Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
Dude, don't engage him. Just smile nicely and back away.
Dude, don't engage him. Just smile nicely and back away.
Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C - CLOSED - DO NOT RESTART TOPIC
- Thread starter Patrickivan
- Start date
- Status
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
Bob, regardless if Guinan knows what happened or assumed what happened, she doesn't contradict what happened in "Yesterday's Enterprise". TNG-2/War Picard sent TNG-2 Tasha back by approving her transfer. He is responsible for what happens in "Redemption".
We'll have to agree to disagree here as she along with the Sternbach E-C saved the Federation from a losing war and billions of deaths in that war.
Uhm, credibility? Did you forget that Sela is a scheming and manipulative Romulan agent (see Unification) and did it occur to you that "Sela being a clone of Tasha" also does not contradict anything Guinan said either?
The only thing we saw was in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and nothing of Tasha's imprisonment or of Sela's childhood.
I think that's all I'll say about it. You've made up your mind in trying to get the Probert-C to fit in so I'll stop replying about the timeline issue.
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).
Bob, regardless if Guinan knows what happened or assumed what happened, she doesn't contradict what happened in "Yesterday's Enterprise". TNG-2/War Picard sent TNG-2 Tasha back by approving her transfer. He is responsible for what happens in "Redemption".
We'll have to agree to disagree here as she along with the Sternbach E-C saved the Federation from a losing war and billions of deaths in that war.
Uhm, credibility? Did you forget that Sela is a scheming and manipulative Romulan agent (see Unification) and did it occur to you that "Sela being a clone of Tasha" also does not contradict anything Guinan said either?
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).
The only thing we saw was in "Yesterday's Enterprise" and nothing of Tasha's imprisonment or of Sela's childhood.
I think that's all I'll say about it. You've made up your mind in trying to get the Probert-C to fit in so I'll stop replying about the timeline issue.
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
There are models and graphics of the Enterprise lineage that have been posted here showing the correct Enterprise C as it appeared in Yesterdays Enterprise, other ships of the class still in service.
That's all we need to know. Concept art is not canon, and since TNG is off the air and other subsequent series and films have put it to rest, time to do so with this discussion.
There are models and graphics of the Enterprise lineage that have been posted here showing the correct Enterprise C as it appeared in Yesterdays Enterprise, other ships of the class still in service.
That's all we need to know. Concept art is not canon, and since TNG is off the air and other subsequent series and films have put it to rest, time to do so with this discussion.
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
"From a certain point of view" (to quote a character from another SciFi franchise). I believe that everyone is responsible for his or her own personal actions and not somebody else. Even if Guinan were Picard's Starfleet superior officer she shouldn't blame him for something she was "responsible" for in the first place:
TASHA: Captain, I request a transfer to the Enterprise-C.
PICARD: We need you here. ...
PICARD: What did she [Guinan] say to you?
TASHA: I don't belong here, sir. I'm supposed to be dead.
PICARD: She felt it necessary to reveal that to you?
TASHA: I felt it was necessary. ...
TASHA: I know how important it is that they don't fail, Captain. That's why I'm requesting this transfer.
PICARD: You don't belong on that ship, Lieutenant.
TASHA: No, Captain Garrett belongs on that ship. But she's dead. And I think there's a certain logic in this request. ...
PICARD: Lieutenant. Permission granted.
TASHA: Thank you, sir
It seems you're confusing "meaningful death" with "meaningful actions". The mission accomplishment according to Moore in 2002 and Carson in 2008 had been to give Tasha the "meaningful death", dying at Narendra III and in doing so saving the Federation from a losing war and billions of deaths in that war.
The other Tasha that was sent by her Captain Picard (the one responsible) from yet another (but unseen) "parallel universe" apparently helped to save billions of lives by preventing the outbreak of a Klingon-Federation war ("meaningful action") but ultimately suffered a "meaningless death", being executed having unsuccessfully tried to escape with her daughter.
I believe it's death itself (action) that's supposed to produce a "meaningful" reaction to qualify as "meaningful death".
Is it not obvious that Ron Moore dismissed the "clone idea" right from the start by having Picard wonder about the purpose of such action?
And it didn't look to me like the Sela character was acting. On the contrary it looked like Denise Crosby presented a truthful account and got genuinely upset for a few seconds just talking about it (her human half being buried but not completely dead, yet, as she wanted Picard to believe - hence his sympathetic smile)
But what we saw and heard (in "Redemption II") is sufficient information to reconstruct the events that occurred, even if one happened unseen in another parallel universe.
