RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,577
Posts: 5,423,731
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 477
Newest member: Super Scout

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12

New Wizkids Attack Wing Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Coto Drama Sold To Fox
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Braga Inks Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 12

Remastered Original Series Re-release
By: T'Bonz on Sep 11

UK Trek Ships Calendar Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Sep 10


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 Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 2 2009, 11:07 PM   #91
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

DrFate wrote: View Post
Far be it from me to dispute, but I'm pretty certain that CCCP has nothing to do with spacecraft designation and everything to do with the Cyrillic alphabet used in Russia and the former Soviet Union.
Yes, which is why I said "designation". As in "USS" preceding the names of USA ships being a designation, or actually having "USA" painted on somewhere as being a country of origin designation. As opposed to registries, hull numbers, classes, types, etc. If someone can come up with a more correct and standardized terminology for all the things we are talking about, please go ahead and do so. Personally, I'm doing the best I can. In any case, in the context of what I am talking about (as has been pointed out) I am correct, and I believe this was first documented in "The Making of Star Trek", though I am willing to be corrected.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2009, 11:57 PM   #92
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

CRA,

> Jefferies added that second C for balance more than
> anything else. Any allusions to a US/Soviet
> partnership was more happenstance than anything
> intended.

Tell that to Walter Koenig! Jefferies didn't need to refer to Russian spacecraft to explain away adding an extra "C" for 'balance'. As David Shaw and other's work has demonstrated a lot of things that have been thought haphazard or left to chance were well planned by Jefferies. If you can demonstrate that the registry was created before MJ had been told what the philosophy of the show was supposed to be about, or about the multinational crew manning his design was intended to be, then you will have scored a point. BTW, I'm not trying to score points, I thought I was lending a hand and throwing in my explanation of what I think makes the most sense.

> As for the continual citing of FJ, keep in mind
> that a key factor in starting this project in the
> first place was twenty-odd years of frustration
> with the gross inaccuracies in FJ's blueprints,
> so bringing his stuff up as somehow being
> authoritative, well, let's just say that you're
> not scoring any points.

Lets see how this works out. Franz Joseph works the details up on his own, brings it to Roddenberry, Rodenberry says "great, do some more" (or words to that effect), eventually the plans and tech manual are released (copyright by Paramount), FJ based materials continue to be used in the early movies (at least through ST3), some sort of falling out happens (either with Roddenberry, Paramount, or both), third parties start releasing licensed material contradicting FJ, which has now escalated to the franchise operators doing so. I don't have them available at the moment (at least in fully readable form), but I think you will find Roddenberry's signature on FJ's plans & the Technical Manual. So, yes, not accurate, but good enough for the Great Bird of the Galaxy. Roddenberry didn't stop and say "no, no, you've got it all wrong -- here are the secret blueprints to everything, use these!". Frankly, there's a lot of licensed material that is getting treated as if its canon that doesn't have as good a pedigree. So, yes, warts and all I stand by FJ as being useful. What attributes make me want to do this? Its logical, consistent with Jefferies, approved by Roddenberry, then later disowned by Paramount (in my opinion over legal issues related to licensing) as opposed to haphazard and self-contradictory materials, apparently contradicting the designer's ideas, unapproved by Roddenberry (unless someone knows different, or GR is pulling an L. Ron Hubbard), and beloved by the corporation. That's my point.

You don't have to like or use FJ, I'm just pointing out why I think its rational to have the opposite disposition. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

> I think will be using that registry of NCC-1223 for the
> Valiant when I finally build a model of her, but that's
> another matter...

Best of luck on figuring out the correct design. Its giving me a mild headache!

> This kinda reminds me of how certain posters (ahem) were
> absolutely convinced that the design of the Enterprise
> bridge and the establishing of an interracial crew was
> directly influenced by a certain East German sci-fi film,
> released in the States as "First Spaceship on Venus", with
> lots of pics being posted as ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE of the
> clear influence....until Mike Okuda emailed me to let me
> know that he'd asked Matt Jefferies about this very issue
> and he never saw the film. Ever.

I'm unaware of this discussion, however another more pertinent question would have been "Did Gene Rodenberry ever see the film, and did it influence any ideas that he passed on to Jefferies." Frankly, there are aspects of "Forbidden Planet" that are reminiscent, particularly of "The Cage", and perhaps someone involved in the production saw that (I won't go any further out on the limb for the moment).
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2009, 04:11 AM   #93
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Roddenberry admitted to being influenced by "Forbidden Planet", while no mention of "First Spaceship on Venus" has yet surfaced.

And what in the flaming blue hell has Walter Koenig got to do with any of this?

