Talk: And the Children Shall Lead (episode)

Away team[]

I'm sure I'm probably the only one who cares about this, but . . .

The use of the term "Away Team" did not appear during the original series as far as I know; "Landing Party" was the accepted reference. TNG was okay, but I don't like to see references from it creeping backward into TOS.

(this is just a very minor nitpick - you guys are doing an absolutely awesome job on the whole) OS-Trek 14:30, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. If you've been around as long as I have (since the first season NBC repeats in the summer of '67) you've seen the shows many times, and you've seen just about everything there is to see. - Adambomb1701 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hadley and Chekov[]

I moved the following out of the article:

* In some stock footage shots of the bridge Lt. Hadley is sitting at Chekov's station, creating continuity errors.

Chekov had been at the station for most of the episode, but Hadley relieved him when the children ordered him to apprehend Kirk. Hadley continued at the station since Kirk and Spock had knocked out Chekov in the ensuing fight. Egan Loo 20:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

More nits...[]

I removed:

• Professor Starnes mentions a "Professor Wilkins" in one of his dictations. Yet, there are no graves marked "Wilkins".

• Kirk appears to "forget" two security men on Triacus. The landing party returns aboard, leaving two guards on the planet. At the end, Kirk sets course for a starbase, seemingly forgetting the two men.

These are nits, I can't see any reason to justify their inclusion in the background information. --Alan del Beccio 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored the second one, which I wouldn't call a "nit" - actually kind of interesting. SimpsonDG 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Was it ever specifically stated that they were not beamed up, or is this speculation? The word "seemingly" would indicate 'yes, it is speculation.' If that is the case, then it is a nit. Just because no one stated 'hey beam up the red shirts' or 'hey lets not go back and get those red shirts' doesn't mean that they were "forgot", especially if the base was en route, or other unseen/unheard circumstance could indicate otherwise. --Alan del Beccio 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone restored the first one as well. - Adambomb1701 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the second alleged "nit", it seems to me that if people watching the episode who aren't major Star Trek buffs notice the plot hole/loose end, and say aloud "Wait, what about the guys they left on the planet?", it's hardly a "nit" and certainly deserves inclusion. This isn't speculation, it's a gaffe in the writing, and one that absolutely needs to be included. 69.112.253.157 01:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, as I stated already: Was it ever specifically stated that they were not beamed up, or is this speculation? The word "seemingly" would indicate 'yes, it is speculation.' If that is the case, then it is a nit. Just because no one stated 'hey beam up the red shirts' or 'hey lets not go back and get those red shirts' doesn't mean that they were "forgot", especially if the base was en route, or other unseen/unheard circumstance could indicate otherwise. --Alan 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is also very possible that (off camera) a message was sent to a closer starship where Kirk alerted the ship that due to a problem onboard his ship two security men were stranded on a planet and could they please go and pick these men up. There are many ways to explain what happened at the end of that episode (although, at the young age of 13 when I saw that episode for the first time, I admit that was the very first thing I noticed!) -FC 03:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

C'mon! 69.112.253.157 is right! I just came to see this discussion after seeing the episode (for the first time, so its something very noticiable!). I realised it right away after its end. The episode just ended and I ran for memory alpha. I belive its reasonable to see this as a grotesque writing mistake. Its a marvelous series, sure, but every show has its share of mistakes... 189.87.149.23NeoStrider

Nobody is saying it wasn't an odd way to end an episode, so the fact that you noticed is not really relevant to the issue. The point is that making a note here in the episode article presuming this is a mistake is off topic, and not based on any real source.

This article is about the episode, and should have a summary, a list of references, and notations on real facts about the production. Just because one person decides there was a huge mistake, it doesn't mean that everyone shares that same judgement. Everyone is so eager to add their own observations to the article about the episode, they seemed to have missed the fact that we have articles about almost every conceivable aspect of the episode where this information could be added. We're not looking for laundry lists of personal observations to be added here, no matter how many people think they found the same error. -- Captain MKB 01:51, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that the security detail on the planet was forgotten. Kirk attempts to have them beamed up while the ship was enroute to Marcos, at which time Spock recognized that the ship had left orbit of Triacus. After reaching Marcos, Kirk then orders the ship to Starbase 4. Perhaps Starbase 4 is between Marcos and Triacus, and therefore it would be reasonable to drop off the children prior to fetching the security detail. 108.12.246.192

We should simply report the facts: "the fate of the two security team members is unknown, as they were still on the planet by the end, and Kirk orders the ship to Starbase 4." There we go, no speculation whatsoever, just the facts. It's funny though, that the people who are against adding this seem to be hypocritically offering random speculation themselves, stating thing such as "well, maybe they went back after dropping off the kids?" I just saw this episode and it was literally the first thing that I realized. Tons of other people have realized it. Just add the facts to the article. 95.97.234.31 13:29, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

Pat Robertson note[]

For years this episode was never seen in syndication in Dallas, Texas. The station that aired the series was KXTX-TV, owned by Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). Apparently someone (perhaps Robertson) at CBN felt the "friendly angel" was something that shouldn't be seen on a Christian television station -- or that the kids' circling, chanting routine looked too much like witchcraft.

I am removing this note. It has been in the article without citation for 7 months, it can go back when it has a citation. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 11:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes removed[]

"What's wrong?"
"I am unable to lock onto the proper coordinates, Captain. It appears we are no longer orbiting Triacus."
"That's impossible. If we're not orbiting Triacus... then the men I beamed down... are dead!"
"Captain, we are no longer orbiting Triacus."

- Kirk and Spock

"Captain. Why are we bothering Starfleet?"
"That was an order, Spock!"
"This bridge is under complete control. There is no need."
"Take a look around you."
"I cannot obey your order, Captain."

- Spock and Kirk

Removed the above passages per MA:QUOTE.--31dot 20:09, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Any connection?[]

J. Barre story "Peter Pan" was very popular about Innocent children growing up without adults..yet in Star Trek Universive epsiodes..this theme of children who have grown up alone has evil results:

• Charlie X an emotionaly unstable adololesent those "Super Powers" wreck havoc against the entire universive
• Miri 300 year old children..who almost cause the death of Kirk and Company
• And the Children Shall Lead...needi I say more?

Puzzeled[]

• And the Children Shall Lead...What?????

The two security guards left on the planet[]

The two security guards left on the planet seems to have been forgotten in the script. They are still on the planet by the end, and Kirk orders the ship to Starbase 4. This should be mentioned, because a lot of people reacts on this it seems. Fabben (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)