Updating FJ's technical manual?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Yes.
If this thread were correctly filed under "fan art" or "fan fiction" ("create your own canon") or "The Star Trek Universe according to Franz Joseph" I would not have weighed in.
Most of his work is conjectural and where he had a chance to deliver accurate reproductions (the Season Two studio set was featured in The Making of Star Trek) he apparently decided to ignore it.
I can't believe I'm reading this. The Original Series and what's onscreen is the gospel, it's the source and what 99% of TOS fans relate to (apparently we have approx. 1% of individuals that disagree).The moment you disregard what's onscreen, i.e. ignore it, change it, alter it etc. will yield a "sanitized version" and that's what we are talking about.
By bringing in more inconsistencies?
Let's see, we had this "vision" for almost 40 years, for people like James Dixon, Lenny Nurdbol and others it apparently had the unhealthy effect of becoming a petrified dogma, and we still don't have a TOS-devoted publication (except for Geoffrey Mandel's Officers Manual), with accurate crest reproductions (United Earth, Romulan Star Empire), a complete (and correct) list of hand props ("ray gun"???) and accurate Enterprise interior reproductions based on the original studio sets.
Would really be nice to see something like this coming for the 50th Anniversary and I'm doing my part trying to provide the latter one.
Bob
@ Shawnster
Concise comment in a nutshell.
It it a matter of passion to rehshape the ST tech in his won view, or missing the purpose of such books. No fantasy film tech manual ever refers to production shortcomings or solutions, and try to just find what fits best (since most of what they're referring to does not exist).
For example, everyone and his granny knows the original Star Wars lightsaber hilt props were made from Graflex 4x5 flash attachments, and were altered across the original 3 movies, or the drastic film-to-film changes to Vader's chest controls, and how the surface of many SW ships have recognizable car and boat model kit parts plastered all over their surfaces (not so very "far, far away" tech) but none of the tech manuals released over the past 30 years ever seek to clean it up as part of a crusade to address real world production shortcomings / choices.
Why? Because to do so takes the audience out of the fantasy of the fictional world--not the point of a tech manual.
That's the difference between a tech manual and a behind the scenes book, so no one would need to explain away TOS uniform changes, post pilot ship modifications, etc. If one makes the choice to "sanitize" the odd changes, the real life production tweaks will never have to be wholly ignored, but one will settle on a happy medium--or what is percieved as the best version of an object, uniform, etc.
Or perhaps they can explain away the early TOS high collars change as a mere in-universe uniform change, much in the way WW2 army uniforms were no longer the design basic decades later.
There are easy ways of dealing with this, and still selling the fiction as cohesive in design and purpose.
Bob,
When you say "How do you know it is an inconsistency?" my reply is how do you know it is not? What makes your assessment any better than mine? Oh, wait; your passion I suppose.
You say “Before we come up with such conclusions, I feel we should first consider that we didn't take the time and effort to examine all the possible options.”
I say, how do you know whether or not I have taken the time and effort to examine all the possible options and, just maybe, came to a different but equally valid conclusion?
And I don’t know what TV show you’ve been watching, but the captain’s cabin set does not match the secondary hull contours, in fact, MJ designed and built it to look as if it fit within the circular primary hull, which was his intention, this is so obvious I wouldn’t think that it would even need to be questioned? In this case I think your passion has led you astray.
And this next quote really takes the cake, “I can't believe I'm reading this. The Original Series and what's onscreen is the gospel…” here, your Freudian slip says it all, you’re blinded by your passion, and cannot, or will not, see that the star trek is not a religion, it’s a TV show!
Oh, I almost forgot; how in the world do you figure FJ "ignored" the stage set floor plans from TMoST when he not only used it for the basis of his deck seven plan, but actually inadvertently copied some of the discrepancies it had with the actual sets?
I see you're using the TMoST set plans in your own project, so then you're inheriting these (gasp) "inaccuracies" yourself, so your much vaunted precious passion has done you little more good it seems, than FJ's supposed lack thereof.
When you say "How do you know it is an inconsistency?" my reply is how do you know it is not? What makes your assessment any better than mine? Oh, wait; your passion I suppose.
You say “Before we come up with such conclusions, I feel we should first consider that we didn't take the time and effort to examine all the possible options.”
I say, how do you know whether or not I have taken the time and effort to examine all the possible options and, just maybe, came to a different but equally valid conclusion?
And I don’t know what TV show you’ve been watching, but the captain’s cabin set does not match the secondary hull contours, in fact, MJ designed and built it to look as if it fit within the circular primary hull, which was his intention, this is so obvious I wouldn’t think that it would even need to be questioned? In this case I think your passion has led you astray.
And this next quote really takes the cake, “I can't believe I'm reading this. The Original Series and what's onscreen is the gospel…” here, your Freudian slip says it all, you’re blinded by your passion, and cannot, or will not, see that the star trek is not a religion, it’s a TV show!