Oh, and just to clarify: My project, my rules. FJ is out.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2009, 06:19 AM   #94
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

He was referencing a film everyone would recognize. FP was the Star Wars of its day. Furthermore, it's unlikely he would attribute an East German science fiction film in the midst of the Cold War. But do you seriously think he wouldn't have been familiar with The Silent Star -- a film version of a Stanislaw Lem novel?
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2009, 09:04 AM   #95
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

He was a working tv producer, he'd be lucky to see his own family on a regular basis, let alone be able to go out and see a movie.

I think I do, however, remember Okuda mentioning this to Majel and she discounted the notion. And she probably saw Gene more on a social basis than his wife at the time.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2009, 02:36 AM   #96
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

> Roddenberry admitted to being influenced by
"Forbidden Planet", while no mention of "First
Spaceship on Venus" has yet surfaced.

I'm not familiar with the topic, and another poster on here is, so I simply added what was an obvious point -- even if MJ didn't see the film it doesn't mean there wasn't possibly an influence. I'll see if I can find a copy myself and then I'll be better able to form an opinion.

> And what in the flaming blue hell has Walter
Koenig got to do with any of this?

He's another allusion to Russia/USSR. Was adding him to the show another example of happenstance or was it intentional.

> Oh, and just to clarify: My project, my rules. FJ is out.

CRA, having had this first opportunity to have a conversation with you, you amaze me. I gave you what information is available, and pointed out that it is-non canon. I made it pretty clear that most of it has no agreement with its competitors. I didn't tell you that you must use this or that. In fact, I joined this thread to (a) agree with you that I thought 1017 might be another class, (b) agree with you that the AMT model is the best place to start looking for clues as to what that other class is like, (c) to provide whatever hints are available to your question regarding what is the appropriate class name. In return you've done a pretty good job of dismissing everything I've brought forward as worthless and seem to think I'm equally as wrongheaded. Fine. My suggestion, which you do not have to take, is that you might find life a bit more enjoyable if you accentuate agreements rather than disagreements.

For what its worth
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2009, 02:38 AM   #97
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

DRFate,

Sorry if my comment the other day seemed brusque, I actually had a joke written up about the bowling alley to lighten it up but my browser (apparently) and the BBS code got into a disagreement so I sent the message without it. Thank you for your input.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2009, 02:48 AM   #98
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Tin_Man,

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
It's interesting how two people can look at the same thing and come to totally different conclusions. While I agree FJ's plans left something to be desired, there was nothing a little retcon couldn't fix. And considered in the context of their times, before all the later techno-babble came along, I certainly wouldn't consider them grossly inacurate by any maens.
We are in agreement, I believe. To me FJ's work was the best we had, and we thought it was right. Some people, I believe, feel a bit betrayed by finding out it had flaws, and they over react. And for decades was the only attempt at a full scale blueprint for the ship (unless MJ had something stashed away, and perhaps the FASA plans that "borrowed" from his design including its flaws). While it is not perfect, fans have since retconned his design into the later Achernar class, to whose specs the Constitution class was refitted to (as seen in production TOS). In this way we get to have our cake and eat it too.

But its very popular today to bash FJ. We see this in the current franchise operators apparently selecting registry numbers that conflict with FJ, possibly just to prove the point that they do not consider it in anyway official. To someone like myself this is both wasteful and corporate bullying. The franchise owns the copyright on his work, there is no reason not to use his information, appropriately, as they have done in the past. Instead they go out of their way to thumb their noses at it, particularly the Saladin class.

And its one type of example in a long history of efforts to remake what is canon at a very basic level, replacing it with ideas that are not worked out to have any consistency (internally or externally). It is the opposite of what many of us early fans find appealing in Star Trek, as opposed to other franchises. Some people can't make their own toys without breaking those of others, or so it seems.

But not eveyrone will agree.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2009, 03:09 AM   #99
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Whorfin wrote: View Post

...

He's another allusion to Russia/USSR. Was adding him to the show another example of happenstance or was it intentional.

...


>


As I recall, there was an interview with Roddenberry where he said he heard about or read an issue of the Russian newspaper Pravda that said something to the effect of "the ugly Americans are at it again! We were in space first! And they don't even acknowledge it on their television shows!" or such other propagandizing "truth." (Pravda means "truth" in Russian for those who don't already know)

So, supposedly, he included a Russian to bely the claim. It was a young ensign as the studio wanted a younger character to help attract a younger audience. They wanted an english chap to capitalize on growing Beetles fandom, but GR managed to lobby for a Russian instead. Though, he did capitulate to allow a Beetles/Monkees type hair-cut on the guy....


Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled rant...
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2009, 06:22 PM   #100
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
It's interesting how two people can look at the same thing and come to totally different conclusions. While I agree FJ's plans left something to be desired, there was nothing a little retcon couldn't fix. And considered in the context of their times, before all the later techno-babble came along, I certainly wouldn't consider them grossly inacurate by any maens.
This whole thing started because that's precisely what I tried to do, do a little revision here and there to bring those old drawings more in line with the eleven footer, only to find out that the proportions really are that far off, and that "a simple retcon" is impossible with those plans. So, I started over with Alan Sinclair's drawings and built from there.

