RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,411
Posts: 5,506,220
Members: 25,128
Currently online: 493
Newest member: Deidesheim

TrekToday headlines

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

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 June 3 2013, 08:55 PM   #451
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
That's cute that you think so, but no. There are at least four, and I believe five full decks in the saucer rim alone, and the scene you're describing (see below) does nothing to dissuade me from that idea.

(click to enlarge)
Nope. Take a look at that first image. The large white part in the middle is a typical Enterprise hallway. The other lights are windows. The saucer thickness is enough for only two levels of those, with suitable space in between for infrastructure. The way you've divided it up in the last image makes no sense, because it doesn't allow for the latter.

Also, resort to common sense: why would there be three full decks without windows on the saucer (as per your diagram)?

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; June 3 2013 at 09:11 PM.
WarpFactorZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 09:04 PM   #452
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The area damaged we see momentarily from the inside, there are balconies several feet back from the outer hull, it looks like some variation of the RecDeck from TMP, each "level" is hard to descern the full height of.

The rest of the saucer is at least 5 full decks high.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 09:51 PM   #453
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Performing Festivus Miracles
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Nope. Take a look at that first image. The large white part in the middle is a typical Enterprise hallway. The other lights are windows. The saucer thickness is enough for only two levels of those, with suitable space in between for infrastructure. The way you've divided it up in the last image makes no sense, because it doesn't allow for the latter.

Also, resort to common sense: why would there be three full decks without windows on the saucer (as per your diagram)?
We've already had this argument before, and I already shown that there is plenty of space above and below the windows to carry machinery and piping (the yellow lines in the picture would be at least a meter thick), in addition to the "half decks" on the top and bottom of the saucer rim. You see what you want to see, you provide no visual evidence for your argument, you talk about "common sense" as if your views are correct by default, and you keep mentioning the lack of windows on the saucer when we've already acknowledged that the ship was originally much smaller (TMP Enterprise-Refit sized) but was greatly upsized during the design process (something the designers themselves have said) to accommodate larger interior sets, shuttles, and a grander sense of scale.

That's the production explanation for why there are so few windows on the ship and not a row for each deck, which would have made the ship seem much larger, like it does on the Enteprise-D for example. In-universe you can make up an explanation like saying that the ship carries heavy armor and therefore windows are minimized only to recreation and other major crew spaces as a result so there are fewer vulnerable areas. Crew quarters and smaller rooms have window-shaped video displays which simulate the external view instead, or give you a pleasant image like a meadow or beach. It's a poor man's personal holodeck.

Can we just be perfectly honest though and admit that no matter what anyone shows you in support of their argument, you're just going to stick to your guns on the ship being roughly the same size of the TOS movie refit Enterprise/Enteprise-A and pop in occasionally to say how something definitively proves your point but really doesn't?
__________________
Locutus of Bored
The Festivus Awakens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 10:48 PM   #454
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
The area damaged we see momentarily from the inside, there are balconies several feet back from the outer hull, it looks like some variation of the RecDeck from TMP, each "level" is hard to descern the full height of.
That's what it looks like to me, too.

If the TMP-Enterprise had a hull-breach in that location WarpFactorZ would probably conclude that the saucer is only three decks high.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 11:00 PM   #455
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Nope. Take a look at that first image. The large white part in the middle is a typical Enterprise hallway. The other lights are windows. The saucer thickness is enough for only two levels of those, with suitable space in between for infrastructure. The way you've divided it up in the last image makes no sense, because it doesn't allow for the latter.

Also, resort to common sense: why would there be three full decks without windows on the saucer (as per your diagram)?
We've already had this argument before, and I already shown that there is plenty of space above and below the windows to carry machinery and piping (the yellow lines in the picture would be at least a meter thick), in addition to the "half decks" on the top and bottom of the saucer rim. You see what you want to see, you provide no visual evidence for your argument, you talk about "common sense" as if your views are correct by default, and you keep mentioning the lack of windows on the saucer when we've already acknowledged that the ship was originally much smaller (TMP Enterprise-Refit sized) but was greatly upsized during the design process (something the designers themselves have said) to accommodate larger interior sets, shuttles, and a grander sense of scale.

That's the production explanation for why there are so few windows on the ship and not a row for each deck, which would have made the ship seem much larger, like it does on the Enteprise-D for example. In-universe you can make up an explanation like saying that the ship carries heavy armor and therefore windows are minimized only to recreation and other major crew spaces as a result so there are fewer vulnerable areas. Crew quarters and smaller rooms have window-shaped video displays which simulate the external view instead, or give you a pleasant image like a meadow or beach. It's a poor man's personal holodeck.

Can we just be perfectly honest though and admit that no matter what anyone shows you in support of their argument, you're just going to stick to your guns on the ship being roughly the same size of the TOS movie refit Enterprise/Enteprise-A and pop in occasionally to say how something definitively proves your point but really doesn't?
I agree...

Even though it is as big as the Enterprise D it will not carry any families so it wont have/need as many windows, having said that even though it has fewer windows they do seem to be larger many of which seem to be floor to ceiling like the bridge. Which makes me think the areas around the outer edge of the dish are communal/recreational or possibly even some kind of hot bunking areas for the junior crew whereas on the Enterprise D they are individual and spacious cabins.
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 11:19 PM   #456
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
That's just par for the course in Star Trek.
Yes. So ?

