The saucer doesn't include part of the forward upper section of the neck does it?
Pros and cons of Franz Joseph's plans
- Thread starter TIN_MAN
- Start date
I teach networking to high school students. In networking, we have diagrams called "logical diagrams" that represent the operational nature of the network and "physical diagrams" that represent every installed component in the network. I consider the pressure hull diagram to be "logical" in nature, providing operational information without the need for physical accuracy.
Gotta nitpick something Dave, gotta nitpick...!
Excellent points, of course. It still bothers me, for the reasons I gave. Overall I have to agree with you that the diagram was made before the model design was locked, it wasn't changed (except for colors), and MJ apparently felt this omission was OK. My guess is it was OK because it wasn't used in close-up... at least until DotD!
At which point he should have used your version of the graphic.
+++++++++
CuttingEdge,
> The saucer doesn't include part of the forward
> upper section of the neck does it?
Normally, no. But maybe in this diagram. Blasted nits. <smack>
Excellent points, of course. It still bothers me, for the reasons I gave. Overall I have to agree with you that the diagram was made before the model design was locked, it wasn't changed (except for colors), and MJ apparently felt this omission was OK. My guess is it was OK because it wasn't used in close-up... at least until DotD!
At which point he should have used your version of the graphic.
+++++++++
CuttingEdge,
> The saucer doesn't include part of the forward
> upper section of the neck does it?
Normally, no. But maybe in this diagram. Blasted nits. <smack>
Well, like I said... I wasn't expecting to change anyone's mind on this. But it is also interesting to note that that wasn't the only time diagrams of a never seen version of the Enterprise were used as graphic source for displays. As it happen, Jefferies' original diagrams of the Enterprise for Phase II were used for a number of bridge graphics on the original movie bridge.
And (as something of a segue) both Joseph's plans and manual graphics made it to screen in the early movies on different parts of the bridge as well.
I'd point out that I (like many technically minded people) naturally want more detail... which can be both bad for artwork and the displaying of information. Any time I am close to finishing something (design, page layout, web page, etc.) I have to take a few steps back and re-look at my own work reminding myself that less is more.At which point he should have used your version of the graphic.
I'd be willing to bet that if Jefferies had made both versions of that graphic back in 1968 and presented both for the director to choose, odds are we would have still ended up with what we got.
I'm not sure what anyone else has heard, but Jefferies was a professional in his duties as an art director. And would work to bring to screen whatever the directors, writers and producers wanted. When left to fill in the gaps, he made some incredible artwork, but he always bowed to the people in charge when the story called for something specific.
As I recall, he told people who wanted to bring their own artistic visions to the screen to not go into art directing.
I mean when you think about it, Mike Okuda worked on STV... and I'm sure he could have pointed out all the things we noticed when first viewing that film. But his job was to help bring Shatner's vision of Trek to the screen (painful as it was
).
I'm interested in whether anyone has tried to tweak some of FJ's interiors to make them more consistant with what we saw on screen? For example, the deck 11 phaser room, this should be fairly easy to modify to mach "Balence of Terror". On the other hand, the deck 3 botany lab is quite different from what we saw in "The Man Trap" and should prove somewhat challenging to deal with? Any ideas?
TM, please look through David Shaw's work (posted in another active thread in this very forum).
^^CL.B, Please explain, I am not unfamiliar with Shaw's work. But I don't recall Shaw being interested in making specific interiors of FJ's plans more compatible w/the sets we saw onscreen? I haven't went back over his thread, but I'm pretty shure all he ever posted along these lines, were preliminary plans for how the sets might fit into his plans, which is not what my above post was about, nor is his work in general (interesting as it is), germane to the topic of this thread, so I don't see how this helps much?
Last edited:
Not enough room on Deck 11 for the forward phaser room. Deck 10 is pretty tight, too.
Move it up to Deck 9, though....
Move it up to Deck 9, though....
