- it's really the only part of this episode worth watching. It is also accompanied by George Duning's mournful/romantic music (the same for when the Companion/Hedford looks at Cochrane through the multi-colored dress in "Metamorphosis").

As you say, it is a "4 star moment, in a 1.5 star ep".

Definitely would be cool to see how Triskelion evolves decades/centuries after Kirk's visit...but I would be skeptical of the Providers keeping their word. They are gamblers after all.

Shahna bids farewell to Captain Kirk: "Goodbye, Jim Kirk. I will learn, and watch the lights in the sky, and remember."

That line must be evalauted in context - which means, in this case, the line (Kirk's) that preceded it.

And what was that line, Kirk's parting line to Shahna? "There's so much you must learn here first. The Providers will teach you. Learn it, Shahna. all your people must learn before you can reach for the stars. Shahna."

And what is it that the Providers will teach? How to "establish a normal self-governing culture."

The Providers will be teaching this to the Thralls, with respect to whom the Providers made the following observation: "We are known to the thralls as Providers because we provide for all their needs. The term is easier for their limited mental abilities to comprehend."

What was the 4-star moment, again? Those 4 stars have dim wattage, indeed.

As one blogger said, "It's as if writer Margaret Armen was given a big book of science-fiction clichés and somehow mistook it for a to-do list."

@ ovaduh,

"What was the 4-star moment, again? Those 4 stars have dim wattage, indeed.

As one blogger said, "It's as if writer Margaret Armen was given a big book of science-fiction clichés and somehow mistook it for a to-do list.""

I can't say I agree with you on that one. It's no cliche to say that a culture is actually not ready for freedom yet and must be taught over time before it can self-govern effectively. Not only is that a very Trekkian, and non-cliche sentiment, but it's actually so advanced that the vast majority of intellectuals of our time aren't even at the point of grasping it. We like to think that we're so superior because we have a democratic way of life, however what this little ending tells us is that you aren't better because you have self-government; rather, you can only self-govern *once you are better*. In Trek terms that means evolving as a culture until ready for something like the UFP, probably after a few international fiascos first. It means that democracy doesn't actually work unless the people are worthy of it, because if they are easily lulled into complacency the system will soon be hopelessly corrupted. Even George Lucas knew that in Episode 1.

@Peter G.

Thanks for replying to my message. I'm not precisely sure what our point of disagreement is. You noted,

"We like to think that we're so superior because we have a democratic way of life, however what this little ending tells us is that you aren't better because you have self-government; rather, you can only self-govern *once you are better*. In Trek terms that means evolving as a culture until ready for something like the UFP, probably after a few international fiascos first. It means that democracy doesn't actually work unless the people are worthy of it."

I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above. I was trying to ask, how, exactly, can a group of people be *taught* to develop a normal, self-governing culture, when the "teachers" are poor role models? How will the Providers themselves be able to teach the lesson when they have no frame of reference or experience on which to draw?

I think a real-world analogy (albeit a crude one) would be that of slavemasters trying to teach slaves whom they has "released" from slavery, how to establish and maintain a system of self-governance. How is a slavemaster - to whom the very notion has been anathema by definition - qualified to do this, exactly?

"Once you become better" seems to be a logical requirement for self-government. The question is, though, how DOES a group of people become "better"? How do they become "worthy" of self-governance? I don't really know the answer to this question. Must they be taught? By whom, and how?

Some people say racism is "taught." I'm not sure of that. I think we can agree that it is something that must be learned - and that learning can happen without a teacher; someone can pick it up by simply by being in a certain environment wher racist behavior and language are common. There's no guaranteed outcome, in terms of impact on an indvidual, as a result of such exposure. Some people may observe the racist behavior and conclude it is wrong; some may find the behavior to be reasonable or non-offensive. I don't know how to teach "moral development" any more than I know how to teach "self-governance." Are people born morally neutral? Is morality a function of genetics? These are fascinating questions - but the questions - I can practically guarantee you - were not on the mind of the people who made this episode. What the reaction to the phrase "Chi-koo" would be, was what was on their minds.



I don't know the answers. Would the Republic in Episode 1 have been saved from political destruction if there was no such thing as a "Sith"?

Agree with the review and star rating.

THO I do agree with what most people have said, that the last scene is probably the ONLY thing that saves the episode. Shana is so underappreciated, vulnerable and quite a beautiful woman in all sense of the word. Beautiful words at the end! I teared up unexpectedly...

