RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,359
Posts: 5,355,676
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 526
Newest member: glmrkills

TrekToday headlines

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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 26 2013, 10:24 PM   #361
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Gonzo wrote: View Post
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 wouldn't call it "realistic", but justifiable. It's my understanding that real naval vessels are as small as possible for the requirements.

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 would've mourned the loss of such a fine design as the new 1701, but that would've been a heck of a plot twist. I'd be on board for that.
__________________
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 26 2013, 11:46 PM   #362
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
Gonzo wrote: View Post
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 wouldn't call it "realistic", but justifiable. It's my understanding that real naval vessels are as small as possible for the requirements.
But it's not justifiable from a function point of view. Making something "bigger" because of a threat is nonsense. An adversary won't be intimidated by the size of a weapon, but rather by its effect (see: nuclear bomb delivered by one plane, vs firebombing via squadron -- which caused the Japanese emperor to surrender?).

The ships in the Abramsverse are big for ONLY ONE reason: they wanted the shuttle bay to look like it could land 1000 troops at once. For some reason, the transporter is no longer the favored method of getting from land to ship.

So, one is free to "justify" why the ships are big all they want. But in the end, it came down to one person saying "Hey, wouldn't it be fucking cool if there were, like, 20 -- no, 30 fucking shuttles parked at once?!!!" (homage to the Lindelof interview posted elsewhere).

I'm reminded of the scene in Weird Science where the jocks force Gary and Wyatt to make them a woman, and insist on the breasts being incomprehensibly large -- "BIGGER! BIGGER! BIGGER!". I wish I could find it on You Tube, but alas.

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; May 26 2013 at 11:59 PM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26 2013, 11:50 PM   #363
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
But it's not justifiable from a function point of view. Making something "bigger" because of a threat is nonsense. An adversary won't be intimidated by the size of a weapon
If I point a rocket launcher at you, it will be more intimidating than a handgun, even if it so happens that it's a replica.

The ships in the Abramsverse are big for ONLY ONE reason: they wanted the shuttle bay to look like it could land 1000 troops at once.
I know that. We were discussing the in-universe reasons.

So, one is free to "justify" why the ships are big all they want.
What I meant is that the explanation is not logical in real life but makes a modicrum of sense in movie logic.
__________________
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 27 2013, 12:06 AM   #364
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
If I point a rocket launcher at you, it will be more intimidating than a handgun, even if it so happens that it's a replica.
I think my comparison was a little more apt than yours. Besides, you should re-watch a key scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark if you want to talk "looking intimidating"....

The ships in the Abramsverse are big for ONLY ONE reason: they wanted the shuttle bay to look like it could land 1000 troops at once.
I know that. We were discussing the in-universe reasons.
No, we're fan-wanking up reasons for why the ships are big, based on the production staff's (probably cocaine-fueled) Hollywood dream of massive starships housing a million shuttles sitting on the head of a pin.

What I meant is that the explanation is not logical in real life but makes a modicrum of sense in movie logic.
It doesn't make any logical sense. If I was worried about my fleet encountering a 5-mile long space octopus from the future with gnarly, secondary-booster-spiked torpedoes, I would make the ships heavily armed, smaller and more maneuverable. That way, less people would be endangered, and they'd be more likely to get away. Why would I put 1000+ people in a giant starship (read: broadside of a barn, vis-a-vis torpedoes) as a sitting duck?

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; May 27 2013 at 12:20 AM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 12:18 AM   #365
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 think my comparison was a little more apt than yours.
I knew I should have said "flamethrower".

No, we're fan-wanking up reasons for why the ships are big
Yeah, that's the whole point of the discussion.

based on the production staff's (probably cocaine-fueled)
That was uncalled for and juvenile.

Hollywood dream of massive starships housing a million shuttles sitting on the head of a pin.
Look at it this way: you either fly a large number of big shuttles to the space station, then have people walk to the Enterprise, or use the transporters in a completely non-epic fashion, skipping the TMP-inspired tour of the ship's exterior, OR you make sure those shuttles can fit.

We are NOT discussing the real world reasons, here.

It doesn't make any logical sense.
Of course it does. You just don't like it. That's fine.
__________________
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 27 2013, 12:23 AM   #366
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
That was uncalled for and juvenile.
Hardly. You obviously aren't familiar with Hollywood.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 12:35 AM   #367
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Since we don't know the exact role of the Dreadnaught-class, I'd say it premature to say its too big.

