RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,905
Posts: 5,330,742
Members: 24,558
Currently online: 620
Newest member: laurah2215

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 2 2013, 11:11 AM   #16
TheCutestofBorg
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Huh, I did not realize that a comment I made on another thread would spark off in a debate on a entirely new thread.
I am glad to see a larger federation ship coming up in this movie. As I said in the other thread, I have never liked the small size of the Enterprise as depicted in the show and movies. I do think the Enterprise itself should be much closer to what the Vengeance is shown as being. I realize that peoples opinions may vary.
TheCutestofBorg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 01:32 PM   #17
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
If you're going to have an argument about the size of any starship, or about the comparative sizes of any two or more starships, please do it in here, so as to avoid the disruption of so many other threads with said argument.
[montypython] This is not an argument! It is just contradiction! [/montypython]

So, anyway --

Put me down for the 2200 foot range based on a scaling I did based on the approximate height of the viewscreen on the bridge from the outside based on the size of a person seen inside the bridge standing next to the viewscreen. I performed the measurements three times to be sure. The said person (Chris Pine) is 73 inches tall. Of course, I didn't factor in the heal size of his shoes and how his relative size compared to the viewscreen/window would be affected by how far he was standing from it, but that's why it's an estimate. At any rate, I'm saying the Enterprise is 2200 feet long until Abrams decides it isn't or he changes the heights of his actors. But if anyone can tell me the size of the heals on Pine's boots (1 inch? less?) I could give a better estimate.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 02:05 PM   #18
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

TheCutestofBorg wrote: View Post
Huh, I did not realize that a comment I made on another thread would spark off in a debate on a entirely new thread.
I am glad to see a larger federation ship coming up in this movie. As I said in the other thread, I have never liked the small size of the Enterprise as depicted in the show and movies. I do think the Enterprise itself should be much closer to what the Vengeance is shown as being. I realize that peoples opinions may vary.
I also am happy with the size of the ships in the new timeline, I could have lived with them the same as in TOS but they also always felt too small to me as well.
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 02:37 PM   #19
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

In TOS, the 289 M Enterprise was deemed large enough to be called a 'City in space' - enough space for 400 crew members to live on board in a civilised environment.

Unfortunately TNG era came through and subsequently everything set before that was down graded (from switch gear to carpet and to captains quarter sizes)

What made me laugh was in ST6 TUC, where you had the Excelsior, the largest ship in Starfleet and the captain's quarters was smaller than a junior officer's wash room from the TNG era.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 02:41 PM   #20
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Well, it was deemed a "city in space" by a clever advertising copy writer - not because it met any other criteria for the description. I remember reading that blurb on the back of Blish's first collection of paperback adaptations for Bantam press, back in 1966, and thinking it was a wild exaggeration.

I wonder if it was actually a cute call-out to Blish's own Cities In Flight.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 02:53 PM   #21
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King: why do you always compare 2009 Enterprise pics with 1966 Enterprise pics? You immediately handicap the latter by its limited budget, special effects, and the fact the production crew could care less whether the model matched the sets. Why not take pics from the movies where the viewscreen is bigger, the shuttle bay / cargo section is bigger, engineering is bigger, etc...?
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Browsing through the archives, I found the following thread:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=119751&page=13

Didn't read through the whole thing, but based on those images, I could fit a big fucking "brewery" in that space -- particularly if the entire secondary hull is devoted to engineering + shuttle bay.
HERE is the TMP Enterprise.
As you can see, the cargo/shuttle bay takes up most of the interior of the secondary hull - and it's still only 4 decks tall (although never all at once). The new Enterprise'a shuttle bay is four decks tall all at once, and that's just the smallest end of the engineering hull.

HERE is the new Enterprise for comparison. HERE is a look at that brewery/engineering section that's behind the enourmous shuttlebay.

The Enterprise model was shrunk to fit over the power plant/shipyard location. In that shot, the ship still has all it's large-scale details, including the five-deck saucer rim. They simply shrunk the model. There is a mishmash of walkways, some scaled for a 366m Enterprise, others for a 725m+ ship.

And HERE is the USS Kelvin, just because.

Whether or not you agree with their choices or reasoning, the people who made the film designed and detailed them to be these sizes, as you can see. It's ridiculous and arrogant that a fan thinks they somehow know better. There is no way to reconcile the details shown on-screen with a ship the size of the classic TV series or movie Enterprises.
__________________
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 2 2013, 03:05 PM   #22
anh165
Commander
 
Re: New IMAX Star Trek Into Darkness Poster

King Daniel wrote: View Post

Whether or not you agree with their choices or reasoning, the people who made the film designed and detailed them to be these sizes, as you can see. It's ridiculous and arrogant that a fan thinks they somehow know better. There is no way to reconcile the details shown on-screen with a ship the size of the classic TV series or movie Enterprises.
I think the only reasoning is that the TOS/JJ verse era ships are not allowed to be larger than their more advanced 24th century hero ships.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 03:11 PM   #23
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Well, there's no 24th century in the JJVerse yet. We've no idea what things will be like a century hence.

I think it would be fun if they eventually entirely abandoned trying to parallel the oldTrek continuity if they ever move beyond TOS-era stories. The more versions, the merrier - why even consider retreading Picard et al. when continuity now gives you liberty to make up anything you like?
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 09:12 PM   #24
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I don't suppose anyone knows if they actually say how big the Enterprise is in the new film?


KEENSER: This is the Enterprise. She's 8175 blurrts long.

SCOTTY: Quit usin' yer goofy alien measurements!
__________________
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 2 2013, 10:44 PM   #25
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Fuckin' big.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 10:53 PM   #26
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Is it just me or is it always just guys debating the size?
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 10:56 PM   #27
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

horatio83 wrote: View Post
Is it just me or is it always just guys debating the size?
*Resisting...urge to make...shuttlebays and landing strip remarks...*
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 10:58 PM   #28
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

horatio83 wrote: View Post
Is it just me or is it always just guys debating the size?
Ample nacelles...
__________________
*Tim Duncan fills glass with milk*
"Hm, you know what..."
*adds squirt of chocolate syrup*
"Tonight's a special night."
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2 2013, 11:04 PM   #29
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Fuckin' big.
That is really all that matters.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2013, 06:48 AM   #30
Flux Capacitor
Rear Admiral
 
Flux Capacitor's Avatar
 
Location: 23.17.46.11
Send a message via AIM to Flux Capacitor
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Since I didn't see the need for a totally new thread for this, I'll put this here since the only new clip is a shot of
Might help with some of the size discussion...and it looks badass.

__________________
"I'm a fan of good sci-fi. Star Trek. Battlestar. That Joss Whedon show." - Nathan Fillion, Castle
Flux Capacitor 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 11:48 PM.

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