Thanks. Glad you like it.
USS ENTERPRISE HAYNES OWNERS MANUAL (Part 3)
- Thread starter Starlock
- Start date
Thanks. Glad you like it.
I finally got a hold of the book this afternoon and I am far from impressed. To be honest I am still reading through it but this thing doesn't hold a candle to previous tech manuals.
But the clincher for me.... after looking at the bits about the NX-01 I am a little pissed. They ripped me off and didn't even bother to acknowledge it. Granted their NX-01 cutaway basically rehashes the previous version of my deckplans (mistakes and all) but they could have at least said thanks. And I know some of you will think that I am jumping to conclusions but more than a few components, like the main deflector hardware configuration, quarters, gym area, cargo bays and turbolifts/turboshafts, all match my work. They even included my work stations in the forward compartment on A Deck! But the joke is on them. The new improved versions I have online are lightyears better then my previous version. It corrects all the mistakes (including a scaling error) and boasts input from Doug Drexler and his blog posts. But I refuse to be bitter. I will let the work, such as it is, speak for itself.
But the clincher for me.... after looking at the bits about the NX-01 I am a little pissed. They ripped me off and didn't even bother to acknowledge it. Granted their NX-01 cutaway basically rehashes the previous version of my deckplans (mistakes and all) but they could have at least said thanks. And I know some of you will think that I am jumping to conclusions but more than a few components, like the main deflector hardware configuration, quarters, gym area, cargo bays and turbolifts/turboshafts, all match my work. They even included my work stations in the forward compartment on A Deck! But the joke is on them. The new improved versions I have online are lightyears better then my previous version. It corrects all the mistakes (including a scaling error) and boasts input from Doug Drexler and his blog posts. But I refuse to be bitter. I will let the work, such as it is, speak for itself.
It's not just you, AstroSmurf... the book ripped the cutaway plans off of the SciPubTech people as well. I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed the the Okudas had a hand in such a substandard product.
There really was little to no effort in the making of this book... the fact that they ripped people off, and also just inserted some shuttle images from the 20-year-old TNG Technical Manual is proof that these people were just plain lazy, and wanted to make money.
I had mentioned earlier that I disliked how in an interview, the author had said that during a staff meeting on the project, "it had become clear that he should author this book"...
Um... NO!
At first, I thought that was just his smugness coming through, but now I see that this author didn't know shit about how to write a proper Treknical manual. I am not in any way being vain, when I say that I could do ten times better, and at this point, I'm tempted to try.
They ripped off the work of other artists, without crediting them, they lied about what images/content would be in the book, there was nothing of real substance in it, and it was woefully thin.
And they wonder why the reaction has been lackluster.
To be fair, Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach have an unfair advantage. They actually know what they're doing.
I purchased a copy, just to have a copy I leafed through it. I still consider Franz joseph's Tech manual much better
than what was published the Haynes manual is all glitz no meat. Now perhaps if they would have followed the "Anatomy of the Ship" format or even tried to emulate
Franz's tech style but just update the graphics. Still I expected more from the Haynes group.
Speaking of Anatomy of the ship
I'm trying to create a front and back cover in Scribus
I call it
Anatomy of the Starship
The Heavy Cruiser
USS Enterprise NCC-1701
than what was published the Haynes manual is all glitz no meat. Now perhaps if they would have followed the "Anatomy of the Ship" format or even tried to emulate
Franz's tech style but just update the graphics. Still I expected more from the Haynes group.
Speaking of Anatomy of the ship
I'm trying to create a front and back cover in Scribus
I call it
Anatomy of the Starship
The Heavy Cruiser
USS Enterprise NCC-1701
Okay, I can understand how a proofreader or editor might not know about your artwork (or SciPubTech's), but how do the artists themselves get away with it? I mean, it's basically plagiarism, right? Yes, Paramount & CBS own all things Trek, but that doesn't cover unique artwork. Methinks we have some artists with a desperate need for ethics training.
^^^ Apparently not, though - in the copy I have, the SPT cutaways were replaced with more monochrome line drawings, including drawings for the NX, 1701-B and -C, none of which were ever done by SPT. I'm thinking that those w/ SPT designs in them may become over-night "collector's items", as the later production-run copies don't have them.
Or maybe a visit from some really pissed off flying monkeys.
But in all seriousness, Ben Robinson and Marcus Riley should have known better. What they did was bad form and violates a basic tenant in the art world. It is sad to see basic honor going at such a low premium these days. Unfortunately Simon and Schuster are going to be the ones paying the price for it though. And I am sure the publisher's marketing department will be thrilled to find out that the book's target audience is the same one the authors screwed over to write it.
And for the record, I am not about to let this go. I am already consulting with a lawyer.
So will the fans pay for their mishaps...no more books like this. Yeah it is a shame with all the pre-hype and teasing that went on prior to release that this book has been such a big let down. Not only that, but we have accusations of plagiarism involved. It's just a shoddy book altogether. Meh. I'm sorry to hear that they maybe have stole from you AstroSmurf. Bad form indeed.
Good for you! If you need a voice to back you up in any way, count on me.
^
Yep... and the sad part is, it totally didn't have to be that way.
Yep... and the sad part is, it totally didn't have to be that way.
In short: Don't shit where you eat!
I'm sure the companies that sell the cutaway posters and such in the Star Trek magazine will be so happy that that same magazine wrote such a glowing review of a book that stole from them.
People actually believe that this extension of the CBS/Paramount PR department would be unbiased?
Almost makes ya wanna start a rival magazine, to give fans the unvarnished truth.
Almost.
Almost.
I challenge the magazine to actually print a blurb or addendum acknowledging that at LEAST there is stolen art in the book, and to put notice out there of such... I doubt they have the honesty and integrity to do so, but nevertheless, I challenge them to do so, because the people who made some of that art are also Star Trek fans who buy the magazine, so they at least owe them that much. So I put forth the challenge, whatever the outcome may be.