RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,694
Posts: 5,213,534
Members: 24,208
Currently online: 816
Newest member: meshman63


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 10 2013, 10:49 AM   #556
Locutus of Bored
No Solicitors!
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
In a 200 million dollar production, there is no such thing as a VFX oddity.
That is plainly wrong.
It really isn't.
So, we'll add infallibility not only in themselves but also in everyone that works for them to the list of alleged directorial superpowers.
__________________
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 June 10 2013, 02:32 PM   #557
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
It really isn't.
Yes it is. We've seen plenty of high-budget movies with VFX errors, or plain laughable ones. You are wrong.
__________________
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 June 10 2013, 03:35 PM   #558
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

beamMe wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post

It's not just that.
At the end, after the refit, the bridge-window and the dome above are different.
We don't know about the window after the refit, because we didn't get to see them. The different windows are from before the refit.
We do see it in the movie.
I think the second picture in King Daniel Into Darkness' post is from the end of the film - I could be wrong though.
Belz... wrote: View Post
No I checked very closely when I saw it the second time around. We don't see the ship from the front.
That shot is from the end, during Kirk's speech. The camera swoops around the ship, eventually looking almost directly into the window. But we also see this version of the window earlier on, during the big zoom-in when the Enterprise is waiting in the Klingon Neutral Zone, and in the last movie when the camera zooms out the window and flips just before Pike, Kirk and Sulu take the shuttle to the Narada.
Earlier in the thread, someone speculated that this taller window may be a sign that they shrunk the Enteprise from the 725m/2380' on the bluray and in the art book. I was curious to see it that was the case, and it appears not.

JJ Abrams is a big fan of camera trickery - in the 2009 movie he used children in half-sized sets for Kirk's run into the cave on Delta Vega and (in deleted scenes) Nero being marched to an interrogation on Rura Penthe, and Sam and young Jim Kirk had a scene speaking in front of a dollhouse-sized barn. I'm having fun figuring out what was done similarly involving the Enterprise.
__________________
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 June 10 2013, 04:53 PM   #559
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
No I checked very closely when I saw it the second time around. We don't see the ship from the front.
I don't want to argue with you, but we do see the bridge-window after the refit.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 05:11 PM   #560
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Aw, come on. Of course you want to argue with me. I'm fine with that. I love arguing. And it appears that I'm wrong anyway. You know what that means, right ? Yep, I'll have to see the movie again !
__________________
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 June 10 2013, 05:22 PM   #561
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
Aw, come on. Of course you want to argue with me. I'm fine with that. I love arguing. And it appears that I'm wrong anyway. You know what that means, right ? Yep, I'll have to see the movie again !
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 06:47 PM   #562
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
It's a possibility, also, assuming the TNG books are wrong. It's never mentioned as such, however, and with Voyager saying Transwarp is something the Federation don't have, I think it's unlikely.
Excelsior's "new" warp drive would be so called because unlike the old engines it would be theoretically capable of entering transwarp, in much the same way that a jet aircraft -- unlike a propeller driven aircraft -- would be capable of breaking the sound barrier.

By the same token, it's possible for prop-driven aircraft to reach supersonic speeds if they dive from a high enough altitude under ideal conditions. It seems to also be the case that a starship with a conventional warp drive could enter transwarp in the presence of, say, a Xindi subspace vortex or by creating a quantum slipstream in front of them (or using the Borg transwarp conduits which operate the same as both technologies). True transwarp, however, implies the ability to enter these deep coherent "tunnels" in subspace by brute force alone, without relying (too much) on technobabble trickery or prearranged conduit networks.

That would nicely explain why the Xindi "subspace vortex" thing was never used again in the 23rd or 24th centuries; the Xindi are instinct in the prime timeline and nobody's ever heard of them OR their vortex trick. Starfleet in the Abramsverse has Jonathan Archer's logs to work with, so they probably figured out a way to generate those vortexes artificially using a severely overclocked warp drive.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 06:56 PM   #563
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
No I checked very closely when I saw it the second time around. We don't see the ship from the front.
Yes we do. The same overly large window appears on the refit as it did in that one brief scene where the bridge window appeared oddly enlarged to zoom in on kirk. My distinct impression was that this was a second version of the CG Enterprise model with the window shape and proportions altered and that ILM "cheated" and used the new model (shown only from the front) earlier in the movie because the same shot didn't look right using the older one.

