RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,435
Posts: 5,507,253
Members: 25,131
Currently online: 566
Newest member: Robert100a

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 5 2013, 06:04 AM   #76
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

greenlight wrote: View Post
(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)
You're probably joking about that, but to me the barcode scanners are a helluva lot worse than the carpet foam inside the elevators in the TOS movies. In fact, I think I put them about on par with something I remember from THE FANTASTIC JOURNEY when I was a teenager, and saw them using the TV remote control -- Zenith's Space Command 600 -- that I had in my hand, but they were chromakeying some kind of energy beam out of it as a weapon. I was going to include a reference to Sulu's stickshift in TMP, but I just remembered they have the same or worse in the Abrams, so I guess those are a push.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 10:30 AM   #77
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
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....
The "hatches" aren't only not the same size as they were on the TMP Enterprise (as I already showed you and you're predictably ignoring), but they clearly don't even have the same function! We see an airlock in the opening Nibiru scene of Into Darkness. When opened was the same height as the nearby engineering hull windows.

I've already posted overwhelming evidence that the windows (which are not simply scaled up versions of the originals in size, shape or placement despite your claim. They look vaguely similar but that's it) are far larger than they were. I think it's time to drop that comparison.
Here is it again, just for kicks:


Any exterior shot of the new Enterprise makes it clear the saucer rim and neck windows are all of that height and many of that width.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 11:47 AM   #78
PopBoy
Lieutenant Commander
 
PopBoy's Avatar
 
Location: London (and around)
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to PopBoy
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
One could choose not to be "outraged" by anything in a Star Trek movie, of course.
Thats my approach. As a kid i use to nitpick but that took the fun out of it so now i am strapped in for the ride and have a great time no matter the size of the ship i happen to sit down on
PopBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 01:06 PM   #79
lau03143
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
lau03143's Avatar
 
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

PopBoy wrote: View Post
My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
One could choose not to be "outraged" by anything in a Star Trek movie, of course.
Thats my approach. As a kid i use to nitpick but that took the fun out of it so now i am strapped in for the ride and have a great time no matter the size of the ship i happen to sit down on
Yeah! Me too! If I take it too seriously, I won't enjoy it. Sure, I'll be disappointed about big inconsistancies, but otherwise, I'm fine with most things.
__________________
I have never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question. - SPOCK, Star Trek: The Original Series, "This Side of Paradise"
lau03143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 01:29 PM   #80
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Just as an aside, "the people who made it say it's so" shouldn't count as an argument one way or another.

If what they made looks like X, then it's X, and the makers have succeeded in making it X. If it looks like Y, it's Y, and those folks have failed in their quest of making it X. It's quite analogous to TPTB saying something like "First we wanted to have Scotty be clumsy and comical, but then we decided he should be sexy and menacing, so now he's sexy and menacing". Well, we're the only valid judges of that; TPTB have no say in it.

As for hatch measurements and the like, yeah, it seems clear that basically every detail that so vividly reminds us of the ST:TMP ship is actually something completely different in terms of function and scale (windows instead of viewscreens, chutes instead of doorways etc.). Which is weird in in-universe terms, and suggests incredibly lazy artists in out-universe terms (even though the real reason is they weren't given the opportunity to get busy with a proper re-scaling), but there we have it.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 02:11 PM   #81
greenlight
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
greenlight wrote: View Post
(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)
You're probably joking about that, but to me the barcode scanners are a helluva lot worse than the carpet foam inside the elevators in the TOS movies. In fact, I think I put them about on par with something I remember from THE FANTASTIC JOURNEY when I was a teenager, and saw them using the TV remote control -- Zenith's Space Command 600 -- that I had in my hand, but they were chromakeying some kind of energy beam out of it as a weapon. I was going to include a reference to Sulu's stickshift in TMP, but I just remembered they have the same or worse in the Abrams, so I guess those are a push.
I'm joking in the sense that I'm not really "outraged", but, yeah, in a big budget movie like that, to take something that people see every day and slap it on a console because they think it looks futuristic, is pretty outrageous and just downright lazy. One of the most egregious gaffes IMO is Spock using the boot jets to zoom up 78 decks (numbered up instead of down to add insult to injury). At that point the producers are just flippin' you the bird.
greenlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 07:01 PM   #82
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ, can you please apply your image analysis methods to this...

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__..._Spacedock.jpg

... and tell us how big it is according to your reckoning?
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek
SonicRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 07:14 PM   #83
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I don't think that the people involved with the reboot are working with the same considerations as those who worked on classic Trek. The people who were involved with the latter attempted to make the world as believable as possible, while working within the limitations set by a continuity in flux and the demands of a production schedule. These were people who wrote technical manuals and blueprints that explained how this technology supposedly worked. I think if we asked the people involved now how something works, with one possible exception - Eaves, they couldn't tell you how it works. They are working for the "Cool Factor". Big ships are cool. That gun or cannon or whatever it is that the Vengeance fires is cool. The Enterprise is big, the Vengeance is bigger, and that spacedock is massively big. What more do you need to understand?
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 07:21 PM   #84
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

So King, why is it you only post pics of tiny rooms on the old Enterprise, but never these pictures:

Floor-to-ceiling window, as big as nu-bridge viewscreen (STV):
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__..._and_Sybok.jpg

Cargo hold:
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__...landingbay.jpg

Recreation deck:
http://gbparts.danawheels.net/graphics/asap/tmpid.jpg
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 07:53 PM   #85
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
So King, why is it you only post pics of tiny rooms on the old Enterprise, but never these pictures:

