Haynes Enterprise Manual?
- Thread starter Mysterion
- Start date
- Status
Nothing yet, but I'm not really surprised. Their PDF catalog states on the cover that it "Includes new titles for Spring & Summer 2010", so it seems that no titles for Fall or Winter have been announced officially. Maybe we'll here more during the London Book Fair in April
The small cover mock-up image at this licensing site (http://www.licensing.biz/company-profiles/133/Haynes) shows a cutaway drawing of the original Enterprise, so it certainly looks like someone has done some real work on a totally new image. To me, that demonstrates a higher probability of this book happening - as opposed to them using a 40-year-old image for the mock-up, which would show very little up-front investment on their part.
The small cover mock-up image at this licensing site (http://www.licensing.biz/company-profiles/133/Haynes) shows a cutaway drawing of the original Enterprise, so it certainly looks like someone has done some real work on a totally new image. To me, that demonstrates a higher probability of this book happening - as opposed to them using a 40-year-old image for the mock-up, which would show very little up-front investment on their part.
Yep there's not been any real announcements or news since that initial article last year...and quite frankly with Paramount requesting that Pocket revoke their planned novels I'm wondering if we will ever see this.
I suspect the matter of the producers not even being able to keep the stats on this ship straight contributed greatly to this one going by the wayside.
A manual on the original ship would be a piece of cake by comparison, no matter whose concept you went with.
A manual on the original ship would be a piece of cake by comparison, no matter whose concept you went with.
No, that's completely arrogant presumption on your part. The delay or cancellation of this book could have been due to a multitude of reasons.
We can all, of course, remember the historical precedent for this, when Franz Joseph noticed that the position of the bridge turbolift on the Enterprise model did not correspond with it's location on the bridge set, and set fire to his notes and drawings in frustration, then moved deep into the Swiss Alps to live as a hermit.
Wait.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
What, you don't see the HUGE dif between an inaccuracy you needed a slide rule to catch back then and the easy-to-the-eye disconnect scalewise on the AbramsThing?
So nu?
Well, you can't expect professional artists and designers to deal with inconsistencies with the same flexibility, openmindedness and imagination that fans do.
Wait.
Evidently. It's not possible to discuss any aspect of the new movie without someone feeling the need to remind us that:
- they don't like it; and
- they're capable of nothing but middle-school snark.
It's a tech manual. That requires hard numbers. If the producers can't provide hard numbers, that makes it rather difficult to produce the tech manual, doncha think?
Okay, if someone needed a slide rule to catch that Captain Kirk didn't have a fire-engine red door right behind him, I guess I can see how an expensive publishing contract could fall through because someone couldn't flip a coin to decide between 350 and 720 and then move on with their lives.
On a related note, why can't they ever just double the length of the ship when they scale it up? It would've been so much more logical if the original had gone from 540 feet to 1080, instead of the nine hundred and some feet we ended up with.
Especially because - and evidently there are people who don't know this - that's not the kind of thing a slide rule was used for. Therefore the original attempt at snideness fails.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I watched at least five or six full runs in syndication before it even occurred to me that the elevator might not be diametrically opposite the viewscreen, and in terms of whether this stuff matched up with the exterior ... it never came up at all till I saw sites like these.
By way of comparison, if you can see something is wrong AT A GLANCE, be it the way a ship element is comped or lit or built, that is a pretty huge red flag.
Not really no. Just grab a set of numbers, run with them, and BS the rest of it. After all it's not a manual for a 65 Mustang, it's a work of fiction for a fictional starship whose abilities are constrained only by the needs of the plot.
And of course, the producers of TOS only provided one or two numbers and the Technical Manual could have easily have been done without them - it's not like Joseph got most of the stuff he recreated right in any detail. The lack of numbers, for instance, didn't prevent him from producing drawings of the bridge - he misscaled it quite a bit, but the book flew off the shelves.
This is a specious criticism that directly translates into "I didn't like the movie."
- Status
