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

Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Patrickivan, Feb 11, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    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 ;)

     
  2. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    Ya, that's called a "mistake." ;)
     
  3. largo

    largo Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2001
    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. :vulcan:
     
  4. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    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.
     
  5. Patrickivan

    Patrickivan Fleet Captain Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    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.
     
  6. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    Gene's office
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    This is from the alternate history in which Tasha and Guinan were on the ship at the same time. :p ;)
     
  7. Robert Comsol

    Robert Comsol Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    USS Berlin
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    :rofl: Very good point! Yes, Guinan wouldn't be asking Geordi about Tasha if she had known Tasha for a long time.

    In the "mentioned universe" Guinan apparently was not the driving force to make Tasha go back in time. But the sour face "our" Guinan made when she told Picard in "Redemption II" that he was responsible, seemed almost to me as if she were blaming him for the grim fate of a good friend of hers. YMMV.

    Bob
     
  8. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    Thanks for that, I was not aware of those labels! I now know to call myself a Watsonian (mostly)

    I absolutely concur, getting bent out of shape on either side of a debate detracts from what should be the main focus - a fun exchange of ideas and opinions. Star Trek is a TV series and as such is awash with costuming mistakes, continuity errors, SFX gaffs, changed premises, changes in casting and so on. Some of these issues are large, some small and every viewer has their own idea of which are the "important" ones.

    Geordi's wardrobe mistake never bothered me, but it can be fun to speculate and I enjoyed reading the "close enough timeline" theory above.

    Guinan's grilling of Picard about actions he never experienced and blaming him for the whole mess seems wrong to me and I'm happy to read or contribute to theories behind that as well.

    But what I like the best is that it's all speculation based on canon, which itself is open to interpretation. How on earth could anyone get bent out of shape over that?

    :guffaw:
     
  9. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    No.
     
  10. Robert Comsol

    Robert Comsol Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    USS Berlin
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    Thanks Mytran! I've been wondering myself. But I think that the "crime" for which my alternate idea is ridiculed (are we on Cardassia or still on Earth?) is to take onscreen and offscreen statements at face value and use these to present a different theory according to Occam's Razor which is not compatible with the widespread and popular belief that "Redemption II" did not change the premise of "Yesterday's Enterprise".

    Of course, and I have the impression everyone here is totally aware of that, the moment events in "Yesterday's Enterprise" no longer just take place in a (however) changed timeline of our universe but a parallel universe, instead, this endangers the status of Rick Sternbach's Enterprise-C design as "genuinely ours".

    Then, the only remaining clues regarding the original appearance of the Enterprise-C in our universe would be its representation on the conference lounge walls of the "D" and the "E".

    I reread some passages of Eric Stilwell's Making of Yesterday's Enterprise yesterday.

    He confirms that Geordi's "universe at war" sleeves were a production error. I also found his wording interesting: He uses "alternate universe" instead of "alternate timeline" or "changed timeline".

    Again, a major problem remains that so much has been written about "Yesterday's Enterprise" from the production viewpoint just after the episode had been finished, but in comparison there's little reflection on the events in "Redemption II" and its possible premise change.

    At least, Chief Nitpicker Phil Farrand in his Nitpicker's Guide for Next Generation Trekkers wondered about the Tasha Yar story in "Redemption II" with all that strategic knowledge of the future in her head, but dismissed that as a "plot oversight" (fact remains that they had so much more time to fine tune the script for "Redemption II", opposite the one for "Yesterday's Enterprise").

    @ beamMe

    If you can prove beyond a shred of doubt that "Redemption II" did not relocate events of "Yesterdy's Enterprise" into a parallel universe, I would be enabled to take your "No" serious.

    Bob
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2014
  11. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    It's easy: The universe/timeline in "Yesterday's Enterprise" at the beginning and the end of the episode is the same.
    Sela was alive on Romulus while Tasha Yar was being killed by Armus on Vagra II.
     
  12. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    Isn't that more of a "statement of belief" than "proof beyond doubt"? ;)

    TBH, I think the notion of "proof" in the overly looped and retconned events of Yesterday's Ent and Redemption is a somewhat fanciful hope. The more one looks for clues in the script and dialogues, the more nits are uncovered that must either be explained away or selectively ignored. And once onscreen canon starts being disregarded, don't we lose some of the essence of the original episode? Instead we are left with a revised version only loosely connected to the original.

