RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,932
Posts: 5,389,932
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 494
Newest member: Leaveitalone

TrekToday headlines

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18


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 11 2013, 03:21 PM   #571
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Did you just stick Kentuck with the ass end of it?
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:37 PM   #572
Locutus of Bored
Furfallin'
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Actually, you can blame (or thank) John Eaves IIRC for that one. He made it when the size argument came up during the first film.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 03:59 PM   #573
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

__________________
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 June 11 2013, 05:11 PM   #574
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

My issue with the ship scales for JJ's reboot is that the ships seem too big. A super-ship for no reason just seems dumb.

It brings to mind the idea of an idiot director screaming the word "bigger" at the effects guys because he's a member of the key demographic of beer commercials.

I will admit that the 366M version of the ship seems too small, but the VFX guys jacked the ship up as if they were adding bigger boobs to their computer woman in Weird Science. Also, they seemed to do it in the simplest way possible; it's as if they just went into the options menu and clicked the ship size box from 100% to 200%. They didn't bother to shrink any of the outer ports or windows on the ship's hull to fit the more massive size.
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 05:18 PM   #575
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
My issue with the ship scales for JJ's reboot is that the ships seem too big. A super-ship for no reason just seems dumb.
If Starfleet was planning to go to war larger ships would be a necessity to carry troops and supplies. A ship like the Vengeance would be very useful under that type of scenario. It seems that the Abramsverse doesn't work under the assumption that two ships are going to sit and slug it out and that you can hold a planet with twenty people. Wars are likely to be much more like the real thing.

These ships are grains of sand on a beach compared to the size of a star system. I don't think the larger sizes really constitutes an issue except for those who are locked in on how big ships should be based on the prior series/movies.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 08:34 PM   #576
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
If Starfleet was planning to go to war larger ships would be a necessity to carry troops and supplies. A ship like the Vengeance would be very useful under that type of scenario.
I was actually okay with the gigantic size of the Vengeance. It was supposed to be a big, scary warship with room "to carry troops and supplies."

BillJ wrote: View Post
These ships are grains of sand on a beach compared to the size of a star system. I don't think the larger sizes really constitutes an issue except for those who are locked in on how big ships should be based on the prior series/movies.
I think the thing that bothered me more about the Enterprise's embiggening was the fact that they did it in such a simplistic manner. Instead of making a 725m model for the ship, they just doubled the size of the 366m model and it looks off. All of the outer windows and ports just got bigger instead of being spaced out more and/or more added.

Last edited by Kevman7987; June 11 2013 at 10:31 PM.
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 09:04 PM   #577
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Why would a capital ship be transporting soldiers and equipment into a battle? Wouldn't that function be better handled by a dedicated transport?
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 09:17 PM   #578
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

throwback wrote: View Post
Why would a capital ship be transporting soldiers and equipment into a battle? Wouldn't that function be better handled by a dedicated transport?
Still has to be able to defend itself.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 09:47 PM   #579
Jon1701
Rear Admiral
 
Jon1701's Avatar
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Christ, if that is correct the size of the vengenance is ludicrous.

It can be piloted by one person?

Whats all the space for?

No. Sense. Whatsoever.

It's a good job the new spacedocks have the ships on the outside, you'd never fucking fit one inside a prime universe one.
__________________
www.moviebreadbin.com
Movie reviews sponsored by that toupee that Patrick Stewart had sent over from London that time.
Jon1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 09:56 PM   #580
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

If I recall what Khan said, it was modified for a minimal crew, not originally designed that way.
__________________
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 June 11 2013, 10:24 PM   #581
drt
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

My assumption is that it was modified for a minimal crew of about 72.

A crew that Khan intended to smuggle aboard in new long-range torpedoes.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 10:52 PM   #582
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Jon1701 wrote: View Post
Christ, if that is correct the size of the vengenance is ludicrous.
It is correct.

It can be piloted by one person?

Whats all the space for?

No. Sense. Whatsoever.
In what way ? Automating a ship with a top-of-the-line computer will make it possible for one person to pilot it. "Computer, do X."
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 11:26 PM   #583
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
My issue with the ship scales for JJ's reboot is that the ships seem too big. A super-ship for no reason just seems dumb.
It's no more a super-ship than the Enterprise-D or E, both of which are significantly larger. Hell, except for the warp nacelles it's about the same size as the Enterprise-C. Maybe this is just the mid 23rd century/pre-refit version of the Ambassador class?

Also, they seemed to do it in the simplest way possible
KISS.

Keep it simple, stupid.

If they'd gone to redesign the entire ship at the last minute, it probably would have come away looking silly and implausible.

; it's as if they just went into the options menu and clicked the ship size box from 100% to 200%. They didn't bother to shrink any of the outer ports or windows on the ship's hull to fit the more massive size.[/QUOTE]
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11 2013, 11:31 PM   #584
drt
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
In what way ? Automating a ship with a top-of-the-line computer will make it possible for one person to pilot it. "Computer, do X."
It would have been a nice touch if they made some reference to it being a Daystrom "M-series" computer or something...
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12 2013, 12:03 AM   #585
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

For my question, I wasn't referring to the security force normally assigned to a ship. I was referring to soldiers who were being ferried to a battle.
throwback 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 09:28 AM.

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