RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,597
Posts: 5,404,454
Members: 24,869
Currently online: 520
Newest member: michiko

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Gold Key Archives Vol. 2 Comic
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Cumberbatch In War Of Roses Miniseries
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Trek 3 Filming Location Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 11 2014, 04:20 AM   #31
-Brett-
Rear Admiral
 
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

The premise of one of TNG's best episodes vs. some obscure bit of wall art.

Tough one.
-Brett- is offline  
Old February 11 2014, 05:47 PM   #32
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Tough indeed but I dare to say not impossible, and though it turned busy in my real life just as I started this thread I look forward to pull this through, especially that on February 6th something popped up on YouTube (and I have absolutely nothing to do with it!) which is the best kind of encouragement I could ever think of, but if I linked it here and now the BBS member going by the name of the Cardassian antagonist would probably pump up the volume of his scatological rants, which are neither appropriate, applicable or helpful.

Although we have now seen nice close ups of these plastic ships from the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D and the intention is obvious, I hold the intentions of the original TOS & TNG producers (which I already mentioned anticipating Dukhat's "move) and the amount of screentime featuring the conference lounge of the "D" in four seasons of TNG versus the few moments of the conference lounge of the "E" in FC and NEM against that. Add to this that we never saw those plastic models close enough onscreen (I thought only that was the commonly agreed upon canon from which we should conclude our findings?) to actually read what the tags say.
In summary: for an average viewer of the episodes and films the theme of the sculpture wall in the conference lounge of the "D" is obvious (because of the aircraft carrier CVN-65) while the one of the "E" is ambiguous.

However, in the ongoing part of the treatise we will come across one interpretation that could rationalize the Probert "C" on one and the Sternbach "C" on the other sculpture display! (Remember the "Neutral Zone" and how long the Federation and the Romulans had not spoken to one another...)

Interestingly, FKnight brought up an interesting re-interpretation of the events suggested by "Yesterday's Enterprise" (although Parts II and III of this treatise will not go his direction, they will offer an alternate point of view regarding events in the episode and their causes) while at the same time I was working on an analysis on what most likely actually happened at Narendra III.

Intermission – The mission objective of the Enterprise-C

The plot premise of “Yesterday’s Enterprise” revolves around the apparent necessity of the Enterprise-C to distract the Romulan warbirds attacking (and eventually destroying) the Klingon outpost at Narendra III long enough to ensure the escape of some Klingon survivors to be able to later tell what actually happened.
  • The Romulans probably made a stealth attack with the intention to destroy the outpost, first took out the outpost’s long range communications (which wouldn’t be without historic precedent) and next any potential eye-witnesses, hoping then to somehow frame the UFP (possible with the help of the Duras family)
  • The Enterprise-C responded to the distress call (short range communications) from the Klingon outpost (during peace treaty negotiations between the United Federation of Planets and the Klingons). Starfleet, however, and apparently the Klingon High Command never learned what was going on (“other” Riker: “There's no record of the Romulans ever assaulting the Enterprise-C”)
  • The Enterprise-C arrived and engaged the four warbirds, but was crippled by a “fierce volley of photon torpedoes” and then disappeared into the future. Apparently the “C” didn’t destroy one warbird (“other” Riker: “Captain Garrett says there were four Romulan warbirds. The Enterprise-C would be outmanned and outgunned.”)
  • The Enterprise-C returned to the battle, patched up, recharged and with Tasha Yar’s tactical competence (but with just as much chances as a snowball in hell according to realistic expectations) – and must have distracted the warbirds long enough and thus enable one or some Klingon survivors to escape unnoticed by the Romulans and to tell what really happened: “Enterprise-C? She was lost at the Battle of Narendra III, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.” (Picard in “Redemption, Part II”).
  • The “C” and the Klingon outpost were destroyed by one or some of the Romulan warbirds. The survivors of the Enterprise-C were abducted to Romulus (“other” Picard: “The Narendra Three outpost was destroyed. It is regrettable that you did not succeed. A Federation starship rescuing a Klingon outpost might have averted twenty years of war.” Unlike Picard, the “other” Riker correctly grasps the situation: “That won't accomplish anything, sir. There's no way they can save Narendra III.”)
This is not explicitly what the episode suggests but the summary of bringing all the information we can get from the two episodes into a reasonable and coherent context, which answers questions instead of raising new ones (and hopefully demonstrates that I’m not exploiting what seem to be plotholes to discredit these parts of the episode on behalf of my theory).

