RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,411
Posts: 5,506,179
Members: 25,128
Currently online: 455
Newest member: Deidesheim

TrekToday headlines

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

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


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 9 2014, 11:25 PM   #16
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
Because the writers of the movie said it was.
While the writer's personal opinions are interesting, unless it appears in the movie (and it clearly didn't) their opinion on a common original universe makes little difference.

Canon is what is seen and heard, not what was "intended."

Or, just maybe, the writers thought we were smart enough to figure that out on our own instead of having to spoon-feed us that information in the movie as if we were a bunch of idiotic morons.

You ever see "Blade Runner?" Well, guess what? Deckard's a replicant. Except the film never actually came out and said this. You kinda havta figure that out on your own, because Ridley Scott also didn't think his audience were idiots.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; June 10 2014 at 01:53 AM.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2014, 12:33 AM   #17
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Set Harth wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Not a goof, dramatic licence for an "OMG we're gonna hiiiiit!" moment. I'll bet Abrams asked for it.
People keep referencing this scene, but the saucer in question wasn't actually that big. We get to see it from three different angles in the film and in all three angles it's roughly the same size as the Enterprise saucer. It just LOOKS big in one angle because its edges are out of frame (so is the Enterprise) and you're seeing it from its broadest side instead of edge-on like the Enterprise.
Its scale is inconsistent. It's much bigger in one of the shots. That the Enterprise's edges are out of frame matters little
It matters quite a bit, since we have no way to judge the relative sizes of the saucer (of EITHER ship) because we can't see all of it. Not that we're really MEANT to, the scene is cropped that way so that the saucer looks like a solid wall of pain that the ship now has to suddenly avoid.

the other ship's saucer appears to dwarf the Enterprise and that's when the Enterprise is closer to the viewer than the remains of the other ship.
Which depends mainly on your depth of field, as well you know. OTOH, since we don't see the edges of the mayflower saucer we don't actually know that it "appears to dwarf the Enterprise" at all. It just looks really really big because it's sideways-on and Enterprise is about to crash into it.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2014, 01:59 AM   #18
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
Its scale is inconsistent. It's much bigger in one of the shots. That the Enterprise's edges are out of frame matters little
It matters quite a bit, since we have no way to judge the relative sizes of the saucer (of EITHER ship) because we can't see all of it. Not that we're really MEANT to, the scene is cropped that way so that the saucer looks like a solid wall of pain that the ship now has to suddenly avoid.
Huh? Things further away look smaller. If it is farther from the camera and looks bigger than the thing closer to the camera, it is bigger.

Which depends mainly on your depth of field, as well you know.
Double 'huh?'... Please explain what kind of depth of field makes objects far away look bigger than close objects.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2014, 03:19 AM   #19
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
Its scale is inconsistent. It's much bigger in one of the shots. That the Enterprise's edges are out of frame matters little
It matters quite a bit, since we have no way to judge the relative sizes of the saucer (of EITHER ship) because we can't see all of it. Not that we're really MEANT to, the scene is cropped that way so that the saucer looks like a solid wall of pain that the ship now has to suddenly avoid.
Huh? Things further away look smaller.
Unless they're relatively close together with a very deep field.

Like a couple of battleships parked side by side. The farther one actually looks a little bit bigger because it's farther away, plus you can't see as much of it as you can the closer one, so the mind lets you believe that a lot more of the ship is hidden than is actually there.

Please explain what kind of depth of field makes objects far away look bigger than close objects.
So I drew two saucers in Sketchup, both of them exactly 16 meters in diameter. Then I positioned them about two meters away, one sideways and one edge on, and tilted one kinda like the Enterprise.

Here's the view with a deep field:


Here is THE EXACT SAME VIEW in a shallow (camera close) field:




I again emphasize these two saucers are exactly the same size. In the second image, the farther saucer "looks smaller" relative to the closer one, as you would expect. In the first image, you're viewing the interaction with a deep narrow field and the farther saucer looks immense.