The power was unreliable, so they went on foot.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 11:22 PM   #457
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
Nope. Take a look at that first image. The large white part in the middle is a typical Enterprise hallway.
Looks like two to me.

We've been through this before: the shuttlebay is impossibly large for a TOS-sized ship. The official size is 725m. The shot of the bridge window indicates a much larger ship than the original. Etc.

There is NO WAY you can argue against that unless you are entirely emotionally attached to the idea of a 300-ish meter ship. Give it up.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 11:26 PM   #458
saddestmoon
Lieutenant Commander
 
saddestmoon's Avatar
 
Location: New Zealand
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Yep - it's logical: she's a big ship, and it works just fine onscreen.

saddestmoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 11:41 PM   #459
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
That's just par for the course in Star Trek.
Yes. So ?

The power was unreliable, so they went on foot.
I don't even know why were arguing about this. I have no objection to them repeatedly dashing through the corridors, say because the lifts don't work, any more than I objected the consoles exploding all the time back in the day. They're both different sides of the same coin of power wonkiness, and they're equally amusing, to me.

I was simply agreeing with the observation that there's a lot of running through the ship, in both this movie and the last. The lifts weren't out all the times that was shown. And, no, we don't know how far lifts were taking people in at least most of those cases, either, cuz of that thing called editing.

Anyway, ship's huge! I love her this huge! It's the future, so I expect her to be huge.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 12:10 AM   #460
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Can we be perfectly honest though and admit that no matter what anyone shows you in support of their argument, you're just going to stick to your guns on the ship being roughly the same size of the TOS movie refit Enterprise/Enteprise-A and pop in occasionally to say how something definitively proves your point but really doesn't?
I know what I saw in the film: the hull breach revealed ONE typical circular Enterprise corridor. That's also what you can see through the windows to the right of the breach (note the "rectangles" on the wall). There are clearly three rows of them in both cases, as with this:

[Hotlinked image removed. The website scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com is an image hosting server belonging to TrekMovie.com and may not be used for the purpose of posting embedded images at TrekBBS. - M']

There's no "balcony", as some else said, and there certainly aren't two corridors on top of one another. Why doesn't someone use their Photoshop prowess and show me where there are two decks, or a balcony, or a movie theatre, or whatever else people see in that picture.

Otherwise, I recommend you go back and see the movie again, if for no other reason that to watch that one scene.

Last edited by M'Sharak; June 4 2013 at 11:09 PM. Reason: hotlinked image removed
WarpFactorZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 12:15 AM   #461
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Hmm. I thought the VFX guys just made the ship whatever size looked cool for the specific scene.

I had read somewhere that the ship was originally designed to be a little bigger than the TMP version in size, but was scaled up double when the '09 shuttle landing scene looked too small. So now we have a ship twice(ish) the size of the original but with the external details being too big for its size (two deck tall windows in some areas, and decks without any windows at all).

I tend to think of the ship in that smaller size, so my little toy TOS and REBOOT Enterprises can battle each other while being to equal scale.
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 12:18 AM   #462
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
There's no "balcony", as some else said, and there certainly aren't two corridors on top of one another. Why doesn't someone use their Photoshop prowess and show me where there are two decks, or a balcony, or a movie theatre, or whatever else people see in that picture.
Because no one cares at this point. The evidence is there, and the official size is there. That you can find instances of inconsistent scaling, assuming those are even that, doesn't mean the rest of the evidence dissapears.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 12:47 AM   #463
The Festivus Awakens
Airing Grievouses
 
The Festivus Awakens's Avatar
 
Location: Performing Festivus Miracles
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Why doesn't someone use their Photoshop prowess and show me where there are two decks, or a balcony, or a movie theatre, or whatever else people see in that picture.
"Why doesn't someone do all the work for me... again, so I can ignore and keep right on saying the same thing... again."

Why should people have to waste their time at this point when the writing's on the wall with you? King Daniel has already posted a ton of evidence for his point of view and you haven't budged an inch. I've posted a bunch of evidence and you haven't budged an inch. It's obviously a pointless exercise.

Otherwise, I recommend you go back and see the movie again, if for no other reason that to watch that one scene.
Yes, because I'm going to go back and pay to see a movie again just for one scene because of a stupid online argument.

I've already seen the movie twice, thanks. And if I see it again, it will be to enjoy the movie, not to win at internets.
__________________
Locutus of Bored
The Festivus Awakens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 01:05 AM   #464
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I got to see the movie a second time today and I've come to really like this new Enterprise. I think the leaving spacedock scene is just a thing of beauty!

I've come to a conclusion re: Enterprise' size:

TOS Enterprise was WAY TOO SMALL!!!!

Yep, JJ got it right.
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 4 2013, 01:45 AM   #465
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Why doesn't someone use their Photoshop prowess and show me where there are two decks, or a balcony, or a movie theatre, or whatever else people see in that picture.
"Why doesn't someone do all the work for me... again, so I can ignore and keep right on saying the same thing... again."
Because I'm not the one saying there is more than one deck visible there.

Why should people have to waste their time at this point when the writing's on the wall with you? King Daniel has already posted a ton of evidence for his point of view and you haven't budged an inch. I've posted a bunch of evidence and you haven't budged an inch. It's obviously a pointless exercise.
So, why don't you add the above to your pictorial evidence showing the two or three decks visible in the hull breach.
WarpFactorZ is online now   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 03:19 AM.

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