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

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

LOL. What's funny about that is that I'd thought of an alternate opening to Generations, where instead of seeing the maiden launch of the Enterprise-B, we'd instead see the decommissioning ceremony for the Enterprise-A, and have it take place anywhere that isn't Earth...say, Rigel VII. That way:

1. They wouldn't have needed to add extensions to the Excelsior model that later turned out to be permanently stuck to it.

2. They could have reused the section of the Enterprise specifically built for battle damage in TWOK instead of building a damaged partial model of the Ent-B deflector deck.

3. The fact that the Enterprise is the only ship in range would make more sense if the ship was nowhere near Earth. (Really? The heart of the Federation, and no other ships are in range?)

4. There'd be no Harriman to look like a complete moron.

5. The fact that the ship would have minimal crew and systems would make more sense than the "won't be here until Tuesday" schlock.

6. We'd see the awesome Constitution class Enterprise one more time.

7. Have the ship go out in a blaze of glory. Have Kirk separate the saucer section and fly it right into the Nexus to save the rest of the ship. Wouldn't that be great foreshadowing for what happens to the Enterprise-D?


Of course we wouldn't have gotten that cool opening credits shot of the Dom Perignon bottle, but hey, I'd be fine with that.

 

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

*likes Duhkat's Post*

 

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

That could have worked, but what happens then when the Enterprise-C shows up in a later episode and still didnt look like the original Probert design?

 

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

I doubt that anyone other than a certain treatise-writing person would care.

 

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

Are you suggesting that the inner door is 4 metres high? Looks a bit less than that to me (12' max, which is 3.65m) but yeah, why not? Both this and the sloped hull issue were covered by the second part of my post:

Or maybe the saucer "don't work" either?

 

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

No no no, see, the door we see inside and outside are the same (and only) door, it's just that the deck is not oriented parallel to the rest of the decks, it's oriented perpendicular to that outer door! Simple!



(Yes, I'm pulling your leg! )

 

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

See, I knew there was a simple explanation

 

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

Dukkhie, your ideas are intriguing & I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Yeah, that's something I've not liked my own self & have readily addressed in my Starfleet register project. A tip for writers & modelers: scan your email's spam filter, because some of the letter combinations can make really great nonhuman ship & character names. Do them as is & then change the letters about for something new.

 

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

I see, first you discredit Andrew Probert's Enterprise-C, and now you declare him for dead? (I think it stands to reason that he still cares about his design)

Bob

 

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

Have you heard of the term "beating a dead horse?" Enough with the overly-dramatic bullshit, Bob. Nobody cares anymore. The topic has already switched to my awesome ideas about retconning the Enterprise-B into "Yesterday's Enterprise" and the Enterprise-A into Generations, and we don't need it derailed any further.

 

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

​

 

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

I totally want to see that version of Generations.

 

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

Trek is filled with rewrites and retcons. Shuttlecraft weren't 'invented' in "The Enemy Within", they were added in later. What ended up photon torpedoes started off as 'proximity blast' setting on phasers. Starfleet Command and the Federation had a variety of names before those were settled upon. Spock was a "Vulcanian" with "a human ancestor" before he was a Vulcan with a human mother. Kirk was "a stack of books with legs" and later "Jim Kirk was many things, but he was never a boy scout."

The movies made another round of changes. TMP completely reimagined the universe, far moreso than can be explained as an in-universe evolution. Khan lost his fake Indian brownface makeup and his followers were changed from a varied 30+ group into a gang of Aryan youths(!). The Klingons sprouted a Neutral Zone in II, and cloaked bird-of-prey's in III, imported directly from the Romulan backstory.

Next Generation came with it's own round of retcons too. Can Data feel emotion? He was all smiles in "Encounter at Farpoint" - then they changed it, pretending he never had them. And how the heck is Data the only android known to the Federation? Because they pretend all the TOS episodes with Androids don't exist. They also made time/distance references (exacerbated in Voyager) rendering several TOS and TAS episodes as well as STV impossible.

What makes these changes okay and, say, the Enterprise NX-01's retroactive addition to the continuity wrong? Particularly when the creative force behind ENT was largely the same one behind TNG?

A great deal of effort went into designing the Enterprises for abortive projects like Planet of the Titans and Star Trek: Phase II, there are concept models (some of which made it into the background of episodes or movies) and interior art. For the latter sets were even built! Moreso than was developed for the Enterprise-C prior to "Yesterday's Enterprise" (which was originally plotted out simply by drawing lines between the Excelsior and Enterprise-D). Why aren't you posting that the TMP Enterprise should be ignored in favour of the Phase II design? It would be the same.

 

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

Actually, ILM built replacement lower secondary hull and saucer top shells. Bill George says the originals still exist someplace.

 

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

Interesting; never knew that. I wonder why they were not utilized to turn the model back into its original design when they needed the Excelsior for VOY's "Flashback." Then Greg Jein wouldn't have had to build the newer model.

 

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

Fascinating. Can someone flesh out "the Excelsior that might've been"???

 

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

Unless I misunderstood, I think what Maurice meant was that they were just replacements for the normal hulls of the Excelsior, so that if the Ent-B add-on parts did get stuck, they could just cut them off and re-apply the replacement pieces to put the ship back to its original configuration.

 

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

The top of the saucer was removable (there are photos of it open) and it's possible the lower shell of the secondary hull was as well. I'd have to ask Bill if he remembers.

 

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

How could you possibly know? I wasn't aware you spoke for every reader here at the Trek BBS. Have you noticed that you act like the self-appointed high priest of a religious sect trying to mock and ridicule what you obviously consider heretic (without ever telling anybody here what it is you find so blasphemous about the whole treatise I wrote).

First, because you couldn't possibly know, I had been preparing a new thread in December which will actually demonstrate that the Phase II engine room sets should/could be there aboard the TMP Enterprise. It's the illustrations that will go along that have kept me from presenting it, yet (and the Enterprise-C issue, of course).

I don't think Andrew Probert was "simply" drawing lines between the Enterprise-B and -C. He presented a painting what the ship looked like and in contrast to the Phase II Enterprise design, Probert's "C" made it onto the conference lounge wall (and onscreen), rather high up and visible for he duration of four seasons of TNG. Now, Dukhat's arguing skills are apparently and entirely limited to the conference lounge wall, but the much larger part of my treatise examines the plotholes and oddities of "Yesterday's Enterprise" that make it possible to have cake and eat it, too, i.e, two diferent versions of the Enterprise-C (as a matter of principle, that's something you, unlike Dukhat, wouldn't have a problem with?).

And still more I have to say after rewatching "Redemption, Part II" yesterday, but I'll do that in the original thread in the TNG section instead.

Bob

 

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

Guys, just let him blather on in his original thread. People can go into that thread and get a chuckle or two.