Talk:The Keeper

Vic Perrin
The only source I've seen indicating that Vic Perrin dubbed the voice of The Keeper is the first edition of ''The Star Trek Compendium. Since the release of, as well as other references, it has become clear that Malachi Throne's original voice work was simply altered but not replaced. --GNDN 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) I removed the reference to Vic Perrin's credit in Part I, because The Keeper does not actually speak until Part II. --Tombstone 00:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. IMDb credits Perrin with the voiceover for the episode. Also, given the technology available in 1967, not to mention budget limitations, it would have been far easier and cheaper to hire a new actor to re-record the dialogue than filter Throne's voice through some kind of elaborate filter. Even if it were possible, it would have been cost-prohibitive. --Tombstone 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed
I removed the whole kit 'n caboodle:


 * However, for, the vocals were performed by Vic Perrin, who has a much higher pitched voice than Throne. When "The Cage" was first released on VHS, the film cut from "The Menagerie" was reintegrated, but only in black-and-white. In the non-color footage you hear Throne's voice, and in the color footage, you hear Perrin's.

Because we shouldn't be relying on IMDB. --Alan 17:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Compendium and Logic
Vic Perrin did the re-dub, and should be credited as such. Even if you discount iMDB, there's Asherman's Star Trek Compendium, not to mention simple logic. 1. Perrin was doing voices, for Star Trek, at the same time. 2. Given the time, expense, and difficulty involved in running Throne's voice through some sort of elaborate filter, your suggestion is very unlikely. Furthermore, no source has been cited that this audio processing ever actually took place.

Obviously, I am not going to engage in an editing battle. Instead I am going to ask that you objectively acknowledge the implausibility of what you are suggesting and restore the Vic Perrin re-dub credit on all pages referencing the Magistrate. Thank you. -- Tombstone 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Keeper is "unnamed"?!
Should The Keeper's entry really be here? He is referred to with that name in both the story outline of "The Cage" (as can be found in The Making of Star Trek) as well as the 2nd revised final draft script. --Defiant 18:11, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * He used to have a separate entry (once upon a long ago), but consensus was that the name "The Keeper" was merely a title, and not actually his name, and as such, he was merged into the unnamed list. -- sulfur 18:18, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the title be given an article of its own? --Defiant 18:51, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

It just seems a bit odd that the likes of The Traveler have their own articles, whereas The Keeper doesn't; I think the same ruling should apply to all such cases, unless there's a specific reason for that not to be so. --Defiant 18:54, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I reckon that The Keeper is his name (just as much as "The Traveler" was that alien's name) is not only because he was referred to as that throughout the writing of "The Cage" but also because the script refers to him very, very frequently as "The Keeper", giving the impression that "Magistrate" was actually his title. As an aside, if there was discussion regarding the deletion of his individual article, it should have been/should be moved or copied to this talk page. --Defiant 07:52, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Support giving The Keeper his own page (again). We have a number of similar pages where we go with the individual's title, or just a description of them. E.g. Caretaker (Nacene), Caretaker (Shore Leave Planet), Viceroy (Reman), and the Humanoid Figure ("Future Guy"). The Keeper is analogous. –Cleanse ( talk 09:15, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * We also have Chef (Enterprise NX-01).--31dot 10:48, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * If were doing this, a link should remain here, much like the unnamed links for the other examples mentioned previously, and all the uses of "the Keeper" need to be updated to "The Keeper" and the note on The Doctor in the manual of style needs to be expanded. "The Traveler" also needs updating in that regard as well. - 11:09, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

