RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,506
Posts: 5,511,411
Members: 25,136
Currently online: 442
Newest member: aprizan

TrekToday headlines

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

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


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 15 2013, 01:52 AM   #226
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: The corner of San Antonio and a bottle of Fireball
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
^Where did you find that cross-section?
I have no idea where it originated from, but I found it here (the link is in the image above as well) through Google Image Search. Strangely though, I can't find the Imageshack link on that page to track it back any further than that.
Well it's excellently detailed!
__________________
I'm not saying it's cold, but I just keyed two cars with my nipples.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 02:03 AM   #227
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Locutus of Bored
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Where did the writers, director, the film say that the Kelvin was an experimental testbed unlike any other ship
I didn't say they did. Here's what I said about the writers, director, and film, and the rest after the parenthesis was my speculation:

But, if you want to go with what was said by the writers, director, and in the film itself (that the divergence began with the Narada's entrance to the AltVerse and attack on the Kelvin)...

and if it worked so well, why didn't the Prime Universe go with that design?
IMO, because the Prime Universe Starfleet of the TOS-era never faced the Narada in battle, and never had any motivation to continue building starships of that type to face ships like it. Maybe they were too labor or resource costly to build, maybe they were overpowered like the Defiant, maybe they were not a design philosophy a more peacetime oriented Starfleet wished to pursue further. There are any number of possible reasons.
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
The Festivus Awakens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 02:18 AM   #228
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: The corner of San Antonio and a bottle of Fireball
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
^Where did you find that cross-section?
I have no idea where it originated from, but I found it here (the link is in the image above as well) through Google Image Search. Strangely though, I can't find the Imageshack link on that page to track it back any further than that.
Found the link!

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/3024/entcutaway.png
__________________
I'm not saying it's cold, but I just keyed two cars with my nipples.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 04:35 AM   #229
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Here, I made this. There are five full decks on the rim of the saucer, with a half deck above and below for piping and machinery and so forth.
Really? So why do three of the five decks on the saucer have no windows, while the other two have 2.5m x 9m luxury windows? Who inhabits those three windowless decks? Steerage? The Irish? Huh?

Your lines suggest the windows take up the ENTIRE DECK HEIGHT. That's ridiculous. Look at any building, and ask yourself if the windows take up the entire floor -- including the space between floors for piping, electrical conduits, HVAC, etc...

Jesus Christ, this ship is like Oscar the Grouch's trash can, with its swimming pool, giant living room etc... It just keeps getting bigger and bigger. I could draw a diagram dividing the saucer into 20 decks, too. Doesn't mean they're really there.

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; May 15 2013 at 05:08 AM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 04:37 AM   #230
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
It's the same size in both shot, it's only the camera that's moved from a long distance shot to a close-up. From a few pages ago...
You keep posting this picture where you just guess at the perspective so that your lines match in each picture, as if it's some kind of argument-ender.

In fact, all you do is post photoshopped pictures with slogans, as if they're some kind of argument enders.

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; May 15 2013 at 05:04 AM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 05:45 AM   #231
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
^Where did you find that cross-section?
I have no idea where it originated from, but I found it here (the link is in the image above as well) through Google Image Search. Strangely though, I can't find the Imageshack link on that page to track it back any further than that.
Try here. (image link)
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 08:33 AM   #232
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Where did the writers, director, the film say that the Kelvin was an experimental testbed unlike any other ship
I didn't say they did. Here's what I said about the writers, director, and film, and the rest after the parenthesis was my speculation:

But, if you want to go with what was said by the writers, director, and in the film itself (that the divergence began with the Narada's entrance to the AltVerse and attack on the Kelvin)...

and if it worked so well, why didn't the Prime Universe go with that design?
IMO, because the Prime Universe Starfleet of the TOS-era never faced the Narada in battle, and never had any motivation to continue building starships of that type to face ships like it. Maybe they were too labor or resource costly to build, maybe they were overpowered like the Defiant, maybe they were not a design philosophy a more peacetime oriented Starfleet wished to pursue further. There are any number of possible reasons.
OK, gotya. Actually, that's a pretty good theory that covers most of the bases.