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; February 11 2014 at 05:59 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline  
Old February 11 2014, 06:56 PM   #33
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Tough indeed but I dare to say not impossible, and though it turned busy in my real life just as I started this thread I look forward to pull this through, especially that on February 6th something popped up on YouTube (and I have absolutely nothing to do with it!) which is the best kind of encouragement I could ever think of, but if I linked it here and now the BBS member going by the name of the Cardassian antagonist would probably pump up the volume of his scatological rants, which are neither appropriate, applicable or helpful.
More drama, Bob? I'm not stopping you from posting anything, so stop insinuating that I am. And if you didn't want any criticism about your post, you should have made that clear in the OP. But because this is an effort to sway our opinions toward what you personally believe, I have every right to speak my mind and provide proof to the contrary, no matter how much you dislike having to hear it.

Although we have now seen nice close ups of these plastic ships from the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D and the intention is obvious, I hold the intentions of the original TOS & TNG producers (which I already mentioned anticipating Dukhat's "move) and the amount of screentime featuring the conference lounge of the "D" in four seasons of TNG versus the few moments of the conference lounge of the "E" in FC and NEM against that. Add to this that we never saw those plastic models close enough onscreen (I thought only that was the commonly agreed upon canon from which we should conclude our findings?) to actually read what the tags say.
In summary: for an average viewer of the episodes and films the theme of the sculpture wall in the conference lounge of the "D" is obvious (because of the aircraft carrier CVN-65) while the one of the "E" is ambiguous.
What you don't seem to grasp is that it doesn't matter who made or approved the sculptures, or how much screentime some background artwork got. Once that ship appeared in YE, that artwork was invalidated just like that. If you want to convince yourself otherwise, that's fine. But don't expect many people to agree with you, especially when you say things like "I thought only that was the commonly agreed upon canon from which we should conclude our findings?" as if there was any kind of consensus about that with the other responders.

As for your other "speculations," I'm going to take the high road here and gracefully bow out of further discussion with you, since it really serves no purpose, and let the other forum members judge for themselves what they think of your opinions.

But before I go, let me leave you all with an interesting analogy: When I was in high school, one of my physics teachers wrote this incredibly convoluted mathematical formula on the chalkboard in order to prove that 1 + 1 = 3. Once you sorted through all the complicated equations, the numbers did seem to prove what he said.

But you know what? One plus one doesn't equal three. It equals two. And no student who left class that day was convinced otherwise.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; February 12 2014 at 06:54 PM.
Dukhat is offline  
Old February 11 2014, 07:15 PM   #34
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

I think the Probert-designed Ambassador-class looks a little to close to the Galaxy-class. So I think it was a wise move to give it a bit of a redesign.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old February 12 2014, 08:22 PM   #35
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
More drama, Bob? I'm not stopping you from posting anything, so stop insinuating that I am.
Dukhat wrote: View Post
This drama you're alluding about shi***** all over Probert's design is quite unwarranted.
I'm not the one using scatology for drama and I was definitely not implying what you are suggesting.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
I have every right to speak my mind and provide proof to the contrary, no matter how much you dislike having to hear it.
You do but so do I if you please would stop minding. On the contrary - believe it or not - I appreciate someone like you arguing against my interpretations (like the Oberth Class age) so I can see whether it could stand a test or not. One of my best friends always plays devil's advocate when I confront him with a new idea, but he doesn't adopt his manners.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Let the other forum members judge for themselves what they think of your opinions.
Exactly.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
But you know what? One plus one doesn't equal three. It equals two. And no student who left class that day was convinced otherwise.
Fascinating that you mention this, because Part II of my treatise features exactly this analogy in the context of the contradicting time travel scenarios presented in Star Trek, i.e. whether we should accept that 2+2=5 or whether we rather stick with 2+2=4.
Since you seem to favor 2+2=4 you might want to hang in just a little more.

@ BillJ

Personally I think that what you suggest is exactly what was going on in the minds of the TNG producers.

I believe they were just afraid that because of the similarities between Probert's Ambassador and Galaxy Class audiences might have mistaken one for the other, considering the small TV screens of the late 1980's.

Putting the Enterprise-D next to an Excelsior Class starship definitely created the contrast to distinct one from the other but so we ended up with all these Excelsior Class starships, instead.