Oh, I almost forgot; how in the world do you figure FJ "ignored" the stage set floor plans from TMoST when he not only used it for the basis of his deck seven plan, but actually inadvertently copied some of the discrepancies it had with the actual sets?
I see you're using the TMoST set plans in your own project, so then you're inheriting these (gasp) "inaccuracies" yourself, so your much vaunted precious passion has done you little more good it seems, than FJ's supposed lack thereof.
Last edited:
When you say "How do you know it is an inconsistency?" my reply is how do you know it is not? What makes your assessment any better than mine? Oh, wait; your passion I suppose.
You say “Before we come up with such conclusions, I feel we should first consider that we didn't take the time and effort to examine all the possible options.”
I say, how do you know whether or not I have taken the time and effort to examine all the possible options and, just maybe, came to a different but equally valid conclusion?
It's a matter of giving somebody the "benefit of a doubt". It's the guiding principle of our ethical and political system most of us live in and one of its strongest supporters is Star Trek, e.g. "Court-Martial" which beautifully illustrates how not giving Kirk the benefit of a doubt would have resulted in an unjust verdict, since he had become the victim of foul play.
For the same reason, we should equally give the makers of Star Trek the benefit of a doubt, that they knew what they were doing, before jumping to premature (or biased) conclusions at their expense, not to mention that this should be mandatory, considering they no longer are among us and are unable to provide a comment. It's a simple question of respect. Is that not something everybody should or could agree on?
Of course, there are occasional inconsistencies and I recently addressed one in my deck plan thread: The bedside of Kirk's cabin in the mirror universe is right next to the corridor. Thus, it's impossible for Marla to change clothes in a bathroom behind the door of the bedside.
Maybe the DP of "Mirror, Mirror" used this obvious inconsistency to emphasize what a strange place the mirror universe is, maybe they didn't pay attention. Again, we don't know.
"In-Universe" it's an inconsistency and obviously you either ignore the corridor next to Kirk's cabin or the bathroom Marla changed clothes or else. Multiple approaches are valid and one will not necessarily be more correct than another one.
Can you first please make up your mind whether "it's not religion, it's a TV show!" or whether every single screencap should be measured with a ruler?
Yes, it was a television series under enormous budget restraints and sets and door signs were redressed and recycled on a regular base to represent different sections of the ship. Did they intend to keep the radius of the main corridor literal for every scene we saw onscreen? Did they exlude the possibility that the briefing room set could also be used as a room in the outer rim of the saucer (because the radius curvature wouldn't match)?
Applying some common sense, I believe the answer is "no".
Since Kirk's cabin on Deck 12 (in "Mudd's Women") can't either be in the saucer or the dorsal, it can obvioulsly only be an Engineering Deck, the cabin's wall angles match the curvature of the outer hull on E-Deck 12 rather well and last but not least there are windows. Other scenes in TOS have shown circular corridors in the engineering hull, so I dare to say that even in this
part of the galaxy 1+1+1+1 equals 4, thus it's not a question of passion but a logical conclusion.
And what about the large, circular hatch at the bottom of the engineering hull which is quite a contrast to all the other rectangular surface patches / hatches? Looks to me like the genius of Matt Jefferies foresaw the use of circular corridors in the engineering hull and foresightedly provided an "excuse".
Look who's talking.
The tone of the comments (I'm tempted to say stones) being thrown at me, rather sound like something I'd expect from religious fanatics. I used an analogy to highlight that the original series and what's onscreen should be the first and ultimate point of common reference. If you disagree, just say so and you will not hear from me again.FJ may not have a VCR, he may have missed the local reruns of TOS to take notes etc. However, TMoST provided him with the actual Season Two/Three studio set blueprint (apparently he didn't have the Season One blueprint) that revealed to him exactly what the corridor layout and alignment of rooms needed to look like, still he "ignored" to reproduce and "assemble" it accordingly and accurately and altered it into something different.
There was no scene ever in TOS where a turbo lift would be the main entry to any of the engine rooms. Whatever ship is represented here, it's definitely not the Enterprise.
And could you please elaborate what "discrepancies" or "inaccuracies" of the original studio set you have in mind, other than the one I mentioned earlier? I'm really curious.
Bob
Last edited:
The Season 1 setplan certainly had its share of inaccuracies - not unexpected given that the series was evolving during the first year.
However, the Season 2 setplan (which appeared in the book) was produced later on and seems to very accurately reflect the sets we was on TV week after week. The only oddities are in the way some of the rooms were used.
However, the Season 2 setplan (which appeared in the book) was produced later on and seems to very accurately reflect the sets we was on TV week after week. The only oddities are in the way some of the rooms were used.
