RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,651
Posts: 5,428,542
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 615
Newest member: Damix


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 19 2013, 04:46 PM   #301
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kpnuts wrote: View Post
Hope come only the saucer section is visible in the first shot, did the nacelles and secondary hull fall off?
As she skidded along, the secondary hull was sheered off hitting the shore line, the saucer kept on going, the nose was caught and up ended the whole thing.

And the "gap" is much bigger, the part of the building that Khan lands on is only really half way down the cutut, he skids some distance before the shadow of the hull resumes across the building.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 05:57 PM   #302
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Kpnuts wrote: View Post
Hope come only the saucer section is visible in the first shot, did the nacelles and secondary hull fall off?
As she skidded along, the secondary hull was sheered off hitting the shore line, the saucer kept on going, the nose was caught and up ended the whole thing.

And the "gap" is much bigger, the part of the building that Khan lands on is only really half way down the cutut, he skids some distance before the shadow of the hull resumes across the building.
Why do you ignore the "evidence" from the movie: one of the only times we actually get a quoted length for scale. He jumps from the bridge, across the gap (approx 30m), and slides down the saucer. It doesn't matter how much of the saucer is exposed or whatnot.

Oh, and one more point: Scotty sizes up the airlock door on the Vengeance. "About 4 square metres", which puts them at 2.5m across (as I estimated for the ones on the Enterprise).

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; May 19 2013 at 06:17 PM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 06:07 PM   #303
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
I like how you ignored the "evidence"
Wow
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2013, 06:20 PM   #304
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
I like how you ignored the "evidence"
Wow
What comes around goes around. I'll take that as an apology.

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; May 20 2013 at 02:39 AM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 04:04 AM   #305
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Awesome. This slipped to the second page with no reply. I guess I win: LL&P, bee-atches!
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 05:52 AM   #306
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I love how this thread has us essentially building the innards of the Enterprise!
__________________
Here's proof that I can write something without using the word f**k.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 09:50 AM   #307
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Awesome. This slipped to the second page with no reply. I guess I win: LL&P, bee-atches!
Oh sorry...
Why do you ignore the "evidence" from the movie: one of the only times we actually get a quoted length for scale. He jumps from the bridge, across the gap (approx 30m), and slides down the saucer. It doesn't matter how much of the saucer is exposed or whatnot.
I believe Chemahkuu dealt with that. You might also want to refer back to THIS PICTURE.
Oh, and one more point: Scotty sizes up the airlock door on the Vengeance. "About 4 square metres", which puts them at 2.5m across (as I estimated for the ones on the Enterprise).
Comparing an airlock on the Vengeance with an escape pod launcher on the Enterprise (which I'd already proven days ago has an interior hatch far smaller than its outer collar) somehow means something...? When we saw an Enterprise airlock at the start of the film, and it's 2m height matched the exterior windows just as I've been saying all this time? And when you've still had no counter to the first size-establishing diagram I posted?

And when you admitted this yourself in another thread?
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Just got back from seeing the movie. Excellent!... except for the ever-growing ship sizes. But alas, move on.
__________________
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 20 2013, 12:49 PM   #308
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

throwback wrote: View Post
Idiotic question. Why didn't Khan set the ship to self-destruct, so that when it crashed into the city, the ship would explode and take out the city?
That should have happened anyways. There was antimatter on board, wasn't there?

If a warp capable starship crashed on a planet, it would probably destroy half the planet in the inevitable matter/antimatter reaction.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 01:07 PM   #309
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^For once, the safeties worked and the core didn't breach. And Khan didn't have the destruct sequence.
__________________
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 20 2013, 01:18 PM   #310
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King: why do you always compare 2009 Enterprise pics with 1966 Enterprise pics?
How else are we supposed to compare the two ?

You immediately handicap the latter by its limited budget, special effects, and the fact the production crew could care less whether the model matched the sets.
The sets fit the size of the original. The comparison is valid.

In my opinion the original's size was quite good, but I don't mind the increase in size for the new timeline. And there is no doubt that it's about 725m long. The shots of the bridge from the exterior, the size of engineering and of the shuttlebay are 'proof' of that.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 01:28 PM   #311
SonicRanger
Rear Admiral
 
SonicRanger's Avatar
 
Location: Sheffield, England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

How big is the new Enterprise? Probably a few GBs.
__________________
"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 20 2013, 01:54 PM   #312
EJD1984
Commander
 
EJD1984's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I just saw the movie yesterday. For some reason it seemed like in some of the outside panning shots into and around the bridge window (and other exterior areas) I got the feeling that they may have tried to visually reduce the size of the Enterprise by about 10-15%. Just seemed a little smaller to me overall.

Also, did anyone notice a change in the design of the ship at the end of the movie?

I'm sure there's more, but I'll probably have to wait for the disc to find them.
__________________
NXX-1701

Last edited by EJD1984; May 20 2013 at 02:08 PM.
EJD1984 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 02:00 PM   #313
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
I understand that. But it's stupid, sloppy, and I reject it.
In other words you are plugging your ears and yelling really loud. But that doesn't prevent you from noticing that the engine room is far too big for the TMP enterprise, right ?

I mean, I like to nitpick and all, and I would prefer if the size had been consistent with the previous entries, but a fact's a fact, and my wishes do not change that.

It looks like a 2x scale increase from the old Enterprise
You are not helping your argument, here.

By the way, where are the detailed schematics of the nu-Enterprise?
Irrelevant. Every piece of evidence we have points to a much larger Enterprise, whether you think it makes sense or not.

Sounds like Star Wars, to me.
I think we've hit on the actual issue, here.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 02:16 PM   #314
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

EJD1984 wrote: View Post
I just saw the movie yesterday. For some reason it seemed like in some of the outside panning shots into and around the bridge window (and other exterior areas) I got the feeling that they may have tried to visually reduce the size of the Enterprise by about 10-15%. Just seemed a little smaller to me overall.

Also, did anyone notice a change in the design of the ship at the end of the movie?

I'm sure there's more, but I'll probably have to wait for the disc to find them.
Well, the impulse engine is just bigger now.

But I got the impression that the bridge deck looked taller after the refit.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2013, 02:21 PM   #315
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
I'm not sure why people are assuming that an object at warp speed has a lot of kinetic energy.
Now that you mention it, ships at warp aren't actually moving in space. Space is moving around them (making Scotty's comment about transwarp beaming in the first movie patently ridiculous.)

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
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.
In fact, I always take Enterprise's NX-01 to be a result of Cochrane's exposure to 24th century time travelers, borg and 1701-E. In this respect it's quite possible that the Kelvin is simply another result of that.
Belz... 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 08:27 PM.

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