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

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

Stories that rely heavily on time travel and convoluted sci-fi logic always open up more possibilities and divided opinions than any other type, not least because so much of it boils down to subjective interpretation. It is perhaps the episode's greatest weakness, saved only by it also being a strong character piece (with the logical gymnastics being only a vehicle to get the story going).

As a stand-alone episode in Season 3, mere time travel was undoubtedly the creators' intent, despite the S/T continuum mess it made. However, from the perspective of Season 7, with episodes like Parallels and Redemption to add the mix (not to mention other pan-dimensional weirdness that the crew encountered), the presence of other realities are at least a possibility. After all, in the original YE Tasha was never intended to survive, that only came later (complete with Marty McFly style DNA). Since it turns out she did survive, her point of origin being a close parallel universe seems a lot stronger than a temporary reality which stopped existing the second she left.

YMMV. All this is just opinion, after all

 

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

Minor side tangent, but something that's always bothered me: if Starfleet knew that Enterprise-C was definitely destroyed in 2344, why did they wait two decades before christening a new ship with the name? By rights, Enterprise-D should either be twenty years older than she was or "actually" Enterprise-E (which of course would then make Enterprise-E into Enterprise-F). I know the "real" reason is that no one knew until the episode was written, & of course they couldn't have moved Narendra II up to, say, 2358 because of course it wouldn't have jibed with Khitomer & the like, but still...just...Oo. Chaps my ass.

 

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

Thanks Mytran, nice summary that illustrates my problem drawing conclusions from such scenarios in order to push a production design over the cliff (and that problem would have been the same had it been Rick Sternbach's Enterprise-C design on that conference lounge wall). If any production design is going to be deprived of canon status, there'd better be rock solid evidence (regardless how petrified dogma has become). And if there appears to be a canon contradiction, the first duty of treknological research should be to look for a rationalization, no matter how unorthodox, IMHO.

First, I'd would be helpful if you were actually discussing some of these "convoluted leaps in logic". You did good at the beginning when we discussed the "wrapping" but it seems like that was it. To claim that it is fact that we saw the Enterprise-C in "our", the "real" TNG universe would require that the alternate reality of "Yesterday's Enterprise" is really, just and only an alternate timeline (in "our" universe), but ....

...David Carson, the director of "Yesterday's Enterprise" and its 'sequel' "Redemption, Part II" said “I particularly liked the challenge of “Yesterday’s Enterprise” because we were creating the Enterprise in a different and parallel time line: An Enterprise at war.” (Starlog ST-TNG magazine Vol. 19, Spring 1992).

A "parallel time line" is not "our" time line, it's parallel to ours (which was my suggestion at the end of Part II of the treatise), and as such it is practically indistinguishable from an alternate universe. Looks to me as if David Carson took a good look at the plotholes, and then arrived at the conclusion that the best way to make sense of the events and their aftermath was a parallel time line or universe.

I agree, that's absolutely "as simple" as it could possibly get. Yet, this depiction of time travel is as illogical as it could get, too, and doesn't address the other inevitable conclusions to be drawn from the return of this Enterprise-C to "our" universe (featured in Part IV of the treatise).

My treatise is merely a rationalization to a) enable both Enterprise-C designs to be canon (what's wrong with that?) and b) fill up the obvious plotholes which, admittedly, would come with the price tag to consider the possibility that things were a bit different than we believed.

Of course, nobody is forced to adopt any of the interpretations I presented (one of my friends preferred the Q option which he felt takes best care of all the plotholes and oddities) and everybody will anyway believe what works best for him or her.

That's quite a hoot. Where is the criticism?!? All you guys have been capable of posting thus far, is how offensive, convoluted, idiotic etc. you find the premise of my approach and act like my treatise didn't exist.
Well, it's been here and finished since a couple of days, long but divided into 5 parts to facilitate reading. http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=237559

The Trek BBS members I've come to cherish the most are not necessarily the ones who concur with me but those that voice their criticism of my ideas but with one major difference: "Sorry, Bob, it's BS because..."

Could you please elaborate, this is a criticism I take seriously. My rationalization philosophy is "First comes, first served", so if ever something requires a rationalization it shouldn't be the original (onscreen) design, but the revision that deliberately or accidentally attempts to overwrite or erase it.

In case anybody is interested or up to debating the arguments I presented in the treatise, may I suggest we continue it in the corresponding thread in the TNG section?

Bob

 

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

So, are you going to address my comments about the shuttlebay doors or just ignore them as you have every other "criticism"?

This is the problem. We bring up criticisms and examples and you "lalalala! can't hear you! you're just ignoring my arguments!".

It's sad really.

 

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

I'm trying to figure out how this whole argument started . . . where's my popcorn?



Golly! This is more entertaining than AskReddit!

 

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

Yeah, I've always had a problem with this too. It seems that at the time it was more important story-wise to focus on the Enterprise-C being the immediate predecessor of the Enterprise-D, but then all of a sudden that creates this 20 year gap that you mentioned above.

In hindsight, I think it would have been smarter to have used the Enterprise-B for YE (which at that time would have been just the regular Star Trek III Excelsior), and to have pushed back the date of the Narendra III battle to 2311 to coincide with the last Federation contact with the Romulans (the "Tomed Incident"...heck, the Tomed could have been the Romulan ship that attacked the outpost, and the destruction of a Starfleet vessel during the ambush certainly could have been seen as impetus enough to withdraw from contact instead of starting a war with both the Klingons and the Federation). That way, a lot of internal story and production issues could have been addressed better:

1. The aforementioned link between the Tomed Incident and the Narendra III attack.

2. The huge amount of money saved in not having to build a new starship model and just reuse the Excelsior could have been used to produce newer intermediate Starfleet uniforms/phasers/communicators/etc. for the Ent-B crew (or at the least, using the older movie uniforms would have been more realistic, since they would only have been less than 30 years old by 2311).

