RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,786
Posts: 5,217,561
Members: 24,217
Currently online: 894
Newest member: davestar057

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 May 10 2013, 07:50 AM   #151
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
From William Shatner's 78-deck Enterprise.
...
I'll add to that, this picture of the Enterprise-A's shuttlebay which is the same size as the one in TOS-R:
So, wait a sec here, King-o. I may be a bit slow, but one thing I'm not is a bit slow. You first dismiss with not-so-apparent disdain "Shatner's 78-deck Enterprise," yet in the same breath you use Shatner's shuttle bay as a canon comparison to the nu-Enterprise's shuttle bay.

Help me understand this, since the only time we've ever seen the 1701's shuttle bay (apart from TMP, where it's much bigger), is in Shatner's horribly un-canon movie? You use as evidence... evidence that you yourself discredit?
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 09:50 AM   #152
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^The "78 decks" thing was added at Shatner's insistece, over the objections of the producers. The shuttlebay in STV is the same size as the one in TOS-R. The TMP matte painting is, unfortunately, a little oversized for a 1000'/305m USS Enterprise (ditto engineering and the rec deck)
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
It is absolutely arguable, because each person in each window and each shuttlecraft passing through the same bay door produces different scale sizes.
Proof? I've heard you say this a to but each time you've said it, I've shown you you're wrong, and even proved how with diagrams and screengrabs! Yet you persist that the windows and shuttlebay change sizes. The evidence is in this thread.
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
No it's not. You've tried, and many others have tried, but your points don't stand up to the evidence.
The "evidence": when taking off for the Narada, Pike's shuttle swoops over the lip of the stern. It stretches between the "C-17" on the back. If you assume the shuttle is between 3.5m-4m across, you get the width of the shuttle bay door is between 15-20m across. Scaling everything else gives a ship length of between 300-400m, and height of about 60-70m.

So, the ONLY "evidence" that the ship is some ludicrous 750m is the ONE scene of shuttles landing in a ginormous shuttle bay -- something which is never seen again in the whole movie.

Verdict: ship is between 300-400m long.

As Scotty would say: up your shaft.
Wrong again, I'm afraid. You might want to learn about perspective - the shuttle is the size of the "C-" as it flies over the rim of the bay, directly over the camera - exactly the size they are during the earlier scene. The camera was just a lot further away in the prior scene. See the size of the registry numbers in the two scenes.

We also see the huge bay as Pike, Kirk, Sulu and Olsen board the shuttle, and as it leaves the bay through the cockpit window - hardly "only once". The enourmous shuttlebay is featured prominenty in Star Trek Into Darkness.
Did I mention the doors on either side ofthr shuttlebay? Keenser wouldn't fit through them on a 350m Enterprise.

Once again I have to say, they are not hiding a secret smaller Enterprise in there for "true believers" to find.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 01:16 PM   #153
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

throwback wrote: View Post
Tomorrow is Yesterday
Christoper: I see. Did the Navy...
Kirk: We're a combined service, Captain.

Whom Gods Destroy
A.
Garth: You, Captain, are second only to me as the finest military commander in the galaxy.
Kirk: That's very flattering. I am primarily an explorer now, Captain Garth.
B.
Kirk: I agree there was a time when war was necessary, and you were our greatest warrior. (He is speaking to Garth.)

Star Trek II
A.
Chekov: The order comes from Admiral James Kirk.
David
: I knew it! I knew it! All along the military has wanted to get their han...
B.
David:I've tried to tell you before. Scientists have always been pawns of the military---
Carol
:Starfleet has kept the peace for a hundred years, I cannot and will not subscribe to your interpretation of this event.
Thanks for making my point for me. The "Whom Gods Destroy" scene is the one in which Kirk draws a distinction between himself and Garth, making it clear that while Garth was a warrior Starfleet has changed and Kirk considers himself an explorer.