However I was cringing through the episode at how Kirk was using Shana at her expense. The cliche at getting into another womans pants because he "cares". Lol nope. But then they kissed and he punched her two seconds flat. I literally gasped. Goddamn so much is wrong with the way he behaves....

This episode ended with anticlimactic. 1/4 stars if that.

This episode taught me one important thing.

awesome + Jesus = Kirk

I love the aesthetics and simple premise. Not too found of over-the-top Kirk, and would have loved to see more of Chekov and especially Uhura, who once again were underused. What's the point of building them into the story if they are just going to serve as background? I mean they manage to give Spock and Bones proper roles in every Big 3 episode.

On another note: Anybody else noticed the general BDSM flirtation of the episode? The dungeons, the harness, the whipping, Shahna, Chekov tying up the female Thrall and Uhura getting pseudo-raped? Maybe it's just me, but it felt somewhat blatant.

Anyway, it sure was entertaining.

III / IV

While it's too unoriginal to merit 4 stars, it's too enjoyable of an episode for the one-star rating. I had FUN watching it. The really bad episodes of Star Trek are the ones that are boring, and this isn't one of them. All of the TOS cliches, like Kirk not wearing a shirt, getting with a hot alien babe, fight scenes, etc, are done pretty well in this episode. A solid two-and a half stars.

Could have been called "The Tricksters of Gaml'eon" just as easily and maybe that would make sense. Very cool they had a transgender alien however, her sex advances on Cheeecovv were very freakish!

There's a reason Chekov and Uhura had nothing to do in this episode, nor Sulu in any other: SHATNER. It's known now that he would demand for himself lines written for other actors even if they were that actor's only one in the script.

@ Trek fan, how is this episode not original?

@ Cinnamon, Is allowing sex on the set the reason Roddenberry was kicked off really? Why what's wrong with allowing that as long as it's all consensual and safe? And I'd never heard he was kicked off..when? Then how was he back for TNG? HOPE someone can respond.

“The Gamesters Of Triskelion” feels like an episode of Star Trek: Discovery.

It has all the hallmarks,

- gratuitous torture porn
- everyone is in jail/bondage
- Uhura gets raped
- young woman ensign (Haines) figures out the one and only clue - which saves the day (I really like her gold/command skirt)
- young woman ensign (Haines) is also a pilot
- woman fighter (Shahna) is an equal match for the men
- Chekov is paired with a transgendered female
- slavery = baaaaad
- open talk of mutiny

And most of all, you can totally imagine Michael Burnham giving Kirk’s final over-the-top inspirational speech:

"There's so much you must learn here first. [Is this where SMG would start to cry?] The Providers will teach you. Learn it, Shahna. [Well, by this point, SMG would totally be crying and hugging and EMOTING. Queue SOARING music]. All your people must learn before you can reach for the stars. Shahna. [Insert lens flare]”

What really gets me is that @Jammer gave this week’s Discovery torture porn (Terra Firma, Part 2) set in the MU, 2 whole stars.

“The Gamesters Of Triskelion” is easily better than Discovery.

I say, 2 1/2 stars (out of 4). That’s my final offer. I’m not gambling here.

One final note on the three brains: when I was a child, the reveal of the three brains was by far the most memorable part of the episode.

Years later, the Doctor Who reboot had an incredible trilogy that culminated in an episode called "Last of the Time Lords”.

In "Last of the Time Lords,” in the far, far, far future, humans are reduced to essentially a brain with no body that is enclosed in a small metal ball. And the pure brain future humans (called the Toclafane) decide to come back in time and kill a shit-ton of present-day humans.

One of the people on the show asks these pure-brain humans from the future why they are doing this? Why are they killing fellow humans. Their answer was insanely shocking to me. Still is, even though the episode aired 13 years ago.

TOM: What about us? We're the same species. Why do you kill so many of us?
BRAIN: Because it's fun!

Because it’s fun. Star Trek got there first, in 1968. Discovery pumps that shit out every fucking week. And people gobble it up. Cause torture and killing tickles the brain.

Kirk gets beautiful female alien. Kirk outwits rubber brains (instead of computer). Kirk wins all his fights. Spock and Bones argue. Humanity “proved” superior to all other life forms. Ridiculous stupid episode.

