RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,677
Posts: 5,429,908
Members: 24,824
Currently online: 563
Newest member: Frazier101


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 16 2014, 01:09 AM   #136
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
I'm always in awe of those who want to take the time to wrap their heads around anything time travelly. One of the reasons I hate time travel episodes, especially recently with the premise of alternate realities, are that they are just to convoluted for me. Don't get me wrong, a lot of the best ones involved time travel and alternate realities- I'm just not a big fan of the device.
You are in good company:

Jonathan Frakes "To this day I do not understand 'Yesterday's Enterprise'. I do not know what the fuck happened in that episode. I'm still trying to understand it – but I liked the look." (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, p. 192)

and I read about a supposedly similar remark from Michael Dorn in a recent TNG BBS thread.

Patrickivan wrote: View Post
I think I'm the person who wants to see it all. The original and new ideas. I want my cake and to eat it too, god damnit!
These exact words were the premise of my treatise, too. I'm working on a graphic to illustrate these parallel universes and how they were interconnected because of the interspatial anomaly seen in "Yesterday's Enterprise".

The easiest analogy I can currently think of are railroad tracks running parallel to one another (= parallel universes) with the anomaly constituting a kind of railroad switch, that diverted the Probert "C" of our universe into a parallel one while the Sternbach "C" of a parallel one returned to others instead.

It's inconclusive whether the Narendra III Klingon survivors did see the "returning" ships or merely had audio (the Romulans probably had visual).

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 17 2014, 03:44 AM   #137
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
The easiest analogy I can currently think of are railroad tracks running parallel to one another (= parallel universes) with the anomaly constituting a kind of railroad switch, that diverted the Probert "C" of our universe into a parallel one while the Sternbach "C" of a parallel one returned to others instead.
I'm not sure you can squeeze the Probert-C into what is essentially Tasha Yar's causal loop.

The beginning of "Yesterday's Enterprise" establishes that we're watching the TNG timeline (let's call this TNG-1).

When the Sternbach-C appears from the space anomaly it alters TNG-1 radically because the last 22 years of TNG-1 temporarily did not exist and a different history exists in its place (TNG-2). Because the Sternbach-C affects TNG-1 then it strongly points to the Sternbach-C as being the E-C of TNG-1.

In TNG-2, Yar never goes the "Skin of Evil" planet and is alive and well. Picard grants her permission to go on a suicide mission on the E-C and return back to Narendra. When the E-C returns to Narendra, it closed the loop and erased TNG-2 and restored TNG-1.

Essentially, the TNG-2 Tasha Yar was pre-destined to go back in time and give birth to Sela. But there isn't any room for a Probert-C in TNG-1 because of the Sternbach-C.

The only way you could argue for the Probert-C to exist as the E-C would be to argue it as a "Parallels" alternate quantum universe. In other words, the Probert-C could easily be the E-C of another TNG reality but just not the TNG we were watching
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 17 2014, 01:12 PM   #138
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
I'm not sure you can squeeze the Probert-C into what is essentially Tasha Yar's causal loop.

The beginning of "Yesterday's Enterprise" establishes that we're watching the TNG timeline (let's call this TNG-1).

When the Sternbach-C appears from the space anomaly it alters TNG-1 radically because the last 22 years of TNG-1 temporarily did not exist and a different history exists in its place (TNG-2). Because the Sternbach-C affects TNG-1 then it strongly points to the Sternbach-C as being the E-C of TNG-1.

In TNG-2, Yar never goes the "Skin of Evil" planet and is alive and well. Picard grants her permission to go on a suicide mission on the E-C and return back to Narendra. When the E-C returns to Narendra, it closed the loop and erased TNG-2 and restored TNG-1.
Perfect summary of events as suggested by "our" protagonists and TNG producers for "Yesterday's Enterprise".

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Essentially, the TNG-2 Tasha Yar was pre-destined to go back in time and give birth to Sela. But there isn't any room for a Probert-C in TNG-1 because of the Sternbach-C.
Stop! This is were the premise change of "Redemption II" unfolds its effect. According to Moore and Carson Tasha Yar did die a "meaningful death" in the aftermath of "Yesterday's Enterprise" (apparently at Narendra III).

