The TOS 'stupid statements' thread

[Gary7]

TOS 'stupid statements' thread

Every once in a while, you'll hear some statements or dialog in a TOS episode that seems to be either out of place, redundant, or simply stupid.

Case in point, "Tomorrow is Yesterday", shortly after Captain Christopher was beamed aboard, we hear this:

Spock: "Captain, the aircraft has completely broken up. Shall we turn off the tractor beam?"

I understand the Captain is there to make decisions, but glaringly obvious ones like this seem like they shouldn't require the Captain's approval, just because he ordered the tractor beam on. It was to hold the aircraft in place, but it couldn't hold up. After it breaks up, there is certainly no reason to leave the tractor beam on...

Anybody remember other lines that simply shouldn't be there or are in bad need of a rewrite?

 

[SchwEnt]

Re: TOS 'stupid statements' thread

Every once in a while, you'll hear some statements or dialog in a TOS episode that seems to be either out of place, redundant, or simply stupid.

Case in point, "Tomorrow is Yesterday", shortly after Captain Christopher was beamed aboard, we hear this:

Spock: "Captain, the aircraft has completely broken up. Shall we turn off the tractor beam?"

I understand the Captain is there to make decisions, but glaringly obvious ones like this seem like they shouldn't require the Captain's approval, just because he ordered the tractor beam on. It was to hold the aircraft in place, but it couldn't hold up. After it breaks up, there is certainly no reason to leave the tractor beam on...

Anybody remember other lines that simply shouldn't be there or are in bad need of a rewrite?

Maybe this'll count..."Spectre of the Gun".The crew is forced to replay the gunfight at the OK Corral and wonders if there might be some way that they can survive the shootout.Spock admonishes them with "History cannot be changed", as if it were an accepted scientific truth.Is that right, Spock? Certainly by that point, Spock should know better.After adventures with the Guardian of Forever and Captain Christopher and Gary Seven, Spock should absolutely know that history can indeed be changed (at least in Star Trek).Perhaps he meant to say "History *should* not be changed".

 

[Green Shirt]

From "MIRI", as Kirk and McCoy discuss the disease.

Kirk: "We don't even know what it is we're fighting."

McCoy: "No, but we know what it is and how fast it does it."

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: TOS 'stupid statements' thread

Maybe this'll count:

"Spectre of the Gun"
The crew is forced to replay the gunfight at the OK Corral and wonders if there might be some way that they can survive the shootout. Spock admonishes them with "History cannot be changed", as if it were an accepted scientific truth. Is that right, Spock? Certainly by that point, Spock should know better. After adventures with the Guardian of Forever and Captain Christopher and Gary Seven, Spock should absolutely know that history can indeed be changed (at least in Star Trek). Perhaps he meant to say "History *should* not be changed".

(weird formatting garbage removed by me)

Taking only the one line spoken by Spock ignores the context, though:

CHEKOV: Who won?
KIRK: The Clantons lost, Mister Chekov.
CHEKOV: And we are the Clantons?
KIRK: We are the Clantons. And IF this is a replay of history...
SPOCK: (THEN) History cannot be changed.

It's an IF/THEN statement. Though Spock's "then" is not verbalized, it is still implied as part of a logical statement, begun by Kirk and completed by Spock.

When Chekov's "Billy Claiborne" is subsequently shot and presumed killed, it becomes apparent that it is not a replay of history, therefore "history", in the context of their situation, can be changed, and ultimately is.

It's not a stupid statement, when properly taken in context.

 

[boobatuba]

Decker in "The Doomsday Machine" after being told that the Enterprise's fuel is almost exhausted but the machine can refuel itself indefinitely:

"Then we'll have to fight it now before it gets any stronger"

How much stronger does it have to get before Decker realizes the phaser beams are ineffective against the neutronium hull? How many more starships parking in front of the maw of the machine to attack it need to be destroyed before this very experienced Commodore realizes it's a futile way to fight the machine? How come no one suggests "Hey, why don't we at least take pot shots at it from BEHIND the machine so we don't get roasted with its anti-proton beam"?