^^ But the FPR isn't that big? It's not much larger than FJ's "auxiliary fire control" on deck 11, which is supposed to be the same facility. Even if it was considerably larger, there's plenty of room on deck 11 for at least three or four good sized facilities. And you say deck 10 is a bit tight too? Gosh, just how big do think the original set was? 
The original set was a redress of Engineering, so...
Yes, I know that, but Engineering looked bigger than it was, and redressed as the FPR it was somewhat smaller still, and was evidently intended, unlike Engineering, to be one deck high. Again, in terms of floor space, deck 11 was big enough to swallow three or four facilities the area of the Engineering set! So I see no problem with it housing at least one phaser room (just as FJ had it).
Last edited:
Sorry I've been off-BBS for awhile, I'm a bit under the weather again not to mention very busy.
Tin_Man,
Setting the FPR aside for the moment, part of the problem is that we have conflicting designs (of various semi-official natures) from MJ, FJ/FASA's Paramount licensed+copyrighted (and filmed on screen) designs, and fan reconstructions -- none of which agree with each other 100%. Our fan reconstructions of MJ can't even agree on the number of decks in the ship, or even parts of the ship. This becomes an enormous problem when you start assigning "sets" and "rooms" based on dialog in the show.
For example, the "Deck 7" from my reconstruction (based on the 11' model) is not the same location as the "Deck 7" in Dave's reconstruction (based on the Phase II cross-section). This is one reason I might have seemed a bit histrionic about the 'whacking' of the smushed Deck 2 from TMoST. Removing that is the beginning of the end of the ability to compare the designs, though it certainly isn't the only reason (the further down the ship you go the worse it gets).
We can start arguing about whose source material is better, or whose interpretation is better, or who is contradicting the current holders of the franchise (which according to some are the only and final word on the subject), but that's not really constructive. Dave is basing his work off of MJ's plans, I'm basing it off the studio model (as reconstructed by fans, since we lack an official plan). Other people are doing whatever they want to do. In a perfect world these would have agreed, but its far from a perfect world. I was shocked when I got the results I did, and really expected I would find agreement with Dave's (et al.) work, but instead FJ came out the closest to what I found. I thought FJ was a "lame duck" designer at this point, but he's not. The reason for that is that he followed the text description in the TMoST from the Writer's Guide, which was apparently conceived of by the person who finalized the design of the 11' studio model. i.e., MJ.
I've been making noises that amount to a proclamation that MJ never really finalized the design of the ship. He kept changing it. Hence the "abstract" pressure hull diagrams, the changing size of the ship, the construction plans, the finalized studio models, the TMoST/Writer's Guide cross-section, and finally the Phase II plans. None really agree with each other. Not just in minor details, but in contradictory ways that are largely irresolvable. All are snapshots in time about how he was thinking of the ship. Apparently he never felt we, the fans, were actually smart enough to figure out that he was making these changes (apparently like the Engineering Set), or what their implications were. He was making these changes while the show was going on, and apparently felt that the production staff were in a similar boat, otherwise the text description in the writer's guide would match the cross-section. Some choices he made could be interpreted that he didn't care what decisions the Production Staff made, he was doing it his way -- i.e., whatever he decided that day.
I can hypothesize why some of these changes were made, but so far no one has shown much interest in the idea and I don't want to be seen as trying to start a controversy. I've made my choice about which selection to pick off the buffet and start to consume. Its my personal choice as to what is "best". I'm not interested in telling other people what they should select. That there is a variety gives us more diversity, but it would have made matters easier for us -- as "forensic Treknologists" -- if there wasn't. It would have been easier if there was one clear answer.
IMHO
+++++++++
Tin_Man,
^^ But the FPR isn't that big? It's not much larger than FJ's "auxiliary fire control" on deck 11, which is supposed to be the same facility. Even if it was considerably larger, there's plenty of room on deck 11 for at least three or four good sized facilities. And you say deck 10 is a bit tight too? Gosh, just how big do think the original set was?
