movie XI questions(Potential Spoilers)

[USS KG5]

Sounds like technobabble taken to a new, insane, level.

The more I think about this movie, the madder I get.

Are you going through every thread on this board posting your unique brand of nonsense?

Watch the movie, if you like it fine, if you don't, also fine. I don't see how all this silly bashing helps anyone except the majority of people who think Trek fans are so detached from the real world they dare not see the whole thing as a film, and so anally retentive they can't sit down for fear of sucking up the chair!

I loved the film personally, seen it twice already. Really captures the spirit of TOS.

 

[Ronald Held]

A supernova could not cause that damage. maybe a subspace component? A GRB woudl be more reasonable technically, Was anyone concerned about the planet sized singularity in the Vulcan system, or the very small one made from the Narada, which might become a source of high energy radiation?
I agree that the Kelvin should not have held ~800 people and look like a destroyer or
maybe science vessel. The new Enterprise could be 2 times the size.
I tend to agree that Abrams, etc is using the reboot to do as they want, regardless of consistence.

 

[Timo]

I didn't see much evidence of the NCC-1701 being noticeably bigger than its TOS counterpart.

Cary mentioned a shuttle-launch sequence. Which one? When Captains Robau and Pike departed their respective ships, we saw very little of the bay interiors. When the gaggle of tiny shuttles (what, 18?) left the Kelvin, the size of the bay doors did not seem to differ from the TOS ship - only the internal holding capacity was surprising, but then again, this time the whole hull could have been dedicated to shuttles, rather than being shared by the main powerplant.

When the gaggle of the much larger Academy shuttles landed aboard the Enterprise, and settled on the two levels of docking shelves, the general height and depth of the facility seemed very TOS-like; these shuttles just were packed much, much tighter, and the doors and the bay were possibly a tad wider.

The bridge set was a bit bigger than the TOS counterpart - but this time, it was housed on "Deck 2", the wide deck beneath the topmost dome, as evidenced by the external shots of the combined front viewscreen/windshield... So no problems with fitting the bridge aboard even if TOS dimensions were retained.

As for rim windows, those always were of a misleading size and placement even in TOS and TMP. So once again, the saucer could be 1.5 decks thick, much as in TOS and TMP.

On the question of how Nero's 2233 intervention could have changed the ship "so much", I think there is no real problem. The TOS ship was supposedly the product of 2245; the STXI vessel was launched in 2258. Twelve years of time difference translated to a significant stylistic and technological difference in shipbuilding on Earth's 20th century; why not on Earth's 23rd?

As for the stardate issue, I think we could pretend that it was just coincidence that SD 2233 happened to match the year 2233, and SD 2258 happened to match the year 2258... I mean, in the TOS "system" there must have been at least one such chance match, too. And if stardates are cyclic (or have more than four digits, of which the first ones are usually dropped), then there'd be a number of such chance matches.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

I didn't see much evidence of the NCC-1701 being noticeably bigger than its TOS counterpart.

Cary mentioned a shuttle-launch sequence. Which one? When Captains Robau and Pike departed their respective ships, we saw very little of the bay interiors. When the gaggle of tiny shuttles (what, 18?) left the Kelvin, the size of the bay doors did not seem to differ from the TOS ship - only the internal holding capacity was surprising, but then again, this time the whole hull could have been dedicated to shuttles, rather than being shared by the main powerplant.

When the gaggle of the much larger Academy shuttles landed aboard the Enterprise, and settled on the two levels of docking shelves, the general height and depth of the facility seemed very TOS-like; these shuttles just were packed much, much tighter, and the doors and the bay were possibly a tad wider.

The bridge set was a bit bigger than the TOS counterpart - but this time, it was housed on "Deck 2", the wide deck beneath the topmost dome, as evidenced by the external shots of the combined front viewscreen/windshield... So no problems with fitting the bridge aboard even if TOS dimensions were retained.

As for rim windows, those always were of a misleading size and placement even in TOS and TMP. So once again, the saucer could be 1.5 decks thick, much as in TOS and TMP.

On the question of how Nero's 2233 intervention could have changed the ship "so much", I think there is no real problem. The TOS ship was supposedly the product of 2245; the STXI vessel was launched in 2258. Twelve years of time difference translated to a significant stylistic and technological difference in shipbuilding on Earth's 20th century; why not on Earth's 23rd?

As for the stardate issue, I think we could pretend that it was just coincidence that SD 2233 happened to match the year 2233, and SD 2258 happened to match the year 2258... I mean, in the TOS "system" there must have been at least one such chance match, too. And if stardates are cyclic (or have more than four digits, of which the first ones are usually dropped), then there'd be a number of such chance matches.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ronald Held]

So the Bridge comprises Decks one and two? if there were two decks of shuttles, each volume was the roughly the same as the 2245 Enterprise?
I will pass on the preWNMHGB stardates for now,
Pike's cage Enterprise was in about 2254, and the WNMHGB Enterprise in about 2265 does not look that extremely more advanced. Then again, the Kelvin(2233) may have had more physically primitive input consoles, but much more advanced displays than the Enterprise-A.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Cary mentioned a shuttle-launch sequence. Which one?