The ridiculously stupid military tactics used in this episode are staggering.

 

[Iowagirl]

There is no such thing as "TOS stupid statements" - only statements temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood.

 

[johcomp]

I'm sorry....... When I came aboard!!! (result of bad editing I know, but stupid nonetheless)

Also on Wink Of An Eye - Kirk shouting at the insect noises - "You - what are you doing on my ship! Show yourselves" thought that was rather silly too!

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Decker in "The Doomsday Machine" after being told that the Enterprise's fuel is almost exhausted but the machine can refuel itself indefinitely:

"Then we'll have to fight it now before it gets any stronger"

How much stronger does it have to get before Decker realizes the phaser beams are ineffective against the neutronium hull? How many more starships parking in front of the maw of the machine to attack it need to be destroyed before this very experienced Commodore realizes it's a futile way to fight the machine? How come no one suggests "Hey, why don't we at least take pot shots at it from BEHIND the machine so we don't get roasted with its anti-proton beam"?

The ridiculously stupid military tactics used in this episode are staggering.

It could be (and has been) argued that Decker's irrational and illogical actions were symptoms of his suicidal Ahab-like obsession with destroying the thing which killed his ship and crew. Ironically though, Decker's suicide pointed Kirk towards the strategy used to ultimately destroy the planet killer. If the commodore had been in his right mind, things might have turned out quite differently.

 

[boobatuba]

It could be (and has been) argued that Decker's irrational and illogical actions were symptoms of his suicidal Ahab-like obsession with destroying the thing which killed his ship and crew. Ironically though, Decker's suicide pointed Kirk towards the strategy used to ultimately destroy the planet killer. If the commodore had been in his right mind, things might have turned out quite differently.

You're right, of course, but it's still frustrating to watch. Unless Decker was just trying to commit suicide with the Enterprise and her crew (not out of the question), it's hard to imagine why he wouldn't attack the thing from the rear or at least the side. The machine seemed to turn around quite slowly, so it seems like a smaller, more manueverable starship could just stay behind it and fire away at will.

The suicide run in the shuttlecraft does give Kirk the inspiration he needs, but one also wonders why Decker didn't communicate his rationale for doing it.

KIRK: Matt, you'll be killed.

DECKER: I've been prepared for death ever since I...ever since I killed my crew. Besides, blowing this thing up inside it might just damage it enough for you and your ship to finish the job!

KIRK: No one expects you to die for an error in judgment! And we can't scan the interior...we don't know what effect an explosion will have inside it!

DECKER: Dammit, Jim! I know what I'm doing...this is the only way to stop that thing! At least let me take that devil with me! [closes channel]

 

[Peter the Younger]

The one from "Doomsday Machine" that always makes me groan:

Decker: "It fired a beam of pure anti-protons. Absolutely pure!"

Anti-proton beams are a lot like top shelf vodka, apparently.

(And yes, I realize there is a technobabbly argument for how his statement could make sense. It's still bad phrasing and OTT acting.)

 

[RobertScorpio]

Re: TOS 'stupid statements' thread

Here's one..

How did they make the 'moving' starfields back in those days. I can understand how they do a starfield that isn't moving...but like in episodes of TOS when the Enterprise is fighting the Doomsday machine. The stars, or white little doobies, a flying past the Enterprise at various speeds. How did they do that?

Rob

 

[Professor Moriarty]

The suicide run in the shuttlecraft does give Kirk the inspiration he needs, but one also wonders why Decker didn't communicate his rationale for doing it.

Wellll... for me personally, I think Kirk was retconning that reasoning onto Decker's actions to give meaning to his friend's meaningless death and honor the memory of the man Decker was before the events depicted in TDM.

RobertScorpio, it's not really a "stupid statement" question you're asking, but what they did was film layers of stars that were superimposed on top of each other, either moving towards or away from the camera (when the camera P.O.V. was parallel to the direction of flight) or sliding on top of each other at different speeds (when the camera was aimed perpendicular to the direction of flight; e.g., when showing the Enterprise flying left-to-right across the camera field).