But this was no longer the Tasha Yar talked about in "Redemption II" that was "sent" by Picard to the past (and for which he is to blame, not Guinan) and died a meaningless death on Romulus being executed.

Moore ("It's insane!" when he first heard about Tasha's daughter) and Carson apparently saw no option left in order to have Tasha have her meaningful death (at Narendra III) and also to become pregnant to give birth to Sela, other than to relocate events of "Yesterday's Enterprise" into a parallel universe (i.e. no longer "our" time line or universe). Essentially, their solution to have cake and eat it, too.

The moment that happened the umbilical cord that connected Sternbach's Enterprise-C to "our" universe was cut. Undoubtedly indigenous to the "universe at war", the look of the Enterprise-C that came from the other parallel universe - i.e. not the universe featured in "Yesterday's Enterprise" / Tasha alive, too, but sent by Picard - is conjectural.

However, that an Enterprise-C from a parallel universe (!) arrived in ours, suggests that the interspatial anomaly diverted at least one Enterprises-C into a universe other than its own, and there is no reason not to assume that this "diversion" took place in multiple parallel universes.

The look of the one that left ours had been manifested on the conference lounge wall of the "D", the one that was on display on the "E" is apparently the one with the "sent" Tasha aboard that was captured by the Romulans (We can have this cake and eat it, too).

I have not forgotten that I'm replying to a Thermian.

You might be inclined to ignore the statements of Carson and Moore ("meaningful death", "parallel time line"), you might re-interpret Guinan's account in "Redemption II", but then I would still have to ask you to provide a reasonable rationalization how Tasha Yar could just be married to a Romulan general - with all that strategic knowledge from the future in her head which I highlighted in Part IV of the treatise in the closed TNG thread.

Darn, it really looks like I have to have that parallel timeline schematic ready, ASAP.

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 17 2014, 02:16 PM   #139
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
This is were the premise change of "Redemption II" unfolds its effect. According to Moore and Carson Tasha Yar did die a "meaningful death" in the aftermath of "Yesterday's Enterprise" (apparently at Narendra III).

