RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,887
Posts: 5,329,924
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 475
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 12 2013, 04:56 AM   #586
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
throwback wrote: View Post
Why would a capital ship be transporting soldiers and equipment into a battle? Wouldn't that function be better handled by a dedicated transport?
Still has to be able to defend itself.
That's why you provide an armed escort, because the transport isn't going to be able to do that and carry the load.

Starfleet's equivalent of a destroyer, or as I think they described it in some ancient volume of noncanonical BEST OF TREK, a flying phaser bank would be the appropriate kind of support.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 05:01 AM   #587
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
My issue with the ship scales for JJ's reboot is that the ships seem too big. A super-ship for no reason just seems dumb.
It's no more a super-ship than the Enterprise-D or E, both of which are significantly larger. Hell, except for the warp nacelles it's about the same size as the Enterprise-C. Maybe this is just the mid 23rd century/pre-refit version of the Ambassador class?

Also, they seemed to do it in the simplest way possible
KISS.

Keep it simple, stupid.

If they'd gone to redesign the entire ship at the last minute, it probably would have come away looking silly and implausible.

; it's as if they just went into the options menu and clicked the ship size box from 100% to 200%. They didn't bother to shrink any of the outer ports or windows on the ship's hull to fit the more massive size.
Maybe you're not getting where he is coming from. Scaling the ship up without adjusting the specific details is what makes it seem wrong & silly and implausible, and what makes it, in something like your parlance, a MIS.

Make It Stupid.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 05:43 AM   #588
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
throwback wrote: View Post
Why would a capital ship be transporting soldiers and equipment into a battle? Wouldn't that function be better handled by a dedicated transport?
Still has to be able to defend itself.
That's why you provide an armed escort, because the transport isn't going to be able to do that and carry the load.

Starfleet's equivalent of a destroyer, or as I think they described it in some ancient volume of noncanonical BEST OF TREK, a flying phaser bank would be the appropriate kind of support.
But why waste an extra ship and crew if you can build a transport that can also serve as a warship?
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 05:51 AM   #589
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
But why waste an extra ship and crew if you can build a transport that can also serve as a warship?
Because making something try to be everything means it's good for nothing.

BillJ wrote: View Post
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.
At that scale, on the ground, the ISS's orbital altitude would send it into the hangar deck.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 05:56 AM   #590
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Maurice wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
But why waste an extra ship and crew if you can build a transport that can also serve as a warship?
Because making something try to be everything means it's good for nothing.
Not necessarily. The original Enterprise obviously served multiple functions from exploration to defense to scientific missions and I don't see anyone making the claim that it was good-for-nothing. In-universe a functional multi-capability vessel is nothing new.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 06:04 AM   #591
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

That's like saying that because a 747 can haul some freight that you don't need or want cargo versions of the plane sans passengers. You could do it, but its not optimized for either. It's why every time they try to make an all-service fighter the thing always ends up compromised up the wazoo and expensive as Hell.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010

Last edited by Maurice; June 12 2013 at 09:43 AM.
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 06:10 AM   #592
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Maurice wrote: View Post
That's like saying that because a 747 can haul some freight that you don't need or want cargo versions of the plane san passengers. You could do it, but its not optimized for either. It's why every time they try to make an all-service fighter the thing always ends up compromised up the wazoo and expensive as Hell.
I do think there'd be some awfully big differences between aircraft and spaceships with transporters that would never be required to land.

There'd likely be some things you can do that aren't practical with aircraft.

In universe that is.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 06:54 AM   #593
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
Maybe you're not getting where he is coming from. Scaling the ship up without adjusting the specific details is what makes it seem wrong & silly and implausible, and what makes it, in something like your parlance, a MIS.

Make It Stupid.
Hey, it's been 40 pages of thread, and they obviously don't get where he (or previously, me) is coming from. For whatever reason, the thought of massive starships just does it for some people. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but, well... BIG STARSHIPS, YEE-HAH!
WarpFactorZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 10:26 AM   #594
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
Maybe you're not getting where he is coming from. Scaling the ship up without adjusting the specific details is what makes it seem wrong & silly and implausible, and what makes it, in something like your parlance, a MIS.

Make It Stupid.
Hey, it's been 40 pages of thread, and they obviously don't get where he (or previously, me) is coming from. For whatever reason, the thought of massive starships just does it for some people. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but, well... BIG STARSHIPS, YEE-HAH!
I've asked you twice now and you haven't responded. if there is no sense to larger starships, why does Starfleet have three versions of the same shape (Nova-small, Intrepid-medium and Sovereign-large) in service in the 24th century? What can the Enterprise-E do that Voyager couldn't?

It's not "yee-hah" it's "why not?"
__________________
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 12 2013, 10:42 AM   #595
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
Hey, it's been 40 pages of thread, and they obviously don't get where he (or previously, me) is coming from. For whatever reason, the thought of massive starships just does it for some people. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but, well... BIG STARSHIPS, YEE-HAH!
And after 40 pages, I still don't know why you think it doesn't make sense.
__________________
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 12 2013, 04:53 PM   #596
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Maurice wrote: View Post
That's like saying that because a 747 can haul some freight that you don't need or want cargo versions of the plane sans passengers. You could do it, but its not optimized for either. It's why every time they try to make an all-service fighter the thing always ends up compromised up the wazoo and expensive as Hell.
But it seems to work out for the fictional starship Enterprise.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 04:56 PM   #597
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
Scaling the ship up without adjusting the specific details is what makes it seem wrong & silly and implausible,
What details should they have adjusted?
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 05:32 PM   #598
greenlight
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

beamMe wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
Scaling the ship up without adjusting the specific details is what makes it seem wrong & silly and implausible,
What details should they have adjusted?
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the story from the VFX people that the ship was designed to be pretty much the same scale as the original and then well into production they realized that it needed to be significantly bigger to accommodate the shuttle bay, engineering, etc. and so they just scaled down the windows and that side docking port (at least it used to be a docking port, apparently now it's a recalcitrant crewman ejection tube) and didn't bother to add more windows so that it would look like there were more decks?
greenlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 05:44 PM   #599
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
a flying phaser bank would be the appropriate kind of support.
And the main phasers on USS Vengeance are exactly that: in Khan's final attack against the Enterprise, those two phaser banks detach from the ship and attack Enterprise independently.

Also, isn't this more or less the whole point behind TNG saucer separation? The saucer section was a dedicated science platform while the battle section had most of the ship's main weapons and engines?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 05:47 PM   #600
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
Maybe you're not getting where he is coming from. Scaling the ship up without adjusting the specific details...
They would have had to shrink the windows and change their locations, which in turn would have made them harder to see on the actual model and would have changed the aesthetics of the model itself. Instead, they simply scaled up the model and scaled up the windows with it. So instead of having a deck with a 3 x 5 foot window, you have a deck with a floor-to-ceiling window.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie 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 06:56 AM.

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