Script blunders!

[TIN_MAN]

"Retcon" is literally just a contraction of "retro-active continuity", like when ST: TMP came out and Roddenberry was telling fans that the Klingons always had lopster heads, or words to that effect.

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"?

Yes, when D.C. Fontana wrote "Vulcan's Glory" she had Pike's crew using phasers and dilithium crystals, and multiple transporters, so this shows her intention at least. So given the choice between accepting the opinion of one of the main creative talents behind TOS who helped make it the great show it was, and believing a bunch of fanwanky rationalizations, I'll take Fontana any day. And please don't say this doesn't count because it was not written during, or for, TOS because it doesn't matter, her opinion is relevent regardless of when it was first made public.

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.

Yeah, I know, so what? are you suggesting that I should accept your, or some other fans, idle speculation about where the T/L went next over the script itself? Do I really need to say that this is exactly the point, that in the absence of onscreen evidence we need to first consult the behind the scenes sources before indulging in uninformed speculation.

My best guess, given the present state of my ignorance, about this bit of script trivia is that since TCM was the first episode filmed, Roddenberry or someone else, wanted to show the audience that the turbolift was no ordinary elevator, but had horizontal motion as well as vertical, but then it was realized that the little light bar mechanism had not yet been modified to be able to simulate horizontal movement, so the last few seconds of the scene were nixed.

 

[aridas sofia]

“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.”

I mean, YOU posted the images. That is the proof. Anyone who can’t tell they are different just isn’t looking. If you are saying I couldn’t tell in 1968 on my 10” Panasonic portable BxW TV, sure. But that isn’t the limit of what is available. Like I said, the show was made on film stock. THAT is the evidence that you have generously supplied, to great effect.

As for the originals of those Jefferies drawings, I don’t know. They were auctioned in one of those dumps of Star Trek props that featured Jefferies’ artwork. Maybe the Profiles in History auction in 2001? If you get me your email address via PM, I think I have them saved somewhere and would be happy to share them with you if I do.

 

[blssdwlf]

"Retcon" is literally just a contraction of "retro-active continuity",

Which is also why I put the definition in my earlier post and wondering how those examples you cited were retconned.

like when ST: TMP came out and Roddenberry was telling fans that the Klingons always had lopster heads, or words to that effect.

See - that's a retcon. And also not one of your earlier cited examples.

Yes, when D.C. Fontana wrote "Vulcan's Glory" she had Pike's crew using phasers and dilithium crystals, and multiple transporters, so this shows her intention at least. So given the choice between accepting the opinion of one of the main creative talents behind TOS who helped make it the great show it was, and believing a bunch of fanwanky rationalizations, I'll take Fontana any day. And please don't say this doesn't count because it was not written during, or for, TOS because it doesn't matter, her opinion is relevent regardless of when it was first made public.

Well, if you lead with "these laser/phaser and dilithium retcons are from Vulcan's Glory a novel by D.C. Fontana" I wouldn't be questioning where you're getting the idea they were retconned. You didn't cite her novel. This goes back to being transparent about your sources otherwise we would have these bits where we do not have a common reference point.

Yeah, I know, so what? are you suggesting that I should accept your, or some other fans, idle speculation about where the T/L went next over the script itself? Do I really need to say that this is exactly the point, that in the absence of onscreen evidence we need to first consult the behind the scenes sources before indulging in uninformed speculation.

If you look at the information in the episode it doesn't tell us which direction (up/down/horizontal) that the turbolift went to take Kirk to his quarters. Since it didn't, then his quarters could be above, below or on the same deck as sickbay.

My point is that by being a little more observant and neutral with what we're shown on screen we have removed the possibility that this scene damaged or changed the behind the scenes sources.

My best guess, given the present state of my ignorance, about this bit of script trivia is that since TCM was the first episode filmed, Roddenberry or someone else, wanted to show the audience that the turbolift was no ordinary elevator, but had horizontal motion as well as vertical, but then it was realized that the little light bar mechanism had not yet been modified to be able to simulate horizontal movement, so the last few seconds of the scene were nixed.

Or that since no direction was shown, you don't need to guess anything.

 

[blssdwlf]

“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.”

I mean, YOU posted the images. That is the proof. Anyone who can’t tell they are different just isn’t looking. If you are saying I couldn’t tell in 1968 on my 10” Panasonic portable BxW TV, sure. But that isn’t the limit of what is available. Like I said, the show was made on film stock. THAT is the evidence that you have generously supplied, to great effect.

On the contrary, the images I posted don't show anything I could measure differences with. That is why I'd like you to post images circling what those differences are so we can see what you are seeing. Remember, what is obvious to you because of your knowledge isn't obvious to everyone else.

As for the originals of those Jefferies drawings, I don’t know. They were auctioned in one of those dumps of Star Trek props that featured Jefferies’ artwork. Maybe the Profiles in History auction in 2001? If you get me your email address via PM, I think I have them saved somewhere and would be happy to share them with you if I do.

That's be great. Will PM you.

