Updating FJ's technical manual?

[CorporalCaptain]

And we’ve already discussed the phaser; nobody here is giving FJ a pass on this one, it was a mistake on FJ’s part and it was a biggie, nuff said.

And while some fans may make a guru out of FJ, none of them are posting on this thread (well, except for that one Ensign with the bad spelling ) yet you want to tar us all with the same brush anyway, despite our demonstrated willingness to hold him accountable wherever he truly deserves it, and our openness to correcting his mistakes, which is hardly the behavior typical of “groupies”.

Seconded.

As far as the first paragraph that I edited out is concerned, I haven't been a party to debates about the transporter console, so I can't comment on that part.

However, giving the deck plans of the secondary hull the same circular symmetry as the deck plans of the saucer section, in defiance of the different axis of symmetry that the secondary hull has, isn't a step towards a plausible set of fully fleshed-out deck plans.

But that's not an argument in favor of the FJ Connie plans, which while a completely obvious thing to say, in context is probably worth mentioning anyway.

 

[Irishman]

What amazes me in this thread is that you keep reading the same interviews the rest of us have read and keep finding things that aren't there.

Apparently, he didn't care to check or notice.

And that you seem to have the ability to read the mind of a dead man. Because hey, there just is no way he looked at the thing, thought it was right, passed it by the fans who obviously said it was right, checked it against what he saw was on TV and confirmed to his satisfaction it was right, then considered the possibility that some guy forty years hence would claim he didn't care enough to get it perfect but decided such a clairvoyant was beyond the ability of mere mortals to debate, and thus went back to hand drawing and hand lettering the other hundred plus pages in the manual he was doing speculatively, without a contract, for a bunch of kids.

Guys, I think you need to just agree to disagree about FJ's motives and mindset. You're both set in what you believe, and all the beating each other over the head with blunt objects won't change your minds.

Neither of you is wrong. It's just interpretation of interpretation.

 

[Warped9]

So, like, would we go with colour this time? Hmm?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Guys, I think you need to just agree to disagree about FJ's motives and mindset. You're both set in what you believe, and all the beating each other over the head with blunt objects won't change your minds.

Neither of you is wrong. It's just interpretation of interpretation.

Actually, in this case aridas is pretty clearly right, because his position doesn't actually require the ascription of unknowable motives or attitudes to Joseph.

 

[Robert Comsol]

However, giving the deck plans of the secondary hull the same circular symmetry as the deck plans of the saucer section, in defiance of the different axis of symmetry that the secondary hull has, isn't a step towards a plausible set of fully fleshed-out deck plans.

Assuming you are referring to my deck plan project (inspired by Franz Joseph, thanks) I thought I made it abundantly clear that the mission goal is first and foremost to recreate deck plans that are accurate, i.e. as seen onscreen.

As an individual of the 20th Century I don't know why Starfleet engineers of the 23rd Century would design the engineering hull like that and given my 20th Century bias I don't like the look of it but either I reproduce it the way it is or design futuristic concepts of my own if I think I know and can do better...

Where did I ever say I had the ability to read the mind of a dead man?
I merely quoted from his interviews and presented valid and multiple-choice conclusions based on the observed facts. But I'm open to listen to other conclusions.

This thread has vividly revealed that when it comes to the person of Franz Joseph the amount of excuses on his behalf is impressive.

Yet, when we take this one production sketch of Matt Jefferies, the father and creator of the Enterprise and participant of the actual and original production, I had to endure comments that suggested his preproduction sketch (the one saying NCC-1701 = first in the series) to be some kind of fake or fraud.

When derivative work of people that were not involved with the actual production starts to outrank and supercede the actual work and value of the people that brought us Star Trek, there is something very, very wrong with this picture.

Bob

 

[CorporalCaptain]

However, giving the deck plans of the secondary hull the same circular symmetry as the deck plans of the saucer section, in defiance of the different axis of symmetry that the secondary hull has, isn't a step towards a plausible set of fully fleshed-out deck plans.

Assuming you are referring to my deck plan project (inspired by Franz Joseph, thanks) I thought I made it abundantly clear that the mission goal is first and foremost to recreate deck plans that are accurate, i.e. as seen onscreen.

