Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Captain Robert April, May 30, 2008.
Matt Jefferies said, in this interview:
Sorry this comment goes back a way in the conversation, but I know we all want there to be a real bowling alley on the ship. Even if it wouldn't be practical it would be AWESOME!
Jefferies brought that up more as a justification for the move, not a basis. The core, though, was to better balance the 1701 on the other side of that dash.
He rarely ever does. However...
Jefferies says in The Star Trek Sketchbook:
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.
Fairly consistent with every other time he was asked about this issue.
As brilliantly as the show was designed and set up, there's no getting around the plain and simple fact that, for the most part, they were making it up as they went along. They all had tons of experience and quite a bit of research to draw upon, but there was a lot of "that looks good, let's go with it" going on.
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.
That argument died a quick death after that.
It died because to the best of my knowledge, Mike never asked Pato Guzman, who was sketching round, white, domed bridges well before Matt Jefferies became art director.
It's also debatable how much of Guzman's stuff Jefferies used when the bridge became his baby. From where I sit, not all that much, if any.
Yeah... I figured as much.
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.
> Jefferies added that second C for balance more than
> anything else. Any allusions to a US/Soviet
> partnership was more happenstance than anything
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).
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.
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?
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.
> 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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
Separate names with a comma.