Was that Spock cracking the wall or Charlie X's force of will doing it?
Boy, I couldn't see that coming....![]()
Well you went there

Was that Spock cracking the wall or Charlie X's force of will doing it?
Boy, I couldn't see that coming....![]()
Was that Spock cracking the wall or Charlie X's force of will doing it?
Boy, I couldn't see that coming....![]()
Well you went there![]()
Oh, for heaven's sake, they broke the set while filming. Not that I'd even need to look it up, but, from http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Charlie_X_(episode)#Sets:Yet that example when you watch the scene is part of Charlie X's display of powers so it isn't clear cut, IMO.
Memory Alpha said:In the scene in Rand's quarters, when Charlie flings Kirk and Spock against the wall, the wall has a hole punched in it. On an earlier take, Leonard Nimoy had struck the wall too forcefully. This alternate take can be seen at the end of the episode's preview.
Sometimes it's best to observe what's on screen, but other times that has to be tweaked, in order for everything to make sense. Sometimes what's shown as a curved corridor is best thought of as a straight corridor, or more generally, as one with a different radius of curvature. Why? Because the corridors available on the set had more limited dimensions than some of the corridors most likely on the "actual" ship.The stage argument also isn't taken far enough. Are we really observing what was shown on screen or are we biased in knowing what the stage looks like behind the scenes and are assuming the unseen parts of that shot must look like the rest of the stage?
Yeah. One of my favorite examples in this case is the idea that there's a booster for the Enterprise computer's ability to hear sounds that "can increase that capability on the order of one to the fourth power". Ridiculous, since 1^4 equals 1.And that doesn't even address the scientific "absurdities" where TOS science is different from real life science. Start to draw the line here and there, make a judgement call to ignore certain onscreen stuff we find "absurd" and we'll be back probably where FJ arrived at, IMHO.
Oh, for heaven's sake, they broke the set while filming. Not that I'd even need to look it up, but, from http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Charlie_X_(episode)#Sets:Yet that example when you watch the scene is part of Charlie X's display of powers so it isn't clear cut, IMO.
Memory Alpha said:In the scene in Rand's quarters, when Charlie flings Kirk and Spock against the wall, the wall has a hole punched in it. On an earlier take, Leonard Nimoy had struck the wall too forcefully. This alternate take can be seen at the end of the episode's preview.
Sometimes it's best to observe what's on screen, but other times that has to be tweaked, in order for everything to make sense.The stage argument also isn't taken far enough. Are we really observing what was shown on screen or are we biased in knowing what the stage looks like behind the scenes and are assuming the unseen parts of that shot must look like the rest of the stage?
Sometimes what's shown as a curved corridor is best thought of as a straight corridor, or more generally, as one with a different radius of curvature. Why? Because the corridors available on the set had more limited dimensions than some of the corridors most likely on the "actual" ship.
Those decisions are all a matter of judgment. No doubt FJ's decisions can be improved on, largely with the benefit of hindsight and reflection, even just at the level of laying the whole ship out generally, not to mention the fine details.
Yeah. One of my favorite examples in this case is the idea that there's a booster for the Enterprise computer's ability to hear sounds that "can increase that capability on the order of one to the fourth power". Ridiculous, since 1^4 equals 1.And that doesn't even address the scientific "absurdities" where TOS science is different from real life science. Start to draw the line here and there, make a judgement call to ignore certain onscreen stuff we find "absurd" and we'll be back probably where FJ arrived at, IMHO.
If you actually watched the scene on screen, it would have simply have been CharlieX's power throwing Kirk and Spock into the wall and damaging it and then Kirk asking CharlieX to release his hold on Spock and undo his broken legs. The cracked wall could have easily been part of CharlieX's display of power.
Any Tech Manual that went to those extremes would be one that I'd altogether shun.
CorporalCaptain said:I want something that I can actually believe (in the sense of being willing to suspend disbelief) that the characters in-universe would be reading.
Any Tech Manual that went to those extremes would be one that I'd altogether shun.
Then to that same extent, did you shun FJ's Tech Manual? He went to such extremes yet those extremes aren't even on screen. Did he need to calculate out the time slow down at warp speeds?
By grabthar's hammer, it really should be called the Technical Speculation Manual. At least the one good thing TOS got right was kept the details vague for us to disagree over![]()
No, in universe, there is no spoon—err, crack.CorporalCaptain said:I want something that I can actually believe (in the sense of being willing to suspend disbelief) that the characters in-universe would be reading.