Since I was talking about the scale of the nu-Enterprise, I thought that was pretty obvious.

We see quite a bit of the interior of the nu-Enterprise hangar during that launch sequence. You can see rows upon rows of shuttlecraft... stacked one on top of the next... along the sides of that big bay.

You can find that clip in several places, but here's one I found with a quick web search:

http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/40209/extra-clip

When the gaggle of the much larger Academy shuttles landed aboard the Enterprise, and settled on the two levels of docking shelves, the general height and depth of the facility seemed very TOS-like; these shuttles just were packed much, much tighter, and the doors and the bay were possibly a tad wider.

I'm a bit confused by how you can be missing this... I mean, these shuttles are, each , significantly larger than the TOS shuttlecraft we know. The entire TOS landing bay is only just about exactly 3 decks high, to begin with, is almost exactly as wide as it is tall, and only about 1-1/2 or 2x as long as it is wide (not counting the area inside the door rotational half-circle area)

So, here's a little exercise - figure out the size of the nuTrek shuttle. Shouldn't be too difficult. Note that they're stacked "nose-in" along the sides of the bay, and note the distance from "centerline" (where the launching shuttle is) to the "shuttle shelves" along each side. That will give you a MINIMUM width for the hull in that region.

Now, note the number of shuttles seen side-to-side. And note the speed at which the shuttle is moving past them. And note that we can't see them when looking in through the open "hatch" (it's not clamshell doors anymore, it seems) of the shuttle bay.

Compare that to the entire secondary hull of the TOS ship. The bay we see there is easily as long as the entire original secondary hull. You could only park two of the nuTrek shuttles inside the TOS landing bay... and those, side-by-side, facing fore-to-aft (or aft-to-fore).

There is NO WAY that this bay is remotely like the TOS bay... which is really not all that big.

The bridge set was a bit bigger than the TOS counterpart - but this time, it was housed on "Deck 2", the wide deck beneath the topmost dome, as evidenced by the external shots of the combined front viewscreen/windshield... So no problems with fitting the bridge aboard even if TOS dimensions were retained.

As for rim windows, those always were of a misleading size and placement even in TOS and TMP. So once again, the saucer could be 1.5 decks thick, much as in TOS and TMP.

Nope... of course, the "nu-Enterprise" saucer is dramatically different from the TOS one anyway... the bulk of its volume exists in the disk itself. It's a MUCH thicker disk, with much smaller "extensions" above and below the disk, relatively speaking. If the TOS ship primary hull is 11 decks, and two of them are in the disk (not considering the undercut of course)... in the new ship, if it were (say) 12 decks, four of those would be in the "disk." Of course, looking at the window levels (and taking into account space above and below)... I think we're looking at a five-deck-thick "disk" with the top, bottom and middle decks being windowless and the in-between decks having windows. So, since the "bumps" above and below are almost identical to the "disk," I think that makes the primary hull 15 decks thick, with significant structure between decks (and the nu-Enterprise saucer being thinner, overall, than the TOS one, proportionately). A TOS-proportioned saucer, at the same deck height, would be more like 20 decks thick.

On the question of how Nero's 2233 intervention could have changed the ship "so much", I think there is no real problem. The TOS ship was supposedly the product of 2245; the STXI vessel was launched in 2258. Twelve years of time difference translated to a significant stylistic and technological difference in shipbuilding on Earth's 20th century; why not on Earth's 23rd?

This, I have no problem with...

We all know that high-profile projects tend to get more "chefs" involved in their creation. I have this sneaking suspicion that the nu-Enterprise, in-universe, had a group of design engineers perpetually badgered by non-technical types... counsel members and the like... to "make this kewler" or so forth.

As for the stardate issue, I think we could pretend that it was just coincidence that SD 2233 happened to match the year 2233, and SD 2258 happened to match the year 2258... I mean, in the TOS "system" there must have been at least one such chance match, too. And if stardates are cyclic (or have more than four digits, of which the first ones are usually dropped), then there'd be a number of such chance matches.

I would have less of an issue with disregarding the stardate "gaff" (since stardates are effectively nonsensical anyway) if it hadn't been made such a big deal of.

FYI, I saw the movie weeks ago... when the "Alamo Drafthouse" here in Austin advertised a big-screen showing of "The Wrath of Khan." I wanted to go see that flick on the big screen again, and to be honest, I was really sorta ticked that they pulled the "switcheroo" and it ended up being a sneak-preview of the new Trek film. So... I've seen it, but technically I've never paid to see the new film... I paid to see "TWOK."

