Script blunders!

[Warped9]

I tackled the shuttlecraft, shuttlecraft variants, the flight deck and the maintenance deck (below the flight deck). I haven’t yet tackled the small area in the fantail—something on my list of things to do…eventually.

I also never tackled the bridge. Hmm, maybe I should have a go at that.

I do have to wonder how much close attention has been given to designs that have followed since TOS over the years. For example it seems pretty clear the rec room in TMP simply can’t fit where it’s supposed to at the edge of the saucer.

 

[blssdwlf]

I tackled the shuttlecraft, shuttlecraft variants, the flight deck and the maintenance deck (below the flight deck). I haven’t yet tackled the small area in the fantail—something on my list of things to do…eventually.

I also never tackled the bridge. Hmm, maybe I should have a go at that.

I do have to wonder how much close attention has been given to designs that have followed since TOS over the years. For example it seems pretty clear the rec room in TMP simply can’t fit where it’s supposed toat tge edge of the saucer.

The production of the TMP Enterprise sets did not appear to follow most of Probert's drawings. You could make Andrew Probert's version of the TMP Enterprise or the version seen on screen where the inside is definitely larger than the outside. Think of the TMP Enterprise having the same onscreen problems the TOS Shuttle had between interior and exterior.

 

[BK613]

I don’t want to seem too picayune but this one says “NCC-1700”. If we went strictly by the image we’d be left to think USS Constitution was on security alert.

You're not. Just pointing out that any illustrated version of the Enterprise, even a NCC-1700 (could the Enterprise have started out as NCC-1700?

You know, the graphic actual has NCC- 700 on it. (ducks and runs)

 

[Warped9]

It has little bearing on this discussion, but when I am creating my own designs I obsessively workout the general deck arrangement while also accounting for outer hull and deck floor thickness, all so I can get my windows lined up in the right place.

*Sigh*

I’m a sick man…

 

[blssdwlf]

You know, the graphic actual has NCC- 700 on it. (ducks and runs)

LOL - Yeah it does! There does appear to be a "1" in front of the 7 but it is so faint. It would explain the Constellations NCC-1017 number if the class started at NCC-700

 

[TIN_MAN]

And that is using behind-the-scenes illustrations/creator-intent which after looking through the TMoST drawings you kinda have to do as those aren't consistent to begin with.

But isn't that central point we've all been dancing around in the last few pages? None of this stuff is consistent. Even after looking through the TOS onscreen canon you find those "aren't consistent to begin with" either.

You and others can do this stuff however you want, but for me, when faced with vagueness or inconsistencies in whatever medium, it just seems to make more sense to first go to the people who created the world of Star Trek -and who put the words into the mouth of the characters in the first place- whenever and wherever possible, and see what they had to say before we start indulging in flights of fantasy to try to explain things that don't add up.

This is why I originally asked about Scotty's decks 5 and 6 lines vs Daystrom's decks 4 and 6 in TUC, because I'd like to know if Blish's version, which has Scotty saying decks 4 and 6 -just like Daystrom, reflects the way the script was actually written, or if it was just Blish's own interpretation of what the dialogue should have said. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the relevant shooting script or revisions, therefore my research on what creator intent has to say on the matter is stymied unless someone who does, steps forward with the relevant information.

 

[blssdwlf]

But isn't that central point we've all been dancing around in the last few pages? None of this stuff is consistent. Even after looking through the TOS onscreen canon you find those "aren't consistent to begin with" either.

The central point I'm advocating is identify your references and stay consistent to it so it's easier to discuss. (EDIT: Think of it as letting us know and sticking with what your sort and filter is for all this data that is not consistent.) If I were saying that I'm sticking with TOS onscreen evidence then I'd work with the seeming inconsistencies to make it so that it could be recreated on screen to stay screen-accurate. If I were saying that I'm sticking to Matt Jefferies' drawings in TMoST and other sources I'd use those as my primary and consider inserting his props and his sets into any 3D recreation of it. If I mashed both Jefferies' drawings and onscreen stuff together I'd identify it as a mashup or my vision of Jefferies Enterprise. And so on...