I see no good reason why to double-guess the information both onscreen (dialogue) and off-screen (statements from Moore and Carson), although it obviously seems they were too subtle in their premise changing approach.
A changed timeline then, a "parallel time line" (Carson 1992) after "Redemption II" (aka a "parallel universe" according to Carson's 2008 audio commentary).
Same question for you: What is your problem that both Enterprises-C could be canon? You rather have a canon contradiction (conference lounge wall sculptures) or a canon solution?
While I may have "tried" in the beginning, to fit the Probert Enterprise-C somehow in, the unpleasant tone in the reactions compelled me to examine the issue further and enabled me to notice the premise change suggested by "Redemption II".
The Enterprise-C in "Yesterday's Enterprise" is correct, but so is the other one, because...
The wall sculpture display of the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D is not just "concept art" but onscreen canon, too.
(and I believe that the ongoing TNG-R Releases on Blu-ray reveal that TNG is currently very alive).
If you don't like the presentation of new evidence that invites to take a look at things from a different angle, I'd suggest you ignore it or treat it with indifference.
Probably by tomorrow I have that sketch ready that illustrates how the three parallel universes (ours, the universe at war and the one we only heard about) are interconnected which hopefully visualizes better what I have been talking about (a picture can say more than a thousand words
). So I'd ask the OP and/or the moderator to keep this thread open at least until then.
Bob
"From a certain point of view" (to quote a character from another SciFi franchise). I believe that everyone is responsible for his or her own personal actions and not somebody else. Even if Guinan were Picard's Starfleet superior officer she shouldn't blame him for something she was "responsible" for in the first place:
TASHA: Captain, I request a transfer to the Enterprise-C.
PICARD: We need you here. ...
PICARD: What did she [Guinan] say to you?
TASHA: I don't belong here, sir. I'm supposed to be dead.
PICARD: She felt it necessary to reveal that to you?
TASHA: I felt it was necessary. ...
TASHA: I know how important it is that they don't fail, Captain. That's why I'm requesting this transfer.
PICARD: You don't belong on that ship, Lieutenant.
TASHA: No, Captain Garrett belongs on that ship. But she's dead. And I think there's a certain logic in this request. ...
PICARD: Lieutenant. Permission granted.
TASHA: Thank you, sir
It seems you're confusing "meaningful death" with "meaningful actions". The mission accomplishment according to Moore in 2002 and Carson in 2008 had been to give Tasha the "meaningful death", dying at Narendra III and in doing so saving the Federation from a losing war and billions of deaths in that war.
The other Tasha that was sent by her Captain Picard (the one responsible) from yet another (but unseen) "parallel universe" apparently helped to save billions of lives by preventing the outbreak of a Klingon-Federation war ("meaningful action") but ultimately suffered a "meaningless death", being executed having unsuccessfully tried to escape with her daughter.
I believe it's death itself (action) that's supposed to produce a "meaningful" reaction to qualify as "meaningful death".
Is it not obvious that Ron Moore dismissed the "clone idea" right from the start by having Picard wonder about the purpose of such action?
And it didn't look to me like the Sela character was acting. On the contrary it looked like Denise Crosby presented a truthful account and got genuinely upset for a few seconds just talking about it (her human half being buried but not completely dead, yet, as she wanted Picard to believe - hence his sympathetic smile)
But what we saw and heard (in "Redemption II") is sufficient information to reconstruct the events that occurred, even if one happened unseen in another parallel universe.
I see no good reason why to double-guess the information both onscreen (dialogue) and off-screen (statements from Moore and Carson), although it obviously seems they were too subtle in their premise changing approach.
A changed timeline then, a "parallel time line" (Carson 1992) after "Redemption II" (aka a "parallel universe" according to Carson's 2008 audio commentary).
Same question for you: What is your problem that both Enterprises-C could be canon? You rather have a canon contradiction (conference lounge wall sculptures) or a canon solution?
While I may have "tried" in the beginning, to fit the Probert Enterprise-C somehow in, the unpleasant tone in the reactions compelled me to examine the issue further and enabled me to notice the premise change suggested by "Redemption II".
The Enterprise-C in "Yesterday's Enterprise" is correct, but so is the other one, because...
The wall sculpture display of the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D is not just "concept art" but onscreen canon, too.
(and I believe that the ongoing TNG-R Releases on Blu-ray reveal that TNG is currently very alive).
If you don't like the presentation of new evidence that invites to take a look at things from a different angle, I'd suggest you ignore it or treat it with indifference.
