Is this common knowledge? Do I need to turn in my nerd card because I cannot remember where to learn about official sizes?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I'm not the one who seems to think the TOS Enterprise and the TMP Enterprise look identical.
They're official in that these were the sizes Paramount agreed to when it came to licensing.
It terms being canon? No one has ever stated outright that the Enterprise is *insert number here* long.
The 442m number comes from production sources and the Dedication plaque on the Bridge.
The 289m number comes from production sources and a size chart seen on screen that compared the Enterprise to a Klingon D7. It had a scale in the corner that wasn't legible on 60's TV, but is known to put the Enterprise at about 950' long.
The 305m is from production sources. I don't think we ever had anything on screen listing her size, but there was a schematic shown in ST:VI, but I'm not sure if it had a scale.
Last edited:
That's it. I'm buying Star Trek, rebooting the whole thing and the first thing will be a size chart so I can keep track of the damn things!
I'll chip in a few bucks.That's it. I'm buying Star Trek, rebooting the whole thing and the first thing will be a size chart so I can keep track of the damn things!
Things like this always make me feel old because I remember before TNG and before it because "Sulu's ship" it was "the flying bathtub".
It's basically the first several notes (five?) of what would be the finished theme. The quote that you hear at the end of the Overture (Ilia's theme) is what was going to be the entirety of the theme.
I'm a huge fan of James Horner's theme as well. And if we're only doing TV themes, DS9 is just so good.
But then I'm not sure there's a theme I don't like. I even like Disco and Picard! EDIT: YES that include Enterprise!
"Identical" is different from "not that different" which is different from "deliberately ignored, if not outright retconned".
If it makes you feel better, the TOS ship is not identical to TMP. Kirk's TOS Enterprise is also not identical to Pike's Enterprise from The Cage. They're really not identical to SNW. All of the ships from 1964-1979 have the advantage of being meant to be all about the same size as each other.
They were pretty nailed down until 2009. Edit: Perhaps that's controversial.That's it. I'm buying Star Trek, rebooting the whole thing and the first thing will be a size chart so I can keep track of the damn things!
So nailed down that despite enjoying TOS type material for multiple years, including the Concordance, Franz Joseph's manual, etc, I could not have told you the length of the stupid ship. Mostly because it never struck me as that freaking important until I got here. Even models I played with didn't much matter. We just played with them.
I recall not liking the TMP refit because it looks like a totally new ship. It's not one I found particularly appealing like the TOS one. SNW works for me because it's a good blend of the two.
That's it. I'm buying Star Trek, rebooting the whole thing and the first thing will be a size chart so I can keep track of the damn things!
Doing the lord's work
I'm trying to think now if any starship has had a specific size stated on screen. Though even in the absence of explicit dialogue or clear graphics (which don't always help), beyond what the production teams have stated we can often infer ship size from things like hatches, windows, shuttles and so on.
The Enterprise as depicted in "The Cage" was meant to be significantly smaller. You can see it with the bigger bridge dome and single row of windows on the saucer rim.
Closest we got was Picard saying that the Enterprise-E was "almost 700m long" in First Contact.
Of course we can infer but there are a lot (or maybe I'm just now noticing) of comments around "the length is all wrong." and I'm going "What made it right in the first place?" and then I get confused. But, again, ships are not my first love in Star Trek so maybe I'm the wrong person to observe such things.
TAS Season 2 was ahead of its time.
That's right. You read that right. Why? Because it had a six-episode season.
That's right. You read that right. Why? Because it had a six-episode season.
TAS Season 2 was ahead of its time.
That's right. You read that right. Why? Because it had a six-episode season.
I've been saying for 20 years, trek needs to do some miniseries (or "Limited series"). Especially in the age of streaming.
6-13 episodes, unique crews, unique time periods, unique stories and situations. The advantage of longer form storytelling without getting bogged down in multi season arcs or finding ways to increasingly shoe horn in the same crew into more and more outlandish situations.
You can still do flagship long term multi season shows along with them, then these as events.
Trek has been talking about doing this for years (Meyers Khan miniseries, Picard being a limited season before they decided nah and quickly tacked on the new ending, the new Section 31 TV movie) but they've never actually done it.
A lot of starships were designed to be a specific size. We know Richard Taylor and Andrew Probert designed the refit Enterprise to be exactly 1000 feet (304.8m) long. Andrew Probert later designed the Enterprise-D to be 2108 feet (642.5m) long (originally 2000 feet long in fact, but Roddenberry made him extend the nacelles backwards a bit). Nilo Rodis, one of the production designers for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and co-designer of the Excelsior, drew a size comparison chart for the movie giving the Excelsior's length as 1531 feet (466.6m). And Rick Sternbach designed Voyager to be 344m long, intending for it to be roughly the same overall size as the original Enterprise (in fact it has about double the volume because of how comparatively chunky it is).
The problem is that there are many cases where the designer's intended size is not used by the production team. Sometimes this is unintentional – for example, the Enterprise refit, the Excelsior, and the various Enterprise-D filming models were all at different scales, so it was impossible to film any of them together and have them appear accurately sized without having to fudge it in post-production.
And sometimes this is intentional. lnfamously, Ryan Church designed the Enterprise for Star Trek (2009) at 366m in length, making it more-or-less in proportion with the Enterprise refit, and JJ Abrams just doubled it to give it "more presence". Deep Space 9 was designed at around 750m in diameter, but was hugely scaled up to dwarf the Enterprise-D in "Emissary", even though we can clearly see how big the ops dome, the standard "porthole" windows, and large promenade windows are on the sets, and even though sometimes it has to be shrunk in subsequent effects shots so as not to look completely disproportionate (most notably with the spacesuited technicians working on its hull in the season 4+ title sequence). Let's not go near the Defiant, which would sometimes change scale (and physical proportions!) between shots, depending on the intent of the production team and the specific model being used. And the Delta Flyer was designed at 15m in length, yet the interior sets require it to be bigger – too big, in fact, to fit through Voyager's shuttlebay doors.