But this was no longer the Tasha Yar talked about in "Redemption II" that was "sent" by Picard to the past (and for which he is to blame, not Guinan) and died a meaningless death on Romulus being executed.
Are you referring to Guinan and Picard's conversation? Neither one makes any distinction about changed history or personalities as Picard in TNG-2 (the war timeline) is not the same Picard as in TNG-1 (the original timeline.)
GUINAN: How much do you know about what happened to the last ship called Enterprise?
PICARD: Enterprise C? She was lost at the battle of Narendra Three, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.
GUINAN: And the survivors?
PICARD: There were stories of prisoners taken back to Romulus, but these were only rumours.
GUINAN: No. There were survivors. And Tasha Yar was one of them.
PICARD: Guinan, that was twenty three years ago. Tasha Yar was only a child.
GUINAN: I know that. But I also know she was aboard that ship and she was not a child. And I think you sent her there.
PICARD: How can that be?
GUINAN: I don't know. I just know that you did.
PICARD: Tasha died, a year before you came on the Enterprise. You never met her.
GUINAN: I know that.
PICARD: If you have only a vague intuition
GUINAN: You can't just dismiss this. If I'm right, then you are responsible for this whole situation.
Secondly, Guinan can only assume that the war Picard sent Tasha to her death in the E-C because he's the captain and responsible for the actions of his crew. Tasha could not have hopped onto the E-C without his authorization.
TASHA: Where am I supposed to be?
GUINAN: Dead.
TASHA: Do you know how?
GUINAN: No. But I do know it was an empty death. A death without purpose.
...
TASHA: No, Captain Garrett belongs on that ship. But she's dead. And I think there's a certain logic in this request.
PICARD: There's no logic in this at all. Whether they succeed or not, the Enterprise-C will be destroyed.
TASHA: But Captain, at least with someone at Tactical, they will have a chance to defend themselves well. It may be a matter of seconds or minutes, but those could be the minutes that change history. Guinan says I died a senseless death in the other timeline. I didn't like the sound of that, Captain. I've always known the risks that come with a Starfleet uniform. If I'm to die in one, I'd like my death to count for something.
PICARD: Lieutenant. Permission granted.
Thirdly, Guinan's knowledge of TNG-1 Tasha's meaningless death doesn't apply to the TNG-2 Tasha's fate as they have different histories. Was TNG-2 Tasha trying to escape with her daughter a meaningless death?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
You might be inclined to ignore the statements of Carson and Moore ("meaningful death", "parallel time line"),
Yep.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
you might re-interpret Guinan's account in "Redemption II",
Nope. I think it's pretty straight-forward.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
but then I would still have to ask you to provide a reasonable rationalization how Tasha Yar could just be married to a Romulan general - with all that strategic knowledge from the future in her head which I highlighted in Part IV of the treatise in the closed TNG thread.
The Romulans already had interrogated them for knowledge so in all likelihood the big ships we see the Romulans sporting in TNG-1 are the result of the knowledge gained from TNG-2 Tasha. The only reason Tasha stayed alive afterwards was because she was forced to become the general's consort.
SELA: Yes, she was on that ship twenty four years ago. She was sent there by you from the future. She was among those few who survived. They were all to have been executed after the interrogation, but a Romulan general saw her and became enamoured with her. So a deal was struck. Their lives would be spared if she became his consort. I was born a year later.
PICARD: I want to meet your mother. Can you arrange that?
SELA: One night, when I was four years old, she came to me. She bundled me up and she told me to stay quiet as we left the compound.
I realised she was taking me away. She was taking me away from my home, my father, so I cried out. My father offered her life. He gave her a home, gave her a child, and how did she repay him? By betrayal. They executed her. Everything in me that was human died that day with my mother. All that's left is Romulan. Never doubt that.
(That's assuming that Sela's narrative is credible. For all we know TNG-2 Tasha died shortly after the battle during interrogation and Sela is a clone just like how Shinzon is a clone of Picard or the TNG-2 Tasha is locked away in a secret Tal-shiar base.)
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 17 2014, 06:39 PM   #140
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Guinan can only assume that the war Picard sent Tasha to her death in the E-C because he's the captain and responsible for the actions of his crew. Tasha could not have hopped onto the E-C without his authorization.
Guinan only "assumes"? It's pretty obvious from the dialogue that she knows.
GUINAN: I don't know (the details). I just know that you did (sent her there).

And her capability to draw accurate conclusions had been established rather impressively in "Yesterday's Enterprise".
GUINAN: But I do know it was an empty death (without purpose).

For someone like her who wasn't even aboard the Enterprise when Tasha died on Vagra II, that's pretty remarkable I should say.

Now, I've already addressed some of these items in the original thread before it was closed.

Frankly, I find the whole idea that a friend / family member of mine, who wants to talk about a personal issue, suddenly "pulls rank", rather weird.
While I can't dismiss start wreck's interpretation (same as yours) as impossible, it's the intention of screenplay writer and director (Guinan talks about an unseen event in yet another parallel universe that affected ours) that helps to determine the proper interpretation, but you explicitly said that you choose to ignore it (well, I think you are in good company ).

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Was TNG-2 Tasha trying to escape with her daughter a meaningless death?
Yes. She didn't suceed that at least her offspring would have a chance to grow up in the Federation. On the contrary, after her execution, she was no longer around to raise her daughter who was brainwashed instead to shed her last shred of humanity.

Had Moore and Carson wanted to have that Tasha to have been the one we last saw in "Yesterday's Enterprise" they could have most easily created the necessary compatibility, but they did not and instead went for the opposite!

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
For all we know TNG-2 Tasha died shortly after the battle during interrogation and Sela is a clone just like how Shinzon is a clone of Picard or the TNG-2 Tasha is locked away in a secret Tal-shiar base.
I think Ron Moore's storytelling is rather methodical and step by step establishes Sela's credibility:

PICARD: So you believe her, Counsellor?
TROI: I'm not saying we should accept her claim at face value, but I sensed no deception from her. She really believes she is the daughter of Tasha Yar.
CRUSHER: Regardless of what she believes, Sela can't be her daughter. I've reviewed all of Tasha's medical records, and there is no indication that she was ever pregnant.
PICARD: Besides, Tasha was a child when this woman was born.
TROI: Sela could have been cloned.
CRUSHER: Or had her appearance surgically altered.
PICARD: But why? What possible advantage could there be to the Romulans?

