Discovery Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
What if they scaled the DSC Enterprise up because of their corridor sets.
Even if a visual reboot, why rescale the Constitution class ships??
So they're more accurate to the sets.
The commonly accepted non-canon size for the connie is too small for the TOS sets.
I doubt the casual viewer would care about that.
Casual viewer won't care that this Enterprise is bigger then the old one, hell they probably won't even notice.
Yes, that was my point.
G
Gonzo
Guest
I cannot lie, the Abramsprise nacelles are ample indeed.
Plus it has its own brewery, I don't drink myself but even I know that's a good thing.
So the new Enterprise is pretty close to what I thought it would be, 450-500m or roughly 1500 ft long.
It doesn't look like a minnow next to the Discovery which is a good thing, the difference between them is mostly nacelle on the Discovery which is no big deal.
But if you upscale the 1701 all of other Prime ships get proportionally scaled up.
Good
289 => 480 is about 66.09% increase
Under the new scaling...
Galaxy Class = 1,067 m
Sovereign Class = 1,137.7 m
Intrepid Class = 573 m
Excelsior Class = 849.1 m
Of course it could be just the TOS and Movie Era ships being re scaled, which makes the Intrepid Class similar
Under the new scaling...
Galaxy Class = 1,067 m
Sovereign Class = 1,137.7 m
Intrepid Class = 573 m
Excelsior Class = 849.1 m
Of course it could be just the TOS and Movie Era ships being re scaled, which makes the Intrepid Class similar
Since we've never had on screen confirmation of any of their dimensions, how is this a problem?
I came to the conclusion not too long ago that the original sizes were indeed too small for what we saw on screen (TOS + movies). I'm perfectly happy with a 450m Enterprise. I'm not a fan of the JJ-Prise size, however. It could just as easily have been 450m, but they had to fit the entire Budweiser brewery inside, apparently.
Yep, only the TOS (+TOS movie) ones.
The TNG era ships are very well scaled, both relative towards each other and in absolute (the Defiant size issues notwithstanding). But for the Ent-D, the Voyager, the E, the sizes fit pretty well. It's really only the TOS connie that was always heavily under-scaled (though only if you accepted the non-canon too small size, which I never did) - And thus also her peer ships, like the Reliant and the Excelsiour. They would have to be scaled up accordingly.
But the TNG (and ENT) era is technologically very much self-contained and thus seperated from the Connie size issue.
Last edited:
I would really like to hear a discussion with the designers and whoever the "Canon Keepers" are these days as to what is being updated, what wont be. And confirmation that there is consideration as to moving from the NX-01 era, through to TNG era - so they aren't just doing whatever they like. Is TNG era design considered untouchable?
Though the Excelsior class did appear alongside the D from time to time. But I do agree that if this size better fits the interiors, it is fine by me. The only problem is that my 1:1000 scale model kits are now the wrong size (or at least no longer 1:1000).
The trouble is that the Excelsior and Miranda classes frequently appear in TNG/DS9. If they were scaled correctly to begin with, the scales are now "wrong."
I think we should fix the "always torn up or exploding" thing with them first.
Similar threads
