RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,777
Posts: 5,434,460
Members: 24,840
Currently online: 497
Newest member: Reece101

TrekToday headlines

Trek Comics Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

German Volkswagen Campaign Features Trek Actors
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Shatner And Nimoy In Trek 3?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19


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 10 2013, 08:54 AM   #901
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Lord Garth, FOI wrote: View Post
Lets toss some gasoline on this fire

Truth is there is no way that the big E can be any less than 900-1100 meters in length based on the size of the shuttle bay, budgeneering and all the other mammoth sets that couldn't fit into a 725 meter spaceframe

In fact it was supposed to be 1100 meters

Dan did a fabulous write up that showed how everything actually gels with that size a couple years ago

I say it's 1100 meters and not a farthing less

Galactica Schmaltica. E is the biggest bi#ch in space
I think now that I was a little overzealous when I decided that. The bigger the ship, the more room to spare and the more comfortably everything fits, but I think everything can just about be squished into a 725m frame. Plus, the atrium behind the bridge is such a perfect fit for the domes at the top and bottom of the saucer and to fit behind the bridge in front that it can't possibly be by accident.

That said, I'd love to see the CG models of the shuttlebay and engine room superimposed over the Enterprise. Are any bored ILM employees reading this?
__________________
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 10 2013, 11:22 AM   #902
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

IRC, there's not even an MSD type graphic on the bridge for us to core information from, is there?
__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2013, 12:03 PM   #903
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Just this, seen in the corridors and on the bridge when the Vengeance scans the Enterprise.

Although it looks cool, unfortunately it's just a recycling of the USS Kelvin's MSD (which was made by copy, pasting, rotating and resizing the Kelvin corridor set over and over) superimposed over a picture of the Enterprise. You can even make out "NCC/0514" from the original graphic above the saucer on the right. The original Kelvin MSD graphic was on the left side of the Kelvin's bridge, and a version of it was seen close-up on the helm when the autopilot failed George Kirk.

The outer ring was also superimposed over the Vengeance's saucer on the space jump sequence graphics.

(I know FAR too much about this stuff)
__________________
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 10 2013, 08:33 PM   #904
James
Guest
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

It's pretty obvious there are two Enterprises, one exterior shot version that looks smaller than 2000 feet and the interior shot version that has a bunch of decks that would never actually fit in a starship. Paramount has done this before, with Star Trek V's rocket boot turbolift shaft scene that was way too tall to actually fit inside Enterprise-A. It's like how the dome on top of the lobby plaza is clear where you can see the cloudy star cluster near Kronos but the exterior shot shows a crystal like sensor dome on top. Heavily implied but never proven, almost only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.
  Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2013, 08:41 PM   #905
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

We've shown several external images that prove a larger ship, from both of the movies. I see you're still continuing to ignore what people post and just throw meaningless nonsense back.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 10 2013, 08:46 PM   #906
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

How do you figure the external shots of the Enterprise show a smaller ship? The very prominent bridge window scales the ship pretty concusively and it's there in every exterior shot. I showed pages ago how on a 366m Enterprise it would take up the entire front of the module.
__________________
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 10 2013, 09:29 PM   #907
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Out There...That Away
View SeerSGB's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
It's pretty obvious there are two Enterprises, one exterior shot version that looks smaller than 2000 feet and the interior shot version that has a bunch of decks that would never actually fit in a starship. Paramount has done this before, with Star Trek V's rocket boot turbolift shaft scene that was way too tall to actually fit inside Enterprise-A. It's like how the dome on top of the lobby plaza is clear where you can see the cloudy star cluster near Kronos but the exterior shot shows a crystal like sensor dome on top. Heavily implied but never proven, almost only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.
There is no way that ship looks under 725m in the exterior shots. Just the scene where they shuttle up to her in the first movie shows up how massive the ship is. Reboot Starfleet doesn't do things small.

