RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,362
Posts: 5,355,790
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 514
Newest member: glmrkills

TrekToday headlines

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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 August 6 2013, 07:24 PM   #841
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
Kruezerman wrote: View Post
James, remember when you asked if you were gonna get flamed for believing that the Enterprise was smaller? We said no, just provide evidence?

Well you haven't and have been rejected our objective evidence in place of your own opinion. That's what causes the problems here.
I already did provide some evidence, I don't see a problem here. If you think there is a problem that is not my problem. I'm not the one causing it, I simply think the ship isn't as big as some people say due to various scenes that show a smaller ship. One thing is for sure, the new Enterprise is a poor design that's full of large open areas making it easy to breach the hull and wipe out large portions of the crew. We'll have to agree to disagree on the ship size.
Yeah we get it, the NuEnterprise is bigger and you don't like it.

In your own words your argument blames a poor design that is full of nasty open areas which are terribly dangerous.
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2013, 07:25 PM   #842
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Nope, since the people who created it have given the sizes involved. Accidental scaling errors in scenes is something that happens in all science fiction, but the majority of scenes imply the 725 meter mark and has been confirmed by the crew involved in rendering the ship.

I'm afraid you'll have to do an awful lot more than post very vague assertions and stomp your feet insisting it's not.

And please, the Old Enterprise shuttlebay, the refit Rec Deck, the various implied areas of the Enterprise D devoted to weird sciences that were essentially warehouse sized open areas right next to the hull, all Enterprises have them.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2013, 09:10 PM   #843
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I see what people were talking about when they mentioned hostility shown towards classic trek fans from new trek fans. You guys use set floorplans as technical schematics which is impractical illogical and whenever someone disagrees you get hostile. Contrary to your belief most of the scenes do not back up the 725 meter claim but you may choose to believe whatever you wish. I get it, my opinion differs and you don't like it. You can also downplay my evidence all you want but it doesn't change the fact that my evidence shows a lot more than yours does and I didn't need to post tons of pages or respond to every single comment to show it. All of this grief over a ship that isn't even real, go figure. You guys really should consider lightening up.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2013, 09:17 PM   #844
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I know this has gone on far too long, but why is using set floorplans impractical and illogical? How else are we to see how the rooms we see in the films are supposed to fit inside the ship?
__________________
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 August 6 2013, 09:17 PM   #845
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
I see what people were talking about when they mentioned hostility shown towards classic trek fans from new trek fans.
That's ridiculous and insulting. Many of us have been Trek fans for decades. Three, in my case.

You guys use set floorplans as technical schematics
And screenshots and sets and other forms of evidence. Yes, pesky evidence.

which is impractical illogical and whenever someone disagrees you get hostile.
The only one who is hostile here is you.

Contrary to your belief most of the scenes do not back up the 725 meter claim
That is false, as has been demonstrated several times in the last four years. I, too, doubted the 700+m figure, until I looked at all the evidence, which is the only thing you should be concerned about. Ask yourself, seriously, if you are ok with a 700m Enterprise, either way.

All of this grief over a ship that isn't even real, go figure.
Ah, yes. The good old retreat into reality routine, once your arguments have been shot down.
__________________
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 August 6 2013, 10:23 PM   #846
Locutus of Bored
Furfallin'
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
I see what people were talking about when they mentioned hostility shown towards classic trek fans from new trek fans. You guys use set floorplans as technical schematics which is impractical illogical and whenever someone disagrees you get hostile. Contrary to your belief most of the scenes do not back up the 725 meter claim but you may choose to believe whatever you wish. I get it, my opinion differs and you don't like it. You can also downplay my evidence all you want but it doesn't change the fact that my evidence shows a lot more than yours does and I didn't need to post tons of pages or respond to every single comment to show it. All of this grief over a ship that isn't even real, go figure. You guys really should consider lightening up.
No one was being hostile toward you. You however are getting needlessly upset.

This has nothing to do with new Trek versus classic Trek. There are plenty of people who disagree with your stance who are as much fans of classic Trek as you are.

The set plans as a whole do not give an accurate internal arrangement for the entire bridge deck, and no one has ever claimed they do. Obviously there are things located elsewhere on the ship like the medbay and so forth. However, they do give an accurate representation of the size and configuration of the bridge, the plaza, and the corridor between them, which is precisely what King Daniel was demonstrating with his edited overlay posted above that eliminates most of the extraneous rooms. And lo and behold it fits the bridge location and the transparent bubble over the plaza perfectly.

The visual evidence from the films back up the larger Enterprise. The filmmakers and VFX/concept artists back up the larger Enterprise. The production materials back up the larger Enterprise.

