Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

[Warped9]

I recall a day back in high school sometime around 1975 when a group of us were sitting around a table in the library and we were talking about what we thought things might be like around the year 2000. I don't recall who else was at the table, but the conversation did resonate even after all these years.

We talked about some of the new science and tech (at the time) and where it might lead. We wondered about the politics of the day and what might happen. Back then the Soviet Union was still near fifteen years from dissolving and the idea of something like that happening seemed so unlikely.

My essential point was that the world (along with science and technology) has changed in ways we couldn't imagine back then. Human nature really hasn't changed at all but manifests itself in slightly different ways in what we can obsess about. Cars are nothing like what could have been envisioned back then, but that said I think they are far more advanced then what was then imagined. Computer tech is far, far more advanced than what could have been envisioned then and that has had an incredible ripple effect with near everything.

One thing I think is behind what we could have imagined is space technology or more specifically space exploration. Apollo was still fresh in our minds and we envisioned a much more vigorous and hands-on type of exploration than the remote and scaled back kind we presently know.

[Forbin]

In 1975 I would have been stunned and dismayed to find out we hadn't sent another man beyond earth orbit since then. By this time, I fully expected manned bases on moon & Mars, with manned exploration ships plying the outer system.

[Metryq]

Warped9 wrote:

---

I recall a day back in high school sometime around 1975 when a group of us were sitting around a table in the library and we were talking about what we thought things might be like around the year 2000.

Probably the single biggest change "around" that time was the creation of monolithic circuits. The changes were tremendous, though I doubt any of us really "noticed" it happening.

T. R. Reid's THE CHIP is a well-written history of the men who created ICs. I was watching ENTER THE DRAGON shortly after finishing the book, and I laughed at the size of the headphones someone was wearing. Then I thought about the materials science that came with ICs and computers. Other things that jump out at me from "old" movies include CRTs on computers and cell phones the size of a briefcase.

[AtoZ]

Forbin wrote:

---

In 1975 I would have been stunned and dismayed to find out we hadn't sent another man beyond earth orbit since then. By this time, I fully expected manned bases on moon & Mars, with manned exploration ships plying the outer system.

Completely agreed. The fact that we haven't to me is extremely telling. The implications run in many different directions.

[Mytran]

Forbin wrote:

---

I loved that his internals on the tricorder showed 1960s electronic components, and his bridge station cross-sections showed the CRT scan angles for screens. Even back then I thought that was all about a week from becoming archaic.

Isn't there a line in the book about the tricorder interiors being shown using "20th century equivalent components" in order not to pollute the timeline?

I assumed ditto for the CRT monitors.

[CorporalCaptain]

Mytran wrote:

---

Isn't there a line in the book about the tricorder interiors being shown using "20th century equivalent components" in order not to pollute the timeline?

I assumed ditto for the CRT monitors.

There totally is.

[Forbin]

I totally didn't remember that!

[Robert Comsol]

King Daniel wrote:

---

Were they 100% screen accurate? No, but they were close enough for a make-believe world and fired the imagination.

So how much screen accurate were the deck plans of the Enterprise? 10%? 5% (okay, the bridge is where you'd expect it to be, so is the shuttlebay).

King Daniel wrote:

---

A few of the ideas are odd, a few of the assumptions differ from those of Matt Jefferies and some parts of it don't fit the modern view of the Trekverse (most notably the location of engineering and lack of a warp core), but it was all approved by Gene Rodenberry at the time.

I'd say a swimming pool right behind the stem of the main-sensor deflector is very weird. "Different assumptions"? "Some (???) parts of it don't fit the modern view?"

Mr. Franz Joseph Schnaubelt based the bulk of his drawings on The Making of Star Trek which contained a blueprint of the actual Season Two studio set, so he knew at least how sickbay and how the corridor leading to the engineering section needed to look like.

He apparently decided to ignore this. I also fail to remember seeing any tri-ladder tube in his deck plans and there are many locations from TOS that are either absent or reproduced in such a fashion, it's difficult to recognize these. Obviously, the FJ deck plans are nothing more than a vision how the interior could have looked like, had there not been TOS as a visual reference to compare these to.

King Daniel wrote:

---

And they're where we learned that NCC stands for Naval Construction Contract!

You make it sound like conjecture became canon. Whether NCC is the acronym for your aforementioned proposal, stands for "naval commissioned craft", "naval contact code", "nifty cool craft" or "not Constitution Class" is still open for discussion and debate.

