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

It's nice to see this created for Probert. I dig it so much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgYA3krHlCI

From Star Trek Futures (whatever that is- I'm looking it up right now)

Oh- looked it up. Meh.

I love the ship though!

 

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

Yes! That is the best take on that design I've seen yet!

--Alex

 

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

Tobias Richter modeled that out based directly on Probert's design and did a wonderful job.

 

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

I do not like this You Tube Video!

...

It is way too fracking short!


Seriously, you may believe what you want, but last week I finished the first draft for a long treatise (those that know my threads know how long these can get ) to approach the issue from a completely new angle by dispensing the "Ambassador Class" issue and focus entirely on the Enterprise-C (to show that we actually have no evidence to be certain that the Enterprise-C did not look like this starship in the YouTube video or on the conference lounge wall of the Enterprise-D in the reality of "our" TNG universe) - here is the link to the corresponding BBS thread: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=237559

Talking about this with some other fans in private E-Mail correspondence this weekend, suddenly this YouTube video popped up, almost as if it had come out of nowhere (or a different future) and it's not "just" Tobias Richter's original USS Ambassador CGI recreation - but Andrew Probert's Enterprise NCC-1701-C!

Since I really have absolutely nothing to do with this YouTube video, you can go ahead and calculate the chances for such a coincidence.

Apparently the "cosmic consciousness is not without a sense of humor" (Sir Arthur C. Clarke)
"... and purpose" I should like to add.

Bob

P.S. Here's my message in a bottle to these fine artists who made that video possible: More, please!

(or my lawyer is going to sue you for the epilepsy attack I'm getting for watching an endless loop of the video )

 

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

Tobias modeled this 3 years ago. You can find the entire build thread here:
http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?76392-Andy-Proberts-Ambassador&highlight=

No cosmic coincidences needed to further anyone's delusions.

 

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

Agreed. I wish they posted more, but I imagine they will if their fan film gets going.

No way?!

Let's stop looking at it now. This is three years old!

 

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

 

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

Charming! Fact is that I finished the draft for my treatise (including Parts II and III I haven't published yet) on February 6th.

The uploading date of the YouTube clip, the one I saw when I first looked at it, was on February 6th.

Since the last previous "public" activity was the publication of Tobias Richter's CGI Images in late 2011, chances that two different and totally unrelated people do something on behalf of Andrew Probert's Enterprise-C the same month and day are rather low, I'd say.

Bob

 

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

That is a gorgeous ship, I always liked the one in Yesterday's Enterprise better, but not anymore. I'd love to see Y.E. remastered to include it.

 

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

And yet, still not a sign of the divine. Your "treatise" is a case study for wishful thinking and rationalization beyond the breaking point. It's a beautiful example of "shoehorning" to no useful end as it won't have any change on canon.

 

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

I agree!

--Alex

 

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

Coincidence? I think...so.

 

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

It´s about this: http://www.startrekfutures.com

 

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

I find it remarkable that you cast judgement before having read the parts that are yet to come, I clearly used Part I and Part II (posted that a few minutes ago) headings to get that across (and in case you had a preview of the draft I'd like to point out that I have changed structure and flow of the treatise to get the message better across).

In my discussions with Bernd Schneider he applied that "shoehorning" argument and used these K/S fan stories as an example for over-interpretation. While these K/S writers have no evidence for their claims, other than wishful thinking, I will present evidence. How to evaluate the evidence is another thing, suffice to say the treatise won't be without substance.

Bob

 

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

Taken to the other thread to stop the derail of this one.

 

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

Has anyone ever done any images of either this ship (Probert's Enterprise-C) or the "Yesterday's Enterprise" ship with the saucer separated?

 

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

I couldn't really find any...

On a different note, I can't find any real design concepts/stages of the E... Which kind of pisses me off actually. Not being a fan of the ship really because of how greebled out it is, it seems like it was a real quick down and dirty design, as opposed to the elegant fast model Eaves claimed to want... Hell, Voyager had more elegance and I HATE that ship. Primarily because of those dumb tiny moving nacelles. I got the point behind their size and movement, but just didn't like the balance of the ship the way it was.

The Nova was nicely done done though. Fast and simple looking- good balance- pleasing to look at.

But ya. I've found some E "concepts" but they're too close to the final design to really be considered a well thought out shit... I mean ship.

 

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

I was wondering myself, but couldn't find an up-to-date profile comparison. So I asked a friend (with far better skills than mine) to assemble a profile comparison and this is what he came up with:


(top and left is Andrew Probert's Enterprise-C)

The way I see it the saucer is the most congruent part in both designs.

Bob

 

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

And yet, totally not what he asked.

 

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

Since it wasn't clear to me whether Wingsley wanted the secondary hull or the primary hull (which one is the ship once both have separated?) I provided a comparison which is the best I can offer at this moment.

Better something than nothing, I'd say.

Bob