Probably by tomorrow I have that sketch ready that illustrates how the three parallel universes (ours, the universe at war and the one we only heard about) are interconnected which hopefully visualizes better what I have been talking about (a picture can say more than a thousand words
). So I'd ask the OP and/or the moderator to keep this thread open at least until then.Bob
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
However if you go by these stylized renditions of the ships, then all the ships we have seen are wrong. You can't just point out the Enterprise C and say look, that one is wrong. All the ships in the wall sculpture are wrong.
The Enterprise-C in "Yesterday's Enterprise" is correct, but so is the other one, because...
The wall sculpture display of the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D is not just "concept art" but onscreen canon, too.
(and I believe that the ongoing TNG-R Releases on Blu-ray reveal that TNG is currently very alive).
If you don't like the presentation of new evidence that invites to take a look at things from a different angle, I'd suggest you ignore it or treat it with indifference.
Probably by tomorrow I have that sketch ready that illustrates how the three parallel universes (ours, the universe at war and the one we only heard about) are interconnected which hopefully visualizes better what I have been talking about (a picture can say more than a thousand words
Bob
However if you go by these stylized renditions of the ships, then all the ships we have seen are wrong. You can't just point out the Enterprise C and say look, that one is wrong. All the ships in the wall sculpture are wrong.
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
If you're stuck on this artwork being "accurate" then I submit to you that this TNG reality starting in episode 1 is a different reality since the Enterprise-A has her warp pylons too far back and over the shuttlebay
If you're stuck on this artwork being "accurate" then I submit to you that this TNG reality starting in episode 1 is a different reality since the Enterprise-A has her warp pylons too far back and over the shuttlebay
The wall sculpture display of the conference lounge of the Enterprise-D is not just "concept art" but onscreen canon, too.
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
Crudely made, highly inaccurate artwork displays are just as non-canon. Since every ship on that wall looks like it was made with playdough by a child.
The real ship, every nut and bolt of her, is seen from various angles, close up, for a fair amount of screen time in an episode. That trumps someones artistic interpretation of it.
Since the ship is treated as official by those actually running the franchise, depicting the YE design in every publication and subsequent on screen appearance, that also trumps concept art and fanon.
Does it even need to be pointed out yet again that that wall display was made before the proper model? that's all we need to know on the subject.
Crudely made, highly inaccurate artwork displays are just as non-canon. Since every ship on that wall looks like it was made with playdough by a child.
The real ship, every nut and bolt of her, is seen from various angles, close up, for a fair amount of screen time in an episode. That trumps someones artistic interpretation of it.
Since the ship is treated as official by those actually running the franchise, depicting the YE design in every publication and subsequent on screen appearance, that also trumps concept art and fanon.
Does it even need to be pointed out yet again that that wall display was made before the proper model? that's all we need to know on the subject.
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
So you are entitled to post your opinions, but we aren't entitled to post our opinions of your opinions? This is an open forum. If you didn't want people disagreeing with your opinions, then you should have made a blog that had no option for responses.
So you are entitled to post your opinions, but we aren't entitled to post our opinions of your opinions? This is an open forum. If you didn't want people disagreeing with your opinions, then you should have made a blog that had no option for responses.
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
Probably by tomorrow I have that sketch ready that illustrates how the three parallel universes (ours, the universe at war and the one we only heard about) are interconnected which hopefully visualizes better what I have been talking about (a picture can say more than a thousand words
Bob
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
Well, you all can go on discrediting the authenticity of the conference lounge sculpture wall of the Enterprise-D any way you want.
The proportions of the core elements (Primary & Secondary Hull, warp nacelles) are concise enough to clearly distinct the ships from each other. Had the aircraft carrier CVN-65 been displayed inaccurately, with World War III etc. in between, that might be understandable.
But to think that the immediate predecessor to the Enterprise-D, a starship from the 24th Century, should be the only one where the look is intentionally or accidentally falsified, is rather hilarious, IMHO. (especially since it is the one sculpture that most faithfully represents the original Probert specifications, see side views below).
Thanks to Patrickivan for having me granted asylum in his thread. The following schematic was inspired by him wondering how to piece the different realities together. It's one thing to write and think about it, it's another one to illustrate and see it. I hope this helps understanding what I have been talking about (presentation is somewhat crude, but I think it's the content that matters).
Since this is just a schematic for orientation, I wanted to see myself how big the Sternbach design would be next to the Probert one if the height of the warp engines were matched (no malicious intent to make the ship appear smaller, this is not a p**** contest).
