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

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

Wiki sources it as being from "The Drumhead."

 

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

Of course, the real reason the Enterprise-D was externally identical in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and all the "Parallels" universes is because they couldn't afford to build new models (ironically, the very reason the Enterprise-C looks so much like a Constitution-class ship and not an Excelsior/Galaxy hybrid). Diane Duane's novel Dark Mirror, free of budgetary limitations, describes a very different and far more fearsome mirror universe Enterprise-D. JJ's big budget reboot showed a far larger and vastly different NCC-1701, after a 25-year divergence.

And of course, the real reason the crew is always (virtually) the same is because Trek is a fantasy world and alternate twins of main characters is a well worn trope. It's fun to see might-have-been versions of the crew!

 

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

Better be careful what you are saying here or some people might criticize you for having looked too long at this:



But that's the way I feel about this. The Sternbach Enterprise-C's illuminated lower saucer sensor dome, the front shape of the warp nacelles and the cylindrical shape of the engineering hull had always reminded me more of the TOS Enterprise than a believable hybrid between the Excelsior Class "B" and the Galaxy Class "D".

Bob

 

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

Either that, or being careful not to throw thinly-veiled insults at people who have the audacity to disagree with your opinions

 

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

I'm not aware I have been insulting anyone, but it is obvious that you and a few others found the alternate interpretation I presented offensive and have vocally expressed that.

And I don't have any problem whatsoever with anybody disagreeing with my opinions. However, I presented evidence and drew conclusions, so I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for comments that explain "why" my conclusions are supposed to be crap.

If you have a problem that David Carson and Ronald D. Moore relocated events from our universe into a "parallel time line" (David Carson) or universe with "Redemption II", then your quarrel is with those, not the "messenger".

But if the Enterprise-C that returned to our universe is not the one featured in "Yesterday's Enterprise", then it's only proven "real" within this parallel and/or alternate universe and the "real" look of the one that left ours depends entirely on how to value the conference lounge display of the "D" versus the one of the "E" - and that's a matter of opinion, then.

Bob

 

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

Play nice, everyone. Or not. Meh.

Anyway- I'm not sure why there's such an obsession over evolutionary designs being so closely related between the Enterprises. It's just not needed. There's no reason for the E-C as it was presented to be out of place just because it looks a little behind the times compared to the E-B to D. It's just one of many different class of Starships in the fleet.

I've re-evaluted my opinion of the E-C as seen on TNG. I remembered seeing that episode for the first time when it came out and just LOVED seeing a new ship and it was the ENTERPRISE! It was so cool. Not an awe inspiring design, but it didn't have to be. It was the story behind the ship that mattered.

I'd still like to see Probert's Real C as he designed her, and would still have no issue with it being in a re-made CGI into that episode, but one way or the other, the E-C is the E-C as it is in canon (written or shown).

I'd know I'd LOVE to have a model of Probert's C. Maybe in my fleet it would be a limited run class that fell out of favour for the D and only a few were made.

 

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

The TNG E-C looked to me like a proper in-between an Excelsior and the E-D, IMHO. It had the bent warp pylons, the nacelles had the back half of the Excelsior's and the front of the E-D, the Excelsior's slanted edge saucer with the dorsal/ventral saucer curves of the E-D.

Other than the small lit ventral saucer dome similar to the TOS E and the cigar-ish front of the engineering hull like the E-A there isn't that much to connect it to the older TOS-E/TMP E, IMHO.

Probert's E-C looked alot more like contemporary or successor of the Galaxy-class rather than an in-between from an older generation ship and the Galaxy... Still, nice ship design though.

 

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

Quite true. If we take registry numbers into account (at least assuming they're chronological), then both the New Orleans class and the Steamrunner class were built around the same time. However, you couldn't have two more completely different designs of ship. They are dissimilar in almost every way, yet they could have been constructed right next to each other. Plus, look at the NX-01. It appears to have every indication of being a more advanced design of ship than the TOS Connie that came a century later. But it's not.

 

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

I concur. And none of my interpretations diminish the role of the starship class created by Rick Sternbach and seen as a VFX model (and as the Enterprise-C in the alternate universe of “Yesterday’s Enterprise”) throughout several episodes on screen.
Which of the two Enterprises-C is the better in-between between the "B" and the "D" is entirely a subject or personal taste and opinion (though I should add, that in my alternate universe sketch, the deciding factor for the presentation was the attempt to sync the phasers to the ships. Obviously, both TOS phaser and Enterprise-B are entirely conjectural. I speculated that in this "poor" Federation alternate reality, certain designs would be in use much longer than in ours).