You and others can do this stuff however you want, but for me, when faced with vagueness or inconsistencies in whatever medium, it just seems to make more sense to first go to the people who created the world of Star Trek -and who put the words into the mouth of the characters in the first place- whenever and wherever possible, and see what they had to say before we start indulging in flights of fantasy to try to explain things that don't add up.

Your approach appears to be for creator-intent followed by behind-the-scenes information. That's a good approach for recreating the concept and pre-production version of TOS once you land on your order which source takes precedence over which.

This is why I originally asked about Scotty's decks 5 and 6 lines vs Daystrom's decks 4 and 6 in TUC, because I'd like to know if Blish's version, which has Scotty saying decks 4 and 6 -just like Daystrom, reflects the way the script was actually written, or if it was just Blish own interpretation of what the dialogue should have said. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the relevant shooting script or revisions, therefore my research on what creator intent has to say on the matter is stymied unless someone who does, steps forward with the relevant information.

Yep and I do hope someone who has access can chime in with the information.

 

[Mytran]

Yep and I do hope someone who has access can chime in with the information.

FWIW here's the novelisation's version.

 

[Warped9]

As far as I’m concerned the onscreen elements are the starting point. What I see on television is telling me what something supposedly looks like, while making allowances and/or turning a blind eye to obvious or not so obvious production boo-boos.

After that you have to go behind the scenes to find out the intent behind what we’re seeing onscreen to try to make sense of it.

 

[TIN_MAN]

FWIW here's the novelisation's version.

Thanks Mytran; I think it's easy to see why this could be the way the script originally read, since Blish seems to pretty sure of himself here, so maybe James Doohan just flubbed his lines because normally 5 comes before 6, and perhaps only Fontana was aware of the reason for using decks 4 and 6 and skipping deck 5?

The central point I'm advocating is identify your references and stay consistent to it so it's easier to discuss.

I generally go with whatever the OP or the general drift of the thread says, so if the discussion is couched in onscreen canon terms then I try to limit my responses to that, but if the discussion is from a real world/behind the scenes POV, as is the case for this thread, then I try to stick with that.

As far as I’m concerned the onscreen elements are the starting point. What I see on television is telling me what something supposedly looks like, while making allowances and/or turning a blind eye to obvious or not so obvious production boo-boos.

After that you have to go behind the scenes to find out the intent behind what we’re seeing onscreen to try to make sense of it.

I try to use both at the same time, as each tends to inform and reflect the other. By at least the mid second season the production staff seems to have had a pretty could idea of how they thought the interior of the ship should be arranged, but in the process, certain things that came before had to be retconed, and discontinuities still occasionally cropped up because they were not going to scrap and otherwise good scene just because someone flubbed a line relating to a technical detail, or bit of previously established world building, or for any other possible reason.

 

[blssdwlf]

As far as I’m concerned the onscreen elements are the starting point. What I see on television is telling me what something supposedly looks like, while making allowances and/or turning a blind eye to obvious or not so obvious production boo-boos.

After that you have to go behind the scenes to find out the intent behind what we’re seeing onscreen to try to make sense of it.

So you're using behind-the-scenes/creator intent to modify onscreen content. I'm assuming you're doing some kind of filtering on the creator-intent sources to keep that end consistent and adding in a layer of your sensibilities of what is realistic. Does that sound correct?

 

[blssdwlf]

I try to use both at the same time, as each tends to inform and reflect the other. By at least the mid second season the production staff seems to have had a pretty could idea of how they thought the interior of the ship should be arranged, but in the process, certain things that came before had to be retconed, and discontinuities still occasionally cropped up because they were not going to scrap and otherwise good scene just because someone flubbed a line relating to a technical detail, or bit of previously established world building, or for any other possible reason.