It may have been a good thing for general audiences, then, but from a fannish point of view I think it's lame - and would like to look forward to a "special" or "artists" edition of TNG in the future where it should be easy on any HD screen to distinct Probert's [Ambassador Class] starship design from the Enterprise-D.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline  
Old February 12 2014, 09:40 PM   #36
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

It may have been a good thing for general audiences, then, but from a fannish point of view I think it's lame - and would like to look forward to a "special" or "artists" edition of TNG in the future where it should be easy on any HD screen to distinct Probert's [Ambassador Class] starship design from the Enterprise-D.

Bob

You mean like remastered episodes in high definition on blueray where they update any effects they felt necessary? I direct you to the stickied threads in this very forum. I guess the powers that be felt it unnecessary to make such a change.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now  
Old February 13 2014, 04:47 PM   #37
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Yes. There had been some uncertainties how to proceed with TNG-R in the beginning but I think the powers that be made the right choice to present the remastering in the original aspect ratio and to recreate the VFX as faithfully as possibly to match the original presentation (and, of course, keep the option for an alternate approach in the future).
Revisiting my old TNG magazines it's interesting to often read what the artists would have liked to present, but couldn't because of time and budget restraints (and I'm not just having the issue in mind we are discussing)!
I would find it interesting to see many of those unrealized ideas come to live in a future re-release (hence I suggested some while ago to already create some "database" to be prepared when the time Comes, but this idea didn't generate a lot of interest, unfortunately).

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline  
Old February 13 2014, 04:58 PM   #38
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Part II – Alternate Realities

Is “Yesterday’s Enterprise” alternate reality just an altered time line?

“Yesterday’s Enterprise” begins in “our” familiar TNG reality. The crew discovers a strange phenomenon, and suddenly and unexpectedly the uniforms and the bridge arrangement transform, Worf vanishes and Tasha Yar is back from the dead.
Our protagonists have kept their defining personalities and characteristics, yet only remember a history of two decades of war with the Klingon Empire (and Wesley looks cool wearing a regular kind of Starfleet uniform) with only [the] Guinan, familiar with Tasha Yar for a long time and therefore “genuine” to this reality, realizing that things are somehow not the way they are supposed to be.

The (or an) Enterprise-C has travelled into the future which is a “universe at war” and where the Sternbach design is known to be the “immediate predecessor” of the “Battleship Enterprise” “1701-D”.

The Enterprise-D protagonists in both realities are unable to define what kind anomaly they are dealing with exactly and what effects it has on spacetime.
“Our” Data observes “most unusual gravimetric fluctuations”. He can’t say whether it is a wormhole or not: “Like a time displacement, but it does not have a discernible event horizon. The phenomenon does not have a definable centre or outer edge.” It seems “it is and yet it isn't there”.
The “other” Data, replying to Picard’s theory that the Enterprise-C has travelled from the past to the future, suggests: “If that hypothesis is correct, the phenomenon we just encountered would be a temporal rift in space. Possibly the formation of a Kerr loop from superstring material. It would require high-energy interactions occurring in the vicinity for such a structure to be formed. The rift is certainly not stable, Captain. It could collapse at any time.”

The one thing that’s obvious and clear is that the anomaly has characteristics of a gateway connecting the past and the future to enable the Enterprise-C to arrive from the past (and later return to it). Other possible characteristics of the anomaly remain unknown and unexplored (we see a ship of war, not scientific exploration).



But already early on it seems that the screenplay writers (too many?) were confused, unless they deliberately wanted to portray a battle-weary, fatigued and exhausted “other” Picard, considering his erratic statements in this episode:
  • “Commander, if that ship has travelled into the future, we could be dealing with variables that will alter the flow of our history.” How comes? While the ship could shed some light on the story of her disappearance, a look back into history would hardly “alter the flow of [current] history” (unless Picard won’t exclude the possibility it came from an alternate universe. Learning from an alternate universe was one concern in “In A Mirror, Darkly”)
  • “The Narendra Three outpost was destroyed. It is regrettable that you did not succeed. A Federation starship rescuing a Klingon outpost might have averted twenty years of war.” Riker: “That won't accomplish anything, sir. There's no way they can save Narendra III.” (and to assume they did would raise some hard-to-answer and hard-to-rationalize questions)
  • Riker: “But that's what you're talking about anyway, isn't it? Altering the past.”
    Picard: “We're talking about restoring the past.