What evidence did you post other than one video of the Vengeance crashing and a couple of blurry photos (after initially saying you don't trust blurry photos as evidence from others) with absolutely no measurements of any kind like King Daniel has provided in spades? Your evidence was all visual estimates ("it looks smaller than the island there") not any kind of measurement.

Your criticism of them is that they responded to you too much? How is that even a criticism? Would you rather they not respond to your arguments?

Also, falling back on "the ship isn't real, so get a life, you nerds!" gambit after you've been right here engaging in the same debate as everyone else is pretty lame.
__________________
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 August 7 2013, 12:18 AM   #847
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
I see what people were talking about when they mentioned hostility shown towards classic trek fans from new trek fans.
Been a fan for nearly thirty-eight years, I haven't been rude to you (unless you define 'rude' as disagreeing with you) and I go with the creator intent that the ship is 725-meters.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 02:46 AM   #848
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
You labeled the dilithium intermix chamber on the floor of the TOS Enterprise' engineering as a tank
The dilithium chamber is in the middle assembly BETWEEN those "tanks" actually. The overriding point being whatever those tanks are in TOS (they probably aren't really tanks), is probably exactly what they are in STXI.

The image below that is also mislabeled, the "pipes" behind the grid are power transfer conduits
We don't actually know what they are, and we never did, and we never will. Mainly this is because the producers of the show never really knew what they were and thus never bothered to tell anyone.

The shuttlebay lost a bunch of it's shuttle racks in favor of the platform that scotty protested the new torpedoes on and that platform also connects to the broadside retrofit torpedo launcher area.
Incorrect. The torpedo tubes are noticeably further forward of the shuttlebay, roughly amidships and several decks down from it.

Remember, the secondary hull is almost as large as a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. The "weapons bay" mentioned in the movie is likely an entirely different compartment from either the shuttle bay or the engine room.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 02:54 AM   #849
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
James wrote: View Post
I see what people were talking about when they mentioned hostility shown towards classic trek fans from new trek fans.
Been a fan for nearly thirty-eight years, I haven't been rude to you (unless you define 'rude' as disagreeing with you) and I go with the creator intent that the ship is 725-meters.

Not you, some of the others have been hostile though. All I had to do was say that I didn't think the ship was 725 meters and people got defensive and now it's switched to openly hostile. The creator of this design was Ryan Church, the ship's designed was later appropriated by Bad Robot and ILM.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 02:59 AM   #850
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
The creator of this design was Ryan Church, the ship's designed was later appropriated by Bad Robot and ILM.
Ryan Church was hired by Bad Robot to work on the movie and the design went through several iterations. There's an "Art of" book.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 03:16 AM   #851
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
James wrote: View Post
The creator of this design was Ryan Church, the ship's designed was later appropriated by Bad Robot and ILM.
Ryan Church was hired by Bad Robot to work on the movie and the design went through several iterations. There's an "Art of" book.

I think I read on his site that he offered design ideas to them, I didn't see anything about him being hired by them.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 03:22 AM   #852
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Bill I'll ask you directly this question, you know how the Vengeance is "officially" about 1500 meters? I'll add the second part when you respond.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 03:27 AM   #853
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
Bill I'll ask you directly this question, you know how the Vengeance is "officially" about 1500 meters? I'll add the second part when you respond.
It really doesn't matter what I "know", because whether its 15 meters or 1,500, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the movie.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 03:31 AM   #854
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post

I think I read on his site that he offered design ideas to them, I didn't see anything about him being hired by them.
No one offers their designs for free in Hollywood. Church was a known commodity who had worked on multiple successful films.

http://ryanchurch.com/

He designed much of what we saw in the two Abrams films.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 03:38 AM   #855
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
James wrote: View Post
Bill I'll ask you directly this question, you know how the Vengeance is "officially" about 1500 meters? I'll add the second part when you respond.
It really doesn't matter what I "know", because whether its 15 meters or 1,500, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the movie.

This has to do with the size of the ship. Ok I'll be more specific, you know how the Star Destroyer is the same size right? Well if they are both the same size why is the Vengeance's bridge window big on the hull while the ISD's bridge window is tiny on the hull. Here are a couple of pictures for reference. I highlight the bridge area in green on the QMX model.

[ IMG]http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/ISD/isdface2asm.jpg[/ IMG]

[ IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/2a8gj28.jpg[/ IMG]

[ IMG]http://i44.tinypic.com/2ztbo9e.jpg[/ IMG]

Last edited by M'Sharak; September 4 2013 at 01:03 AM. Reason: images hotlinked by poster from site not his own
  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 11:30 AM.

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