RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,886
Posts: 5,329,842
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 505
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 23 2013, 04:42 AM   #166
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

I have never understood how Greg Jein's "T-Negative" fanzine article gained the support it did from people that fully knew what Jefferies' numbering system was supposed to represent. And importantly, in 1973 when the TM AND the T-Negative article appeared, as far as I know, of the two, only Franz Joseph had met and talked to Jefferies. It's no surprise then that the system he put together for his TM pretty closely follows Jefferies idea- that there were 17 starship designs that preceded Enterprise and that is what the "17" stood for. That's Jefferies, not Franz Joseph. But Franz Joseph met Jefferies when he was in Hollywood to go over designs he was developing for the new Roddenberry series Genesis II. He had just done the Booklet of General Plans and was working on the TM. It is hard to imagine him not asking the man that designed the Enterprise what he meant by those numbers. And as you might expect, FJ ends up telling us the first two numbers are related to the starship design. "5" and "6" for scouts and destroyers, "17" for heavy cruisers, "20" for dreadnoughts and "38" for transports.

I am sure Mike Okuda knew this since he certainly had contact with Jefferies, but he apparently still decided to go another way. I would love to know what happened. In later years Jefferies seemed disaffected by Josephs' work much as Roddenberry did, and loyalty might account for a lot. But for those of us trying to understand the state of things as they occurred, it's pretty clear. Franz Joseph was following Matt Jefferies' numbering idea, despite the differences in his blueprints.

Last edited by aridas sofia; April 23 2013 at 05:01 AM.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 05:18 AM   #167
Masao
Fleet Captain
 
Masao's Avatar
 
Location: Tokyo
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

Melakon and Sojourner, thanks for the support, but this isn't a playground where we pull out and compare the size of our...accomplishments. I don't know if Mr. Nurdbol knows me, and I don't care. I don't know what he's accomplished in fandom, and, again, I don't care.

What I care about is how he's acting on this forum. I would guess that he thinks he's being persecuted and disrespected solely on the basis of his opinions and beliefs and that he's acting in a manner he feels is wholly appropriate and necessary. I would guess that he believes he's speaking necessary and blunt truths to the power of majority opinion and that we're just all so blindly accepting of the soulless, brainless product of the money-grubbing corporate overlords of modern Trek that we dismiss his opinions out of hand.

But he should realize that he's probably managed to alienate and anger most of the people he's interacted with in the short time since he’s appeared on this forum. This reaction to him, he should understand, is not because of his views but is because of the way he is expressing them. He should know that a diversity of opinion is present within the Trek community. There might even be some people that agree with him. But if he belittles and insults anyone who disagrees with or displeases him in the slightest, comparing them to sheep and calling them idiots and hacks, he’s unlikely to last long here.

Like a bull in a China shop, you’ve stirred up lot of trouble and opposition, Mr. Nurdbol, and some members might now have it in for you. Perhaps they will do all they can to provoke you into earning a ban. I suspect this has happened to you before, many times.

But it doesn’t have to happen again. We need various voices here, yours included. Maybe you think that being a martyr is the role you must play for your "cause." Maybe you enjoy being despised. Maybe you expect to go down in a blaze of glory. I don’t know. What I do know is that if you don’t want to be banned within the week, you need to learn to get along with your fellow forum members. If not, sayonara!

I fully expect you to ignore me or to insult me or both. Please prove me wrong.
__________________
"Jesus said the meek would inherit the earth, but so far all we've gotten is Minnesota and North Dakota." -- Garrison Keillor
Masao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 05:31 AM   #168
Masao
Fleet Captain
 
Masao's Avatar
 
Location: Tokyo
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
I have never understood how Greg Jein's "T-Negative" fanzine article gained the support it did from people that fully knew what Jefferies' numbering system was supposed to represent.
Easy: A party was held. Too much alcohol was drunk. "Questionable things" were done. Photographs were taken. Threats were made.
__________________
"Jesus said the meek would inherit the earth, but so far all we've gotten is Minnesota and North Dakota." -- Garrison Keillor
Masao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 05:42 AM   #169
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

