USS ENTERPRISE HAYNES OWNERS MANUAL (Part 3)

[TIN_MAN]

You could probably pick a handful of talented folks from those frequenting the TBBS alone and they'd do a better job of this kind of materiel.

Actually, I've been thinking lately, this would be a neat collaborative effort for folks here at TBBS for a TOS (and/or other) tech manuel, by and for fans? Something along the lines of a TOS era version of "Mr. Scott's guide to the Enterprise" with some basic diagrams and cross sections, plus a few photos and maybe even a few of MJ's original concept sketches?

We could use Warped 9's shuttle(s), Shaw's pressure comp. diagrams etc., and stuff from anybody else who has something cool to contribute, (CRA, Aridas?).

This would not only be far more "accurate" than anything on the market, but could stand out as an example to those who would publish future "Tech Manuals" of what it is we are looking for and would be willing to spend our money for, (sort of like free "market analysis" )?

Anywhoo, just a thought, carry on.

 

[Warped9]

^^ One of these days I'll get around to having my idea for a website put up and your suggestion is close to what I have in mind for part of it.

There's work going on presently in the Arts forum that when complete could give us an incredibly well thought out 3D cutaway of the TOS E.

 

[TIN_MAN]

^^ One of these days I'll get around to having my idea for a website put up and your suggestion is close to what I have in mind for part of it.

Kewel!

 

[Warped9]

havoc92 and blssedwlf are each creating very cool deck-by-deck 3D plans of the TOS E. I'm a little more partial to blssedwlf's because his looks more like the ship onscreen while havoc92's is based on FJ's blueprints.

And Shaw and aridas and CRA and others have done amazing work laying out the ship and getting everything to fit.

 

[Admiral_Young]

It's too bad that Pocket Books doesn't retain artists the way say LucasBooks does for Chris Trevas and the folks who have done the Rebel and Star Wars blueprints which are really awesome. Those seem to sell fairly well.

 

[Warped9]

The little I've seen of the Star Wars tech stuff looks really good. I've got the Star Wars Essential Guide To Vehicles And Vessels which I got cheaply and it was fun to go through. But I'm also thinking of the art books with technical illustrations and cutaways that I could drool over.

Mind you I don't think SW tech has ever been as scrutinized as Trek. Then again while I have a passing interest in SW tech it's nowhere near as strong as my interest in Trek.

 

[JarodRussell]

The little I've seen of the Star Wars tech stuff looks really good. I've got the Star Wars Essential Guide To Vehicles And Vessels which I got cheaply and it was fun to go through. But I'm also thinking of the art books with technical illustrations and cutaways that I could drool over.

Oh those are heavily inaccurate, too.

 

[Warped9]

The little I've seen of the Star Wars tech stuff looks really good. I've got the Star Wars Essential Guide To Vehicles And Vessels which I got cheaply and it was fun to go through. But I'm also thinking of the art books with technical illustrations and cutaways that I could drool over.

Oh those are heavily inaccurate, too.

You see, not being nearly as familiar with Star Wars tech I'd never know without comparing the illustrations to the onscreen models.

 

[JarodRussell]

The little I've seen of the Star Wars tech stuff looks really good. I've got the Star Wars Essential Guide To Vehicles And Vessels which I got cheaply and it was fun to go through. But I'm also thinking of the art books with technical illustrations and cutaways that I could drool over.

Oh those are heavily inaccurate, too.

You see, not being nearly as familiar with Star Wars tech I'd never know without comparing the illustrations to the onscreen models.

Should make you think about the Trek books.

Only a tiny percentage cares, the rest is perfectly satisfied.

 

[Warped9]

Oh those are heavily inaccurate, too.

You see, not being nearly as familiar with Star Wars tech I'd never know without comparing the illustrations to the onscreen models.

Should make you think about the Trek books.

Only a tiny percentage cares, the rest is perfectly satisfied.

Oh, I get that. But with knowledge comes a more critical eye.

 

[Captain Robert April]

We'd have problems putting me and Aridas on this. He still clings to the FJ model of power generated in the nacelles and Engineering in the primary hull and an offset bridge, while I'm firmly in the camp of Engineering and M/ARC in the secondary hull and a forward facing bridge. We'd be too busy screaming at each other to get anything done.