There's no re-creation involved there, since deck plans never existed to begin with, as far as anyone has been able to credibly determine.

 

[aridas sofia]

Where did I ever say I had the ability to read the mind of a dead man?
I merely quoted from his interviews and presented valid and multiple-choice conclusions based on the observed facts. But I'm open to listen to other conclusions.

If you ever quoted the man I have missed it. If you quote him and then provide what you identify as your own interpretation of the quote, you won't hear from me unless I find your interpretation so lacking in foundation as to demand rebuttal. This is a pretty open floor. All kinds of ideas get tossed out here. One has to be seriously deficient to stir me to post. Your ideas- even those with which I disagree- are not the problem. It is your inference that you know the motives of someone who, on the subjects you are discussing, didn't leave us a record of his motives.

You protest:

This thread has vividly revealed that when it comes to the person of Franz Joseph the amount of excuses on his behalf is impressive.

You are the author of these "excuses", by virtue of your own claims to knowing things you cannot know. If you had the courage to simply put forth your own ideas as such without the need for tearing down what came before you, you would not prompt others to expend energy not on discussing your work, but on discussing your undefensible claims.

If you feel an ongoing need to tear down what you believe to be the remnants of dead Franz Joseph's "reputation" in order to make room for what you wish to present as an alternative, then go to the Trekplace interviews and quote accurately and in context and identify your assessment of the quotes as that- your assessment. Tell us your qualifications - drafting experience, aerospace degrees, whatever- so we might weigh them against his. And let your ideas stand on their own in contrast to the quotes without the need for this Schnaubelt-bashing you refuse to stop.

 

[Irishman]

Guys, I think you need to just agree to disagree about FJ's motives and mindset. You're both set in what you believe, and all the beating each other over the head with blunt objects won't change your minds.

Neither of you is wrong. It's just interpretation of interpretation.

Actually, in this case aridas is pretty clearly right, because his position doesn't actually require the ascription of unknowable motives or attitudes to Joseph.

I am attempting to broker a peace among well-meaning men.

 

[aridas sofia]

I appreciate that. I know you mean well. We have these discussions going on from time to time about various aspects of Trek fandom that probably are only understood by people who were interested in this stuff back in the 60s and 70s. Right there we have the potential for conflict among posters that feel strongly and those that don't get what all the fuss is about. Franz Joseph's work is certainly one of those subjects. To discuss it fruitfully we need to stick to facts or identify our opinions as such or the discussion will quickly devolve. So while I appreciate your intent, believe it or not, I'm doing the same thing. Unsubstantiated BS fills the internet and this BBS is not immune. But the FJ discussions actually interest me so I'd like to see minimized the same old claims of illegitimacy made by posters that can't be troubled to actually seek out, read and post quotes in context. Reading yet another post saying FJ didn't get it right doesn't add much to a discussion, particularly if there is some indication FJ wasn't trying to get it "right". Let's discuss what he was actually trying to do and why. When I read this thread I sometimes feel as if I am with someone complaining their Mcdonald's hamburger isn't Ruth's Chris steak. The Technical Manual is what it is. Assess it as such and not as the "Art of TOS" book Matt Jefferies never made.

 

[TIN_MAN]

So, like, would we go with colour this time? Hmm?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think we should.

 

[Warped9]

Next question: should it be done as if it were still the mid '70s or done with the benefit of forty years of hindsight and improved resources (while still keeping it TOS centric)?

 

[Shawnster]

Next question: should it be done as if it were still the mid '70s or done with the benefit of forty years of hindsight and improved resources (while still keeping it TOS centric)?

Compromise. Style wise the graphics can be made from a 21st century point of view (color, 3D models, layout, etc...) Content wise keep it TOS specific. Only use information from subsequent series when the information isn't mentioned in TOS (such as a galaxy map, the location of the Romulans in relation to the Klingons, the name of Koloth's ship from Trouble with Tribbles/Trials and Tribbilations, etc...)

Oh, and include TAS and TMP at least.

That's my suggestion.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Next question: should it be done as if it were still the mid '70s or done with the benefit of forty years of hindsight and improved resources (while still keeping it TOS centric)?

