RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,577
Posts: 5,514,823
Members: 25,154
Currently online: 523
Newest member: MC1367

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 22 2013, 11:49 PM   #706
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post

P.S. I came here to have fun and do some debating not get harassed so kindly back off and refrain from responding to every one of my posts like a stalker. I still can't believe I've attracted a stalker that fast.
So you want to be able to post misinformation without being challenged? You came to the wrong tavern.

Please get back on topic.
__________________
Real Star Trek fans question everything, fake Trek fans blindly accept everything.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2013, 11:51 PM   #707
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post

P.S. I came here to have fun and do some debating not get harassed so kindly back off and refrain from responding to every one of my posts like a stalker. I still can't believe I've attracted a stalker that fast.
So you want to be able to post misinformation without being challenged? You came to the wrong tavern.

Please get back on topic.
Since you are not a moderator, you have no authority to tell me to do anything of the kind.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2013, 11:51 PM   #708
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
I want Scotty to stare into the camera during the next film and say "This is a 700 meter-long starship, laddie."

That will never happen. They would then have to produce blueprints showing that information, that would also never happen. This isn't a version Star Trek like the original and TNG that supports claims with technical manuals or blueprints. This is popcorn Trek, all action no technical aspect.
__________________
Real Star Trek fans question everything, fake Trek fans blindly accept everything.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2013, 11:52 PM   #709
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

So you want to be able to post misinformation without being challenged? You came to the wrong tavern.

Please get back on topic.
Since you are not a moderator, you have no authority to tell me to do anything of the kind.

"Please" denotes a request, not an order.
__________________
Real Star Trek fans question everything, fake Trek fans blindly accept everything.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2013, 11:54 PM   #710
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post


That will never happen. They would then have to produce blueprints showing that information, that would also never happen. This isn't a version Star Trek like the original and TNG that supports claims with technical manuals or blueprints. This is popcorn Trek, all action no technical aspect.
You do realize much of the work of making things fit was done by licensed material and the fans? Do you really think that they did complete blueprints of the Enterprise back in 1966?

And people are still arguing the details fifty-years later.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:08 AM   #711
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post


That will never happen. They would then have to produce blueprints showing that information, that would also never happen. This isn't a version Star Trek like the original and TNG that supports claims with technical manuals or blueprints. This is popcorn Trek, all action no technical aspect.
You do realize much of the work of making things fit was done by licensed material and the fans? Do you really think that they did complete blueprints of the Enterprise back in 1966?

And people are still arguing the details fifty-years later.
Hold the fuck up: He won't take the word of the production team--the people that put the thing on the screen. But he'll favor fanon sites like Ex Sceintia and licensed works over the OFFICIAL word?

The hell?

Tell ya' what, Killer', go into the TOS forum and start a thread on how accurate the Franz Joseph deck plans are or how accurate Shane Johnson's work is. Then you'll see: License products are never "right".
__________________
- SeerSGB -
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:18 AM   #712
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:24 AM   #713
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?
IRC, there's a line drawing in "Making of Star Trek" that compares the size of the Enterprise against an aircraft carrier. And there's a screen in "Day Of The Dove" showing the Enterprise scaled against a D-7, but I don't recall if it was labeled with sizes.

Edit: I was wrong. It's "Enterprise Incident", and it's labeled with a scale.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:25 AM   #714
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File..._Jefferies.jpg
__________________
Real Star Trek fans question everything, fake Trek fans blindly accept everything.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:33 AM   #715
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File..._Jefferies.jpg
So I can take it that you take that 289 meter length as gospel? Because if you do, why won't you accept the size of the new version since it comes straight from those who put it together?

I also know that there has been debate about whether the sets we see could fit inside the dimensions that Jefferies gave for the Enterprise.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:42 AM   #716
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Thats a set diagram! From the makers of the movie. Didn't you click the link I gave you? There are no doors at the front of the bridge.

I got confused, sue me. I'll download the picture and superimpose it to see if it fits the way I think it does.
That's one...

Killerprise wrote: View Post
Oh I know where the atrium window is!!!!!! It's under those windows behind the bridge. Although the floor plans are a bit vague since that would mean the rear corridor has a decline so that they can lead to the lower decks. I always wondered what was inside those windows that's in the same place as Refit 1701's conference room.
two...

Killerprise wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It seems the USS Vengeance may actually be larger than we thought. It's 2.5x the Enterprise's size in this graphic:
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/vengeance_graphic.jpg[/ IMG]

And here's the ever-changing bridge window. It seems the taller, narrower veraion seen when the Enterprise is on the Klingon border and again at the very end correctly matches the window on the set (which has a definite height of 8', I guesstimated a width of 25'):
[ IMG]http://i912.photobucket.com/albums/ac330/KingDaniel01/bridge_window_change.jpg[/ IMG]
Forgive the shitty quality of the pics, they're from YouTube clips. Enterprise pic from www.cygnus-x1.net.
You took the youtube image from prometheus' video, lol I've watched those dozens of times, it's kind of funny how the nacelles look normal size from the front in that shot. That first person vs ship image was a joke, I remember seeing that for the first time and was like "hey the window isn't THAT small".
three...

