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

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

Really?

 

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

I would be blown away if Renegades actually achieved fruition. So far it sounds just horrible. Almost as bad as a Canadian made drama from the 80's. And those were pretty bad.

 

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

Considering the pilot hasn't even aired yet, I find your comment ignorant. Wait until the episode comes out before you judge it.

on a side note: the premise to the series seems similar to my Black Guard story (the first chapter and what the story was about posted a year before Renegades was announced), although my crew isn't on the run and it is set in 2245, before The Cage.

 

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

I thought it was clear that we were discussing the subject from an “in-universe” approach and as such, a falsified Enterprise-C on the sculpture wall would have been incompatible with the ethical standards of the fictional character of Jean-Luc Picard.

Yes, it’s obviously the immediate predecessor to the “Battleship Enterprise” in this alternate reality where both director and screenplay writers themselves are somewhat uncertain whether it’s supposed to be an alternate timeline or an “alternate universe”, after what I reread on the subject.


Fact remains that we never saw this Enterprise-C in “our”, the “real” TNG universe. What we’ve seen there is the sculpture on the conference lounge wall (and the painting Andrew Probert made to convey what this Enterprise-C would have looked like). So before you declare the original design from “our” universe “non-canon” on behalf of the design featured in an alternate reality (!), you’d first have to establish beyond a shred of doubt that

• the Enterprise-C featured in “Yesterday’s Universe” really came from the past of “our” universe. I looked into the question and found there remains reasonable doubt. YMMV.
• this Enterprise-C really returned to the past of “our” universe. I looked into that question, too, and found that the rationalizations one would have to conjure up to make the assumption work rather staggering and hard-to-believe. YMMV (especially if you dislike Romulans)

Yes, that’s what Richard Arnold kept telling me, too. However, I find it amazing that you are playing the “It’s just a TV show” joker card while you otherwise don’t mind participating in in-depth treknological analysis. If that’s really all you gotta say, I find it personally encouraging and rewarding. Thanks.

You made it abundantly clear how you feel about the starship sculptures of the Enterprise-D, but you can’t possibly know how Captain Picard would feel about the issue, a man who does care about "historical truth".

I say it is self-evident that the sculptures on the conference lounge wall are not 100% accurate but they all feature the correct proportions of their saucer sections (primary hulls) in relation to the engineering sections (secondary hulls) in relation to the warp nacelles to make a clear and obvious distinction between the Enterprises A through D possible.

Given the roughness of the artist’s rendering of these starships, you couldn’t really tell the primary hull of Andrew Probert’s Enterprise-C from Rick Sternbach’s Enterprise-C apart, but it’s obvious that the warp nacelles and the stardrive sections of both designs are not compatible (I provided a profile comparison earlier).



I would also like to highlight that the sculptor apparently didn’t put his heart into all the other Enterprises, but his Enterprise-C sculpture is remarkably accurate because it really reflects the proportions Andrew Probert provided with his side view guidance.

I don't see how any of that what I wrote here or in my treatise in the TNG section is "wishful thinking". In my life I don't judge things by the way they are wrapped but by their content.

If you allow me to continue the analogy we have a poor wrapping of Andrew Probert's Enterprise-C (a rough golden sculpture on the wall of the conference lounge) opposite a full-fledged VFX model with lights built by Greg Jein (Rick Sternbach's Enterprise-C).

However, it's foremost the content which matters to me and that is the context in which both Enterprise-C designs were presented.
One in "our" TNG universe for the duration of four seasons (and beyond "Yesterday's Enterprise" I should add), the other one in one episode where it's still not clear if the alternate reality which featured the ship was an alternate timeline or an alternate universe, instead.

Bob

 

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

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.

Also, if Picard were to get upset about something, wouldn't he be more worried that the shuttle bay doors on the Ent-D are vertical when inside the bay, but sloped when seen from the outside? Shouldn't that be freaking him out since it defies physics rather than some silly model on a shelf? If the characters in the show were aware of every visual inconsistency the viewers can find, they'd most likely fear for their sanity.