    Picard: “Even their deaths might have prevented this war. If the Enterprise-C returns to the battle and its mission is a success, history will be irrevocably changed. This time line will cease to exist and a new future will have been created.”
And this is where the headaches begin, and we have a contradiction at our hands. If Picard were seriously talking about “restoring” the past and not altering or changing it, the Novikov self-consistency principle must have been on his mind, according to which the Enterprise-C either did defend the Klingon outpost to buy Klingon refuges the time to escape or it did not. It is as simple as binary language (Yes or No) or 2+2=4.

If it did not, the future looks like the “universe at war” and any attempt to change the past will somehow fail (IMHO “The [original] Twilight Zone” had a couple of very good episodes to illustrate this).

If the Enterprise-C moved forward in time and space, but “our” TNG universe is a result of her defending the outpost, she would be eventually going back in time one way or the other to ensure history will happen as it did.
The beginning of the episode shortly suggested that this was about to be happening, but probably would have only made a mediocre episode in terms of drama in contrast to the good Tasha Yarn we got instead (Maybe the appearance of this Enterprise-C in “our” reality would have constituted some kind of paradox and therefore we witnessed some cosmological self-correction process or the like?).

Wikipedia lists the TNG episode “Time’s Arrow” (canon) as a good “Novikov” example where things always happened the way they did happen (and if you’re involved you just ensure to “make it did happen” which is essentially what we saw in the TOS episode “The City on the Edge of Forever”, despite the Guardian’s “Your vessel, your beginning, all that you knew is gone”, apparently a plot device to scare Kirk, Spock and the audience and to highlight the importance that they do not fail).
The mere presence of Samuel Clemens (“Mark Twain”) in this particular time travel episode is a brilliant hint of irony, because he was the culprit (possibly for personal reasons) who gave birth to the “You could change the past” idea in 1889 before Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov replied a 100 years later “You won’t”.

While these erasing-the-present-because-the-past-has-been-changed time travel stories admittedly make good drama and entertainment (e.g. “Back to the Future”), logical sense these make not – despite claims to the contrary by Spock in TOS (my personal candidate for “the most irreconcilable plot errors in Star Trek” thread we recently saw).

The sudden transformation of solid materials, Tasha Yarn’s return from the dead, a completely new history with 22 years of events preceding the episode (unless the protagonists’ memories were implanted), it’s brief and short-lived existence in spacetime (apparently ending the moment the Enterprise-C had returned to its time) would imply the existence of some cosmological mechanism with some form of awareness capable of intelligent design which is usually attributed to our definition of God or an omnipotent being like Q.

Summary: Simply put, and as a rebuttal to Spock’s line in “The Conscience of the King” (“Even in this corner of the galaxy, Captain, two plus two equals four.”), there are corners in the Star Trek universe where 2+2 = 4 (“Time’s Arrow”) and there are those where 2+2 equals something else than 4 (especially in Cardassian interrogation centers ) as apparently suggested in “Yesterday’s Enterprise”.

One (2+2=4) is a child of logic and reason, the other (2+2=?) one of ignorance and fantasy, but is the context from where the belief has arisen that only the Enterprise-C seen in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” has to be the real thing while the one on the conference lounge wall of the Enterprise-D can’t be it.
IMHO, performing what seems to be a logical deduction (how the Enterprise-C supposedly looked in “our” universe) based on an illogical concept and/or context should be questionable and isn't really solid evidence.

Still, changing the past is possible in Star Trek but if the future departure point into the past vanishes because the past has changed, the inevitable conclusion would be a shift or whatever one may call it of the “new” past into some kind of alternate universe where a new time line unfolds.

Indeed, the distinction between alternate time line, alternate reality and alternate universe is difficult to determine and essentially they could be one and the same, “a rose by any other name”.

To be continued in Part III (Alternate Universes)…stay tuned

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline  
Old February 13 2014, 05:26 PM   #39
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

@ BillJ

Personally I think that what you suggest is exactly what was going on in the minds of the TNG producers.

I believe they were just afraid that because of the similarities between Probert's Ambassador and Galaxy Class audiences might have mistaken one for the other, considering the small TV screens of the late 1980's.