I spent a little time tonight looking up exactly what Orci et al. said about the time travel premise, and I found this little gem, an interview on TrekMovie.com dated December 11, 2008. It seems to go against the "standard interpretation" of the Prime Universe currently pervasive on the board. A highlight:

TrekMovie.com wrote:
Anthony [Pascale]: So starting with "The Naked Time," which is the first episode of Star Trek with time travel, where they just went briefly back in time and that even though they didn’t change anything, merely by going back in time they created a new timeline?

Bob [Orci]: Yes

Anthony: And even though they are all very similar, that we are up to something like the 57th* timeline when we get to Nemesis due to all the previous time traveling.

Bob: If we take Data’s description of the most current and awesome scientific theory to heart, then there is no prime timeline. If everything that can happen, does happen, who is to say what the right timeline is.

Anthony: But elder Spock and Nero come from the last known Star Trek timeline, which is the post-Nemesis, Next Generation era, right?

Bob: Right, that is where they are starting, yes.

Anthony: And that timeline lives on after they leave?

Bob: Yes.
This is a loophole big enough to drive anything through. The timeline that Spock Prime is from need not be any timeline that we saw any pre-2009 Trek end up in. Orci said so. Based on this interview, there's nothing that guarantees that the TOS past of the Spock Prime in STXI is exactly the same TOS past that we saw on TV. Any number of temporal incursions could have happened after all the events of pre-2009 Trek and before Spock Prime went back in time, in order to set up any differences that might exist in the Kelvin era versus what existed in the pre-Pike era of the original The Cage.

Is this their intent? I don't know. But Orci did make a point of stressing that the final timeline Spock Prime went back from isn't necessarily any of the ones we ever saw before.

But, again, it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. What I'm comfortable with is that it was a foregone conclusion that the precise look of TOS was never going to be seen on screen. That was always a non-starter. Therefore, to somehow suppose that, if Nero's incursion hadn't occurred, the Kelvin era of STXI was somehow headed that way (to that precise look) seems silly.

Of course, that doesn't discount the idea that the Kelvin is a prototype. To me, it's not exclusively one extreme or its opposite. I'd agree that maybe the timeline was heading towards a reimagined TOS ship with fewer phasers, and without those other white phasers/particle cannons/whatever they were, that would have been much more in line with what one might call a conservatively "modernized" vision of the TOS ship. The ideas of the Kelvin being too costly, not really being made to convey a message of peaceful exploration, and so forth, fit. It really did seem kind of like a battle wagon made for border patrol, but given the families aboard, obviously not one intended for invasion.

I think the main thrust of what Orci et al. said about STXI not being a reboot is that they intended to provide us with a version of the characters that was true to the original, but not slavishly bound by the trappings of the original era in which TOS was produced. It blew me away that STXI evoked, and channeled if you will, TOS so effectively, while at the same time providing the necessary upgrades in terms of production design and effects.

For the life of me, I can't think of a single time in Star Trek where the outcome of a story has hinged upon the actual length of the Enterprise in meters. Or, upon the color of the Vulcan sky. Or, of Kirk's eyes. Or, Chekov's age. Just because Kirk's cabin has a different number in two different episodes, that doesn't necessarily mean that he switched cabins, anymore than Kirk's middle initial changed from R. to T.

Honestly, I think we're supposed to squint and gloss over anything that can't be explained by Nero's incursion, as if that's now the way the TOS era always was, just like we did for Kirk's middle initial.

