Starship Size Argument™ thread

I think now that I was a little overzealous when I decided that. The bigger the ship, the more room to spare and the more comfortably everything fits, but I think everything can just about be squished into a 725m frame. Plus, the atrium behind the bridge is such a perfect fit for the domes at the top and bottom of the saucer and to fit behind the bridge in front that it can't possibly be by accident.

That said, I'd love to see the CG models of the shuttlebay and engine room superimposed over the Enterprise. Are any bored ILM employees reading this?

 

IRC, there's not even an MSD type graphic on the bridge for us to core information from, is there?

 

Just this, seen in the corridors and on the bridge when the Vengeance scans the Enterprise.

Although it looks cool, unfortunately it's just a recycling of the USS Kelvin's MSD (which was made by copy, pasting, rotating and resizing the Kelvin corridor set over and over) superimposed over a picture of the Enterprise. You can even make out "NCC/0514" from the original graphic above the saucer on the right. The original Kelvin MSD graphic was on the left side of the Kelvin's bridge, and a version of it was seen close-up on the helm when the autopilot failed George Kirk.

The outer ring was also superimposed over the Vengeance's saucer on the space jump sequence graphics.

(I know FAR too much about this stuff)

 

It's pretty obvious there are two Enterprises, one exterior shot version that looks smaller than 2000 feet and the interior shot version that has a bunch of decks that would never actually fit in a starship. Paramount has done this before, with Star Trek V's rocket boot turbolift shaft scene that was way too tall to actually fit inside Enterprise-A. It's like how the dome on top of the lobby plaza is clear where you can see the cloudy star cluster near Kronos but the exterior shot shows a crystal like sensor dome on top. Heavily implied but never proven, almost only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

We've shown several external images that prove a larger ship, from both of the movies. I see you're still continuing to ignore what people post and just throw meaningless nonsense back.

 

How do you figure the external shots of the Enterprise show a smaller ship? The very prominent bridge window scales the ship pretty concusively and it's there in every exterior shot. I showed pages ago how on a 366m Enterprise it would take up the entire front of the module.

 

There is no way that ship looks under 725m in the exterior shots. Just the scene where they shuttle up to her in the first movie shows up how massive the ship is. Reboot Starfleet doesn't do things small.

As for the dome:

 

Actually, yes. They developed a second CG model for the "refit" configuration at the end of the film and gave it slightly different proportions for some reason: the bridge window is noticeably larger and the dome section above it is proportionally smaller. Different phaser banks, different warp and impulse engines and some other features that are hard to make out because we never see them up close. They actually "cheated" a bit and used the new model to represent the old ship in one of the "zoom in" scenes before the Vengeance encounter, thinking (correctly) that nobody would notice.

Which leads me to wonder if the refit version will have a redesigned bridge in the next movie, something with a two-level effect kind of like alternate timeline Yesterday's Enterprise bridge (or Voyager, for that matter) with the big window running from a sunken floor all the way to the ceiling.

The exterior shows a translucent dome with some undefined glowy bits underneath it. Nothing about its appearance suggests "sensor" especially since real world sensors don't look anything like that.

 

If they do, I wonder how many people will rag on them for "suddenly" changing like that (instead of after the refit), despite the same thing happening to the -A between TVH and TFF.

 

No, that's not a valid comparison. Nowhere in Trek history has there been a "two-level" starship bridge -- the Enterprise-D really wasn't two levels, but rather just sloped. If they break from tradition that much, of course people will complain.

The simple and familiar round bridge structure is most definitely a Trek trademark.

 

As said several pages ago, it's just a model with more detail around the bridge window, and whose window frame dimenions exactly match the set for compositing (the lower-detail model's window is the correct width but a little too short). It wasn't made for the refit, but was actually first seen in the 2009 movie when Pike, Kirk and Sulu head for the shuttlebay.

 

The cover of Cinefex makes me wonder if it's the refit model. It might be trick of the lens, but the deflector dish looks noticeably smaller.

 

The deflector dish opens and closes a little (see the final flyby and warp jump in ST'09), so maybe it's just being seen in it's non-unusal position. From that angle, it could even be a TMP-style one built into the hull.

Beautiful pic, by the way! I love the TOS style dome and nacelle caps on the NCC-0718 (the USS Bradbury maybe? I can't make it out)

 

Oh my, that is a beautiful shot. Utterly gorgeous.

 

She's a very pretty girl.

 

From the right angle, yes. That's certainly one of the right angles, though.

 

I've got a new iPad background!

 

Now that's a beautiful shot.

So the docking domes are designated, "A" and "B" showing, so 6 per dome, 36 docking ports. Even the interior of the old Spacedock didn't look like it could hold anywhere near that many.

 

It was in Yesterday's Enteprrise. So were the bridges of the Enterprise-C, the Hathaway and the Stargazer. USS Voyager is the most dramatic by far; the upper level is a good three feet higher than the lower level and Tom's helm station is basically a hole in the ground. And though it's not a starship, the DS9 Ops deck actually made this concept explicit, placing the commander's office high above the rest of the floor "so subordinates have to look up with respect."

"Tradition" my ass. Star Trek is a science fiction show, not a ritualized religion.

So is Shatner's acting and lame forehead aliens. Never EVER sacrifice coolness for familiarity.

 

No, the proportions from the 2009 version were different from the one we see in the asteroid scene, as are some of the other details. There are other visual cues in that specific momentarily-visible model that are consistent with the refit version seen only at the end of the movie; its lines don't fit any other appearance of the ship throughout the movie.

As I said weeks ago, it's probably a cinematography thing: they couldn't get that shot to work right with the original proportions and they built a new model with slightly different proportions to make those shots work correctly. If there's one thing the ILM team has been consistent about in both movies, it's that they tend to consider all their FX shots from a cameraman's point of view, not from a technical one: their sense of aesthetics never ceases to trump design logic if ever the two come in conflict.