RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,382
Posts: 5,504,929
Members: 25,126
Currently online: 629
Newest member: Captain Allen

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 August 2 2013, 09:40 PM   #796
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post

And HERE is Locutus of Bored's crash graphic (I hope you don't mind me uploading it from my HD to photobucket,Locutus, but I couldn't find the original thread)
The graphic you link originally appeared here, but there's a larger version of Locutus' crash map to be found here or here, which shows Vengeance's ~0.8-mile length fitting neatly into the 1.5-mile gap between Alcatraz and the stretch of The Embarcadero between Pier 39 and Fisherman's Wharf where the crashed ship comes ashore.
Thank you! The one I uploaded was the full size one, it seems photobucket shrunk it down. Bizarro.

James wrote: View Post
This and this, before it enters the mouth of the shuttlebay and while it's in the mouth.



In both of these pics, the shuttle is closer to the camera than the Enterprise.

How do you explain the enourmous shuttlebay they cut to right after this scene? Do you pretend it doesn't exist? And what about fitting the circular corridor stack under the saucer top dome and fitting the bridge in front of deck 2? They fit perfectly into a 725m Enterprise, any smaller and it would be physically impossible.
James wrote: View Post
Here is the Vengeance above the eastern tip of the island and right before it goes for a short swim.




The Vengeance/Alcatraz Island size here seems to match Locutus' map.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2013, 09:46 PM   #797
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post

And HERE is Locutus of Bored's crash graphic (I hope you don't mind me uploading it from my HD to photobucket,Locutus, but I couldn't find the original thread)
The graphic you link originally appeared here, but there's a larger version of Locutus' crash map to be found here or here, which shows Vengeance's ~0.8-mile length fitting neatly into the 1.5-mile gap between Alcatraz and the stretch of The Embarcadero between Pier 39 and Fisherman's Wharf where the crashed ship comes ashore.
Thank you! The one I uploaded was the full size one, it seems photobucket shrunk it down. Bizarro.

James wrote: View Post
This and this, before it enters the mouth of the shuttlebay and while it's in the mouth.



In both of these pics, the shuttle is closer to the camera than the Enterprise.


James wrote: View Post
Here is the Vengeance above the eastern tip of the island and right before it goes for a short swim.




The Vengeance/Alcatraz Island size here seems to match Locutus' map. How do you explain the enourmous shuttlebay they cut to right after this scene? Do you pretend it doesn't exist? And what about fitting the circular corridor stack under the saucer top dome and fitting the bridge in front of deck 2? They fit perfectly into a 725m Enterprise, any smaller and it would be physically impossible.

The Vengeance in this scene is noticable smaller than the one in Locutus' map and the shuttle is right in the mouth of the shuttlebay opening within feet of colliding with the structure so it's definitely not closer to the camera. The enormous shuttlebay is because they like to wing it when it comes to portraying the ship's size, it goes from small to big to small over and over again. The circular shaft thing is unknown, when Kirk and Scotty are running toward engineering they appear to run toward the starboard side of the ship veering around a corner then entering the shaft area. I was looking at old posts on this thread and that scene directly conflicts with the set floorplan you posted a few pages back. Sickbay is somewhere in the saucer on the backside near the neck's connecting point and the transporter room is probably on the opposite side. We can't take this ship literally because there are huge scene holes that make it impossible to know which deck they are on. Like in the ship falling scene, after Kirk and Scotty leave the shaft they enter another curved corrider with a turbolift door behind them. The movie comic book in 2009 showed Kirk in the lounge on the back of the bridge module, with the huge slotted windows. This ship has no consistency what so ever in my opinion, the saucer's center is supposed to have a computer core and this ship doesn't. The shuttlebay is also shorter than it was in 2009, it now has the platform shown in ID where they were looking at the advanced torpedoes.

