RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,853
Posts: 5,328,330
Members: 24,554
Currently online: 645
Newest member: Kastrol

TrekToday headlines

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 4 2013, 06:19 PM   #61
DaveyNY
Commodore
 
DaveyNY's Avatar
 
Location: DaveyNY
Send a message via AIM to DaveyNY Send a message via Yahoo to DaveyNY
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

PopBoy wrote: View Post
Didnt know there is such a large amount of size queens here ;-) Don't shoot me down, but does it really matter how big it is? Its what you do with that counts...
If the condom fits...





__________________
I must go out in2 space again for the call of adventure cries. With a steady hand & robust crew I'll take her forth with pride. I must go out in2 space again to a vagabond Captains life. Where comets play & galaxies sway like whirlwinds in the night.
DaveyNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2013, 07:01 PM   #62
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

PopBoy wrote: View Post
Don't shoot me down, but does it really matter how big it is? Its what you do with that counts...
Winner.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2013, 07:06 PM   #63
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

"A ship is a ship."
-- Kirk, from TVH.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2013, 09:19 PM   #64
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

PopBoy wrote: View Post
Didnt know there is such a large amount of size queens here ;-) Don't shoot me down, but does it really matter how big it is? Its what you do with that counts...
You say that now, just wait until you need to fly five thousand colonists to Nimbus III
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 12:31 AM   #65
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^That's what freighters are for. If you're using starships for that kind of duty, you've got too many starships with not enough to do, and that's probably not possible, given all there is to do and see .. plus the fact that somewhere the Enterprise is the only ship within the quadrant or interception range.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 01:00 AM   #66
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Here's an airplane (an Airbus 320):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._D-AIQT_01.jpg

It's about 37m long. It can seat about 200 passengers.

Here's a bigger airplane (the A380):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tes_A6-EDC.jpg

It's twice as long (about 73m). It can seat four times as many people (850 passengers). It clearly is a bigger plane: it has two levels, windows for each level, and note the windows are the same size as on the A320. The hatches are all the same size, because they're built for the same thing (people). The cockpit windows are the same size. The cargo doors are the same size.

No one at Airbus decided to simply take the A320 design and scale it entirely up by a factor of 2, because that way, it would be a bigger, grander plane. The doors aren't twice as big on the A380. The windows aren't twice as big. There are design consequences to upscaling.

And before anyone tries: even bigger planes that have only one level (e.g. Boeing 767, etc....) have MORE WINDOWS that are the same size as the smaller one, hatches that are the same size, etc....

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; May 5 2013 at 01:11 AM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 01:11 AM   #67
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The windows on the nu1701 are now only giant because they made the ship to be 300m and only later scaled it to 725m as stated in this thread many times.

Starship scaling occurs a lot in Trek. The most notorious case would be the Klingon Bird of Prey. The 50m sized version in Way of the Warrior from DS9 has tiny tiny windows whereas the 400m version of the Bird of Prey seen in TNG 'The Defector' has fucking massive windows.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 01:13 AM   #68
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Flake wrote: View Post
The windows on the nu1701 are now only giant because they made the ship to be 300m and only later scaled it to 725m as stated in this thread many times.
I understand that. But it's stupid, sloppy, and I reject it. If they wanted to make the ship twice as big, they should have made more of an effort to design a bigger ship. This isn't a weekly TV series with a limited budget and a production staff that really doesn't care -- it's a 100 million dollar movie (with a staff that claims they're making something "real" that "could actually happen in our future", but apparently really doesn't care either).

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; May 5 2013 at 01:27 AM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 02:56 AM   #69
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
But too many are confusing "benchmark of credibility" with "the way it used to be."
That's exactly what people are doing. The only standard by which nuTrek falls short in terms of plausibility in any regard is "the more it resembles what I'm comfortable with, the more believable it is."

