RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,840
Posts: 5,327,416
Members: 24,552
Currently online: 580
Newest member: mekogas

TrekToday headlines

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

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


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 7 2013, 06:31 PM   #121
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

EJD1984 wrote: View Post
Just to add my two cents into the conservation.
I just don't like the nuEnterprise "super-size". The overall classic Enterprise visual cues suggest a much smaller size (close to the original). Whereas the Next-Gen Enterprise, gave you a sense of real huge scale, based on the visual cues.

For me personally, and from an engineering standpoint, the TMP Enterprise had the best representation of the ship, size and scale. Plus that move showed that it all depends on how the ship is filmed. It showed that you still fit fairly large sets into the ship, and still get a real sense of huge scale.
Except some of the sets for the TMP enterprise wouldn't actually fit inside of the model at the scale it was originally designed. Engineering is by far the biggest perpetrator; the engine room sports several perpendicular corridors that lead to places that couldn't exist in a hull that size and would only be possible if the ship itself was nearly twice as large as originally designed.

Abrams' people evidently encountered the same problem with the filming sets when they realized that there was just no way they could justify cramming something that huge into an engineering section only forty meters wide; especially once they decided to do it big with the (IMO, totally awesome) airport-sized shuttlebay.

Try to remember that the majority of spaceship effects and exterior CG are mainly done in post-production after most principal photography is completed. If they finish those CG shots early, it's usually for the purpose of sticking it in a preview.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7 2013, 06:36 PM   #122
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

YellowSubmarine wrote: View Post
I am a little bit concerned about Borg cubes. They would either be way too small to be a threat – they would be only slightly bigger than the Vengeance. Vengeance is so huge and sinister that Borg cubes won't look as ominous now.
Borg cubes haven't been described as "ominous" since at least the 5th season of Voyager.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 12:12 AM   #123
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

So, these things are supposed to be really big, right?
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 01:30 AM   #124
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
EJD1984 wrote: View Post
Just to add my two cents into the conservation.
I just don't like the nuEnterprise "super-size". The overall classic Enterprise visual cues suggest a much smaller size (close to the original). Whereas the Next-Gen Enterprise, gave you a sense of real huge scale, based on the visual cues.

For me personally, and from an engineering standpoint, the TMP Enterprise had the best representation of the ship, size and scale. Plus that move showed that it all depends on how the ship is filmed. It showed that you still fit fairly large sets into the ship, and still get a real sense of huge scale.
Except some of the sets for the TMP enterprise wouldn't actually fit inside of the model at the scale it was originally designed. Engineering is by far the biggest perpetrator; the engine room sports several perpendicular corridors that lead to places that couldn't exist in a hull that size and would only be possible if the ship itself was nearly twice as large as originally designed.

Abrams' people evidently encountered the same problem with the filming sets when they realized that there was just no way they could justify cramming something that huge into an engineering section only forty meters wide; especially once they decided to do it big with the (IMO, totally awesome) airport-sized shuttlebay.

Try to remember that the majority of spaceship effects and exterior CG are mainly done in post-production after most principal photography is completed. If they finish those CG shots early, it's usually for the purpose of sticking it in a preview.

The TMP ship has a few discrepancies, but the big one, the rec deck, is principally because the film's production designer kept insisting it go in the dish facing backward, instead of down in engineering where it would actually fit. (And then that is compounded by the not-so-special director's cut, which adds the officer's lounge in a spot that hovers in space above the dish, given the view aft.)

Wise and the PD screwed up putting that corridor into engineering facing forward (and I'd bet money that this was their addition after Wise had Joe Jennings fired, cuz that J.J. really did respect the layout), but I don't recall anything else that didn't fit.

And as far as that goes, these kind of fall into the shuttlecraft Galileo category of slightly-bigger-on-inside-than-outside, which is common even if you're not doing science fiction. That's opposed to the AbramsMobile, which would be a friggin' TARDIS by comparison if they hadn't done their slapdash upscaling.

Visual effects are budgeted in large part based on previs, so there are low-rez versions of shots in the works from preproduction onward. So there is always SOMETHING that can get stuck into the cut as it evolves; we're a very long ways out from the 'scene missing' cards due to waiting on VFX, on the order of a couple decades at this point. It's just a guess, but I think the scale issue on the Abrams reared its head very early in the process, and it simply wasn't thought necessary to address it till further down the line. Wouldn't surprise me if Geoff Mandel tumbled to it right away (guess he would have had to, since he was gotten gone so quickly.)

Also, you gotta remember that even pre-Abrams, 'continuity is for wussies' was an ILM catchphrase. I heard it invoked for TUC when I asked about why they decided the shields were invisible (in TWOK & SFS this issue was skirted since the shields were always conveniently down when any ship got fired upon.)
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 04:10 AM   #125
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Ok so if the Reboot Enterprise is roughly the size of Enterprise D or E, then the....