Last edited by James; August 2 2013 at 10:07 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2013, 10:02 PM   #798
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
The Vengeance in this scene is noticable smaller than the one in Locutus' map
You're assuming the trajectory that Vengeance hits the island in the map to be absolute, when it's just an estimate. Rotate the ship a tiny bit and they're a match.
and the shuttle is right in the mouth of the shuttlebay opening within feet of colliding with the structure so it's definitely not closer to the camera.
The shuttle is over the mouth of the shuttlebay from our viewpoint, but it's in front of, not inside. And I ask again, what about the enourmous shuttlebay we cut to immediately afterwards, with 40ft shuttles parked along the sides like they were in STXI? And the layout of the bridge and plaza behind? And enourmous engimeering sections? You're looking for little perspective tricks to prove you're right, while ignoring overwhelming evidence that shows you're wrong.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2013, 10:08 PM   #799
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
James wrote: View Post
The Vengeance in this scene is noticable smaller than the one in Locutus' map
You're assuming the trajectory that Vengeance hits the island in the map to be absolute, when it's just an estimate. Rotate the ship a tiny bit and they're a match.
and the shuttle is right in the mouth of the shuttlebay opening within feet of colliding with the structure so it's definitely not closer to the camera.
The shuttle is over the mouth of the shuttlebay from our viewpoint, but it's in front of, not inside. And I ask again, what about the enourmous shuttlebay we cut to immediately afterwards, with 40ft shuttles parked along the sides like they were in STXI? And the layout of the bridge and plaza behind? And enourmous engimeering sections? You're looking for little perspective tricks to prove you're right, while ignoring overwhelming evidence that shows you're wrong.
Yes it is inside, look at the shadow on top of the shuttle.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 2 2013, 11:28 PM   #800
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post

The Vengeance in this scene is noticable smaller than the one in Locutus' map and the shuttle is right in the mouth of the shuttlebay opening within feet of colliding with the structure so it's definitely not closer to the camera.
I don't see any shadow, but the shuttle/bay size ratio in the second shot (where it's turning to the bay and getting closer) actually does look to me to be almost the same as this:

The enormous shuttlebay is because they like to wing it when it comes to portraying the ship's size, it goes from small to big to small over and over again.
The idea of the shuttlebay changing size comes from Ex Astris Scientia, and was disproven earlier in the thread:


It's all big, all the time. And if it's big, surely the ship must be big to fit it, right?
The circular shaft thing is unknown,
Dome at the top, dome at the bottom. 16+ decks with a wider deck spacing than any prior Enterprise. There is nowhere else it could possibly go, and as you'll see here, they fit perfectly into a 725m Enterprise.

The only way the ship would be smaller than 725m would be if you completely ignore it. Why the need to do so?

Earlier you mentioned the airlocks, here is a comparison of the airlocks on the classic movie Enterprise (and that's a shot of the filming model, btw) and the new one:

when Kirk and Scotty are running toward engineering they appear to run toward the starboard side of the ship veering around a corner then entering the shaft area.
They're leaving the brig, somewhere in the saucer, and are heading to Engineering below.
I was looking at old posts on this thread and that scene directly conflicts with the set floorplan you posted a few pages back. Sickbay is somewhere in the saucer on the backside near the neck's connecting point and the transporter room is probably on the opposite side.
As I told a previous poster, that was the real-world set, not how the Enterprise is supposed to be arranged in-universe. Every single Star Trek series and movie has arranged their sets similarly - for The Motion Picture, the engine room set was just around the corner from sickbay, which is obviously not where they're meant to be on the "real" ship in-universe.
We can't take this ship literally because there are huge scene holes that make it impossible to know which deck they are on.
You can instantly tell which deck the crew are on in every other Trek?
Like in the ship falling scene, after Kirk and Scotty leave the shaft they enter another curved corrider with a turbolift door behind them.
You are aware that the same stretches of corridors represent the entire ship in EVERY Star Trek show ever made? The same corridors will be on deck 5 in one episode, and deck 36 in another.
The movie comic book in 2009 showed Kirk in the lounge on the back of the bridge module, with the huge slotted windows.
The comics also had frequently used the movie Enterprise and one time even the Enterprise-D in place of the correct one. They previously released a TOS comic in which the old Enterprise bridge was covered in 24th century LCARS graphics. They certainly can't be used a reliable resource.
This ship has no consistency what so ever in my opinion, the saucer's center is supposed to have a computer core and this ship doesn't.
Some Trek ships in some of the other series' and movies have had computer cores in the centre of the saucer. Not all, and clearly not this alternate reality Enterprise.
The shuttlebay is also shorter than it was in 2009, it now has the platform shown in ID where they were looking at the advanced torpedoes.
It seemed the same massive size to me, but I'll have to wait for the DVD to be sure. In any case and even if the bay were refitted between movies, two levels of 40ft shuttles line the bay as they did in STXI.

