Beginning as a boy in the '70s I loved the blueprints and technical manuals that were created. I am grateful for that. Science-fiction production designs have always interested me.
Original 12 Constitution class ships
- Thread starter garak1
- Start date
- Status
The Franz Joseph works weren't "fan art," scare quotes or no. They were fully-licensed publications that you bought in a bookstore alongside other Star Trek books, such as James Blish's and Alan Dean Foster's novelizations or reference works like The Making of Star Trek and Star Trek Lives!. In the mid-1970s, TOS and TAS constituted all the on-screen Star Trek that there was, and, despite fan enthusiasm, for all anybody knew all there ever would be.
What FJ's Tech Manual and starship blueprints represented was a vision of what Star Trek might look like freed of the limitations of being a television production. They represented, in both literal and figurative senses, an exploration into uncharted territory. As others have pointed out, they were extraordinarily influential. They were considered good enough to provide the basis for background audio chatter and graphics displays in TMP and later Star Trek films. But they were largely one man's vision of how to fill in the blanks and extrapolate from what was seen on-screen, and they were based on limited resources. They were published at a time when Star Trek had no foreseeable future beyond the bookshelf, and there was never anything binding in them.
What FJ's Tech Manual and starship blueprints represented was a vision of what Star Trek might look like freed of the limitations of being a television production. They represented, in both literal and figurative senses, an exploration into uncharted territory. As others have pointed out, they were extraordinarily influential. They were considered good enough to provide the basis for background audio chatter and graphics displays in TMP and later Star Trek films. But they were largely one man's vision of how to fill in the blanks and extrapolate from what was seen on-screen, and they were based on limited resources. They were published at a time when Star Trek had no foreseeable future beyond the bookshelf, and there was never anything binding in them.
I was referring to the origins, what FJ was doing on his own, before he made any publishing deal. The quotation marks were because that wasn't a term that was in use in the early 1970s.
Right, I understand.
I was simply trying to head off any idea that their genesis, in not having been conceived under contract, somehow contributed to their lack of legitimacy. I realize that you didn't imply that they were illegitimate, but that is a connotation often associated with fan art generally. Star Trek grew beyond Joseph's works, not because those works were inadequate, but because they were surpassed due to the collaboration of countless talented individuals down the line in the production of the subsequent movies and series.
What is interesting is I don't think anything like FJ's Technical Manual and Booklet Of General Plans for Star Trek existed before in any broadly recognized manner. He unwittingly tapped into a potential market no one seemed to realize might exist.
The kernel for the idea could be found in the schematics of Matt Jefferies reproduced in The Making Of Star Trek. I know I was fascinated by those illustrations and I think it's safe to say I was far from alone in that.
I know there are drawings and schematics of all sorts of sci-fi hardware from the 1950s and '60s and earlier, but I think a lot of that was created and released long after the fact and possibly inspired by works like The Making Of Star Trek and FJ's Booklet Of General Plans and Star Fleet Technical Manual.
If anyone knows better then I stand corrected.
The kernel for the idea could be found in the schematics of Matt Jefferies reproduced in The Making Of Star Trek. I know I was fascinated by those illustrations and I think it's safe to say I was far from alone in that.
I know there are drawings and schematics of all sorts of sci-fi hardware from the 1950s and '60s and earlier, but I think a lot of that was created and released long after the fact and possibly inspired by works like The Making Of Star Trek and FJ's Booklet Of General Plans and Star Fleet Technical Manual.
If anyone knows better then I stand corrected.
True, it's a different world now. There was no model for tie-in technical books like that, from a fictional, in-universe perspective. Nobody was even clear on who owned the IP at first (it was Paramount). Now there is a definite line between officially licensed and everything else that everyone understands, and fan art, no matter how good, is placed on a lower rung.
I think that's right. Even for Star Wars, whose tie-in merchandising was considered unprecedented at the time, the books with "technical" illustrations were from a production POV (and I had all of them). TMP went a little more in the fictional-technical direction (and apparently did not meet sales expectations) and then Mr. Scott's Guide later in the '80s, but even then, in my experience, the non-Trek fictional-tech material was self-published or very small scale stuff you bought at conventions or from ads in the back of magazines.
Speaking for myself, in a world where nothing like that had existed, the first look at the FJ TM was a tremendously exciting, whole-new-level type of experience.
Same. I went nuts when I first saw them on the bookshelves in W.H. Smith's at Square One shopping centre in Mississauga. Each in their turn when released were instant "must haves" at a time when I was also collecting Alan Dean Foster's adaptations of the TAS episodes in his Star Trek Log series.
Today the Internet has basically killed off that market. Information and works of that kind can be shared instantly and widely. Also fans now have resources to rival what was once the sole province of professionals.