@ Mytran
I'm not sure these (set plans aren't 100% accurate reproduction of the actual studio set) are the inaccuracies being referred to (unless someone takes the minor lack of accuracy as an excuse to discard the whole floor plan and instead draw something completely different.)
Maybe it's the blue (exit only) turbo lift door used by Riley, Sulu and Spock in "The Naked Time" or else. Maybe it's the original alignment of the sickbay beds, FJ apparently didn't like (that doesn't make their alignment inaccurate unless somebody can proove that the space behind the beds wasn't needed for essential components of the ship).
I can only assume unless I learn which "inaccuracies" are actually being talked about.
Bob
I'm not sure these (set plans aren't 100% accurate reproduction of the actual studio set) are the inaccuracies being referred to (unless someone takes the minor lack of accuracy as an excuse to discard the whole floor plan and instead draw something completely different.)
Maybe it's the blue (exit only) turbo lift door used by Riley, Sulu and Spock in "The Naked Time" or else. Maybe it's the original alignment of the sickbay beds, FJ apparently didn't like (that doesn't make their alignment inaccurate unless somebody can proove that the space behind the beds wasn't needed for essential components of the ship).
I can only assume unless I learn which "inaccuracies" are actually being talked about.
Bob
There are at least two ways of approaching TOS- what was onscreen, and what was intended. I tried to point this out earlier. What is onscreen is an objective fact. What was intended is a much more nebulous thing requiring us to answer basic questions like "intended by whom?" and "intended in what sense?" This last question is particularly difficult to deal with and has created a stumbling block here:
Was it really intended that one side of Enterprise lacked details and had electrical wires protruding?
What was intended with the bridge turbolift- on-axis with the main viewscreen internally or off-axis with the bow externally? Or neither? Or both?
Was it really intended that the transporter could take matter, convert it to energy, transmit the energy to a location and convert it back to the original matter? Or was the intent just to get the story going as quickly as possible? Or was it something else?
In other words, there are questions where the intent is rather obvious because some effort was made to hide (or feature) what was going on. But there are many, many questions where intent is not at all obvious. In some, the contradictions were insolvable and thus ignored. In some, they were deemed irrelevant and thus ignored. And in some, the time, money and/or talent just wasn't there to deal with it.
When dealing with the conflict between Franz Joseph and what was onscreen, you are definitely dealing with this last question. There was an imagined Starfleet, and there was the Starfleet that could be portrayed. There was an imagined 23rd century, and there was the 23rd century that could be portrayed. These things were sometimes harmonious, like a glimpsed view of a part of something much bigger. But sometimes what was shown onscreen was in clear contradiction of what was intended by one or more of the people responsible for putting the show on your TV screen.
Franz Joseph tells us he was trying to show us what was intended but for one reason or the other in some cases wasn't shown. Whether Gene Roddenberry was using him and his work to keep Star Trek alive or really agreed he showed what was intended, we don't know. 1973 Roddenberry tells us one thing. 1980s Roddenberry tells us another.
I think that looking at the question of Franz Joseph versus canon is best examined in this way: In fact, there is no conflict at all because they are entirely different things. One does not and cannot purport to be the other. Canon cannot be interpreted as the totality of what was intended nor was it ever intended as such. And Franz Joseph, at best, offered an imperfect and incomplete version of what was intended.
So, I think an ideal solution would be to attack these problems seperately. Document canon with attention to the finest detail. AND interview, research, collate and collect every scrap of evidence to ascertain the intent. And acknowledge that these are different and largely seperate things and that however much you do, you will never be able to fully uncover this nebulous, evolving, thing with multiple meanings called intent, but that by trying, you reveal an entirely new but related Star Trek that makes it alive in our imaginations.
Was it really intended that one side of Enterprise lacked details and had electrical wires protruding?
What was intended with the bridge turbolift- on-axis with the main viewscreen internally or off-axis with the bow externally? Or neither? Or both?
Was it really intended that the transporter could take matter, convert it to energy, transmit the energy to a location and convert it back to the original matter? Or was the intent just to get the story going as quickly as possible? Or was it something else?
In other words, there are questions where the intent is rather obvious because some effort was made to hide (or feature) what was going on. But there are many, many questions where intent is not at all obvious. In some, the contradictions were insolvable and thus ignored. In some, they were deemed irrelevant and thus ignored. And in some, the time, money and/or talent just wasn't there to deal with it.
When dealing with the conflict between Franz Joseph and what was onscreen, you are definitely dealing with this last question. There was an imagined Starfleet, and there was the Starfleet that could be portrayed. There was an imagined 23rd century, and there was the 23rd century that could be portrayed. These things were sometimes harmonious, like a glimpsed view of a part of something much bigger. But sometimes what was shown onscreen was in clear contradiction of what was intended by one or more of the people responsible for putting the show on your TV screen.