Next comes Guinan and we learn how it did happen, finally comes Sela herself and corroborates Guinan's account and tells us about the parts we didn't know, yet.

After that's done, we have no good reasons to doubt Sela's statement, because it doesn't contradict anything Guinan just said.

PICARD: Doubts? I'm full of them. But nothing in my experience can persuade me that what you have told me is true. (Understandable, neither did he experience nor remember what his counterparts in the parallel universes did. On the other hand, we the audience have the advantage because we had seen one of these events to understand what it is about).

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 17 2014, 08:32 PM   #141
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
snip....
Dude, don't engage him. Just smile nicely and back away.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now  
Old March 18 2014, 01:07 AM   #142
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Guinan can only assume that the war Picard sent Tasha to her death in the E-C because he's the captain and responsible for the actions of his crew. Tasha could not have hopped onto the E-C without his authorization.
Guinan only "assumes"? It's pretty obvious from the dialogue that she knows.
GUINAN: I don't know (the details). I just know that you did (sent her there).

And her capability to draw accurate conclusions had been established rather impressively in "Yesterday's Enterprise".
GUINAN: But I do know it was an empty death (without purpose).

For someone like her who wasn't even aboard the Enterprise when Tasha died on Vagra II, that's pretty remarkable I should say.

Now, I've already addressed some of these items in the original thread before it was closed.

Frankly, I find the whole idea that a friend / family member of mine, who wants to talk about a personal issue, suddenly "pulls rank", rather weird.
While I can't dismiss start wreck's interpretation (same as yours) as impossible, it's the intention of screenplay writer and director (Guinan talks about an unseen event in yet another parallel universe that affected ours) that helps to determine the proper interpretation, but you explicitly said that you choose to ignore it (well, I think you are in good company ).
Bob, regardless if Guinan knows what happened or assumed what happened, she doesn't contradict what happened in "Yesterday's Enterprise". TNG-2/War Picard sent TNG-2 Tasha back by approving her transfer. He is responsible for what happens in "Redemption".

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Was TNG-2 Tasha trying to escape with her daughter a meaningless death?
Yes. She didn't suceed that at least her offspring would have a chance to grow up in the Federation. On the contrary, after her execution, she was no longer around to raise her daughter who was brainwashed instead to shed her last shred of humanity.

Had Moore and Carson wanted to have that Tasha to have been the one we last saw in "Yesterday's Enterprise" they could have most easily created the necessary compatibility, but they did not and instead went for the opposite!
We'll have to agree to disagree here as she along with the Sternbach E-C saved the Federation from a losing war and billions of deaths in that war.

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
For all we know TNG-2 Tasha died shortly after the battle during interrogation and Sela is a clone just like how Shinzon is a clone of Picard or the TNG-2 Tasha is locked away in a secret Tal-shiar base.
I think Ron Moore's storytelling is rather methodical and step by step establishes Sela's credibility:

PICARD: So you believe her, Counsellor?
TROI: I'm not saying we should accept her claim at face value, but I sensed no deception from her. She really believes she is the daughter of Tasha Yar.
CRUSHER: Regardless of what she believes, Sela can't be her daughter. I've reviewed all of Tasha's medical records, and there is no indication that she was ever pregnant.
PICARD: Besides, Tasha was a child when this woman was born.
TROI: Sela could have been cloned.
CRUSHER: Or had her appearance surgically altered.
PICARD: But why? What possible advantage could there be to the Romulans?

Next comes Guinan and we learn how it did happen, finally comes Sela herself and corroborates Guinan's account and tells us about the parts we didn't know, yet.

After that's done, we have no good reasons to doubt Sela's statement, because it doesn't contradict anything Guinan just said.
Uhm, credibility? Did you forget that Sela is a scheming and manipulative Romulan agent (see Unification) and did it occur to you that "Sela being a clone of Tasha" also does not contradict anything Guinan said either?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
PICARD: Doubts? I'm full of them. But nothing in my experience can persuade me that what you have told me is true. (Understandable, neither did he experience nor remember what his counterparts in the parallel universes did. On the other hand, we the audience have the advantage because we had seen one of these events to understand what it is about).
The only thing we saw was in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and nothing of Tasha's imprisonment or of Sela's childhood.