Yeah with a layer of behind-the-scenes information you can easily get into a situation of calling everything different than what you saw or heard before a retcon. Like having Sickbay on Deck 5 onscreen in two episodes versus the TMoST book stating Deck 7 is where Sickbay is. There isn't anything onscreen that put Sickbay on Deck 7 so there isn't any retroactive continuity occurring unless you put TMoST information in and then you'd have to ask which way is retconning? Did the retcon make Sickbay always in Deck 5 or always in Deck 7?
Another area where waving retcon around that can get out of hand is not allowing for change between episodes. Ships get modified and upgraded all the time in reality so it would be somewhat unrealistic to call anything a retcon without considering that possibility.
But this informs us of your approach so yeah, good stuff

 

[Warped9]

So you're using behind-the-scenes/creator intent to modify onscreen content. I'm assuming you're doing some kind of filtering on the creator-intent sources to keep that end consistent and adding in a layer of your sensibilities of what is realistic. Does that sound correct?

In the end it’s really coming down to interpretation and how you understand what is being done or what they’re trying to do. This is particularly true when the original creators are no longer available to be asked directly what they were trying to do.


In the Arts forum I have a project called Unseen TOS where I am trying to envision things we didn’t get to see on TOS, but we might have been able to see if they had had a bit more time and money and if different creative choices had been made.

But the real challenge is trying to put myself into the mindset of Matt Jefferies and Wah Chang as they saw things in 1964-‘69. Additionally I’m endeavouring to ignore anything post TOS in terms of the franchise as well as in the real world—no outside influences or knowledge both fictional and real world beyond what was known at the time. I’m also trying to be mindful of what resources were available back in the day to fashion what could be envisioned.

This is not an easy thing because you are constantly checking yourself in regard to maybe being influenced by something you’ve seen or heard over the past fifty years that didn’t exist in the mid to late 1960s.

So no Franz Joseph tech manual or blueprints, no TAS or subsequent Trek productions, no post 1960s science fiction film and television, no real world events or science or technology.

I’m even going as far as trying to ignore most of what happened in TOS episodes that were aired after the episode I’m working on. For example when trying to envision what the Valiant could have looked like in WNMHGB I tried to ignore most everything that followed because none of those episodes had been envisioned and produced yet.

Ultimately it will be a hit-and-miss affair because no matter how hard I try the simple fact is I’m not Matt Jefferies or Wah Chang. I can only really approximate and guesstimate what they might or could have done.

In the end it remains a form of retconning because we ultimately cannot know what the original creators might have done given the opportunity. But I will say I see this as much more respectful and consistent with the original creative intent than what was done in TOS-R where so much was a retcon of current sensibilities and perspectives.


One can’t help but wonder what Matt Jefferies might think of us taking this stuff so seriously and still scrutinizing it for all these decades. I can only say it’s their fault for creating something that so captivated generations of us for all these years.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Yeah with a layer of behind-the-scenes information you can easily get into a situation of calling everything different than what you saw or heard before a retcon. Like having Sickbay on Deck 5 onscreen in two episodes versus the TMoST book stating Deck 7 is where Sickbay is. There isn't anything onscreen that put Sickbay on Deck 7 so there isn't any retroactive continuity occurring unless you put TMoST information in and then you'd have to ask which way is retconning? Did the retcon make Sickbay always in Deck 5 or always in Deck 7?
Another area where waving retcon around that can get out of hand is not allowing for change between episodes. Ships get modified and upgraded all the time in reality so it would be somewhat unrealistic to call anything a retcon without considering that possibility.
But this informs us of your approach so yeah, good stuff

Here's a few examples of what (I think) I know about real world, behind the scenes, creator intended retcons in TOS; the term Laser was replaced with phaser, the term lithium was replaced with dilithium, the term Engineering Deck was replaced with Engineering Section, Kirk's quarters on deck 12 were replaced with quarters located on deck 5; and there are a few others, but that's enough for now. And yes I'm aware of the many ways fans try to accommodate terms like this, and that can be fun, but that doesn't negate the fact that it was the intention of the creative staff that the new terms replace and retro actively overwrite the previous terminology.