Franz Joseph tells us he was trying to show us what was intended but for one reason or the other in some cases wasn't shown. Whether Gene Roddenberry was using him and his work to keep Star Trek alive or really agreed he showed what was intended, we don't know. 1973 Roddenberry tells us one thing. 1980s Roddenberry tells us another.
I think that looking at the question of Franz Joseph versus canon is best examined in this way: In fact, there is no conflict at all because they are entirely different things. One does not and cannot purport to be the other. Canon cannot be interpreted as the totality of what was intended nor was it ever intended as such. And Franz Joseph, at best, offered an imperfect and incomplete version of what was intended.
So, I think an ideal solution would be to attack these problems seperately. Document canon with attention to the finest detail. AND interview, research, collate and collect every scrap of evidence to ascertain the intent. And acknowledge that these are different and largely seperate things and that however much you do, you will never be able to fully uncover this nebulous, evolving, thing with multiple meanings called intent, but that by trying, you reveal an entirely new but related Star Trek that makes it alive in our imaginations.
Last edited:
^^ Very well reasoned. When faced with certain inconsistencies I try to reach for the overall intent. One of the most obvious is the 11ft. filming model. For production reasons it was largely unfinished on one side and never seen, but obviously it was meant to represent a whole and complete construct.
Yes, there were changes in the uniforms as the seasons progressed, but the intent appears clear that they were largely meant to be the same design uniforms throughout.
We kept seeing the same interiors (often redressed) and most particularly the same corridors throughout the series, but the obvious intent was we were supposed to be seeing different interiors and different corridors throughout the ship. The angle of a particular bulkhead or ceiling or the apparent size of a given room needn't be taken literally down to the inch because film and television sets are by nature intended to represent a reality rather than definitively recreate it.
When I tackled the TOS shuttlecraft I was guided by trying to stay true to what I saw onscreen as close as possible. Yet when faced with inconsistencies and contradictions I tried to discern what MJ and the TOS creators intended or were trying to convey and use that to "paper over" the inconsistencies. Granted not everyone will agree with my conclusions and choices, but at least I made an honest effort of it.
Yes, there were changes in the uniforms as the seasons progressed, but the intent appears clear that they were largely meant to be the same design uniforms throughout.
We kept seeing the same interiors (often redressed) and most particularly the same corridors throughout the series, but the obvious intent was we were supposed to be seeing different interiors and different corridors throughout the ship. The angle of a particular bulkhead or ceiling or the apparent size of a given room needn't be taken literally down to the inch because film and television sets are by nature intended to represent a reality rather than definitively recreate it.
When I tackled the TOS shuttlecraft I was guided by trying to stay true to what I saw onscreen as close as possible. Yet when faced with inconsistencies and contradictions I tried to discern what MJ and the TOS creators intended or were trying to convey and use that to "paper over" the inconsistencies. Granted not everyone will agree with my conclusions and choices, but at least I made an honest effort of it.
This will likely (hopefully) be my last reply on this particular subject, as I’m losing interest in this discussion and do not want to derail the thread any longer. So her goes nothing…
Nice words, a speech worthy of Kirk himself, too bad you don't apply them more equally and fairly to everyone. Apparently, your fellow trek fans aren't worthy of this consideration? Witness the following...
See, your assuming without any evidence, other than having the testicular dimensions to disagree with your "passionate" conclusions about trek, that I and others have been "jumping to premature (or biased) conclusions"? Why not give those of us who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt, and concede that our views may be based instead on mature and unbiased conclusion, and that there may be more than one valid answer to questions that do not, and cannot, have a single "right" answer? Respect is a two-way street ya know, you gotta give a little if you want to get a little.
Whoa, there Nelly! Those are your positions not mine! I've been consistantly advocating just the opposite. You must have me confused with somebody else?
Those windows you keep harping on; you do realize that the "windows" in the Capt.’s cabin set are much smaller and spaced further apart (relative to the scale) than those secondary hull windows that you think match up so well? So I dare to say that in your transdimensionally engineered universe 1+1+1+1 does not equal 4.
Looks to me like he intended them to be cargo hatches and the like, just like indicated in one of his sketches, little room for guesswork on his intentions here. looks like you're the one jumping to premature and biased conclusions?
On a more speculative note; one should consider MJ's phase two drawing which, though normally having no bearing here, does in this case speak to MJ's "intent" in regards the large circular hatch at the bottom of the secondary hull.
If one looks at the bottom of the secondary hull, one will see that MJ has moved his "large circular hatch" to the back of the ship, directly under the point where the conduits descending down the new pylons would eventually meet. It seems that all things considered MJ coordinated his work with Mike Minor who was designing the new engine room, which at the time consisted only of a vertical "intermix chamber" which was (but there's no surviving proof apparently) intended to be at the back of the S/H, directly under the meeting point of the pylon conduits and not the front, as it was later redesigned to do; and, wait for it..., directly above MJ's new location for the "large circular hatch"!