 

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

Oh, good Lord. I'm out.

 

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

So you know what Picard thought about the matter, but no one else does? This is way off the rails....

 

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

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.

This is the last word I'm going to say about this ridiculous subject: We all get that you love Probert's design. We all get your enthusiasm about writing up long essays about subjects you find fascinating. That's all great. 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. Yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but we're entitled to ours too. And my opinion is that the producers and writers of "Yesterday's Enterprise" made it very clear what we were seeing: 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.

 

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

That's a nice ship. A hell of a lot better looking than the 1701D...

 

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

Remember the GEC? Jeff Robb did his own version called the Council class.
Scroll down
http://www.treknology.org/history3.htm

 

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

Ohhh so that's the real reason he took a phaser rifle to the collection in First Contact. Messing up the Enterprise C? making the Enterprise B a normal Excelsior instead of a refit version? missing out the NX-01?

Somethings a man can take, but doing it twice, then hanging them at an angle? well, it was only a matter of time before he snapped.

 

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

Ignorant? That's harsh since there is existing evidence. Dude, I'm going off all we have- those god-awful teasers. I actually just tried to watch them again and couldn't get through them. It's a shame, because I like a lot of the people in them, but acting just can't save that writing, over dramatic lighting, and shots. I'll seriously give it a shot if they pull it together because I love Star Trek, but if they keep on this course, well, the Titanic fared better....

I'm guessing both ships would be the same in both realities. But I hate time travel and alternate reality based tales. There's just too much BS for me to swallow.

Those doors really bothered me! All of them. That flat grey. They just didn't look right.

 

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

I would hope that Picard has better things to do than to scrutinize the historical accuracy of the art on a wall.

Perhaps the 24th century artist worked from available illustrations each of the "little ships," and what said artist found of the Ambassador class was only the concept drawings. Art does not always mirror reality. Art is art.

Whatever explanation one chooses to embrace, in the overall scheme of things it's really insignificant.

 

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

That's your problem you're going off teasers. Teasers have never been accurate representations of the films just look at Tron Legacy great teaser bad film

 

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

I just dont understand how anyone can think that the C in YE wasnt the one from the real TNG universe... Did another Enterprise C take a trip forward in time, meet another Enterprise fighting a doomed war with the Klingons and then go back with another Tasha Yar?

Now I love the original Probert design much more than the on-screen Ambassador, I would love for it to be made canon as a variant or an offshoot from the same concept designs, but the E-C is the ship from the episode and is the one which Sela's mother traveled back in time on and was captured by the Romulans.

 

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

A couple of weeks ago I ("anyone") would have agreed (and made a comment in the TNG discussion regarding "Yesterday's Enterprise" I would now prefer I hadn't made).

The one thing that still continued to bug me is the unscrupulousness and apparent ease how Andrew Probert's Enterprise-C, sufficiently documented prior to "Yesterday's Enterprise", was deemed non-canon and retconned as a poor sculptor's work (which of course, it was not, since we do know better).

I find the attempts of my fellow Trekkers to rationalize a kind of refit to explain the design differences most commendable, but I decided to take a different approach, i.e. a real in-depth look at the information we got about Narendra III, the year 2344 and, of course and especially, the aftermath of he battle (according to "Redemption, Part II").

The plotholes are large enough to allow passage for a couple of Enterprise-C starships and room for doubt whether the Enterprise-C featured in "Yesterday's Enterprise" was truly the one and only from "our" past and/or the one returning to it.

Apparently that is too much for "open-minded" TNG fans who had little else to post than , , "it's just a show" or else (but so far, nothing substantial, unfortunately).

Bob

 

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

You're confusing this as fact when it's actually opinion. A supremely minority opinion. That you have taken to absurd levels of justification that makes you come off as "that guy" in trek fandom. Hence the

Being "open minded" means "willing to listen", not "believe everything without criticism".

 

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

You comment reminds me of that Hellsgate guy and that guy was an idiot. 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).

 

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

Robert Comsol, 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.

 

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

this. this is not a thing.