Setting the FPR aside for the moment, part of the problem is that we have conflicting designs (of various semi-official natures) from MJ, FJ/FASA's Paramount licensed+copyrighted (and filmed on screen) designs, and fan reconstructions -- none of which agree with each other 100%. Our fan reconstructions of MJ can't even agree on the number of decks in the ship, or even parts of the ship. This becomes an enormous problem when you start assigning "sets" and "rooms" based on dialog in the show.
For example, the "Deck 7" from my reconstruction (based on the 11' model) is not the same location as the "Deck 7" in Dave's reconstruction (based on the Phase II cross-section). This is one reason I might have seemed a bit histrionic about the 'whacking' of the smushed Deck 2 from TMoST. Removing that is the beginning of the end of the ability to compare the designs, though it certainly isn't the only reason (the further down the ship you go the worse it gets).
We can start arguing about whose source material is better, or whose interpretation is better, or who is contradicting the current holders of the franchise (which according to some are the only and final word on the subject), but that's not really constructive. Dave is basing his work off of MJ's plans, I'm basing it off the studio model (as reconstructed by fans, since we lack an official plan). Other people are doing whatever they want to do. In a perfect world these would have agreed, but its far from a perfect world. I was shocked when I got the results I did, and really expected I would find agreement with Dave's (et al.) work, but instead FJ came out the closest to what I found. I thought FJ was a "lame duck" designer at this point, but he's not. The reason for that is that he followed the text description in the TMoST from the Writer's Guide, which was apparently conceived of by the person who finalized the design of the 11' studio model. i.e., MJ.
I've been making noises that amount to a proclamation that MJ never really finalized the design of the ship. He kept changing it. Hence the "abstract" pressure hull diagrams, the changing size of the ship, the construction plans, the finalized studio models, the TMoST/Writer's Guide cross-section, and finally the Phase II plans. None really agree with each other. Not just in minor details, but in contradictory ways that are largely irresolvable. All are snapshots in time about how he was thinking of the ship. Apparently he never felt we, the fans, were actually smart enough to figure out that he was making these changes (apparently like the Engineering Set), or what their implications were. He was making these changes while the show was going on, and apparently felt that the production staff were in a similar boat, otherwise the text description in the writer's guide would match the cross-section. Some choices he made could be interpreted that he didn't care what decisions the Production Staff made, he was doing it his way -- i.e., whatever he decided that day.
I can hypothesize why some of these changes were made, but so far no one has shown much interest in the idea and I don't want to be seen as trying to start a controversy. I've made my choice about which selection to pick off the buffet and start to consume. Its my personal choice as to what is "best". I'm not interested in telling other people what they should select. That there is a variety gives us more diversity, but it would have made matters easier for us -- as "forensic Treknologists" -- if there wasn't. It would have been easier if there was one clear answer.
IMHO
Just FYI...
My suggestion is to make timelines... when were ideas introduced, when were they dropped (and why), and from there figure out what was the prevailing views during the production of the show.
I started out with assumption similar to yours, and a detailed study of the whens and hows brought me to my current position.
Compare what I have been releasing lately with the work of Sinclair or Casimiro and ask yourself why I arrived at different conclusions.
I am currently doing a full (and to the best of my ability, faithful) reconstruction of the 11 foot filming model... as a model. I may be starting with how it was in December of 1964 (for it's short appearance in The Cage), but I'll also be documenting (in later drawings) how it appeared in WNMHGB and the series.
I'll be modifying those plans of the model to represent the fictional exterior of the starship Enterprise for use in my deck plans... which is why I haven't spent much time on the interior aspects lately (waiting until after I have settled on the exterior they are going into first).
TMoST is not the Writer's Guide, and I've found that TMoST wasn't reflective of everything that was going on behind the scenes in TOS enough to hold it up as a good reference today. Sure, in the 1970s it was the best information that we had to work from... but today we have much better sources.