I don't really want to get into the whole sickbay debate, because I'm still in the process of gathering facts to support my theories regarding same. But suffice it to say that I suspect that the first use of deck 5 for sickbay in Amok Time may have been a mistake (see my previous post waay up thread) and in one sense it definitely was, because the production staff never should have pinned down the location to a specific deck and instead kept it vague, as was their usual custom for such one-of-a-kind locations. For example in The Corbomite Maneuver Kirk leaves Sickbay and gets on a turbolift that goes up to the Bridge, but then he changes his mind and decides to stop by his quarters first, this implies that Sickbay is below Kirk's quarters which are in turn somewhere between Sickbay and the Bridge; and the original script was even more explicit with a notation that the turbolift decelerated and then began to move horizontally on it's way to it's new destination (and this is also in the Blish novelization). So TCM script and onscreen info leave the exact deck location of Sickbay vague, as it should be, but at the same time hint at the general relationship between Sickbay, Kirk's quarters, and the Bridge.

And before I drop the subject, one more point to ponder; In Elaan of Troyius the line about Sickbay being "the best protected part of the ship" sounds suspiciously like -and may have been inspired by- TMoST's statement about Sickbay which says The outer section (surrounding the central sickbay complex) is a "protective shell" complex of water and other bulk storage”. Consider also that, in the Blish novelization, the "deck five" line in the turbolift is missing, but the "best protected part of the ship" line is there, so if this reflects the way the script was written, then perhaps John Meredyth Lucus was aware of the info from TMoST and was attempting to use it as a reference, but then singer (perhaps?) who was tasked with revising the final script draft (Which Blish may not have had) noticed that there was no destination dialog for the turbolift and so added the deck five line, perhaps without knowing, or caring, that that he was working at cross purposes to Lucas. Of course, this is all speculation on my part, I just throw it out there as food for thought and to give some insight to the method of my madness.

 

[Warped9]

Another big internal retcon was Main Engineering in how it changed from Season 1 to Season 2. It was a much simpler set in Season 1 and greatly expanded in Season 2. Yet we are supposed to accept it has always been the same location. One might argue there were actually two Engineering sections, but the visible ceiling of both look the same.

The transporter room changed in detail over the course of the series. That one is easier to rationalize as there being more than one transporter room aboard ship, and/or one or more of them being refitted over time.

Sickbay also expanded over time, but then maybe we were just seeing more of the facilities.

The briefing room evolved, but there could easily be more than one briefing room available to avoid conflicting scheduled use.

 

[BK613]

LOL - Yeah it does! There does appear to be a "1" in front of the 7 but it is so faint. It would explain the Constellations NCC-1017 number if the class started at NCC-700

What's there for the leading '1' looks more like the background shield grid than the letters and numbers though.
https://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfshd/tsfshd0184.jpg
Of course the next thing to do is read the tea leaves to see if it was intentional.
Though some fans wouldn't accept it even if it were.

 

[blssdwlf]

EDIT: Just so we're all on the same page here on the definition of "retcon" from Oxford languages:
retcon: (in a film, television series, or other fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.

Almost all the examples you guys cited do not meet that definition.

Another big internal retcon was Main Engineering in how it changed from Season 1 to Season 2. It was a much simpler set in Season 1 and greatly expanded in Season 2. Yet we are supposed to accept it has always been the same location. One might argue there were actually two Engineering sections, but the visible ceiling of both look the same.

To be a retcon you'd have the show's entire season 1 engine rooms scenes replaced by the S2 engine room. I'm pretty sure that was never shown or said. As for two engine rooms, why not more than two? We do have dialogue in "The Naked Time" that has plural engine rooms. Scenes from "The Doomsday Machine" show on the Constellation both the S1 and S2 engine rooms exist at the same time. Scenes from "The Omega Glory" show that there are at least two S2 engine rooms. And plenty of variations of the S2 engine room on the Enterprise exist in seasons 2 and 3.

The transporter room changed in detail over the course of the series. That one is easier to rationalize as there being more than one transporter room aboard ship, and/or one or more of them being refitted over time.

Sickbay also expanded over time, but then maybe we were just seeing more of the facilities.

The briefing room evolved, but there could easily be more than one briefing room available to avoid conflicting scheduled use.