So in my mature and unbiased and considered opinion, MJ most likely meant for the circular hatch to be an ejection hatch for the vertical "warp core" as it would later come to be called, at least as late as the phase two production, but who knows maybe as early as the original series?
In any case I don't think he anticipated circular hallways in the S/H, which I don't think he would countenance for a moment, no more than he would having the engine room anywhere else! IMHO, to imply he was so sloppy and careless with his design does a grave disservice to his memory.
Oh, If it were only that simple. I have been disagreeing with you, but not for the reasons you suppose, yet you keep posting anyway, which is fine, but we're not likely to agree anytime soon. And not because of any "religious fanaticism" on the part of me or others who share similar views. You set the tone for this exchange, so if you can't take the heat, stay outa the kitchen.
See this is where we disagree, there's plenty of evidence to corroborate the conclusion (that should be obvious anyway) that the soundstage set was never meant to be an exact representation of any single portion of the Enterprise's interior!
The shape of the Briefing Room table for one; and sure, we can rationalize this "in universe" by saying they had different shaped tables etc., but that's not the point here. The shape is wrong for whatever reason and we just don't know why, but if what's onscreen takes precedence, you might not want to use that shape in your plans?
Nice words, a speech worthy of Kirk himself, too bad you don't apply them more equally and fairly to everyone. Apparently, your fellow trek fans aren't worthy of this consideration? Witness the following...
See, your assuming without any evidence, other than having the testicular dimensions to disagree with your "passionate" conclusions about trek, that I and others have been "jumping to premature (or biased) conclusions"? Why not give those of us who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt, and concede that our views may be based instead on mature and unbiased conclusion, and that there may be more than one valid answer to questions that do not, and cannot, have a single "right" answer? Respect is a two-way street ya know, you gotta give a little if you want to get a little.
Whoa, there Nelly! Those are your positions not mine! I've been consistantly advocating just the opposite. You must have me confused with somebody else?
Those windows you keep harping on; you do realize that the "windows" in the Capt.’s cabin set are much smaller and spaced further apart (relative to the scale) than those secondary hull windows that you think match up so well? So I dare to say that in your transdimensionally engineered universe 1+1+1+1 does not equal 4.
Looks to me like he intended them to be cargo hatches and the like, just like indicated in one of his sketches, little room for guesswork on his intentions here. looks like you're the one jumping to premature and biased conclusions?
On a more speculative note; one should consider MJ's phase two drawing which, though normally having no bearing here, does in this case speak to MJ's "intent" in regards the large circular hatch at the bottom of the secondary hull.
If one looks at the bottom of the secondary hull, one will see that MJ has moved his "large circular hatch" to the back of the ship, directly under the point where the conduits descending down the new pylons would eventually meet. It seems that all things considered MJ coordinated his work with Mike Minor who was designing the new engine room, which at the time consisted only of a vertical "intermix chamber" which was (but there's no surviving proof apparently) intended to be at the back of the S/H, directly under the meeting point of the pylon conduits and not the front, as it was later redesigned to do; and, wait for it..., directly above MJ's new location for the "large circular hatch"!
So in my mature and unbiased and considered opinion, MJ most likely meant for the circular hatch to be an ejection hatch for the vertical "warp core" as it would later come to be called, at least as late as the phase two production, but who knows maybe as early as the original series?
In any case I don't think he anticipated circular hallways in the S/H, which I don't think he would countenance for a moment, no more than he would having the engine room anywhere else! IMHO, to imply he was so sloppy and careless with his design does a grave disservice to his memory.
Oh, If it were only that simple. I have been disagreeing with you, but not for the reasons you suppose, yet you keep posting anyway, which is fine, but we're not likely to agree anytime soon. And not because of any "religious fanaticism" on the part of me or others who share similar views. You set the tone for this exchange, so if you can't take the heat, stay outa the kitchen.
See this is where we disagree, there's plenty of evidence to corroborate the conclusion (that should be obvious anyway) that the soundstage set was never meant to be an exact representation of any single portion of the Enterprise's interior!
The shape of the Briefing Room table for one; and sure, we can rationalize this "in universe" by saying they had different shaped tables etc., but that's not the point here. The shape is wrong for whatever reason and we just don't know why, but if what's onscreen takes precedence, you might not want to use that shape in your plans?
Last edited:
Let's stick to the context, please. "Jumping to premature (or biased) conclusions" referred to the assumption "that the producers / creators didn't know what they were doing". Unless there's solid evidence they did not know what they were doing, they deserve the benefit of a doubt, don't they?
A simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice.
"Transdimensionally engineered universe"? Sounds interesting, I'll keep this one in mind.
Yes, I realize that the shuttered windows in the Captain's (Mudd's, and McCoy's) cabin do not correspond to the large 6' wide panoramic windows on the engineering hull, but I can't see why the cabin windows have to be one of these.
