Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C - CLOSED - DO NOT RESTART TOPIC

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I know I'm in the minority but I like the Enterprise C we got more then the Enterprise C that Probert designed. I will say that the Probert one does flow better to the Enterprise D, if you want to connect designs.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Who said you were in the minority? The truth is that most Trek fans probably are not even aware of the existence of Probert's design, so it's not like there's really any huge debate about it, contrary to what some people would have you think.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

This illustration is very interesting, and I am pleased and grateful you posted it, but it wasn't quite what I was talking about.

People occasionally post 3D art illustrating either the Probert-designed Enterprise-C or the "Yesterday's Enterprise" -C, but I've never seen anyone post any 3D art showing either of these ships separated. By separated, I mean breaking new ground by showing what the stardrive sections and saucer sections would look like while separated. We already know what the Galaxy-class Enterprise-D looks like separated, but not either of the C's.

While we're on the subject, I have a theory (actually, a couple of them) about the "two Cs":

1: The Enterprise-C was mauled by the Romulan attackers at Nirendra III, so she was considered a "loss". (not salvageable) Since the Enterprise-C was a loss, she was not towed to a Federation spacedock to be repaired and relaunched. It was the end-of-the-line for the C. After the C was declared lost in the line of duty, the Ambassador-class starships were refit, a la TMP-style radical makeover. Other surviving Ambassador-class vessels were upgraded with renovated hulls and improved technology to look like Probert's design (call it "Ambassador, Block 2").

2: Or, perhaps a more plausible theory was that the mauled Enterprise-C was found after the Battle of Nirendra III, perhaps by the Klingons, and became a legend for defending the Klingon world. The Federation, recognizing the diplomatic value of the ship's legacy, towed the Enterprise to a safe port, completely recycled and rebuilt her as the first prototype of the "Ambassador, Block 2" design (Probert's) and put her back into service with an entirely new crew. The TMP-style-refit Enterprise-C served for another 15 years in Starfleet, bolstering Federation prestige and Klingon goodwill while the Galaxy-class starships were being developed to supplement (or to replace) the Ambassadors.

I like the second theory best.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Or we could just say that the sculpture on the wall was just a stylized version of the exact same ship, and Probert's design isn't really what the ship looked like at all, before or after. But apparently Occam's Razor isn't all that popular with diehards.

Plus, "Yesterday's Enterprise" gives the impression or even outright implication that the ship was totally destroyed. Yes, there were survivors, but they could have left the ship in escape pods or shuttles before that happened.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Someone built Andy's design in Star Trek Bridge Commander and posted a pic of a saucer separated version of his CG model on his own Facebook page (link), but I dunno if this will work for everyone.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

What a beautiful design. Definitely in my top 10.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

@ Wingsley

Here is an image of Andrew Probert's design where we can clearly see the separation lines between stardrive and saucer section, apparently the Enterprise-C wouldn't have the kind of cobra head the Enterprise-D had.

Look who's talking. For you all those background models in the Wolf 359 aftermath scene are canon, though most fans never could see this clearly onscreen. But you have close-up shots to back this up. Same applies for the Enterprise-C sculpture on the conference lounge's wall, older fans like myself knew what she was supposed to look like because the popular Official Fan Club Magazine published Andrew Probert's painting of his Ambassador Class (text annotation).



According to the shape of the main navigational deflector it's obvious that's not the same kind of starship Rick Sternbach designed.

So Rick Sternbach doesn't exclude Andrew Probert's to be "the real thing", Andrew Probert says it is, I provided extensive explanations why both designs are canon, but you feel that we should follow your lead and declare Rick Sternbach's design as the only one to be canon at the expense of Andrew Probert's based on events and the aftermath of the Battle of Narendra III which is so inconclusive that even William of Ockham wouldn't feel comfortable to apply his razor.

Considering that you have repeatedly lamented here at the BBS the constant reuse of older ships like the Excelsior in DS9 and the lack of variety in TNG and DS9 (I concur), I absolutely do not understand why you're so opposed that we may have two starship designs from the early 24th Century instead of only one!

Maybe you'd care to explain?

I agree. Had the Romulans intended to get their hands on a Federation starship they wouldn't have tried to destroy it, which Captain Garrett's description apparently suggested. I think the Romulans had biger fish to fry, i.e. to destroy the Klingon outpost near Narendra III, leave no Klingon survivors behind, and then frame the Federation for it to start a Klingon-Federation war.

Bob

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Yet again, you misunderstand. This is not a debate about "what's more canon." Both the Wolf 359 ships are just as canon as the Probert-influenced wall sculpture. The difference is that those kitbashed ships were shown as actual ships, while the sculpture was...a sculpture. Its specific design wasn't shown as an actual ship, and five pages of a self-serving "treatise" doesn't change that fact. Therefore, I have every right to feel that the sculpture is just an ill-formed representation of the "real" ship we saw in "Yesterday's Enterprise," because, well, that's the simplest and most sensible way to view it based on what we did see of the Enterprise-C.

