Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by WarpFactorZ, May 1, 2013.
True, but this is a fun thread.
How big is the Enterprise as seen in "Into Darkness" say to my favourite ship the Andromeda Ascendant?
The thread was started because a bunch of people invented ways that the exterior of the ship (that looked identical to the original E) could match the interiors we saw in the films. This included requiring 2+ metre high windows, as well as putting 5 decks --- er... "levels" (most for Hobbits) -- in the middle of the saucer, when STiD clearly shows the expected two.
The reality is the ship was scaled differently for each scene, depending on what the drama required. But, it's really not worth arguing anymore. Photoshop has a "resize image" function that has no limitations, after all. And as "The Force Awakens" has taught us: JJ depends on that 500% increase.
I can't even
No, it really is three decks with a LOT of space in between them. It's basically a three-deck saucer with a five meter deck height and a considerable amount of armor plating between levels.
Which makes alot of sense to me. The "Paper thin" deck plating on previous ships doesn't leave nearly enough room for gravity generators, piping electrical elements for the lights, or even the "drop down" pressure doors we saw in TUC. Widely-spaced decks (with jeffries tubes and mechanical parts sandwiched between) makes a lot of sense on a starship.
Actually, I have gotten the impression that the intermix chambers from the 2013 game are actually inside one of the warp nacelles. No real specific reason for this assumption except that the cylindrical space into which that assembly fits is too small for its curve to actually match the contours of the secondary hull, and also the fact that we never saw that assembly before or since. Plus that huge rotating section in the front of the room only makes sense if it's part of the front of the nacelle cap.
Yes we do. It's 2,379.75 feet, 725 meters long.
I think the scale of the ship is actually pretty consistent - it's the 700+ meters length. The only confusion is that the ship was designed in a way that implies it's smaller than it really is because it has the same detailing as the old Enterprise. But it was piss obvious that it was gigantic right from its first appearance.
Yeah, the "rescaled from scene to scene" thing is a tremendous exageration. The smaller size only appears once, at the time when Kirk is watching the Enterprise from a distance at Riverside Shipyards. Subsequently, the ship is depicted at its larger scale pretty consistently, with the possible exception of the slightly altered "zoom in" model which has different proportions for the bridge window.
It's interesting how there's never been much controversy over the size of the Enterprise D, considering Probert originally designed the ship with a "single deck" saucer rim but the producers retconned it into two.
Except for it being specifically written, acted and made to be the part of the ship they were ejected from in the movie. Accessing it via corridors, and if you angle yourself right while on the upper level, seeing the curve of the ships neck outside.
There's no massive detour past the shuttlebay up the pylon and back, why only one nacelle, why is it so small, where are the warp coils, why is Scotty calling it them the ships main powerplanet/warp cores etc
This was all prior to Into Darkness and the new laser fusion core thing, so this was just how they originally invisioned the intermix system of the ship. It can still be viable given the depth of the stardrive, having the matter/antimatter core underneath feeding the three detachable dilithium chambers above that.
That wouldn't even be possible from that location, since the cores were ejected FROM the neck. Also, you should be able to see the saucer from that angle far more easily than the neck.
Of course I wasn't able to see either of those things, and not for lack of trying.
It's a turbolift cut; it could just lead just about ANYWHERE.
1) It's the one nacelle that's been disabled and they need both to get the ship moving
2) It's so small because it's IN THE NACELLE (those things are huge, you know
3) Behind that large circular bulkhead into which the energy beam from the reactor is inexplicably directed
4) The last REAL ship named "Enterprise" had eight reactors in four cores. This one probably has one in each nacelle, the main reactor in the engineering deck and maybe one more in the impulse deck.
It's still the main stardrive where the cores are so the game makes that apparent. The small LCARS displays show you in the engineering section when you pass by them.
Haven't seen that either, also not for lack of trying. As far as I can tell, the displays visible at that stage are generic lineart that don't provide any relevant information of any kind (spent quite some time trying to find one that would indicate WHERE the engineering section was relative to the deflector dish and the neck. No success).
The "core stage" being in the nacelle makes the most sense, however, since the room is laid out in such a way that it could easily be right behind the spinning nacelle cap with the energy beam pointing aft. That would also nicely explain how we managed to get into that part of the ship without needing to go through the brewery (I was kind of hoping to se that).
Time to fire up the diagram's again.
Now where's that dead horse flog emote gone to.
Same facts stand now as then WarpfactorZ, it's twice as big, deal with it.
P.S By the way if it's not worth arguing anymore why are you doing exactly that.
Nothing good can come from you flogging this particular dead horse again, let it go.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Deal with it.
We all did deal with it years ago, why bring it up again.
It's bigger, never mind.
There's a SINGLE scene in ST09 where it definitively isn't. Beyond that, it is now a dead issue: 725 meters.
Couldn't agree more.
I remember the first time I saw the 2009 film, Kirk, McCoy and Uhura had boarded the shuttle which had something like 20 people in it so not a small craft at all.
Then we see it fly to the rear of the new Enterprise and was dwarfed by the enormous outer bay doors, I then saw that there were racks of the same large shuttles on each side of the engineering section.
That was the point when I knew that the Enterprise was far bigger than the old one, no perhaps, no maybe.
The only question then was how much bigger, I could see just from looking at it on the screen that it was bigger than the Enterprise B ever was now that I had seen the shuttle in comparison, I thought at first it was around the Enterprise C in size but some of the other members of this forum (you know who you are) very kindly provided detailed diagrams to show it was in fact even bigger than the Enterprise C.
I can only conclude it's as long as the Enterprise E but perhaps not quite as wide as the Enterprise D.
I have reached this point not by wishing upon a star or building castles in the sky, I came to this conclusion as many others did by looking at the facts and comparisons against other objects of known size (the shuttle for instance).
It was good enough for me then and it's good enough for me now.
Actually it's almost EXACTLY the size of the Enterprise C. What throws people off is the length: almost a 200 of that 725 meter length is the extension of its huge warp nacelles behind the shuttle bay. I don't remember where I put the numbers, but I once calculated that if you removed both of their nacelles the reboot Enterprise is about 10% smaller than the Enterprise-C.
Food for thought:
Longer ≠ Bigger
Bigger ≠ More Advanced
Worth pointing out that in this scene (the Riverside Shipyard), the actual details of the ship are for the 725m (or therabouts) size. The people on the catwalks wouldn't fit on the exposed decks!
And of course, the scale is correct during the initial "under construction" teaser. What I'd give to get a close look at those CG models!
Separate names with a comma.