Still waiting for a TOS reference (not a TOS-based movie, but TOS) in which the crew of a Starfleet vessel refers to it as a "warship." Surely you have...one?
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 02:18 PM   #154
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

throwback wrote: View Post
Tomorrow is Yesterday
Christoper: I see. Did the Navy...
Kirk: We're a combined service, Captain.

Whom Gods Destroy
A.
Garth: You, Captain, are second only to me as the finest military commander in the galaxy.
Kirk: That's very flattering. I am primarily an explorer now, Captain Garth.
B.
Kirk: I agree there was a time when war was necessary, and you were our greatest warrior. (He is speaking to Garth.)

Star Trek II
A.
Chekov: The order comes from Admiral James Kirk.
David
: I knew it! I knew it! All along the military has wanted to get their han...
B.
David:I've tried to tell you before. Scientists have always been pawns of the military---
Carol
:Starfleet has kept the peace for a hundred years, I cannot and will not subscribe to your interpretation of this event.
You forgot the most important one:
Errand of Mercy
Kirk: I'm a soldier.

Pretty much sums it up right there. Roddenberry didn't start putting flowers in the phaser collimators until TNG.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 03:14 PM   #155
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
throwback wrote: View Post
Tomorrow is Yesterday
Christoper: I see. Did the Navy...
Kirk: We're a combined service, Captain.

Whom Gods Destroy
A.
Garth: You, Captain, are second only to me as the finest military commander in the galaxy.
Kirk: That's very flattering. I am primarily an explorer now, Captain Garth.
B.
Kirk: I agree there was a time when war was necessary, and you were our greatest warrior. (He is speaking to Garth.)

Star Trek II
A.
Chekov: The order comes from Admiral James Kirk.
David
: I knew it! I knew it! All along the military has wanted to get their han...
B.
David:I've tried to tell you before. Scientists have always been pawns of the military---
Carol
:Starfleet has kept the peace for a hundred years, I cannot and will not subscribe to your interpretation of this event.
You forgot the most important one:
Errand of Mercy
Kirk: I'm a soldier.

Pretty much sums it up right there. Roddenberry didn't start putting flowers in the phaser collimators until TNG.
And all of this has nothing to do with this new Star Trek.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 03:19 PM   #156
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Waiting for that TOS reference to Starfleet cruisers as warships...
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 05:25 PM   #157
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
No it's not. You've tried, and many others have tried, but your points don't stand up to the evidence.
The "evidence": when taking off for the Narada, Pike's shuttle swoops over the lip of the stern. It stretches between the "C-17" on the back. If you assume the shuttle is between 3.5m-4m across, you get the width of the shuttle bay door is between 15-20m across. Scaling everything else gives a ship length of between 300-400m, and height of about 60-70m.

So, the ONLY "evidence" that the ship is some ludicrous 750m is the ONE scene of shuttles landing in a ginormous shuttle bay -- something which is never seen again in the whole movie.

Verdict: ship is between 300-400m long.

As Scotty would say: up your shaft.
Wrong again, I'm afraid. You might want to learn about perspective - the shuttle is the size of the "C-" as it flies over the rim of the bay, directly over the camera - exactly the size they are during the earlier scene. The camera was just a lot further away in the prior scene. See the size of the registry numbers in the two scenes.

We also see the huge bay as Pike, Kirk, Sulu and Olsen board the shuttle, and as it leaves the bay through the cockpit window - hardly "only once". The enourmous shuttlebay is featured prominenty in Star Trek Into Darkness.
Did I mention the doors on either side ofthr shuttlebay? Keenser wouldn't fit through them on a 350m Enterprise.

Once again I have to say, they are not hiding a secret smaller Enterprise in there for "true believers" to find.
To Warpfactor, and as a Texan would say, up yours.
__________________
The self proclaimed Angry Mexican man of TNZ. You're welcome.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 05:39 PM   #158
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
You forgot the most important one:
Errand of Mercy
Kirk: I'm a soldier.
Actually, that's not the whole sentence. From http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/27.htm:

KIRK: That's the first thing that would be lost! Excuse me, gentlemen. I'm a soldier, not a diplomat. I can only tell you the truth.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 05:41 PM   #159
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
^The "78 decks" thing was added at Shatner's insistece, over the objections of the producers.
But... but... the people who MADE THE MOVIE said 78 decks! Who are you to argue with Shatner? It's his movie! The arrogance of some fanboys is staggering!

