Hey, I never noticed that before....

[Trekker09]

Nah - the ending scene between Spock and Rand in TOS S1 - "The Enemy Within" beats that for sexism, hands down.

I agree that “ Enemy within” is the most sexist episode, especially when Spock insinuates that Rand enjoyed being assaulted by imposter Kirk. Somehow having a Vulcan say that made it worse....and with no apology or empathy, just “you can go now, yeoman.” I wondered after reading Grace Lee Whitney’s memoir, if that scene was filmed before or after she was raped by one of the studio Suits (and wondered who it was). What was Janice about to say to the real Kirk at the end? “I’d just like to say, well what I’d like to say is-“ and he interrupts her, “Thank you, yeoman.” I’ve never been sure what she was trying to say.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I wondered after reading Grace Lee Whitney’s memoir, if that scene was filmed before or after she was raped by one of the studio Suits (and wondered who it was).

GLW says in the book that her assault happened after the end of the work week party for "Miri", on Friday, August 26th, 1966.

I came to a conclusion as to who the assailant likely was a couple of years ago. It's not a pretty answer.

 

[Trekker09]

Looks like that question has been covered pretty exhaustively - ! I don’t have GLW’s book anymore, but I thought she wrote that her unnamed assailant was not GR. Still the bit about the polished stone does seem to point to him alone.
As to what Rand was stammering about in the end, I guess the script intended to convey she didn’t hold a grudge and still liked the real Kirk, they were on good terms.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

As to what Rand was stammering about in the end, I guess the script intended to convey she didn’t hold a grudge and still liked the real Kirk, they were on good terms.

That must have been it. And in those days, they thought it went without saying that she totally forgives the show's hero figure. Today, female characters are required to be badass and much tougher than men, so her concluding message would be more like "I just want to say, if you have another "transporter accident" [sarcastic air quotes], I'll break every bone in your body." And Kirk would be contrite and chastened toward her rather than assured and dismissive.

 

[Commishsleer]

Watching the episode "The Omega Glory " today I have noticed a few things:
1. There were 4 shuttles on the Exeter. Were there 4 on the Enterprise? We know they have at least 2.
2. Why didn't the Exeter leave a warning not to beam aboard. Why in fact did they not self-destruct the ship?
3. Why didn't all the Exeter crew all beam down to the planet? I mean the ship's surgeon seemed to know what was going on.
4. Since I'm being super-picky I thought the boots on the dead Exeter crew seemed to be different from say Kirk's boots.(the first guy they examined)
5. The Exeter ship's surgeon was a full Commander but nice boots.
6. Tracey left Spock and Kirk alone in the cells for 8 hours but was visiting Kirk every 5 minutes otherwise.
7. Did Spock's injury to his face seem to appear and disappear? Maybe its just my imagination?
8. Hmm super picky again but the savages have a lot of fine hair dos especially the chief's girl. I suppose the savages could have hair dressers obviously no tailors. (I know this happens in all shows)

 

[Henoch]

1. There were 4 shuttles on the Exeter. Were there 4 on the Enterprise? We know they have at least 2.

I assumed the Enterprise could stock four (or more perhaps six) shuttlecraft, but she never seemed to get up to her full capacity. Here are a list of all shuttlecraft references for TOS Episodes (in broadcast order):

1. The Menagerie, Part I - Starbase 11/Shuttlecraft 1. Stored on hangar deck.
2. The Galileo Seven -
   1. Galileo NCC-1701/7. Destroyed.
   2. Columbus NCC-1701/?. Recovered.
3. The Doomsday Machine - Unnamed Shuttlecraft NCC-1701/?. Destroyed.
4. Metamorphosis - Galileo NCC-1701/7. Recovered.
5. Journey to Babel - Galileo NCC-1701/7. Recovered.
6. The Immunity Syndrome - Galileo NCC-1701/7. Recovered.
7. Let That Be Your Last Battlefield - Starbase 4/Shuttlecraft ?. Stored on hangar deck. (Canned special effect shows it identified as Galileo NCC-1701/7. Maybe they were just shuffling around the ship’s shuttles to make room for the new shuttle, or maybe E previously dropped it off at Starbase 4 and Loki conveniently returns it to E - small galaxy theorem.)
8. The Way to Eden - Galileo II NCC-1701/7. Recovered.

Two shuttlecraft destroyed. Only in its last appearance in S3 does the Galileo get renamed Galileo II NCC-1701/7. Overall, it seems that the Enterprise only carries two shuttlecraft and has room to receive visiting shuttlecraft of one or two more. Bad timing for Sulu when the Enterprise was at zero shuttlecraft during The Enemy Within.

 

[Warped9]

Shuttlecraft stored in the maintenance bay beliw the flight deck. The turntable is also an elevator.

 

[plynch]

Onscreen canon, tis all a mystery.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Based on the size of the Enterprise, I think four shuttlecraft would be about maximum, and that's the data point in "The Omega Glory."

There's a terrible moment in TOS-R "The Galileo Seven" where the shuttle launches, and there's a second shuttle on the hangar deck from one angle, but it's missing from the reverse angle. The CGI artists obviously divided up the labor and then didn't talk to each other.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Based on the size of the Enterprise, I think four shuttlecraft would be about maximum, and that's the data point in "The Omega Glory."

There's a terrible moment in TOS-R "The Galileo Seven" where the shuttle launches, and there's a second shuttle on the hangar deck from one angle, but it's missing from the reverse angle. The CGI artists obviously divided up the labor and then didn't talk to each other.