Whorfin wrote: View Post
But its very popular today to bash FJ. We see this in the current franchise operators apparently selecting registry numbers that conflict with FJ, possibly just to prove the point that they do not consider it in anyway official. To someone like myself this is both wasteful and corporate bullying. The franchise owns the copyright on his work, there is no reason not to use his information, appropriately, as they have done in the past. Instead they go out of their way to thumb their noses at it, particularly the Saladin class.
Actually, that was one of the sticking points regarding FJ's stuff, they're copyrighted to Franz Joseph Designs, so no, Paramount doesn't own the copyright to his work, his estate does. (This simple fact is how Starfleet Battles is still able to operate and thrive after all these years, even with Paraborg going around stomping various fan efforts into the dirt.)

In order to incorporate his work in any meaningful fashion, beyond the occasional graphic on a monitor screen, would require paying some serious bucks to FJD, Inc., so not only was Paramount disinclined from including it, the folks actually working on the show were legally barred from using it.

As for my "dismissive" attitude, the whole premise of this project was to chuck all the FJ stuff, and the fannish barnicles that had developed from it over the decades, and start over with just the onscreen material and build from there.

So, with that approach from the get-go, why in any god's name would I look to FJ inspired stuff as anything resembling a reference, except perhaps as what not to do?
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2009, 08:04 PM   #101
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Well the NAR could represent Starfleet's version of the Military Sealift Command...
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2009, 10:47 PM   #102
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Yeah, I reach where your coming from CRA, and applaud you and Shaw's (and others) attempts to be more faithful to the onscreen material. That's certainly one valid aproach, I was simply pointing out that FJ's work was a product of the times, and while not strictly accurate down to the last detail, still it was a good comprimise between all the often contradictory source material, and this was, and still is, also a valid apoach (witness Warped 9's aproach to the Galileo interior/exterior problem). keeping in mind, that until Casimiro and Sinclair came along there wasn't anything like accurate plans and dimensions on the filming model (and thats just the 11 footer), and FJ's plans were/are more accurate than anything else from that time, even MJ's plans published in T.M.O.S.T! Besides even with more accurate references we still need to make comprimises to make everything fit together, because nobody, including MJ ever expected people to try to work all this out so completely and in such detail. To search for one 'official' version, (even within 'canon') is to search for a chimera. In short, all I'm saying is, FJ's stuff was no more "grossly" inacurate with what had came before than MJ's onscreen stuff was with itself. and now with all the other contradictory stuff from decades since (within itself and what came before) perhaps one should be a little more flexible in deciding what constitutes baby and what constitutes bathwater?
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2009, 12:36 AM   #103
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

CRA,

> This whole thing started because that's precisely what
> I tried to do, do a little revision here and there to
> bring those old drawings more in line with the eleven
> footer, only to find out that the proportions really
> are that far off, and that "a simple retcon" is
> impossible with those plans. So, I started over with
> Alan Sinclair's drawings and built from there.

I never suggested that you compare either either the studio model or AMT based Constellation to the FJ plans. Why do you keep implying that I have? I referenced FJ in discussing a number of different things, this isn't one of them, but you keep acting like it is. I guess if I did do that you would have something to legitimately argue about, but I didn't.

What I said -- that got you annoyed -- is (from a "fannish" perspective) that if registry numbers follow some semblance of numerical and temporal order (like FJ provided), then it makes sense that NCC-1017 is a refit of an older class. On the other hand (from the modern "franchise" perspective), if registry numbers are handed out haphazardly, and if the AMT version of 1017 is a "production error", then there is no logical basis for such an assumption. What I believe is annoying you is that the the existing franchise disagrees with you 110%, and only we fannish types don't think you're barking up the wrong tree.

> Actually, that was one of the sticking points regarding
> FJ's stuff, they're copyrighted to Franz Joseph Designs,
> so no, Paramount doesn't own the copyright to his work,
> his estate does.

That's what I thought to until I look at the copyright page a couple of years ago. They were not copyright by FJD, or by Ballantine/Del Ray (or whomever), but by Paramount, just like the novels, comic books, etc.

> (This simple fact is how Starfleet Battles is still able
> to operate and thrive after all these years, even with
> Paraborg going around stomping various fan efforts into > the dirt.)