I think what you're calling inconsistancies are just clashes with your preconcieved notion of how the Enterprise "should" be, based on what you've seen in previous Star Treks. As the advertising campaign for STXI said, "Forget everything you know" - Vulcan is gone, James Kirk never knew his father, Uhura and Spock are lovers and Starfleet builds a lot bigger than they did in the Prime universe.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 12:13 AM   #801
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

This image is wrong, the bridge is too small for that viewscreen. Even you know the entire viewscreen window is used by the bridge. I also know thanks to previous posts and other threads that this plan is the set plan, not the deck plan for the ship.

  Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 12:18 AM   #802
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
This and this, before it enters the mouth of the shuttlebay and while it's in the mouth.






anh165 wrote: View Post
Also take account that the vengance is pitched forwards so the gap between the front of saucer to the waterfront would be greater than if the ship was level.
The Vengeance wasn't pitched forward that much, just enough for the front of the saucer to be slightly submerged. Someone could draw an outline of th saucer and curve it back around.

Here is the video, fast forward to the end and you'll see a shadow and if you still claim not to see one then something is up because there is a shadow on top of the shuttle as it enters the now smaller bay. I don't know about something called astris something, what is that?

http://youtu.be/jSxZkdACN7g
  Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 12:27 AM   #803
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I overlaid the rearranged set plan over a fan-made picture of the Enterprise. Since there have been no official orthographic views released they're all we've got - and they all differ a little. This one has a window drawn too wide and is angled when the one in the movie is narrower and straight up.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 12:30 AM   #804
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I overlaid the rearranged set plan over a fan-made picture of the Enterprise. Since there have been no official orthographic views released they're all we've got - and they all differ a little. This one has a window drawn too wide and is angled when the one in the movie is narrower and straight up.

It's still wrong though and someone should enlarge the bridge to fit that window, for the sake of accuracy. Of course then that would mean the shaft thing is no below the dome on top, truth be told we don't really know where it is.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 12:37 AM   #805
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I've pretty much been lightly on your side with this, especially the monster ship crash in the bay, but on the shuttle deal, I am kinda thinking the shadow you mention -- which is most definitely there -- might be coming from the nacelle or some other object.

It looks like the shadow aspect occurs before the shuttle gets where it is supposed to be (then again, it could just be a lousy comp, in which case we again have ILM to blame, even if it is for a different reason this time.)

None of this changes the likelihood that the ship is getting resized as needed, since ILM has been doing this kind of thing for just about ever and ever (one model for Vermithrax in DRAGONSLAYER for flying and another for walking, and I'm pretty sure different CG models for DRAGONHEART's Draco, because there were interpenetration problems trying to get the wings to work while retaining the walking version of him. The Bird of Prey in SFS seems to change drastically in size from scene to scene, and I think the same can be said for TVH, though probably not so extreme a change.)

The bay shot MIGHT have been done with 'long' virtual lenses, suggesting more of a telephoto view, which would compress the field of view and distort the size of objects. Would have to look at a high rez version of the shot.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 12:58 AM   #806
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
I've pretty much been lightly on your side with this, especially the monster ship crash in the bay, but on the shuttle deal, I am kinda thinking the shadow you mention -- which is most definitely there -- might be coming from the nacelle or some other object.