So, if you - like myself - don't want to watch the first 4 seasons of TNG and feel your viewing experience spoiled each time there is a conference lounge scene with that "falsified" Enterprise-C, all you need to do is to accept the screenplay writer's and director's "Redemption II" statements and those they made Guinan and Sela say at face value, et voilà you can have cake and eat it, too (both designs are "real") - and at the same time stop worrying about the "unplugged [plot]holes" (Michael Piller) of "Yesterday's Enterprise".
Bob
P.S.
Now can we please have a model kit of the other "real" Enterprise-C, too?
Well, you all can go on discrediting the authenticity of the conference lounge sculpture wall of the Enterprise-D any way you want.
The proportions of the core elements (Primary & Secondary Hull, warp nacelles) are concise enough to clearly distinct the ships from each other. Had the aircraft carrier CVN-65 been displayed inaccurately, with World War III etc. in between, that might be understandable.
But to think that the immediate predecessor to the Enterprise-D, a starship from the 24th Century, should be the only one where the look is intentionally or accidentally falsified, is rather hilarious, IMHO.
(especially since it is the one sculpture that most faithfully represents the original Probert specifications, see side views below).Thanks to Patrickivan for having me granted asylum in his thread. The following schematic was inspired by him wondering how to piece the different realities together. It's one thing to write and think about it, it's another one to illustrate and see it. I hope this helps understanding what I have been talking about (presentation is somewhat crude, but I think it's the content that matters).
Since this is just a schematic for orientation, I wanted to see myself how big the Sternbach design would be next to the Probert one if the height of the warp engines were matched (no malicious intent to make the ship appear smaller, this is not a p**** contest).
So, if you - like myself - don't want to watch the first 4 seasons of TNG and feel your viewing experience spoiled each time there is a conference lounge scene with that "falsified" Enterprise-C, all you need to do is to accept the screenplay writer's and director's "Redemption II" statements and those they made Guinan and Sela say at face value, et voilà you can have cake and eat it, too (both designs are "real") - and at the same time stop worrying about the "unplugged [plot]holes" (Michael Piller) of "Yesterday's Enterprise".
Bob
P.S.
Now can we please have a model kit of the other "real" Enterprise-C, too?
Last edited:
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
Well, the good news is that now that he has completely, totally and utterly convinced himself of his own opinion, perhaps this will be the last we hear about this. As for myself, I've changed my avatar because, well, I really don't give a shit about this topic anymore.
Well, the good news is that now that he has completely, totally and utterly convinced himself of his own opinion, perhaps this will be the last we hear about this. As for myself, I've changed my avatar because, well, I really don't give a shit about this topic anymore.
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
Ok, so now I'm confused. Which alternative universe is the final scene from?
Ok, so now I'm confused. Which alternative universe is the final scene from?
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
It was a mistake, that's all.
It was a mistake, that's all.
Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C
Yes, that was the premise of "Yesterday's Enterprise" and has been published and propagated in various media, so most people think of an alternate, i.e. changed time line of our universe.
Now, Ronald Moore and David Carson, assuming that Tasha Yar did have her meaningful death at Narendra III in "Yesterday's Enterprise" were confronted with the idea to bring back Denise Crosby again in "Redemption II", this time as her daughter.
Of course, with the premise of "Yesterday's Enterprise" (just a changed time line) and the meaningful death of Tasha Yar defending the Klingon outpost at Narendra III she obviously couldn't have children after that.
So both scriptwriter and director of "Yesterday's Enterprise" apparently decided to relocate the events of "Yesterday's Enterprise" into a parallel universe to solve the riddle and to avoid answering hard questions how the Tasha that went to the past in YE wouldn't be kept under lock and key the moment the Romulans captured her.
And Guinan's and Sela's statements in "Redemption II" do suggest that the Enterprise-C that arrived back in "our" universe came from another parallel universe that was not the one featured in YE (i.e. if you take these statements at face value and notice the absence of evidence to the contrary).
Shortly after having finished "Redemption II" David Carson talked about his portrayal of an "Enterprise at war" in "Yesterday's Enterprise" "parallel time line". The defining characteristic of parallel lines are that they never meet or connect!
And again in 2008: "So, with eight days to go, we all gathered around this big conference table in the Star Trek offices and looked at an outline, and this outline was Yesterday’s Enterprise. But it was incredibly complicated, this outline, because it involved having two bridges of the Enterprise, turning everything around and making it a completely different parallel universe, and building up ships and things like that."
What seemed to be just a changed time line of our universe to the protagonists in YE, apparently turned out by retroactive continuity to be actually a parallel universe according to the premise change of "Redemption II". And such a thing, of course, would have interesting ramifications regarding the status of the Enterprise-C.