I mentioned legal issues regarding FJ, and this is one of them. FJ handed out "licences" to ADB and Gamescience to use his "designs", they then did that and used other Star Trek material that is in neither the Tech Manual nor the BoGP. FJ's legal basis to this supposedly was by enpowerment of Roddenberry, never mind that Paramount had bought the franchise from Desilu before TOS production ended. Paramount, awoke from its slumber (after Star Wars generated interest in ST:TMP) and started suing people. It apparently settled these suits, and ADB continues in operation not because of FJ's "rights" to all of the TOS Star Trek universe (which don't exist) but because (apparently) at the time Paramount felt it would lose more money fighting the lawsuit than it would gain by winning against a tiny game company (if you can document some other reason, please show us the evidence). ADB hasn't disclosed the details, but the agreement doesn't appear to involve them forking over money to the IP holder (and its hard to believe they could have continued to operate under those conditions). ADB, in turn, agreed to constrain itself in various way, limiting its use of Star Trek IP to the TOS universe (outside of that, it has to make up its own version), not straying beyond its original game based genre.

When "Star Fleet Command" was developed as a video game the company didn't go to ADB for the rights, it got the rights from Paramount and then went to ADB for the mechanics of their game system. People have been begging ADB to computerize SFB from at least the Designer's Edition of the Game and Steve Cole's answer every time has been that their agreement with Paramount didn't allow them to do so (not their agreement with FJ). Other items on SFB fan wishlists have been similarly dismissed as outside their allowed agreement with Paramount.

> In order to incorporate his work in any meaningful
> fashion, beyond the occasional graphic on a monitor
> screen, would require paying some serious bucks to
> FJD, Inc., so not only was Paramount disinclined from
> including it, the folks actually working on the show
> were legally barred from using it.

And your proof for this is...?

> As for my "dismissive" attitude, the whole premise of
> this project was to chuck all the FJ stuff, and the
> fannish barnicles that had developed from it over the
> decades, and start over with just the onscreen material > and build from there.

Forgive me, I didn't realize that you were shucking away other people's barnacles to make way for your own.

> So, with that approach from the get-go, why in any god's
> name would I look to FJ inspired stuff as anything
> resembling a reference, except perhaps as what not to do?

Way back in the day, you asked this:

> (Still haven't settled on a class name for the AMT model...
> any ideas?)

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...8&postcount=40

And I provided you with the existing answers to that question to the best of my ability, which you are now classifying as unwelcome "fannish barnicles". None of which have anything to do, in the slightest, with FJ's somewhat inaccurate plans of 1701. So, I guess, the acceptable answer I have provided to your question is: "The Good Ship Lollipop" class.

If you only want to hear your own answers to your own questions I suggest you stop talking to yourself in public.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2009, 12:46 AM   #104
Whorfin
Lieutenant Commander
 
Whorfin's Avatar
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

Albertese,

> As I recall, there was an interview with Roddenberry
> where he said he heard about or read an issue of the
> Russian newspaper Pravda that said something to the
> effect of "the ugly Americans are at it again! We were
> in space first! And they don't even acknowledge it on
> their television shows!" or such other propagandizing
> "truth." (Pravda means "truth" in Russian for those
> who don't already know)

I never said that didn't happen. No, there wasn't a blatant Russian on the show from the start. What we don't have are equivalent Swahili, Japanese, Indian, German (etc.) newspaper stories to explain away how Roddenberry was forced to put all these nationalities and ethnicities on the ship to satisfy the raging political correctness of the 1960s network television.

> So, supposedly, he included a Russian to bely the
> claim. It was a young ensign as the studio wanted a
> younger character to help attract a younger audience.
> They wanted an english chap to capitalize on growing
> Beetles fandom, but GR managed to lobby for a
> Russian instead. Though, he did capitulate to allow a
> Beetles/Monkees type hair-cut on the guy....

Yes, they wanted a Beatles, he gave them a commisar -- his choice, not the popular one. No one forced him to do it. Other than Roddenberry's own ego, I don't think anyone in the network took too seriously the "international implications" of that article in Pravda. From the start he wanted the ship to be representative of all mankind, and this was his opportunity, perhaps even his excuse to the studio, to add this particular flavor to the mix during the cold war (while US troops were being killed in Vientnam by Chinese and Soviet supplied weapons). That was my point, and it isn't a stretch of the imagination that the general idea of multiculturalism was mentioned during early production meetings, and perhaps with MJ present. That was my point.

> Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled rant...

Actually our rant did poor in the Nielsons and was knocked off the air by a Mod Squad rant.

But thank you for playing.
Whorfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2009, 12:29 PM   #105
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Deck Plans VI: The Undiscovered Bowling Alley

So, how much of that Pravda anecdote is true? E.g. Wikipedia's article on the character of Pavel Chekov is full of "citation needed" remarks, but it claims that it was Roddenberry who wrote to the Pravda editor, probably in jest, to inform the Soviet Union of the introduction of a Russian character in Star Trek. No actual Pravda article on the issue existed either before or after Roddenberry's letter. Which is what one would expect, really.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
enterprise deck 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 02:48 PM.

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