Well, a corrected FJ tech manual could be done from a 70's era esthetic, but a “from scratch” TOS tech manual would be better with 20/20 hindsight.

 

[Warped9]

Were I to do this my content would be late 20th century to TMP era (including TAS since it's essentially the TOS era).

Since FJ did show us things that were never seen onscreen one could build on that to a limited extent in that I would include some things as long as they were consistent with what we saw. Of the new ship classes he showed us I really didn't care for the transport/tug or the dreadnought. I'd drop the FJ transport/tug and show one similar to what Masao has on his Starfleet Museum site in addition to showing the freighters seen in TAS. I'd drop the dreadnought and show a Surya type frigate instead.

I would include a limited number of pre TOS era ships to give something of an overall feel for those eras without trying to fill in every blank. Ditoo with alien vessels such as early Romulan and Klingon ships.

I will say right out that if I were doing this (and I conceivably might) I would be totally ignoring things seen and ENT and FC. I just think they really dropped the ball on those. The only thing I ever saw in ENT I liked were their Romulan Warbirds and only because they actually looked TMP era rather than pre TOS. Masao has done a much better job in regard to 22nd century Romulan ship designs.

 

[jaygibson77]

I started doing one of my own focusing on the original series, animated and the motion picture. Add in a little from Enterprise and The Cage. Main focus, of course, on the original series.

I just started going through the various manuals with the FJ manual and Mandel's Officer's Manual as the keys. Even if I knew some things were later contradicted by later films/series, I kept a few apocryphal items.

Changing almost all illustrations with color. Keeping the fonts. Keeping the styles. But torn ... I want to update it, but like the old Enterprise, it has so much charm. On the other hand, I think about that one gizmo McCoy had that was clearly a 60s microphone and I cringe.

 

[FalTorPan]

I'm opposed to "updating" the Tech Manual in ways that many describe: lifting stuff that, by arbitrary criteria, is "good" and replacing stuff that, by arbitrary criteria, is "bad." The Tech Manual is one person's interpretation and extrapolation of a world very vaguely suggested in a TV show. I'm all for seeing other people's takes on the same topic, but don't "create" one by hacking someone else's. If you think you can do better, then do it, but make it entirely yours, and not a half-Frankensteined and thus half-hearted effort. I look forward to reading and quite possibly liking your take, too.

 

[Warped9]

I'm opposed to "updating" the Tech Manual in ways that many describe: lifting stuff that, by arbitrary criteria, is "good" and replacing stuff that, by arbitrary criteria, is "bad." The Tech Manual is one person's interpretation and extrapolation of a world very vaguely suggested in a TV show. I'm all for seeing other people's takes on the same topic, but don't "create" one by hacking someone else's. If you think you can do better, then do it, but make it entirely yours, and not a half-Frankensteined and thus half-hearted effort. I look forward to reading and quite possibly liking your take, too.

Well in truth no one can replace the original. It will always be there.

 

[Mysterion]

I'm opposed to "updating" the Tech Manual in ways that many describe: lifting stuff that, by arbitrary criteria, is "good" and replacing stuff that, by arbitrary criteria, is "bad." The Tech Manual is one person's interpretation and extrapolation of a world very vaguely suggested in a TV show. I'm all for seeing other people's takes on the same topic, but don't "create" one by hacking someone else's. If you think you can do better, then do it, but make it entirely yours, and not a half-Frankensteined and thus half-hearted effort. I look forward to reading and quite possibly liking your take, too.

Well said! If it is to be donem, than start from scratch and the source material (i.e. the actual episodes). Let the FJTM be the FJTM, and begin again.

 

[FalTorPan]

I'm opposed to "updating" the Tech Manual in ways that many describe: lifting stuff that, by arbitrary criteria, is "good" and replacing stuff that, by arbitrary criteria, is "bad." The Tech Manual is one person's interpretation and extrapolation of a world very vaguely suggested in a TV show. I'm all for seeing other people's takes on the same topic, but don't "create" one by hacking someone else's. If you think you can do better, then do it, but make it entirely yours, and not a half-Frankensteined and thus half-hearted effort. I look forward to reading and quite possibly liking your take, too.

Well in truth no one can replace the original. It will always be there.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

 

[publiusr]

The more manuals the better.