Obviously, like suggested in this scene from "The Mark of Gideon", the outer shutter would blend in with the hull when closed, thus such a window frame would even be less discernible than one of he infamous deflector grid lines.
I agree. So that happened sooner, than you expected.
You are entitled to your opinion and I'm confident that Matt Jefferies might have had different things in mind (like the turbo lift at the end of the Season One Jefferies Tube corridor because it was closest to the Bridge turbo shaft), but the directors and producers might have overruled his intentions and decided to proceed otherwise and that's what ended up on the screen, regardless whether we like it or not.
Since my concept of passion for accuracy in my deck plan project has been twisted because of erroneous assumptions, I'd like to state it: To proceed like an unbiased mindless robot / computer to assemble the corridor pieces and sets in such a manner that it matches what we see onscreen, leaves space for a credible turbo lift network and (hopefully) looks as good as possible in the end.
And could you please elaborate what "discrepancies" or "inaccuracies" of the original studio set you have in mind, other than the one I mentioned earlier? I'm really curious.
If you are having issues with the studio set drawing (which is apparently a size-reduced reproduction attempt of the real thing), rest assured that's not the only flaw (I'm merely using the available reproductions during the "dirty" WIP phase of my deck plans for orientation).However, since you brought this up, I find it rather interesting that Franz Joseph kept the erroneous angle of the transporter console from the studio set drawing published in TMoST for his TM.
In addition to his erroneous type II phaser reproduction (which matches the flawed phaser photo cutout in TMoST) one could suspect that he only had TMoST to base and derive his work from.
But since I'll give him the benefit of a doubt and go with the statement that he had thousands of stills to work with, the apparent conclusion would be that none of these featured a transporter room scene from which he could have concluded that the angle of the console to the adjacent or opposite (entry) wall would rather be 90°.
Bob
P.S.
To illustrate the ramifications of the "they didn't know what they were doing" suspicion amidst lack of actual knowledge, I'd like to refer to an example in my deck plan thread (post # 177: "2 Recreation Rooms Three?").
Frankly, I had thought that Kirk carrying out Odona from a Rec Room set (near Kirk's cabin) in "The Mark of Gideon" was a production mistake.
I also thought that there was something wrong with Spock or the screenplay of "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" according to which Lokai and Bele passed "Recreation Room 3" on two different decks.
blssdwlf hinted a solution to the riddle and suggested Rec Room 3 might have two levels, which suggested the existence of a stairway or elevator in this rec Room which then suggested that Kirk had actually entered rec Room 3 on Deck 4 and used the stairway or elevator to exit with Odona on Deck 5. It's also interesting that the same DP (Jud Taylor) was working with a redress of the rec room set in "Wink of an Eye" where huge GNDN pipes extended through the ceiling which would either leave a dead space in the rooms above or the space necessary for either a stairway or elevator.
Of course, instead of a deliberate intention this could just be a colossal coincidence. But in assuming "they didn't know what they were doing" we'd not only deprive the makers of Star Trek of their earned respect but ourselves of the opportunity to discover an interesting variation of the ship's interiors.
This particular example tells me, that I didn't look at all the alternate options (and that's definitely not the first time, I have to admit) and merely was lucky to find an alternate one. As an effect two seemingly production mistakes turned into the opposite.
Last edited:
I think I'm going to start a new thread so we can talk about the above convoluted logic and other similar issues in a more appropriate context. But for now...
Moving on to more topical and fruitful areas of discussion, another way to look at "updating" FJ's (or any) tech manual would be to keep up with whatever real science or technology is involved. Take FJ's computer core for example; While I like what he did, I agree with the notion that our real world computer tech has moved on and made what he did obsolete, so any updating should include a new design?
This also raises the question of how a new tech manual should treat outdated tech from the show itself, how can we be faithful to the original design/intent but at the same time bring TOS/TAS into the 21st century (and/or beyond)? I think this goes to the very heart of the question for technical fandom, i.e. what’s the “first duty” of tech manuals/plans etc.; is it to a realistic portrayal of a fictional universe, or to slavish adherence to “what’s onscreen”? Sometimes we can find a happy medium, as with Warped9’s Galileo, other times this seems all but hopeless.
Moving on to more topical and fruitful areas of discussion, another way to look at "updating" FJ's (or any) tech manual would be to keep up with whatever real science or technology is involved. Take FJ's computer core for example; While I like what he did, I agree with the notion that our real world computer tech has moved on and made what he did obsolete, so any updating should include a new design?
This also raises the question of how a new tech manual should treat outdated tech from the show itself, how can we be faithful to the original design/intent but at the same time bring TOS/TAS into the 21st century (and/or beyond)? I think this goes to the very heart of the question for technical fandom, i.e. what’s the “first duty” of tech manuals/plans etc.; is it to a realistic portrayal of a fictional universe, or to slavish adherence to “what’s onscreen”? Sometimes we can find a happy medium, as with Warped9’s Galileo, other times this seems all but hopeless.
