Script blunders!

I thought that the practical answer was that they could only afford to make ONE visor, But they needed Kirk in the transporter Room, so., they filmed it, thinking, "Hell, Maybe no one will notice" (Or maybe Shatner was being a pompous ass, and did not want to wear a visor)

 

They had at least two visors (image link), so that idea doesn't wash.

 

You mean the Shatner who played a horse, slapped himself silly, danced, and later wore a minidress in "Plato's Stepchildren"? That Shatner? Because he was a trouper when the script called for putting his ego aside.

Also, the visor didn't look very expensive for the prop department to make. If you're doing two of them, with strips of plastic that need to be cut and curled, you can do three for the same cost of materials. They had to buy that plastic in units bigger than the prop, and the excess lengths of plastic going into the trash would be plenty if you wanted that third visor.

 

Yes it was correcting the script. He was meant to say ship but he said Bridge instead by mistake

 

I don't recall TOS-R fixing any of the flopped shots, though I could be wrong.

 

"R" came first, so "T" is the blunder

 

What if the prop department or set dressing got it wrong?

“Oh, christ! Frank? Frank, does that look like a goddamned “T” to you? Where are your effin’ glasses? Oh, well, no one is gonna watch this crap anyway and the schnucks that do will never notice.”

 

I think Gene is on record as saying "We forgot".

 

James R. Kirk is in the script.

 

“The Way To Eden” and “The Enemy Within” for starters.

 

Yes, the “R” was a continuity error, not a script error, it was only later that the “T” was decided upon.

Anywho, since my interest in TOS/Trek these days is in technical stuff related to deck plans and the like, I’ve been doing some research which I think has uncovered some script errors related to deck level/location blunders.

One was just mentioned recently in another thread, regarding “The Enterprise Incident” and the need for a much lower deck destination than “deck two” in order to accommodate the long conversation that takes place in the Turbo lift from the bridge to the quarters assigned to the Romulan Commander. In the James Blish adaptation –based on early scripts- the long conversation takes place on the Bridge, and so it is only when the scene was changed, probably at Roddenberry’s request, that the need for a destination dialogue was necessary, and somebody, probably Freiberger, pulled deck two out of thin air without giving much thought to continuity.

Another one is the early script for “Amok Time” used by Blish (Probably no later than the second draft teleplay: May 5th 67) which has Kirk going to Spock’s quarters from the bridge, after finding that his orders had been countermanded, rather than going to the bridge to confront Spock, as in the aired version. So it’s likely the script originally had Spock’s quarters on deck 5 as the turbolift destination dialogue [per Fontana’s revised second draft, mid-May?] -not sickbay, as it seems in the aired version, this error being the result of the change of scene from Spock’s quarters to the turbolift [per Roddenberry’s revised final draft, 1st of June?] compounded by an oversight in not changing the turbolift destination dialogue accordingly, before filming began.

 

I have three different drafts of this script and the earliest one is the version Sturgeon turned in as his final draft. It's dated May 2, 1967 and I *think* it would have been the basis for the production company's first draft. Anyway, Spock goes to sickbay in this version but there's no mention of a deck number. The deck number is in the June 3, 1967 and subsequent versions.

Btw, I don't understand Memory Alpha's cataloging of the various Amok Time scripts -- the draft revisions and dates don't match the real world.

 

That's not in itself a contradiction if there is only one child, the other two sons being adults who had got on with their own lives.
So three sons, but only one child.

 

Thanks for the info alchemist, I'll amend my notes accordingly.

As I understand it, "Amok Time" was planned for the late 1st season but but was held until the 2nd because of Sturgeon's reputation for a laborious writing process. So maybe Blish got hold of a very early outline and that's why his differs slightly in regards later versions? It is interesting that he doesn't actually give any dialogue for these scenes, but just describes the situation, as if he's referencing a mere outline, and not a more fleshed out early draft.

Also to clarify, I assume you mean to say that Spock (and Kirk?) went from the bridge to sickbay as in the final version, or did Spock go from his quarters to sickbay? And since you say Spock went to sickbay but no deck # is given, then I assume Spock (or Kirk?) gave the turbolift destination as "sickbay"?

The reason I ask is because even in the Blish version Spock goes to sickbay after the conversation with Kirk, it's just a matter of the scene location (Spock's quarters vs the turbolift) that changes.

IOW, the "deck 5" dialogue would be originally Kirk's as he goes to Spock's quarters from the bridge after finding out that his orders were changed, but later after talking to Spock, orders him to sickbay, so the latter would comply - possibly by taking a turbolift and saying "sickbay" to the computer?

Sorry to seem so nit-picky, but I really am trying to understand what might have went on to the best of my ability, and I still get the feeling that there was some confusion between Spock's quarters (deck 5?) and sickbay.

BTW, I was indeed going by Memory Alpha's info, the only draft script I was able to find online was the final draft dated the day before filming was to begin, and by then all the dialogue and scenes in question match what's onscreen.

 

The shots in The Way To Eden TOS-R version are as per the original, they aren't 'unflopped'.

The Enemy Within opening was 'unflopped' pre TOS-R for the 1990s remastering.

 

Whups. My mistake re "Eden".

I never saw the 1990s pre-mastering. My first encounter with unflopped "Enemy" was TOS-R.

 

That's exactly my point. An earlier episode said the Kirk's brother sister-in-law and their three children saw him off on his five-year mission and later a writer of a later script either either knows of the previous script and chooses to ignore it or doesn't know how many nephews Captain Kirk has and just writes it and nobody bothers to explain it or correct it. It's left to the audience to say oh well I guess they're older and they moved on with their lives. There are literally hundreds of little inconsistencies that the writers ignored or never knew about that fans for the past fifty years have been explaining away with their own explanations.
Also by the way the way the script was written the boy was now pretty much an orphan and decided to live with friends of the family on deneva. If you had two older siblings wouldn't the first choice to be to go live with his brothers rather than just be given to friends of the family? Clearly the writer of the episode did not take into account that it had been previously established that he had siblings presumably older and off on their own if he knew of them at all. But I suppose if you want to you can make up a convoluted excuse why his two older siblings couldn't take care of him but the fact of the matter is the scriptwriter had no clue about the so-called older siblings or did not care.
In early episodes of season 1 Spock referred to having a female human ancestor - certainly not the way somebody would refer to their mother - and then he referred to his father on a number of occasions in the past tense as if he was dead and then when it came time to write journey to Babel they didn't care about those previous established points and magically his female human ancestor is his mother and his father is very much alive. These are not blunders that can't be explained away because blunders can always be explained away.

 

Somebody who saw the script for sure said the line was supposed to be "someone is beaming down from the ship"
And Takei misspoke and said the "bridge"
In any case it really doesn't make a difference because a person real-life could easily make them same mistake -- say the wrong word -- it happens every single day millions of times to people.
Not quite the same as William Shatner mispronouncing mr. Kyle's name at least five times during the immunity syndrome