The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek - Original Series (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   FJ's significance then and now... (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=223708)

Warped9 August 25 2013 05:21 PM

FJ's significance then and now...
 
Back in the '70s when FJ's work went mainstream it was an eye opening experience for me and a lot of like minded fans. He brought an added dimension and depth to the "universe" that we glimpsed on Star Trek. I don't think much if anything before (in genre materiel tie-ins) had been done near the level of what FJ had done. Mind you, the fans themselves might have already gotten started before FJ, spurred by the basic schematics, and the accompanying text describing the layout of the ship's interior, found in the pages of The Making Of Star Trek. I know I got started that way. But probably like many others discovering FJ's work really fanned the fire of enthusiasm.

For a lot of fans his work became accepted as almost gospel to the point that some can't bear any criticism of his work, as if there is no middle ground---either accepted in whole or not at all. It can make for lively discussions.

One undeniable effect of FJ's work was in how it inspired countless fans to expand, build on and in some cases correct what he started. He also had an affect on the field of popular entertainment in film and television in fostering a market that really didn't exist before. After FJ's Booklet Of General Plans and the Star Fleet Technical Manual we began to see material from other popular films and television series. And this went on for decades.

The publishing industry might be receding from this kind of materiel in recent years, but it shows no sign of slowing down with the fans themselves. In the beginning they grabbed pencil and paper and with varying degrees of proficiency churned out reams of new ship designs and uniforms and hardware. And with the advent of the internet it's just grown particularly with the accessibility of 3D modelling programs. It's huge and being able to share work online the fans really don't need the publishers anymore and haven't for years. The sole value of a published hardcopy work is in seeming to lend the materiel a sense of legitimacy. But in dealing with totally fictional materiel that seems to be largely unimportant.

Even when FJ's work was new it wasn't above criticism. Perceptive fans soon began to note where FJ was apparently inconsistent with what could be seen on television. That can't be argued. But equally it can't be argued that he inspired legions of devoted fans and even an entertainment industry to follow and build on what he'd started.

CrazyMatt August 25 2013 10:51 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
I never really got into FJ's stuff. I was turned off by his starship registry numbering system, which was (to coin a phrase) illogical, and I think that reaction influenced my perception of the accuracy of the rest of his stuff.

Interesting how my negative reaction to that aspect alone was enough to turn me off to the rest of his stuff.

Timewalker August 26 2013 01:15 AM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
Who is "FJ"? I'm blanking on putting a real name to those initials...

Warped9 August 26 2013 01:36 AM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
Quote:

Timewalker wrote: (Post 8556508)
Who is "FJ"? I'm blanking on putting a real name to those initials...

Franz Joseph. He created the Booklet Of General Plans (schematics and deck layouts to the Constitution-class starship) and the Star Fleet Technical Manual.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ps1e7a95fd.gif

-SS- August 26 2013 05:50 AM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
When I was a wee lad my uncle gave my his copy of the Technical Manual. I read it to pieces and traced just about every schematic inside it. It has been one of the biggest influences on me in how I view art, design, and many things in the world. Not until many years later when I started researching Trek things online did I realize it wasn't entirely accurate or canonical. But considering he created it almost entirely from TV recordings and still frames, with little to no access to original props and sets, I find it even more impressive. In fact I prefer a lot of the things in the book that contradict what is seen or mentioned on-screen.

Robert Comsol August 26 2013 11:30 AM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 8554690)
Even when FJ's work was new it wasn't above criticism. Perceptive fans soon began to note where FJ was apparently inconsistent with what could be seen on television. That can't be argued.

Which is not too surprising once you read his interviews (at www.trekplace.com) and look into the possibility that the bulk of his work is entirely based on The Making of Star Trek and not that much else. Of course, he should have also taken into account the studio set blueprints illustrated in this book, but since he didn’t, I wonder if Roddenberry’s assistance on his projects would have really changed things for the better.

Quote:

Warped9 wrote: (Post 8554690)
But equally it can't be argued that he inspired legions of devoted fans and even an entertainment industry to follow and build on what he'd started.

The commercial success of his work revealed there was huge fan interest and market potential (something Gene Roddenberry did not expect) and inspired many fans to become equally creative, too. Definitely a good thing, though I feel Franz Joseph Schnaubelt would have rather wanted to encourage fans to actively participate in their local and hometown communities.

My biggest criticism (for which FJ is not to be blamed but what “fandom” made his conjectural designs into) is the subsequent conditioning up to this day how certain internal components of Kirk’s television Enterprise should look like.

Instead of a vertical main power line connecting engineering and saucer hull (Jefferies’ TOS bridge schematic) almost everybody believes this to be a vertical turbo shaft (according to Jefferies’s TOS bridge schematic the bridge would then have to be a turbo lift depot :rolleyes:).

