RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,755
Posts: 5,216,291
Members: 24,216
Currently online: 920
Newest member: kasmuruis

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 14 2013, 01:43 PM   #616
Mad Jack Wolfe
Lieutenant Commander
 
Mad Jack Wolfe's Avatar
 
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.
You're overlooking the other reason for windows on a starship: observing fish.
__________________
Life is full of disappointments. For instance, I really hoped "Chariots of Fire" would be a remake of "Ben Hur" with flame throwers.
Mad Jack Wolfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14 2013, 03:02 PM   #617
greenlight
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that a larger ship needs more windows (in fact I said that I didn't like the tendency to cover the surface with windows and preferred far fewer windows on my ships). It's just that if you design a ship at a particular size with a certain number of windows that seem to indicate a certain number of decks, and then say the ship is now twice as big without making any changes other than just scaling the windows and ports that are already there, well that just seems lazy.

As I said earlier in the thread, it really reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwz-mlJPL0
greenlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14 2013, 04:49 PM   #618
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

greenlight wrote: View Post
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that a larger ship needs more windows (in fact I said that I didn't like the tendency to cover the surface with windows and preferred far fewer windows on my ships). It's just that if you design a ship at a particular size with a certain number of windows that seem to indicate a certain number of decks, and then say the ship is now twice as big without making any changes other than just scaling the windows and ports that are already there, well that just seems lazy.

As I said earlier in the thread, it really reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwz-mlJPL0
Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say as well, through two different threads no less.
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14 2013, 09:09 PM   #619
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
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that a larger ship needs more windows (in fact I said that I didn't like the tendency to cover the surface with windows and preferred far fewer windows on my ships). It's just that if you design a ship at a particular size with a certain number of windows that seem to indicate a certain number of decks, and then say the ship is now twice as big without making any changes other than just scaling the windows and ports that are already there, well that just seems lazy.
Perhaps. It's something that bothered me a bit about the resizing at first. But then I realised that the windows don't indicate decks at all. As I said, there could be zero windows on the ship. What would you say, then ?
__________________
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 14 2013, 10:06 PM   #620
drt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
It's something that bothered me a bit about the resizing at first. But then I realised that the windows don't indicate decks at all.
Plus, it's really only noticeable in the dorsal and secondary hull, maybe all of those decks are two "primary hull" decks tall. The engineering spaces don't seem to have a traditional deck structure at all.


I'm cool with the 2x increase in the nuEnterprise's size, since they did the exact same thing with the original Jeffries ship.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 05:42 AM   #621
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Not to restart this, but just as information, the following is a quote from the film's cinematographer in AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER magazine:
“The shape of the Enterprise is perfectly captured in the anamorphic frame, and so is the geography of the ship’s bridge,” he states. “For this film, we did a bit of a makeover on the ship [by making it bigger], but we’ve kept the essential symmetry and feeling of it.”
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 02:23 PM   #622
EJD1984
Commander
 
EJD1984's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
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:
This goes back to an old comment that it's the windows that is the largest cause of the size issues.

Personally I would of rather had this version. It would have given the ship a real sense of massive scale.
__________________
NXX-1701
EJD1984 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 03:06 PM   #623
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

EJD1984 wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
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:
This goes back to an old comment that it's the windows that is the largest cause of the size issues.

Personally I would of rather had this version. It would have given the ship a real sense of massive scale.
To tell you the truth, I am okay with the ship becoming double the size of ships from the Prime timeline.

What bothers me is the (IMO) half-assed way they did it. Maybe the smaller windows do look weird as would the addition of more windows, but they could have at least shrunk the airlock ports to a reasonable size. Due to the way they doubled the ship size, the airlock ports are now 14(ish) feet in diameter!

And why is the Enterprise traveling through gelatin in this picture?!
__________________
"Don't do it, Meat!"
"Don't do it, Cheese!"
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 03:13 PM   #624
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
Due to the way they doubled the ship size, the airlock ports are now 14(ish) feet in diameter!
I don't have a problem with airlocks that can pass equipment larger than people.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 03:15 PM   #625
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
Due to the way they doubled the ship size, the airlock ports are now 14(ish) feet in diameter!

And why is the Enterprise traveling through gelatin in this picture?!
Sounds consistent though. Scotty comments the airlock on the Vengeance is four meters. Starships simply have larger hatches in the Abramsverse.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 03:54 PM   #626
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Scotty comments the airlock on the Vengeance is four meters.
No, Scotty says the airlock is about four SQUARE METRES in area. It's a circle, so the area is Pi*r^2. That gives a diameter of 2.25m, or about 7.5 feet. That's consistent with the size of the TMP airlocks.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 03:56 PM   #627
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Then again, it's a small cargo airlock for something to pass equipment through to that cargo bay, a generic one for machinary etc, not a larger personnel one.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 05:42 PM   #628
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Then again, it's a small cargo airlock for something to pass equipment through to that cargo bay, a generic one for machinary etc, not a larger personnel one.
Huh? It's the exact size for people because it really isn't for people, but for special teeny, tiny cargo?

Last edited by WarpFactorZ; June 17 2013 at 06:02 PM.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 06:16 PM   #629
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
What bothers me is the (IMO) half-assed way they did it. Maybe the smaller windows do look weird as would the addition of more windows, but they could have at least shrunk the airlock ports to a reasonable size. Due to the way they doubled the ship size, the airlock ports are now 14(ish) feet in diameter!
Take a look at this:



And just for fun, here is the entire lobby/plaza with a 2379.75' Enterprise and an 8' corridor ceiling height. Keep in mind that this is Tobias Richter's Enterprise model and not ILM's, and a guess of the set scale.
__________________
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 17 2013, 06:27 PM   #630
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Scotty comments the airlock on the Vengeance is four meters.
No, Scotty says the airlock is about four SQUARE METRES in area.
And he's probably wrong. Apart from being visibly larger than that anyway (as you can see when the security guy gets blown out of it) a 7 foot hatch is small enough that Khan and Kirk would have to be practically holding hands to fit through it. Although they are side by side, they are not QUITE close enough to touch each other; one or both of them should be dead.

FWIW, the novelization renders the line as "four meters" and not "four square meters." So Scotty's probably just exaggerating to make a point (he tends to do that, you know).
__________________
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 08:14 PM.

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