Masao,

Lenny is the infamous James Dixon.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 06:00 AM   #170
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

Masao wrote: View Post
aridas sofia wrote: View Post
I have never understood how Greg Jein's "T-Negative" fanzine article gained the support it did from people that fully knew what Jefferies' numbering system was supposed to represent.
Easy: A party was held. Too much alcohol was drunk. "Questionable things" were done. Photographs were taken. Threats were made.
Well, that is certainly as good an explanation as any I have read.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 06:04 AM   #171
Masao
Fleet Captain
 
Masao's Avatar
 
Location: Tokyo
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

sojourner wrote: View Post
Masao,

Lenny is the infamous James Dixon.
Yeah, I suspected that, despite his denial. I've crossed paths with him before. Seen him banned a few times. I thought I'd try to a different tack this time, even though he's maintaining his usual predictable course.
__________________
"Jesus said the meek would inherit the earth, but so far all we've gotten is Minnesota and North Dakota." -- Garrison Keillor
Masao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 06:19 AM   #172
BeatleJWOL
Commander
 
BeatleJWOL's Avatar
 
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Send a message via AIM to BeatleJWOL Send a message via Yahoo to BeatleJWOL
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

Ooh, Trek fandom drama.

You could write fanzine articles on this alone!
BeatleJWOL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 06:29 AM   #173
Masao
Fleet Captain
 
Masao's Avatar
 
Location: Tokyo
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

BeatleJWOL wrote: View Post
Ooh, Trek fandom drama.

You could write fanzine articles on this alone!
internal schisms, fights over doctrine. Par for the course. But members are separated by hundreds or thousands of miles. How bad can it get?

I hear knitting and body-building forums are even worse.
__________________
"Jesus said the meek would inherit the earth, but so far all we've gotten is Minnesota and North Dakota." -- Garrison Keillor
Masao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 10:54 AM   #174
ZapBrannigan
Captain
 
ZapBrannigan's Avatar
 
Location: New York State
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

I've enjoyed Lenny's posts, especially #154 and 156. He's got a detailed vision that makes sense of the Enterprise's changing configuration, and he's putting forth the realistic idea of Starfleet having more than one type of Enterprise-like ship. So for instance, the AMT kit Constellation seen on screen doesn't have to be wrong; it's just a different class.

Interpersonal conflicts aside, Lenny's FJ-friendly "tech fandom" content strikes me as a worthy alternative to franchise canon. I'd just as soon enjoy both rather than drive someone away.
ZapBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 02:08 PM   #175
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

ZapBrannigan wrote: View Post
I'd just as soon enjoy both rather than drive someone away.
Agreed.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 02:31 PM   #176
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

King Daniel wrote: View Post
ZapBrannigan wrote: View Post
I'd just as soon enjoy both rather than drive someone away.
Agreed.
The key here is enjoying both. Personally, there are several different interpretations of Trek lore than I enjoy from one degree to another. Sadly, it seems that some feel that they can only enjoy their favorite interpretation if it is at the expense of someone else's.
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 03:00 PM   #177
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
I have never understood how Greg Jein's "T-Negative" fanzine article gained the support it did from people that fully knew what Jefferies' numbering system was supposed to represent.
I wonder which people "that fully knew" you have in mind. Jefferies' decicisive original production sketch of the TOS Enterprise with 1701 being "the first in the series" of the "17th Cruiser Design" was (unfortunately) not illustrated in The Making of Star Trek, the first time I saw it was in the much later Star Trek Sketchbook followed by Jefferies' interviews where he stated the same.

One of the influential people that obviously took a liking in Jein's treatise was Bjo Trimble and adopted his starship numbers for the popular Star Trek Concordance which I think is the major reason plus the connection to Mike Okuda that Jein's numbers made it to TOS-R (of course, once Mr. Okuda became aware of the Star Trek Sketchbook and the Jefferies interviews he should have devoted proper consideration to the issue but that's a different story).