And for the record, one does not have to be an "older" Trek fan to appreciate certain things. I was well aware of Probert's original painting back during TNG's run when I was in high school, because I also had a subscription to Starlog.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Yep, in the universe of the onscreen canon, one is a sculpture and the other is an actual starship.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

One Enterprise-C is a sculpture of a starship in the undisputed reality of "our" TNG universe, the other Enterprise-C is a starship in an alternate reality, timeline and/or universe.

The mere thought that Captain Picard, who cherishes the truth above all things (read below), would tolerate a historically inaccurate or falsified and misleading reproduction of the renowned predecessor of his Enterprise in his conference lounge, a reception place for alien guests and delicate negotiations, would reduce his principle of truth to absurdity.

Bob

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Don't be ridiculous, it's one tiny error in the background, Picard was played by an actor who couldn't give two shits what nonsense they glued to the wall, that's why he "allowed it to be there".

The Enterprise-C we see in Yesterdays Enterprise is the correct one.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

IT'S JUST A TV SHOW AND IT'S NOT CONSISTENT IN 100 DIFFERENT WAYS.

Just had to be repeated.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Exactly

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Okay, here's an explanation that may be acceptable to your sensibilities. Perhaps the inaccurate sculpture *did* bug Picard, but either he was far too busy or it didn't bother him quite enough to remember to get someone to either fix it or remove it until 2368 (5th season). That's when the wall sculpture was removed.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

One issue being overlooked:

If there were survivors aboard the Enterprise-C that were captured by the Romulans @ Nirendra, this makes it clear the C was likely severely damaged again but intact enough to house those survivors. (If the C was mauled as badly as we all envision, there's a good chance that using escape pods wouldn't be an option. Plus, unlike the escape scenario seen in DS9's "The Emissary", the C was under fire from multiple attacking ships, presumably from multiple angles. Arguably not the best time to launch extra-vehicular craft.)

So it's entirely possible the Romulans left the Enterprise-C as a "dead hulk" after capturing survivors, then the Klingons responding the Nirendra's distress call found it, turned it over to the Federation, and the Federation refit the C to the newer "Probert" spec ( a la TMP) and the newly refit and revitalized C was put back into service to maintain a visible reminder to the Klingons that the Federation defended their new allies.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

It was a piece of abstract art that Picard could have cared less about.

If the Enterprise-C was still intact (even as a dead hulk), there's no way in hell the Romulans would have just left it there. They would have either towed it back to Romulus as a trophy or to plunder whatever tech or information they could get from it, or they would have blown the ship up to cover up their doings at Narendra III, since it's doubtful they would have wanted the Federation to know about the sneak attack.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

@ Wingsley
From Redemption part 2:

And later:

Note the words used: lost and destroyed. Not the words one would typically use if the ship had a life after the battle.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Ya- I don't see any real way to pigeon hole this awesome "C" into the Trek universe without a remaster of Yesterday's Enterprise having it replace the original shown. And it's one of the rare cases that I wouldn't have an issue with it, because this one has such a more refined look.

Not that I want to diminish the great work done on the broadcast C. I love physical models. The work put in them. The permanence... The broadcast C just looks so clumsy and out of place in the design lineage next to this C.

I for one can certainly see Picard being termporarily disgruntled over the wrong C in the lounge, but instantly not caring and then just forgetting. But I don't see how designers in the 24th century of ships with artificial gravity, replicators, transporters, M/ARCs, and the ability to transcend the speed of light, would make a dumb error like putting the wrong model on a Premier Galaxy Class Starship...

So- I've always just had to take it with a grain of salt, like every other production inconsistency. What can you do until a re-master is made, eh?

ps- Yay Team Canada

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Or if you really want to have this discussion...

Just a thought:
Andy Probert's original C (the one on the wall) was the 'real' Ambassador class and all Ambassador class ships were suppose to be like it. However at the time of construction it was found that it would be too 'costly' to build and the class ship was the only one built in the original design. All other Ambassadors became the smaller ones we saw throughout the series.
End thought.

Of course in reality, time and budget constraints forced a much simpler looking ship to be designed and built. Although I do not like Andy's design that much in comparison to the one we got (I like the one on screen because it reflects all the ships before it, excluding the NX-01 for obvious reasons), Tobias did an excellent job in modeling it.

Threads like this are always wishful hoping. That being said, if the series Star Trek Renegades (with Tim Russ and Walter Koenig) gets off the ground (pun intended) and gets approval, maybe a petition to get Andy's design in the series could be started.

 

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Where is it stated that the sculptures are supposed to be accurate?