I think that's all I'll say about it. You've made up your mind in trying to get the Probert-C to fit in so I'll stop replying about the timeline issue.
__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 18 2014, 01:56 AM   #143
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

There are models and graphics of the Enterprise lineage that have been posted here showing the correct Enterprise C as it appeared in Yesterdays Enterprise, other ships of the class still in service.

That's all we need to know. Concept art is not canon, and since TNG is off the air and other subsequent series and films have put it to rest, time to do so with this discussion.
__________________
"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 18 2014, 12:22 PM   #144
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Bob, regardless if Guinan knows what happened or assumed what happened, she doesn't contradict what happened in "Yesterday's Enterprise". TNG-2/War Picard sent TNG-2 Tasha back by approving her transfer. He is responsible for what happens in "Redemption".
"From a certain point of view" (to quote a character from another SciFi franchise). I believe that everyone is responsible for his or her own personal actions and not somebody else. Even if Guinan were Picard's Starfleet superior officer she shouldn't blame him for something she was "responsible" for in the first place:

TASHA: Captain, I request a transfer to the Enterprise-C.
PICARD: We need you here. ...
PICARD: What did she [Guinan] say to you?
TASHA: I don't belong here, sir. I'm supposed to be dead.
PICARD: She felt it necessary to reveal that to you?
TASHA: I felt it was necessary. ...
TASHA: I know how important it is that they don't fail, Captain. That's why I'm requesting this transfer.
PICARD: You don't belong on that ship, Lieutenant.
TASHA: No, Captain Garrett belongs on that ship. But she's dead. And I think there's a certain logic in this request. ...
PICARD: Lieutenant. Permission granted.
TASHA: Thank you, sir

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
We'll have to agree to disagree here as she along with the Sternbach E-C saved the Federation from a losing war and billions of deaths in that war.
It seems you're confusing "meaningful death" with "meaningful actions". The mission accomplishment according to Moore in 2002 and Carson in 2008 had been to give Tasha the "meaningful death", dying at Narendra III and in doing so saving the Federation from a losing war and billions of deaths in that war.

The other Tasha that was sent by her Captain Picard (the one responsible) from yet another (but unseen) "parallel universe" apparently helped to save billions of lives by preventing the outbreak of a Klingon-Federation war ("meaningful action") but ultimately suffered a "meaningless death", being executed having unsuccessfully tried to escape with her daughter.

I believe it's death itself (action) that's supposed to produce a "meaningful" reaction to qualify as "meaningful death".

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Uhm, credibility? Did you forget that Sela is a scheming and manipulative Romulan agent (see Unification) and did it occur to you that "Sela being a clone of Tasha" also does not contradict anything Guinan said either?
Is it not obvious that Ron Moore dismissed the "clone idea" right from the start by having Picard wonder about the purpose of such action?

And it didn't look to me like the Sela character was acting. On the contrary it looked like Denise Crosby presented a truthful account and got genuinely upset for a few seconds just talking about it (her human half being buried but not completely dead, yet, as she wanted Picard to believe - hence his sympathetic smile)

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
The only thing we saw was in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and nothing of Tasha's imprisonment or of Sela's childhood.
But what we saw and heard (in "Redemption II") is sufficient information to reconstruct the events that occurred, even if one happened unseen in another parallel universe.
I see no good reason why to double-guess the information both onscreen (dialogue) and off-screen (statements from Moore and Carson), although it obviously seems they were too subtle in their premise changing approach.

blssdwlf wrote: View Post
I think that's all I'll say about it. You've made up your mind in trying to get the Probert-C to fit in so I'll stop replying about the timeline issue.
A changed timeline then, a "parallel time line" (Carson 1992) after "Redemption II" (aka a "parallel universe" according to Carson's 2008 audio commentary).

Same question for you: What is your problem that both Enterprises-C could be canon? You rather have a canon contradiction (conference lounge wall sculptures) or a canon solution?