That ignores, of course, the fact that Star Trek ships have never been very carefully thought out in engineering terms.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 03:02 AM   #70
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
(with a staff that claims they're making something "real" that "could actually happen in our future",
I must have missed that memo

but apparently really doesn't care either).
—and that one, too.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 03:31 AM   #71
greenlight
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
The windows on the nu1701 are now only giant because they made the ship to be 300m and only later scaled it to 725m as stated in this thread many times.
I understand that. But it's stupid, sloppy, and I reject it. If they wanted to make the ship twice as big, they should have made more of an effort to design a bigger ship. This isn't a weekly TV series with a limited budget and a production staff that really doesn't care -- it's a 100 million dollar movie (with a staff that claims they're making something "real" that "could actually happen in our future", but apparently really doesn't care either).
^This. The scandal isn't that the ship is or is not the same size as the original, it's that it's incandescently obvious that they intended it to be the same size and then changed somewhere for stupid reasons and without giving adequate thought to how it would/should work. Extrapolating scale from window size is folly IMO, but, really, it just looks like they decided to say it twice as big and knew no one would care except those of us here.

(actually, the real scandal is that they put bar-code scanners on the bridge stations, but I seem to be the only one outraged by that, so I'm going with the size issue)
greenlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 03:44 AM   #72
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

One could choose not to be "outraged" by anything in a Star Trek movie, of course.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 03:56 AM   #73
greenlight
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Or one could choose to enjoy hyperbole, and geeking out, and hashing out all the things that we love, and love to hate, about Star Trek.

I'll gladly play by their rules and I'll gladly buy into the fictional world that they set up. But when they trade on the past, when they lay claim to the equity of a beloved franchise and yet make sloppy mistakes and violate their own continuity, often out of sheer laziness, then I reserve the right to call them out.

(yes, I'm typing this in the basement, but, no, it's not my mom's basement)
greenlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 04:18 AM   #74
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
The windows on the nu1701 are now only giant because they made the ship to be 300m and only later scaled it to 725m as stated in this thread many times.
I understand that. But it's stupid, sloppy, and I reject it. If they wanted to make the ship twice as big, they should have made more of an effort to design a bigger ship. This isn't a weekly TV series with a limited budget and a production staff that really doesn't care -- it's a 100 million dollar movie (with a staff that claims they're making something "real" that "could actually happen in our future", but apparently really doesn't care either).
But that's the way it is, either you accept the facts or delude yourself into believing otherwise and completely ignore the evidence. It's 725 meters, has been for four years. ILM says so, Paramount says so as well, and many "experts" agree.
__________________
*Tim Duncan fills glass with milk*
"Hm, you know what..."
*adds squirt of chocolate syrup*
"Tonight's a special night."
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 05:59 AM   #75
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Flake wrote: View Post
The windows on the nu1701 are now only giant because they made the ship to be 300m and only later scaled it to 725m as stated in this thread many times.

Starship scaling occurs a lot in Trek. The most notorious case would be the Klingon Bird of Prey. The 50m sized version in Way of the Warrior from DS9 has tiny tiny windows whereas the 400m version of the Bird of Prey seen in TNG 'The Defector' has fucking massive windows.
there's a HUGE factor being ignored here ... the reason the BoP and other scale issues were so prevalent on the TV series (and remember those are series on limited budgets) is that you'd have had to build new physical models or alter the existing ones.

With models that exist only in the virtual realm, the costs are not exorbitant and the time to alter should not be production-crushing either.

And it isn't like something like this didn't crop up before (and during the physical model era.) On FIRST CONTACT they had finished building the miniature and started shooting it, only to have to stop and revise the model to conform to the practical deflector dish, which Zimmerman was not able to have built to the original specs, necessitating the miniature being physically changed (really put ILM under the gun in terms of shooting ship effects too - they were shooting or reshooting the opening reveal of the -E in late October when I was there, which is pretty late in the game given when it released.)

One of the principal virtues of keeping the ships digital -- and I'm not going to get into the cg vs practical thing again, except to say that precious little spaceship stuff looks all that great to me in whole-cloth CG form -- is to address this exact kind of situation, so why they couldn't really get this fixed (especially given that the movie was finished at least a half-year prior to release), makes me think they just didn't give a shit -- and that suggests that if they mess with the scale for this film, it is because they still don't give a shit.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
argument, size, starship

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.