It looks like the shadow aspect occurs before the shuttle gets where it is supposed to be (then again, it could just be a lousy comp, in which case we again have ILM to blame, even if it is for a different reason this time.)

None of this changes the likelihood that the ship is getting resized as needed, since ILM has been doing this kind of thing for just about ever and ever (one model for Vermithrax in DRAGONSLAYER for flying and another for walking, and I'm pretty sure different CG models for DRAGONHEART's Draco, because there were interpenetration problems trying to get the wings to work while retaining the walking version of him. The Bird of Prey in SFS seems to change drastically in size from scene to scene, and I think the same can be said for TVH, though probably not so extreme a change.)

The bay shot MIGHT have been done with 'long' virtual lenses, suggesting more of a telephoto view, which would compress the field of view and distort the size of objects. Would have to look at a high rez version of the shot.
If it were from a nacelle it would have come and gone since the nacelle is much thinner toward the back and the light source is coming from the top right, it starts when the shuttle enters the bay and doesn't stop. The shadow itself is caused by the structure of the landing bay. The Vengeance itself goes from a semi blurry looking dreadnought to a detailed dreadnought as it's hitting the water. I'm pretty sure that the shadow is coming from edge of the shuttlebay though because as we see the shuttle go further and the shadow continues being cast on the shuttle as it enters the bay. The entering shuttle is also larger than the one superimposed inside the bay itself that daniel highlighted earlier. We saw the new smaller shuttlebay when the enterprise lost power and fell to earth, kirk and scotty saw a few shuttles fall off of their plateforms and behind them was the door itself highlighted with soft white light bars.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 01:13 AM   #807
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
Here is the video, fast forward to the end and you'll see a shadow and if you still claim not to see one then something is up because there is a shadow on top of the shuttle as it enters the now smaller bay. I don't know about something called astris something, what is that?

http://youtu.be/jSxZkdACN7g
I see the shadow now right at the end, but the shuttle still looks too far away to be inside the hangar - and as I posted earlier, there's one of the 40' STXI shuttles sitting in there just as they were in the last movie. Perhaps it's simply the shuttle moving from being in direct sunlight to being in the shadow of the Enterprise's engineering hull?

The site I was referring to was the fansite www.ex-astris-scientia.org.
James wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I overlaid the rearranged set plan over a fan-made picture of the Enterprise. Since there have been no official orthographic views released they're all we've got - and they all differ a little. This one has a window drawn too wide and is angled when the one in the movie is narrower and straight up.

It's still wrong though and someone should enlarge the bridge to fit that window, for the sake of accuracy. Of course then that would mean the shaft thing is no below the dome on top, truth be told we don't really know where it is.
Again, it's the picture of the Enterprise which is inaccurate. The slanting rim of the deck structure and window aren't that shape on the actual model, where there is no slant, the window is recessed and narrower

If the turbolift plaza isn't at the centre of the saucer, with the domes on top and bottom looking out into space, where else on the ship could it possibly be? Their intention that it is there couldn't be clearer - and as I showed, the two sets fit back to back on a 725m Enterprise. That cannot be coincidence.

And remember again that there are the enourmous brewery engineering sections to consider, which would never fit into an engineering hull that's 30m across at it's very widest point.

I can't understand how all this evidence can possibly be discounted. The insides simply would not fit. You'd be ignoring so much of the two movies in order to pretend the new ship is the same size as the old one, you might as well ignore them and it altogether.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 01:32 AM   #808
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
James wrote: View Post
Here is the video, fast forward to the end and you'll see a shadow and if you still claim not to see one then something is up because there is a shadow on top of the shuttle as it enters the now smaller bay. I don't know about something called astris something, what is that?

http://youtu.be/jSxZkdACN7g
I see the shadow now right at the end, but the shuttle still looks too far away to be inside the hangar - and as I posted earlier, there's one of the 40' STXI shuttles sitting in there just as they were in the last movie. Perhaps it's simply the shuttle moving from being in direct sunlight to being in the shadow of the Enterprise's engineering hull?