Yeah, alot of these can evolve and also have multiple rooms. So it seems to me that "retcon" isn't applicable in these cases.

Here's a few examples of what (I think) I know about real world, behind the scenes, creator intended retcons in TOS; the term Laser was replaced with phaser, the term lithium was replaced with dilithium, the term Engineering Deck was replaced with Engineering Section, Kirk's quarters on deck 12 were replaced with quarters located on deck 5; and there are a few others, but that's enough for now. And yes I'm aware of the many ways fans try to accommodate terms like this, and that can be fun, but that doesn't negate the fact that it was the intention of the creative staff that the new terms replace and retro actively overwrite the previous terminology.

Is any change in technology or due to progression of time a "retcon"? Is there documentation that states that Pike's laser gun in "The Cage" hereby now is a "phaser gun" and always was a "phaser gun"? Or that Kirk was never on Deck 12 in "Mudd's Women"?

I don't really want to get into the whole sickbay debate, because I'm still in the process of gathering facts to support my theories regarding same. But suffice it to say that I suspect that the first use of deck 5 for sickbay in Amok Time may have been a mistake (see my previous post waay up thread) and in one sense it definitely was because the production staff never should have pinned down the location to a specific deck and instead kept it vague, as was their usual custom for such one-of-a-a kind locations. For example in The Corbomite Maneuver Kirk leaves Sickbay and gets on a turbolift that goes up to the Bridge, but then he changes his mind and decides to stop by his quarters first, this implies that Sickbay is below Kirk's quarters which are in turn somewhere between Sickbay and the Bridge; and the original script was even more explicit with a notation that the turbolift decelerated and then began to move horizontally on it's way to it's new destination (and this is also in the Blish novelization). So TCM script and onscreen info leave the exact deck location of Sickbay vague, as it should be, but at the same time hint at the general relationship between Sickbay, Kirk's quarters, and the Bridge.

Actually, right after Kirk says "I'll change first then. Captain out." and closes the intercom the camera cuts away as he twists the turbolift handle to change destination. We are never shown which direction his turbolift proceeds on to his quarters.

And before I drop the subject, one more point to ponder; In Elaan of Troyius the line about Sickbay being "the best protected part of the ship" sounds suspiciously like -and may have been inspired by- TMoST's statement about Sickbay which says The outer section (surrounding the central sickbay complex) is a "protective shell" complex of water and other bulk storage”. Consider also that, in the Blish novelization, the "deck five" line in the turbolift is missing, but the "best protected part of the ship" line is there, so if this reflects the way the script was written, then perhaps John Meredyth Lucus was aware of the info from TMoST and was attempting to use it as a reference, but then singer (perhaps?) who was tasked with revising the final script draft (Which Blish may not have had) noticed that there was no destination dialog for the turbolift and so added the deck five line, perhaps without knowing, or caring, that that he was working at cross purposes to Lucas. Of course, this is all speculation on my part, I just throw it out there as food for thought and to give some insight to the method of my madness.

Yeah, that's alot of behind-the-scenes sources to dissect.

 

[BK613]

And before I drop the subject, one more point to ponder; In Elaan of Troyius the line about Sickbay being "the best protected part of the ship" sounds suspiciously like -and may have been inspired by- TMoST's statement about Sickbay which says The outer section (surrounding the central sickbay complex) is a "protective shell" complex of water and other bulk storage”. Consider also that, in the Blish novelization, the "deck five" line in the turbolift is missing, but the "best protected part of the ship" line is there, so if this reflects the way the script was written, then perhaps John Meredyth Lucus was aware of the info from TMoST and was attempting to use it as a reference, but then singer (perhaps?) who was tasked with revising the final script draft (Which Blish may not have had) noticed that there was no destination dialog for the turbolift and so added the deck five line, perhaps without knowing, or caring, that that he was working at cross purposes to Lucas. Of course, this is all speculation on my part, I just throw it out there as food for thought and to give some insight to the method of my madness.

