Time barrier was broken. Meaning that the previous system was a 'make do' system.
Under the line of thought for 2236, how did they get to the stars, without warp drive????
How big was the Enterprise?
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
Under the line of thought for 2236, how did they get to the stars, without warp drive????
Do you realize how arrogant you sound, or do you just not care?
It's on screen for 4 seconds, why go to the trouble to show it at all? because it's the only way to establish relative sizes between the 2 ships, in order to stress that the Enterprise was in real danger. There is no other storytelling reason for it.
Hanger Bay. Bridge (lets argue if it's offset 36 degrees). The sets in TMP are another can of worms as well.
It ceased to be pre-production and became production when they used the older tall dome version effects shots in the series itself. There are 2 different sized Enterprises used interchangeably within the series.
Slightly different subject, I'm curious, what's your position on the bits of the Frans Joseph blueprints we glimpsed in The Motion Picture? Any larger implications?
I give as I get.
Hangar. Sorry!
Don't worry, they spelled it wrong on the sign on set too!
It's really simple:
"We changed it." It used to be one thing. Now they made it another thing.
Quit this crap about "Ohhhhh, you know, nobody has really ever known FOR SURE what the size of the ship was. It was never said on screen, you know."
Horsepucky. For whatever reason, having a spaceship the length of a nuclear aircraft carrier has been deemed insufficient. (I have a sneaking suspicion it has something to do with Star Destroyers. Or even the Galaxy class.)
There's no "Oh! Thankfully we never KNEW how big the ship was so now we can make it what we want!"
No. It used to be one thing. Now they made it another thing.
"We changed it." It used to be one thing. Now they made it another thing.
Quit this crap about "Ohhhhh, you know, nobody has really ever known FOR SURE what the size of the ship was. It was never said on screen, you know."
Horsepucky. For whatever reason, having a spaceship the length of a nuclear aircraft carrier has been deemed insufficient. (I have a sneaking suspicion it has something to do with Star Destroyers. Or even the Galaxy class.)
There's no "Oh! Thankfully we never KNEW how big the ship was so now we can make it what we want!"
No. It used to be one thing. Now they made it another thing.
Meanwhile, five seconds earlier:
Now maybe that was insurance in case the exterior shot couldn't be made to work in post . . . or maybe they wanted to establish "BATTLE CRUISER / KLINGON EMPIRE" as with the "Klingon design" reference in the script. You don't know and I don't either, so let's not make up narratives of what happened and what not stopping the whole production to fix it supposedly proves or doesn't prove when neither made-up narrative actually proves anything.
There isn't much to any of those. As for the hangar bay:
The bridge is sunken into deck two and not offset, in my opinion.
As for TMP sets, we all know of Michelson's Folly with the Rec Deck, so I can't imagine bringing up such an error seriously. The matte painting for the cargo/shuttle decks were also either painted or composited incorrectly and thus appear too wide.
Again, big whoop . . . not sufficient to overturn decades of interconnected facts, that's for sure.
Even if there are issues exceeding margin-of-error a bit . . . well:
Also, let me just pause here to note that it is incredibly ironic, if not altogether outrageous, for the rescalers / length truthers who want the Discoprise length accepted to be complaining about this. The TMP matte paintings were done at a time before CGI could have allowed people to get things perfect, though now that we have it no one in the new productions cares to do so.
Seriously, if you're gonna be all "yay 442 at last!", consistency dictates you immediately move on to the next length based on these shots, which is like a mile or something. I'll wait.
The height of the dome (built too high on the eleven footer) doesn't affect the size of the rest of the ship any more than adding another story to a house expands its footprint.
Models. More than that, actually. So what?
If we can view the shuttle-bay through a solid wall why can't the shots of the turbo lift funhouse be with all ship structure removed so we can see the turbo lift running on its track?
I know the models are different sizes. What I'm saying is, the Cage and WNMHGB 11 foot model was detailed to be a ship around 620 feet long, with one deck in the saucer. When the series started they shortened deck 1 and, most importantly, added a second row of windows to the saucer rim, because the ship was now 947 feet long. In other words, they increased the size of the ship by 50% because it wasn't big enough to maintain suspension of disbelief. Even so, they continued to use shots of the smaller ship as if it was the larger one. If one producer is allowed to make the ship bigger regardless of the exterior detail then so is another. So the TOS enterprise can be 1384 feet even if when the footage was shot it was thought to be 947 feet.
I remember "The ship is too small for the hangar" discussions from the 90s and I'm sure they happened earlier too. This has nothing to do with Star Wars or TNG or anything like that, it's all about nerds analyzing the shit out of the episodes and trying to figure out how everything works and this inevitably leads to them realizing the ship should be bigger based on what is shown on screen.
And we’ve all seen it, going from TOS when the shuttle bay was big enough to hold four or five Galileoes side-by-side to fan-art and TOS-R “properly” scaling the bay to 947' and those depictions being able barely hold two shuttles abreast.
Because the sparks, flying robots, et cetera all demonstrate open space rather than x-ray vision.
540, I thought, but fewer windows don't make for a smaller ship outside of combination with other information. Canonically, it is the same as later.
Nerd scalings can be wrong. I'm known to a particular astrophysicist who scaled the second Death Star to a whopping 900 kilometers based on erroneous reasoning. That's part of why you'll see 160 kilometers now.
Last edited:
lol
But in the case of TOS they didn't try to scale a moon sized object with no discernible features that allow for easy scaling, they worked with a shuttle which existed as a full sized prop next to the actors and was seen inside the hangar which makes it relatively easy to extrapolate the hangar's size from that.
The hangar as seen on tv does not fit into a 950 feet long Enterprise, it's wider than the hull.
Oh, the irony.
Even if so, it isn't by much. I believe the claim is that one needs to shave the side alcoves down a bit? That hardly justifies embiggening the veritable yardstick starship of Star Trek.
Nonsense! It would only be ironic if there had been some sort of canonical statement or similar indication about the size of the ship when it was in its claimed smaller form. There was not, because this entire argument is a farce. The concept was up to the full size by the time any model construction began in November 1964. Per Shaw the size was fixed in October 1964. The Cage wasn't in the can until January 1965.
Besides which, my original reply was pointing out that even if the statements on size had been true, the exact same model shots are used throughout the series and therefore represent the same size ship whose length is canonically known.
So, the only irony is seeing an imaginary smaller length argued alongside imaginary larger ones, all while seeking to evade the canonical length.
I'll need to see documentation of this because the additional windows and the doubling in crew compliment in dialogue certainly imply the size wasn't increased until later.
