Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by WarpFactorZ, May 1, 2013.
Thanks for sharing that video, I don't have the blu-ray so I'd never seen it. Such a beautiful lady!
Now that the movie is out in HD on iTunes, let us return to the "how many decks are in the saucer?" issue. It turns out to throw a monkey wrench into things. We get a really good view of a corridor through a hole torn in the saucer edge at about 1:40:13:
(Click for high-rez)
I've brightened it up a bit so you can see things more clearly and outlined roughly where the corridor meets the saucer edge. As you can see, at least in this image, the saucer windows are not floor-to-ceiling like the bridge window. There's only room for two decks plus several feet of service space above and below. If you eliminate the service crawlways, you can squash three decks into the saucer, but then they don't line up with the windows at all.
It looks like the ILM guys scaled the corridor to fit between the inscribed "art deco" lines, resulting in a shot where the ship has to be smaller than 725 meters.
As he is the unofficial official documenter of these things, I leave it to King Daniel for further investigation.
Look at the middle picture you posted, some of the decks don't have windows and those that do are floor to ceiling ones, what you highlighted as one deck is actually two decks deep.
The saucer is four decks deep at the saucer edge, which is what many have been saying all along.
Pictures like this have already been posted further back in the thread and there is nothing new here.
No. You can clearly see the curved corridor wall through the opening and it's twice the height of the windows on the same row.
Also notice you can only see one row of the rectangular "coffin" wall depressions through the windows, which would not be the case if the windows were the hight of the entire corridor.
It's more obvious that that's one deck when you see it in motion:
There's one wall, affected by one light source, with no floor or celling dividing it in half.
Based on the scaling of the bridge, atrium and shuttlebay, yes. What we see in this shot is not.
We already know ILM used multiple scales of ship in the first movie (the 350-ish meter ship used in the shipyard scene, for example). This is evidence that they've done the same with this movie.
The bright horizontal centre line looks exactly like what's left of a deck divider or exit from a double height deck observation area. We know how big a human being is from the shots of the bridge window and a four deck saucer edge fits perfectly.
Nothing you have said changes the fact that the ship is 725 meters long, why bang on about it, I can understand if you don't like it but its tough.
I see that part you're talking about, but it appears to be twisted debris sticking into the corridor. It extends out into the dark and bends upwards to join the other bits of hull.
There's no evidence that such an observation deck or juncture exists on this Enterprise. What we see is constant with the single-deck set used throughout the rest of the film.
I like the larger size quite a bit, actually. And I'm not disputing that the preponderance of data supports the 725 meter size. What I am pointing out is that ILM was not constant about it throughout the film. I've lurked this thread since the beginning, and it's annoying watching people be ideologues about that fact.
This shot is worth revisiting because it got discussed earlier in the thread with bootleg footage; now we have a clear copy and can take another look. It's clear that, contrary to earlier analysis, in this scene the saucer is two to three decks tall.
You'd think when they switched to CGI they'd at last get rid of scaling problems.
Ha! I work in the VFX industry and I can tell you first hand that scaling problems are even easier with CGI. A little tweak here and there, and BOOM! Nothing lines up any more.
The bootleg copy was clear enough the first time, and no it is not clear that the saucer is two to three decks tall.
In your opinion it is, this is a size argument thread to identify how large the NuEnterprise is, questioning the number of decks in one place or the size of x in another place does not really add anything new or change the fact that the size has been confirmed by multiple official sources.
I am done with this, maybe some of the others will be willing to go over the same stuff again.
That looks like two decks only alright.
Thank you. I made this point many pages ago, concerning that scene. The shot clearly shows a complete corridor exposed, taking up half the saucer height. Ergo, the rim is two decks high. But I was swarmed by posters who were convinced it showed 4 corridors, etc...
I will also re-iterate another point: when Khan jumps from the bridge of the crashed Vengeance, the only thing he could possibly be spanning is the gap in the saucer. Sulu exclaims "Whoa! He just jumped 30 metres!", which puts the Vengeance at about 750-800m long (of course, I'm not sure why this is impressive, since the 30m was mostly vertical, but...).
Thanks for the screencap! Here's what I worked out:
Keep in mind that none of the new Enterprise schematics available online are exact matches for the real ship. Their proportions differ quite a bit. I'm using the view which appears on the bluray here since it's the only one directly from Paramount. I'll post a comparison of the schematics' differences at some point.
Yup, still needs the room available in the 725m range to make it fit inside.
Sorry, just to get this right, King Daniel, are you saying that the very edges of the saucer could be 2 decks tall while still keeping the proportions of a 725m ship?
It seems like three decks would fit, but not to the very edge. The way it curves at the edge leaves only room for two - and I think it's that, and an extreme close-up shot, that are giving the impression of a flatter saucer. If that makes sense.
Having stared at all the photos and that gif for a long time, I'm beginning to see how at least 3 decks could fit over there. The 2 deck set-up simply doesn't match very well. Although I'm still trying to picture in my mind how the ship works out to be 700+m (although I'm confident it is), it just doesn't make sense as a 300+m ship.
I look forward to more of whatever you guys can dig up.
Now I went to look at the windows of all the Enterprises to get a feel of how many decks fit in them...and my goodness, none of the ships are perfectly in-scale with each other. It's like they adopt a new scale for each Enterprise!
Then why do you keep using them, and finding a way to squeeze in as many decks as you can? As you love to say (parapharsed): look at the photographic EVIDENCE! I see one deck fully exposed in that hull breach, fitting perfectly between the upper and lower line on the saucer edge. There is room for one more deck below it.
I guess the decks above and below those are for Keenser, a few Hobbits, and the diplomatic liaisons from the Merry Old Planet of Oz? (because they all hate looking out into space, there are obviously no windows).
Slight inaccuracies does not suddenly invalidate the large amount of visual evidence for a 700m+ ship, which is expressely the size given by everyone who worked on the design of the ship, even if they couldn't perfectly convay that in every shot in a tight work schedule.
It's a bigger ship, not the skinny little grey lady from 1966 anymore.
I am willing to believe up to about 400m maybe (which makes Vengeance's 800m precisely "twice the size"). But not much bigger. 700m is ludicrous, as I've always said.
And please, please explain to me how the bridge, atrium, shuttlebay and engine rooms are supposed to fit into a 366m ship. I asked you this before and you never replied.
Separate names with a comma.