The first image is thus very similar to the actual scene, in which the more distant saucer is probably around the same size as the Enterprise saucer:





Maybe the one odd thing about CGI modeling in movies is the ability to perform these kinds of camera tricks. You can pull off an arbitrarily far camera position because the camera has basically infinite magnification, so you could shoot two ships in the same frame with a camera relative position a million kilometers away, or floating invisibly directly between the warp nacelles. Whichever position makes the scene look best.


And just because I'm a jerk and sort of a perfectionist, here's the above image from a different angle:
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; June 10 2014 at 05:51 AM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2014, 05:04 AM   #20
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
You ever see "Blade Runner?" Well, guess what? Deckard's a replicant.
No he's not, dude.

Ridley Scott also didn't think his audience were idiots.
The studio did, which is why they included Harrison Ford's narration in the original version.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2014, 02:11 PM   #21
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
No he's not, dude.
Yes, he is, actually.

The studio did, which is why they included Harrison Ford's narration in the original version.
The studio didn't understand what Scott was doing, so they added the silly narration and the downright stupid "driving through the country" ending scene which took the film totally out of context. The Director's cut doesn't have the narration and the ending because, well, Deckard's a replicant.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2014, 07:06 PM   #22
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
No he's not, dude.
Yes, he is, actually.
Nope. That was a possible plot twist in an early version of the script but never made it into the final cut. Something similar happened in the novel too, but even then Deckard wasn't ACTUALLY an android, he just (briefly) thought he was.

They dropped it from the final script because it would be too complicated to setup that kind of plot twist and make it believable (it was hard enough to swallow in the novel even when it was just an android mind game).

Directors generally don't employ subtlety except for easter eggs and in-jokes. Don't confuse plot twists with fridge logic; plot twists aren't meant to be hidden.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10 2014, 11:57 PM   #23
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

From wikipedia:

Ridley Scott publicly disowned this workprint version of the film as a Director's Cut, citing that it was roughly edited, lacked a key scene, and the climax did not feature the score composed for the film by Vangelis (it was a temp track using Jerry Goldsmith's score from Planet of the Apes).In response to Scott's dissatisfaction, Warners briefly allowed theatrical screenings of the workprint beginning in the fall of 1991, but only at the NuArt Theater in Los Angeles and the Castro Theatre in San Francisco. As a response to these sold-out screenings of the workprint (and screenings of the theatrical cut in Houston and Washington, D.C.), in addition to the film's resurgent cult popularity in the early '90s, Warner Bros. decided to assemble a definitive Director's Cut of the film, with direction from Scott, for an official theatrical re-release in 1992. Warners hired Arick, who was already doing consultation work for them, to head the project with Scott. He started by spending several months in London with Les Healey, who had been the assistant editor on Blade Runner, attempting to compile a list of the changes that Scott wanted made to the film. He also received a number of suggestions/directions directly from the director himself. Three major changes were made to the film:
  • The removal of Deckard's 13 explanatory voice-overs. As such the blimp promotion sounds different and when Deckard looks up at it.
  • The insertion of a dream sequence of a unicorn running through a forest. As a result, the music of Deckard waking up has been changed from a trumpet version of his and Rachel's love theme to a more magical chorus. (The original sequence of Deckard's unicorn dream was not found in a print of sufficient quality; the original scene shows Deckard intercut with the running unicorn. Arick was thus forced to use a different print that shows only the unicorn running, without any intercutting to Deckard. What was used was a slightly extended take of the second shot of the unicorn running placed into what had previously been a continuous tracking shot of Deckard sleeping at the piano, via fade away transition.) The unicorn scene suggests a completely different ending to the film: Gaff's origami unicorn means that Deckard's dreams are known to him, implying that Deckard's memories are artificial, and therefore he would be a replicant of the same generation as Rachael.
  • The removal of the studio-imposed "happy ending", including some associated visuals which had originally run under the film's end-credits. This made the film end ambiguously when the elevator doors closed.
  • The cut did not include the extra violence included in the "International version" of the film.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2014, 03:02 AM   #24
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

In the movie Deckard isn't a replicant, it wasn't a case of it being too subtle for the audience to pick-up on, it was completely missing from the movie's narrative.