Killerprise wrote: View Post
Has anyone else noticed that the floor plan diagram make it look like sickbay and the transporter room are at the same height with the bridge? They are both below the bridge in the saucer section just like in the original show and TNG. There has to be stairs that just aren't show in the diagram. It's also weird how when the neck and secondary hull got hit when Enterprise arrived at Vulcan that the sickbay exploded. I'm working on superimposing the diagram. This will take a while.
four...

Killerprise wrote: View Post
Check this image out from the blu-ray, 948' times two equals 1896'

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YENremF4m0...comparison.jpg
five...

Killerprise wrote: View Post
This was a pain in the ass, lol. As you can see the bridge size is about 99% spot on, I noticed where the bridge window was it's the blueish light slot in the front of the dome.

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a510/SubaruBRZ/Enterprisetopwithbridge_zps781dea3e.jpg
six posts in a row.

The FAQ recommends that you make no more than two consecutive posts in a given thread. If you wish to reply to several posts at the same time, you'll want to make use of the Multi-Quote function [ ] which allows you to select several posts and reply to them all in a single post.

I will combine these for you.

Also: any pics you post as embedded images should be hosted on web space or an image-hosting account registered to you rather than hotlinked from websites belonging to others. That's in the FAQ, too.

I will fix these for you, as well.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:42 AM   #717
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File..._Jefferies.jpg
So I can take it that you take that 289 meter length as gospel? Because if you do, why won't you accept the size of the new version since it comes straight from those who put it together?

I also know that there has been debate about whether the sets we see could fit inside the dimensions that Jefferies gave for the Enterprise.

Hell look at the refit Enterprise: The shuttlebay is huge. Through the whole of TMP we're hit with the massive sale of the refit Enterprise. 1701-A rolls around, same class, same size, and suddenly it's much smaller and just enough room for two shuttles side by side; STVI she's gotten even smaller and crew quarters are tiny. Yet the "official" size never changes, we're to believe that somehow the 1701 crammed a lot more into her than her sister (minds out of the gutters guys and gals).

Kick me in the shin for saying, but the (nu)1701 is a bit more consistent in how it's portray on the screen. She's a big fucking ship, and she's still not the biggest kid on the block in the Abramsverse.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:44 AM   #718
Killerprise
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
I'm curious: did Matt Jefferies ever give us the length of the TOS Enterprise or did we get that from fan sources and licensed material?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File..._Jefferies.jpg
So I can take it that you take that 289 meter length as gospel? Because if you do, why won't you accept the size of the new version since it comes straight from those who put it together?

I also know that there has been debate about whether the sets we see could fit inside the dimensions that Jefferies gave for the Enterprise.
I would have accepted the 725 meter length if they had accurately scaled the ship to reflect that and included blueprints but unfortunately it isn't accurately scaled and there are no blueprints so their empty claims are just that. As for the 289m length as gospel, I haven't been given reason to doubt 289 meters, if someone wants to come up with a hyper accurate length for the TOS Enterprise go for it but the chances of that are slim to none.
__________________
Real Star Trek fans question everything, fake Trek fans blindly accept everything.
Killerprise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:53 AM   #719
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post

I would have accepted the 725 meter length if they had accurately scaled the ship to reflect that and included blueprints but unfortunately it isn't accurately scaled and there are no blueprints so their empty claims are just that. As for the 289m length as gospel, I haven't been given reason to doubt 289 meters, if someone wants to come up with a hyper accurate length for the TOS Enterprise go for it but the chances of that are slim to none.
Your argument kinda falls apart if you have no problem with one being inaccurately scaled.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2013, 12:54 AM   #720
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Killerprise wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Killerprise wrote: View Post

P.S. I came here to have fun and do some debating not get harassed so kindly back off and refrain from responding to every one of my posts like a stalker. I still can't believe I've attracted a stalker that fast.
So you want to be able to post misinformation without being challenged? You came to the wrong tavern.

Please get back on topic.
Since you are not a moderator, you have no authority to tell me to do anything of the kind.

"Please" denotes a request, not an order.
Would have been better not to have made the "stalker" accusation in the first place, wouldn't it? Telling someone else to get back on topic after you made the off-topic diversion yourself is ... well, not very credible, for one thing.

And not your call to make, for another.

I think, Killerprise, that you really ought to concentrate first and foremost on looking after your own post content; that's been showing signs of badly needing the attention.

And now, back to the topic of starship size, if everyone will be so kind?
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak 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 11:33 PM.

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