And regarding his conjectural deck level numbering it’s mostly assumed that the saucer’s deck level numbering continues all the way down to the engineering hull – which makes Kirk’s cabin on (Engineering) Deck 12 in “Mudd’s Women” look like a production screwup which it isn’t, once the engineering decks start counting from the top of the dorsal down (and we’d have a Deck 2 there to rationalize the long turbo lift ride of Spock and the Romulan Commander in “The Enterprise Incident”).

In my deck plan thread (definitely “inspired” by Franz Joseph ;)) I’m taking these issues into account and I get to hear my approach is “radical”, while I’m just trying to be accurate and onscreen-compatible. That tells me a thing or two how good or bad the influence of the works of Franz Joseph is up until this day.

Bob

Warped9 August 28 2013 02:43 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
Going through the Technical manual in those early years I remember also being intrigued by what wasn't in it, but suggested by listings on the contents pages. I'm referring to other ship classes of Starfleet and the Federation as well as listings for the Klingons and Romulans---all kinds of stuff I thought might show up in a supplemental followup volume, but never happened.

But then fans took up the cause and began doing it themselves.

And we're still doing it.

King Daniel Into Darkness August 28 2013 02:54 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
FJ's influence on the Trekverse is immense. Every time you see the Federation flag, you're looking at a blatant rip-off of his design, changed just enough to avoid having to pay royalties.
http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/a...lag_ripoff.jpg

Robert Comsol August 28 2013 03:17 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8566906)
FJ's influence on the Trekverse is immense. Every time you see the Federation flag, you're looking at a blatant rip-off of his design, changed just enough to avoid having to pay royalties.

:confused: Rather looks to me that both Franz Joseph and Paramount should have paid royalties to the United Nations, which served as an inspiration for both.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ations.svg.png

Bob

Hober Mallow August 28 2013 05:05 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
I remember getting the one with the cover that just said, "STAR FLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL" and nothing else. It didn't have the words "Star Trek" on it at all; there was no breaking the illusion that this was a real tech manuan Scotty may have been reading. It looked real and it probably more than anything else Trek-related -- probably even more than the actual TV episodes -- pulled me into the universe of Star Trek.

Richard Baker August 28 2013 05:23 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
For me the best part of his Technical Manual was showing other Federation ships, With the budget they just recycled Constitution class vessels each time and I like seeing the rest of the fleet filled out. When the DVD 'Of Gods and Men' came out I got to actually see these ships in action...
While many have reworked his blueprints to fit the hull or engineering concepts better, the original ones really gave you a feel that the ship we just saw a small portion of was 'real'.

Warped9 August 28 2013 05:54 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
Candidly as much as I enjoyed FJ's designs he did take the easy way out. He did what a lot of fans were doing and continue to: rearranging existing components. But it's not very creative.

In the real world I really wonder how many major components are interchangeable between a carrier, a cruiser, a destroyer and a transport. I wouldn't think many if any. Certainly the hulls and super structures aren't interchangeable.

The first genuinely divergent Starfleet designs we got were in TAS (the freighters and shuttlecraft) and then next in TMP and TWOK. And note that while there were some shared elements there were also distinct differences which is as it should be.

I also like that some fans have learned to go beyond just rearranging the same components. From that we've gotten some inspired designs, some of which look authentic enough to fit right in alongside with what we've seen onscreen.

Melakon August 28 2013 05:59 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
One overlooked conceit of the book was that it was the result of information inadvertently downloaded by Strategic Air Command or NORAD. That was a nice touch, and left it open for interpretation regarding the internal circuitry of hand phasers, tricorders, communicators, etc., which were represented by contemporary 20th century technology with transistors and such.

Timewalker August 28 2013 06:22 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
Ah, okay. :)

I have these, and way back in the '80s, our local Star Trek club wanted to make our own uniforms. We wanted to be post-TOS, pre-TNG (TNG was the only spinoff series at the time)... so I dug out the Tech Manual, turned to the pages on uniforms, and started sketching. We came up with a design that was basically a mix of TOS and TOS-movie tunics, TNG pants (as in separate from the tops), but with a vertical stripe denoting Command, Sciences, or Support on the outside of each leg. We left the black boots up to each member to acquire their own.

And we drove the clerk at the fabric store nuts; she kept trying to sell us this striking red material, and we kept telling her no - because if we wore red, we'd end up getting killed! :p

This was pre-combadge, and I remember one night at the convention when we were expecting to debut our uniforms... the member working on my tunic called my room in a panic, saying she'd accidentally sewn my insignia on sideways! :eek:

Melakon August 28 2013 06:33 PM

Re: FJ's significance then and now...
 
Were those uniform patterns in the Technical Manual good enough to make an actual costume from? I never owned one of the commercial uniforms, the closest I got was when my ex gave me a contemporary velour shirt for Christmas. It was very comfortable, but could get hot.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.