[bold emphasis mine] I wholeheartedly agree (IMHO, story concerns have a higher priority than treknological aspects). And the way I have to take it, both the statements of Ronald D. Moore (2002) and David Carson (2008) suggest that the Enterprise-C in this episode (still) served as the plot device to enable Tasha Yar to have a meaningful death (apparently at the Battle of Narendra III).

Another parallel event featuring the Probert Enterprise-C sounds great to me. But the bridge schematics of the "C" would have to be altered, too. But then, it would still be stuck in an alternate universe that had no connection to ours.

Of course, the Sternbach Enterprise-C is canon for the alternate universe, but the one from "Yesterday's Enterprise" is not the ship that travelled back to our universe, according to "Redemption II", because in our universe the Tasha Yar that came from the future died a meaningless death (unless execution for having tried to escape should be considered a "meaningful death" or the Enterprise-C was duplicated upon return to our universe and one Tasha died meaningfully defending Narendra III while the other one got captured and was eventually executed).

That had been a project a couple of year's ago. If my observations and conclusions gain momentum, and once fans realize they could have two starship classes instead of just one (if they only accepted the premise change of "Yesterday's Enterprise" by "Redemption II") it could be a nice side effect to put this project back on tracks (and especially since 2011 there are authentic CGI drafts to build it).

If I may, I'd like to provide again my rationalization proposal why we didn't see more ships like the Probert Enterprise-C in our universe (except for the conference lounge display of the "D"):
Assuming that the Probert Enterprise-C of our universe was the starship that was ultimately destroyed at Narendra III but with the possibility of survivors being taken captive and interrogated, Starfleet was afraid that the Romulans might have learned vital technical specs about the "Probert Starship Class" and therefore stopped building more starships of this design to be on the safe side. YMMV.

Bob

 

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

I get what you mean- there are clearly elements from both ships that stray from what could be perceived as some kind of lineage. Probert's makes sense of course because of his design of the C & D. You can see Excelsior influences in his C in the lower half of the secondary hull and Saucer. I'm not suggesting that your point is any less valid- I agree with your description of the C's bent pylons, et c. I think my contention primarily lies in Probert's being a more refined. But as we know, secondary models didn't get the attention that designers and builders would have liked.

Re- TOS Connie/ NX-O1. I really think ST:E did a great job in emphasizing that the TOS Connie is superiour when they made In a Mirror, Darkly. The awe the crew had in the Defiant, and the power she conveyed, was a great tool for showing the viewer that NX (albeit alternet reality- whatever) was NOT close to being as powerful as TOS's Connies. One of my favorite ST:E episodes.

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.

But I won't argue right or wrong with those interested in presenting their point of view on a subject so subjective.

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!

 

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

In the context of the episode, yes, it's clear why they had to steer the overall attitude toward a feeling that the TOS Connie was in fact superior to the NX-01. And yes, I also think they did a good job with that. However, I was talking more from a real-world standpoint. In that regard, the NX-01's look and technology are clearly superior to a ship designed in the '60's with the budget they had.

 

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

I see what you mean now. Agreed.

Fortunately ST:E was able to be creative with that 60's design, eh? Dramatic contemporary lighting techniques, and the ship CGI'd with more detail up close. But ya- there was no getting around a lot of things that we know to be very 60's. The computers/displays being the primary one, and the brightly coloured piping/conduits being another.

 

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

Yeah the look and budget of the ST:E series NX-01 appears more modern, but functional-wise the aesthetically-older looking ship was superior in capabilities. It's a bit like saying the interior of the TARDIS looks steampunk-era but clearly it packs some sophisticated technology.

 

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

Excellent analogy. Just as we clearly cannot judge the TARDIS's technology and capabilities simply by its appearance alone, neither can we judge the same in the Trek universe. From a visual standpoint only, the progression from the NX-01 through the TOS Connie to the TMP Connie would seem to make no sense; it looks more like the TOS Connie would have come first, then the NX-01, and finally the TMP Connie. But that's not the progression. Hell, there's even a progression disparity with Starfleet uniforms. The TNG unis have way more in common with the TOS unis than the TMP red jackets that were between the two.

Therefore, there's really no disparity with the "in-between" design of the Enterprise-C fitting in between the Excelsior and the Galaxy class.

 

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

That's pretty much how I feel as well. Between Constitution and Sovereign there's several blind alleys - much of the Galaxy's more unique features are undone when it's successor comes along. The Probert design fits rather well between D & E!

Has anyone ever done a morph between the ships?

Edit - answered my own question. It's at warp speed though!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9vWARxP1pM

 

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

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.

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

 

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

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

 

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

Perfect summary of events as suggested by "our" protagonists and TNG producers for "Yesterday's Enterprise".

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

 

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

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?

Yep.

Nope. I think it's pretty straight-forward.

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.)

 

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

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 ).

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!

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