It says, "transporter section."
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x24hd/thissideofparadisehd412.jpg
https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x24hd/thissideofparadisehd412.jpg
"The Apple" - The TOS Mythbuster Episode!
- Thread starter JonnyQuest037
- Start date
Oh my star and garters! So it does, and you have my thanks.
By way of clarification, the reason I brought up TAS and Fontana in my previous post is because she, as story editor and script consultant for TOS season two, is most likely the one who edited the 3rd rev of the writers guide and was certainly aware of, if not the originator of, the idea of multiple transporters. Why she didn’t add this to any scripts at the time is a matter for further debate, but it is a fact that she and Roddenberry considered TAS as a true continuation of TOS, and so “IMHO”, references to multiple transporters in TAS is an example of a retcon, i.e. “retro-active continuity”, and meant to imply that the ship always had more than one, just as the TOS writers guide (and TMOST) said it did.
In any case, the creative staff were never afraid of retcons, even during TOS, for example, lasers becoming phasers, Lithium crystals becoming Dilithium crystals etc.etc. and the audience is meant understand and accept that the new terms overwrite the earlier ones. So clues in dialogue from TOS that there are multiple transporters despite the fact that “the” transporter is always mentioned are not examples of continuity errors, but rather reflect ,and serve to support, the true “creator intent” at the time. YMMV.
In any case, the creative staff were never afraid of retcons, even during TOS, for example, lasers becoming phasers, Lithium crystals becoming Dilithium crystals etc.etc. and the audience is meant understand and accept that the new terms overwrite the earlier ones. So clues in dialogue from TOS that there are multiple transporters despite the fact that “the” transporter is always mentioned are not examples of continuity errors, but rather reflect ,and serve to support, the true “creator intent” at the time. YMMV.
TAS changed a lot of things from how we saw them on TOS. In addition to the extra turbolift door on the bridge, the series featured more aliens on the Enterprise, a redesign for the engine room, force fields instead of spacesuits, and different types of shuttlecraft. But I don't see how any of those changes are necessarily retroactively binding on TOS, since TAS was made years after the fact. They're just changes they made because they were things that were easier to do in animation than in live action.
In other words, TAS featuring multiple transporter rooms doesn't necessarily mean that TOS had more than one.
In other words, TAS featuring multiple transporter rooms doesn't necessarily mean that TOS had more than one.
I agree to a point, with some caveats. One, TAS was not made that many years after TOS. Two, many of the ideas for TAS began as ideas conceived behind-the-scenes during TOS production: multiple transporter rooms, life support belts, and the holodeck-like rec room being three of them.
Calling out the transporter rooms by number in TAS was an improvement to the dialog employed in TOS, to commit on screen to an idea that was considered reasonable and probably always the case anyway, as far as the people working behind the scenes on TOS (Roddenberry, Fontana, et al.) had been concerned. YMMV.
Putting the secondary bridge exit on the bridge is more of a modification, to repair a fault in the original conception of the bridge.
Okay, here’s hoping “third time’s the charm” and I can speak to the very heart of the issue?
First of all, as to the question of the “The Apple” being the smoking gun that “proves” that there was only one transporter in TOS -just because two groups are shown to beam down at slightly different times? The answer to this has to be “no” because such a conclusion is based on the premise that if such were the case the two groups would/should beam down simultaneously. However, this is clearly a faulty premise, and thus the conclusion is also faulty. Statistically speaking, it’s far more likely that two groups in two different transporters would beam down at slightly different times than at exactly the same time. We can think of lots of reasons for this, not the least of which would be power consumption problems, which might require that two standard transporters to “take turns” rather than risk overloading the system.
Second, the tacit assumption that multiple transporters constitute a “myth” that can be “busted” is also a faulty premise. We have documented proof that the writing staff of TOS assumed there was more than one transporter –at the time they were making the show- so the idea of multiple transporters isn’t some baseless fanboy idea, but was rather, the “creator intent” all along. Now, as to why this was never made explicit onscreen is anyone's guess, my own being that it had something to do with trying to keep such things vague while the show was still on the air, but whatever the case, the inescapable fact remains that the creators of TOS intended that there be more than one transporter, therefore this is not a “myth”.
