RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,549
Posts: 5,513,503
Members: 25,144
Currently online: 556
Newest member: A.E.Andres

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

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


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, 07:28 PM   #346
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
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. Not sure if they've altered the size.
It sure looks like a different size, but then again, the shot where it does is also being filmed with a wide-angle lens, which distorts the hell out of the image.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 08:59 PM   #347
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
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. 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.
How do you get to find shots from ID like this ??
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 09:23 PM   #348
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^Most are from www.ncc1701shipyard.com.
__________________
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 23 2013, 11:12 PM   #349
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel into Darkness wrote: View Post
^Most are from www.ncc1701shipyard.com.
And where did _they_ get that ? (that's the essence of my question, really)
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 11:17 PM   #350
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
King Daniel into Darkness wrote: View Post
^Most are from www.ncc1701shipyard.com.
And where did _they_ get that ? (that's the essence of my question, really)
Screenshots from trailers, tv spots, various featurettes, promo images etc etc
__________________

SalvorHardin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 11:21 PM   #351
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I wasn't aware there was so much stuff i the trailers and promos. Especially of the refit.

Speaking of refit, it seems to me like there's another thing that's different. Before that, the opening 'fins' at the end of the saucers opended into three blocks, but now it seems that they open into four:

http://www.ncc1701shipyard.com/image.../nacelles6.jpg
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23 2013, 11:54 PM   #352
bryce
Rear Admiral
 
bryce's Avatar
 
Location: bryce
View bryce's Twitter Profile Send a message via Yahoo to bryce
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
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.

Well, I've argued before that the changes that Nero made would *have* to go both ways - past and future...otherwise the Alternate Universe's past would be full of travelers from a future that wasn't it's own future - and nuKirk could go back in time to say the events of "Assignment: Earth", and hitch a ride with Prime Kirk & Spock back to the Prime universe! (Then again, there's the concept in some sci-fi of visitors from *probably* futures, because the future is in flux - but I don't think that applies here.)

Anyway, so it's possible that changes in the technology in nuTrek were the result of *other* trips to the past, from some time in the Alternate Universe's future (or maybe even it's present) - trips that didn't take place in the Prime Timeline, but do...now...in the Alternate Timeline. (This is also the very same mechanism that would allow for the changes that Nero made to propagate *both* ways in time.)
__________________
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bryceburchett
Twitter: https://twitter.com/bryceburchett
03dashk64@gmail.com ("dash" *is* spelled out!)
bryce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24 2013, 12:09 AM   #353
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

bryce wrote: View Post
Well, I've argued before that the changes that Nero made would *have* to go both ways - past and future...
How does that work ?

otherwise the Alternate Universe's past would be full of travelers from a future that wasn't it's own future
I don't see that as a problem, since by that time they went back to the future... that was just erased. Their loss.

- and nuKirk could go back in time to say the events of "Assignment: Earth", and hitch a ride with Prime Kirk & Spock back to the Prime universe!
Not the way I envision it:

http://i79.servimg.com/u/f79/17/02/47/01/timeli11.jpg
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 12:08 AM   #354
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
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.
Absolutely. I saw the movie again today and it's only in that shot that the bridge seems taller. In the scene where they depart from spacedock, you have a clear shot of the bridge module and it's no different than from the first movie.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 01:33 AM   #355
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

EJD1984 wrote: View Post
^^^Middle or end - There is a real change here. Watch the first 00:45 seconds of the special, and compare the height of Kirk walking up to window, and you'll see.
Plus there is a pan over from the end of the new movie at the 2:22 mark that matches up.

Maybe ILM and the producers listened to the fans criticism and did a slight/small appeasement.
Actually, it looks to me like they intentionally distorted that particular chunk of the model to accommodate a larger bridge window for that specific shot. Probably this is because the flip-side zoom in cinematography looked weird otherwise and they had to fudge things a bit to make it look right. The model itself actually looks very strange leading right up to that zoom in and never looks like that again in any other shot (and the bridge window is also very much out of proportion with the side windows port and starboard).