 

[aridas sofia]

You don’t think the huge difference in the shape of the 4” model’s saucer that you posted here in these two images is obvious?

 

[blssdwlf]

You don’t think the huge difference in the shape of the 4” model’s saucer that you posted here in these two images is obvious?

No - because it is camoflaged? seems normal? when including the matting errors visible on the other models which also show a varying shape on the saucer.

 

[BK613]

The picture quality on TVs of the 60s and 70s was such that for years I thought they'd used the AMT model for those shots before they trashed it to be the Constellation.

 

[blssdwlf]

The picture quality on TVs of the 60s and 70s was such that for years I thought they'd used the AMT model for those shots before they trashed it to be the Constellation.

LOL. I thought the same thing too when I watched TOS in my youth in the 70s and 80s. The matting quirks/errors that are still present on DVD and HD do alot to hide or obfuscate details on the smaller models when used for distance shots. .

 

[Warped9]

Even back in the ‘70s on our colour console I could see something distinctly different between the 4in., the AMT model and the 11 footer.

 

[BK613]

On those fuzzy tube TVs, this
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x06/doomsdaymachine_322.jpg
looked like an undamaged version of this
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x06/doomsdaymachine_337.jpg

edit to add: To me anyway (this post being a follow-up to the anecdote I posted upstream.).

 

[aridas sofia]

On those fuzzy tube TVs, this
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x06/doomsdaymachine_322.jpg
looked like an undamaged version of this
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x06/doomsdaymachine_337.jpg

That underside of the saucer was so distinctive that whenever the little metal model was used, it was obvious. The weird end caps of the nacelles were less obvious and you really had to have seen the model to know they were different. But that saucer? Very obvious.

That’s also true with the 3-foot model. It had a very different saucer underside. Although in its case, it was understated relative to the 11-foot model, versus being more pronounced like the little 4-inch model. And in many cases it wasn’t filmed in such a way that the saucer underside was visible.

As for the AMT model, when it is used as Constellation, it’s obvious because it is shot up close. That B/C deck inmediately makes it clear. When it is used as Enterprise, it is from a distance and you don’t see the distinctive features clearly.

So to some degree, in some cases, it can be said the different models blur together. But when you see a ship without balls on the nacelles and spikes on the caps in one shot, then different in another, it’s so distinct as to be distracting. And that happened in many, many episodes. It was a running thing - almost a motif. And that begged further investigation to figure out what was going on.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Well, if you lead with "these laser/phaser and dilithium retcons are from Vulcan's Glory a novel by D.C. Fontana" I wouldn't be questioning where you're getting the idea they were retconned. You didn't cite her novel. This goes back to being transparent about your sources otherwise we would have these bits where we do not have a common reference point.

Well, I didn't initially think that I had to, because -from the real world perspective under discussion- even with just the onscreen evidence alone that is our common reference here, it should be "transparent" that the terms laser, lithium crystal etc. were never use again after the new terms "phaser" and "dilithium" etc. were introduced, and nothing onscreen indicated that we should assume that "in universe" that there had been technological upgrades. Now I'm not saying we can't speculate about this stuff, just that our speculation should try to honor the spirit of creator intent to replace and overwrite these and other terms.

If you look at the information in the episode it doesn't tell us which direction (up/down/horizontal) that the turbolift went to take Kirk to his quarters. Since it didn't, then his quarters could be above, below or on the same deck as sickbay.

Again, that's my point. there is insufficient onscreen evidence from which to draw a valid conclusion, and while in the absence of any other clues here, Kirk's quarters could be above, below or on the same deck as sickbay. But we do have another clue to guide us, the script itself tells us the relationship between these various areas. And since for my part at least, the discussion is about script blunders, and I have reservations about the deck 5 location for sickbay given in other episodes/scripts, the question of "what deck is sickbay on" will remain open in my mind until, or unless, further "behind the scenes" information becomes available one way or the other.

My point is that by being a little more observant and neutral with what we're shown on screen we have removed the possibility that this scene damaged or changed the behind the scenes sources.

It didn't anyway, because it doesn't give us the final few seconds that are provided in the script, so that's actually my point, so thanks for agreeing with me.

It seems we are talking about two different things here. You're taking the "Thermion" approach and using your imagination to fill in the gaps and explain the contradictions for stuff we don't see onscreen, whereas I and others are looking at this from a real world production POV and willing to use behind the scenes info as supplemental sources to the same end. I can't speak for the others, but I for one can appreciate your POV, but I'm not obligated to play by your rules, and since this thread is about script blinders, and therefore couched in a real world perspective, that is where I, at least, am coming from for the sake of the discussion at hand.

 

[blssdwlf]

Well, I didn't initially think that I had to, because -from the real world perspective under discussion- even with just the onscreen evidence alone that is our common reference here, it should be "transparent" that the terms laser, lithium crystal etc. were never use again after the new terms "phaser" and "dilithium" etc. were introduced, and nothing onscreen indicated that we should assume that "in universe" that there had been technological upgrades. Now I'm not saying we can't speculate about this stuff, just that our speculation should try to honor the spirit of creator intent to replace and overwrite these and other terms.

