Looking at my 2 copies of FJ's tech manual I got to thinking, how popular are TOS Tech Manuals compared to those of TNG & DS9?
James
James
Tech Manuals
- Thread starter James Wright
- Start date
Wow, I have no idea what the answer to that might be. I liked TOS and perused the library copy of TOS Technical manual, made copies of the Enterprise floor plans, and puzzled over the logic of some of the other speculated starfleet ships that simple rearranged the exterior components into odd configurations. I know somebody who liked the Dreadnaught variant enough to cannibalize Enterprise model kits in order to cobble one together. Or maybe it was a Destroyer class. The appearance of the Reliant and Kelvin make those more likely than I originally thought, I suppose. Even so, to this day I still don't know what to make of them. I think it makes it less awkward when they don't take a nacelle that looks exactly the same as the Enterprise's and put it elswhere on the ship, but rather come up with a different looking nacelle. I think that's why I feel a certain curiousity and acceptance toward the depiction of the dreadnaught on the cover of Diane Carey's Dreadnaught! novel. I never really bothered to read the text of that tech manual, as I was more interested in the visuals.
I recently skimmed through some of the text of Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, which I liked better as TOS Movie's counterpart to TOS Technical manual (preferred the refit configuration of Enterprise). There's some interesting stuff in there about two companies developing different variations of a more advanced Warp engine, based on scientific data from The Tholian Web episode. I prefer Kirk's newer Enterprise being renamed from The Yorktown to MSGttE's explanation that it was the Ti-Ho, it's more symbolic having it renamed from Yorktown. The dating is so off, though, isn't it? A used copy of the book was recently procured for me by a family member, and it's very nice to have, but I wouldn't have actively searched it out myself.
I do remember the ST:TNG Technical manual being very popular around the time it came out, which was a peak moment for ST. TNG was popular and watch by many in school, without shame, and the sixth movie came out to much enthusiasm. Around this time I was in Junior High. I can't remember what the catalyst was for getting it, but I definitely caught the fever of, "I must own that soon!" My dad agreed to buy it for me, I think, and we sat down for lunch and my dad asked if he could look through it. And I waited eagerly, craning my neck hungrily, as he flipped through it for an hour or so, maybe. A good friend of mine, who started watching TNG because I talked about it so often, also looked through it extensively. And then went and got his own copy. Quite a number of other friends and casual aquantences had their own copies. We were mystified and fascinated by the whole thing about Warp 9 and 10, and what happens to object moving that fast. Peter David did it great with Vendetta. The Voyager episodes interpretation evokes contempt, nice way to kill the mystery.
I started to drift away from Star Trek around the middle of DS9, but I still looked in on it occasionally. I didn't feel to preoccupied with the notion of a technical manual for it. I have to say, I don't even know if the other shows got their own technical manual.
I'm afraid this response has gotten long winded, but I don't know the actual figures for how well sales were for the different technical manuals. I just know how my generation seized on TNG's tech manual as a window into understanding the technobabble that cropped up often enough in the show. It was neat to understand what they were talking about when they said structural integrity field or inertial dampeners, and technobabble was still a fun game for trying to guess at what was being done. It all got a bit much, though, didn't it? Other shows and movies have shown how satisfying it is to go light on that stuff. So while TNG was fun for all that stuff, Voyager and Enterprise were shocking because they were still going at it, and made me feel fatigue.
Too much rambling info...?
I recently skimmed through some of the text of Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, which I liked better as TOS Movie's counterpart to TOS Technical manual (preferred the refit configuration of Enterprise). There's some interesting stuff in there about two companies developing different variations of a more advanced Warp engine, based on scientific data from The Tholian Web episode. I prefer Kirk's newer Enterprise being renamed from The Yorktown to MSGttE's explanation that it was the Ti-Ho, it's more symbolic having it renamed from Yorktown. The dating is so off, though, isn't it? A used copy of the book was recently procured for me by a family member, and it's very nice to have, but I wouldn't have actively searched it out myself.
