Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by WarpFactorZ, May 1, 2013.
If it's the actual model, why does it not have the "NCC-1701" markings on the nacelle?
I guess they didn't have all the decals on when they rendered it
IIRC, they're originally from a Cenefax interview with Ryan Church.
I love profiles like that.
I actually don't give a crap how big Enterprise is. As long as it sticks to the basic design. So what if it's 700m / 800m / 350m long ? It doesn't matter - it doesn't exist.
When go to see Star trek - I expect the Enterprise to be in it. I care 0% about how big it is. It's science fiction. It's not meant to be 100% plausible or scientifically sound.
No, not die, but...
[ IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/trektv/trektv/ttv_15/trek_tv_15.jpg[/ IMG]
[Converted to link. Embedded images should be hosted on web space registered to you. - M']
(Sorry to revive a dead thread...)
The policy on reviving dead threads is pretty clearly "beep beep!"
If nuKirk got revived with magic blood, why can't a thread be revived?
The Starship Size Argument™ will never die.
Remember that guy insisting the bridge took up the entire of the USS Vengeance's centre dome? "Bridge is only a small portion of area"
The fact that NuKirk got revived with magic blood should be proof enough that such revivals are not a good idea.
Having said that, I actually like it when threads PLANET OF THE TITANS and 'missing TMP spacewalk footage' get revived, because you never know when somebody will actually have come across something new.
but on this subject, once you have the proof that the ship got its scale revised during production, the whole thing seems about as productive as a 'star destroyer' vs fed starship' debate, which for me (to quote a David Gerrold character) is about as welcome as a fart in an airlock.
Bumping an inactive thread isn't automatically a bad thing (as long as it's on-topic - which this only sorta is, having nothing to do with the main Starship Size Argument™ discussion this thread was created to contain) but doing so while using an embedded image hotlinked from web space not your own is less-than-exemplary form. Better either to link to the page or to make your point without using a picture.
Don't tempt me.
Star Destroyer wins.
It's bigger, but since Trek has often pointed out that lasers are vastly more primitive than phasers, and SW ships have no shielding nor transporters, I doubt they'd stand much of a chance.
Then again, nuTrek phasers are pretty much blasters, because Abrams.
The Abramsverse phasers look the same as the Wrath of Khan ones to me.
Huh? WoK phasers are continuous beams. That they pulse in strength doesn't make them the same as Abrams' "quanta."
They're definitely pulses. Look when Kirk says "best guess, Mr. Sulu. Fire when ready."
Don't leave out the pulse phasers from the Defiant--which are even closer to what we get in the NuVerse.
Star Wars ships have shields. (They're mentioned in A New Hope during the attack on the Death Star. "All shields, double front!")
And if you accept the EU, the "lasers" are a different tech using the wrong name. Which makes sense, as what we see on screen aren't lasers.
Separate names with a comma.