Although it took him an essay to say so, I think William B has it right: it’s the manipulation of Shana by Kirk in the supposed name of freedom while actually pursuing his own personal freedom, that provides the only real talking point of this episode.

1 star, or less.

Oh, one more note: this episode is essentially “The Cage” re-done, very badly.

For a brief moment, at the end of this awful episode, we saw the beautiful and vulnerable Angelique Pettijohn look up at the sky and promise to watch the stars, and to remember. She seemed very sweet and very abused. Pettijohn’s actual biography describes a beautiful woman, with real acting talent, who couldn’t get roles other than porn. Star Trek contributed to that abuse with this episode,and with the fact that she was the only guest actor who appeared at later Trek conventions topless and selling nude photos of herself as “Shanna” from Triskelion.
This is the most shameful legacy of an otherwise highly motivated series. From what base instincts did the writers and producers, and William Shatner, engage in making this show?
Pettijohn ended up a drug addict as so many abused women do, alone and tossed aside by the Hollywood and porn industry that used her up, dying of cancer when she was not yet 50.
I thought about that haunting last scene many times, and said a prayer for that lovely woman, hoping that she rests in peace.

Why couldn't Kirk just injure Shanna and have another fighter step in so he could kill him instead? I know the episode broke the rule at the end and allowed Shanna to live anyway, but still.

Should Starfleet leave such a potentially dangerous lifeform (the brains) alone, considering they can kidnap anyone from several lightyears away? I would think that's something they should address.

Why didn't Uhura and Chekov get those snazzy harnesses? They were Thralls too.

Some of us look at these episodes through the eyes of adults and judge based on that. As a kid, back in the 60s, I loved this episode and related extremely to the "collars of obedience" and the cells and the need to escape. What kid doesn't feel that way sometimes?

This episode is as brain-dead as any episode of Discovery. There is absolutely zero content. Granted, if Discovery tried remaking this episode, the show runners would probably make it worse. But it was terrible Im 1968 and it is terrible now.

Uhura gets raped, and spends the rest of the episode standing in the military "at ease" position. Kirk does or says nothing about it once Lars walks away.

Nothing else in this episode matters. Negative 4.

@ronstew
What happened to Uhura kind of makes this episode not the “trashy but entertaining” show that a number of people here claim it to be. Utter trash, for cheap titillation value. I’d like to think people were not titillated by what happened to Uhura

I don't think the writers intended for Uhura to actually be raped or maybe even "near-raped" and I don't think it would be consistent for a thrall to behave as such. Certainly it is meant to evoke very unpleasant feelings in the viewer with what Lars does to Uhura but I think it is just sort of standard violence from Lars toward Uhura for not cooperating. I think Kirk quickly realizes this.

Given what we know of the pain collars and removal of independent thinking to a considerable extent, the Providers are effectively not permitting a thrall to actually rape another slave. As I recall, the thralls have mates selected for them by the Providers, and thus the next generation of thralls comes about. They are carefully managing their own slaves.

It is fair to say that there was an implied attempted rape. we don’t (well, I don’t) know what writer Margaret Armen intended. She passed away in 2003 and to my knowledge did not publicly comment on the episode. It appears there is a first draft floating around somewhere. The original title was “The Gamesters of Pentathlon.” Careful management of slaves is not inconsistent with rape.

Dear Lord, I am starting to THINK about this brain-dead episode.

This one is the worst tos episode.

For some reason I’m cracking up while picturing this family of four -- maybe a devout mom, a dad and two young kids under ten or so -- sitting down in their living room together to watch the latest episode of good old wholesome Star Trek on January 5, 1968, and being treated to a rousing night of BDSM, Uhura locked in a jail cell with a man twice her size and screaming in terror, a transgendered slave (oh excuse me, a “Thrall”) putting the moves on Chekov, and Kirk popping Shahna in the face.

I bet I know exactly how this got past the 1968 NBC censors, too. “Well, uh, if the gladiator was whipping Angelique Pettyjohn, we couldn’t show that. But he’s only whipping Shatner, so the hell with it.”

@Pamrl has it absolutely right. Everything here was merely an exercise in cheap entertainment and audience titillation. Not that I’m complaining. I like T&A and shutting my brain off in front of the television as much as the next man. Still, my youngest son is 13. We started watching “The Man Trap” when he was still 11 (I know, that’s how long this is taking), and if we had caught up to “The Gamesters of Triskelion” back then, well, let me just say that there are scenes here that would give even *me* pause as to whether or not he ought to be watching it.

