RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,869
Posts: 5,475,010
Members: 25,044
Currently online: 637
Newest member: DrawHQ

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 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 June 3 2013, 03:38 PM   #436
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
While we're back on this subject (ship scale), there's a scene in STiD after the Enterprise loses power and emergency lighting kicks in. We clearly see the edge of the saucer is two levels high, because one of them (round hallway) is exposed via hull rupture. So, arguments about 4 levels on the saucer rim are out.
That's cute that you think so, but no. There are at least four, and I believe five full decks in the saucer rim alone, and the scene you're describing (see below) does nothing to dissuade me from that idea.

(click to enlarge)


Also, the total number of levels in the saucer can been guesstimated from the "plaza." There are about 8-10 levels, so figure 3-4 above the saucer, and 3-4 below (but that includes the "level" immediately beneath the dome and above the bottom dome, which is basically nothing).
The images below aren't clear (they're screencaps I found online), but it shows way more than 3-4 decks above and below the level Kirk and Scotty were on. The female crewman Kirk was trying to hold onto fell pretty far.

(click to enlarge)


King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
^During the run from the brig to the warp core, I counted 11 decks above Scotty and Kirk, and 9 below.

Perhaps someone else can corroborate?
I don't know the exact count, but it was much closer to your estimate than to WFZ's. People were falling way down the atrium. Even with the blurry images you can count several more decks than 3-4 above and below the level Kirk and Scotty are on.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 04:05 PM   #437
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

So is this plaza thing underneath the bridge dome (which I doubt) or that crystal dome between the impulse engines?

Because if its the impulse dome, they'd have the height of the saucer and the full height of the stardrive all the way down, or maybe 20+ decks.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 04:20 PM   #438
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I think it's under the bridge tower dome (which is where I put it in the drawing below), but Kirk and Scotty do run directly from the atrium to engineering, so it may run down the neck from the saucer to the engineering hull. I'm not sure. The dome seemed bigger than the one above the impulse engines though; at least the size of the ship's bridge. Plus, there's an undercut beneath the impulse dome that would make it impossible to have a vertical shaft that wide running all the way down the neck.

Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 04:28 PM   #439
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

In Trek 2009, Kirk ran from sickbay to engineering to bridge without ever taking stairs or turbolifts. And he ran, because McCoy had to catch up with him, which wouldn't have been the case had they taken trips with the turbolift.

I guess it just makes no sense.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 04:36 PM   #440
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The only thing that put me off thinking it was the bridge dome one was the close up of it in the 2009 movie where it looked like machinary inside.

Then again that could easily have been refitted with the bridge repairs after the first movie.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 04:48 PM   #441
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
In Trek 2009, Kirk ran from sickbay to engineering to bridge without ever taking stairs or turbolifts.
How do you know, since there's this thing called "editing" ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 05:04 PM   #442
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

There were several jump cuts, important bits along the way but we saw little of the actual route they took at all.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 05:42 PM   #443
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Yep, pretty much.

It is true, though, that a lot of time is spent running through the ship. It's more dramatic than riding a turbolift, but I have to think that there should be more of a turbolift system than there evidently is. So many of the problems in STID that Kirk and Scott had with the change in gravity on their way to the warp core could have been solved if they could have just gotten into a turbolift. Maybe they can get upgrades for that, more lifts and better coverage, installed on Tuesday.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 05:53 PM   #444
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Yep, pretty much.

It is true, though, that a lot of time is spent running through the ship. It's more dramatic than riding a turbolift, but I have to think that there should be more of a turbolift system than there evidently is. So many of the problems in STID that Kirk and Scott had with the change in gravity on their way to the warp core could have been solved if they could have just gotten into a turbolift. Maybe they can get upgrades for that, more lifts and better coverage, installed on Tuesday.
I don't think the lifts worked at that point.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 05:55 PM   #445
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Yep, pretty much.

It is true, though, that a lot of time is spent running through the ship. It's more dramatic than riding a turbolift.
True, you'd have them running for dear life to dramatic music, then suddenly a slow turbolift ride, standing there like idiots, listening to musak. Kind of breaks up the flow.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 05:58 PM   #446
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

beamMe wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Yep, pretty much.

It is true, though, that a lot of time is spent running through the ship. It's more dramatic than riding a turbolift, but I have to think that there should be more of a turbolift system than there evidently is. So many of the problems in STID that Kirk and Scott had with the change in gravity on their way to the warp core could have been solved if they could have just gotten into a turbolift. Maybe they can get upgrades for that, more lifts and better coverage, installed on Tuesday.
I don't think the lifts worked at that point.
I'm sure they'll be fixing that on Tuesday, too.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 06:16 PM   #447
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
So many of the problems in STID that Kirk and Scott had with the change in gravity on their way to the warp core could have been solved if they could have just gotten into a turbolift.
I'm pretty sure those lifts work on electricity.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 06:32 PM   #448
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
So many of the problems in STID that Kirk and Scott had with the change in gravity on their way to the warp core could have been solved if they could have just gotten into a turbolift.
I'm pretty sure those lifts work on electricity.
Your point? Lots of electrical systems still worked on the ship. Which ones were out was a function of plot and dramatic necessity, more than any plausible sense of how to wire up a starship. That's just par for the course in Star Trek.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 07:33 PM   #449
gerbil
Captain
 
Location: USA
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
So many of the problems in STID that Kirk and Scott had with the change in gravity on their way to the warp core could have been solved if they could have just gotten into a turbolift.
I'm pretty sure those lifts work on electricity.
Your point? Lots of electrical systems still worked on the ship. Which ones were out was a function of plot and dramatic necessity, more than any plausible sense of how to wire up a starship. That's just par for the course in Star Trek.
What a thrilling scene that would have been. The "waiting in the escalator" scene.
__________________
"Life should be revered simply for the fact that we need to be thankful that we are currently able to consciously appreciate what we are going through right now. ... This moment that we're having right now is highly significant." -Maynard James Keenan
gerbil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 3 2013, 07:39 PM   #450
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

gerbil wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post

I'm pretty sure those lifts work on electricity.
Your point? Lots of electrical systems still worked on the ship. Which ones were out was a function of plot and dramatic necessity, more than any plausible sense of how to wire up a starship. That's just par for the course in Star Trek.
What a thrilling scene that would have been. The "waiting in the escalator" scene.
Where might I have agreed with that sentiment?

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
It is true, though, that a lot of time is spent running through the ship. It's more dramatic than riding a turbolift
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain 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 12:08 AM.

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