RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,354
Posts: 5,502,990
Members: 25,121
Currently online: 542
Newest member: MsMarrielle

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11

Frakes: Sign Me Up!
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


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 February 26 2014, 10:07 PM   #61
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
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).

STRenegade wrote: View Post
The E-C we got was the real C. The passage was through time, not dimensions/universes. The other timeline didn't count because it was created when the E-C left its time. And as for (ALT)Tasha, most likely protected from her timeline erasure when she went back with E-C. It wouldn't be the first time it happened (ST:FC).
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
Mytran is offline  
Old February 26 2014, 10:44 PM   #62
Shik
Commander
 
Shik's Avatar
 
Location: It's the 3 most important things in business.
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.
__________________
Be the chaos you wish to see in the world.
Shik is offline  
Old February 26 2014, 11:53 PM   #63
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
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.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Fact remains that we never saw this Enterprise-C in “our”, the “real” TNG universe.
No, it is NOT a "fact," it is just your opinion, which you've based on 5 pages of a self-indulgent "treatise" with convoluted leaps in logic and a holier-than-thou attitude toward anyone who disagrees with that "logic." And pasting large photos of the sculptures into your posts ad nauseum doesn't change that.
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 ....

Dukhat wrote: View Post
But when you start to assume that your opinions are actually facts and that you know more about the show's production than the actual producers did, and then get all arrogant when the rest of us point out the simple flaws in your arguments and conveniently ignore what doesn't jibe with your own views, that's going off the rails, as QuinnTV put it.
...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.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
The Enterprise-C from the prime universe got thrown forward in time, causing the future to change. Only by returning to their own time in the prime universe did everything get put back to normal. That's as simple as you can possibly get, and I for one do not need a huge convoluted treatise telling me what I was actually supposed to be seeing when I watched the episode, all to justify some piece of abstract art. You can believe whatever you want, but stop trying to pass your beliefs off as some kind of fact.
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.

sojourner wrote: View Post
Being "open minded" means "willing to listen", not "believe everything without criticism".
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..."

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Why is it some retcons are A-OK by you but others aren't? A lot of love and effort has gone into other aspects of Trek which never made it to the screen, or were hinted at before we got something a little (or a lot) different.
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
__________________
"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 27 2014, 12:38 AM   #64
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
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.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 12:59 AM   #65
backstept
Rear Admiral
 
backstept's Avatar
 
Location: Syracuse
View backstept's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to backstept Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to backstept
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!
__________________
| Hi I'm Gauis Blatar lol
| backstept.blogspot.com | about.me
backstept is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 06:43 AM   #66
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Shik wrote: View Post
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.
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.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; February 27 2014 at 07:01 AM.
Dukhat is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 07:51 AM   #67
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
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.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 08:28 AM   #68
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
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.
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?
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 08:33 AM   #69
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Dukhat wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
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.
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?
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.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 08:41 AM   #70
Nob Akimoto
Captain
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
View Nob Akimoto's Twitter Profile
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Dukhat wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
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.
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?
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.
Nob Akimoto is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 09:09 AM   #71
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
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.
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.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
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.
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.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 09:15 AM   #72
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Dukhat wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
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.
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.

Nob Akimoto wrote: View Post
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.
Yeah, I knew what the TNGTM stated about that, and sure, that's a plausible explanation. It's just that it was written after YE, and the explanation, while valid IRL, 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.
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?
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 09:25 AM   #73
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
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?
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.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 09:35 AM   #74
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Dukhat wrote: View Post
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.
Gotya. Here's what Memory Alpha says:

The Nebula-class shared a similar design lineage with its larger Galaxy-class counterpart, notably its primary and secondary hulls and nacelles. (TNG: "The Wounded", etc.)
It is unknown, precisely, which class spawned the other, or if they were designed simultaneously. The only chronological evidence that exists can be determined by a comparison of dedication plaques, which reveals that the Nebula-class Phoenix was commissioned (on stardate 40250.5) just a short time before the launch (stardate 40759.5) of the Galaxy-class USS Enterprise-D.
That would seem to be consistent with both of our theories.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline  
Old February 27 2014, 03:14 PM   #75
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

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

sojourner wrote: View Post
This is the problem. We bring up criticisms and examples and you "lalalala! can't hear you! you're just ignoring my arguments!"
Apparently you are referring to this

sojourner wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
but you can’t possibly know how Captain Picard would feel about the issue, a man who does care about "historical truth".
Nope, you can't have it both ways here. You can't claim to know how Picard would feel about the issue and then claim others don't. So you should stop with the "Picard would feel ethically bound" silliness.
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.

backstept wrote: View Post
I'm trying to figure out how this whole argument started
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
__________________
"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  
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 08:11 AM.

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