RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,413
Posts: 5,360,110
Members: 24,632
Currently online: 438
Newest member: shrutidhrma


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 Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 19 2014, 03:38 PM   #151
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Great Scott!
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline  
Old March 20 2014, 12:09 AM   #152
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Well, you all can go on discrediting the authenticity of the conference lounge sculpture wall of the Enterprise-D any way you want.

The proportions of the core elements (Primary & Secondary Hull, warp nacelles) are concise enough to clearly distinct the ships from each other. Had the aircraft carrier CVN-65 been displayed inaccurately, with World War III etc. in between, that might be understandable.
But to think that the immediate predecessor to the Enterprise-D, a starship from the 24th Century, should be the only one where the look is intentionally or accidentally falsified, is rather hilarious, IMHO. (especially since it is the one sculpture that most faithfully represents the original Probert specifications, see side views below).

Thanks to Patrickivan for having me granted asylum in his thread. The following schematic was inspired by him wondering how to piece the different realities together. It's one thing to write and think about it, it's another one to illustrate and see it. I hope this helps understanding what I have been talking about (presentation is somewhat crude, but I think it's the content that matters).



Since this is just a schematic for orientation, I wanted to see myself how big the Sternbach design would be next to the Probert one if the height of the warp engines were matched (no malicious intent to make the ship appear smaller, this is not a p**** contest).

So, if you - like myself - don't want to watch the first 4 seasons of TNG and feel your viewing experience spoiled each time there is a conference lounge scene with that "falsified" Enterprise-C, all you need to do is to accept the screenplay writer's and director's "Redemption II" statements and those they made Guinan and Sela say at face value, et voilà you can have cake and eat it, too (both designs are "real") - and at the same time stop worrying about the "unplugged [plot]holes" (Michael Piller) of "Yesterday's Enterprise".

Bob

P.S.

Now can we please have a model kit of the other "real" Enterprise-C, too?
__________________
"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; March 20 2014 at 12:46 AM.
Robert Comsol is offline  
Old March 20 2014, 01:28 AM   #153
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Which is all still just your own, rather silly, pointless opinion. Only now with more crayon drawings, well, near enough.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline  
Old March 20 2014, 06:13 AM   #154
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Which is all still just your own, rather silly, pointless opinion. Only now with more crayon drawings, well, near enough.
Well, the good news is that now that he has completely, totally and utterly convinced himself of his own opinion, perhaps this will be the last we hear about this. As for myself, I've changed my avatar because, well, I really don't give a shit about this topic anymore.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old March 20 2014, 03:40 PM   #155
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Perhaps this will be the last we hear about this.
I doubt it
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline  
Old March 20 2014, 04:07 PM   #156
Manticore
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Manticore
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

The point of divergence between the Prime Universe and the War Universe was the -C disappearing. That was made explicit in the episode. In what possible way can it be interpreted in any other way?
__________________
Lord Vorkosigan does not always get what he wants.
WWJAD
Manticore is offline  
Old March 20 2014, 05:34 PM   #157
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

The temporal rift never closes mid-episode and continuously connects the two time periods, which, IMO, explicitly means there are only two time periods.
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline  
Old March 20 2014, 06:31 PM   #158
urbandefault
Captain
 
urbandefault's Avatar
 
Location: Chicken pot, chicken pot, chicken pot pie!
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Ok, so now I'm confused. Which alternative universe is the final scene from?

__________________
"Hello pants." - Gary Busey
urbandefault is offline  
Old March 20 2014, 07:56 PM   #159
Tom Hendricks
Commodore
 
Tom Hendricks's Avatar
 
Location: Syracuse NY
View Tom Hendricks's Twitter Profile
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

It was a mistake, that's all.
__________________
I am a child of the universe. I will walk gently and true

Of course I'm a creationist. I believe man created god.
Tom Hendricks is offline  
Old March 21 2014, 12:04 AM   #160
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: shore leave in La Baule, France
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Manticore wrote: View Post
The point of divergence between the Prime Universe and the War Universe was the -C disappearing. That was made explicit in the episode. In what possible way can it be interpreted in any other way?
Yes, that was the premise of "Yesterday's Enterprise" and has been published and propagated in various media, so most people think of an alternate, i.e. changed time line of our universe.

Now, Ronald Moore and David Carson, assuming that Tasha Yar did have her meaningful death at Narendra III in "Yesterday's Enterprise" were confronted with the idea to bring back Denise Crosby again in "Redemption II", this time as her daughter.

Of course, with the premise of "Yesterday's Enterprise" (just a changed time line) and the meaningful death of Tasha Yar defending the Klingon outpost at Narendra III she obviously couldn't have children after that.

So both scriptwriter and director of "Yesterday's Enterprise" apparently decided to relocate the events of "Yesterday's Enterprise" into a parallel universe to solve the riddle and to avoid answering hard questions how the Tasha that went to the past in YE wouldn't be kept under lock and key the moment the Romulans captured her.