 

[Timo]

Since I was talking about the scale of the nu-Enterprise, I thought that was pretty obvious.

...And I was sort of thinking you might be thinking of the scenes where shuttles launch from the Academy, since I had such a hazy memory of the scene where Pike launches to meet Nero. Sorree.

I'm a bit confused by how you can be missing this...

Would you believe copious amounts of hard liquor ingested before and during the movie? (Even I wouldn't believe in the quantity if I didn't have such vivid memories of Saturday morning - and less vivid ones of Friday.) Again, sorree...

I think we're looking at a five-deck-thick "disk" with the top, bottom and middle decks being windowless and the in-between decks having windows.

But the superstructure, with the well-documented bridge window, doesn't IMHO support quite that big a scale.

I'd be ready to believe in a ship that has different scales for different sections, really.

FYI, I saw the movie weeks ago... when the "Alamo Drafthouse" here in Austin advertised a big-screen showing of "The Wrath of Khan." I wanted to go see that flick on the big screen again, and to be honest, I was really sorta ticked that they pulled the "switcheroo" and it ended up being a sneak-preview of the new Trek film. So... I've seen it, but technically I've never paid to see the new film... I paid to see "TWOK."

I feel for you, friend. I didn't pay to see STXI, either (nor for the accompanying booze or full Mr. Spock makeup and costume and accessories including a female of the species in red and short), thanks to a special event - but I did intend to go...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ronald Held]

So there is agreement that the ship is up to twice as large in all dimensions?
Were there any dimensions for the Kelvin, to use as a comparison?

 

[Myasishchev]

Decalithium? Oh brother.

I just figure red matter is a form of ice-9.

 

[Manticore]

So there is agreement that the ship is up to twice as large in all dimensions?

Nope, considering that in the very clear shots of the bridge from the outside, a deck is about the same size, and so are the people.

Why do I feel like a broken record?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

So there is agreement that the ship is up to twice as large in all dimensions?

Nope, considering that in the very clear shots of the bridge from the outside, a deck is about the same size, and so are the people.

Why do I feel like a broken record?

Dunno, I haven't been listening to you, so that's the first time I've seen you argue that point. "Broken record" only counts if you've said it to the same people... over and over.

How do you reconcile the engineering set, and the hangar interior, with the exterior then?

Two possibilities... one, the ship is much bigger than the TOS one, or two, the art direction is so disjointed that there's not even a hint of size-wise continuity from one sequence to the next.

I believe that the answer is most likely option #2. But eventually, people will have to figure out how big the ship has to be to hold what we've seen. Right now I'm fully convinced that it has to be between 150% and 200% the size of the TOS ship, probably closer to 200%, in order for the design to remotely "work."

 

[Captain_Amasov]

So there is agreement that the ship is up to twice as large in all dimensions?

Nope, considering that in the very clear shots of the bridge from the outside, a deck is about the same size, and so are the people.

Why do I feel like a broken record?

Dunno, I haven't been listening to you, so that's the first time I've seen you argue that point. "Broken record" only counts if you've said it to the same people... over and over.

How do you reconcile the engineering set, and the hangar interior, with the exterior then?

Two possibilities... one, the ship is much bigger than the TOS one, or two, the art direction is so disjointed that there's not even a hint of size-wise continuity from one sequence to the next.

I believe that the answer is most likely option #2. But eventually, people will have to figure out how big the ship has to be to hold what we've seen. Right now I'm fully convinced that it has to be between 150% and 200% the size of the TOS ship, probably closer to 200%, in order for the design to remotely "work."

Plus the Narada is massive in film and comic media alike and the Enterprise doesn't look that small against her here: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:USS_Enterprise_and_Narada_face_off_over_Vulcan.jpg

 

[Manticore]

So there is agreement that the ship is up to twice as large in all dimensions?

Nope, considering that in the very clear shots of the bridge from the outside, a deck is about the same size, and so are the people.

Why do I feel like a broken record?

Dunno, I haven't been listening to you, so that's the first time I've seen you argue that point. "Broken record" only counts if you've said it to the same people... over and over.

Sorry. I might not have repeated it to you, but I'm getting a little tired of saying the same thing here and there, just because some moron in advertising thought "Hey, 3000 feet sounds effing huge!" when there's direct VFX evidence that it's not that size.

How do you reconcile the engineering set, and the hangar interior, with the exterior then?

The hangar isn't nearly as big as people make it out to be--it's at most half the length of the upper half of the hull (and no bigger than the TMP hangar/cargo bay). So there's still plenty of room even for that engineering "set" in the forward two-thirds, volume-wise. Keep in mind just how much of the engineering hull is forward of the neck, and it's fairly easy to reconcile.

