To a 14 yr. old excitedly expecting to see the object of his fascination depicted in detail only to find it wasn’t what he thought he was getting was disappointing to say the least.
I'm building the entire Starship Enterprise interior at 1:25 scale
- Thread starter Mike Nevitt
- Start date
First of all, authoritative (which implies "accurate" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritative]) is marked as an obsolete sense of the word authentic by Merriam-Webster [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic], sense 5. However, sense 3b does apply:
3 b : conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features
an authentic reproduction of a colonial farmhouse
an authentic reproduction of a colonial farmhouse
Note that it says "essential features" not "every feature."
In reproductions, it is understood that some features will deviate in minor ways from original features. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reproduction:
REPRODUCTION implies an exact or close imitation of an existing thing.
Exact imitation is not mandated; it need only be "close." Gene Roddenberry's approval is attested to on sheet 1.
This is arguably a perfectly correct use of the word authentic. By comparison with other tie-in merchandise of the era, Star Trek's included, it's all the more so, by its fidelity to the original.
Yada, yada, yada. The widely understood meaning of the word “authentic” is “the real thing” or “the genuine article”—thats how the vast majority will understand it. And Ballantine marketing most assuredly knew that.
There was never any set of deck plans for the entire starship that was created by people who worked on the show while it was in production. That completely precludes the use of the term authentic in the sense you are advocating. It's a non-starter. It could not have possibly meant "the genuine article," because it never existed, except in the imagination. What's left is interpreting the term at a tempered, more reasonable level of expectation.
Seems more like heart breaking, than just disappointing.
Hmmm...and based upon 14 year old Warped9's experience how would they know that?
They are relating a long held frustration and one I share since "authentic " is a term too glibly used in marketing.
Caroling Crewman, We’re going in circles. You can argue that “authentic” doesn’t really mean “authentic”—it’s just a way of saying “I didn’t really mean what I actually said.” It’s just smoke.
Marketing departments generally understand what they’re doing and the import of the words they use. Ballantine marketing understood the weight of using the word “authentic” and what it would convey to potential buyers.
You can excuse them. I don’t.
Marketing departments generally understand what they’re doing and the import of the words they use. Ballantine marketing understood the weight of using the word “authentic” and what it would convey to potential buyers.
You can excuse them. I don’t.
That's a good point and question. When I was that age, I had already devoured TMoST. What they knew, I'm making no assumptions.
But the beef is extending into the present, after it is now known beyond doubt that no such thing as starship deck plans compiled during the show by the people working on the show ever existed. This sideline is relevant to the overall discussion, since it has a bearing on whether a model following the FJ plans can itself reasonably be considered to be an authentic expression of the imaginary starship.
I actually looked the word up in the dictionary, though. I'm good.
Can it?
Well, let's see.
1. Officially licensed tie-in material? Check!
2. Approved by Gene Roddenberry? Check!!
3. Used on screen in TMP? Check!!!
2. Approved by Gene Roddenberry? Check!!
3. Used on screen in TMP? Check!!!
Without even leveraging the word "authentic", these three points make a strong case that they are bona fide.
I've already characterized FJ's work as establishing a benchmark.
To elaborate: they depict a version of the imaginary starship, a version that because of the three points above has legitimate standing. There are numerous ways to resolve inconsistency in-universe. It's already been pointed out that perhaps the plans are specifically of the USS Constitution. Minor variations in ships of the same class are a well-known thing, IRL. Perhaps they represent the plans of an intended refit post-series. Looking at the Forewords in the tech manual, other alternatives present themselves, such as that perhaps the discrepancies are the result of redactions in the timeline by Starfleet.
What is the latest content of his video?
Back to the original topic, the interior and exterior of the Cage/WNMHGB/TOS1/TOS2/TOS3 Enterprise morphs drastically. This suggests in-universe that the ship's interior and exterior is designed to be fluid, subject to change, sometimes major refits and sometimes minor changes that occur between episodes (~1-3 wks average). So, when building an "accurate" deck plan, one has to assume a time frame. I see the Cage Enterprise (~2255) minimally modified into the WNMHGB Enterprise (~2265), heavily modified into the Season 1 TOS Enterprise (~2266-2268), then the interior moderately modified for Season 2/3 (~2268-2270).
With Mr Trek's design, he says his time frame is "Season 4". To me, his ship has a heavily modified interior arrangement from Season 3, and the ship now sports an enlarged bridge blister and a few other changes. YMMV
.
