RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,749
Posts: 5,433,281
Members: 24,838
Currently online: 407
Newest member: Mei'konda

TrekToday headlines

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 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 December 20 2012, 03:34 AM   #1
Shilliam Watner
Commander
 
Location: In linear time
Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Size

Go and take a look at the size of the saucer of the ship crashing into the bay and compare it to the size of the city buildings it's headed for while out of control. It is massive. Now in the motion picture, how wide across do you think the saucer was? Not as wide as the one crashing into the bay that the resembles a updated NX-01 configuration. The saucer on that ship out of control is just as wide or if not wider than the 1701-D. Again, I am using the foreground buildings as a reference in scale comparisons and the distance out in the bay as the ship heads closer towards the viewer. Has anyone noticed this?
Shilliam Watner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 03:41 AM   #2
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

Huh? There's no evidence of scale at all in that scene.

And even if the ship is as large as the Enterprise-D, so what? The nuEnterprise is as large as a Galaxy class too.

And do I really need to point out that scale in Trek has never been consistent anyway?
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; December 20 2012 at 03:53 AM.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 03:59 AM   #3
Shilliam Watner
Commander
 
Location: In linear time
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

Dukhat wrote: View Post
The nuEnterprise is as large as a Galaxy class too.
But common sense tells us it is not!!
Shilliam Watner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 04:17 AM   #4
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

Shilliam Watner wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
The nuEnterprise is as large as a Galaxy class too.
But common sense tells us it is not!!
But the movies' art designers tell us it is (actually, they say it's even larger than the 1701-D).
__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...

Last edited by Jackson_Roykirk; December 20 2012 at 04:28 AM.
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 04:23 AM   #5
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

Common sense has nothing to do with it - it's Trek canon.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 04:28 AM   #6
Lord Garth, FOI
Commander
 
Lord Garth, FOI's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

Yup new E is actually bigger than either NextGenprise

And I still prefer Daniel's length of 1200 meters anyway which was the proposed scale of the new E before they decided on 750ish m
Lord Garth, FOI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 05:23 AM   #7
Jackson_Roykirk
Commodore
 
Jackson_Roykirk's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

Lord Garth, FOI wrote: View Post
Yup new E is actually bigger than either NextGenprise

And I still prefer Daniel's length of 1200 meters anyway which was the proposed scale of the new E before they decided on 750ish m

I think you mean 1200 FEET, not meters (probably a typo, considering the rest of your post). The designers of the ship for Abrams' film originally wanted to make the ship 1200 feet, which still would have been about 30% larger than the TOS Enterprise, but smaller than the TNG Enterprise. However, by the time they were done, their design grew to about 2300 feet, which is larger than Picard's ship.

So, yeah -- like you said, 750-ish meters.
__________________

...With shoes that cut, and eyes that burn like cigarettes
With fingernails that shine like justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass...
Jackson_Roykirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 05:56 AM   #8
Shilliam Watner
Commander
 
Location: In linear time
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

Jackson_Roykirk wrote: View Post
Lord Garth, FOI wrote: View Post
Yup new E is actually bigger than either NextGenprise

And I still prefer Daniel's length of 1200 meters anyway which was the proposed scale of the new E before they decided on 750ish m

I think you mean 1200 FEET, not meters (probably a typo, considering the rest of your post). The designers of the ship for Abrams' film originally wanted to make the ship 1200 feet, which still would have been about 30% larger than the TOS Enterprise, but smaller than the TNG Enterprise. However, by the time they were done, their design grew to about 2300 feet, which is larger than Picard's ship.

So, yeah -- like you said, 750-ish meters.
So what's your take on my post about that ship in the bay?
Shilliam Watner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 07:14 AM   #9
chardman
Vice Admiral
 
chardman's Avatar
 
Location: The home of GenCon
View chardman's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

My take is... It's big?

Assuming it's as big as the "D" or even larger: So what? How does that present a scale problem?
__________________
If Ronald Reagan hadn't cut Mental Health funding to the bone, most of today's GOP & Tea Party candidates wouldn't be walking around loose.
chardman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 08:35 AM   #10
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

chardman wrote: View Post
My take is... It's big?

Assuming it's as big as the "D" or even larger: So what? How does that present a scale problem?
Exactly. I'm not really seeing what the problem is here....
__________________
Follow my Star Trek Model builds, music, art and more at Devon's Corner.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 09:40 AM   #11
Lord Garth, FOI
Commander
 
Lord Garth, FOI's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

Jackson_Roykirk wrote: View Post
Lord Garth, FOI wrote: View Post
Yup new E is actually bigger than either NextGenprise

And I still prefer Daniel's length of 1200 meters anyway which was the proposed scale of the new E before they decided on 750ish m

I think you mean 1200 FEET, not meters (probably a typo, considering the rest of your post). The designers of the ship for Abrams' film originally wanted to make the ship 1200 feet, which still would have been about 30% larger than the TOS Enterprise, but smaller than the TNG Enterprise. However, by the time they were done, their design grew to about 2300 feet, which is larger than Picard's ship.

So, yeah -- like you said, 750-ish meters.
No according to the art of the film and early john eaves interviews they had set it at 1200 meters In fact in the coffee table book it was listed at 1200 meters
It was then finally downscaled to 750ish officially
In any case bigger than puny nextgenprises
Lord Garth, FOI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 09:43 AM   #12
Lord Garth, FOI
Commander
 
Lord Garth, FOI's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

Shilliam Watner wrote: View Post
Jackson_Roykirk wrote: View Post
Lord Garth, FOI wrote: View Post
Yup new E is actually bigger than either NextGenprise

And I still prefer Daniel's length of 1200 meters anyway which was the proposed scale of the new E before they decided on 750ish m

I think you mean 1200 FEET, not meters (probably a typo, considering the rest of your post). The designers of the ship for Abrams' film originally wanted to make the ship 1200 feet, which still would have been about 30% larger than the TOS Enterprise, but smaller than the TNG Enterprise. However, by the time they were done, their design grew to about 2300 feet, which is larger than Picard's ship.

So, yeah -- like you said, 750-ish meters.
So what's your take on my post about that ship in the bay?
No offense brother but as others have said why is there an issue? Nutrek ships are bigger than next genie ships anyway
Lord Garth, FOI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 09:57 AM   #13
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

I don't get what the problem is supposed to be here.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 09:58 AM   #14
Captain Rob
Commodore
 
Captain Rob's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

I have problems with the water splash effect. It looks like the result of a very small ship. If you look at film of icebergs the size of the nuEnterprise calving from a glacier. When they hit the water, the tremendously huge volume of water moves like a very thick fluid. Moving in a very large slow-moving wave spreading out from the impact point. Not splashing high into the air like someone threw a big rock into a pool.
__________________
Regal Entertainment Group murdered United Artists
Captain Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 09:58 AM   #15
billcosby
Commodore
 
billcosby's Avatar
 
Location: billcosby
Re: Starship Crashing Into Bay Scale Problem: The Saucer Is 1701-D Siz

SalvorHardin wrote: View Post
I don't get what the problem is supposed to be here.
One fictional starship may be larger than another fictional starship.
__________________
My 1st Edition TrekCCG virtual expansion: http://billcosbytrekccg.blogspot.com/

billcosby 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 11:35 AM.

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