I think this is at the heart of the issue. When I look at TOS there are a lot of things that can still work and be rationalized through advanced science and technology largely because TOS often kept technical matters vague. Their basic approach seemed to be: we don't really need to explain it, just show that it works. This allows the technology to be rationalized more easily further down the road.
Why does a realistic portrayal of a fictional universe exclude ("or") challenging adherence to what's onscreen?
And who determines which (deck) plans are more realistic than the others (e.g. is Franz Joseph's double-bedroom bathroom realistic when it has two separate toilet seats for each of the occupants)?
Like Warped9 just stated Gene Roddenberry insisted to keep technical matters vague although that didn't always work.
Apparently, Scotty's excitement about "ion propulsion" in "Spock's Brain" referred to a different kind of "ion propulsion" than what we usually associate with that term.
In any case you'll probably have dozens of rationalizations and twice the amount of different opinions.
Bob
I'd say there is a major difference. What is onscreen is the final word that overwrites previous intentions (i.e. changed premises) because it is what everyone can relate to (especially for those that do not follow all the behind-the-scenes development, i.e. general audiences).
The problem with intentions: In The Making of Star Trek we read how the original intentions changed and evolved. At what point in this evolution do you intend to "freeze" the evolution, so you could say this is what they intended (at this point in time)?
No, we saw side-inverted shots of the Enterprise in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Alternative Factor". Since they went through the hazzle of even flopping the numbers on the hull, it's obvious they intended the port side to be the mirror image of the starboard side regarding those sections we clearly saw.
According to the examinations in my deck plan thread even at 1,080' length the turbo lift will stick out to the stern, and at 947' length most definitely. Obviously the main viewscreen does not sit on the center stern-bow axis.
According to TMoST it was Gene Roddenberry's intent to get the story going quickly and it was equally his intent to keep these things vague.
Today I reread the interviews with Franz Joseph at www.trekplace.com to fresh up my memory. At one point he had access to 800 film stills, at another 100,000. While he apparently met with some people of the production crew, there's no mentioning he received any materials from them. The way it looks his entire work is based almost entirely on TMoST, which is about intentions and various items from the actual series and that's basically what he visualized, nothing less and nothing more.
The story with Gene Roddenberry is that FJ forwarded him the materials but never heard back from GR, apparently being pre-occupied with his next project and, IMO, underestimating the popular success the work of FJ would have. I'm sure GR regretted later not having gotten back in touch with FJ. However, just because GR didn't reply, doesn't mean he agreed with the outcome (and there are a couple of items GR disliked and there are many items FJ disliked about the series and therefore decided to ignore these). I leave it up to the reader which of the two was ethically authorized to dislike the other person's work.
Yes. Franz Joseph portrayed a vision of Star Trek that might have been, while the original series is what it is. But since Franz Joseph wasn't a member of the production crew and based his vision on a third-hand account (the MoST compilation of Stephen E. Whitfield) it rather qualifies as "fan fiction", IMHO.
Bob
Last edited:
Warped9,
The thought of revising FJ's drawings (deck plans) is intriguing to say the least. I think as important has those plans are to fans and starship aficionados, they could do with an up dating. The big question though is more of a where to start, than anything else?
The Enterprise was seen to have gone through at least three revisions Pilot, Early Production and Late Production. (The later two being visually defined by the refit of Main Engineering.) My old and venerable second printing of FJ's plans list a release date of 7404.12 (which I take to mean April, 12 1974), but has no revision level. So going from an engineering approach, what do we assign as the Rev level of this drawing?
There is in existence an older drawing set (three views and an inboard profile) which we could say are the Rev "-" or release drawings, seen in one episode on the bridge turbo lift entry. That would then make the April 12, 1974 drawings the Rev "A" revision release. An the newer (our proposed) up date the Rev "B". This way we avoid being accused of attempting to invalidate previous work(s).
A Note: While we are looking at the title block, I see two boxes, in the first we see Drawn By: and Franz Joseph's signature, next to it we see a box labeled App'd: (approved) : and Gene Roddenberry's name is lettered in. In engineering parlance this means Gene Roddenberry is the approving authority, but has not signed off on, or approved the drawing.
Next would come the definition of the scope of our revision and the redlining of a copy of the previously released drawings. Or in other words, hash out the details of what we intend to do.
For my part I would like to see the same format and stile of drawing, with necessary auxiliary views and details added on in the form of separate sheets after the last page. Also it might be a nice touch to add a separate revision page with delta notes calling out in what episode or season the change was first seen.
Regards,
Chuck
The thought of revising FJ's drawings (deck plans) is intriguing to say the least. I think as important has those plans are to fans and starship aficionados, they could do with an up dating. The big question though is more of a where to start, than anything else?
