If you are documenting something, the only thing you should be passionate about is the truth. But that isn't what Franz Joseph was doing.
He was constructing an idealized, consistent vision of Star Fleet. He tells us as much in his interviews. And yet you don't seem able or willing to absorb what he said.
You have your own passion that has led you to your own sanitized version of TOS.
You let your passion guide you in sanitizing the inconsistencies. Oh... Just like what Franz Joseph did.
I can only guess that your unwillingness to follow the route provided stems from a need to tear down this vision entirely so you can replace it, not amend it, with your own.
If you are documenting something, the only thing you should be passionate about is the truth. But that isn't what Franz Joseph was doing. He was constructing an idealized, consistent vision of Star Fleet. He tells us as much in his interviews. And yet you don't seem able or willing to absorb what he said. You have your own passion that has led you to your own sanitized version of TOS.
Sanitized? How?
When you replace this book that topped the bestseller lists in the 1970s with your own remake, are you going to show the distinctions between high collared early first season tunics designed not to mess up make up and regular first-second season tunics and polyester third season tunics? Are you going to explain how they are made from polyester and velour but Starfleet tells us they are made from algae? The differences in the eleven foot model from first to second pilot to series? From 33" model to eleven foot? An unfinished and undetailed side with wiring hanging out? Are you going to provide the "in-universe explanation why K-7 just so happens to look just like a Douglas Aircraft inflateable space shelter from 1960? What about all those non-hero props that look undetailed and misshapen? What's the in universe explanation with that? Rocks that look like paper mâché? Plywood textured sets? Star Fleet officers that all wear makeup? I'm sure that your "passion" will lead to a clear, unvarnished view of these things, no?
No?
But if not, how do you choose what to leave out?
Or, you can continue to degrade the vision that appealed to hundreds of thousands if not millions of fans at the time it was written. You can denigrate it despite the fact it appealed to them sufficiently to motivate them to buy this thing portraying this stuff that was in the show... stuff they were so passionate and obsessive about that they wanted to know everything about it and yet knowing everything they did, still bought despite it being portayed so "inaccurately". You will do this despite the fact he has provided you a means, built into his work, to correct what he did.
I can only guess that your unwillingness to follow the route provided stems from a need to tear down this vision entirely so you can replace it, not amend it, with your own.
Not very IDIC, that.
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?
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,
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?
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.
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?
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".
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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 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”?
There are at least two ways of approaching TOS- what was onscreen, and what was intended.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
then the Tech Manual must ultimately record absurdities such as walls on the Enterprise that can be cracked by people falling into them.
Was that Spock cracking the wall or Charlie X's force of will doing it?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.