As for Jefferies and the final design of the 11 foot model... the model was close enough to his plans to go forward with it. But the 11 foot model was not what Jefferies drawings represented even after it was being used, Jefferies continued to use his ideas of how the ship was arranged (he, for example, liked the nacelles further apart than either the 11 foot or 33 inch model's nacelles actually were... and it took nearly 30 plus years before people started noticing).
But here is the difference... I see the Jefferies glass as half full while you seem to be obsessing on the fact that it is half empty.
I have said that Jefferies had a changing view of the ship, but for me, the only Jefferies view that matters is the one between the start of production of The Cage (November of 1964) and the end of the original series (June of 1969). I've been interested in what was consistent over that period. The size of the ship didn't change, most of the same sets were used throughout (so the actual set plans are better than Joseph's interpretations... which call for short decks)... in fact it was that consistency that inspired Joseph (a non-fan) to spend as much time on this as he did.
I would go so far as to say that if Joseph hadn't relied on TMoST so closely, that he would have been able to make a more faithful version of his plans and manual to the actual show. But he assumed (like you) that TMoST had some extra special information... when in fact it was a hastily put together collection of Trek stuff to profit on the excitement surrounding the show.
Don't get me wrong... I enjoy reading your analysis (and recall a time when I shared many of those same view points), but I would really appreciate if you would stop mischaracterizing my positions on things. As I said, more than a year ago I started using my early study sketches of the 11 foot model rather than my reconstruction of Jefferies construction plans.
Your views should be able to stand on their own without needing to misrepresent mine to make your points.
My reconstruction is based on the original Jefferies cross-section (drawn up around 1967) which is supported by the later Jefferies Phase II cross-section (from 1977). The fact that those ideas were consistent 10 years apart support a logical argument that Jefferies views on that detail (the number of decks and their approximate placement) was unchanging during the run of the original series.
My suggestion is to make timelines... when were ideas introduced, when were they dropped (and why), and from there figure out what was the prevailing views during the production of the show.
I started out with assumption similar to yours, and a detailed study of the whens and hows brought me to my current position.
More than a year ago I stopped using Jefferies' plans of the exterior and started using the 11 foot model. The primary difference between what you are doing and what I'm doing is that I decided to start from scratch in a study of the actual filming model itself, study it in every last detail (which includes documenting aspects the viewers of the show weren't supposed to notice) rather than use someone else's plans (like Sinclair's).
Compare what I have been releasing lately with the work of Sinclair or Casimiro and ask yourself why I arrived at different conclusions.
I am currently doing a full (and to the best of my ability, faithful) reconstruction of the 11 foot filming model... as a model. I may be starting with how it was in December of 1964 (for it's short appearance in The Cage), but I'll also be documenting (in later drawings) how it appeared in WNMHGB and the series.
I'll be modifying those plans of the model to represent the fictional exterior of the starship Enterprise for use in my deck plans... which is why I haven't spent much time on the interior aspects lately (waiting until after I have settled on the exterior they are going into first).
See, that looks like a massive assumption.
TMoST is not the Writer's Guide, and I've found that TMoST wasn't reflective of everything that was going on behind the scenes in TOS enough to hold it up as a good reference today. Sure, in the 1970s it was the best information that we had to work from... but today we have much better sources.
As for Jefferies and the final design of the 11 foot model... the model was close enough to his plans to go forward with it. But the 11 foot model was not what Jefferies drawings represented even after it was being used, Jefferies continued to use his ideas of how the ship was arranged (he, for example, liked the nacelles further apart than either the 11 foot or 33 inch model's nacelles actually were... and it took nearly 30 plus years before people started noticing).
Funny, I came to a similar conclusion years ago.
But here is the difference... I see the Jefferies glass as half full while you seem to be obsessing on the fact that it is half empty.