And other times it's a combination of the two – while the designers may intend their designs to be at a specific size they often aren't the people building the physical or CGI models that will be used on screen, and there are cases where that is where changes were introduced without the original designer's knowledge or consent. We know that Sean Hargreaves's Enterprise-A from Star Trek Beyond was extensively modified from his original concept by the CGI artists. And John Eaves's original concept for the DIS/SNW Enterprise was modified by the CGI artists as well, most notably in being given swept back TMP-style nacelle pylons instead of the TOS-style perpendicular ones he originally intended.
Last edited:
I seem to remember George Takei actively lobbying for a Captain Sulu miniseries following his appearance in VOY: "Flashback".
Nonsense. Audiences--like those who produced the "crossovers" knew TOS production standards / art direction was not Rocky Jones, Space Ranger, but the sound design the rest of the franchise up to that point was built on.
All productions within a franchise are not equal. There's no TV or movie franchise past or present where the scales of entertainment, historical importance, cultural impact and other factors are balanced. Some productions hit that goldmine--others did not, and ST is no stranger to this.
...along with Phaser and Communicator designs. Further, TAS--the TOS sequel series (continuation in all elements, including visuals) introduced the second bridge turbolift which would appear where? TMP and every ST series in Berman-Trek. TAS also introduced purpose-built shuttlecraft--another innovation used throughout the franchise, whether for appearance or in-universe purpose. B-but gee...I thought TOS was too "primitive" to use as the foundation for the in-universe source / progression of design?
Of course it is, but to someone who despises TOS to the degree of a certain someone, ST pretty much launched with TMP--a ridiculous belief, but that's where TOS hatred leads some.
Amusing. TOS' bridge had real world attention (the Navy, etc.) and has been repeatedly cited as a logical design for a command center. No one says that about the JJ-Apple Store, or whatever the DISCO bridge was supposed to be.
How dare you post a sound observation!
Then I welcome a 2020s production to do the same.
Arrogance is not a becoming trait in a franchise.
No one said progression of design. The claim is around the 60s era specific effects used. Use that, do that in a 2020s production, no progression no changes.
No one, eh?
I love being called no one in a discussion.
It really did look like a bathtub.
It's really fun watching people twist the argument "the look of TOS really doesn't hold up today" into "all of Star Trek's design is terrible" and get all indignant about it. Second turbolift. Is that really the best you've got?
You really think that they were specifically looking at the TOS bridge? Not just a generalised command centre with perimeter work stations and a centrally located command officer? Did they want the railings and the red plastic highlights as well? The Abramsprise and Discovery bridges absolutely match those same criteria. You think the TOS bridge specifically is a logical design but the other bridges based on it aren't? "Amusing" indeed. This is ludicrous.
Incidentally – Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale were contacted by the US military to ask what they knew about the design of portable vehicle-mounted nuclear reactors after the release of Back to the Future. "Real world attention" doesn't necessarily mean anything.
I like the TOS Enterprise bridge. I also like the USS Discovery bridge. I think the DSC Enterprise bridge did the best it could meshing the TOS Look with the DSC Look, but it ended up looking way too busy. The SNW Enterprise bridge toned down some of the excess from the Disco version, so now I no longer think it's trying too hard to have it both ways.
For the exterior of the DSC/SNW Enterprise, I like that they massaged the design into something that could fit between the NX-01 and the Refit. I have no complaints there. And I won't pretend I care about the differences between the rest of the interiors. The only thing I wasn't too enamored with was the Enterprise bridge in DSC, and they've toned it down for SNW, like I said. It's not my favorite, not anywhere close, but I can live with it.
I'll take the SNW Enterprise over the Kelvin Enterprise.
My absolute favorite aesthetics are the ones seen in the TOS Movies and in Picard. I love the late-23rd and now early-25th Century aesthetics.
The ships in early-DSC look like they should be Post-TUC. I can suspend my disbelief, but I think they would've fit better from the 2290s onward. So I like them too, and it shouldn't be a surprise given what my other favorites are, but I won't argue with people who say they look out place for the time period. The ships in later-DSC look weird and eccentric and they should be, considering it's the 32nd Century, so I understand that and I have no problem with it; but they're not my go-to.
For the exterior of the DSC/SNW Enterprise, I like that they massaged the design into something that could fit between the NX-01 and the Refit. I have no complaints there. And I won't pretend I care about the differences between the rest of the interiors. The only thing I wasn't too enamored with was the Enterprise bridge in DSC, and they've toned it down for SNW, like I said. It's not my favorite, not anywhere close, but I can live with it.
I'll take the SNW Enterprise over the Kelvin Enterprise.
My absolute favorite aesthetics are the ones seen in the TOS Movies and in Picard. I love the late-23rd and now early-25th Century aesthetics.
The ships in early-DSC look like they should be Post-TUC. I can suspend my disbelief, but I think they would've fit better from the 2290s onward. So I like them too, and it shouldn't be a surprise given what my other favorites are, but I won't argue with people who say they look out place for the time period. The ships in later-DSC look weird and eccentric and they should be, considering it's the 32nd Century, so I understand that and I have no problem with it; but they're not my go-to.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