While I may have "tried" in the beginning, to fit the Probert Enterprise-C somehow in, the unpleasant tone in the reactions compelled me to examine the issue further and enabled me to notice the premise change suggested by "Redemption II".

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
There are models and graphics of the Enterprise lineage that have been posted here showing the correct Enterprise C as it appeared in Yesterdays Enterprise, other ships of the class still in service.
The Enterprise-C in "Yesterday's Enterprise" is correct, but so is the other one, because...

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
That's all we need to know. Concept art is not canon, and since TNG is off the air and other subsequent series and films have put it to rest, time to do so with this discussion.
The wall sculpture display of the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D is not just "concept art" but onscreen canon, too.



(and I believe that the ongoing TNG-R Releases on Blu-ray reveal that TNG is currently very alive).

If you don't like the presentation of new evidence that invites to take a look at things from a different angle, I'd suggest you ignore it or treat it with indifference.

Probably by tomorrow I have that sketch ready that illustrates how the three parallel universes (ours, the universe at war and the one we only heard about) are interconnected which hopefully visualizes better what I have been talking about (a picture can say more than a thousand words ). So I'd ask the OP and/or the moderator to keep this thread open at least until then.

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 18 2014, 02:17 PM   #145
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

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

The Enterprise-C in "Yesterday's Enterprise" is correct, but so is the other one, because...

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
That's all we need to know. Concept art is not canon, and since TNG is off the air and other subsequent series and films have put it to rest, time to do so with this discussion.
The wall sculpture display of the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D is not just "concept art" but onscreen canon, too.



(and I believe that the ongoing TNG-R Releases on Blu-ray reveal that TNG is currently very alive).

If you don't like the presentation of new evidence that invites to take a look at things from a different angle, I'd suggest you ignore it or treat it with indifference.

Probably by tomorrow I have that sketch ready that illustrates how the three parallel universes (ours, the universe at war and the one we only heard about) are interconnected which hopefully visualizes better what I have been talking about (a picture can say more than a thousand words ). So I'd ask the OP and/or the moderator to keep this thread open at least until then.

Bob
However if you go by these stylized renditions of the ships, then all the ships we have seen are wrong. You can't just point out the Enterprise C and say look, that one is wrong. All the ships in the wall sculpture are wrong.
__________________
The Sleeper has Awaken!

Of course I'm a creationist. I believe man created god.
Tom Hendricks is offline  
Old March 18 2014, 02:22 PM   #146
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

If you're stuck on this artwork being "accurate" then I submit to you that this TNG reality starting in episode 1 is a different reality since the Enterprise-A has her warp pylons too far back and over the shuttlebay

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

The wall sculpture display of the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D is not just "concept art" but onscreen canon, too.


__________________
My WIPs: TOS (and TFS) Enterprise / TOS Era Ships
Random Data: Starship Cargo Volumes
blssdwlf is offline  
Old March 18 2014, 03:38 PM   #147
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

Crudely made, highly inaccurate artwork displays are just as non-canon. Since every ship on that wall looks like it was made with playdough by a child.

The real ship, every nut and bolt of her, is seen from various angles, close up, for a fair amount of screen time in an episode. That trumps someones artistic interpretation of it.

Since the ship is treated as official by those actually running the franchise, depicting the YE design in every publication and subsequent on screen appearance, that also trumps concept art and fanon.

Does it even need to be pointed out yet again that that wall display was made before the proper model? that's all we need to know on the subject.
__________________
"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 18 2014, 04:05 PM   #148
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
If you don't like the presentation of new evidence that invites to take a look at things from a different angle, I'd suggest you ignore it or treat it with indifference.
So you are entitled to post your opinions, but we aren't entitled to post our opinions of your opinions? This is an open forum. If you didn't want people disagreeing with your opinions, then you should have made a blog that had no option for responses.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old March 19 2014, 07:41 AM   #149
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Probably by tomorrow I have that sketch ready that illustrates how the three parallel universes (ours, the universe at war and the one we only heard about) are interconnected which hopefully visualizes better what I have been talking about (a picture can say more than a thousand words ). So I'd ask the OP and/or the moderator to keep this thread open at least until then.

Bob


__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline  
Old March 19 2014, 03:33 PM   #150
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

__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu 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 11:12 PM.

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