While it is possible for the Star Trek staff to have received advanced copies, absent proof of that, the earliest that TMoST book itself could been used as a reference was around its September 1968 publishing date.

Which puts its usability this deep into the third season:

56....Spectre of the Gun..................Filmed: 21 May 1968 – 29 May 1968
57....Elaan of Troyius......................Filmed: 31 May 1968 – 10 June 1968
58....Paradise Syndrome................Filmed: 11 June 1968 – 18 June 1968
59....Enterprise Incident..................Filmed: 19 June 1968 – 26 June 1968
60....And The Children Shall Lead..Filmed: 27 June 1968 – 5 July 1968
61....Spock's Brain..........................Filmed: 8 July 1968 – 15 July 1968
62....Is There in Truth No Beauty....Filmed: 16 July 1968 – 24 July 1968
63....The Empath............................Filmed: 25 July 1968 – 2 August 1968
64....The Tholian Web....................Filmed: 5 August 1968 – 12 August 1968
65....For The World Is Hollow And..Filmed: 13 August 1968 – 22 August 1968
66....Day of The Dove....................Filmed: 22 August 1968 – 29 August 1968

The Making of Star Trek, first printing, September 1968​

(Not saying its info isn't kicking around in a bunch of file cabinets at Desilu, just not the book itself.)

 

[aridas sofia]

You can’t be limited by onscreen images when you have four different versions of the Enterprise all saying they are the same ship. And you can’t just wave a hand and say it isn’t obvious they are different. It IS obvious. Not only that, but the show was filmed, so ostensibly the resolution those ships can viewed in is limited only by the grain of that film stock. We know which model was used in which shot because the evidence is right there, on the film.

To understand what was intended, you HAVE to go behind scenes to get producer intent. If that conflicts, which it often does, you’re stuck using your own judgement.
This is why fans have been doing this kind of deep diving for so long- it’s necessary if you want to really understand the designs you are seeing, starting with a basic bit of information like the length.

On that note, if you take the four lengths blssdwlf has gleaned from the TMoST drawings- 933, 960, 956, and 940, and average them, you get 947.25’. That’s just a funny coincidence but, there you go.

As for those drawings, it was pointed out some years ago on this TrekBBS when the originals came up for auction, that they were distorted when shot for publication. The originals were compared to those in the book, and it was clear they were distorted. (It was either MGagen or David Shaw who figured this out iirc). So, the drawings as they appear in the book are not a true indicator. You really need to go to the original ink drawings themselves.

 

[blssdwlf]

You can’t be limited by onscreen images when you have four different versions of the Enterprise all saying they are the same ship. And you can’t just wave a hand and say it isn’t obvious they are different. It IS obvious. Not only that, but the show was filmed, so ostensibly the resolution those ships can viewed in is limited only by the grain of that film stock. We know which model was used in which shot because the evidence is right there, on the film.

I'd love to see you demonstrate how obvious the different models are in the context of them used as the Enterprise in space. Just because you say it is obvious (with the knowledge that different models were used) doesn't make it obvious if observed on screen.

To understand what was intended, you HAVE to go behind scenes to get producer intent. If that conflicts, which it often does, you’re stuck using your own judgement.
This is why fans have been doing this kind of deep diving for so long- it’s necessary if you want to really understand the designs you are seeing, starting with a basic bit of information like the length.

That is one approach, to dig into the behind-the-scenes/creator intent but it isn't the only approach. When you write, "if that conflicts..." I gotta ask - why and what would the creator or producer intent conflict with? The dialogue? The onscreen visuals?

On that note, if you take the four lengths blssdwlf has gleaned from the TMoST drawings- 933, 960, 956, and 940, and average them, you get 947.25’. That’s just a funny coincidence but, there you go.

As for those drawings, it was pointed out some years ago on this TrekBBS when the originals came up for auction, that they were distorted when shot for publication. The originals were compared to those in the book, and it was clear they were distorted. (It was either MGagen or David Shaw who figured this out iirc). So, the drawings as they appear in the book are not a true indicator. You really need to go to the original ink drawings themselves.

Are those original ink drawings shared somewhere for all to use?