This was the first you've brought up "Vulcan's Glory" as the source to retcon "lithium crystals" and "laser guns". Not everyone has read every Star Trek novel And since your earlier posts mentioned Blish's novels it didn't occur to me to look for a book published in 1989 as a reference for the retcon.

I thought you would've gone for Star Trek Enterprise or Strange New Worlds as the retcon source, IMHO.

Funny that there are other sources that seem to remember that lithium crystals and laser weapons were used as originally depicted in the TOS episodes...

Again, that's my point. there is insufficient onscreen evidence from which to draw a valid conclusion, and while in the absence of any other clues here, Kirk's quarters could be above, below or on the same deck as sickbay. But we do have another clue to guide us, the script itself tells us the relationship between these various areas. And since for my part at least, the discussion is about script blunders, and I have reservations about the deck 5 location for sickbay given in other episodes/scripts, the question of "what deck is sickbay on" will remain open in my mind until, or unless, further "behind the scenes" information becomes available one way or the other.
It didn't anyway, because it doesn't give us the final few seconds that are provided in the script, so that's actually my point, so thanks for agreeing with me.

It seems we are talking about two different things here. You're taking the "Thermion" approach and using your imagination to fill in the gaps and explain the contradictions for stuff we don't see onscreen, whereas I and others are looking at this from a real world production POV and willing to use behind the scenes info as supplemental sources to the same end. I can't speak for the others, but I for one can appreciate your POV, but I'm not obligated to play by your rules, and since this thread is about script blinders, and therefore couched in a real world perspective, that is where I, at least, am coming from for the sake of the discussion at hand.

The only thing I was doing was checking the scene that you brought up (quoted below) and pointing out that there was not enough information for anyone to determine which way Kirk took to go to his quarters. If you think I'm trying to WWTTD you, I am not. And I still to this post encourage anyone that has access to scripts about Deck 5 in "The Ultimate Computer" or where Sickbay would've been if said in dialogue to chime in!

TIN_MAN: "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;"​

 

[blssdwlf]

That underside of the saucer was so distinctive that whenever the little metal model was used, it was obvious. The weird end caps of the nacelles were less obvious and you really had to have seen the model to know they were different. But that saucer? Very obvious.

Yeah most of the Enterprises below have something "obvious" with the saucers

That’s also true with the 3-foot model. It had a very different saucer underside. Although in its case, it was understated relative to the 11-foot model, versus being more pronounced like the little 4-inch model. And in many cases it wasn’t filmed in such a way that the saucer underside was visible.

As for the AMT model, when it is used as Constellation, it’s obvious because it is shot up close. That B/C deck inmediately makes it clear. When it is used as Enterprise, it is from a distance and you don’t see the distinctive features clearly.

So to some degree, in some cases, it can be said the different models blur together. But when you see a ship without balls on the nacelles and spikes on the caps in one shot, then different in another, it’s so distinct as to be distracting. And that happened in many, many episodes. It was a running thing - almost a motif. And that begged further investigation to figure out what was going on.

As to the Enterprise having balls on the nacelles endcap and spikes on the forward dome in one scene and then later it doesn't it could've been that someone switched modes on the nacelles

 

[Warped9]

There is no mistaking the 4in. miniature. It was obvious even when I saw it in the early 1970s.

 

[blssdwlf]

There is no mistaking the 4in. miniature. It was obvious even when I saw it in the early 1970s.

There is also no mistaking the 11' also has some cuts into it's own saucer too. If the 11' and the 4" can have cuts into the saucer they are not so easy to differentiate.

 

[Warped9]

There is also no mistaking the 11' also has some cuts into it's own saucer too. If the 11' and the 4" can have cuts into the saucer they are not so easy to differentiate.

If you cannot or could not see the distinct differences that doesn’t mean many outhers couldn’t. This discussion is getting pointless.

 

[BK613]

That underside of the saucer was so distinctive that whenever the little metal model was used, it was obvious. The weird end caps of the nacelles were less obvious and you really had to have seen the model to know they were different. But that saucer? Very obvious.

That wasn't an opinion, that was an anecdote, so no amount of rhetorical bullshit will change my memory of what I experienced.
I did edit that post to make it clearer it was followup to the previous post.

 

[Warped9]

That wasn't an opinion, that was an anecdote, so no amount of rhetorical bullshit will change my memory of what I experienced.
I did edit that post to make it clearer it was followup to the previous post.

No one is trying to change your memory of what you experienced. But it works the other way as well—your memory doesn’t change that others could itell the difference in miniatures on the screen.

 

[blssdwlf]

If you cannot or could not see the distinct differences that doesn’t mean many outhers couldn’t. This discussion is getting pointless.

Don't get me wrong here. I do see distinct differences in the saucer of the 4". But I also see distinct differences or cuts in the 11' from the same episode that has matting errors on saucer. I'm guessing you're probably ignoring the matting errors because you see the filming model in your mind and not the possibility that the 4" could be the 11' with matting errors. IMHO.