Last edited by M'Sharak; May 8 2013 at 05:03 AM. Reason: ginormous hotlinked pics
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 02:07 PM   #126
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Yeah, it's at least as big as a Romulan D'Deridex-class Warbird. Maybe a little longer. Don't think there has been any info on the actual official dimensions of this one yet.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 03:07 PM   #127
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 May 8 2013, 03:56 PM   #128
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

It would probably be big enough to dock the Excelsior.

Would pay good money to see that.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 04:12 PM   #129
EJD1984
Commander
 
EJD1984's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
But then to add to the new ship size mayhem - super...Super...SUPER.....SIZE
2900m?!?!
__________________
NXX-1701

Last edited by EJD1984; May 8 2013 at 04:23 PM.
EJD1984 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 04:40 PM   #130
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

That poster, to me, is quite a curiosity. I both love it and hate it at the same time.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 05:07 PM   #131
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The size of the ship seen in the poster would be more believable if the Vengeance had an elipitical saucer instead of a round one.

Anyone thought about doing the same angle shot between say the Enterprise D to the Enterprise E? The E is longer but at that angle, the latter would appear dwarfed.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2013, 08:31 PM   #132
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

DarthTom wrote: View Post
When did Spock try to save Romulus? Because Voyager already returned from the Delta Quadrant with 'trans-phasic torpedo' technology as well as that special shielding that Spock prime would be aware of.
Taking technology from an alternative timeline that's two universes away and twice non-existent? That's double-cheating.

At that rate, the Star Trek that will be airing by 2265 will have Ancient Greeks fighting the Borg with trans-phasic torpedoes they got from a Roman starship captain who came back in time.

Maybe that will eventually explain the Romulans and the Remans.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 06:47 AM   #133
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
The TMP ship has a few discrepancies, but the big one, the rec deck, is principally because the film's production designer kept insisting it go in the dish facing backward, instead of down in engineering where it would actually fit.
Actually, the rec deck was originally intended to fit into a space directly below and behind the main bridge with some very large windows on the top of the saucer to indicate its position. After the set was designed and built, the model was changed and the windows were moved to the rim of the saucer, starboard aft; the set designers covered over the big skylights where the windows were originally supposed to be and installed new ones in the back of the room. This is why the Rec Deck set has a diagonally slanted roof; that was originally supposed to be the upper part of the saucer directly below the officer's lounge.

It's possible the Director's Cut intended to mitigate this by moving the officer's lounge into that space (hence the nacelle placement in the DC) which would imply the "windows" in the rec deck are now viewscreens linked to cameras on the hull.

Visual effects are budgeted in large part based on previs, so there are low-rez versions of shots in the works from preproduction onward. So there is always SOMETHING that can get stuck into the cut as it evolves...
But in the age of CGI effects, that "something" is usually of such low quality that it would make The Last Starfighter look like Oscar material. The FX guys have a LONG way to go before the finished product, and there's plenty of room for revision and improvement, room that simply didn't exist in the age of miniatures and filming models.

It's just a guess, but I think the scale issue on the Abrams reared its head very early in the process, and it simply wasn't thought necessary to address it till further down the line. Wouldn't surprise me if Geoff Mandel tumbled to it right away (guess he would have had to, since he was gotten gone so quickly.)
That's a good guess. I would actually add that Mandel's departure was one of the reasons it didn't get rescaled until later on. The TrekBBS rumor mill suggests he was fired for making an issue of it, but it's probably the other way around; he was tasked to deal with the scale issue, but was released from the team for whatever reason and no one stepped in to fill his role.

Also, you gotta remember that even pre-Abrams, 'continuity is for wussies' was an ILM catchphrase. I heard it invoked for TUC when I asked about why they decided the shields were invisible (in TWOK & SFS this issue was skirted since the shields were always conveniently down when any ship got fired upon.)
And the fact that the shields managed to be invisible in STXI should be a reminder to everyone of this sad but true fact.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 01:41 PM   #134
EJD1984
Commander
 
EJD1984's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

USS Vengeance: Just noticed that the ship may have it's own version of 10-Forward. Or in this size case - 40-Forward..................

Look on the saucer edge towards the right

PS - It is me. Or does it seem like Abrams may have "size" issues.
__________________
NXX-1701
EJD1984 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 02:10 PM   #135
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

EJD1984 wrote: View Post
USS Vengeance: Just noticed that the ship may have it's own version of 10-Forward. Or in this size case - 40-Forward..................

Look on the saucer edge towards the right

PS - It is me. Or does it seem like Abrams may have "size" issues.
I would hope a 23rd century starship of this size would atleast have some proper sized room and facilities. Unlike the tiny cabin quarters you see in TUC.

A big games room and bar maketh a ship.
anh165 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 10:47 AM.

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