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
And importantly, in 1973 when the TM AND the T-Negative article appeared, as far as I know, of the two, only Franz Joseph had met and talked to Jefferies. It's no surprise then that the system he put together for his TM pretty closely follows Jefferies idea- that there were 17 starship designs that preceded Enterprise and that is what the "17" stood for. That's Jefferies, not Franz Joseph.
Sounds like a credible theory. But for some strange reason Joseph decided also to adopt Jein's theory that NCC-1700 should be the USS Constitution which does contradict the Jefferies statements according to which the "first bird" was USS Enterprise.
The decisive evidence is this odd "Mark IX" reference in the Technical Manual. Jein believed that the Mark IX designation in the "primary phaser" schematic instead referred to a type of starship (because he felt he needed the "01" of "MK IX/01" as evidence that it belonged to "1701"...).

Frankly, I can't believe that two separate people came up with the same ludicrous conclusion, which tells me that Franz Joseph took this information from Jein's treatise.

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
I am sure Mike Okuda knew this since he certainly had contact with Jefferies, but he apparently still decided to go another way. Franz Joseph was following Matt Jefferies' numbering idea, despite the differences in his blueprints.
In the beginning of his treatise (and before his "reverse numbering" cosmic influence pet theory took over) Greg Jein did excellent research work:
The Making of Star Trek said there were 12 starships like the Enterprise (class) which Jein compared with the starship status display in "Court Martial" with the "16" and "18" prefixes.
Thus he concluded (assuming only 12 starships in the entire Starfleet) that all those numbers had to belong to the 12 starship names listed in The Making of Star Trek.

By the time the decisive Jefferies production sketch became public, Jein's conclusions should have been re-examined (12 starships like the Enterprise / 17th design, XX starships like the Constitution / 16th design, X starships of the 18th design), but unfortunately Mr. Okuda didn't feel this to be necessary or simply didn't care.

Bob

P.S. Before the "Space Seed" screenplay excerpt is posted again (the one containing the scene where Khan is looking at schematics of a "Constitution Class Starship") here is the decisive dialogue:

KHAN: I've been reading up on starships, but they have one luxury not mentioned in the manuals.
MARLA: I don't understand.
KHAN: A beautiful woman. My name is Khan. Please sit and entertain me.

The dialogue is abundantly clear, that Khan has not only been studying manuals of the Enterprise but other starships / classes as well (including the Constitution Class)...
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 05:12 PM   #178
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

I think the conclusion Joseph and Jein came to - independently - was that "MK IX/01 CONSTITUTION CLASS" referred to the class to which Enterprise belonged. Because only one slot precedes "1701" - 1700 - the deduction is that number belongs to Constitution. No need for one to copy conclusions from the other. And since they were both basing their conclusions on something that had made it to the screen, it took precedence over what had been printed in TMoST. Thus Enterprise-class becomes Constitution-class for both Joseph and Jein.

Joseph didn't need the Star Trek Sketchbook to know what Jefferies meant by "1701" being the first built of the 17th design. He met the man. Obviously some accomodation of the "Space Seed" phaser plan had to be made. But the general idea that the first numbers are linked to the design persist, since FJ goes to pains to do just that. Unless of course he came up with the same idea independently.

I wonder which people "that fully knew" you have in mind.
Mike Okuda. He knew Matt Jefferies.

Like I said before- I think this boils down to loyalty. Loyalty to Roddenberry and to Jefferies. There is evidence that by the late 70s neither liked what Franz Joseph did. Maybe it was resentment of the money he had made. Maybe it was resentment of the credit he was getting. Maybe it was the way he was redefining what they'd done. Who knows? But it makes sense to me that Mike Okuda was being loyal to GR and MJ by not giving credence to FJ... despite the fact FJ's system was based on Jefferies' own idea! What I'd like to know is why go with Jein? Why not stick with the Jefferies scheme and just abandon the specific assignment of names to numbers that FJ had made? THAT is the mystery to me.

