I think its because of the Star Trek Canon Policy. If its not canon, why really care? They should make the tech books canon and make them companion books with extra info that count in the Trek Universe than making that glossy monster.
USS ENTERPRISE HAYNES OWNERS MANUAL (Part 3)
- Thread starter Starlock
- Start date
I think another issue is that most people working on Trek do have the tendency to do very rushed and inaccurate jobs.
Nobody really knows how many decks the Enterprise-E has, and the cutaway on the bridge doesn't match the exterior, and the script says something entirely different, from movie to movie, for example.
Because the attitude while working on the project was "Who cares" to begin with, because there's always budget restrictions and way to tight deadlines.
I don't really get that vibe from the people working for Star Wars.
Maybe it's because Lucas had his hands in every minute of Star Wars, and maybe he actually cares more about it than any producer on Trek. Or they have less budget restrictions and less tight dealines because it's all under Lucas control (and not the Roddenberry/Berman/Bennett/Winter begging Paramount for money drama). I don't know. But it doesn't matter. What matters to me is the end product. And regarding the behind the scene books, Star Wars wins.
I can start Monday.
That's from the Deep Space Nine Technical Manuel, it's full of those illustrations. It's a really nice book, shame the Voyager one never came to pass.
I like all the technical stuff along with cutaways. I was disappointed with what they used in the book in terms of art combined with photos. That doesn't mix well. The fact that they didn't even include art that they used to promote the book with doesn't sit well with me either as has been brought up in the thread earlier. For all the delays and hype (at least in here) this wasn't worth it. I'm sure they intended it for all fans to enjoy, but the hardcore tech fan it wasn't what we wanted out of the book. I too doubt that we'll get another edition or any other kind of technical manual/coffee table book.
I would agree that Art of Star Trek was great. Maybe after the sequel comes out we will get a "Star Trek" manual but doubt that since they nixed all the New Enterprise material from the book. Probably just as well given what they included in the book.
I would agree that Art of Star Trek was great. Maybe after the sequel comes out we will get a "Star Trek" manual but doubt that since they nixed all the New Enterprise material from the book. Probably just as well given what they included in the book.
Heck, even as someone who hated the show, I'd have bought that!
Actually, I requested he sign it that way. It's one of the centerpieces of my Trek collection.
EDIT: Oops, had forgotten I had already replied to this... oh well.
He said "Moderate"... and you would do a bunch of stuff just to piss the rest of us off. :P Like, NCC-01701, or something. :P
Well the library finally has copies of the book in and yes I decided since they did to request it. It's free and I don't have to pay for it to flip through it, so I decided what the hell.
Moi?
Or speak in French!!! See?! SEE?!
A fan generated book could be very interesting, but it could also likely be very problematic because of widely differing interpretations of the source material that is available.
When speculating and trying to "fill in the blanks" there's a tendency to insert things that an individual likes, but might not be supported by what is onscreen. I've done the same thing myself. The most obvious example is my treatment of the TOS shuttlecraft's forward viewports. There's absolutely no way to reconcile the viewports size and positioning as seen from inside with how they're shown on the exterior. To marry them up something has to give and then you're changing the look of the exterior and/or the interior, and this includes the angle of the interior forward bulkhead.
My approach was to leave the viewport panels exactly as we see them both inside and out and only reinterpret what we were actually seeing, that they were actually display monitors and not actual windows.
But strictly speaking someone could really disagree with that.
The forward facing or offset bridge is another contentious issue because we get somewhat contradictory evidence onscreen. The exterior of the ship argues for an offset bridge to reconcile with the bridge's design and position of the turbolift, but that iconic visual shot of us zooming in on the bridge (from "The Cage") seems to argue for a forward facing arrangement. The final item is that Cage shot also argues that the bridge isn't sunk down into the next deck. It's all quite contradictory. If I were doing it I'd have to figure out exactly how much room I've got and how best does the bridge fit into it. Also as off putting as some may find the idea of an offset bridge is it any more reasonable to accept the idea of an offset turbolift shaft not on the ship's centerline?
At this point no one has convinced me which one is absolutely correct although I'd say the offset arrangement seems a bit more logical with the available evidence.
When speculating and trying to "fill in the blanks" there's a tendency to insert things that an individual likes, but might not be supported by what is onscreen. I've done the same thing myself. The most obvious example is my treatment of the TOS shuttlecraft's forward viewports. There's absolutely no way to reconcile the viewports size and positioning as seen from inside with how they're shown on the exterior. To marry them up something has to give and then you're changing the look of the exterior and/or the interior, and this includes the angle of the interior forward bulkhead.
My approach was to leave the viewport panels exactly as we see them both inside and out and only reinterpret what we were actually seeing, that they were actually display monitors and not actual windows.
But strictly speaking someone could really disagree with that.
The forward facing or offset bridge is another contentious issue because we get somewhat contradictory evidence onscreen. The exterior of the ship argues for an offset bridge to reconcile with the bridge's design and position of the turbolift, but that iconic visual shot of us zooming in on the bridge (from "The Cage") seems to argue for a forward facing arrangement. The final item is that Cage shot also argues that the bridge isn't sunk down into the next deck. It's all quite contradictory. If I were doing it I'd have to figure out exactly how much room I've got and how best does the bridge fit into it. Also as off putting as some may find the idea of an offset bridge is it any more reasonable to accept the idea of an offset turbolift shaft not on the ship's centerline?
At this point no one has convinced me which one is absolutely correct although I'd say the offset arrangement seems a bit more logical with the available evidence.
Last edited:
Oh! And I neglected to mention the size of the hangar deck...and the location of Main Engineering.
Don't forget about the contested location of Finney's ion pod! 
Certainly there was on the refitted ST:TMP version. Fan extra and writer Dennis Fischer wrote of seeing the signage for the bowling alley when they were filming on the rec deck.