Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[miraclefan]

CRAZY idea I know, but hear me out. Could these ''windows'' REALLY be just Illuminating ''Sensor'' grids/bars?

If these ships are REALLY suposed to be the size the idiot's at ILM say they are (ENT 2500-3000f) then those windows have to be something else besides windows! Because I can't see why the windows should be THAT big.

Then again that wouldn't explain why the bridge window is so LONG!?

 

[MisterPL]

Because I can't see why the windows should be THAT big.

If humans are going to explore strange new worlds, you can bet your ass there are going to be windows, and they'll be as big as they can get. I can't imagine anything more inspiring to a crew with such a mission than to be able to witness, with their own eyes, the places where no man has gone before.

 

[Shaw]

I'm as much for the mental exercise of determining sizes of things like this in Trek as anyone... I've spent tons of time doing it. But I would point out that in the case of this movie, the people making the movie were discouraged from setting an actual size (apparently things like that were what was wrong with Trek in JJ's eyes). And to drive the point home to everyone behind the scenes, when one of the graphic artist (Geoffrey Mandel) made a diagram similar to what has been done in this thread quite a few times, he was let go.

This ship doesn't have a set size, and odds are what ever size you figure out today will only be about a quarter of the size of the same ship in the next movie. And I doubt that any two artist that worked on the movie were using the same size for the ship (so it would most likely change size drastically from one shot to another depending on who composed which shots).

This movie wasn't intended for people who care about such minutia... and the best way to enjoy the movie (that I've found) is to assume that nothing was meant to be that closely considered after seeing it.

More than any other Trek before it, this movie is just a movie.

 

[Lt. Trull]

i wonder how many people will accept anything the Haynes manual say's when it comes out in 2010.

 

[Peter the Younger]

I'm as much for the mental exercise of determining sizes of things like this in Trek as anyone... I've spent tons of time doing it. But I would point out that in the case of this movie, the people making the movie were discouraged from setting an actual size (apparently things like that were what was wrong with Trek in JJ's eyes). And to drive the point home to everyone behind the scenes, when one of the graphic artist (Geoffrey Mandel) made a diagram similar to what has been done in this thread quite a few times, he was let go.

Do you have any corroboration for this? I've seen this in another thread son these boards saying that's why Mandel was fired, but can't find any other source.

 

[Richard Baker]

i wonder how many people will accept anything the Haynes manual say's when it comes out in 2010.

I had enough trouble believing what they said about my Saturn...

 

[Shaw]

Do you have any corroboration for this?

None what-so-ever. So you should disregard it as being completely made up.

Or you can find where I had backed up the exact same claim a few months ago.*

At any rate, it is interesting (with a sense of irony) to watch fans do exactly what was discouraged for the very people making the movie.

* Note: The original comment was removed from the sources blog. No reason was given for it's removal and I'll leave it to everyone to reach their own conclusions as to why it might have been removed.​

 

[miraclefan]

I'm as much for the mental exercise of determining sizes of things like this in Trek as anyone... I've spent tons of time doing it. But I would point out that in the case of this movie, the people making the movie were discouraged from setting an actual size (apparently things like that were what was wrong with Trek in JJ's eyes). And to drive the point home to everyone behind the scenes, when one of the graphic artist (Geoffrey Mandel) made a diagram similar to what has been done in this thread quite a few times, he was let go.

This ship doesn't have a set size, and odds are what ever size you figure out today will only be about a quarter of the size of the same ship in the next movie. And I doubt that any two artist that worked on the movie were using the same size for the ship (so it would most likely change size drastically from one shot to another depending on who composed which shots).

This movie wasn't intended for people who care about such minutia... and the best way to enjoy the movie (that I've found) is to assume that nothing was meant to be that closely considered after seeing it.

More than any other Trek before it, this movie is just a movie.

CURSE YOU J.J. CURSE YOUUU!!

