RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,674
Posts: 5,429,690
Members: 24,823
Currently online: 568
Newest member: voyagerman49


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 July 21 2013, 01:42 AM   #661
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 01:45 AM   #662
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Not again...
__________________
Here's proof that I can write something without using the word f**k.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 04:53 AM   #663
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
I'm going with the 366 meter length...
Why? Because some guy on a website that nobody visits anymore pulled that figure out of his ass in a fit of nerdrage?

A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design...
Was never produced for the ORIGINAL series in the first place. Why would you require one for the reboot?
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 08:05 AM   #664
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.
This New Enterprise size infographic is concrete evidence.

The bridge and lobby ALONE prove 725m is the only size the ship can ever possibly be.

EDITED TO ADD: Even the Haynes Enterprise manual states that the alternate reality Enterprise is significantly larger than the version Kirk Prime commanded.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by King Daniel Into Darkness; July 21 2013 at 11:09 AM.
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 08:08 AM   #665
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.
Yeah mate you go bury your head in the sand it will make you feel better, when you pull your head back out the NuEnterprise will still be as big as the Enterprise D (definitely longer) and the Vengeance will still be as big as a Romulan Warbird.

Lolz...
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 09:05 AM   #666
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.
Again I'll say... the size of the ship has NOTHING to do with the story being told. If the acting isn't good enough for you, fine. You hated the plot? Coolcoolcool. Directing not your cup of java? Kudos to you.

But where's the logic in bashing a movie, just because you think the ships to big?

Hell, when you think about all the room you'd need to house a generator that could create enough energy to warp space-time, and have 400 people living on it, have enough room to house, maintain and launch several shuttles capable of housing 7 people each, room for transporters, sensors, sciencelabs, medical facilities, recreational facilities, arboritum and God knows what else for when the plot needed it, the original Enterprise was way to small.
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.
Mage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 10:35 AM   #667
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship.
I'm going with the 20 meter length because I want it that way.

Seriously, why ignore the obvious ? You can't win against reality, no matter how hard you try.

Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either.
Yeah, what do they know, right ? They're only the ones making and scaling the CGI model, after all.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 06:06 PM   #668
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.
This New Enterprise size infographic is concrete evidence.

The bridge and lobby ALONE prove 725m is the only size the ship can ever possibly be.

EDITED TO ADD: Even the Haynes Enterprise manual states that the alternate reality Enterprise is significantly larger than the version Kirk Prime commanded.
That's a location infographic, that does not prove the size. If you actually want to prove the size using something other than a bunch of pictures then go for it but then you would be proven wrong. Is that what you guys do, hang out on the trek forum trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong? You've failed.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 07:03 PM   #669
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
I'm going with the 366 meter length until absolute concrete evidence is presented otherwise and no the Blu-Ray picture will not suffice it was just an inflated image of the ship. Random quotes from various ILM staffers won't work either. A technical manual designed by the people who finalized the ship's design will do nicely but we know the likelihood of that coming to fruition. Their own movie contradicts what they say anyway.
This New Enterprise size infographic is concrete evidence.

The bridge and lobby ALONE prove 725m is the only size the ship can ever possibly be.

EDITED TO ADD: Even the Haynes Enterprise manual states that the alternate reality Enterprise is significantly larger than the version Kirk Prime commanded.
That's a location infographic, that does not prove the size. If you actually want to prove the size using something other than a bunch of pictures then go for it but then you would be proven wrong. Is that what you guys do, hang out on the trek forum trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong? You've failed.
No, you failed by actually NOT believing something that the designers of the friggin ship have actually stated to be true, i.e. the size of the ship. There's a word for that: denial.
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.
Mage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 07:55 PM   #670
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
That's a location infographic, that does not prove the size. If you actually want to prove the size using something other than a bunch of pictures then go for it but then you would be proven wrong. Is that what you guys do, hang out on the trek forum trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong? You've failed.
Look at the bridge and lobby. Thats irrefutable evidence, the sets and the Enterprise at their correct sizes. They would never fit at any smaller size. And you say I've failed? Tell me how they could both fit on a 366m ship, with all those decks and the domes top and bottom - and fit a 50-foot wide bridge in front!
__________________
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 July 21 2013, 08:38 PM   #671
Locutus of Bored
A Certain Point of View
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: The Force
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
That's a location infographic, that does not prove the size. If you actually want to prove the size using something other than a bunch of pictures then go for it but then you would be proven wrong. Is that what you guys do, hang out on the trek forum trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong? You've failed.
As opposed to what you are doing which is... what? Cool it with the hostility, first of all, and if you're going to argue a point of view, you should back it up with some evidence instead of just invective.
__________________
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 July 21 2013, 09:50 PM   #672
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
That's a location infographic, that does not prove the size.
We've been through all this before, Killerprise. Did you read the thread ?

- The shuttlebay. Enough said.
- Production team says 700+ m
- Schematics show 700+ m
- CGI model scaled to 700+ m
- Windows show interiors and appear to show 700+ m ship
- The bridge and engineering rooms are far too large for a much smaller ship.
- etc.

At some point you have to give up your preconceptions, analyse why you want so much to cling to then, and accept reality.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21 2013, 11:55 PM   #673
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Just my weigh in... The creators clearly made the point to ensure the scaling was supersized. And while I don't personally like the ship, I don't have any issue with it because it's a new timeline/universe... So in a way, there's nothing more to compare it to than comparing new Kirk's blue eyes to original Kirk's brown eyes. It's just a new universe for the creators to play around in.

And we do it all the time when we design a new ship or create a new story for the original or new characters.

I can pick apart any movie, but if it's enjoyable, I can overlook the what I would consider to be BS IF the movie was bad.

And we all don't have to agree with each other to discuss what we care about. The ship is as much a character now as it was since I was a kid. This one to me just happens to be fat and ugly, but meh, I liked the movies and wasn't going to let that fugly bastard ruin it for me.
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2013, 12:12 AM   #674
The Keeper
Commodore
 
The Keeper's Avatar
 
Location: Where reality ends and illusion begins
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The ship is as much a character now as it was since I was a kid. This one to me just happens to be fat and ugly, but meh, I liked the movies and wasn't going to let that fugly bastard ruin it for me.
SIG worthy!
The Keeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2013, 01:03 AM   #675
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The ship is actually a giant living metal changeling that changes size on a whim or when it thinks the crew aren't looking.
Chemahkuu 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 07:26 PM.

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