    I'm under no illusions that YE is a mess - but by itself is a fairly self-contained time loop. Assuming a classic "our universe changes" approach; at the end the Enterprise-C is securely 19 years in the past and although we (the viewers) see Tasha boldly ride off into certain death, is it just as possible that once that ship passed through the time vortex, EVERYTHING got reset. There certainly seems to be no indication of 24 hours passing (or however long it was that Ent-C spent getting repaired), as Picard and crew are still starring at the viewscreen. It's as if no time passed at all and if that is true then all the Ent-D's and Ent-C's actions and sacrifices were cancelled out the second the Ent-C re-entered the rift; history literally was reset. YE becomes a "what if" story in the vain of DC Comics' "imaginary tales - The Death Of Superman!". Tasha Yar would have gone back in time and sacrificed herself, no doubt about that. But ultimately she didn't, because history was restored to its original form - where Tasha Yar died at Vagra II.

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    And then comes Redemption and a whole barrel of retcon! We are told that Tasha survived and went on to become a mother, surviving at least another 5 years in the past. Where did this Tasha Yar come from? Not our universe certainly, since the events of her personal history never happened here. She should have winked out of existence the second she left the temporal vortex, assuming she came from our universe.

    It is noticeable that not one character in Redemption makes reference to alternate timelines or parallel universes, leaving Picard and the others to fill in the blanks themselves (seeming to throw further doubt on Sela's claim). Historically, the existence of parallel realities is known about to Starfleet (Mirror, Mirror). So, wouldn't this be a natural conclusion for our captain to come to? If not the Mirror Universe per se, then Sela's mother would probably originate from a similar source. From the episode Parallels:

    Data doesn't present this theory as something newly discovered (unlike the tomographic imaging scanner in All Good Things) so there's no reason to think it wouldn't be available to Picard a couple of years prior. So despite the guilt and accusations piled upon him, I think Picard's final statement to Sela sums up his viewpoint on the whole mess nicely:

    P.S.
    Personally, I think a little crayon here and there can clarify a complex theory nicely - at the very least, everyone gets to keep their preferred version of the Enterprise-C, what could be better than that? :techman:

    P.P.S.

    OK, Tasha Yar winking out of existence is pretty appealing, but that's just my theory ;)
    Can we do the same to Sela too, she really grinds my gears! :evil:
     
  13. urbankringle

    urbankringle Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2013
    Location:
    urbandefault, in sickbay, dammit.
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    I think I agree with Frakes on this one. ;)
     
  14. beamMe

    beamMe Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2011
    Location:
    Europa
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    The Tasha Yar that was on Romulus was from the alternate timeline/universe we saw in YE. There is no doubt about this.

    Her situation is pretty much the same as Spock's in Star Trek and Into Darkness.
     
  15. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    That's an interesting thought that we can see from comparing the beginning and the end.

    Ahh time travel stories :P

    I don't agree it would be cancelled out though.

    When the E-C left the timeline and went into the future, it spawned the War Timeline where Yar is still alive so she can go back in time on the E-C. When the E-C returned to the time of her departure it either:

    A) created a slightly altered timeline with the War Tasha on the E-C now trapped back in time (this implies that the original TNG-series timeline didn't have a War Tasha on the E-C and Garret was in her place) and the War timeline no longer exists or

    B) the TNG-series timeline was restored to as it was before (implying War Tasha was always on the E-C) and the War timeline no longer exits.

    In both cases, the episode could proceed from the point of the opening of the vortex since the timeline essentially played back from Narendra to the beginning of the episode.

    However, we're told from an unreliable source and AFAIK, that story was never verified. It reminds me of those movies where the bad guy tells the protagonist's love interest that the protagonist was killed and the love interest believes it wholeheartedly and then is driven into despair or worse. Or the bad guy was said to have died but there is no body. :(

    I doubt that she would wink out of existence since we've seen other characters cross timelines and universes.

    The only things we know for sure (because it was shown to us) is that War Tasha went back in time because War Picard approved it and that Guinan is vaguely aware of this. There isn't any changed premise between "YE" and "Redemption". We don't know when or how War Tasha was killed or what really happened to the crew of the E-C.

    Yet we've also seen people cloned (see Shinzon/Picard in "Nemesis", Kahless-Clone in "Rightful Heir", the clones in "Up the Long Ladder", etc) so looking in their own universe/timeline would appear to be more logical than looking outside that especially since they were lacking Tasha's body to examine.

    I think the problem is trying to get mileage out of "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "Redemption" to justify Probert's-C. You can't because there is no room for it because if Probert's-C was the TNG-series E-C then magically substituting the Sternbach-C in the Narendra battle would've cause the Klingons to question what this mystery ship was that was destroyed there since it wasn't any ship from Starfleet. Remember, "YE" and "Redemption" don't go far enough back into the past to affect the construction of the E-C. For "Yesterday's Enterprise" to work the E-C must be consistent from when she went forward and back in time.