 

[JarodRussell]

We'd be too busy screaming at each other to get anything done.

I think that's also the main concern what artists publishers want. Those who produce the art of good quality within deadline.

I go so far to say that none of the fan artists are able to produce these kind of artworks in the very little time the pros get.

 

[Warped9]

We'd have problems putting me and Aridas on this. He still clings to the FJ model of power generated in the nacelles and Engineering in the primary hull and an offset bridge, while I'm firmly in the camp of Engineering and M/ARC in the secondary hull and a forward facing bridge. We'd be too busy screaming at each other to get anything done.

Well since I'd be arbiter of what gets on my site I'd get to decide.

I don't really have a problem with a forward facing bridge IF it can be made to fit. And I have seen ideas that would allow this. Of course it also means Deck 2 is reserved strictly for little people like Balok and Alexander sized.

Who else around here has done a deck arrangement for the TOS E? Didn't Professor Moriarty do one? And I thought there was someone else as well.

 

[Unicron]

It's too bad that Pocket Books doesn't retain artists the way say LucasBooks does for Chris Trevas and the folks who have done the Rebel and Star Wars blueprints which are really awesome. Those seem to sell fairly well.

While I'd imagine "canon" isn't necessarily a huge concern to those involved in the production process, and I know Gene's original policy isn't really considered a binding law, I sometimes feel like it may have had the (unintended and unfortunate) effect of screwing the pooch when it comes to non-televised materials. I think some fans are uncomfortable with the notion that stuff in a book might be ignored simply because it can be ignored by the TV and movie staffs, and technical stuff is lucky to get printed at all. Then if it doesn't sell well or attract enough interest, the publisher concludes that "tech books don't sell." I feel like there's some phobia that the studio would be hogtied to obey details set in print or they'd have a proverbial gun to their head or something, when that's not the case at all. The books would simply benefit more from a higher level of official support the way Lucasfilm does the EGs and other reference books for SW. Even if George Lucas officially decided to throw their continuity out the window, fans would still get a lot of enjoyment of them.

 

[Warped9]

I never considered FJ's work official, but I felt it was a fair indication of something parallel or similar in TOS' "reality." And in TMP there was a spoken reference to two ships listed in FJ's technical manual.

 

[TIN_MAN]

I never considered FJ's work official, but I felt it was a fair indication of something parallel or similar in TOS' "reality." And in TMP there was a spoken reference to two ships listed in FJ's technical manual.

Not only that, but there were images of FJ's blueprints seen on screen, most notably (and visably) the 36* offset bridge.

But I dont think that makes them official, any more than I think Drexlers specs from "In a Mirror Darkly" are "official" just because they were onscreen.

 

[Unicron]

Ultimately to me it matters more how good the quality is. As Warped mentioned, there are some fans who've done some very outstanding work on technical stuff and who'd probably kick butt if they were actually on the studio staff. I'll admit that it bugs me when a work like the DS9 TM comes out, which contains good info coupled with more than a few blatantly wrong details or things that unclear (starship details). There's also a bit too much technobabble IMO compared to how the TNG TM was written.

I think one of the worst mistakes the studio heads could make is to believe that the full details can only be fleshed out on the screen in a "canonical" format, because that's simply impossible. The SW franchise has proven to be remarkably consistent in the range of details that cover that universe, and their timeline doesn't even use years or specific dates. Why couldn't the same apply to Star Trek, ideally speaking?

 

[kkozoriz1]

Three ships actually, Columbia, Revere and Entente.

 

[Captain Robert April]

^ More specifically, three ships with the same names and registry numbers, but with no visuals of those ships, there's no guarantee that the ships mentioned bear any resemblance whatsoever to FJ's versions.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I've always agreed with Warped 9 that fans creations are generally better than "official" publications due to the degree of time and passion that fans put into their work. Ultimately this will always be the case. Until we get Pocket Books to produce another technical manual from Sternbach and Okuda everything else including the Haynes Manual will be inferior I think in many fans eyes. I was willing to give it a chance but now that it's not even available to order or buy at Chapters ( I talked with someone at Chapters and she thinks it is something to do with the publisher, maybe they've not sent their stock out yet).