Good catch.
Script blunders!
- Thread starter Don Drutherford
- Start date
This would be another one for @Harvey and @alchemist -- as a writer, I know I've sometimes deleted important scaffolding in edits that opened up loops. That said, the timeline of that show is heavily accelerated, and I have to think someone on the Enterprise figured out who he was from context.
Definitely a script mistake, likely because the shooting draft was written/edited quickly. Specifically, Spock is in the landing party through the 5/23/67 Revised Final Draft and there is also no communications problem with the Enterprise. In fact, most of this script, from Acts 1.5 to 4, occurs on the planet, and Sulu and Uhura (on the bridge) have little to do other than to periodically talk to Kirk. When the 5/26/67 Second Revised Final Draft was printed (the draft they shot with), just three days later, Spock was moved to the Enterprise and Kirk couldn't now communicate with the ship, at least initially. This gave Sulu and Uhura things to do so their roles were expanded. Ultimately, this script had a few revisions through 5/31, which is the day they started filming.
The had no need for revisions; they found the one quite sufficient!
If the last-minute revisions involved the bridge scenes, it's impressive they could do that on the fly. For my money those pieces of dialogue and interactions with the bridge crew are some of Spock's best in the whole series while serving in a command role. The unexpected discussions with Kyle (due to Chekov's inclusion in the landing party) are a real plus. And then of course there's the "Spock encourages Uhura" moment, which got the attention of more than a few fanfic writers . . . and, apparently, J.J. Abrams.
My daughter gave that episode just a three, but the scenes on the Enterprise are some of her favorite in the series. Everyone being smart and competent. It's a rhythm of precision and professionalism we, frankly, hardly see in any of the later Treks.
Another possible script blunder is in "The Ultimate Computer" when M-5 is shutting down systems all over the ship. Scotty says "power shutdowns on deck four. Lights, environmental control" and then a few minutes later says "The power's gone off on deck five"; but later, when questioned about this Daystrom says "Decks four and six are living quarters, are they not?". So there seems to be some confusion over decks 4 and 5 vs decks 4 and 6?
However, in the Blish novelization Scotty also says deck 4 and 6 -just like Daystrom. So was this something Blish did on his own, or was he actually following the script he was working from, and it was perhaps James Doohan that flubbed his lines?
However, in the Blish novelization Scotty also says deck 4 and 6 -just like Daystrom. So was this something Blish did on his own, or was he actually following the script he was working from, and it was perhaps James Doohan that flubbed his lines?
"Four through six" probably should have been the correct term.
Kirk also "disengages" M-5 at the start of tests in an obvious voice over, then silently hits that switch again a few minutes later. Finally hits it a third time as says "M-5 is committed." That third time should have been Kirk disengaging M-5 again.
Kirk also "disengages" M-5 at the start of tests in an obvious voice over, then silently hits that switch again a few minutes later. Finally hits it a third time as says "M-5 is committed." That third time should have been Kirk disengaging M-5 again.
That's possible. My thinking though is that it was the intention of the writing staff, particularly Fontana, to skip over deck 5, since they had long since associated that deck with Kirk's quarters, and which we see being used later in this very episode. Therefore it makes sense, story wise, that M-5 would leave the power on for deck 5 for the convenience of the senior officers/bridge crew which remained aboard for the duration of the "war games" and only cut power to decks 4 and 6 (the location of the quarters for the rest of the -presently absent- crew) plus various systems all over the ship.
In any case, it would be interesting to know what the the shooting script actually says.
Scott also said, "That thing is turning off systems all over the ship."
Later on after inspecting M5 the line about "decks four and six..." is brought up by Daystrom.
Seems to me that "all over the ship" could include many more decks than just decks 4 and 5. When they checked the system Daystrom made a weak excuse for two of the decks being unoccupied. Deck 5 must've been re-activated for Kirk and the medbay though...
Later on after inspecting M5 the line about "decks four and six..." is brought up by Daystrom.
Seems to me that "all over the ship" could include many more decks than just decks 4 and 5. When they checked the system Daystrom made a weak excuse for two of the decks being unoccupied. Deck 5 must've been re-activated for Kirk and the medbay though...
Sure, anything is possible, But I'm more interested in whether this ambiguity between decks 4, 5 and 6 constitutes a real world script blunder, or actors not adhering to the script, or possibly something else, rather than 'in universe' rationalizations for the confusing dialog. After all we wouldn't need to rationalize the dialog if it made perfect sense.
Remember, part of my original post mentioned the Blish novelization, which does have Scotty referencing deck 4 and 6 just as Daystrom later does, which leads me to suspect that this might be the way the script was written, since Blish often worked from scripts. And if the Blish version does reflect the original intent, it seems to me more likely then that deck 5 was not supposed to be mentioned at all?
In any event, all this speculation is useless until we know what the script says, then we can start speculating about what it might mean from an 'in universe' POV. So is there anyone out there that might be able to shed some light on this?
Remember, part of my original post mentioned the Blish novelization, which does have Scotty referencing deck 4 and 6 just as Daystrom later does, which leads me to suspect that this might be the way the script was written, since Blish often worked from scripts. And if the Blish version does reflect the original intent, it seems to me more likely then that deck 5 was not supposed to be mentioned at all?
In any event, all this speculation is useless until we know what the script says, then we can start speculating about what it might mean from an 'in universe' POV. So is there anyone out there that might be able to shed some light on this?
Yeah, good call. Maybe Scotty was able to reverse some of what the M5 was doing. Also, isn't it pretty well established that Sickbay is on Deck 7?
Not sure. It is possible Sickbay was on Deck 7 in "The Ultimate Computer"?
But in "Elaan of Troyius" when Kirk takes Elaan to Sickbay he drops her off at Deck 5 which is how I remember it.
Argh. That's an episode I don't have well-committed to memory. I thought "Day of the Dove" established Sickbay on Deck 7. But now that I think about it, I believe "Mirror, Mirror" has a Deck 5 reference as well, so you're right. I wonder why the blueprints (as far as I know) put it on Deck 7.
I don't have it at hand, but pretty sure it's deck 7 in Making of Star Trek. And then writers likely put a random number in, never expecting the show to be rewatched let alone obsessed over for half a century.
More likely the writers just counted the levels down from the Bridge to determine what was the largest (and therefore "main") deck...which was Deck 5.
When was that graphic made, though? There's definitely at least one cutaway preceding it, the one on the bridge set engineering console and next to the turbolift.More likely the writers just counted the levels down from the Bridge to determine what was the largest (and therefore "main") deck...which was Deck 5.
More likely the writers just counted the levels down from the Bridge to determine what was the largest (and therefore "main") deck...which was Deck 5.
Seems like the only way to count 11 decks in the saucer is to include the caps to the bridge and lower sensor dome... Deck 5 might be one deck higher if going by TMOST diagram.
Last edited:
Similar threads