@ Tom Hendricks
Do we know it was just a mistake? Admittedly, it probably was because of a hectic shooting schedule and short availability of Whoopi Goldberg, but how long would it take a good tailor to remove these patched-on "universe at war" sleeves?
The scene has an interesting touch of ambiguity, IMHO.
If the transformation process at the beginning of "Yesterday's Enterprise" were symmetrical, shouldn't Geordi still be in engineering in the "restored time line" rather than in Ten Forward?
And if the only events we saw in "Yesterday's Enterprise" concerning our universe were at the very beginning and very end, did Geordi come to Ten Forward the moment Worf left?
Back in the TOS Enterprise deck layout discussions a while ago, the agreed upon approach was to only take studio set shots literal that were not interrupted by an editing cut.
Assuming that events occurred simultaneously in several parallel universes (the "volley of photon torpedos" could have occurred at the same spot in multiple universes, think "All Good Things", and thus created the temporal rift), it's unlikely - but not impossible - that "our" Guinan called "our" bridge same as "another" Guinan in a parallel universe, but that the closing shot in Ten Forward featured this other Guinan and another Geordi (maybe even in the universe where Picard ordered Tasha to go to the past. So Guinan invites Geordi because he's gonna be the next to be ordered to sacrifice himself...
). Now that was just some wild speculation.
Bob
The point of divergence between the Prime Universe and the War Universe was the -C disappearing. That was made explicit in the episode. In what possible way can it be interpreted in any other way?
Yes, that was the premise of "Yesterday's Enterprise" and has been published and propagated in various media, so most people think of an alternate, i.e. changed time line of our universe.
Now, Ronald Moore and David Carson, assuming that Tasha Yar did have her meaningful death at Narendra III in "Yesterday's Enterprise" were confronted with the idea to bring back Denise Crosby again in "Redemption II", this time as her daughter.
Of course, with the premise of "Yesterday's Enterprise" (just a changed time line) and the meaningful death of Tasha Yar defending the Klingon outpost at Narendra III she obviously couldn't have children after that.
So both scriptwriter and director of "Yesterday's Enterprise" apparently decided to relocate the events of "Yesterday's Enterprise" into a parallel universe to solve the riddle and to avoid answering hard questions how the Tasha that went to the past in YE wouldn't be kept under lock and key the moment the Romulans captured her.
And Guinan's and Sela's statements in "Redemption II" do suggest that the Enterprise-C that arrived back in "our" universe came from another parallel universe that was not the one featured in YE (i.e. if you take these statements at face value and notice the absence of evidence to the contrary).
Shortly after having finished "Redemption II" David Carson talked about his portrayal of an "Enterprise at war" in "Yesterday's Enterprise" "parallel time line". The defining characteristic of parallel lines are that they never meet or connect!
And again in 2008: "So, with eight days to go, we all gathered around this big conference table in the Star Trek offices and looked at an outline, and this outline was Yesterday’s Enterprise. But it was incredibly complicated, this outline, because it involved having two bridges of the Enterprise, turning everything around and making it a completely different parallel universe, and building up ships and things like that."
What seemed to be just a changed time line of our universe to the protagonists in YE, apparently turned out by retroactive continuity to be actually a parallel universe according to the premise change of "Redemption II". And such a thing, of course, would have interesting ramifications regarding the status of the Enterprise-C.
@ Tom Hendricks
Do we know it was just a mistake? Admittedly, it probably was because of a hectic shooting schedule and short availability of Whoopi Goldberg, but how long would it take a good tailor to remove these patched-on "universe at war" sleeves?
The scene has an interesting touch of ambiguity, IMHO.
If the transformation process at the beginning of "Yesterday's Enterprise" were symmetrical, shouldn't Geordi still be in engineering in the "restored time line" rather than in Ten Forward?
And if the only events we saw in "Yesterday's Enterprise" concerning our universe were at the very beginning and very end, did Geordi come to Ten Forward the moment Worf left?
Back in the TOS Enterprise deck layout discussions a while ago, the agreed upon approach was to only take studio set shots literal that were not interrupted by an editing cut.
Assuming that events occurred simultaneously in several parallel universes (the "volley of photon torpedos" could have occurred at the same spot in multiple universes, think "All Good Things", and thus created the temporal rift), it's unlikely - but not impossible - that "our" Guinan called "our" bridge same as "another" Guinan in a parallel universe, but that the closing shot in Ten Forward featured this other Guinan and another Geordi (maybe even in the universe where Picard ordered Tasha to go to the past. So Guinan invites Geordi because he's gonna be the next to be ordered to sacrifice himself...
). Now that was just some wild speculation. Bob
- Status
