RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,063
Posts: 5,397,633
Members: 24,735
Currently online: 431
Newest member: phurren

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

City on the Edge of Forever #3 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

TV Alert: Shatner TNG Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22


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 23 2013, 01:56 AM   #331
Kpnuts
Commodore
 
Kpnuts's Avatar
 
Location: London
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

There's far more distortion on the first pic. I can't imagine they would have two different sized models used in the same film.
Kpnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 01:59 AM   #332
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

That's my thought, too. Mind you, they wouldn't have to do anything but resize the part we get to see, but between that and the refit at the end of the movie, I don't see a reason, so unless we get a better view, I'm unconvinced.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 04:08 AM   #333
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
anh165 wrote: View Post
A subtle change ...

Trust me, we'd notice. And the change was put in probably to note that some time had passed.
Or because this different impulse deck would look better when they have to 'pop the top' and do a saucer separation in the next one. I mean, the dish, due to its TMPedness, is the only part that isn't aesthetically displeasing to some of us.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 04:12 AM   #334
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
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).
But this is a movie that supposedly has the moon a quarter million klicks from Earth. If Scotty's estimates are as far off as that not-so-little goof, that would shrink 4 meters down to about 2.5, wouldn't it?
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 06:33 AM   #335
Locutus of Bored
A Certain Point of View
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: The Force
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
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.
The gap between the bridge and saucer is about fifty meters across. I don't recall from the movie whether Khan lands on a collapsed building after jumping from the bridge or if he lands on the saucer, but I believe Chem is saying he landed on a building first and slides down that, which could explain the size discrepancy from Sulu's thirty meters comment.

__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 09:21 AM   #336
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Throwing this in here. Maybe it could be used to compare ship sizes.

__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 10:12 AM   #337
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
But this is a movie that supposedly has the moon a quarter million klicks from Earth.
Where'd you get that idea ? They drop out of warp at that distance, and the moon is a bit farther (about 384,000) so I don't see the problem.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 04:29 PM   #338
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

There was some backNforth either here or on trekmovie saying the film indicated the moon was a quarter million km from earth instead of a quarter million miles. Was just basing my comment on the idea that this was a known error from the film.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 05:05 PM   #339
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kpnuts wrote: View Post
There's far more distortion on the first pic. I can't imagine they would have two different sized models used in the same film.
The differences between the 09 shot and the STID-shot can be attributed to totally different angles and, probably, zooms.

But there is a difference after the refit.

beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 05:10 PM   #340
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

It looks to me like they've made a higher-detail version of the window housing for the zoom-in. Not sure if they've altered the size.

Top pic from the end of XI, second when they're at the edge of the neutral zone in ID, last when they're falling to Earth.

Here's a rough idea about the position of the bridge:

I've got the bridge and turbolift plaza each at 40' across (on a 2380' Enterprise), which is pure guesswork.

And here's the clip of Kirk in the "turbolift plaza":
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 05:22 PM   #341
webb3201
Commander
 
Location: Dallas, TX
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

anh165 wrote: View Post
In TOS, the 289 M Enterprise was deemed large enough to be called a 'City in space' - enough space for 400 crew members to live on board in a civilised environment.

Unfortunately TNG era came through and subsequently everything set before that was down graded (from switch gear to carpet and to captains quarter sizes)

What made me laugh was in ST6 TUC, where you had the Excelsior, the largest ship in Starfleet and the captain's quarters was smaller than a junior officer's wash room from the TNG era.
I just rewatched TUC and got a giggle from that scene. I explained it away as perhaps he was sleeping in a smaller set of quarters/ready room near the bridge for quick access. I remembered touring the USS Lexington and that the captain had a small room off the bridge in addition to his larger quarters.
webb3201 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 05:25 PM   #342
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Huh...so that space is nothing more than a big-ass skylight. Interesting. It definitely looks like they made the main bridge deck taller and lessened the height of the upper dome housing, without increasing the overall height of the structure. In the original version, it looks roughly 1/3 bridge deck, 2/3 dome. In the new one, it's almost half-and-half and certainly more detailed.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 05:40 PM   #343
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
Huh...so that space is nothing more than a big-ass skylight. Interesting. It definitely looks like they made the main bridge deck taller and lessened the height of the upper dome housing, without increasing the overall height of the structure. In the original version, it looks roughly 1/3 bridge deck, 2/3 dome. In the new one, it's almost half-and-half and certainly more detailed.
It looks like the 09 version in other shots:

beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 05:41 PM   #344
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel into Darkness wrote: View Post
It looks to me like they've made a higher-detail version of the window housing for the zoom-in.
Well, you'd get a magnified compressed view at the closest look ... IF an actual zoom effect was used as opposed to just representing the move as a physical motion through space ... if you were shooting it with the same size lens throughout the shot, there wouldn't be distortion arising unless you were in way WAY close, and the distortion would roll to one side.

If you look at live-action of Sarek walking with FedPrez in TVH, you can see the lines of the room distort significantly as they go screen right, due to the wide angle lens.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 06:34 PM   #345
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

webb3201 wrote: View Post
I just rewatched TUC and got a giggle from that scene. I explained it away as perhaps he was sleeping in a smaller set of quarters/ready room near the bridge for quick access. I remembered touring the USS Lexington and that the captain had a small room off the bridge in addition to his larger quarters.
I just took it that Meyers depicted Starfleet as a more militaristic organisation, and military ships tend to be cramped.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
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 12:03 PM.

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