My understanding is that Franz Joseph was never a Star Trek fan himself. But his daughter was in a big way. She was in college and attending conventions, and her and her buddies were into creating props for costume uses. FJ saw this in action and wanted to help (as a devoted dad with technical skills would) and used their copy of TMOST to draft up some quality drawings of the props in question. These drawings got around and interest in more involved drawings drummed up so FJ approached the right people to look into working on what would become the Technical Manual and the Booklet of General Plans. I understand he did get into a little bit of contact with MJ and some other folks who actually worked on the production but didn't get a lot of cooperation and basically worked on his own on it. He based his drawings on stills from TMOST and the Franklin Mint as well as sketching while watching reruns. The fact that he was using less than complete references as well as his intent to make the sets make engineering sense (he was naval engineer IIRC) are why the results are not quite what we see on screen.
It should be noted that TAS was not an influence on the FJTM. Most of the drawings were already finished before the show aired at all and any resemblance to that show (the second door to the bridge for instance) is pure coincidence. He was not in contact with Filmation at all.
But Roddenberry signed off on his stuff and when it was published it was considered official. Not to mention its mentions and appearances in the first few feature films. It was bestseller for a long time, which I don't think any other work of straight up technical fiction has done. So it made it in a big way. Certainly, it established the genre.
Personally, I know I'm not alone in that I was inspired a great deal by this work.
--Alex
That's what I always thought. I don't know why I was told otherwise last page of this thread.
As far as GR knew Trek was done and over so him signing off on something like FJ's work doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
I value FJ's work, but I can also put it in a historical context of the time. There are things he did I thought were interesting, but there is also a lot that is blatantly inconsistent with what TOS actually showed us.
I value FJ's work, but I can also put it in a historical context of the time. There are things he did I thought were interesting, but there is also a lot that is blatantly inconsistent with what TOS actually showed us.
I dunno about this. Star Trek started syndication in 1970 and quickly enjoyed unexpected, but measurable success. The first real Star Trek convention was in 1972 and NBC started looking into reviving the series. But the great expense of rebuilding all the destroyed sets was something Paramount wasn't going to invest in without a solid order of several episodes. All this led to the idea of a series revival using less costly animation. The first episode of TAS aired in September 1973. The Booklet of General Plans was released the same year. The Technical Manual drawings were made from 1973 through 1975. The project would not have begun without the official green light, so you have to assume that given the popularity in syndication and the talks over renewing the series in some way going on at the time, that GR was likely excited at the prospect of getting Trek out there in any way he could and would pursue building popularity in any way he could. Trek wasn't done and over in 1973. It had the germs of real potential still and he was campaigning for it. Which finally did pay off in 1977 with the agreement to make Star Trek Phase II. Sure, that didn't quite pan out, but it did evolve into TMP, a film franchise and ultimately TNG. Roddenberry, at least in the 70's, has to be acknowledged as a major driver of that.
Does this mean that he had any input to it? No. Does it lend any canonicity to it, in the modern sense of the word? No. Although, in the context of its time, it was considered "official" and, until the days of TNG, "official" Star Trek stuff seemed to carry a sort of deutero-canonical status. So, for me anyway, the FJTM does carry a lot of weight. Perhaps not in terms of literal set drawings, but in terms of the universe it depicted in broad strokes. The fact is that, except for set plans, which he intentionally reimagined to make more engineering sense, and a few niggling errors that crept in from his limited source material, he actually contradicts very very little of TOS. Even his lengthy lists of 100+ Heavy Cruiser ship names doesn't contradict the "twelve like her" line from Tomorrow is Yesterday" if you compare the stardates listed with the appropriation orders and compare them to the stardate of the episode.
Really, until the later stuff of the TNG era started to contradict the nitty-gritty of it, the FJTM was considered by most to be a pretty solid appendix to the series.
So I guess I'm arguing that it's not too far out of field to hold the book in fairly high regard.
--Alex
Enterprise Log, Captain James Kirk commanding.
We are leaving that vast cloud of stars and planets which we call our galaxy. Behind us, Earth, Mars, Venus... even our Sun, are specks of dust. A question... what is out there in the black void beyond?
Until now our mission has been that of space law regulation, contact with Earth colonies and investigation of alien life. But now, a new task... a probe out into where no man has gone before.
Compare that to the mission statement of the United States Coast Guard...
For over two centuries the U.S. Coast Guard has safeguarded our Nation’s maritime interests in the heartland, in the ports, at sea, and around the globe. We protect the maritime economy and the environment, we defend our maritime borders, and we save those in peril. This history has forged our character and purpose as America’s Maritime Guardian — Always Ready for all hazards and all threats.
And their own self description...