 

[Praetor]

I'm as much for the mental exercise of determining sizes of things like this in Trek as anyone... I've spent tons of time doing it. But I would point out that in the case of this movie, the people making the movie were discouraged from setting an actual size (apparently things like that were what was wrong with Trek in JJ's eyes). And to drive the point home to everyone behind the scenes, when one of the graphic artist (Geoffrey Mandel) made a diagram similar to what has been done in this thread quite a few times, he was let go.

This ship doesn't have a set size, and odds are what ever size you figure out today will only be about a quarter of the size of the same ship in the next movie. And I doubt that any two artist that worked on the movie were using the same size for the ship (so it would most likely change size drastically from one shot to another depending on who composed which shots).

This movie wasn't intended for people who care about such minutia... and the best way to enjoy the movie (that I've found) is to assume that nothing was meant to be that closely considered after seeing it.

More than any other Trek before it, this movie is just a movie.

You know, I hadn't quite put two and two together in that way, but that assessment seems to have a lot of truth behind it. I can appreciate why they might avoid nailing down specific technical minutiae - the "black box" approach for futuretech is an awesome one when done well - but this almost feels more like an empty box to me.

Still, I would hope that there was some idea of the size involved... at least on the part of the modelers. But I can accept that there may be no specific, exact official size.

 

[Shaw]

You know, I hadn't quite put two and two together in that way, but that assessment seems to have a lot of truth behind it. I can appreciate why they might avoid nailing down specific technical minutiae - the "black box" approach for futuretech is an awesome one when done well - but this almost feels more like an empty box to me.

Still, I would hope that there was some idea of the size involved... at least on the part of the modelers. But I can accept that there may be no specific, exact official size.

Well, for me this changed the dynamic of how I can watch this movie. It was a nice story and a fun ride, but seems to have been intended for only one or two viewings (or maybe more if considerable time is provided between them). This is how the average movie goer see most movies, and this movie was directly targeted for that audience. When viewing this movie in that mind set, I found it quite enjoyable (but I'm a major lover of movies in general, so I just watched this the same way I watch other non-Trek movies).

Sadly, some where in the process of figuring out how they were going to make this film, JJ got it in his head that only people who had no attachment or previous love of Trek would be able to work on this movie (which is why Eaves and Mandel were the only people with previous Trek experience). Even now, the people who had worked on this movie wear their dismissal of previous Trek as a badge of honor when giving interviews (understandable, as it was their main qualification). Additionally (from what I can tell), JJ believed that previous Trek suffered under the weight of technical minutia and that to the best of his abilities this movie would be divorced from it for (as he believed) the sake of the story.

Personally, I don't think that setting a size for the Enterprise would have made any difference, but this movie is a work of art and to enjoy that work I think it is best not to question the artists choices too much while viewing it.

______________​

Everyone,

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that you guys stop this endeavor (as this is the type of thing I love doing in my spare time)... I just thought that some perspective might be helpful while doing it.

 

[Peter the Younger]

You know, I hadn't quite put two and two together in that way, but that assessment seems to have a lot of truth behind it. I can appreciate why they might avoid nailing down specific technical minutiae - the "black box" approach for futuretech is an awesome one when done well - but this almost feels more like an empty box to me.

Still, I would hope that there was some idea of the size involved... at least on the part of the modelers. But I can accept that there may be no specific, exact official size.

Well, for me this changed the dynamic of how I can watch this movie. It was a nice story and a fun ride, but seems to have been intended for only one or two viewings (or maybe more if considerable time is provided between them). This is how the average movie goer see most movies, and this movie was directly targeted for that audience. When viewing this movie in that mind set, I found it quite enjoyable (but I'm a major lover of movies in general, so I just watched this the same way I watch other non-Trek movies).