Ironically, it's kind of like what happened with TNG between the 4 foot and the 2/6 foot models. The 4 footer, built much later into Trek's run, looks VERY different from the 2-footer OR the 6-footer, has different textures, different proportions, different window sizes, etc.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Oh and I wasn't the one talking about the bridge window, that was King Daniel Into Darkness.
Yeah, but he's just discussing it as a curiosity. You extended it to a commentary on the entire film and the filmmakers, instead of just a VFX oddity, which is silly.
In a 200 million dollar production, there is no such thing as a VFX oddity. The camera zooming in on Kirk standing behind the bridge window is an elaborate shot that needed a specifically created CG model. So if that one is different to the other model, it is clearly because the filmmakers favor composition over continuity. They didn't go: "oh gee, we wanted Kirk standing behind the big glass viewscreen, but the model doesn't have that window, so let's skip that shot".

It's basically the same thing as 78 decks on the Enterprise-A in The Final Frontier. Shatner wanted an exciting scene in a turbolift shaft. So he decided continuity wasn't as important as the excitement of the sequence.
This.

And IMO it worked pretty well. It's not a mistake to favor style over continuity when the style is AWESOME.

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
That is plainly wrong.
It really isn't.
So, we'll add infallibility not only in themselves but also in everyone that works for them to the list of alleged directorial superpowers.
Actually it's the exact opposite of that. In addition to not being the focus of the Director's intention, internal consistency isn't even the VFX artist or Editor's intention. It's only an error if they DIDN'T INTEND to do it that way (the famous error that pops up in various movies where a car chase begins in the afternoon but ends at night because it literally took all day to finish shooting it).

If, OTOH, you intentionally under-expose the film to make the final part of the car chase darker because it's a very dark moment for both characters (or because they've driven into a part of the city that's supposed to be smog-covered and polluted and sort of dystopian) that's a style choice, even if it's inconsistent with other parts of the movie where the street scene wasn't nearly that dark in daylight.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 07:04 PM   #564
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
No I checked very closely when I saw it the second time around. We don't see the ship from the front.
Yes we do. The same overly large window appears on the refit as it did in that one brief scene where the bridge window appeared oddly enlarged to zoom in on kirk. My distinct impression was that this was a second version of the CG Enterprise model with the window shape and proportions altered and that ILM "cheated" and used the new model (shown only from the front) earlier in the movie because the same shot didn't look right using the older one.
A distinct possibility. I just don't know why they'd cheat, since they presumably didn't delete the files of the "old" model.

Ironically, it's kind of like what happened with TNG between the 4 foot and the 2/6 foot models. The 4 footer, built much later into Trek's run, looks VERY different from the 2-footer OR the 6-footer, has different textures, different proportions, different window sizes, etc.
Yeah, a very obvious difference which annoyed me back then. I used to prefer the 4-footer but now I find the 6-footer sleeker and more pleasing to the eye.
__________________
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 June 10 2013, 07:07 PM   #565
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
No I checked very closely when I saw it the second time around. We don't see the ship from the front.
Yes we do. The same overly large window appears on the refit as it did in that one brief scene where the bridge window appeared oddly enlarged to zoom in on kirk. My distinct impression was that this was a second version of the CG Enterprise model with the window shape and proportions altered and that ILM "cheated" and used the new model (shown only from the front) earlier in the movie because the same shot didn't look right using the older one.
A distinct possibility. I just don't know why they'd cheat, since they presumably didn't delete the files of the "old" model.
Probably because the window proportions of the old model didn't work for that shot so they filmed it with the new one instead, realizing that nobody would notice the switch.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2013, 08:02 PM   #566
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Except the people who want the Enterprise to be 300m long.
__________________
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 June 11 2013, 01:59 AM   #567
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I wish the Enterprise was even bigger than what people are saying. It should be at least 1,500m long. Longer!
__________________
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 11 2013, 10:26 AM   #568
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Bigger than a planet ?
__________________
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 June 11 2013, 10:53 AM   #569
Locutus of Bored
No Solicitors!
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Opus wrote: View Post
I wish the Enterprise was even bigger than what people are saying. It should be at least 1,500m long. Longer!


It's still built on the ground too, just to piss people off.
__________________
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 June 11 2013, 02:56 PM   #570
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Opus wrote: View Post
I wish the Enterprise was even bigger than what people are saying. It should be at least 1,500m long. Longer!


It's still built on the ground too, just to piss people off.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ 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 02:51 AM.

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