Hello, one and all! I just found this Trek group, read thru the
archives and thought I'd introduce myself.
I'm predominantly more fond of TOS than any of the subsequent shows,
although the other Trek shows do have their good points. Of late,
I've been a little miffed at the short shrift that the
current "official" Trek books give to prior "official" books; for
example, in the original Enterprise blueprints (CONSTITUTION class) --
called "STAR TREK BLUEPRINTS" (drawn by Franz Joseph designs) -- as
well as the original "STAR FLEET TECHNICAL MANUAL", the other ships
of that class are listed along with their registry numbers... but in
the latest "STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA" (compiled by the Okudas) most of
these ships are given different registry numbers. It's as if the
Okudas (and, by extension, all the people "in charge" of the Trek
franchise) want us to forget all about the cool Trek stuff that was
around LONG before any of the sequel shows came about -- indeed, long
before they ever started making Trek movies. For instance, the U.S.S.
Intrepid (one of the original Constitution-class ships) was
originally given the registry number NCC-1708, but the Okudas give it
the number NCC-1631. Are we supposed to burn all our old Trek stuff,
and consider ONLY the Okuda-written Trek reference stuff "canon"?
Another case-in-point: compare the original "STAR TREK MAPS" ,
with its accompanying "INTRODUCTION TO NAVIGATION Technical Manual",
to the recently-published "STAR TREK STAR CHARTS" (by Geoffrey
Mandel). According to how the earlier work had it (with only TOS
information to go by), the coordinate system used by the UFP has its
origin at a point 216 light years away from Sol/Earth (~66 parsecs).
The galactic XYZ coordinates for Sol, on page 30 of that "Intro to
Nav" book, are (23.9, 61.8, 0.0), given in parsecs. Conveniently,
every major star system mentioned in TOS (except, strangely, Ceti
Alpha from "SPACE SEED") has its galactic XYZ coordinates listed.
Compare this book -- with all the hard work its authors/compilers put
into it -- with Mandel's "STAR CHARTS" book. Nowhere in it does
Mandel tell us how high above or below any of the stars are, in
reference to the plane of the galaxy. Nowhere is there a list of each
star system which includes the XYZ coordinates! Since stars -- unlike
cities on a spherical planet -- can be either ON a reference plane or
ABOVE it or BELOW it -- it is crucial to include such data.
Looking "down" on a map of the galaxy, two dots (indicating two
separate stars) might SEEM to be close together... but one of 'em
could be a thousand light years below the plane of the galaxy, and
the other one a thousand light years above it -- but you'd never know
it looking at their "star charts". At least the original "STAR TREK
MAPS" included both an "overhead" view of the area the Enterprise
patrolled AND a "side" view.
I've also noticed that on a website of Trek-ship schematics run by a
dude named "Gilso" (a great site, BTW), someone has posted cutaway
pics of the Enterprise from TOS which are different than Sheet 5 of
12, the "Inboard Profile" blueprint, from "STAR TREK BLUEPRINTS". As
far as I'm concerned, the magnificent blueprints from that
publication are "canon" -- and NOT the other one that's on Gilso's
site. Who gave anybody the right to imply that Franz Joseph's
blueprints are somehow NOT "canon" anymore?
Am I the only one gettin' peeved at this disturbing trend in Trekdom?
Everybody I know prefers "classic" Trek to TNG and all the other
sequel shows, despite their pluses. TOS had more pluses than these
other versions, and in spite of it being somewhat "dated"
stylistically (hair styles, etc), whenever I look at a TNG episode on
Spike TV, it amazes me how chintzy some of the special effects shots
look... how "dated" (early-to-mid 1980's) it seems now... how much
lacking in drama it was compared to TOS.
Don't get me wrong: I don't HATE either TNG, DS9, VOY, etc. They just
come across to me as inferior to TOS. Compare the music, for example,
from TOS episodes (like "THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE") with ANY episode from
TNG or later -- and there IS no comparison. TOS was far more exciting
to watch, and it's mostly because Roddenberry (in my opinion) had
less to do with making it a great show than guys like Gene Coon, Herb
Solow, and Robert Justman. Roddenberry "created" it, but the other
guys turned his "good" idea into a "great" show.
When Roddenberry finally got a chance to do Trek HIS way, we
got "STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE" and "STAR TREK: THE NEXT
GENERATION". The first movie was hardly more than a re-hash of "THE
CHANGELING" episode: a 50-minute-long exciting episode turned into a
2-hour-long boring movie. And TNG, Roddenberry's idea of how Trek
should've been all along, stupidly had this Federation battlecruiser
(!) populated by FAMILIES! Whenever their ship got attacked, these
people with military ranks wearing military uniforms, in a ship with
enough armament to destroy a planet... have to worry about hundreds
of CIVILIANS on their ship getting killed. And Roddenberry thought it
was a good idea to have a teenager flying this humongous ship
(Wesley, whom everybody I know hates)! That never would've happened
on Kirk's ship, for good reason.
TOS rules! Kirk was the best captain... the original Enterprise
(followed closely by its refitted version) was the coolest ship...
and now I'll rest my tired fingers and wish you all: Live Long and