Bob

[Warped9]

It's easy to criticize the work now after so much else has been done since. But at the time it really made an impression. For myself it started me thinking in more critical terms in regards to how things could be laid out and what needed to be shown to make something more credible.

I have to say his drawings of the shuttlecraft in his Star Fleet Technical Manual started to bother almost me right off. He drew it as basically a hollow box with no room whatsoever for mechanicals behind the walls or under the deck. There was also no aft cabin. The interior bore next to no resemblance to the onscreen shuttlecraft. The exterior was off as well. It looked like he was basically meshing elements of the onscreen shuttlecraft with the AMT model kit that was out at the time.

[TREK_GOD_1]

ZapBrannigan wrote:

---

I heartily agree with all the praise. Regarding what was inaccurate, you can add the size, shape, and weight of the communicator. But what was wrong with his pylons?

I thought the Technical Manual's pylons looked sort of thick--or at least somewhat "off" from that seen on the 11 footer.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

So how much screen accurate were the deck plans of the Enterprise? 10%? 5% (okay, the bridge is where you'd expect it to be, so is the shuttlebay).

How about close enough for Gene Roddenberry? And Michael McMaster and all the others who have expanded on FJS's work in the decades since? Or close enough to be used as backround graphics in the movies? I even saw them in an episode of the Phase II fan series.

I'd say a swimming pool right behind the stem of the main-sensor deflector is very weird. "Different assumptions"? "Some (???) parts of it don't fit the modern view?"

Mr. Franz Joseph Schnaubelt based the bulk of his drawings on The Making of Star Trek which contained a blueprint of the actual Season Two studio set, so he knew at least how sickbay and how the corridor leading to the engineering section needed to look like.

He apparently decided to ignore this. I also fail to remember seeing any tri-ladder tube in his deck plans and there are many locations from TOS that are either absent or reproduced in such a fashion, it's difficult to recognize these. Obviously, the FJ deck plans are nothing more than a vision how the interior could have looked like, had there not been TOS as a visual reference to compare these to.

But you're treating TOS as some kind of literal historical document. It was a television show limited by it's format and budget. Every corridor we saw had the same curves and junctions because they were all the same set, irrespective of what deck they were meant to be on at the time. It's assumed the same suspension of disbelief used while watching the show is brought to the blueprints. For the time, they were a reasonable extrapolation of the Enterprise's layout.

You make it sound like conjecture became canon. Whether NCC is the acronym for your aforementioned proposal, stands for "naval commissioned craft", "naval contact code", "nifty cool craft" or "not Constitution Class" is still open for discussion and debate.

I wasn't speaking of canon, merely that it was the origin of a bit of Trek lore which cropped up on many of the unlicenced imitation blueprints as well as some licenced novels.

[Warped9]

A lot is made of the fact that Roddenberry signed off on FJ's work, but it's well known GR didn't mind making a buck when he could and short changing others, in this case the fans. To him FJ's work was a good merchandising opportunity, and it was so far as it went, but the fact the work was quite inaccurate in many respects. If Matt Jefferies had been/remained involved the inaccuracies would likely have been less numerous. And back then accuracy for this kind of material wasn't seen as important as it is today (and today we still get inaccuracies although they might not be as immediately noticeable).

Lets be clear. To criticize FJ's work is not an indictment to devalue it. It's fair commentary without taking away any credit to FJ or any significance of what it meant to fans at the time. As has been said upthread it is an important and significant work in terms of Trek merchandising, indeed in genre material merchandising overall.

[bbailey861]

Warped9 wrote:

---

It's easy to criticize the work now after so much else has been done since.

Ain't that the truth most of the time. Regardless of what I think now, as a teen, I poured over that paperwork like a hungry jackal. I still have those same blueprints and they are still front and center - cover showing - on one of my bookcases in my office.

[Warped9]

Then and now.

Barely ten years after Star Trek ceased production we saw tie-in merchandising unlike anything we had known before. It was fascinating to see such care and attention to detail for a subject matter generally not given much thought beyond fans. FJ also had an advantage of access to resources that fans could only dream of. The best we could do was work off still shots and memory and rewatching episodes (no VHS tapes yet to pause and freeze frame).

Since archival material has been released and shared and fans have access to tools (Internet, DVD and Blu-Ray, CAD and 3D modelling as well as some fairly decent reference books) To a large extent we can compete with the pros even though some of those pros were/are also fans.

[Forbin]

I'm going with Nifty Cool Craft for NCC from now on!