Starship Size Argument™ thread

Yeah we get it, the NuEnterprise is bigger and you don't like it.

In your own words your argument blames a poor design that is full of nasty open areas which are terribly dangerous.

 

Nope, since the people who created it have given the sizes involved. Accidental scaling errors in scenes is something that happens in all science fiction, but the majority of scenes imply the 725 meter mark and has been confirmed by the crew involved in rendering the ship.

I'm afraid you'll have to do an awful lot more than post very vague assertions and stomp your feet insisting it's not.

And please, the Old Enterprise shuttlebay, the refit Rec Deck, the various implied areas of the Enterprise D devoted to weird sciences that were essentially warehouse sized open areas right next to the hull, all Enterprises have them.

 

I see what people were talking about when they mentioned hostility shown towards classic trek fans from new trek fans. You guys use set floorplans as technical schematics which is impractical illogical and whenever someone disagrees you get hostile. Contrary to your belief most of the scenes do not back up the 725 meter claim but you may choose to believe whatever you wish. I get it, my opinion differs and you don't like it. You can also downplay my evidence all you want but it doesn't change the fact that my evidence shows a lot more than yours does and I didn't need to post tons of pages or respond to every single comment to show it. All of this grief over a ship that isn't even real, go figure. You guys really should consider lightening up.

 

I know this has gone on far too long, but why is using set floorplans impractical and illogical? How else are we to see how the rooms we see in the films are supposed to fit inside the ship?

 

That's ridiculous and insulting. Many of us have been Trek fans for decades. Three, in my case.

And screenshots and sets and other forms of evidence. Yes, pesky evidence.

The only one who is hostile here is you.

That is false, as has been demonstrated several times in the last four years. I, too, doubted the 700+m figure, until I looked at all the evidence, which is the only thing you should be concerned about. Ask yourself, seriously, if you are ok with a 700m Enterprise, either way.

Ah, yes. The good old retreat into reality routine, once your arguments have been shot down.

 

No one was being hostile toward you. You however are getting needlessly upset.

This has nothing to do with new Trek versus classic Trek. There are plenty of people who disagree with your stance who are as much fans of classic Trek as you are.

The set plans as a whole do not give an accurate internal arrangement for the entire bridge deck, and no one has ever claimed they do. Obviously there are things located elsewhere on the ship like the medbay and so forth. However, they do give an accurate representation of the size and configuration of the bridge, the plaza, and the corridor between them, which is precisely what King Daniel was demonstrating with his edited overlay posted above that eliminates most of the extraneous rooms. And lo and behold it fits the bridge location and the transparent bubble over the plaza perfectly.

The visual evidence from the films back up the larger Enterprise. The filmmakers and VFX/concept artists back up the larger Enterprise. The production materials back up the larger Enterprise.

What evidence did you post other than one video of the Vengeance crashing and a couple of blurry photos (after initially saying you don't trust blurry photos as evidence from others) with absolutely no measurements of any kind like King Daniel has provided in spades? Your evidence was all visual estimates ("it looks smaller than the island there") not any kind of measurement.

Your criticism of them is that they responded to you too much? How is that even a criticism? Would you rather they not respond to your arguments?

Also, falling back on "the ship isn't real, so get a life, you nerds!" gambit after you've been right here engaging in the same debate as everyone else is pretty lame.

 

Been a fan for nearly thirty-eight years, I haven't been rude to you (unless you define 'rude' as disagreeing with you) and I go with the creator intent that the ship is 725-meters.

 

The dilithium chamber is in the middle assembly BETWEEN those "tanks" actually. The overriding point being whatever those tanks are in TOS (they probably aren't really tanks), is probably exactly what they are in STXI.

We don't actually know what they are, and we never did, and we never will. Mainly this is because the producers of the show never really knew what they were and thus never bothered to tell anyone.

Incorrect. The torpedo tubes are noticeably further forward of the shuttlebay, roughly amidships and several decks down from it.

Remember, the secondary hull is almost as large as a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. The "weapons bay" mentioned in the movie is likely an entirely different compartment from either the shuttle bay or the engine room.

 

Not you, some of the others have been hostile though. All I had to do was say that I didn't think the ship was 725 meters and people got defensive and now it's switched to openly hostile. The creator of this design was Ryan Church, the ship's designed was later appropriated by Bad Robot and ILM.

 

Ryan Church was hired by Bad Robot to work on the movie and the design went through several iterations. There's an "Art of" book.

 

I think I read on his site that he offered design ideas to them, I didn't see anything about him being hired by them.

 

Bill I'll ask you directly this question, you know how the Vengeance is "officially" about 1500 meters? I'll add the second part when you respond.

 

It really doesn't matter what I "know", because whether its 15 meters or 1,500, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the movie.

 

No one offers their designs for free in Hollywood. Church was a known commodity who had worked on multiple successful films.

http://ryanchurch.com/

He designed much of what we saw in the two Abrams films.

 

This has to do with the size of the ship. Ok I'll be more specific, you know how the Star Destroyer is the same size right? Well if they are both the same size why is the Vengeance's bridge window big on the hull while the ISD's bridge window is tiny on the hull. Here are a couple of pictures for reference. I highlight the bridge area in green on the QMX model.

[ IMG]http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/ISD/isdface2asm.jpg[/ IMG]

[ IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/2a8gj28.jpg[/ IMG]

[ IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/2ztbo9e.jpg[/ IMG]

 

I guess it comes down to this for me: should I decide that the original Enterprise isn't the size that Matt Jefferies says it is because some of the interiors don't exactly match up and the bridge turbolift on the exterior doesn't match where it's at on the interior?

I understand some folks get passionate about this stuff but I don't.

 

As far as the Star Destroyer goes: whose to say it's properly scaled? We have no evidence and nothing familiar in film to compare it against.

 

Like I said they are supposedly the same size but the window on the Vengeance is much larger compared to the ISD so Khan would be 50 feet tall compared to the crew on the ISD. Basically this also proves the Vengeance isn't 1500 meters because if it were that window would be very very small in that scene instead of right below the semi dome crescent shape visible on the highly accurate QMX model. We plainly see the window is a smaller than the crescent but not by a huge amount. The Vengeance is the length of the Sovereign class, it's clearly modeled after the Sovereign class as well.

I used to be passionate about stuff like this but I'm not anymore, however when I see things that don't correspond to the officially stated size I started wondering. A lot.

 

There's not a single CRT display in the whole movie. Some screens were back projected flat screens, and then only in the background. Virtually all foreground displays were matte shots.

 

You're more than welcome to think its whatever size you want it to be. I see no real evidence to question the creative team behind it anymore than I would question Matt Jefferies.