Updating FJ's technical manual?

[Warped9]

Given the recent discussions regarding Franz Joseph's Star Trek related work from the 1970s I'm intrigued by something of a thought exercise.

For a long time many fans accepted FJ's work as pretty much accepted gospel in terms of Trek technical background, at least in regards to TOS, TAS and the early films. But when TNG bowed FJ's work began to be forgotten as the new creators sought to put their stamp on Trek's world building and effectively rewrite what had long been accepted.

Now for discussion's sake how would you update FJ's technical manual if given the opportunity? Would you adhere to what he had established or only accept parts of it? Or would you simply ignore it altogether in favour of something totally new reflecting the "official" world-building as written from TNG onward?

Thoughts anyone?

I'd like some opinions before I weigh in with my own perspective.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Well, I favor two approaches; one would be to start over from scratch and use accurate info and data from just TOS/TAS and extrapolate from there, with no influence from later Trek, the other way would be to use FJ’s manual but simply accurize it by correcting some of the mistakes –like the phaser pistol design, or the missing EMM in engineering and sickbays decom chamber etc.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

An "accuratized" version of th FJTM might be nice. Accuratizing the exact layout of the Connie interior is problematic, as always, though.

Plus, I would include the missing pages (medical hypo, etc.). New pages should be added for dress uniforms, the first season hazard suits, jump suits, and other ship types seen in TOS/TAS.

Frankly, I would dump the Articles of Federation and treaty wankery (since there's no way to canonically validate it), though I'd keep at least some of the flags.

Also, I'd replace Fleet Headquarters with the STIII Space Dock (in planning stages, maybe).

Just a few ideas, to start with....

 

[Warped9]

Well right off the bat you update all the illustrations so that they gel with what we actually saw onscreen. The contents page also gives a clue to lots of stuff that supposedly should be in the book but aren't, like other Federation ships as well as alien. They could remain as really nice line drawings or they could be as orthographic views of nicely rendered 3D models. I'd be inclined to include some pre-TOS era stuff as well.

I'd also be inclined to rework the listings for all those heavy cruisers. It's just way too many unless you come up with a different design altogether for those extra names. Maybe they could be frigates instead of cruisers. That said you might also consider including movie era designs unless the idea is to keep it strictly TOS era centric (including TAS).

I'd still like to keep the design for the orbital Starfleet headquarters. I find it more visually interesting than the mushroom seen in TSFS.

I like the treaties included because they are referenced in the series. I'm on the fence regarding the The Articles of Federation. I do like the various seals and pennants.

 

[Albertese]

...

I'd also be inclined to rework the listings for all those heavy cruisers. It's just way too many unless you come up with a different design altogether for those extra names. Maybe they could be frigates instead of cruisers. That said you might also consider including movie era designs unless the idea is to keep it strictly TOS era centric (including TAS).
...

This is more or less what the Ships of the Star Fleet did. If you actually read all the fluff and compare their ship names and numbers to those from the FJTM, you'll find that it's basically taking the FJ universe and extending it into the movie era. They assign the other class ship names the FJ included in his TM as various other designs, the Bonhomme Richard, the Achernar, and the Tikopai are all new classes of Heavy Cruiser in SotSF. And they do mention that the initial authorized numbers of ships were more than ended up practical to build. It really does extend the FJ trek universe nicely.


(As a side-bar, For those naysayers who claim that the fleet numbers are too huge and are at variance with Kirk's "twelve lie her in the fleet" line, I present to you this handy infographic I made some time ago to prove that the FJ fleet, does, in fact, stay true to what was seen and heard on screen. It's not directly relevant to this conversation, and it is quite large so here's a link if you would like to see it:

http://imageshack.us/f/84/fjstarshiptimeline.jpg/

That way I won't hijack the thread. Enjoy.)

--Alex

 

[aridas sofia]

This is more or less what the Ships of the Star Fleet did.

It's nice to see someone still remembers.

 

[Mysterion]

Plus, I would include the missing pages (medical hypo, etc.). New pages should be added for dress uniforms, the first season hazard suits, jump suits, and other ship types seen in TOS/TAS.

The fan-produced Federation Reference Series in the 80's produced many of those "missing pages" (ships, uniforms, etc.), and is worth seeking out.

Frankly, I would dump the Articles of Federation and treaty wankery (since there's no way to canonically validate it), though I'd keep at least some of the flags.

Well, I'd at least replace the Articles of the Federation with something not quite so lifted from the UN Charter.

Also, I'd replace Fleet Headquarters with the STIII Space Dock (in planning stages, maybe).

Or at least establish them as being two different places. Maybe Spacedock is in Earth orbit, and the FJ Fed HQ station is out at the L-5 point.

 

[feek61]

As much as I loved the FJTM when it came out; it's inaccuracies (as far as the drawings) really bug me now. I seriously have considered doing a reference book with super accurate, color graphics to correct much of the TM. I pretty much have it done already, lol.

 

[aridas sofia]

The fan-produced Federation Reference Series in the 80's produced many of those "missing pages" (ships, uniforms, etc.), and is worth seeking out.

It's nice to see this mentioned, too!

There is nothing wrong with much of Franz Joseph's content. It just needs to be clarified as not being what was onscreen, and amended with what was. For example, his phaser was a different model. His HQ was the interstellar HQ at the center of the UFP, while other operational headquarters exist elsewhere. The USS Constitution? A variant of the Enterprise's class.