As for the dome:

__________________
- SeerSGB -
"I've made many mistakes, and it's about time that I did something about that." The Doctor (Deep Breath)
| Blog | Homepage |

Last edited by SeerSGB; August 10 2013 at 09:59 PM.
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2013, 01:46 AM   #908
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

James wrote: View Post
It's pretty obvious there are two Enterprises, one exterior shot version that looks smaller than 2000 feet and the interior shot version that has a bunch of decks that would never actually fit in a starship.
Actually, yes. They developed a second CG model for the "refit" configuration at the end of the film and gave it slightly different proportions for some reason: the bridge window is noticeably larger and the dome section above it is proportionally smaller. Different phaser banks, different warp and impulse engines and some other features that are hard to make out because we never see them up close. They actually "cheated" a bit and used the new model to represent the old ship in one of the "zoom in" scenes before the Vengeance encounter, thinking (correctly) that nobody would notice.

Which leads me to wonder if the refit version will have a redesigned bridge in the next movie, something with a two-level effect kind of like alternate timeline Yesterday's Enterprise bridge (or Voyager, for that matter) with the big window running from a sunken floor all the way to the ceiling.

It's like how the dome on top of the lobby plaza is clear where you can see the cloudy star cluster near Kronos but the exterior shot shows a crystal like sensor dome on top.
The exterior shows a translucent dome with some undefined glowy bits underneath it. Nothing about its appearance suggests "sensor" especially since real world sensors don't look anything like that.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2013, 04:35 AM   #909
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Which leads me to wonder if the refit version will have a redesigned bridge in the next movie, something with a two-level effect kind of like alternate timeline Yesterday's Enterprise bridge (or Voyager, for that matter) with the big window running from a sunken floor all the way to the ceiling.
If they do, I wonder how many people will rag on them for "suddenly" changing like that (instead of after the refit), despite the same thing happening to the -A between TVH and TFF.
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2013, 04:50 AM   #910
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

ATimson wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Which leads me to wonder if the refit version will have a redesigned bridge in the next movie, something with a two-level effect kind of like alternate timeline Yesterday's Enterprise bridge (or Voyager, for that matter) with the big window running from a sunken floor all the way to the ceiling.
If they do, I wonder how many people will rag on them for "suddenly" changing like that (instead of after the refit), despite the same thing happening to the -A between TVH and TFF.
No, that's not a valid comparison. Nowhere in Trek history has there been a "two-level" starship bridge -- the Enterprise-D really wasn't two levels, but rather just sloped. If they break from tradition that much, of course people will complain.

The simple and familiar round bridge structure is most definitely a Trek trademark.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2013, 09:42 AM   #911
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
They actually "cheated" a bit and used the new model to represent the old ship in one of the "zoom in" scenes before the Vengeance encounter, thinking (correctly) that nobody would notice.

Which leads me to wonder if the refit version will have a redesigned bridge in the next movie, something with a two-level effect kind of like alternate timeline Yesterday's Enterprise bridge (or Voyager, for that matter) with the big window running from a sunken floor all the way to the ceiling.
As said several pages ago, it's just a model with more detail around the bridge window, and whose window frame dimenions exactly match the set for compositing (the lower-detail model's window is the correct width but a little too short). It wasn't made for the refit, but was actually first seen in the 2009 movie when Pike, Kirk and Sulu head for the shuttlebay.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by King Daniel Into Darkness; August 11 2013 at 10:01 AM.
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2013, 04:10 PM   #912
gerbil
Captain
 
Location: USA
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The cover of Cinefex makes me wonder if it's the refit model. It might be trick of the lens, but the deflector dish looks noticeably smaller.

__________________
"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 August 11 2013, 04:45 PM   #913
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The deflector dish opens and closes a little (see the final flyby and warp jump in ST'09), so maybe it's just being seen in it's non-unusal position. From that angle, it could even be a TMP-style one built into the hull.

Beautiful pic, by the way! I love the TOS style dome and nacelle caps on the NCC-0718 (the USS Bradbury maybe? I can't make it out)
__________________
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 11 2013, 05:17 PM   #914
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Oh my, that is a beautiful shot. Utterly gorgeous.
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 11 2013, 05:23 PM   #915
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

She's a very pretty girl.
__________________
Here's proof that I can write something without using the word f**k.
Kruezerman 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 02:53 AM.

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