The Enterprise was seen to have gone through at least three revisions Pilot, Early Production and Late Production. (The later two being visually defined by the refit of Main Engineering.) My old and venerable second printing of FJ's plans list a release date of 7404.12 (which I take to mean April, 12 1974), but has no revision level. So going from an engineering approach, what do we assign as the Rev level of this drawing?
There is in existence an older drawing set (three views and an inboard profile) which we could say are the Rev "-" or release drawings, seen in one episode on the bridge turbo lift entry. That would then make the April 12, 1974 drawings the Rev "A" revision release. An the newer (our proposed) up date the Rev "B". This way we avoid being accused of attempting to invalidate previous work(s).
A Note: While we are looking at the title block, I see two boxes, in the first we see Drawn By: and Franz Joseph's signature, next to it we see a box labeled App'd: (approved) : and Gene Roddenberry's name is lettered in. In engineering parlance this means Gene Roddenberry is the approving authority, but has not signed off on, or approved the drawing.
Next would come the definition of the scope of our revision and the redlining of a copy of the previously released drawings. Or in other words, hash out the details of what we intend to do.
For my part I would like to see the same format and stile of drawing, with necessary auxiliary views and details added on in the form of separate sheets after the last page. Also it might be a nice touch to add a separate revision page with delta notes calling out in what episode or season the change was first seen.
Regards,
Chuck
To make a Tech Manual-type publication, it's necessary to make judgment calls and filter out some canon, because it's reasonable to designate some canon as only being artifacts of Star Trek having been a television show. Otherwise, if all canon is slavishly and indiscriminately treated as equally valid, then the Tech Manual must ultimately record absurdities such as walls on the Enterprise that can be cracked by people falling into them.
The starship interiors were sets on a stage.
When someone watches a stage play, they aren't supposed to assume that the characters see what the audience sees on stage. When the audience knows that characters are in a kitchen, but all they can see is a table and a couple of chairs in front of a black curtain, the audience isn't necessarily supposed to assume that that's all that's there in the kitchen. Theater tropes dictate that the audience's imagination is supposed to fill in the rest, and even make appropriate substitutions, especially for elements inessential to the plot.
The fact that the same curved hallway was seen all over the starship is an artifact of the standing set having that curved hallway—typical of what would be in the saucer section, which is to say, suggestive of the curvature evident in the saucer and therefore both fitting and reasonably accurate for most cases. It's a perfectly valid judgment call to assume that not all sections of the Enterprise "really" have that curvature, even—if not especially—if they are parts of the ship shown on screen. Only a smattering of the interior could be represented on the stage, so choices in what to show and how to show it had to be made, just like in theater.
The Tech Manual has the backstory of being what the characters would be reading in-universe. Therefore, it shouldn't suffer from the limitations and compromises that had to be made when building the props, stages, and other costumes.
Recording canon is a different mission.
The starship interiors were sets on a stage.
When someone watches a stage play, they aren't supposed to assume that the characters see what the audience sees on stage. When the audience knows that characters are in a kitchen, but all they can see is a table and a couple of chairs in front of a black curtain, the audience isn't necessarily supposed to assume that that's all that's there in the kitchen. Theater tropes dictate that the audience's imagination is supposed to fill in the rest, and even make appropriate substitutions, especially for elements inessential to the plot.
The fact that the same curved hallway was seen all over the starship is an artifact of the standing set having that curved hallway—typical of what would be in the saucer section, which is to say, suggestive of the curvature evident in the saucer and therefore both fitting and reasonably accurate for most cases. It's a perfectly valid judgment call to assume that not all sections of the Enterprise "really" have that curvature, even—if not especially—if they are parts of the ship shown on screen. Only a smattering of the interior could be represented on the stage, so choices in what to show and how to show it had to be made, just like in theater.
The Tech Manual has the backstory of being what the characters would be reading in-universe. Therefore, it shouldn't suffer from the limitations and compromises that had to be made when building the props, stages, and other costumes.
Recording canon is a different mission.
Well said. In like manner the folks at Round2 made the same point when it came to producing a 1/350 scale model kit of the TOS Enterprise. Their view was they were intent on recreating the starship as if it were real rather than merely a slavish reproduction of the 11ft. filming prop.
Was that Spock cracking the wall or Charlie X's force of will doing it? Charlie X also magically broke Spock's legs in that same scene.
To some folks it would be an absurdity for a Tech Manual to record the ship flying faster-than-light or having so little volume for fuel for the impulse engines that it can't possibly move the ship at the accelerations seen on screen.
I'd say the technical manual should be accurate and precise on what was shown without us trying to judge the merits. Any speculation should be clearly marked as such and let that get updated periodically as real life science and technology update. That to me would be interesting to see over the years.
Oh, and the manual should be renamed to the Star Trek Technical Speculation Manual