The story outline refers to him as "the Keeper", whereas the script uses "The Keeper". --Defiant 11:41, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that he should have his own page. How long do we wait before making the transition? --Defiant 13:55, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * As with most things, a week is recommended at the policy. The "the" issue should be cleared up before then, since if it's "the Keeper", the page should be a "Keeper", not "The Keeper". - 14:02, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we get some longer quotes from the scripts to see the specifics of when, how and why Mr.Bighead was called that way? -- Cid Highwind 14:30, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Lol! :) I actually went through the script last night, for the first time. Going through the whole thing is quite an undertaking and I don't really have time right now, but I'll make sure I do so again during the week, making more notes from it (such as here). Basically, when he's introduced, the script reads, "ANGLE - TALOSIANS; Emphasizing one who wears an authoritative-looking jeweled pendant on a short chain around his neck. We will come to know this Talosian as THE KEEPER. He watches the screen intently, then leans in as if seeing something of more than average interest." From that point on, he's essentially always referred to as "The Keeper" (though there are exceptions). He's also listed in the cast list as "THE KEEPER". I'll detail the exceptions later. And this might be a long shot, but if anyone else here has the script, feel free to comment/assist. --Defiant 15:00, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * That quote indeed shows that we could use "[The] Keeper" as a title for a separated article. However, after having had another look at the current content, the question is whether we really should. 2/3rds or more of the relevant section is not really describing the character itself, but is a retelling of parts of, which might better be located at the episode article or at Talosian (and in fact already is duplicated there). Removing it from this section where it doesn't belong would just leave a very short description that will additionally have serious overlap with the other Talosian characters. A redirect from that title might be the better alternative here.
 * Also, I have to ask whether "Magistrate" (which is used as the section title currently) has been used on-screen to describe or address that character. If this is the case, a canon descriptive title tops a background info descriptive title, and should be used instead. The article would then need to be moved to Talosian Magistrate, instead. -- Cid Highwind 13:24, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there's no reason why we can't rewrite the info for this character, centralizing it more around The Keeper and making it more relevant to him. A quick check of the episode's transcript confirms my suspicion that the terms keeper and magistrate are both used on-screen. While Magistrate is said only once in the episode, "keeper" is used twice: the first time, as "The Keeper", and the second time when Pike says to Vina, "Back in my cage, it seemed for a couple of minutes that our keeper couldn't read my thoughts. Do emotions like hate, keeping hate in your mind, does that block off our mind from them?" Plus, the scripted exceptions I mentioned earlier are basically "Keeper", rather than "The Keeper" (of which there's at least one case of the former, as well as the usual he/him indirect references). --Defiant 20:14, August 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that rewrite needs to precede any further discussion about the suggested split, or its implementation. Basically, we all need to see how much information will really be left for the suggested new article. -- Cid Highwind 23:14, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair comment, Cid, but I also think there's an extreme amount of bg info available on this character (such as his above scripted introduction, as well as the info that's already available on the non-Talk "Unnamed Talosians" page). Filling up info about him shouldn't be a problem, methinks. --Defiant 00:18, August 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now removed information that better belongs on other articles (diff). The info removed here already is located on either Talosian or Menagerie, so that nothing is lost. Parts of the information were worded exactly the same on both pages, so I assume they had been copied from one page to the other before. -- Cid Highwind 14:23, August 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * The 6KB text that have now been added are just another story retelling instead of stuff that is directly about the character. -- Cid Highwind 10:22, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Lol! Hardly. If you actually read the article, it's virtually all (apart from only 2 sentences) from the Keeper's perspective and is about him; his actions, etc. The mistake of not knowing the difference between an in-depth article about a character and an episode summary (which should be written from a range of perspectives) is too common an error here on MA. I remember it was made with the Tuvix article (partly by myself), and it's clearly being made again here. --Defiant 11:07, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Not only does the info consistently centralize the Keeper's viewpoint and behavior, but it also makes no mention of such characters as Spock, Doctor Boyce, and the Enterprise Geologist, as these characters were never encountered by the Keeper on-screen. How good would a "story retelling" that made no mention of Spock be?! --Defiant 11:23, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Granted, it's written in a chronological style and doesn't (yet) include info from "The Menagerie" two-parter. But why should the chronological style be exclusively the territory of episode and movie summaries?! That makes no sense, as characters, etc. have histories too. Also, there's plenty of room for info from "The Menagerie" to still be added. In fact, I suggest you contribute to the actual article – if you feel so strongly about it – rather than just criticize anything else anyone writes there, precisely because the article is far from set in stone. --Defiant 12:13, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because the retelling now contains gems such as "the Keeper implied an instruction by nodding at the pair of other Talosian observers", it doesn't become anything else than a retelling of the Cage scenes that happened to have the Magistrate character in it. All that implicit nodding and at least three variants of him watching the action on a screen might as well be condensed into the simple fact that he was in charge of the whole abduction operation.
 * As an aside, you telling me to "contribute to the actual article" is somewhat beside the point - I did contribute by first asking to have superfluous stuff removed from the article, then by doing it myself. All that happened was that you added more of it. The alternative to me discussing that addition would be me removing that stuff again (and probably you accusing me of starting an edit war). If you don't want to discuss, we could of course do it via edits to the article itself... -- Cid Highwind 12:24, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Remember it's only your opinion that it's superfluous, just as it's only my opinion that it's not. Maybe I should have been clearer about that recommendation of contributing; is it so hard for you to actually create some of what is written, rather than editing/deleting it?! --Defiant 12:39, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

In other words, now that I've had a go... that clearly wasn't up to your standards... you have a go and see if it comes up to mine. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, here; I'll give you my honest opinion of how you structured it, etc. and I won't automatically dismiss it, only because you've criticized my effort. But just to criticize the previous creative efforts without making any sort of creative effort yourself seems pretty hypocritical. --Defiant 12:52, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I've gotta say... I really like the new version – it concisely summarizes virtually all the facts we need to have about the character. Fantastic work, Cid, and sorry if I've been a bit judgmental. So, just to sort of clarify – info from "The Menagerie" is still to be added, plus there's two key points that I think should also be included; I'm not completely sure where one of them should go (specifically, that the Keeper was the only Talosian seen to have the weird throbbing-vein effect, associated with his communications) and the other is that one of the illusions that the Keeper created was turning his own appearance into that of the anthropoid ape. --Defiant 14:40, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Are we gonna keep on pretending that there's not enough info for the Keeper to have his own page?! --Defiant 01:46, August 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * So is it "The Keeper" or "the Keeper"? - 01:54, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be "the Keeper"; it's referred to about twice in the script as Keeper without the "the", and of the two references in the episode, one is Pike saying to Vina during the Mojave scene "our keeper" (though the other reference in the episode is to "the keeper" and, also, the script mostly refers to the character as "The Keeper"). --Defiant 08:32, August 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds more like it should be "The Keeper" instead of just "Keeper". A bg note could be used to point out that while "The Keeper" was used more, there were instances of just "Keeper" being used; and "our keeper" doesn't really detract from the onscreen use of "The Keeper". - 17:10, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be along similar lines as I've been thinking, lately (basically, ever since I posted my most recent reply!) I've been considering that the existence of The Doctor article does not negate the article on doctor, and vice versa. We could possibly have an article on "The Keeper" for this character and "keeper". The latter one already exists as a simple redirect, though more info could be added to it. I reckon we should go ahead with "The Keeper" as this character's name as you suggest, Archduk3. --Defiant 17:45, August 16, 2011 (UTC)