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2014, 07:55 AM   #25
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
In the movie Deckard isn't a replicant, it wasn't a case of it being too subtle for the audience to pick-up on, it was completely missing from the movie's narrative.

As I mentioned, I was talking about the Director's cut, not the theatrical release. And it's really not important, because I was just using it as an example of how the people who actually created ST '09 didn't feel the need to beat us over the head with the fact that this was the original TOS universe before Nero mucked things up.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2014, 09:47 AM   #26
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Deckard is a replicant!
Open mouth. Insert foot.

You couldn't have picked a worse analogy for something being undisputed and obvious canon.
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2014, 07:37 PM   #27
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
In the movie Deckard isn't a replicant, it wasn't a case of it being too subtle for the audience to pick-up on, it was completely missing from the movie's narrative.

As I mentioned, I was talking about the Director's cut, not the theatrical release.
It makes no difference, as the unicorn was meant for Rachel, not for Deckard. That's kind of the point of Gaff's warning "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" basically meaning he was all set to terminate Rachel too, but decided not to because she didn't actually have that much time left anyway.

It's basically an inversion of the original ending of "Electric Sheep" in which Rachel convinces Deckard to sleep with her, thus forming an empathic bond with her (and by association, ALL androids) which is supposed to make it impossible for him to continue to hunt them anymore. Blade Runner changes that ending so that Deckard stays with her willingly (he's already retired so it's no big deal) where in "Electric Sheep" he's all "Fuck it, I'm gonna go home and sleep this off."

And it's really not important, because I was just using it as an example of how the people who actually created ST '09 didn't feel the need to beat us over the head with the fact that this was the original TOS universe before Nero mucked things up.
But you're again conflating plot background with fridge logic. The story makes the direct implication that the Abramsverse sprang from a variation in the Primeverse, nothing subtle about it.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2014, 07:45 PM   #28
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

TheSubCommander wrote: View Post
Deckard is a replicant!
Open mouth. Insert foot.

You couldn't have picked a worse analogy for something being undisputed and obvious canon.
Wrong. Go and actually watch the director's cut of the film. There's all kinds of clues that point to Deckard being a replicant, even more than the ones I pasted from wikipedia.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The story makes the direct implication that the Abramsverse sprang from a variation in the Primeverse, nothing subtle about it.
No it doesn't. Please provide proof as to why the Abramsverse sprung from a variation of the prime universe and not directly from it.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; June 11 2014 at 10:34 PM.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2014, 01:07 AM   #29
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

The NX-01 being identical to the one in the primeverse, Admiral Marcus' desk models being a visual indicator for just the fans that it was the same universe up until the Kelvin incident.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 16 2014, 07:39 PM   #30
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The story makes the direct implication that the Abramsverse sprang from a variation in the Primeverse, nothing subtle about it.
No it doesn't. Please provide proof as to why the Abramsverse sprung from a variation of the prime universe and not directly from it.
Why would I provide proof? Read my statement again: the story directly implies that it did. No subtlety, no fridge logic, no digging into director's commentaries, unfilmed scripts or deleted scenes. That's just the way it's written and just the way it's filmed.

Whether it did IN FACT is debatable even within the context of the story (McCoy and Scotty do exactly this in one of the IDW comics). Lots of people -- me included -- believe it sprang from a universe that was already alternate enough to have other differences that can't be traced back to Nero per se.

That doesn't change what is IMPLIED by the setup of the story and its internal dialog. But as even Spock would concede, implication and reality are not always the same thing.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 02:34 AM.

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