Anyway, that's my take on it.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 10:18 AM   #233
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Locutus of Bored
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Really? So why do three of the five decks on the saucer have no windows, while the other two have 2.5m x 9m luxury windows? Who inhabits those three windowless decks? Steerage? The Irish? Huh?
During the design process they started out with the ship being about 250ft longer than the TMP Enterprise, realized it wouldn't fulfill their needs for interior sets and shuttle mockups, and therefor supersized the ship to the much larger size it was in the final movie. Unfortunately, while they did alter the exterior features somewhat to match the larger size, they did not include windows on each deck, which would have gone a long way toward making the larger size more obvious, much as it does on the Enterprise-D.

Unlike these various statements insinuate, the ship has not been designed by Ryan Church to be that huge in the first place. In an interview for the Cinefex magazine #118, ILM Art Director Alex Jaeger says: "The reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations -- approximately 1,200-feet-long compared to the 947-foot ship of the original series. Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale -- shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined -- so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail." So the ship was designed at 1200ft (366m) by Ryan Church, and was later scaled up by a factor of 2!

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...mment.htm#size
Your lines suggest the windows take up the ENTIRE DECK HEIGHT. That's ridiculous. Look at any building, and ask yourself if the windows take up the entire floor -- including the space between floors for piping, electrical conduits, HVAC, etc...
First of all, neither the lines or I suggested anything of the sort. There is plenty of space both above and below the windows, roughly a meter and a half worth on either side if the figures you gave for the window size above are accurate. Plus, the lines are thick to be more visible (so they block some space), and it was something I just threw together quickly to illustrate the deck structure after you asked where he was getting the four-to-five-deck figure from and were not willing to look it up yourself, so it's hardly precise. It's just a rough layout of the decks to give an idea of the internal structure.

Jesus Christ, this ship is like Oscar the Grouch's trash can, with its swimming pool, giant living room etc... It just keeps getting bigger and bigger. I could draw a diagram dividing the saucer into 20 decks, too. Doesn't mean they're really there.
Could you draw it to correspond to actual external features with known dimensions (like the bridge viewport) and the breached multi-deck internal sections shown in the trailers?

Also, I think you've mistaken me for someone who is deeply invested in this frankly irrelevant to the quality of the movie, IMO, size argument. If it's important to you, more power to you, but please dial back on the rhetoric a bit toward myself and others. Some of us are just doing this for fun.

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
^Where did you find that cross-section?
I have no idea where it originated from, but I found it here (the link is in the image above as well) through Google Image Search. Strangely though, I can't find the Imageshack link on that page to track it back any further than that.
Try here. (image link)
Gracias.
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
The Festivus Awakens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 12:04 PM   #234
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
I'm still kind of baffled how big the Kelvin was, as it was supposed to have been built in the pre-timestream-split prime universe and there has never been any evidence in any iteration of canonical Trek that Starfleet built ships that big during that era. THIS almost implies that there may have been a split prior to Nero's arrival.
What about, "they built them bigger in those days"? There was no evidence they built them bigger before simply because we never saw anything (in canon) from that era prior to Star Trek.
The models of the Phoenix, the Ringship Enterprise XCV-330, the Enterprise NX-01, USS Kelvin and the USS Vengeance on Admiral Marcus' desk give the impression that the pre-2233 timeline was the same.

Perhaps Admiral Nogura or his predecessor preferred smaller ships (what can the Enterprise-D do that the much-smaller Voyager can't?), and Admiral Marcus wanted bigger and bigger.
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Here, I made this. There are five full decks on the rim of the saucer, with a half deck above and below for piping and machinery and so forth. You can see the giant 5-Deck impulse control(?) center where the explosion rips off the aft section of the saucer.

Nice! Although I thought that damage was the aft engineering hull and not the saucer? Sounds like I'm gonna have to see the film again. Oh well...
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Here, I made this. There are five full decks on the rim of the saucer, with a half deck above and below for piping and machinery and so forth.
Really? So why do three of the five decks on the saucer have no windows, while the other two have 2.5m x 9m luxury windows? Who inhabits those three windowless decks? Steerage? The Irish? Huh?