 

[Anticitizen]

The one from "Doomsday Machine" that always makes me groan:

Decker: "It fired a beam of pure anti-protons. Absolutely pure!"

Anti-proton beams are a lot like top shelf vodka, apparently.

(And yes, I realize there is a technobabbly argument for how his statement could make sense. It's still bad phrasing and OTT acting.)

Positrons would have been a better choice... positron/electron annihilation creates two nice deadly gamma rays, every time. Only 2/5ths of proton/antiproton annihilations create anything useful - most of the output is in neutrinos, which pass through entire planets without interacting most of the time, and other particles that decay within a few meters.

 

[Maurice]

The one from "Doomsday Machine" that always makes me groan:

Decker: "It fired a beam of pure anti-protons. Absolutely pure!"

Anti-proton beams are a lot like top shelf vodka, apparently.

(And yes, I realize there is a technobabbly argument for how his statement could make sense. It's still bad phrasing and OTT acting.)

If you're going to pillory the dialog, at least quote it correctly.

DECKER: We saw this thing hovering over the planet, slicing out chunks of it with a force beam.
KIRK: Did you run a scanner check on it? What kind of a beam?
DECKER: Pure antiproton. Absolutely pure.
​

There's no bad phrasing in that. The OTTness of Windom's delivery of it is up for debate, however.

 

[EEE]

Re: TOS 'stupid statements' thread

Every once in a while, you'll hear some statements or dialog in a TOS episode that seems to be either out of place, redundant, or simply stupid.

Case in point, "Tomorrow is Yesterday", shortly after Captain Christopher was beamed aboard, we hear this:

Spock: "Captain, the aircraft has completely broken up. Shall we turn off the tractor beam?"

I understand the Captain is there to make decisions, but glaringly obvious ones like this seem like they shouldn't require the Captain's approval, just because he ordered the tractor beam on. It was to hold the aircraft in place, but it couldn't hold up. After it breaks up, there is certainly no reason to leave the tractor beam on...

There is a reason to leave the tractor beam on... the wreckage itself (or as it's known to most anyone associated with planes... "dropped objects.") Where do they want the evidence of their time traveling destructive nature to fall? Not to mention dropping large and heavy hunks of metal (aka: wreckage, aka: bombing) on an unsuspecting ancestral populace is the Captain's prerogative.

I remember a night when a fighter was approaching the field "inadvertantly" ejected it's canopy over a populated area. I always wondered what it was like for the guys who had to find it and knock on someone's door... "Ahem, excuse me. Have you seen an 8 foot piece or pieces of clear bullet proof safety glass in the shape of a half bubble with metal around the bottom of it anywhere in your yard? Perhaps in your house? Oh dear! How well do you know your neighbors? Did she like him?"

 

[Anticitizen]

Re: TOS 'stupid statements' thread

"Ahem, excuse me. Have you seen an 8 foot piece or pieces of clear bullet proof safety glass in the shape of a half bubble with metal around the bottom of it anywhere in your yard?

I've been using that to serve nachos at parties.

 

[Green Shirt]

If you're going to pillory the dialog, at least quote it correctly.

DECKER: We saw this thing hovering over the planet, slicing out chunks of it with a force beam.
KIRK: Did you run a scanner check on it? What kind of a beam?
DECKER: Pure antiproton. Absolutely pure.
​

There's no bad phrasing in that. The OTTness of Windom's delivery of it is up for debate, however.

The way Shatner liked to slur his words, I always thought he said "Did you run a scanner check on a what kind of a beam?"

 

[Wingsley]

Kirk said to Losira: "Are there men on this planet?"

 

[Bones]

Re: TOS 'stupid statements' thread

Here's one..

How did they make the 'moving' starfields back in those days. I can understand how they do a starfield that isn't moving...but like in episodes of TOS when the Enterprise is fighting the Doomsday machine. The stars, or white little doobies, a flying past the Enterprise at various speeds. How did they do that?

Rob

One better: how come the Enterprise is semi-transparent and you can see the stars thru the hull?

 

[Bones]

SPOCK SHOUTING DURING THE CAGE MAKES EVERY ONE OF HIS LINES STUPID.