I have said that Jefferies had a changing view of the ship, but for me, the only Jefferies view that matters is the one between the start of production of The Cage (November of 1964) and the end of the original series (June of 1969). I've been interested in what was consistent over that period. The size of the ship didn't change, most of the same sets were used throughout (so the actual set plans are better than Joseph's interpretations... which call for short decks)... in fact it was that consistency that inspired Joseph (a non-fan) to spend as much time on this as he did.
I would go so far as to say that if Joseph hadn't relied on TMoST so closely, that he would have been able to make a more faithful version of his plans and manual to the actual show. But he assumed (like you) that TMoST had some extra special information... when in fact it was a hastily put together collection of Trek stuff to profit on the excitement surrounding the show.
Don't get me wrong... I enjoy reading your analysis (and recall a time when I shared many of those same view points), but I would really appreciate if you would stop mischaracterizing my positions on things. As I said, more than a year ago I started using my early study sketches of the 11 foot model rather than my reconstruction of Jefferies construction plans.
Your views should be able to stand on their own without needing to misrepresent mine to make your points.
Cary L. Brown, Capt'n April, Whorfin, You guys are making this waaaaaaaay more complicated than it needs to be. All I'm asking at this point is that we look at FJ's plans (the deck 11 phaser room in this example) on the one hand, and then look at TOS (the phaser room from "Balance of Terror" in this example) on the other hand, APART FROM ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, and compare and contrast how they are alike and how they are different, and then discuss whether we might find a happy medium, as it were? And don't tell me catagoricaly that it can't be done, (without even trying) because I've managed to cobble together several different designs, some more faithful to FJ and some moreso to MJ, but all workable (IMHO), and if I can do it, with my little noodle noggin, then certainly you guys (among others), with the artistic talent that's been displayed on this forum, shouldn't have any problems! Consider it a challange, I'm very interested in seeing/reading what you can come up with. And don't tell me there's not enough room on deck 11 for the phaser room, because it's there, in FJ's plans, so it fits! Perhaps it might be easier if we jetison all the post 70's baggage, and pretend for the moment that there are no other plans in existance other than FJ's, and no other Trek series other than TOS, this might help narrow the focus? Oh, one other thing, If anyone just doesn't like FJ's plans, or hates them so much that they don't even want to bother putting in the minimal amount of time and energy to prove that they can't be reconciled with TOS easthetics or "treknology" as it was understood circa mid 70's, that's fine, but please don't post a quip, to that effect, without at least trying to defend your position by discussing (citing specific details) why you hold to that position, otherwise "what the Klingon says is unimportant, and we do not hear his words"! Thanks.
Last edited:
Well, here's the set layout...
...here's how FJ did it....
...and here's about as far as I got with it, since I didn't have the set layout at the time....
The fire control room is situated directly above the actual weaponry, where there's room for a control facility.
...here's how FJ did it....
...and here's about as far as I got with it, since I didn't have the set layout at the time....
The fire control room is situated directly above the actual weaponry, where there's room for a control facility.
The Forward Phaser Room is, um, forward. I would think that's rather implicit in the name.
Hello gang,
Yesterday I spent quite a bit of time posting a reply. It seemed to reach the board (in this thread) and appeared to be fully posted. Its not here today (CRA's post is in its 'place'), and since I'm tired from running errands today I'm not even going to attempt to recompose it now. But, as promised in the now 'waporized' thread, here's a post I've been holding on to -- in the interests of pacing myself -- that I think is pertinent to the discussion. Thank you for your patience, I look forward to your input.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2766327&postcount=13
Yesterday I spent quite a bit of time posting a reply. It seemed to reach the board (in this thread) and appeared to be fully posted. Its not here today (CRA's post is in its 'place'), and since I'm tired from running errands today I'm not even going to attempt to recompose it now. But, as promised in the now 'waporized' thread, here's a post I've been holding on to -- in the interests of pacing myself -- that I think is pertinent to the discussion. Thank you for your patience, I look forward to your input.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2766327&postcount=13
Similar threads
