RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,116
Posts: 5,400,785
Members: 24,744
Currently online: 514
Newest member: Ohwowmelody

TrekToday headlines

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 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 June 12 2013, 05:54 PM   #601
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
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.
Which is one of the reasons I have never believed Starfleet was a straight up "military" organization. A general-purpose starship like Enterprise makes sense as an exploration vessel, one that can fight if it has to but isn't specialized for combat and spends most of its talents on scientific research and field engineering. Contrast with combat specialists like Vengeance and Defiant, the existence of which is both rare and controversial and hard to justify except in the face of the most extreme threats. That's almost the exact opposite priority of military thinking, where the generalist designs tend to be the more controversial and have the hardest time attracting funding.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 06:09 PM   #602
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

greenlight wrote: View Post
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?
The choice to make the windows larger instead of more numerous was a deliberate one. In Star Trek: The Art of the Movie there is this concept illustration of the Enterprise with more, and smaller, windows:
__________________
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, 06:35 PM   #603
greenlight
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
greenlight wrote: View Post
beamMe wrote: View Post

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?
The choice to make the windows larger instead of more numerous was a deliberate one. In Star Trek: The Art of the Movie there is this concept illustration of the Enterprise with more, and smaller, windows:
Deliberate, how? Do they say? I've never been a fan of having the outside of the ship littered with windows, but when you keep the same number of windows in the same place and just make the ship bigger, it suggests a certain... laziness. Or lack of time (which would suggest poor planning or preparation).

Again, while I'd have preferred a ship the same size as the original, I don't mind that they've made it bigger. I just think they were sloppy in how they went about it.
greenlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 08:22 PM   #604
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

greenlight wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
greenlight wrote: View Post

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?
The choice to make the windows larger instead of more numerous was a deliberate one. In Star Trek: The Art of the Movie there is this concept illustration of the Enterprise with more, and smaller, windows:
Deliberate, how? Do they say? I've never been a fan of having the outside of the ship littered with windows, but when you keep the same number of windows in the same place and just make the ship bigger, it suggests a certain... laziness. Or lack of time (which would suggest poor planning or preparation).

Again, while I'd have preferred a ship the same size as the original, I don't mind that they've made it bigger. I just think they were sloppy in how they went about it.
Again, the larger windows was a stylistic choice. The redesign with the windows resized probably looked a little strange so they kept the original window details and changed the interior textures visible through them.

Look at it from a cinematographer's point of view. You have to be a lot more concerned with what LOOKS good than anything else. If the original model looks better than the revised one, you go back to the original and make it work with fewer changes. Which is, actually, something I wish the producers of TNG had done when they built the 4-foot Enterprise model.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 08:27 PM   #605
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

greenlight wrote: View Post
Deliberate, how? Do they say? I've never been a fan of having the outside of the ship littered with windows, but when you keep the same number of windows in the same place and just make the ship bigger, it suggests a certain... laziness. Or lack of time (which would suggest poor planning or preparation).
That they have concept art of the ship with lots of smaller windows shows that it was considered but ultimately rejected.
__________________
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, 09:07 PM   #606
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

greenlight wrote: View Post
didn't bother to add more windows so that it would look like there were more decks?
The Enterprise isn't a cruise ship, you know. There's really no need for windows at all except in case of power failure.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
Really ? I figured that's what they did but I didn't catch that in the theatre.
__________________
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, 09:11 PM   #607
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

greenlight wrote: View Post
Deliberate, how? Do they say?
It wasn't accidental, so it was deliberate.
__________________
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, 11:45 PM   #608
newtontomato539
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The windows were smaller. Then they were bigger.

How does screaming, "Get off my lawn!" help?
newtontomato539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 12:53 AM   #609
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

newtontomato539 wrote: View Post
The windows were smaller. Then they were bigger.

How does screaming, "Get off my lawn!" help?
And one more time: if you can't post anything but spam, you really ought to consider posting nothing at all.
__________________
"Recently my 8 year-old cousin asked me, with a wicked twinkle in his eye, if I'd ever microwaved a banana. I'm terrified to try, but I'm sure whatever happens—splattering, abrupt, radioactive—sounds exactly like an Annie Clark guitar solo."
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 09:31 AM   #610
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
greenlight wrote: View Post
didn't bother to add more windows so that it would look like there were more decks?
The Enterprise isn't a cruise ship, you know. There's really no need for windows at all except in case of power failure.
I agree Belz... The NuEnterprise is not a family ship like the Enterprise D and as such does not need so many windows.

A few on the forum think that because the NuEnterprise is as big as the Enterprise D then it should have the same number and size of windows which is ridiculous.

They tried it with more smaller windows and it didn't look right so they added fewer larger ones so it was deliberate and it looks fine, as I said in an earlier post the larger windows on the saucer edge could easily be corridors or large social areas.

Last edited by M'Sharak; June 16 2013 at 12:57 AM. Reason: too many quote tags - removed one
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 11:24 AM   #611
Mountie1988
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The zero-G window washers on board all the other ships on a 5-year deep space voyage...
are they redshirts, blueshirts or private contractors?

Probably they just regularly go to a star cruiser wash site on rigel VII
Mountie1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 12:25 PM   #612
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^When they need to clean the windows, they just dip into the nearest ocean
__________________
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 13 2013, 12:41 PM   #613
newtontomato539
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Exactly. No more plot hole.

Of Course, there was no plot hole.

Just because something is not explained, does not make it a plot hole. tm
newtontomato539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13 2013, 02:26 PM   #614
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Mountie1988 wrote: View Post
The zero-G window washers on board all the other ships on a 5-year deep space voyage...
are they redshirts, blueshirts or private contractors?

Probably they just regularly go to a star cruiser wash site on Rigel VII
I always wondered about the enlisted crew that are on janitorial duty. Someone has to go around vacuuming the rugs in the corridors and wiping down the touch screens. Who goes and unplugs the toilets? On that point, how do Trek toilets work? Do the toilets use reverse-replicator technology?
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14 2013, 12:19 PM   #615
The Librarian
Commodore
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
Mountie1988 wrote: View Post
The zero-G window washers on board all the other ships on a 5-year deep space voyage...
are they redshirts, blueshirts or private contractors?

Probably they just regularly go to a star cruiser wash site on Rigel VII
I always wondered about the enlisted crew that are on janitorial duty. Someone has to go around vacuuming the rugs in the corridors and wiping down the touch screens. Who goes and unplugs the toilets? On that point, how do Trek toilets work? Do the toilets use reverse-replicator technology?
I think they've mastered space roombas.
The Librarian 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 01:43 PM.

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