Putting the Enterprise-D next to an Excelsior Class starship definitely created the contrast to distinct one from the other but so we ended up with all these Excelsior Class starships, instead.

It may have been a good thing for general audiences, then, but from a fannish point of view I think it's lame - and would like to look forward to a "special" or "artists" edition of TNG in the future where it should be easy on any HD screen to distinct Probert's [Ambassador Class] starship design from the Enterprise-D.

Bob
I like the Ambassador-class that we saw on screen. I thought it looked like something that should've came between the Excelsior- and Galaxy-classes from a design evolution point-of-view.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline  
Old February 13 2014, 09:24 PM   #40
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Bringing this from a thread where it was getting off topic.
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
sojourner wrote: View Post
And yet, still not a sign of the divine. Your "treatise" is a case study for wishful thinking and rationalization beyond the breaking point. It's a beautiful example of "shoehorning" to no useful end as it won't have any change on canon.
I find it remarkable that you cast judgement before having read the parts that are yet to come, I clearly used Part I and Part II (posted that a few minutes ago) headings to get that across (and in case you had a preview of the draft I'd like to point out that I have changed structure and flow of the treatise to get the message better across).

In my discussions with Bernd Schneider he applied that "shoehorning" argument and used these K/S fan stories as an example for over-interpretation. While these K/S writers have no evidence for their claims, other than wishful thinking, I will present evidence. How to evaluate the evidence is another thing, suffice to say the treatise won't be without substance.

Bob

Yeah. Still not seeing any substance. The mental contortions are impressively sad though. You're manufacturing complexity to fit "evidence" together. Occam and Sherlock are facepalming. You should listen to Bernd.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now  
Old February 14 2014, 12:13 AM   #41
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

It was getting off-topic because you felt the need to dis the treatise which you should have done here. What these mental contortions are you can't or wouldn't say and Occam and Holmes would first listen to the rest before jumping to premature conclusions.

Parts III and IV are in the final stages and I just happened to find a very intriguing production detail that most definitely adds substance to Part IV.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline  
Old February 14 2014, 12:45 AM   #42
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
It was getting off-topic because you felt the need to dis the treatise which you should have done here.
I dissed it there because you brought it up there trying to attach some cosmic significance to the timing of the posted video and you finishing the first draft of your "treatise". Which is a great example of front loading coincidences. I am guessing if you hadn't finished the first draft the timing would have matched up with "finishing the draft of part 3" or " starting part 4" or some such coincidence.

ETA: nevermind. There's no point to this. Have fun writing your treatise.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...

Last edited by sojourner; February 14 2014 at 01:15 AM.
sojourner is online now  
Old February 14 2014, 03:21 AM   #43
QuinnTV
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
...with only [the] Guinan...
Why did you put [the] in there? I don't think it's proper to use a definitive article before someone's name. Before a title, yes, but I really hope you're not suggesting "Guinan" is a title.
QuinnTV is offline  
Old February 14 2014, 05:19 AM   #44
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

Just to clarify the issue of the C design. from Facebook today:
Rick Sternbach With the astoundingly short time we had to get the design blueprinted and have the miniature built - such is the reality of episodic television - I did what I could to simplify the model so that Greg Jein could fabricate it, while simultaneously trying to keep as many of the elements visible in the single color sketch as I could. We did what we could with what we had. Today, it is nice to see what the ship could have looked like, given the time and money and technology.
and...

Rick Sternbach One could certainly look at my take on the C as the rough prototype that led to the F-117A, and Andy's as the real thing. I don't have whole lot of emotional investment in canon; Trek is what's in your own personal head, so dream of the C you like best.
Straight from the designer's mouth.

No big conspiracy. Nothing about "too expensive". Limited time to fabricate = simplify design to meet deadlines.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010

Last edited by Maurice; February 14 2014 at 05:39 AM.
Maurice is offline  
Old February 14 2014, 03:29 PM   #45
Mutai Sho-Rin
Moderator
 
Mutai Sho-Rin's Avatar
 
Location: Orange, CA USA
Re: What did the Enterprise-C look like in the real TNG universe?

You know, the pissing contests occurring in this thread are getting mighty tiresome. Please don't make me close it.
__________________
Into the sands of blood comes the Sho-Rin, master of the Mutai. Babylon 5 - TKO
Mutai Sho-Rin is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
ambassador class, andrew probert, enterprise c, guinan, yesterday's enterprise

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.