I do remember the ST:TNG Technical manual being very popular around the time it came out, which was a peak moment for ST. TNG was popular and watch by many in school, without shame, and the sixth movie came out to much enthusiasm. Around this time I was in Junior High. I can't remember what the catalyst was for getting it, but I definitely caught the fever of, "I must own that soon!" My dad agreed to buy it for me, I think, and we sat down for lunch and my dad asked if he could look through it. And I waited eagerly, craning my neck hungrily, as he flipped through it for an hour or so, maybe. A good friend of mine, who started watching TNG because I talked about it so often, also looked through it extensively. And then went and got his own copy. Quite a number of other friends and casual aquantences had their own copies. We were mystified and fascinated by the whole thing about Warp 9 and 10, and what happens to object moving that fast. Peter David did it great with Vendetta. The Voyager episodes interpretation evokes contempt, nice way to kill the mystery.
I started to drift away from Star Trek around the middle of DS9, but I still looked in on it occasionally. I didn't feel to preoccupied with the notion of a technical manual for it. I have to say, I don't even know if the other shows got their own technical manual.
I'm afraid this response has gotten long winded, but I don't know the actual figures for how well sales were for the different technical manuals. I just know how my generation seized on TNG's tech manual as a window into understanding the technobabble that cropped up often enough in the show. It was neat to understand what they were talking about when they said structural integrity field or inertial dampeners, and technobabble was still a fun game for trying to guess at what was being done. It all got a bit much, though, didn't it? Other shows and movies have shown how satisfying it is to go light on that stuff. So while TNG was fun for all that stuff, Voyager and Enterprise were shocking because they were still going at it, and made me feel fatigue.
Too much rambling info...?
Not at all, my friend. Post as much as you want, we'll read it.
There can never be too much rambling info here.
Deranged Nasat hit the nail on the head, TREK BBS was created for fans of Star Trek to discuss and debate Star Trek as well as other subjects.
James
James
My perception is that Trek tech books beginning with the TNG Technical Manual are generally thought of as "better" by virtue of them having been authored by people who worked on the shows and films. I do see the value-add, but I don't think that it's in any way essential in such a publication.
I enjoy Franz Joseph's Star Trek Blueprints and Star Fleet Technical Manual, Shane Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, and David Kimble's jaw-dropping TMP Enterprise cutaway poster as much as I enjoy the various later publications.
I enjoy Franz Joseph's Star Trek Blueprints and Star Fleet Technical Manual, Shane Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, and David Kimble's jaw-dropping TMP Enterprise cutaway poster as much as I enjoy the various later publications.
It would have been better though if FJ had had some help from Roddenberry toward getting some tech specs and other info such as would appear in the later series tech manuals.
James
James
I love the old Franz Joseph manual, and I always hated the TNG version. IMO the TNG one was full of BS meaningless doubletalk that went on to ruin Voyager. The DS9 one has prettier diagrams, and the FJ-inspired Defiant floorplans.
The old FJ one didn't try to explain how all the pretend tech worked, and thus I much prefer it. I'm kinda hoping the new STXI manual will be a remake of the FJ one.
Plus there's all the silliness (supposedly, i haven't seen any proof of this) about GR falling out with FJ and ordering the TNG manual writers to contradict in as much as possible (i.e. that ships have to have 2 warp engines etc).
The old FJ one didn't try to explain how all the pretend tech worked, and thus I much prefer it. I'm kinda hoping the new STXI manual will be a remake of the FJ one.
Plus there's all the silliness (supposedly, i haven't seen any proof of this) about GR falling out with FJ and ordering the TNG manual writers to contradict in as much as possible (i.e. that ships have to have 2 warp engines etc).
Gene Roddenberry came to regret some of the heavier tech aspects Franz Joseph put into the "ST Technical Manual", mainly because it had an emphasis on military aspects over exploration, and was so readily embraced by "war gamers" for the "Star Fleet Battles" gaming materials (which were licensed directly from from Franz Joseph, not Paramount. Thus GR was powerless to have any influence of what he saw as a militarization of ST, complete with dreadnoughts.)