3. There would have been a much longer time span of peace between the Federation and the Klingons by the time of TNG (52 years instead of just 19).

4. Having the Enterprise-B destroyed in 2311 would have allowed the Enterprise-C to have been in service for at least 50 years before its decommissioning and the commissioning of the Enterprise-D.

5. As mentioned above, there would not have been a 20 year gap between the C's destruction and the D's commissioning.


Of course, the only real problem with pushing back the date of the attack is that Sela would have been in her mid-50's when we meet her, instead of her 20's. But even that would have been fine, since Denise Crosby was around 35 when she played Sela, and mid-50's would still have been young for a Romulan.

 

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

Maybe they retired the name Enterprise for a generation out of respect for the crew of the Ent-C, until a new class of ship came online.

 

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

Maybe, but there's every indication that the Nebula class came before the Galaxy class. If that's the case, why didn't they make a Nebula the Enteprise-D?

 

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

Really? Where's that coming from?

Want me to make something up? OK: Assuming it's right that the Nebula came first, the Nebula was in many respects just a testbed for the Galaxy class. The intent all along was for the Galaxy class to be the top-of-the-line, so they saved the most distinguished names for the Galaxy class.

 

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

Well if the TNGTM's development history is accurate, the Galaxy program was at least in the first stages of development circa 2344. That means that Starfleet already knew going in that there was going to be a magnificent new starship class coming online in the next decade or two, and therefore would probably want to "save" the name Enterprise for that one. It's not a huge stretch, really.

I mean it's the reason the USN is waiting for a Ford-class carrier to reuse the name (resulting in a 15 year wait till 2027), instead of just naming whatever new ship coming off the stocks.

 

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

There's no need to get all pissy. I was just speculating based on your post. I never said my speculation was an absolute fact; please don't confuse me with Robert Comsol.

Yeah, I knew what the TNGTM stated about that, and sure, that's a plausible explanation IRL. It's just that it was written after YE, and the explanation seems like someone just made it up as an excuse to explain the very conundrum Shik mentioned. They even used the specific date the Ent-C got destroyed as the starting point.

 

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

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as pissy. It's just that there is no answer to some of this stuff. I mean, literally, the best I can do is make something up. If I came off as pissy, it's because I know that it's paper thin and a cinch to shoot down.

But seriously, what is the basis for the theory that the Nebula class came first?

 

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

Apology accepted

I only based the idea that the Nebula came first by registry numbers. The U.S.S. Galaxy's registry is NCC-70637. I believe it was built not long before the Enterprise-D. Conversely, the vast majority of the Nebula class ships have 6XXXX regs, implying that chronologically, they were being produced before the prototype of the Galaxy class was even manufactured. Yes, there's no proof that registries are chronological, but there you go.

 

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

Gotya. Here's what Memory Alpha says:

That would seem to be consistent with both of our theories.

 

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

I fail to see how "shuttlebay doors" have any relevance to what this thread is about, i.e. the look of the Enterprise-C in "our" TNG universe. I have no intention to derail this thread, which apparently has become the choice of some participating here.

Apparently you are referring to this

Of course we do know how he feels about the issue of "historical truth" because he explicitly said so (read my signature at the bottom, it is the original quote from the episode). To even remotely suggest he didn't mean what he said about the subject of scientific, historical and personal truth, would impeach the credibility of his statement which is the title and motif of the episode "The First Duty".

First, discredit the historical accuracy of sculpture of the Enterprise-C at the expense of the original artist (Andrew Probert), next the integrity and trustworthiness of the character of Captain Picard?!? Who's next?

I'll say that's really sad.

That would be this thread I started at about the same time the CGI animation of the Enterprise-C (first post in this thread) showed up.

Bob

 

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

So. Only the inconsistencies that fit your theory need apply? Where is Picard's outrage at scientific truth here? Quit dodging. Why is he so worried about this model and not the shuttle bay doors defying physics? IF Picard is OK with the shuttlebay doors then he must be ok with a silly model being inaccurate.

Your argument of Picard's behavior does not hold.

 

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

This...REALLY makes a lot of sense. It's good. Like, "little skate fuckers" good.

"Distinguished", eh? Hm. Galaxy, Challenger, Enterprise, Yamato, Odyssey, Venture, Trinculo. Well, I'll give you 2 definitely, & 2 possibly. The rest...meh.

 

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

Regarding the discrepancy with the shuttlebay inner/outer doors, I had a magazine from the late 80s (with pullouts) that postulated two separate doors. Makes sense to me.

As to why we don't see any of the external door bulkheads etc? Well, the exterior surface of the enterprise seems to naturally exhibit some weird light-bending features. Why else would we be able to see nothing but stars out of the observation lounge windows? The saucer on which it sits is huge and fairly flat, we ought to see at least something! Probably something to do with that funky 24th Century warp field.

At least the view out of the Nutrek Enterprise bridge window is more believable.

 

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

This would have been completely smart, self-consistent on numerous levels, and it would have left the Enterprise-C as a relative mystery to be explored later. Of course, if this had happened, fans would be up in arms with questions like: "Why does the E-B look so different from when it was launched? What happened to Capt. Harriman?" (ignoring the fact that YE came out four years before Generations...).

Who knows what ship names will have significance in the 24th century. If anything, we should be bothered by the Earth/Anglo-centric names.

 

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

Still doesn't work. First, you'd still see the sloped hull outside the door and the "ledge" which would have to protrude, and then when the door goes Up it would go right out the top of the ship unless the inner door was 8 meters in from the top of the door.

It don't work.