If its a troop transport, it may need to carry tens of thousands of troops at a time. Your not going to hold a planet with a thousand.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 12:46 AM   #368
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
Belz... wrote: View Post
That was uncalled for and juvenile.
Hardly. You obviously aren't familiar with Hollywood.
There is nothing about the decision to make the Enterprise bigger that requires the use of drugs, not would the use of drugs somehow make it more probable. It was just an attack on the writers without any evidence to back it up.
__________________
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 27 2013, 12:50 AM   #369
billcosby
Commodore
 
billcosby's Avatar
 
Location: billcosby
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kids: Just Say No to Starship Enlargement!
__________________
My 1st Edition TrekCCG virtual expansion: http://billcosbytrekccg.blogspot.com/

billcosby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:09 AM   #370
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
That was uncalled for and juvenile.
Hardly. You obviously aren't familiar with Hollywood.
There is nothing about the decision to make the Enterprise bigger that requires the use of drugs, not would the use of drugs somehow make it more probable. It was just an attack on the writers without any evidence to back it up.
Apparently you didn't read the interview with Lindelof.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:18 AM   #371
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Ok this conversation can only end badly. Let's just say all Hollywood writers who produce stuff you don't like are drug addicts and leave it at that.
__________________
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 27 2013, 01:24 AM   #372
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
Ok this conversation can only end badly. Let's just say all Hollywood writers who produce stuff you don't like are drug addicts and leave it at that.
Whoa whoa whoa! No one said anything about "drug addict." You CLEARLY don't get Hollywood. I agree: no point in continuing this conversation.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:24 AM   #373
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
Gonzo wrote: View Post
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 wouldn't call it "realistic", but justifiable. It's my understanding that real naval vessels are as small as possible for the requirements.
But it's not justifiable from a function point of view. Making something "bigger" because of a threat is....
A common historical occurrence.

From the link:
The preceding Yorktown-class aircraft carriers and the designers' list of trade offs and limitations forced by arms control treaty obligations formed the formative basis from which the Essex class was developed — a design formulation sparked into being when the Japanese and Italians repudiated the limitations proposed in the 1936 revision of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (as updated in October 1930 in the London Naval Treaty) — in effect providing a free pass for all five signatories to resume the interrupted naval arms race of the 1920s in early 1937.

[...]

Designed to carry a larger air group, and unencumbered by the latest in a succession of pre-war naval treaty limits, Essex was over sixty feet longer, nearly ten feet wider in beam, and more than a third heavier. A longer, wider flight deck and a deck-edge elevator (which had proven successful in the one-of-a-kind USS Wasp (CV-7)) facilitated more efficient aviation operations, enhancing the ship's offensive and defensive air power.
Summary: The Japanese and the Italians ignored arms control treaties that otherwise would have limited the size of warship construction. The Americans responded by designing a larger and therefore more powerful aircraft carrier, which they later built when war broke out with Japan.

Larger ships can have more powerful engines, better weapons and better equipment. The enlarged Enterprise seems to have all of the above.

The ships in the Abramsverse are big for ONLY ONE reason: they wanted the shuttle bay to look like it could land 1000 troops at once. For some reason, the transporter is no longer the favored method of getting from land to ship.
Which maybe reflects the in-universe reason for the enlargement: Starfleet realized that evacuating the entire crew of a ship with a transporter is a seriously bad idea if you don't have a safe place to beam them TO, which is pretty much always the case in deep space. Escape pods aren't much better, especially if you're up against something like the Narada that is very interested in taking (and murdering) prisoners. Your ship needs enough shuttles to evacuate the entire crew, and it also needs shuttles large enough and powerful enough that the crew can get out of danger and fly to safety on their own.

Moreover, the sheer size of the Narada is suggestive of a ship that could carry not just immense firepower, but whole legions of Romulan shocktroops and all sorts of other nastiness (USS Vengeance was clearly designed along this philosophy, hence the vast amount of empty space to store said nastiness). Making the Enterprise bigger would allow it to be useful as an in-a-pinch troop transport to combat the zerg rush of Romulan troopers if they ever decided to invade.

"Hey, wouldn't it be fucking cool if there were, like, 20 -- no, 30 fucking shuttles parked at once?!!!"
To which the proper answer is: "Why, yes. Yes it would."
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 27 2013, 01:39 AM   #374
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 agree: no point in continuing this conversation.
Instead of making vague allusions, and other vague claims of being knowledgeable on the subject, why don't you, you know, show some evidence ?
__________________
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 27 2013, 02:01 AM   #375
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
I agree: no point in continuing this conversation.
Instead of making vague allusions, and other vague claims of being knowledgeable on the subject, why don't you, you know, show some evidence ?
My evidence is: Argo.
WarpFactorZ 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 08:33 AM.

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