The U.S. Coast Guard is one of the five armed forces of the United States and the only military organization within the Department of Homeland Security. Since 1790 the Coast Guard has safeguarded our Nation's maritime interests and environment around the world. The Coast Guard is an adaptable, responsive military force of maritime professionals whose broad legal authorities, capable assets, geographic diversity and expansive partnerships provide a persistent presence along our rivers, in the ports, littoral regions and on the high seas. Coast Guard presence and impact is local, regional, national and international. These attributes make the Coast Guard a unique instrument of maritime safety, security and environmental stewardship.
Starships are far more like Coast Guard Cutters in their design and operation than like military vessels of the US Navy. In fact, I'd say that the original Enterprise (in design and intent) is more like today's USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) than any aircraft carrier. And by the same comparison, the United Earth Space Probe Agency is a lot like our National Science Foundation or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I would suggest watching these two videos on the Healy (here and here) to get a feel for her type of missions.
Why the change from intent to execution?
Well, to start, it was because compelling war stories are easier to turn out than science/research stories. And you can see this in the first season with the use of the recycled war story of Balance of Terror (from The Enemy Below). And the viewers (later fans) loved those stories.
This is where fans started injecting the tropes like the Enterprise was the flagship of the Federation or the most famous starship (in universe), or the Mary Sue turn that the characters (and the Enterprise herself) would take as time went on.
A great example of this change in the look and feel of the Enterprise as she appeared in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. What we saw was the equivalent of this...
The Enterprise started out with no weapons (or minimal weapons) to becoming this weapons platform where that was her most distinctive feature.
While fans some times say that Star Trek became like Star Wars after Star Wars... personally, fans were pushing to make Star Trek into a star wars while it was still on the air.
Honestly, the writers should have made a separate Federation Naval Force early on to help distinguish the Starfleet and it's part in the military hierarchy.
But (unfortunately) that starship sailed early on in Trek history.
Well, I'm sorry to further muddy the waters, but this needs to be pointed out:
I scanned in Page 115 from the novelization of TMP because I'm tired of typing it in like I have in the past.
The point I'm making is that Ithekro and Shaw are both right and both wrong. The middle paragraph in the above scan of Page 115 should make it clear that Mr. Roddenberry straddled both points of view. (NOTE: Page 115 reflects the scene in the movie when Spock's courier-craft was first approaching the refit Enterprise.)
Folks in this thread have repeatedly referred to non-canon material, such as office memos among the shows writers and producers, to make a point about what "There are only twelve like it in the fleet" meant. There are very powerful arguments being raised here to justify different worldviews on what Kirk's boast to Capt. Christopher meant. There has also been no shortage of people talking over each other. Other TV series, gaming, fan-fiction, aftermarket spin-offs and adaptations, and a whole host of other phenomena have evolved since the 1960s. A whole host of worldviews of what Star Trek is and what it represents evolved along with all of this.
When I spoke about CDST (Contradictions and Discontinuity in Star Trek), I wasn't kidding. TOS, and to a certain extent, the entire Trek franchise, was often "specifically vague", meaning that it was often attempting to be flexible enough to appeal to more than one point-of-view. The important thing to distinguish is that Trek speaks with more than one voice. As an example, Gene L. Coon, noted TOS writer and producer, has been said to have written or re-written TOS episodes that favored American involvement in Viet Nam ("A Private Little War") and also against involvement. In essence, Mr. Roddenberry and Mr. Coon produced a series (in its first two years) that provided a platform for an unusually diverse smorgasbord of stories and points-of-view. It should be a small surprise that there would be some conceptual conflict.
But what does all of this mean, going back to the O.P. in this thread? What does "twelve like it in the fleet" mean? Some folks here will adamantly swear this means there were only 12 Constitution-class starships in the United Federation of Planets during the first full year of TOS. But the "twelve like it" quote has itself been blown out of proportion, since Kirk never explicitly mentions the Constitution-class or any classification of space vessel.
The controversy of the starship-class status of NCC-1017 Constellation is another example. Again, no character ever explicitly says what class of spacecraft Constellation is a part of. We can assume that, in its final form, Constellation is a Constitution-class starship. But the Federation, as depicted in TOS, is about 100 years old. That leaves plenty of time and opportunity for Starfleet to have employed multiple earlier "heavy cruiser" designs prior to Constitution being commissioned. Since, in TOS alone, we have seen the ship obviously undergo refitting/rejuvenation of her hull and internals, and TMP showed us additionally that a starship can be "almost entirely" rebuilt, it shouldn't be too much of a jump to assuming that Constellation could easily have started service in an earlier class of cruiser, possibly predating Constitution by many years. It should be obvious that the Federation itself has been around quite a few years longer than the Constitution-class of starships.