    Like I said before, the only way you can work Probert's-C in as the E-C is to have it appear in one of the quantum universes as seen in "Parallels". Alternatively, you could even look for a time travel story that went far enough back to affect the E-C's construction like "First Contact", "The Voyage Home", "All Good Things", etc.
     
  16. Mytran

    Mytran Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    I thought it was now generally accepted that the Abramsverse exists in a parallel timeline, rather than totally erasing 150 years of Trek history. I'm sure I remember an interview where the writers of ST'09 confirmed this was their intention.

    I certainly have no problem with Trek characters popping across alternate universes, since their universe of origin is still intact and carries on without them.

    As for other Trek characters traveling back in time along their own timeline and changing the past to invalidate their own existence and surviving - are there any other examples? I'll need to do a little research I think! :)
     
  17. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    Hehe, here's some food for thought:

    In "The Naked Time", Tormolen died and likely stayed dead even though they went back in time 3 days on their own timeline and altered their future by not reliving what they went through. They still retained their memories and instrument data of coming up with the time travel formula. Since they didn't relive the next 3 days, that should have invalidated discovering the time travel formula since they would have never been forced to use it to restart the engines.
     
  18. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    Do we know for sure that there is any difference? Ignoring novels and Word of God for a moment, it's as much a possibility that the "Yesterday's Enterprise" timeline continued on after the E-C flew back into the rift and the -D was destroyed as it is that the Primeline was erased when Nero and Spock went back in time.

    One could interpret YE like this: That the war timeline is the original, since the Enterprise-C skipped forward in time as a result of it's battle and then was sent back 22 years later, creating the TNG history which we know.
     
  19. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    @King Daniel - BeamMe wrote "Her situation is pretty much the same as Spock's in Star Trek and Into Darkness."

    YE adds an interesting wrinkle to "One could interpret YE like this: That the war timeline is the original, since the Enterprise-C skipped forward in time as a result of it's battle and then was sent back 22 years later, creating the TNG history which we know."

    The beginning of the episode showed the TNG history before the E-C appeared into the episode. That showed that the E-C's time loop was predetermined in order to restore what TNG looked at the beginning of the episode since the beginning of the episode indicated that the time travel event already happened.

    We could argue that the beginning of YE's TNG might belong to a parallel universe ala "Parallels" and/or that a parallel universe was split off 22 years ago creating the War universe (again, back to "Parallels") which looked exactly like TNG up to the E-C disappearing.
     
  20. Robert Comsol

    Robert Comsol Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Location:
    USS Berlin
    Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

    "To this day I do not understand 'Yesterday's Enterprise'. I do not know what the fu** happened in that episode. I'm still trying to understand it – but I liked the look." (Frakes)

    At least him and Michael Piller admitted there were some serious plotholes involved. ;)

    :confused: Now, that is not anything I've been suggesting. Given the possibility that "Redemption II" relocated events of "Yesterday's Enterprise" into a parallel universe, the Sternbach-C would be the predecessor to the "D" of/in that parallel universe.

    But since the ship that actually arrived back in our universe must then have come from a parallel one (i.e. one where another Tasha Yar had equally not died on Vagra II) its actual configuration would be conjectural, but we have the conference lounge wall of our "D" that tells us about the "C" that disappeared and the one of the "E" that tells us which one reappeared (apparently, after the Federation and the Romulans started talking again to each other so the Federation could finally learn that another "C" saved the day at Narendra III).

    What the Klingons actually did know about the Federation ship that rushed to their defense remains widely unknown. Possible they heard "This is Federation starship Enterprise NCC-1701-C, received your distress call and are en route to provide assistance" and that was about it. For all we know the Klingon eyewitnesses were just "earwitnesses" after the Romulans had taken out their long range communications!

    The only party that could possibly tell which ship they fought prior to its disappearance and which ship they fought that reappeared (i.e. have visual confirmation) were the Romulans.

    Where it really gets interesting, IMHO, is what Picard did or did not do, after hearing Sela's account in "Redemption II".

    Did he pull some strings to figure out the fate of the Enterprise-C and learned that the "C" that reappeared was no longer the one Starfleet had assumed?

    It's not before the next episode ("Darmok") we catch a short view of the conference lounge wall behind Data and can notice that it has changed.

    My pet theory is still that Gul Macet pissed Picard off during "The Wounded" with some vitriolic remarks that made him want to take the sculpture wall down, but YMMV. :)

    Bob
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.