Starship Size Argument™ thread

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by WarpFactorZ, May 1, 2013.

  1. Kruezerman

    Kruezerman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Location:
    Meatloaf with Macaroni and Cheese
    It also likes to be called "Sexy."
     
  2. YellowSubmarine

    YellowSubmarine Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Poor Keenser. With her around, he has little chance.
     
  3. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Doug Drexler cheated when he made that - he scaled the old Enterprise up quite a bit to fit everything inside.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Matt Jeffries designed the old Enterprise to have 20 decks, as can be seen on the cutaway in The Making of Star Trek (and this version by Shaw - CLICK) - but for some reason, Gene Roddenberry decided there were 23. Franz Joseph, tasked with creating complete Enterprise floorplans (online here: CLICK) squeezed in these extra decks by trimming two feet from each, making the decks on his version of the ship shorter than the 9ft+ TOS sets.
     
  4. gerbil

    gerbil Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    I love that we're arguing based on a design that's clearly either nonsensical or designed poorly in the first place. The placement of the turbolift on the bridge is ridiculous. Either the bridge is at a 30 degree angle to the front of the ship or the model is inconsistent with the set. Based on what we see later in the movies, it's obviously the latter. The bridge was always meant to face forward. Even the pilot shows the bridge crew oriented forward when being viewed from outside the main window.

    Just a little perspective.
     
  5. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    ^Well, I don't think a forward-facing bridge one the "almost totally new" Enterprise of the classic movies disproves anything about the original. But you're right about "The Cage" showing a forward-facing bridge where the turbolift and shaft wouldn't fit.


    Anyway, back on topic. With the digital release of Into Darkness there are tons more clips and screengrabs out there. Here's shuttlebay 2, located about where I'd guessimated:
    [​IMG]

    And here are two comparison shots of the bridge windows, the lower-detail version for general exterior shots and the higher-detail version which was composited with the actual set. The taller high-detail model is scaled for a 725m Enterprise (see pics way earlier in the thread). I wonder if perhaps they made the lower-detail version shorter to obscure the view inside, which would have increased ILM's workload quite a bit (placing virtual actors at stations and ensuring it all matched up with where everyone was in the interior shots)
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Finally, here is a shot of the atrium during the fall sequence, showing all the decks in the saucer section:
    [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_F422arRuQ[/yt]
     
  6. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    The bridge window is sort of like TNG ENT-D impulse deck. Firsts its square, when it is really more rectangular.
     
  7. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Geez, I love how they are already falling inside the ship even though the Enterprise is way too far away from Earth. What a stupidly executed scene.
     
  8. gerbil

    gerbil Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2001
    Location:
    USA
  9. Chemahkuu

    Chemahkuu Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The ship was tumbling end over end, the internal gravity was not compensating either enough, or at all, not changing the direction of "up" so that no matter how the ship twisted, it kept applying gravity as if it weren't, gyroscopically speaking.
     
  10. SeerSGB

    SeerSGB Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    RIP Leonard Nimoy
    The tumbling scene stars just after Sulu says they've been caught in Earth's gravity and are being pulled in. Then Spock states that gravity is failing. The external shots show the ship tumbling and crashing towards and into Earth. Nothing stuck out to me about it.
     
  11. WarpFactorZ

    WarpFactorZ Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    No, if the ship was tumbling, they would feel centrifugal forces away from the center of rotation. People wouldn't be "falling" all in the same direction (i.e. toward Earth).

    Don't bother defending the scene. It was completely absurd.
     
  12. SeerSGB

    SeerSGB Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    RIP Leonard Nimoy
    No where near the most eye rolling in the franchise or even in the film era.
     
  13. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    :lol:

    But that's okay. Because J.J. Abrams wasn't making it. :techman:
     
  14. WarpFactorZ

    WarpFactorZ Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013

    Has nothing to do with JJ. Don't put words in my mouth.

    It has to do with the fact that people are making shit up to justify a dumb scene.
     
  15. SeerSGB

    SeerSGB Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Location:
    RIP Leonard Nimoy
    In short: sci-fi fans.

    The scene is not a stand out beyond being visually impressive and something we've not seen before in a Trek movie. The "quality" of the scene--the movie overall--is on average with prior Trek movies.
     
  16. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    It isn't the first "dumb" scene in Star Trek's illustrious history and it isn't the first time fans have attempted to justify something on screen that makes no sense.

    Have you gotten equally outraged?
     
  17. WarpFactorZ

    WarpFactorZ Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Do I have to voice my outrage about every "bad science" scene in this thread?
     
  18. Flake

    Flake Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    The whole concept of Star Trek and everything in it is absurd and mostly impossible so fixating on this dodgy gravity is illogical. Instead of dismissing it why not come up with an in-universe technobabble explanation instead?

    Centrifugal forces and failing 'gravity systems' coupled with failed 'inertial dampeners' and the 'grav plating' randomly depolarising where causing havoc aboard ship. Easy :)
     
  19. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    You're tap-dancing around the question.

    Do you get equally outraged by bad science and fans attempting to explain it when those things happen in the various TV series and other Trek movies?
     
  20. WarpFactorZ

    WarpFactorZ Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Your question is designed to frame me as a "JJ hater," when that's not the point. FYI, the same crap happened in Disney's The Black Hole, and it was equally stupid then.
     

Share This Page