With Mr Trek's design, he says his time frame is "Season 4". To me, his ship has a heavily modified interior arrangement from Season 3, and the ship now sports an enlarged bridge blister and a few other changes. YMMV
.Back to the original topic, the interior and exterior of the Cage/WNMHGB/TOS1/TOS2/TOS3 Enterprise morphs drastically. This suggests in-universe that the ship's interior and exterior is designed to be fluid, subject to change, sometimes major refits and sometimes minor changes that occur between episodes (~1-3 wks average). So, when building an "accurate" deck plan, one has to assume a time frame. I see the Cage Enterprise (~2255) minimally modified into the WNMHGB Enterprise (~2265), heavily modified into the Season 1 TOS Enterprise (~2266-2268), then the interior moderately modified for Season 2/3 (~2268-2270).
With Mr Trek's design, he says his time frame is "Season 4". To me, his ship has a heavily modified interior arrangement from Season 3, and the ship now sports an enlarged bridge blister and a few other changes. YMMV
Externally, the 11' "The Cage" Enterprise with the rectangular block on the nacelle endcap is the only version that is exclusive to "The Cage". The 11' Pilots and Seasons Enterprises plus the 33" are re-used through out the rest of TOS so those versions appear to be the same ship and to me, we are just seeing changes in the configuration within each episode (think of a sailing ship that adjusts her sails are puts out different equipment during an episode). However, I don't count the smaller AMT model and 4" version as it is impossible to get any detail from them when they are portrayed as the Enterprise in space.
I agree that internally the ship's interiors get updated for each season and I think Mr Trek's design is fine since it is his "Season 4" version.
YMMV
But is it in regards to TOS, which was the question and objection that made it feel wanting?
Official is great and all but from what I'm gathering there was a distinct interest in TOS that this publication fell short of.
Call it unrealistic expectations but I think that speaks to the feelings of discontent over the "authentic" status. It wasn't authentic to the show.
Let's simplify.
To the question, are the FJ plans screen-accurate? That's been answered multiple times, by me as well. The answer is, no.
What I want to know, is there a completed set of deck plans out there that is more screen accurate? It's been fifty years, has anyone done better? I've not studied them in detail, but just a glance at the FASA game plans, for example their bridge, is enough to see that they're not, if fact they're heavily influenced by FJ.
One of the most significant problems is that TOS was filmed with standing sets of the interior that are dominated by a curved corridor suggestive of the primary hull saucer shape. That's good maybe for what's outside most compartments, but the spaces available in the sets besides that area were very limited. Plausibly, such a ship in actuality would have a greater variety of corridor junctions than what we saw. With high probability, at least some of the locations we saw on the show would exist in parts of the ship that do not conform to any part of the sets.
Fully, completely, and utterly screen-accurate sets that furthermore conform to all reasonable interpretations of dialog are therefore unlikely to be feasible to complete. Unless such a thing is ever made and exhibited, I'm going to stand by that. Until then, we must accept degrees of inaccuracy.
If that's you're standard for authentic, it just doesn't exist. It never existed, it can't exist.
This is probably the case, yes.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always interpreted marketing use of “official” and “authentic” on these types of products as meaning more “properly licensed”.
Perhaps. But back in the day TOS was enjoying growing popularity with a young crowd. I question whether a lot of those young fans would have interpreted that meaning from the words “official” and “authentic.” One can even question whether a lot of adults would have grasped that distinction.
Some seem to think that my disappointment and dissatisfaction with FJ’s works is a total dismissal despite the fact I acknowledge his execution and attention to detail. His work was enormously inspirational and thought provoking for legions of fans. But I stand by my assertion he didn’t deliver the goods as the marketing promoted. His work was a derivation of what we saw onscreen rather than a painstaking effort to integrate make what we saw onscreen into a largely seamless whole.
It would be left to dedicated fans to tirelessly flesh out what we saw in a more integrated realization. Granted, this would be done in bits and pieces rather than doing the entire thing whole cloth.
This is, again, why I am somewhat fascinated as well as frustrated with what Mr. Trek is doing. In my eyes he is, once again, missing the target.
Is the target attainable? Anything is going to be subjected to personal interpretation.
I can understand the disappointment in Joseph's work but the level of detail desired seems difficult to satisfy all.
I can understand the disappointment in Joseph's work but the level of detail desired seems difficult to satisfy all.