If an in-universe character was reading it, and the manual mentioned the cracked wall resulting from CharlieX's powers then sure. But would an in-universe character read something about Nimoy accidentally cracking a stage set of TV show set in the 1960's? Maybe but not as a Tech Manual...![]()
Any Tech Manual that went to those extremes would be one that I'd altogether shun.
Then to that same extent, did you shun FJ's Tech Manual? He went to such extremes yet those extremes aren't even on screen. Did he need to calculate out the time slow down at warp speeds?
By grabthar's hammer, it really should be called the Technical Speculation Manual. At least the one good thing TOS got right was kept the details vague for us to disagree over![]()
The FJTM isn't even close to being golden. Does that answer your question?
Now, that said, and I always say this when discussing the FJTM, one of the cutest things about it are the forewords. They basically provide a backstory that explains all the errors, including, if no especially, the phony science.
Could the "science" be better? Well maybe, but let's be real: only if the shit were real could the notes in there actually stand up to scrutiny, and that's too high a standard. But, probably the navigational stuff should be deleted, at least in its current form.
Like Warped9 just stated Gene Roddenberry insisted to keep technical matters vague although that didn't always work.
By grabthar's hammer, it really should be called the Technical Speculation Manual. At least the one good thing TOS got right was kept the details vague for us to disagree over![]()
But given what has come to light in the intervening years we can see that some choices he made don't really gel with what we see onscreen. One biggee (for me) is him missing Auxiliary Control---it's nowhere in his plans and it was referred to (and seen) a number of times onscreen.
But in accepting the above, it does not logically follow that they inturn wanted us to take the “Capt.’s. Cabin is on deck 12” (or any other such example) as “gospel”. And I don’t believe for a second that there is a shred of real evidence that there was any “grand plan” or that the writer/producers used such references because they knowingly meant to, and that they wanted the audience to take it all literally! This is a whole different colored horse; and I don’t think it demonstrates a lack of respect to acknowledge as much.
This way we can respect his [Franz Joseph's] choices (as we should anyone else’s) but at the same time fix some of the things he got wrong?
^^ I'm vague on this, but were there ever any references onscreen regarding where Auxiliary Control might be? Could you have two Auxiliary Control rooms, one in the saucer and one in the support hull? And Auxiliary Control is certainly something that could be depicted in more detail in the tech manual.
I'm not sure I understand "the Constellation is not the Enterprise" argument in this case. Auxiliary control is repeatedly seen (as you said?) on the Enterprise, in episodes such as The Way to Eden.Agreed; the AC is a stumbling block for me as well. Although this is really just a problem for his plans and not the tech manual so much, even so, using "the Constellation is not the Enterprise" argument, I think FJ should have made some provision for it in his plans. It's unclear though, whether this was an intentional omission or just an oversight, but most likely the former?
While one gets the sense that FJ felt he had more leeway, and understandably so, with the “redress of the week” sets that appeared just once, like the phaser room for example; the AC was however, repeatedly seen and clearly intended to look the way we saw it, so FJ should have honored MJ’s intentions here. The same goes for the emergency manual monitor in engineering and the decompression chamber in the medical lab, although the latter was most likely omitted by mistake.
Still, I think the best way to “correct” this is to make one of FJ’s “emergency bridges” into an AC instead?
I'm not sure I understand "the Constellation is not the Enterprise" argument in this case. Auxiliary control is repeatedly seen (as you said?) on the Enterprise, in episodes such as The Way to Eden.Agreed; the AC is a stumbling block for me as well. Although this is really just a problem for his plans and not the tech manual so much, even so, using "the Constellation is not the Enterprise" argument, I think FJ should have made some provision for it in his plans. It's unclear though, whether this was an intentional omission or just an oversight, but most likely the former?
While one gets the sense that FJ felt he had more leeway, and understandably so, with the “redress of the week” sets that appeared just once, like the phaser room for example; the AC was however, repeatedly seen and clearly intended to look the way we saw it, so FJ should have honored MJ’s intentions here. The same goes for the emergency manual monitor in engineering and the decompression chamber in the medical lab, although the latter was most likely omitted by mistake.
Still, I think the best way to “correct” this is to make one of FJ’s “emergency bridges” into an AC instead?
Yeah. One of my favorite examples in this case is the idea that there's a booster for the Enterprise computer's ability to hear sounds that "can increase that capability on the order of one to the fourth power". Ridiculous, since 1^4 equals 1.And that doesn't even address the scientific "absurdities" where TOS science is different from real life science. Start to draw the line here and there, make a judgement call to ignore certain onscreen stuff we find "absurd" and we'll be back probably where FJ arrived at, IMHO.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.