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

[Dukhat]

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

This would have been completely smart, self-consistent on numerous levels, and it would have left the Enterprise-C as a relative mystery to be explored later. Of course, if this had happened, fans would be up in arms with questions like: "Why does the E-B look so different from when it was launched? What happened to Capt. Harriman?" (ignoring the fact that YE came out four years before Generations...).

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.

 

[Kaiser]

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

*likes Duhkat's Post*

 

[starburst]

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

In hindsight, I think it would have been smarter to have used the Enterprise-B for YE (which at that time would have been just the regular Star Trek III Excelsior), and to have pushed back the date of the Narendra III battle to 2311 to coincide with the last Federation contact with the Romulans (the "Tomed Incident"...

This would have been completely smart, self-consistent on numerous levels, and it would have left the Enterprise-C as a relative mystery to be explored later.

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?

 

[Dukhat]

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

In hindsight, I think it would have been smarter to have used the Enterprise-B for YE (which at that time would have been just the regular Star Trek III Excelsior), and to have pushed back the date of the Narendra III battle to 2311 to coincide with the last Federation contact with the Romulans (the "Tomed Incident"...

This would have been completely smart, self-consistent on numerous levels, and it would have left the Enterprise-C as a relative mystery to be explored later.

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?

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

 

[Mytran]

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

Regarding the discrepancy with the shuttlebay inner/outer doors, I had a magazine from the late 80s (with pullouts) that postulated two separate doors. Makes sense to me.

Still doesn't work. First, you'd still see the sloped hull outside the door and the "ledge" which would have to protrude, and then when the door goes Up it would go right out the top of the ship unless the inner door was 8 meters in from the top of the door.

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:

As to why we don't see any of the external door bulkheads etc? Well, the exterior surface of the enterprise seems to naturally exhibit some weird light-bending features. Why else would we be able to see nothing but stars out of the observation lounge windows? The saucer on which it sits is huge and fairly flat, we ought to see at least something! Probably something to do with that funky 24th Century warp field.

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

 

[B.J.]

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

Regarding the discrepancy with the shuttlebay inner/outer doors, I had a magazine from the late 80s (with pullouts) that postulated two separate doors. Makes sense to me.

Still doesn't work. First, you'd still see the sloped hull outside the door and the "ledge" which would have to protrude, and then when the door goes Up it would go right out the top of the ship unless the inner door was 8 meters in from the top of the door.

It don't work.

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! )

 

[Mytran]

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

See, I knew there was a simple explanation

 

[Shik]

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

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

"Distinguished", eh? Hm. Galaxy, Challenger, Enterprise, Yamato, Odyssey, Venture, Trinculo. Well, I'll give you 2 definitely, & 2 possibly. The rest...meh.

Who knows what ship names will have significance in the 24th century. If anything, we should be bothered by the Earth/Anglo-centric names.

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.

 

[Robert Comsol]

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?

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

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

 

[Dukhat]

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)

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.

 

[Shik]

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)

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.

 

[OpenMaw]

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

and the Enterprise-A into Generations,

I totally want to see that version of Generations.

 

[F. King Daniel]

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

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.

Could you please elaborate, this is a criticism I take seriously. My rationalization philosophy is "First comes, first served", so if ever something requires a rationalization it shouldn't be the original (onscreen) design, but the revision that deliberately or accidentally attempts to overwrite or erase it.

In case anybody is interested or up to debating the arguments I presented in the treatise, may I suggest we continue it in the corresponding thread in the TNG section?

Bob

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.

 

[Maurice]

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

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

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

 

[Dukhat]

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

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

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

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.

 

[Wingsley]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dukhat]

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[Maurice]

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.

 

[Robert Comsol]

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)

Have you heard of the term "beating a dead horse?" Enough with the overly-dramatic bullshit, Bob. Nobody cares anymore.

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).

For the latter [Phase II] 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.

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

 

[sojourner]

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.