And the shuttles don't look significantly larger than what the TMP shuttles would have been, if we'd seen them, and those could have fit fairly well in the layout that we saw in the movie.

Also, engineering was such a confusing area that I didn't get too much of an idea of size beyond "big"--I'd have to watch the movie again (shudder), but I think that you could squint and squeeze it in even if the location technically doesn't work.

Two possibilities... one, the ship is much bigger than the TOS one, or two, the art direction is so disjointed that there's not even a hint of size-wise continuity from one sequence to the next.

What, sort of like TMP and the rec deck or engineering?

I believe that the answer is most likely option #2. But eventually, people will have to figure out how big the ship has to be to hold what we've seen. Right now I'm fully convinced that it has to be between 150% and 200% the size of the TOS ship, probably closer to 200%, in order for the design to remotely "work."

I still think that the very explicit views of the interior from the exterior outweigh minor misscalings of CG objects and already-confusing locations. She sure as hell isn't 600-900 meters.

 

[trevanian]

Nope, considering that in the very clear shots of the bridge from the outside, a deck is about the same size, and so are the people.

Why do I feel like a broken record?

Dunno, I haven't been listening to you, so that's the first time I've seen you argue that point. "Broken record" only counts if you've said it to the same people... over and over.

Sorry. I might not have repeated it to you, but I'm getting a little tired of saying the same thing here and there, just because some moron in advertising thought "Hey, 3000 feet sounds effing huge!" when there's direct VFX evidence that it's not that size.


The hangar isn't nearly as big as people make it out to be--it's at most half the length of the upper half of the hull (and no bigger than the TMP hangar/cargo bay). So there's still plenty of room even for that engineering "set" in the forward two-thirds, volume-wise. Keep in mind just how much of the engineering hull is forward of the neck, and it's fairly easy to reconcile.

And the shuttles don't look significantly larger than what the TMP shuttles would have been, if we'd seen them, and those could have fit fairly well in the layout that we saw in the movie.

Also, engineering was such a confusing area that I didn't get too much of an idea of size beyond "big"--I'd have to watch the movie again (shudder), but I think that you could squint and squeeze it in even if the location technically doesn't work.

Two possibilities... one, the ship is much bigger than the TOS one, or two, the art direction is so disjointed that there's not even a hint of size-wise continuity from one sequence to the next.

What, sort of like TMP and the rec deck or engineering?

I believe that the answer is most likely option #2. But eventually, people will have to figure out how big the ship has to be to hold what we've seen. Right now I'm fully convinced that it has to be between 150% and 200% the size of the TOS ship, probably closer to 200%, in order for the design to remotely "work."

I still think that the very explicit views of the interior from the exterior outweigh minor misscalings of CG objects and already-confusing locations. She sure as hell isn't 600-900 meters.

Geez, even Scott Gammans, the one guy who really does excellent CG renderings of the TOS ship, mentioned on trekmovie the other day that the new ship scales out at two-to-three times the size of the TV one. Maye you should go talk to him, he really does strike me as an expert.

 

[Ronald Held]

I am going to email Ryan Church, but do not expect an answer about the absolute dimensions.

 

[trevanian]

I am going to email Ryan Church, but do not expect an answer about the absolute dimensions.

John Eaves might know as well johneaves.wordpress.com

EDIT - I just checked there myself and he didn't know the exact numbers but agreed on the 2500 to 3000 ft length as a ballpark. Maybe this should get posted elsewhere or throughout trekbbs as a semi-factoid?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I am going to email Ryan Church, but do not expect an answer about the absolute dimensions.

John Eaves might know as well johneaves.wordpress.com

EDIT - I just checked there myself and he didn't know the exact numbers but agreed on the 2500 to 3000 ft length as a ballpark. Maybe this should get posted elsewhere or throughout trekbbs as a semi-factoid?

If someone did a model of the ship without even a general idea of what goes inside it... without incorporating clear indications of scale... I'd be deeply shocked.

SOMEBODY had a clear idea of the scale of that ship. Whether or not everyone on the team had the SAME idea... that's a whole 'nother story. Maybe the ship really is a "TARDIS" and different parts of the ship exist in different "space-time" scales?

 

[Lieut. Arex]

Yeah, Geoffrey Mandel. He got fired for making a scale comparison with the other Enterprises.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Yeah, Geoffrey Mandel. He got fired for making a scale comparison with the other Enterprises.

Yeah... when Mandel got fired, that pretty much turned me against Abrams. I mean, if he'd been molesting the boss's daughter or something, sure, but for THAT??? Thats just wrong on every possible level.

 

[trevanian]

I wish I'd known about that when I talked to the production designer. I went very kid gloves, especially when I realized he had NO knowledge or history of SF design, but if I'd heard of the Mandel thing, I'd have been a lot more pointed in my questions (and would probably have gotten even more of the 'can't talk about that, guy' responses, no doubt.)