There is a lot of great material in there that shouldn't be cast off - it did, after all, represent much of what the fans took to be "Star Trek" for much of the 70s. But it should have the "real" stuff added if only to make the book relevant.

 

[Mysterion]

The fan-produced Federation Reference Series in the 80's produced many of those "missing pages" (ships, uniforms, etc.), and is worth seeking out.

It's nice to see this mentioned, too!

Credit where credit is due, Sir.

 

[Warped9]

This is a sore point for me. FJ's blueprints are not the ship we saw onscreen, but they were put across as such. And so I'd change the drawings in the TM to be more in line with what we saw onscreen simply because that's what we expected to see. Ditto things like the shuttlecraft.

 

[aridas sofia]

I agree. My cross section based on Jefferies' plan was meant to serve as the beginning for such a project. I don't have much use for some of the internals in the Booklet of General Plans- nonsensical connections of parts like the pylons, nothing behind the main sensor/deflector, screwed up hangar deck, etc. But fix the nonsensical stuff and maintain his exterior design and call it Achernar or Constitution or whatever. It still is a cool piece of work.

I'd just have a parallel set of plans that is closely based on Jefferies and what we saw, with some reverse engineering from Phase II and TMP.

 

[Warped9]

The other thing I think was funny was FJ ditching the Amarillo font for Microgamma in regard to ships' registries. The Microgamma was adopted for the TMP era but it looked wrong somehow on the TOS era ships a lot because that isn't what we saw onscreen.

 

[Albertese]

Yeah, I noticed the inaccuracies of the FJ book pretty early in life. I've been toying with the idea of doing a reworking of it for decades.

However, we shouldn't dismiss what an outstanding body of work it actually is. the fact that the whole thing was drawn by hand is pretty impressive. It's kind of impressive that the thing is as comprehensive as it is, even with the missing pages....

--Alex

 

[Warped9]

It isn't my intention to bash FJ's work, but if the SFTM were to be updated/revised then there are things that would have to be corrected.

 

[Robert Comsol]

For a long time many fans accepted FJ's work as pretty much accepted gospel in terms of Trek technical background, at least in regards to TOS, TAS and the early films.

...and did not really know that he wasn't a fan, preferred "Lost in Space", and that his actual knowledge of the world of TOS and its details was only a fraction of what most passionate fans then and now knew or could have known just by watching the actual footage, listening to the dialogue, examining the studio set blueprints and arriving at their own conclusions based on the aforementioned.

But when TNG bowed FJ's work began to be forgotten as the new creators sought to put their stamp on Trek's world building and effectively rewrite what had long been accepted.

I've been a Star Trek actifan (founding the fan club who initiated the first Trek Diners, publishing fanzines and organizing conventions) since 1980 and most assuredly I did not accept his work other than his prop reproductions (i.e. where these were correct), because it was essentially too incompatible with what we saw onscreen.

"Effectively rewrite what had long been accepted?" I don't know how you treat your kids, but I, for one, do not reward bad behaviour or in this case bad, incomplete and superficial research (if we can even talk about "research"), mind looking at it as canon.

Thus Gene Roddenberry and Bob Justman (the creators) and their staff were totally entitled to rewrite what FJ had produced. Whether everything that came after TOS is compatible with TOS continuity, is a different story, IMHO.

Would you adhere to what he had established or only accept parts of it?

Neither

Or would you simply ignore it altogether in favour of something totally new reflecting the "official" world-building as written from TNG onward?

Neither that. I'd completely rewrite it based entirely on the actual TOS information we have and consider post TOS information only to fill in the blanks and where it does not contradict original TOS canon, continuity or style.

Apparently, blssdwlf and myself are going exactly for this in or original series USS Enterprise interior and/or deck plan projects in the fan art section.

Bob

 

[aridas sofia]

It is so easy to blather on mindlessly about someone that made choices in a time and situation you have no knowledge of whatsoever. You drone on about Franz Joseph not having any knowledge of Trek and being a Lost in Space fan. And yet he was doing the plans and book for his daughter and friends who WERE extreme Trek fans, had access to countless film clips, and acted as unpaid research assistants. You drone on about Schnaubelt's lack of knowledge and yet he was HIRED by Roddenberry and met with him, corresponded with him, and also met Jefferies. This Roddenberry that you paint as dismissing Schnaubelt's work out of hand due to its massive infidelity to TOS was the very same Roddenberry that approved it all, called it unprecedented, and only found fault with it when he couldn't get a slice of the gobs of money it made.

I'm tired of reading your rant against a guy that is dead and thus isn't here to defend his work. Take up a f&@king technical pen and your massive Trek cred and let's see what you come up with, 'kay? Oh wait. Ain't possible because it isn't 1973 and unfortunately you have forty years of technical advance and hindsight to puff up your arguments. And a dead guy to argue with.

 

[Shawnster]

Id make sure the bridge wasn't rotated 30 some degrees.

 

[StalwartUK]

Id make sure the bridge wasn't rotated 30 some degrees.

He did that to match up the bridge set with the exterior model right?

 

[Warped9]

Id make sure the bridge wasn't rotated 30 some degrees.

He did that to match up the bridge set with the exterior model right?

Yeah, but this is a really old debate. All we need is CRA back to really get it going again. You can make a case for either orientation, but it really comes down to how much room you actually have and what you're willing to compromise.