Star fleet technical manual

Can someone explain the background on why franz Joseph 's technical manual isn't considered "canon"? Who decides such things? And why was this so labelled even though it was shown on the viewscreens of a few of the movies?
When I was a kid my parents got me this book and, in those Pre- Internet days, it was the most exciting thing just this side of the blueprints.
Just curious.

 

If you compare a lot of FJ's work, as nicely, done as it is, it doesn't match up with what we saw onscreen. He also speculated on a lot of things that were never seen onscreen and were subsequently ignored by later films and series.

For me the testament of FJ's work isn't so much what he did but how he did it and the scope of what he did.

 

Material from the tech manual was also referenced in at least one of the early Bantam Books novels.

 

All the starships with sequential registry numbers except the two that were mentioned in various episodes? What are the odds that could be true?

The FJ work was somewhat useful as fan speculation but no more than that... it's certainly not canon, more like canon fodder.

 

The Blueprints and Manual were FJ's personal version of the Star Trek universe. They came along when I was 13 and I could not have loved them more.

 

It's all covered in this interview with his daughter, Karen Dick: http://www.trekplace.com/fj-kdint01.html
A combination of legal issues (FJ had the right to the TM, not Paramount) and personal ones (a falling out between FJ and GR)

That both it and Shane Johnson's similarly ignored Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise were referenced in the new movies makes me a happy Trekkie.

 

Agree. Me too.

 

Personally, I blame Vatican II. Honestly, couldn't they have just reverted to the Council of Chalcedon?

 

The Nibblonian High Council? Why, that's adorable!

 

As I understand it (through a third party who was in contact with former STAR TREK archivist and personal Roddenberry aide Richard Arnold), Franz Joseph's book and blueprints were never authorized by Gene Roddenberry, STAR TREK's creator and executive producer.

Franz Joesph Schnaubelt created the Tech Manual and blueprints in the mid-1970's, when TOS was out of production and the notion of a revival feature film was still in the future. At that time, TOS was gaining popularity in reruns but the future was still quite uncertain. I heard that, at some point, Paramount took over the rights to STAR TREK and authorized all kinds of stuff (including TAS?) that Roddenberry never approved of and never saw any money from. So Roddenberry re-asserted himself during TNG by "de-canonizing" lots of things. (I heard that Mr. Arnold's terminology, as of the late 1980s and early 1990s, for "canon" was "Star Trek fact".)

This de-canonization was institutionalized by Mr. Roddenberry (through Mr. Arnold) during the early years of TNG. As an example, this is (apparently) part of the reason the Warp 10 = Infinite Velocity rule was introduced; Roddenberry wanted to assert himself and to issue a blanket denial of double-digit warp factors.

Regarding the use of Tech Manual/blueprint imagery and background subspace radio chatter being derived from same, my contact never questioned Mr. Arnold about this. (This was still years before the internet was to be introduced into millions of homes; so real-time discussions like this were still a long way from taking on the scope and depth we all take for granted today.)

The man-handling of the FJ materials and the Warp 10 rule alone should make it clear that Mr. Roddenberry's decision-making process was more about politics and less about the consistency and harmony of the material itself. One thing is clear, though: to this day, FJ's works are not officially considered canon.

 

From what I understand Richard Arnold isn't someone I'd put much credibility in what he says.

 

^ Maybe not, but that was Mr. Arnold's position right up until Mr. Roddenberry's passing.

 

Arnold was the one who claimed GR said TAS wasn't canon and there's no evidence GR made any such claim.

GR signed off on FJ's blueprints and so in extent (as far as I'm concerned) the tech manual. And elements of the tech manual and blueprints made it into the films.

That said, to me, that only says those things referenced onscreen could be considered canon while not necessarily the rest of the work. This would happen again later in the spin-off series making references to TAS.

 

Weren't some of FJ's drawings shown on some of the bridge monitors in the first few movies? And, if I recall, some of the scout ships were called out in the first movie as some background "buzz"? So, if shown on screen they become canon?
I loved this as a kid. From the comments above it seems a pity that politics jumped into the situation.

 

Yup.

 

As well as the bridge graphics used in the first three movies, the radio chatter in TMP, the symbols in the STII travel pod, FJ's version of the Federation flag (which features two humanoid faces rather than laurel leaves) was seen on an SFHQ building in STIV and TNG: "Conspiracy"
According to Karen,

No credit or compensation whatsoever was given to FJ. It is my understanding that these items were put into the movies by production staff who were fans of FJ's work, possibly including both Andy Probert and Rick Sternbach, because they felt FJ should be represented in there somehow.
http://www.trekplace.com/fj-kdint03.html


The Vanguard novel series features some FJ STTM ships on it's cover art. And going further back, the entire plot of Diane Carey's Dreadnought! was based around the USS Star Empire from FJ's book (although with changes)

 

Agreed. And he was such an inspiration to all of us who create Trek art (really, sci-fi art of any kind).

 

The reason I brought up Richard Arnold is that, during the early years of TNG, I had a contact from western Canada (which also happens to be where Mr. Arnold is originally from) that met and occasionally corresponded with Mr. Arnold. At the time, Mr. Arnold was Mr. Roddenberry's personal aide. Roddeberry appointed at least two of his employees (namely Susan Sacket, his personal secretary; and Arnold) to positions on the TNG show staff. Sackett's and Arnold's names appear in the credits in TNG's early years. (In fact, Ms. Sackett made a cameo appearance as a non-speaking extra in "The Neutral Zone".) Mr. Arnold's studio job was as the show's "archivist", which meant that whenever any historical "fact" needed to be cleared, the go-to person was Mr. Arnold, who often spoke on Mr. Roddenberry's behalf.

It is important to remember that Mr. Roddenberry was not actively involved in the show's production after the end of TNG's first year. (1987-'88) But Mr. Arnold remained an employee of the studio (and, if I understood my Canadian contact correctly, also Mr. Roddenberry's personal helper) until some time shortly after Mr. Roddenberry passed away in 1991. My Canadian contact wrote copious notes and even shared private correspondence (with me) that he conducted between himself and Mr. Arnold during that time.

This is not an endorsement of Mr. Roddenberry's views, Mr. Arnold's views, or any judgement of what they did or did not do during that time. I am simply relaying what I learned from my Canadian contact who's activities (occasionally visiting L.A.; also meeting Arnold once in western Canada) were verified by a mutual acquaintance who lived near Los Angeles during that time. Out of curiosity, I corresponded via snail-mail and phone on numerous occasions with either or both of these contacts between 1989 and 2000.

Nobody here has to pay any of this any mind, but FWIW, Mr. Arnold (and apparently, Mr. Roddenberry through Mr. Arnold) did have a significant impact during that time-frame in "officially" proclaiming what became known as "Star Trek fact" (canon) which did shape how Franz Joseph Schnaubelt's work was treated to this day.

I simply posted these findings to inform people on what I was told. As far as I could tell, this is a major reason why the Tech Manual and blueprints were "de-canonized".