aridas sofia wrote:
If you are documenting something, the only thing you should be passionate about is the truth. But that isn't what Franz Joseph was doing. He was constructing an idealized, consistent vision of Star Fleet. He tells us as much in his interviews. And yet you don't seem able or willing to absorb what he said. You have your own passion that has led you to your own sanitized version of TOS.
When you replace this book that topped the bestseller lists in the 1970s with your own remake, are you going to show the distinctions between high collared early first season tunics designed not to mess up make up and regular first-second season tunics and polyester third season tunics? Are you going to explain how they are made from polyester and velour but Starfleet tells us they are made from algae? The differences in the eleven foot model from first to second pilot to series? From 33" model to eleven foot? An unfinished and undetailed side with wiring hanging out? Are you going to provide the "in-universe explanation why K-7 just so happens to look just like a Douglas Aircraft inflateable space shelter from 1960? What about all those non-hero props that look undetailed and misshapen? What's the in universe explanation with that? Rocks that look like paper mâché? Plywood textured sets? Star Fleet officers that all wear makeup? I'm sure that your "passion" will lead to a clear, unvarnished view of these things, no?
But if not, how do you choose what to leave out?
Or, you can continue to degrade the vision that appealed to hundreds of thousands if not millions of fans at the time it was written. You can denigrate it despite the fact it appealed to them sufficiently to motivate them to buy this thing portraying this stuff that was in the show... stuff they were so passionate and obsessive about that they wanted to know everything about it and yet knowing everything they did, still bought despite it being portayed so "inaccurately". You will do this despite the fact he has provided you a means, built into his work, to correct what he did.
I can only guess that your unwillingness to follow the route provided stems from a need to tear down this vision entirely so you can replace it, not amend it, with your own.
Not very IDIC, that.
It it a matter of passion to rehshape the ST tech in his won view, or missing the purpose
of such books. No fantasy film tech manual ever refers to production shortcomings or solutions, and try to just find what fits best (since most of what they're referring to does not exist).
For example, everyone and his granny knows the original Star Wars
lightsaber hilt props were made from Graflex 4x5 flash attachments, and were altered across the original 3 movies, or the drastic film-to-film changes to Vader's chest controls, and how the surface of many SW ships have recognizable car and boat model kit parts plastered all over their surfaces (not so very "far, far away"
tech) but none of the tech manuals released over the past 30 years ever seek to clean it up as part of a crusade to address real world production shortcomings / choices.
Why? Because to do so takes the audience out of the fantasy of the fictional world--not the point of a tech manual.
That's the difference between a tech manual and a behind the scenes book
, so no one would need to explain away TOS uniform changes, post pilot ship modifications, etc. If one makes the choice to "sanitize" the odd changes, the real life production tweaks will never have to be wholly ignored, but one will settle on a happy medium--or what is percieved as the best version of an object, uniform, etc.
Or perhaps they can explain away the early TOS high collars change as a mere in-universe uniform change, much in the way WW2 army uniforms were no longer the design basic decades later.
There are easy ways of dealing with this, and still selling the fiction as cohesive in design and purpose.