Pettyjohn delivers a wretched performance as Shahna, but she was still pretty hot in her Reynolds Wrap bra and panties, and while gazing up at Shatner with those huge bedroom eyes.

I really don’t know what to make of “The Gamesters of Triskelion.” Why bother slogging through this mess when there is plenty of *actual* torture porn and Only Fans accounts out there? But I kid. I guess I’ll use the same grading criteria for this one that I used for “Friday’s Child.”


Speak Freely:
Scotty -- “Heaven’s got very little to do with this.”


My Grade: D-

Kirk stepped into the green area several times and he was not deprived of any weapon.

If you are looking for subtlety, Gamesters of Triskellion is not the episode for you. Every story element is taken to anvil extreme, including a set of three Providers that each not only have no heart, but also no body. For a change, Uhura and Chekov get to be off ship, but then we see them little. Instead, this is a story of Kirk and drill thrall Shahna played by Angelique Pettyjohn.

I have a difficult time accepting any imprisoned drill thrall as being as innocent and gullible as portrayed in Shahna. I also wonder about reports Pettyjohn was similar. If true, her choice of industry was tragic, to the extent it may have led to her early death, in which case the tear-welling ending of this episode is all the more appropriate. For this one I wager 2 of 4 quatloos.

@RankTrek:

))I have a difficult time accepting any imprisoned drill thrall as being as innocent and gullible as portrayed in Shahna.((

I think that an argument could be made that a person - raised since birth in such an emotionally deprived and loveless environment - might be completely taken off guard by a simple offer of kindness and affection.

Remember her matter-of-factly explaining about her mother?

"She who bore me was killed in a freestyle match."

That was quite the dead-pan delivery!

I think that it's entirely plausible that Shahna might have "fallen" for Kirk!

@Proud Capitalist Pig:

))Pettyjohn delivers a wretched performance as Shahna((

I think that Pettyjohn acquitted herself admirably in the role of an emotionally abused and stunted "drill thrall" who has been trained since birth to fight life-and-death bouts for the amusement of the Providers! And the delivery of her closing lines was moving!

Who could have delivered a great performance as Shahna, exactly? Meryl Streep? The part was wretched

The simple fact that anyone actually took the time to review this episode in more than a single paragraph boggles my mind. "Don't touch the other colors or .. " and they're all over the place. HA HA HA. This is not only a comedy of errors, it is... ummm actually.. watching it again...

...god damn, that chick is HOT! The best way to manage this episode is in SLO-MOTION but only in the scenes with the chick.

Favorite: "Your titles mean nothing here....Captain."

The people here complaining about Kirk's manipulation of Shahna to facilitate his escape are overlooking a key fact: she was not a neutral fellow victim of DOnovan's brains. SHe was Kirk's captor and jailer. It was her pointed stick, lethally branished, that subuded Kirk into captivity, and almost killed him at the end. She and CHekov's jailer captured and held Uhura at the start. SHe led him on his slavery conditioning and was the source of his food as commanded by the thrallmasters. She locked his cell behind her. Sh was Galt in a diaper. The fact she did it all out of fear rather than loyalty or pay makes little difference to a captive.

@Lawrence Bullock
""Some of us look at these episodes through the eyes of adults and judge based on that. As a kid, back in the 60s, I loved this episode and related extremely to the "collars of obedience" and the cells and the need to escape. What kid doesn't feel that way sometimes?""

I, too, can relate to this, as I was a kid when Star Trek first aired. In reality, Star Trek was no different than any of the other television shows that aired at the time. Right off hand, Big Valley comes to mind and it was a western. It wasn't unheard of for any of the eligible but completely unattainable Barkley bachelors to end up imprisoned or tortured. Audra was threatened with rape more than once and even Barbara Stanwyck was thrown under the bus from time to time.

As an adult, I don't even know if I could watch "The Gamesters of Triskelion" today because it is embarrassing. But then, I am probably among the few that finds "The Empath" just as embarrassing.

It seems to me Star Trek is really on the fence about who should be at the controls on some of these planets. In "The Apple", Kirk and crew were outraged that a computer was at the helm, caring for a small population of very happy people. They had to change all of that. In the "Return of the Archons", they were also outraged over a computer being at the helm, even though the computer let the local population run amok every once and a while. They had to change that. These weren't the only offending episodes by any means.