And finally, whether multiple transporters (and a host of other things) in TAS can be retroactively applied to TOS isn’t really the important point. The important and very relevant point is that it once again proves, if more proof is necessary, that Fontana, and probably Roddenberry too, wanted there to be more than one transporter, and thus reinforces the documentation from the TOS writers guide to that effect. So the real “myth” that gets busted is that inconclusive evidence of one scene from one episode can overrule real-world documentary evidence.
First of all, as to the question of the “The Apple” being the smoking gun that “proves” that there was only one transporter in TOS -just because two groups are shown to beam down at slightly different times? The answer to this has to be “no” because such a conclusion is based on the premise that if such were the case the two groups would/should beam down simultaneously. However, this is clearly a faulty premise, and thus the conclusion is also faulty. Statistically speaking, it’s far more likely that two groups in two different transporters would beam down at slightly different times than at exactly the same time. We can think of lots of reasons for this, not the least of which would be power consumption problems, which might require that two standard transporters to “take turns” rather than risk overloading the system.
Second, the tacit assumption that multiple transporters constitute a “myth” that can be “busted” is also a faulty premise. We have documented proof that the writing staff of TOS assumed there was more than one transporter –at the time they were making the show- so the idea of multiple transporters isn’t some baseless fanboy idea, but was rather, the “creator intent” all along. Now, as to why this was never made explicit onscreen is anyone's guess, my own being that it had something to do with trying to keep such things vague while the show was still on the air, but whatever the case, the inescapable fact remains that the creators of TOS intended that there be more than one transporter, therefore this is not a “myth”.
And finally, whether multiple transporters (and a host of other things) in TAS can be retroactively applied to TOS isn’t really the important point. The important and very relevant point is that it once again proves, if more proof is necessary, that Fontana, and probably Roddenberry too, wanted there to be more than one transporter, and thus reinforces the documentation from the TOS writers guide to that effect. So the real “myth” that gets busted is that inconclusive evidence of one scene from one episode can overrule real-world documentary evidence.
I think the number of transporter rooms was about as well established as the year in which the show was set. That is, the show pretty much told us one thing, kinda, but later shows and the movies told us another thing.
I guess we have to wait for Strange New Worlds to give us a definitive answer.
I guess we have to wait for Strange New Worlds to give us a definitive answer.
Was it ever said canonically how many horses were at the Ponderosa?
Like the transporter room or rooms question, while there were exactly zero toilets shown across the entire body of episodes, it is a safe to assume that toilets were provided for; and, that there was likely more than one.
While multiple transporter rooms makes more sense, one transporter room makes for much better stories.
While multiple transporter rooms makes more sense, one transporter room makes for much better stories.
not really: whatever answer they provide it won’t apply to TOS, as SNW is a prequel.
not necessarily: in three centuries humanity could have found better ways to dispose of body waste than what we use today.
Could be... or, perhaps this explains why Kirk got bigger and bigger over time; no toilets on-board, and, only one transporter to get everyone beamed-down planet-side for a sitting head-call.
Yes. Go watch all of them until you find the one that does and report back.
BTW, there's an official Bonanza website called BonanzaBrands, with a forum that features thousands of posts and reportedly features 3,500 of pieces of fanfic by 195 authors. So fan-aticism is alive and well in the old west.
Heck, they even do caption type contests.
Speaking as the person who started this thread, you're not. At all.
Good lord. Again, several of you are taking a half-joking thread I started six months ago WAAAAAAAAAY too seriously. I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised considering the site I posted it on and how overly analytical we can get here, but still.
You do realize I was referencing the Discovery Channel show MythBusters in my initial post, right?
It couldn't have been that strong of an intent, since this idea never made it to the screen in 79 episodes.
Thank god I didn't open the can of worms of how many shuttlecraft are on the Enterprise! I'd never have gotten out alive!
Good one!
This is what I think, too. <ducks for cover>
You know, when I say "I need to go to the bathroom", that doesn't mean the place I'm in has only one bathroom. So when Captain Kirk says "I need to go to the transporter room"...
Robert
Nope, I did not.
Similar threads