One of many terrible moments.

 

[Noname Given]

Based on the size of the Enterprise, I think four shuttlecraft would be about maximum, and that's the data point in "The Omega Glory."

There's a terrible moment in TOS-R "The Galileo Seven" where the shuttle launches, and there's a second shuttle on the hangar deck from one angle, but it's missing from the reverse angle. The CGI artists obviously divided up the labor and then didn't talk to each other.

Or they watched scenes from STAR TREK: The Animated Series; and wanted to replicate that.

 

[comsol]

Or they watched scenes from STAR TREK: The Animated Series; and wanted to replicate that.

I wonder how much you would have to upscale the Enterprise to make that TAS scene work.

 

[Greg Cox]

Hell, even the great SF writers creating far future worlds were often still thinking in terms of 1949s and 1950s society. I remember reading some of Asimov’s robot books where the everyday lifestyle was so very ‘40s/‘50s.

True story: Several years ago, I reprinted some classic SF stories by Pauline Ashwell (aka "Paul Ash") that had originally been published in the 1950s. With Pauline's blessing, I quietly edited out some casual 1950s sexism implying the only men could be politicians or space explorers. Changing "the senators and their wives" to "the senators and their spouses," that kinda thing.

Stuff that wouldn't have raised an eyebrow back in the day, but now stood out like sore thumbs given that the stories were set not in the 1950s but in an advanced Trek-like future.

 

[Warped9]

True story: Several years ago, I reprinted some classic SF stories by Pauline Ashwell (aka "Paul Ash") that had originally been published in the 1950s. With Pauline's blessing, I quietly edited out some casual 1950s sexism implying the only men could be politicians or space explorers. Changing "the senators and their wives" to "the senators and their spouses," that kinda thing.

Stuff that wouldn't have raised an eyebrow back in the day, but now stood out like sore thumbs given that the stories were set not in the 1950s but in an advanced Trek-like future.

While somewhat understandable I can’t agree with that sort of thing. The original work should stay as it was written. Otherwise it’s just another form of trying to erase history.

 

[fireproof78]

True story: Several years ago, I reprinted some classic SF stories by Pauline Ashwell (aka "Paul Ash") that had originally been published in the 1950s. With Pauline's blessing, I quietly edited out some casual 1950s sexism implying the only men could be politicians or space explorers. Changing "the senators and their wives" to "the senators and their spouses," that kinda thing.

Stuff that wouldn't have raised an eyebrow back in the day, but now stood out like sore thumbs given that the stories were set not in the 1950s but in an advanced Trek-like future.

Makes sense. Especially with author permission.

 

[GNDN18]

While somewhat understandable I can’t agree with that sort of thing. The original work should stay as it was written. Otherwise it’s just another form of trying to erase history.

With Pauline's blessing

I think the author gets to make that call, meaning it’s her prerogative.

Producers of every stripe revise and revisit published works in successive editions, whether those be books or “Director’s Cuts.” To freeze a production in amber merely fetishizes the work, elevating its form over the substance of evolving thought and creative powers.

Consider “I can’t get used to a woman on the bridge.” I don’t know if GR cut the line for time or because it was already dated 2 years after it was filmed. And yet, the line was cut from the broadcast version of “The Menagerie” until 1986. Whether excising it improved the pacing or rectified a sexist misstep is not the point. Rather, it expressed the producer’s creative choice differently from one iteration to the next.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think the author gets to make that call, meaning it’s her prerogative.

I don’t know if GR cut the “I can’t get used to a woman on the bridge” for time or because it was already dated 2 years after it was filmed. And yet, the line was cut from the broadcast version of “The Menagerie” until 1986.

Producers of every stripe revise and revisit published works in successive editions, whether those be books or “Director’s Cuts.” To freeze a production in amber merely fetishizes the work, elevating its form over the substance of evolving thought and creative powers.

Stephen King updated the Stand when he released the unabridged edition, including shifting the story forward 10 years.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

While somewhat understandable I can’t agree with that sort of thing. The original work should stay as it was written. Otherwise it’s just another form of trying to erase history.

Aren't you a fan of the TMP director's edition?

 

[Warped9]

Aren't you a fan of the TMP director's edition?

Call me contradictory.

I overlooked where the author gave permission.

Regarding films or literature where the director/producer or author dictates the changes—yeah, thats their prerogative. It gets dicey. Star Wars was a completed film when originally released so George Lucas redoing it is kinda change for change sake. TMP was not a completed film when released and Robert Wise wanted to complete it—thats not change for change sake. He wanted the film completed as he intended with the tools they had at hand. But decades later those resources were no longer at hand so they used contemporary resources to recreate what could have been done originally given sufficient time.

Another distinction. The theatrical version of TMP is still out there and available. But is it even possible to see the original theatrical version of Star Wars?

 

[ZapBrannigan]

While somewhat understandable I can’t agree with that sort of thing. The original work should stay as it was written. Otherwise it’s just another form of trying to erase history.

I agree, with one provision.

Sometimes people look to a decades-old work to pick up information about that bygone era and its culture. What social or material expectations were so baked in that they even poke through in a science fiction setting? How hip and forward-looking was this author in those days?

If you don't tell us that an old and now-obscure work has been culturally updated, and pass if off as the original version, then that's deceptive at best. It's re-writing history, really over-writing history. Making the work better is fine, if it says it's a revised edition, but just making the author's past look better is another thing entirely.