Besides, if you don't trust Shatner on the 78 decks (which of course is ridiculous -- the Enterprise is not that big), why should you trust him on the accuracy of the shuttle bay layout (which was just a recycled TNG set rented on the cheap)?

Wrong again, I'm afraid. You might want to learn about perspective
Says the guy who claims the windows on the rim of the saucer are the same size as the bridge one, because they look the same in a picture (even though the bridge window is at least 50m away from the saucer edge).

- the shuttle is the size of the "C-" as it flies over the rim of the bay, directly over the camera
No, sorry. I advanced it frame by frame as the shuttle emerged from the bay. It's above the lettering, so there are two possibilities:

1. It's directly over the rim, in which case its size matches precisely to the letter spacing (which spanned C-17).

2. It was further up, in which case the lettering would look BIGGER than the shuttle (see "perspective"). So, even if the shuttle only spanned the "C-", as you claim, it would actually be bigger because it's further away from the camera.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 05:56 PM   #160
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The size of McCoy and Kirk alongside the hull in the underwater scene as well as knowing the size of the torpedoes and comparing that to the ship when they peek from the broadside bays should be a better indication.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 10:59 PM   #161
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^The airlock they entered was the same height as the secondary hull windows a few floors below.
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
^The "78 decks" thing was added at Shatner's insistece, over the objections of the producers.
But... but... the people who MADE THE MOVIE said 78 decks! Who are you to argue with Shatner? It's his movie! The arrogance of some fanboys is staggering!

Besides, if you don't trust Shatner on the 78 decks (which of course is ridiculous -- the Enterprise is not that big), why should you trust him on the accuracy of the shuttle bay layout (which was just a recycled TNG set rented on the cheap)?
It was actually the throne room from Coming to America redressed. The shuttlebay on the refitted Enterprise, scaled at 305m as per all the manuals, should be about 16 meters wide.

Now, tell me how they'd fit two rown of 12m shuttles in there horizontally with all the room to spare that we see if the new Enterprise was that same size.
Wrong again, I'm afraid. You might want to learn about perspective
Says the guy who claims the windows on the rim of the saucer are the same size as the bridge one, because they look the same in a picture (even though the bridge window is at least 50m away from the saucer edge).
They are the same size on orthographic views.
- the shuttle is the size of the "C-" as it flies over the rim of the bay, directly over the camera
No, sorry. I advanced it frame by frame as the shuttle emerged from the bay. It's above the lettering, so there are two possibilities:

1. It's directly over the rim, in which case its size matches precisely to the letter spacing (which spanned C-17).

2. It was further up, in which case the lettering would look BIGGER than the shuttle (see "perspective"). So, even if the shuttle only spanned the "C-", as you claim, it would actually be bigger because it's further away from the camera.

Same size, see?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 11:26 PM   #162
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I just don't understand why anyone wants the Enterprise to be 947 feet long. Maybe just call a smaller ship that. I like the TAS ship with the huge shuttlebay.

I think the Enterprise shuttlebay should be big enough to house a Space 1999 Eagle and Millenium Falcon side by side both at once, if I had my 'druthers...
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 11:45 PM   #163
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

She's *the* iconic Trek starship, she can be however the hell big she wants to be.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 12:10 AM   #164
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
She's *the* iconic Trek starship, she can be however the hell big she wants to be.
As long as she's never fat!
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 12:12 AM   #165
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
She's *the* iconic Trek starship, she can be however the hell big she wants to be.
As long as she's never fat!
Of course not
Chemahkuu 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 02:23 AM.

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