So, even if we assume that "twelve like it" did mean Constitution-class starships, Kirk's boast likely meant the exclusive number of Constitution-class vessels that were built all-new. These would be apart from old cruiser designs that would come due to be refit/rebuilt, as a cruiser of much older, less advanced design (Constellation? Republic?) would be.
This certainly makes more sense than assuming that either (1: the Constitution-class of starships is as old as the Federation, or (2: the Federation only started launching starships-of-the-line in the mid-23rd century, having no earlier heavy cruiser designs prior to that time.
I actually find a lot of Franz Joseph's work compatible with the way the show presents the technology. Parts of it have become outdated as later versions of the franchise have made their own additions, particularly the stuff about the founding of the Federation and Starfleet Academy. But other parts are still fascinating. Parts of it could even be said to be consistent with the designs in the new movies, in spirit if not in practicality.
I always liked the way he included "kick out" panels on the Constitution bridge, which would gain access to emergency escape routes that were otherwise invisible on-screen.
I always liked the way he included "kick out" panels on the Constitution bridge, which would gain access to emergency escape routes that were otherwise invisible on-screen.
While Im curious how they'll treat the era, Discovery is being made by an entirely different creative team to TOS, it's Constitution-class ships will be as much a reflection of what was originally intended as the USS Biddeford NCC-0718 from the Into Darkness deleted scenes.
The Constellation, Eagle and others are a good indication of a "conversion-upgrade".
Some of the Constitution Refits may not have even been TOS versions of the class before, maybe something like a Saladin with that saucer having only to build a stardrive for, and you've got another one. Explaining issues with their conversion, with high energy circuits and frame braces not being as compatible as Starfleet would have liked.
The main issue is why we only see this happen with the Constitution class, but the modular main sections coupled with thin connections making it easier to chopshop might explain it as it is.
It would be fun though in Discovery as @King Daniel Beyond says to have say, the Constellation turn up as NCC-1017 but a different design being towed into a drydock in powered down mode.
As well as maybe the Constitution herself, unchanged from launch to see what they looked like the day they originally set out.
Some of the Constitution Refits may not have even been TOS versions of the class before, maybe something like a Saladin with that saucer having only to build a stardrive for, and you've got another one. Explaining issues with their conversion, with high energy circuits and frame braces not being as compatible as Starfleet would have liked.
The main issue is why we only see this happen with the Constitution class, but the modular main sections coupled with thin connections making it easier to chopshop might explain it as it is.
It would be fun though in Discovery as @King Daniel Beyond says to have say, the Constellation turn up as NCC-1017 but a different design being towed into a drydock in powered down mode.
As well as maybe the Constitution herself, unchanged from launch to see what they looked like the day they originally set out.
2255 is only a year after the "The Cage" so the Enterprise would probably look the same as in the first pilot for 'Discovery', should she ever show up. An old tradition is that something from an earlier series will pass on to the next series. That could be something from the newer 2009 Star Trek films (an actor playing their role, such as perhaps Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk, or Bruce Greenwood as Captain Christopher Pike for a single scene, or if they really wanted to throw people for a loop, Chris Pine as Lieutenant James T. Kirk on USS Farragut). Or someone from 'Enterprise' as a historical video, like they did for Zephram Cochrane in "Broken Bow".
The main point would be the Constitutions would be (or at least should be) about the same as in 1965....modeling styles non-withstanding. Though USS Discovery might never encounter one, much like USS Enterprise never really encountered any larger Federation starships other than Constitutions. Maybe certain designs of ships had specific regions they patrolled so that the local starbases would have parts for only those classes of ships, thus keeping the quartermasters happy and needing less of a supply chain of all possible parts to every starbase.
The main point would be the Constitutions would be (or at least should be) about the same as in 1965....modeling styles non-withstanding. Though USS Discovery might never encounter one, much like USS Enterprise never really encountered any larger Federation starships other than Constitutions. Maybe certain designs of ships had specific regions they patrolled so that the local starbases would have parts for only those classes of ships, thus keeping the quartermasters happy and needing less of a supply chain of all possible parts to every starbase.
It's a way of giving something for older viewers on a modern budget without having to stretch to bringing in actors or risk recasting issues.
Just have the Discovery mention a rendevouz with another starship, have a Connie appear alongside. Doesn't have to be a long shot or anything.
Just have the Discovery mention a rendevouz with another starship, have a Connie appear alongside. Doesn't have to be a long shot or anything.
I believe it was from Fuller, at the Television Critics Association press tour.
Although I believe the actual statement was along the lines of "about a decade before Kirk's five year mission", or something like that. So it may not be *exactly* 2255.
- Status
Similar threads
