RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,161
Posts: 5,434,798
Members: 24,937
Currently online: 629
Newest member: bryanb2014

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 31 2013, 07:41 AM   #1156
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Bear in mind, we're just gonna have to deal with this kind of shit for ANY sort of science fiction (or even loosely "science") story in film or television. Written science fiction tends to be a lot more conscientious about their stories making scientific sense, mainly because the kind of people who READ science fiction are the type of people to notice that kind of thing (plus, in written form, it's a lot easier to notice).

Television, though, that's a different beast. Most of it's gibberish, the rest is out of context, and the producers don't have the patience or the inclination to step back and think "You know, I wonder how much of our audience is going notice that we don't know what the hell we're talking about?"
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 07:42 AM   #1157
Captain_Amasov
Captain
 
Captain_Amasov's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

How many decks would there be along the rim of the saucer section if the Enterprise is 700 odd metres in length?
Captain_Amasov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 08:54 AM   #1158
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Two at the very edge, but there's room for three a little further in. The deck spacing is wider than the old Enterprise - this one actually has space for all those steps and complex ceilings that Trek set designers are so fond of!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 01:50 AM   #1159
Tuskin38
Ensign
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.

Either the View Screen got bigger or the bridge got smaller. Actually the new exterior view screen matches the physical set better.

Before:


After:

Last edited by Tuskin38; September 2 2013 at 02:51 AM.
Tuskin38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 02:14 AM   #1160
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Tuskin38 wrote: View Post
Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.
That's not something due to the refit; it changes size back and forth throughout the movie.
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 02:17 AM   #1161
Tuskin38
Ensign
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

ATimson wrote: View Post
Tuskin38 wrote: View Post
Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.
That's not something due to the refit; it changes size back and forth throughout the movie.
Really? I only noticed it at the end.
Tuskin38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 02:20 AM   #1162
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Tuskin38 wrote: View Post
ATimson wrote: View Post
Tuskin38 wrote: View Post
Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.
That's not something due to the refit; it changes size back and forth throughout the movie.
Really? I only noticed it at the end.
They only do it twice: once during the zoom-in immediately before the the "disarm torpedo" scene, and once at the very end of the movie.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 02:32 AM   #1163
Tuskin38
Ensign
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Tuskin38 wrote: View Post
ATimson wrote: View Post
That's not something due to the refit; it changes size back and forth throughout the movie.
Really? I only noticed it at the end.
They only do it twice: once during the zoom-in immediately before the the "disarm torpedo" scene, and once at the very end of the movie.
Ah, I see why, because they needed to see the set, on the common CG model the view screen does not match with the bridge physical set. Now that I think of it, that might have also been done in XI.

Last edited by Tuskin38; September 2 2013 at 02:50 AM.
Tuskin38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 09:16 AM   #1164
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Tuskin38 wrote: View Post
Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.

Either the View Screen got bigger or the bridge got smaller. Actually the new exterior view screen matches the physical set better.

Before:


After:
Yep:
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
.
Anyway, back on topic. With the digital release of Into Darkness there are tons more clips and screengrabs out there. Here's shuttlebay 2, located about where I'd guessimated:


And here are two comparison shots of the bridge windows, the lower-detail version for general exterior shots and the higher-detail version which was composited with the actual set. The taller high-detail model is scaled for a 725m Enterprise (see pics way earlier in the thread). I wonder if perhaps they made the lower-detail version shorter to obscure the view inside, which would have increased ILM's workload quite a bit (placing virtual actors at stations and ensuring it all matched up with where everyone was in the interior shots)



Finally, here is a shot of the atrium during the fall sequence, showing all the decks in the saucer section:
The first time we see the high-detail bridge window model is actually in the 2009 movie, after Pike and Nero talk on the viewscreen.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 03:00 PM   #1165
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

http://www.kadonaga.net/147068/14614...-into-darkness


As mentioned in the Cinefex article, it seems the Enterprise is ever-so-slightly bigger in Into Darkness - it looks like 733m/2405ft.

The Vengeance is a whopping 1460m/4790ft.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 03:33 PM   #1166
HotRod
Commander
 
HotRod's Avatar
 
Location: Reaper Occupied Earth
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

As a casual viewer of this thread, I would like to take the time to congratulate King Daniel on a well fought battle and a well earned victory against those who would not see what was right in front of their own damn eyes. The Enterprise is BIG, and she's beautiful!
HotRod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 03:41 PM   #1167
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Thank you!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 03:41 PM   #1168
Saul
Rear Admiral
 
Saul's Avatar
 
Location: 東京
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

This thread reminds me of that movie 'Shallow Hal'.
__________________
"It's not that you can see the strings, it's that 40 years later you're still looking at them." - Steven Moffat
"This movie was big. Imagine how big it could have been with me in it?" William Shatner
Saul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 03:44 PM   #1169
Tuskin38
Ensign
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
www.kadonaga.net/147068/1461499/set-design-gallery/star-trek-into-darkness


As mentioned in the Cinefex article, it seems the Enterprise is ever-so-slightly bigger in Into Darkness - it looks like 733m/2405ft.

The Vengeance is a whopping 1460m/4790ft.
Ent looks like 751 or 731, hard to tell on that resolution. But that 3rd number is a 1.

edit:

Who ever did the 'length' comparisons for that image is wrong. First it says the Enterprise is about the Length of the Chrysler Building which is only around 319m, but the diagram says the ENT is 731. Then it says the Vengeance is 2 Trump Towers, which would only be 404m.

Last edited by Tuskin38; September 2 2013 at 04:16 PM.
Tuskin38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2 2013, 04:25 PM   #1170
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Tuskin38 wrote: View Post
Who ever did the 'length' comparisons for that image is wrong. First it says the Enterprise is about the Length of the Chrysler Building which is only around 319m,
This is the problem in a nutshell. The length is wildly inconsistent.
WarpFactorZ 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 11:45 PM.

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