Floor-to-ceiling window, as big as nu-bridge viewscreen (STV):
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__..._and_Sybok.jpg
So please point to that window on the model.
__________________
"STAR TREK is... Action - Adventure - Science Fiction."
-- Gene Roddenberry, 1964, top of the first page of his original pitch and outline for Star Trek
SonicRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 08:04 PM   #86
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
One could choose not to be "outraged" by anything in a Star Trek movie, of course.
Says the one who nitpicked Undiscovered Country to death for the digital clocks.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 09:29 PM   #87
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
So King, why is it you only post pics of tiny rooms on the old Enterprise, but never these pictures:

Floor-to-ceiling window, as big as nu-bridge viewscreen (STV):
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__..._and_Sybok.jpg
From William Shatner's 78-deck Enterprise. The ending seems to support it being a viewscreen rather than a window, since we get a distant view of the misty blue planet dead ahead, while the Enterprise and Bird of Prey are seen orbiting much closer to it. No external windows on the model match.
I replied to that on the second page. Here it is again:
King Daniel wrote:
HERE is the TMP Enterprise.
As you can see, the cargo/shuttle bay takes up most of the interior of the secondary hull - and it's still only 4 decks tall (although never all at once). The new Enterprise's shuttle bay is four decks tall all at once, and that's just the smallest end of the engineering hull.
I'll add to that, this picture of the Enterprise-A's shuttlebay which is the same size as the one in TOS-R:

WarpFactorZ wrote:
Doesn't take into account the curved underside of the hull and is too tall to fit into the saucer rim of the 305-meter refit Enterprise - something very apparent during the Director's Edition version of the Wing Walk scene.

The key difference is that that Enterprise is supposed to be 305 meters long, so fans fudge it all to fit. The new one is intended to be 725m long and those doing the FX or building sets have absolutely NO intention of designing making it fit in a 300m Enterprise. In addition, in today's era of CG we have more size-establishing shots than ever before. Where there was a disconnect between outside and in, now it's seamless. Instead of flat white windows on models we now have CG ships with modelled rooms inside the windows, complete with people and furnature (see: the nuEnterprise neck window/pod launcher shots I posted earlier). A zoom-in on the bridge window, seemlessly merging the Enterprise CG with the set and the word of the current designers is worth a lot more than what the designers of a different Enterprise scaled their ship at in 1966 or 1979. As Nero said, "That was another life."
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 10:38 PM   #88
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
As you can see, the cargo/shuttle bay takes up most of the interior of the secondary hull - and it's still only 4 decks tall (although never all at once). The new Enterprise's shuttle bay is four decks tall all at once, and that's just the smallest end of the engineering hull.
I see a lot of room on either side of that bay. If you opened it up, you could park the shuttles as shown in ST09. Where do you get 4 decks? That's nonsense.

In addition, in today's era of CG we have more size-establishing shots than ever before. Where there was a disconnect between outside and in, now it's seamless. Instead of flat white windows on models we now have CG ships with modelled rooms inside the windows, complete with people and furnature (see: the nuEnterprise neck window/pod launcher shots I posted earlier).
Yes, BUT there is no complete model of the ship in CGI. Otherwise, they'd have released it for rabid fan consumption (and lots of $$$ for them). The only thing modern CGI accomplishes is to be able to superimpose an interior shot with an exterior. But don't fool yourself into thinking these are done with any consistency in scale, other than to "look cool."
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 11:05 PM   #89
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
As you can see, the cargo/shuttle bay takes up most of the interior of the secondary hull - and it's still only 4 decks tall (although never all at once). The new Enterprise's shuttle bay is four decks tall all at once, and that's just the smallest end of the engineering hull.
I see a lot of room on either side of that bay. If you opened it up, you could park the shuttles as shown in ST09. Where do you get 4 decks? That's nonsense.
Again, from the second page.
That's a four-deck tall shuttle bay. And FAR bigger shuttles than in TOS, TMP or the classic movies.
In addition, in today's era of CG we have more size-establishing shots than ever before. Where there was a disconnect between outside and in, now it's seamless. Instead of flat white windows on models we now have CG ships with modelled rooms inside the windows, complete with people and furnature (see: the nuEnterprise neck window/pod launcher shots I posted earlier).
Yes, BUT there is no complete model of the ship in CGI. Otherwise, they'd have released it for rabid fan consumption (and lots of $$$ for them). The only thing modern CGI accomplishes is to be able to superimpose an interior shot with an exterior. But don't fool yourself into thinking these are done with any consistency in scale, other than to "look cool."
Funny, it looks consistent to me. It's consistent in all the diagrams and pictures I've posted. But your idea of "inconsistent" appears to mean "bigger than the old Enterprise" and nothing else...

If they wanted to sell diagrams and manuals, they would without trouble. They've managed it with the flawed Trek ships of the past (Ten-Forward on the Enterprise-D, the TMP rec room, Voyager's shuttlebay, the Defiant, the half-sized Excelsior and most recently Trek's all-time most inconsistently-scaled ship, the Klingon Bird of Prey). Next you'll be telling me the ship design is why the Abramsverse novels were cancelled.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by F. King Daniel; May 5 2013 at 11:33 PM.
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2013, 11:40 PM   #90
SicOne
Commodore
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

If the nu-Enterprise is supposed to be 2,397.75 feet long, has anyone run the measurements on the rest of the ship, such as total width and height, dimensions of the secondary hull and nacelles and primary hull, etc? Someone posted a handful of measurements in an earlier post, but I thought they were taking into consideration a measurement of the nu-Enterprise a little closer to the dimensions of the TMP-Enterprise.
SicOne 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 12:43 AM.

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