Sadly, some where in the process of figuring out how they were going to make this film, JJ got it in his head that only people who had no attachment or previous love of Trek would be able to work on this movie (which is why Eaves and Mandel were the only people with previous Trek experience). Even now, the people who had worked on this movie wear their dismissal of previous Trek as a badge of honor when giving interviews (understandable, as it was their main qualification). Additionally (from what I can tell), JJ believed that previous Trek suffered under the weight of technical minutia and that to the best of his abilities this movie would be divorced from it for (as he believed) the sake of the story.

Personally, I don't think that setting a size for the Enterprise would have made any difference, but this movie is a work of art and to enjoy that work I think it is best not to question the artists choices too much while viewing it.

Well if this is the case*, he's fighting a losing battle; the fans will seek detail no matter what the director wants, and the studio knows there is money to be made with things like the Haynes manual, which he has no control over.

In a more general I agree that technical minutia shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of telling a good story, but there is a difference between technobabble and simple consistent detail. My personal feeling is that the creators of the film should know the details of the fictional universe like it was a living, breathing thing... and make sure those details never show up in dialogue or overpower a great story.

*Not doubting you, I'm just sensitive to the facts when we're talking about why someone was hired or fired.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I'm as much for the mental exercise of determining sizes of things like this in Trek as anyone... I've spent tons of time doing it. But I would point out that in the case of this movie, the people making the movie were discouraged from setting an actual size (apparently things like that were what was wrong with Trek in JJ's eyes). And to drive the point home to everyone behind the scenes, when one of the graphic artist (Geoffrey Mandel) made a diagram similar to what has been done in this thread quite a few times, he was let go.

This ship doesn't have a set size, and odds are what ever size you figure out today will only be about a quarter of the size of the same ship in the next movie. And I doubt that any two artist that worked on the movie were using the same size for the ship (so it would most likely change size drastically from one shot to another depending on who composed which shots).

This movie wasn't intended for people who care about such minutia... and the best way to enjoy the movie (that I've found) is to assume that nothing was meant to be that closely considered after seeing it.

More than any other Trek before it, this movie is just a movie.

Truer words--about this film, at least--have never been committed to this BBS. I've been saying (for a while now) that this movie reminded me of the Gold Key comics from my youth. It is a deliberate travesty. I'm cool with that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My personal feeling is that the creators of the film should know the details of the fictional universe like it was a living, breathing thing... and make sure those details never show up in dialogue or overpower a great story.

As I keep watching this movie, I get the impression that's exactly what's been done. It remains the case that the Enterprise only got about 80 minutes of screen time, which is not NEARLY enough time to flesh out all of the details of the design or the technology. I suspect that most of the technical minutia nerds like you and me find so fascinating has been better established than some on this BBS are willing to consider; on the contrary, I think the prevailing confusion over those details stems entirely from US being unfamiliar with the new universe, not the writers. I say this as I suddenly recall the threads and protests months ago when posters--having watched the movie trailer--objected to the idea of a starship being attacked by "Romulan fighters" (at a time before we knew those green flying things were actually torpedoes).

I'm just saying, I think we'll be pleasantly surprised by how well the writers are with their own fictional universe; it is WE, not they, who are in the dark here, and that will eventually change. Likewise, I hope it remains the fact that the minutia of the NuTrekiverse remains exactly that and our new creative overlords are never tempted to cast Deux ex Machina as a recurring character.


And to steer the thread ever so slightly back on topic, recent work experiences saw yours truly having to load, unload, reload and then re-unload a whole bunch of insanely heavy shit from the back of a 24 foot truck. It suddenly occurred to me--being the nerd that I am--that the TOS shuttles were supposedly 24 feet, and by strange coincidence I had occasion to compare the 24 footer to a 30 footer in the U-Haul parking lot. In light of this, I can say with conviction that the Nu-Trek shuttles could not POSSIBLY be any larger than thirty feet long by nine high (don't know about width, but the fuselage looks like ten to twelve). This would probably support the 710 meter size, going by the landing bay scene.