The site I was referring to was the fansite www.ex-astris-scientia.org.
James wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I overlaid the rearranged set plan over a fan-made picture of the Enterprise. Since there have been no official orthographic views released they're all we've got - and they all differ a little. This one has a window drawn too wide and is angled when the one in the movie is narrower and straight up.

It's still wrong though and someone should enlarge the bridge to fit that window, for the sake of accuracy. Of course then that would mean the shaft thing is no below the dome on top, truth be told we don't really know where it is.
Again, it's the picture of the Enterprise which is inaccurate. The slanting rim of the deck structure and window aren't that shape on the actual model, where there is no slant, the window is recessed and narrower

If the turbolift plaza isn't at the centre of the saucer, with the domes on top and bottom looking out into space, where else on the ship could it possibly be? Their intention that it is there couldn't be clearer - and as I showed, the two sets fit back to back on a 725m Enterprise. That cannot be coincidence.

And remember again that there are the enourmous brewery engineering sections to consider, which would never fit into an engineering hull that's 30m across at it's very widest point.

I can't understand how all this evidence can possibly be discounted. The insides simply would not fit. You'd be ignoring so much of the two movies in order to pretend the new ship is the same size as the old one, you might as well ignore them and it altogether.
That brewery is highly unrealistic, Abrams should have used money to actually design an engineering set instead of using a beer brewery, he even left the brewery's skylight windows in the top of the engineering section. I'm looking at the brewery they used on google earth and the brewery itself could fit in a ship that was smaller than 725 meters. The building with all the tanks and pipes is smaller than the sorting and packaging building. The eastern most part when measured from the last building to the street is 1480 feet. The trouble is we never get any kind of technical graphic that explains everything, That being said, I'm just going to let my imagination guess since their sets do not connect to each other to form a ship that people can accurately figure out.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 01:57 AM   #809
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
That brewery is highly unrealistic, Abrams should have used money to actually design an engineering set instead of using a beer brewery, he even left the brewery's skylight windows in the top of the engineering section. I'm looking at the brewery they used on google earth and the brewery itself could fit in a ship that was smaller than 725 meters. The building with all the tanks and pipes is smaller than the sorting and packaging building. The eastern most part when measured from the last building to the street is 1480 feet. The trouble is we never get any kind of technical graphic that explains everything, That being said, I'm just going to let my imagination guess since their sets do not connect to each other to form a ship that people can accurately figure out.
IMO the engineering sections in Star Trek and Into Darkness are the same as those we saw in TOS, but on a far larger scale:

There is no chance that the brewery would fit into an Enterprise with a 30m wide engineering hull, as would be the case on a 366m/1200ft Enterprise. It would need to be far larger.... say, 725m/2380ft?

As for where everything fits, I made this way back at the start of the thread. Again, I think the only reason you cannot figure it out is because you're working from a faulty assumption - that this Enterprise is about the same size as the old one (300ish meters), when the makers of the film have said and shown repeatedly that their Enterprise is around 725m long.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3 2013, 02:41 AM   #810
bullethead
Fleet Captain
 
bullethead's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
As for where everything fits, I made this way back at the start of the thread. Again, I think the only reason you cannot figure it out is because you're working from a faulty assumption - that this Enterprise is about the same size as the old one (300ish meters), when the makers of the film have said and shown repeatedly that their Enterprise is around 725m long.
You probably covered this when you first posted the graphic, but is there any particular reason why communications is in the engineering hull instead of closer to the saucer?
__________________
A business man and engineer discuss how to launch a communications satellite in the 1960s:
Biz Dev Guy: Your communications satellite has to be the size, shape, and weight of a hydrogen bomb.
bullethead 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 10:44 PM.

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