I don't think he "ordered" TNG's manual writers to contradict FJ as much as possible, just to avoid certain aspects, such as mention of three-nacelled dreadnoughts and one-nacelled fighters. After all, FJ's deck plans were featured on Starfleet monitors in the ST feature films.
I've never seen the FJ tech manuals but have TNG, DS9, & have seen the one from VOY that never was published & love 'em. I just love seeing the parts of the ship/station you don't see on the show, I'm just sorry that there hasn't been a market for them, would have loved one for the NX-01 so I could find exactily where Travis was sitting upside down in 'Broken Bow'.
I have some of the others that have been around (Jackill's & the two Ships Of The Star Fleet) & those are quite good.
I have some of the others that have been around (Jackill's & the two Ships Of The Star Fleet) & those are quite good.
As I understand it GR didn't like the DREADNOUGHT IN FJ's tech manual!?
Who came up with the HEAVY CRUISER moniker for the Constitution class starships?
James
Who came up with the HEAVY CRUISER moniker for the Constitution class starships?
James
I have the TNG and DS9 Tech manuals, got the TNG Manual from an old family friend who ended up passing away shortly after from cancer so it has sentimental meaning for me. I like the old Star Fleet Tech Manuals as well. I'm also looking forward to checking out how the Haynes Star Trek Manual will be next year.
I have the TNG technical manual, but sadly I don't have the DS9 manual. I found the TNG one at a second hand book shop. Oddly, I've since spotted it in second hand book shops all over but have never found a DS9.
Actually the technical talk in the TNG Tech Manual was pretty meaningful. Sternbach & Okuda know their science and engineering well and have a commitment to making the science in their fiction as credible as possible. The doubletalk in VGR was more the work of Andre Bormanis, who'd taken the lead as the science consultant by that point. Well, Bormanis as filtered through the demands and tastes of Berman and Braga, since after all a consultant can only make suggestions. But it's a totally different flavor of technobabble. The TNGTM stuff is heavier on the techno- and the VGR stuff is... well.
Since the first printing of FJ's TOS tech manual in 1975 how many reprinrs have there been?
Memory Alpha lists 3 reprints:
1986
1996
2006
These dates mark the 20, 30 & 40 year anniversaries of Star Trek, well now there's the problem, one of my copies has the 25th anniversary stamp on the cover.
There might be an extra date in that list of anniversaries!?
James
Memory Alpha lists 3 reprints:
1986
1996
2006
These dates mark the 20, 30 & 40 year anniversaries of Star Trek, well now there's the problem, one of my copies has the 25th anniversary stamp on the cover.
There might be an extra date in that list of anniversaries!?
James
The TNG one was the first I got back in the day - I always liked some of the off-camera details, like the cetacean presence on-ship!
The Star Fleet Technical Manual is something I didn't really focus on until I started to really get into the Star Fleet Universe, but in retrospect it's a work which counts as a real landmark for me.
(Indeed, it just so happens that this is the 30th anniversary of SFB, and that the Franz Joseph ships have been released as a booster pack for Federation Commander, as well as being re-released as a new production run of the old Zocchi miniatures.)
Indeed, it was quite nice to see an (apparent) nod to the Franz Joseph works in some of the designs created for the new movie!
The Star Fleet Technical Manual is something I didn't really focus on until I started to really get into the Star Fleet Universe, but in retrospect it's a work which counts as a real landmark for me.
(Indeed, it just so happens that this is the 30th anniversary of SFB, and that the Franz Joseph ships have been released as a booster pack for Federation Commander, as well as being re-released as a new production run of the old Zocchi miniatures.)
Indeed, it was quite nice to see an (apparent) nod to the Franz Joseph works in some of the designs created for the new movie!
Similar threads