Last edited by aridas sofia; April 23 2013 at 05:26 PM.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 10:24 PM   #179
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
I think the conclusion Joseph and Jein came to - independently - was that "MK IX/01 CONSTITUTION CLASS" referred to the class to which Enterprise belonged.
The "Mark" designation had its historic root in equipment for ships: in the early 20th Century for the artillery (sic) of US naval ships, by World War II for their radar instruments.

Considering that Jefferies (and others) were war veterans, there were no "Mark" designations for ships in the 1960's and the context in which the primary phaser schematic is presented (to tell the viewer what kind of phaser he is looking at, not what kind of ship), I'd say it's pretty clear that the "MK IX/01" designation refers to the primary (long range) phaser.

If there ever was yet another distinction for starships, it would be an alphabetic nomenclature ("J Class Starship" reference in "The Menagerie"). Interestingly, the Star Trek producers were - again - ahead of their time as the Soviet Navy had alphabetic class designations (like "K" and number for its submarines plus the individual sub's name. The name class designation was an invention of NATO)

And, again, the schematic reference is no evidence whatsover that the Enterprise belongs to the Constitution Class. Khan expressively said that he had "been reading up on starships" (i.e. more than one class). Since he is only interested in acquiring knowledge to take over the Enterprise, the logical conclusion is that he is reading up on designs on the road to the Enterprise, and apparently one of these is a "Constitution Starship Class".

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Because only one slot precedes "1701" - 1700 - the deduction is that number belongs to Constitution.
Interestingly, Greg Jein admits at the end of his article that the low "complete" bar of the "1700" on the starship status display could also indicate a starship just being built!

Apparently Starfleet knew that this starship "1700" was of the 17th design but had not received a number, yet. As the purpose of the last digits is speculation it could also indicate that this new ship will still receive a Naval Contact Code which hasn't been determined, yet. This is compatible with the Enterprise's creator's intentions

When I first read the Matt Jefferies interview about the Enterprise being "the first bird", "the first in the series" my conditioning immediately wanted to place the Constitution before the Enterprise and then my inner voice took over: What the heck are you doing, isn't "first bird" clear beyond doubt?!?. YMMV, of course

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
No need for one to copy conclusions from the other. And since they were both basing their conclusions on something that had made it to the screen.
Considering Greg Jein's depth of research his conclusion was based on the actual primary phaser schematic (indiscernible to read on TV tubes, then, and HD screens, now!) which he had somehow acquired. In contrast, given the superficialty of Franz Joseph's research in contrast (e.g. Type II phaser blueprint, Commodore rank stripes etc.) I have severest doubts that he ever saw this exotic primary phaser schematic in the first place.

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
I wonder which people "that fully knew" you have in mind.
Mike Okuda. He knew Matt Jefferies.
Yes, but then Mike Okuda probably also knew that according to the second film, the time difference between "Space Seed" and "The Wrath of Khan" is 15 solar years and still this didn't reflect in his Chronology.

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
What I'd like to know is why go with Jein? Why not stick with the Jefferies scheme and just abandon the specific assignment of names to numbers that FJ had made? THAT is the mystery to me.
Now, that's something I'd be equally interested in to find out, maybe someone could just contact Mr. Okuda trying to find out "why"?
Especially, since for TOS-R there was no serious need to print numbers onto the Enterprise's sister ships which would have made more fans happy than taking the side of one faction.

Something that still needs an explanation is the TOS-R Intrepid's registry "NCC-1631". Commodore Stone looks up his starship status display to determine whether or not to give the repairs of the Enterprise priority over the ones of Intrepid - but in HD the registry of the Intrepid is no longer there as instead of a "1631" there is only an "1831"...

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 23 2013, 10:55 PM   #180
DCR
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Wentworth Hall, Tellus of Sol
Re: Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

Of course Enterprise was the first bird - it's the 01. I would start the series at 1701 and go up from there - 1700 would be last, not first.
DCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
blueprint, bridge, franz joseph, plans

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 AM.

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