Script blunders!
- Thread starter Don Drutherford
- Start date
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.
i have no idea what kind of “rhetorical bullshit” you are referring to beyond, you know, a respectful reply to your post. Just because you remember something one way does not mean others don’t remember it differently. As I’ve said, it is what it is. The overarching point is, if the onscreen evidence is contradictory as evidenced by multiple differing models being used, it demands going behind the scenes to understand what is going on. The “rhetorical bullshit” is not saying as much. That charge should be aimed in another direction: “Rhetorical bullshit” is saying that when I see what I see, it is “ignoring matting errors”. But when you don’t see what I see, it is seeing things accurately.
“That charge should be aimed in another direction”
Get it? Another person? You said I was engaging in rhetorical bullshit. I pointed out a real case of rhetorical bullshit by quoting another poster’s post. Not yours.
This series of thin-skinned responses is not conducive to productive conversation. I have made my point, and no one has rebutted it with anything other than, as you say, rhetorical bullshit. So I am leaving before the door slams shut and I feel guilty for contributing to the end of what was, for awhile, an interesting and informative thread.
Get it? Another person? You said I was engaging in rhetorical bullshit. I pointed out a real case of rhetorical bullshit by quoting another poster’s post. Not yours.
This series of thin-skinned responses is not conducive to productive conversation. I have made my point, and no one has rebutted it with anything other than, as you say, rhetorical bullshit. So I am leaving before the door slams shut and I feel guilty for contributing to the end of what was, for awhile, an interesting and informative thread.
I'm not sure why this is escalated as I was thinking this was a fascinating discussion into the insight to what each of us is seeing. We all have different perceptions of what we saw back then and what we see now when filled with all this behind-the-scenes knowledge. No one is right or wrong in what they saw back then.
You're focused on that 4" model's saucer being "obvious" but never said anything about cuts or holes present in the 11' saucer (the matting errors) until now and I'm not even sure you are admitting you see them. Do you see them? Do you just discount them as VFX errors and you mentally fill in that it is the 11' model with no spikes on the nacelles, half-height bridge and smaller sensor dish? You were specific in pointing out how you considered it an issue to show the 11' with the balls on the end of the nacelle in one scene and then flat in another scene in the same episode so it doesn't seem like you were open to the idea that different models or models with cosmetic changes can be the same ship, correct?
Or to express it another way, in all the years I've watch TOS I subconsciously ignored these imperfections, cuts and holes, the matting errors, on the Enterprise except for in the most obvious cases like when the Enterprise is coming out of the galactic barrier. But after rewatching the series just for the Enterprise it becomes very obvious (to me) that the matting errors are in most episodes and can radically change the shape of parts of the ship. And to me, if the 11' can change shape then it can appear to look like the 4" in the distance or hide and show parts of the nacelle. It is the same ship to me. All IMHO.
Geez, some of you need to lighten up a bit. Not everyone agrees with you about everything. It happens.
Even from a little kid, I always watched my sci-fi shows with a forgiving eye. The fx were always imperfect. The Enterprise would vary because they kept mixing in old footage from before the 11-footer was modified. The Jupiter 2 would vary because sometimes they showed the Gemini 12 model. (But Lost in Space had super-clean shots with no matte lines, because fx scenes were created in-camera, with no compositing needed.)
The Six Million Dollar Man often used mixed-up stock footage for Air Force jets, lifting body spacecraft, and the Apollo rocket family. You went with it. It was just a fact of vintage television.
The Six Million Dollar Man often used mixed-up stock footage for Air Force jets, lifting body spacecraft, and the Apollo rocket family. You went with it. It was just a fact of vintage television.
What's the episode with mismatched stock footage of a Lion? Is it "Shore Leave"?
Isn't that the only episode with a tiger?
In at least one shot, the tiger is on a chain.
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x15hd/shoreleavehd659.jpg
I can't say where, but I distinctly remember Russell Johnson ("the Professor") saying "A lion is one thing, but a tiger is another thing." He had a lot of respect for tigers, and didn't want one loose on the set. But apparently lions can be reasonable.
Right! I remember this. We hardly ever talk about "Shore Leave" here. I think the gun fires too many bullets or something as well. (Not lessening Kirk's awesome, reflexive use of it.)
Of course we can simply say the Keeper and his manufacturing array got a few minor details wrong; quite understandable. It's not like he improperly sized a Starfleet shuttlecraft or failed to show his work on the turbolift's alignment to a Constitution-class bridge or something!!!!
And of course my solution is to conclude that Khan's men did stay in Engineering - in the primary hull. Khan, however, fled to the secondary hull. Good thing he noticed that the deck plans included two engine rooms.
"Saucer-separ" would require two Engine Rooms.
Or auxiliary control at the very least.
Probably!
Which is a shame, because I love Yeoman Tonia Barrows the way most people here love Helen Noel.
She was very memorable and had some well-written lines and character depth.
I would have liked to have seen both again.
Agreed. Speaking of script blunders, we get to see "Angela" (Barbara Baldavin) three times but the script editor couldn't follow cast members' names in the scripts. We see Barbara Baldavin in Balance of Terror, Shore Leave and Turnabout Intruder, but with three different last names.
<I've covered her appearances in previous posts here.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/mental-illness-in-star-trek.299562/page-3#post-12942867
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/tos-chronology.304218/page-5#post-13415789>.
Last edited:
Agreed. Speaking of script blunders, we get to see "Angela" (Barbara Baldavin) three times but the script editor couldn't follow cast members' names in the scripts. We see Barbara Baldavin in Balance of Terror, Shore Leave and Turnabout Intruder, but with three different last names.
<I've covered her appearances in a previous post here.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/mental-illness-in-star-trek.299562/page-3#post-12942867
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/tos-chronology.304218/page-5#post-13415789>.
Those three episodes had three different writers. If they had repeated her full character name, they might have owed a royalty payment or some such to the first script writer, Paul Schneider. And who wants to pay that?
The Kevin Riley character name could be used again, apparently because writer John D.F. Black was a producer, so his work (Riley) belonged to the series. And note that Stephen Kandel wrote all three Harry Mudd episodes, so there was no issue there. I'd be curious to know if Kandel got paid when Mudd appeared in recent new-Trek.
It's now in my headcanon that Angela Martine/Teller/Lysa kept getting married and kept getting widowed between episodes.Agreed. Speaking of script blunders, we get to see "Angela" (Barbara Baldavin) three times but the script editor couldn't follow cast members' names in the scripts. We see Barbara Baldavin in Balance of Terror, Shore Leave and Turnabout Intruder, but with three different last names.
Similar threads