Your lines suggest the windows take up the ENTIRE DECK HEIGHT. That's ridiculous. Look at any building, and ask yourself if the windows take up the entire floor -- including the space between floors for piping, electrical conduits, HVAC, etc...
If we'd seen a single window from the inside except for the one on the bridge which is floor-to-ceiling, your argument may have some weight. Also if we hadn't seen the deck heights in the Into Darkness corridor intersection.
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
It's the same size in both shot, it's only the camera that's moved from a long distance shot to a close-up. From a few pages ago...
You keep posting this picture where you just guess at the perspective so that your lines match in each picture, as if it's some kind of argument-ender.

In fact, all you do is post photoshopped pictures with slogans, as if they're some kind of argument enders.
Well, unless the "NCC-1701" is written in magical resizing paint, I post it as proof that the shuttlebay/shuttlecraft size is constant, despite repeated claims otherwise.
A picture is worth a thousand words - particularly in cases like this.

Here are some more:



(that's from the ultra-HD shot of the Enterprise rising from Titan's atmosphere available HERE)
__________________
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 15 2013, 12:20 PM   #235
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Locutus of Bored
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Nice! Although I thought that damage was the aft engineering hull and not the saucer? Sounds like I'm gonna have to see the film again. Oh well...
Oh no, I defer to you on that, since the film is not out here yet. I've only got the trailers to go on, and from that I thought the breached section was on the saucer (could have sworn there was a clip of people being blown out of a breach with the nacelles in the background of the shot, but I could be misremembering). But since you've seen the movie, that's a much better source.
__________________
'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'
The Festivus Awakens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 01:42 PM   #236
topas
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
topas's Avatar
 
Location: Warsaw, POLAND
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Nice! Although I thought that damage was the aft engineering hull and not the saucer? Sounds like I'm gonna have to see the film again. Oh well...
Secondary hull, starboard side just below the neck, next to the pylon

It's shown in the new clip at 0:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=pg8Bq0qxPIM

edit:
Anyway, why is there any argument at all in the first place. Starhip sizes in Star Trek have never been consistent. Alone the Galaxy's size varied from episode to episode (as viewed compared to Excelsiors/Constellations/Oberths/Birds of Prey/Warbirds).

Last edited by topas; May 15 2013 at 02:23 PM.
topas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 06:08 PM   #237
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

USS Vengeance scale. To quote Mr. Scott: Holy shit!
__________________
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 15 2013, 07:20 PM   #238
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
For the life of me, I can't think of a single time in Star Trek where the outcome of a story has hinged upon the actual length of the Enterprise in meters.
Not that it matters, but off the top of my head I'd say the E-D's escape from the dyson sphere doors in RELICS qualifies, and you could probably say the same thing about the refit's passage out of the spacedock doors in SFS.

(though I still maintain the latter is a blown visual opportunity. A narrower cross-section presented to the slowly opening doors would have been more exciting, like Sulu putting the ship through a-quarter of a slow barrel roll.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:31 PM   #239
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
Not that it matters, but off the top of my head I'd say the E-D's escape from the dyson sphere doors in RELICS qualifies...


If the Enterprise had been ten feet wide the doors would've been just slightly bigger. The same would've applied if it had been a thousand feet wide.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15 2013, 07:59 PM   #240
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
Not that it matters, but off the top of my head I'd say the E-D's escape from the dyson sphere doors in RELICS qualifies...


If the Enterprise had been ten feet wide the doors would've been just slightly bigger. The same would've applied if it had been a thousand feet wide.
You're talking about how they made an effects shot. I'm talking about what was mentioned in somebody's post, which if I recall right was about a STORY hinging on the size of the thing.

If the ship was a half-mile long at that speed it would have got chopped going through.

Believe me, this is not enough to get worked up over -- stick with fighting the guy over TheAbramsThing's ship size (though every time you post a pic it looks so much like concept art I think you guys should be debating why the ship looks so fake rather than how big it looks.)
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 10:54 AM.

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