Here we have three bully "brains" who pluck beings from the galaxy and throw them into a barbarian world to fight to the death. Who are they and why are they on such a desolate planet? For that matter why did they choose Kirk, Uhura, and Chekov? What made them so special? Kirk manages to get their attention, but if fighting is the entertainment here, any alien could do that.

As for the romance aspect, that was becoming standard fare in the series, and it was no different from the other programs of the time. In Kirk's defense, fraternizing with the inhabitants, especially one who could be beneficial for him would not be unheard of. While Kirk would be trying to escape, who's to say that he would be successful?

"...god damn, that chick is HOT! The best way to manage this episode is in SLO-MOTION but only in the scenes with the chick."

Lights of Zetar.

KIRK: The price of your survival is too high.
ZETAR: We only want the chick.

AN episode on a planet surface where CHekov doesn't scream, and Uhura doesn't say "Captain, I'm frightened".

“She was Galt in a diaper”
- Yes. I can’t believe people are trying to analyze this episode beyond that level of insight. The Star Trek fight music, the stand-out colors, the violence, the dumb dialogue-this episode has everything an adolescent male would want.

And would hopefully want to move away from at some point. But I guess not, with some people calling Angelique Pettyjohn-she had a name-“the chick.”

This episode is to some supposed adults like Maxim magazine is to teenage boys - irresistible empty trash

I think Gamesters of Triskelion deserves a bit more consideration than most people are willing to give it. While its overall execution is clunky and often straight up goofy, the themes surrounding the destructive nature of exploitation are pretty interesting. I think the point the episode was making is that the process of using other people in dehumanizing ways, in this case gladiatorial slavery, has an equally dehumanizing effect on the users themselves, in this episode that’s expressed by having the gamesters literally be disembodied brains. In a sort of Newtonian law of moral causality, robbing another person of their humanity requires an intrinsic diminishment of one’s own identity. In this case both the thralls and the gamesters have been reduced to trivial, one dimensional beings, locked in a destructive and ultimately meaningless cycle.

With this in mind I can appreciate a few bold choices I think the episode made. First, there’s Uhura being menaced in her cell by her Elvis-impersonator thrall. This scene struck me as intended to cause discomfort in a 1960s audience by creating allusions to the legacy of American slavery and its related and persistent racism through a viscerally threatening way. Then in the following scene Uhura is once again put in an impossible position by being ordered to whip a bound and disobedient thrall, who also was cast as a black man, which I can’t imagine was unintentional. Having such pronounced and button pushing imagery feels very subversive, and possibly was intended to force American audiences at the time to turn their gaze inward and examine their own reactions to such uncomfortable situations. Apparently many of the commenters above found these things “titillating”, which is weird, but to each his/her own I guess. where Gamesters fails is that it didn’t really stick with these ideas, instead we get pulled into very silly fight scenes that don’t even pay attention to their own rules, and scenes of Chekhov and his butch thrall being awkward for laughs. And of course there’s the Kirk/shahna relationship, which works fine I suppose, but maybe got more focus than it deserved.

Personally I didn’t see too much sexism in this episode that other comments alluded to. I didn’t get any sense that the episode was saying women are weak or easy to fool or anything, rather I think Kirk exploits shahna’s repressed humanity through a combination of his rugged physique and wicked right cross in order to find a way out of captivity, in so doing he stoops pretty low, but that’s kinda the whole theme of the episode: exploitation is demeaning to all involved.

All of this isn’t to say that Gamesters is a good episode, it’s not really, I’d say it’s fairly middling. But I get a sense that it was trying to push the envelope, and I can recognize that effort at least.

The stuff on the Enterprise was a bit annoying to me, both bones and Scotty needed to take a nap or something. Spock acquitted himself well tho, and we got a gold-skirt who seemed like a bit of a badass.

2.5/4 quatloos.

@idh2023
The menacing and whipping were not titillating. The showmakers DID try to titillate in other ways-by havi g the diaper and the costume that shoved Shana’s breasts into your face. Kirk was clearly aroused by Shana and apparently we the viewers were meant to be aroused surrogates. Whether these Uhura scenes were actually meant to be subversive and give viewers discomfort is something I never thought of until you raised the point. I see no evidence of an attempt to subvert from anyone involved in the making of the show. But, as you said, to each his own