It's not hard to guess what the problem was: they wanted the camera to eventually zoom in to Kirk standing in the bridge window showing his face as we got closer. With the original proportions of the window, Kirk would be a very tiny ant in that window until right before the camera flew into it; the buildup of "I see a person... I see a person in a gold shirt... it's Kirk" is kind of diluted in that case. The purpose of that shot wasn't so much to Establish the size of the Enterprise so much as establishing Kirk's location on the Enterprise and the Enterprise's location in the scheme of things; accordingly, they fudged the model a bit to make certain things stand out better than others.

It's kind of annoying, but not exactly meaningful. It's still not quite as bad as the fact that you can't see the saucer section from Jean Luc Picard's ready room window.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 04:08 AM   #356
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Aha!! Take a look at this image from STiD:

http://www.ncc1701shipyard.com/image...huttlebay3.jpg

The shuttle bay is NOT symmetric. Note the "central" lane does not go down the middle, and the supporting bar on the port side is longer than the one on the starboard. Longer shuttles go on the port side, shorter ones on the starboard. This suggests they were re-thinking the absurd scene from ST09....
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 10:24 AM   #357
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Or, it suggests that the image perspective is playing tricks on you. Notice that the floor of the shuttlebay is lower than the edge of the engineering section, unlike the TMP model.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 11:04 AM   #358
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Aha!! Take a look at this image from STiD:

http://www.ncc1701shipyard.com/image...huttlebay3.jpg

The shuttle bay is NOT symmetric. Note the "central" lane does not go down the middle, and the supporting bar on the port side is longer than the one on the starboard. Longer shuttles go on the port side, shorter ones on the starboard. This suggests they were re-thinking the absurd scene from ST09....
Belz... wrote: View Post
Or, it suggests that the image perspective is playing tricks on you. Notice that the floor of the shuttlebay is lower than the edge of the engineering section, unlike the TMP model.
Exactly.

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/a...ekxihd0984.jpg
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 08:36 PM   #359
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post


That looks like a "W" shaped bridge structure up top.

That might be interesting as a "small" attack craft on its own.

Now for after market folks to do a new impulse deck for the Revell offering.

growing up, Trek ships were the biggest things on Screen. Now you had the Valley Forge from Silent Running, and Cygnus, but when I first saw the Star destroyer I knew something had changed.

Now Trek ships are finally keeping up with everyone else, and folks are mad. Rather like how folks bashed SLS when I thought bringing Saturn class rockets back would be accepted.

Go Figure.

Last edited by M'Sharak; May 27 2013 at 02:48 AM. Reason: bargled quote tag repaired
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 10:01 PM   #360
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

publiusr wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post

That looks like a "W" shaped bridge structure up top.

That might be interesting as a "small" attack craft on its own.

Now for after market folks to do a new impulse deck for the Revell offering.

growing up, Trek ships were the biggest things on Screen. Now you had the Valley Forge from Silent Running, and Cygnus, but when I first saw the Star destroyer I knew something had changed.

Now Trek ships are finally keeping up with everyone else, and folks are mad. Rather like how folks bashed SLS when I thought bringing Saturn class rockets back would be accepted.

Go Figure.
Yeah a few individuals are having a real problem with the new reality... personally I am loving the new ship sizes, I think it is more realistic and an understandable response to the Narada incursion and destruction of Vulcan.

I would not have minded if the NuEnterprise had been destroyed and the Vengeance had become its replacement, but perhaps that would be a bit too mirror universe in feel.

I was hoping for an extensive refit at the end of Into Darkness with some Vengeance class upgrades, perhaps it will happen at the end of the 3rd film.

Now we are left wondering who will be the next enemy now that the first 5 year mission is underway (a few years earlier than in original series).

Last edited by M'Sharak; May 27 2013 at 02:49 AM. Reason: broken quote tag fixed
Gonzo 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 06:42 PM.

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