And Guinan's and Sela's statements in "Redemption II" do suggest that the Enterprise-C that arrived back in "our" universe came from another parallel universe that was not the one featured in YE (i.e. if you take these statements at face value and notice the absence of evidence to the contrary).

Shortly after having finished "Redemption II" David Carson talked about his portrayal of an "Enterprise at war" in "Yesterday's Enterprise" "parallel time line". The defining characteristic of parallel lines are that they never meet or connect!

And again in 2008: "So, with eight days to go, we all gathered around this big conference table in the Star Trek offices and looked at an outline, and this outline was Yesterday’s Enterprise. But it was incredibly complicated, this outline, because it involved having two bridges of the Enterprise, turning everything around and making it a completely different parallel universe, and building up ships and things like that."

What seemed to be just a changed time line of our universe to the protagonists in YE, apparently turned out by retroactive continuity to be actually a parallel universe according to the premise change of "Redemption II". And such a thing, of course, would have interesting ramifications regarding the status of the Enterprise-C.

@ Tom Hendricks

Do we know it was just a mistake? Admittedly, it probably was because of a hectic shooting schedule and short availability of Whoopi Goldberg, but how long would it take a good tailor to remove these patched-on "universe at war" sleeves?

The scene has an interesting touch of ambiguity, IMHO.

If the transformation process at the beginning of "Yesterday's Enterprise" were symmetrical, shouldn't Geordi still be in engineering in the "restored time line" rather than in Ten Forward?

And if the only events we saw in "Yesterday's Enterprise" concerning our universe were at the very beginning and very end, did Geordi come to Ten Forward the moment Worf left?

Back in the TOS Enterprise deck layout discussions a while ago, the agreed upon approach was to only take studio set shots literal that were not interrupted by an editing cut.

Assuming that events occurred simultaneously in several parallel universes (the "volley of photon torpedos" could have occurred at the same spot in multiple universes, think "All Good Things", and thus created the temporal rift), it's unlikely - but not impossible - that "our" Guinan called "our" bridge same as "another" Guinan in a parallel universe, but that the closing shot in Ten Forward featured this other Guinan and another Geordi (maybe even in the universe where Picard ordered Tasha to go to the past. So Guinan invites Geordi because he's gonna be the next to be ordered to sacrifice himself...). Now that was just some wild speculation.

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 March 21 2014, 12:37 AM   #161
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

See the end of Stargate:SG1's "Moebius" where O'Neill says, "Close enough."

When Yar went back in time with the E-C apparently it made a subtle change to some uniforms in the TNG timeline

urbandefault wrote: View Post
Ok, so now I'm confused. Which alternative universe is the final scene from?

__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 21 2014, 07:54 AM   #162
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

urbandefault wrote: View Post
Ok, so now I'm confused. Which alternative universe is the final scene from?

Ya, that's called a "mistake."
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old March 21 2014, 08:10 AM   #163
largo
Fleet Captain
 
largo's Avatar
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

but is it the sort of mistake which just gets brushed off, or the kind of mistake which fandom turns into an epic confabulation of alternate timestreams and a conspiracy between section 31 and a doomsday machine given artificial intelligence by the borg, with a side-plot of picard and vash stealing the plans for a klingon omni-isophasic super-weapon?

because, after the rest of this entire thread, that's totally not clear.
__________________
SIG 1701-A
largo is offline  
Old March 21 2014, 10:54 AM   #164
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

We're way past the point where anyone's mind will be changed, but...

Perhaps think of it as a recasting. When the Enterprise-C was a minor, nonspeaking background part, she was played by a rough Andy Probert design. But when her role was greatly expanded for an episode, they brought in Rick Sternbach's model to take over the role. This one continued to be the "face" of the Enterprise-C in all subsequent appearances, in the same way that Robin Curtis' Saavik did once she took over from Kirstie Alley, or how James Cromwell's Cochrane became the incarnation of the character post-FC.

Sometimes the Doylist interpretation (link) really is the easiest way to look at things.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is online now  
Old March 21 2014, 12:20 PM   #165
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
We're way past the point where anyone's mind will be changed, but...

Perhaps think of it as a recasting. When the Enterprise-C was a minor, nonspeaking background part, she was played by a rough Andy Probert design. But when her role was greatly expanded for an episode, they brought in Rick Sternbach's model to take over the role. This one continued to be the "face" of the Enterprise-C in all subsequent appearances, in the same way that Robin Curtis' Saavik did once she took over from Kirstie Alley, or how James Cromwell's Cochrane became the incarnation of the character post-FC.

Sometimes the Doylist interpretation (link) really is the easiest way to look at things.
And pretty much what that boils down to, is that people have to take some things with a grain of salt. It's fine to speculate and create our "what-ifs", but it's certainly nothing for people to get bent out of shape over.

Re: Cochrane... One thing was a constant between the two actors. They both confirmed Cochrane was butt ugly.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

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 10:23 AM.

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