When they are all the same length, one would typically not assume that they are being drawn to scale, but you do you.
But please, feel free to expand upon your hypothesis as to why the ships in the other drawings are not all the same size.
When they are all the same length, one would typically not assume that they are being drawn to scale, but you do you.
But please, feel free to expand upon your hypothesis as to why the ships in the other drawings are not all the same size.
No. Dumb is thinking that barely seen displays that constantly get contradicted by newer canon is any kind of credible evidence for anything.
TBH it’s a fair point, and good evidence of the then-canon intent. But it’s also a crude drawing from a children’s textbook, has no dimensions listed and has at least two drawings that are not supposed to be in scale with the others.
I don’t think anyone is pretending that the SNW Enterprise *isn’t* a retcon, it’s just that it’s one that can be made to fit with relative ease. The Bonaventure on that drawing is a perfect example of how things that were once considered canon can be retconned by later writers.
Actually, that is the perfect image, and I'm probably going to use that a lot from now on.
Don't forget the TNG Conference Room wall.
"Show me evidence! No, not that evidence!"
There is no mountain, and there certainly ain't no mountain high enough.
what is the ship in the bottom right corner?
A Norway class starship.
I honestly don't remember them, but that makes sense - my interest was waning after First Contact which apparently was their first appearance.
God, I would have been SO OK with that retcon! Even if it made no sense, just to see that wonderful, beautiful ship model on the screen each episode. So many angles it looks amazing at. It would have been a sight to behold. You would just have to think that the TMP refit was just the interior technology, and thats easy to buy. Not one complaint from me to be heard lol.
While people are showing videos of reimagined Enterprises, I thought this was a nice attempt to add some extra detail to the original TOS design:
It's still going with the 'change stuff for no reason other than the artist thought it'd look cool' approach as SNW and to be honest I'd rather any updates were subtle enough to only be visible when the camera got close... but that's still a nice looking model.
It's still going with the 'change stuff for no reason other than the artist thought it'd look cool' approach as SNW and to be honest I'd rather any updates were subtle enough to only be visible when the camera got close... but that's still a nice looking model.
I'm afraid _HotRod's post_ disproves your argument, if you accept the version of the drawing he posted as meaningful, canonically. Even of you don't, it's ships of classes that happened to include Enterprises, more or less, but not a list of Enterprises.
1. I thought your argument was that the ships were always bigger. Now you're saying they have been embiggened in newer material.
Please pick one.
2. There is no contradiction by newer canon, unless you're acknowledging that the 2017+ productions are meant to overwrite the original material. However, fans of the new "Star Trek Universe" material typically retreat from that view and argue that it is all the same, either via refit or via squinting.
So, overwrite, refit, or pretending they're the same / not caring they aren't? I would say please pick one, but none of those work.
If you view the new material as an overwrite, then it doesn't matter what existed before, so there's no reason for the denialism over the original canon's declared sizes ... especially if you're going to claim they are overwritten when challenged.
If your position is refit, then you're forced to deal with numerous hull-changing rebuilds, which end up logically unsupportable, as previously shown in other threads.
If your position is to squint, literally or figuratively, then you cannot make any objective claims about size at all, because your position is that there is no objective fictional reality to be observed. It's all just an impressionistic representation, thus you have no basis from which to argue.
I'm saying that the TOS/TMP Enterprise and the Excelsior should be far larger than the official sizes. I could say the same things about the Defiant, BoP, Oberth class, etc., but they have nothing to do with transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology, which is the topic of this thread. You're the one going off on some tangent/rant/whatever, that is meaningless to my statement.
They're all wrong, some more than others.
It has only one of two known carriers and omitted other vehicles referenced in other artwork, e.g. Archer's ready room and the TMP Rec Deck. It was thus hardly a complete list, was clearly not intended to be so, so this is just FUD-level smearing against the evidence presented.
Close enough for artistic representation. Certainly it matches the other relative scales I showed.
You’re presenting a false set of options.
None of the above.
It’s the same Enterprise, just visually reinterpreted for a modern show.
That’s how television works. The USS Enterprise NCC-1701 seen in Strange New Worlds is meant to represent the same ship from The Original Series. The visuals are simply updated because the show isn’t being produced with 1960s budgets, sets, and effects anymore.
Canon is about the story. Production design evolves with the era.
But that is not how Star Trek has EVER worked, over 50+ years, until now. So, I disagree with that whole thought process.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture disagrees with you.
Are we measuring in bricks now?
You posted the following amongst the opening shots of this latest engagement:
You may not have quoted anyone, but you were participating in the conversation, declaring a position regarding a topic being discussed and, by the verbiage, suggesting your position was objectively true.
You also then challenged counterevidence I posted to someone else on the grounds that an obviously separate image somehow disproved the relatives sizes. When called out on this, you retreated to arguing that the old material was overwritten, which is contrary to your initial claim. When called out on that, you retreated to this assertion that I'm off on some tangent/rant and you weren't doing anything.
Please, do not attempt to gaslight further. All of this has occurred in only two pages. Anyone can follow it.
The fun part here is that you apparently acknowledge much of what I say so long as it isn't me saying it:
So, let's step back a bit . . . we have repeatedly seen efforts to show the audience the relative scales of the Constitution, Galaxy, et cetera. They even recreated a special effects shot (!) in TNG, now with the relative scale more apparent.
Are you guys now arguing that the Enterprise-D is 980 meters, or are you folks just discarding more canonical evidence you don't like because it doesn't fit the 'elitist contrarianism' schtick where finding some production error or compromise is casus belli against the hoi polloi who accept the canon and official scales?
In "The Ultimate Computer," they replaced the Woden's original DY-100 "Space Seed" footage with an Antares-class CGI model [link].
According to what you just said, they didn't make that update because the show wasn’t being produced with 1960s budgets, sets, and effects anymore. You just said that's not how Star Trek has EVER worked. So, then, just what in the world were they doing instead?
But that was explained in-universe.
Similar threads
- Poll