 

[Richard Baker]

I know this is just a movie, but for me to be expected to surrender my world and accept theirs for two hours there has to be some 'reality' to that world.
The Enterprise is a pyhical machine with a crew of humanoids. At his point I don't care if they decide it is 700m, 710m or 800m- I may not agree with it but they are the ones creating this world for us to watch so they have control over it.
I also understand fudging for dramatic visuals. Almost every ation movie does it to some extent- even chase scenes lengthen the roadways because at that speed the vehicles would be past things in seconds, but th e7 miuntes of action the director wanted. BUildings get rearranged in the skyline to make the city look better (and every apartment/office window faces a landmark).
What I have a problem with is the idea that the ship has no actual size. Perhaps it was designed one size and they wanted to make it bigger-fine. Changing it in some shots for visual impact- still fine. This is a movie trying to be maximum inpact on the audience so that sort of thing is OK.
The Enterprise is a physical machine with internal decking and a crew. To have them try to give it 'no size' and constantly change it is more than annoying. Even the TARDIS has a constant exterior size. JJA may not want to be tied down to anything specific because that could be some potential limitation later-to me that is sloppy film making. He decided to create a new version of Star Trek and reboot the series with a new timeline. Whatever he comes up with should have some consistency whether we like it or not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I repeat, Richard: I'm pretty sure JJ and company DID nail it down with some consistency. It's not the producers that are confused, it's US.

 

[miraclefan]

I repeat, Richard: I'm pretty sure JJ and company DID nail it down with some consistency. It's not the producers that are confused, it's US.

I think ''newtype'' is right.The ILM team along with the top producers of NU-TREK told Model Kit Company Round2 that the ENT was around the 700m mark. The kit is going to be in the 1/2500 scale, makeing the model come in at 1 foot! The 1/2500 scale ENT-E is 9 inch's! Just keep that in mind.

 

[Richard Baker]

I certainly would like to think so.
I a,m mostly responding to the numerous posts above which also seem to emhatically state they JJA was trying to not have a final determined size. This entire thread is about trying to figure out the mixed signals being given about it's size.
If it is 700m then great- I hope they stick to it. It is not designed to appear 700m in most details, but it is there movie, not ours.

.

 

[BenRoethig]

You know, I'm sure it's entirely coincidental at this point, but I notice that a 710 meter Enterprise would have an engineering section with dimensions VERY close that of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Have we really given much thought to engineering/technical/logistical implications of building a space ship this size? I mean, honestly, even with 21st century technology we have the ability to build structures this large, it's just that we don't usually connect them or attach gigantic engines to them.

In point of fact, building a 710 meter Enterprise would be the equivalent of building four Nimitz class aircraft carriers and attaching them together with trusses. There's the engineering challenge of getting all four giant modules to stick together without flying apart, but that's a matter of engineering skill and material science, hardly insurmountable by 23rd century technology.

More than that. The JJ-Prise is also in excess of 40 decks tall.

 

[EJD1984]

Now what if the people doing the Haynes Enterprise Manual comes up with their own different numbers as well. Will that be considered "canon", or will we be debating until the 23rd century.

Ever consider this could a sort of sly marketing campaing, just to keep our interest up in the movie (and see it multiple times).

 

[baxart]

Well if this is the case*, he's fighting a losing battle; the fans will seek detail no matter what the director wants, and the studio knows there is money to be made with things like the Haynes manual, which he has no control over.

In a more general I agree that technical minutia shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of telling a good story, but there is a difference between technobabble and simple consistent detail. My personal feeling is that the creators of the film should know the details of the fictional universe like it was a living, breathing thing... and make sure those details never show up in dialogue or overpower a great story.

*Not doubting you, I'm just sensitive to the facts when we're talking about why someone was hired or fired.

Very, very true. And if they won't give us "official" minutia, we'll produce our own (and probably will anyway).
I've read a few posts in various threads and find it very hard to believe that JJ & company (or people who post on this board for crying out loud) haven't figured out that Trekkies over-analyze Trek?
I mean seriously. How can anyone possibly look at, much less post on this board and be blind to that truth?
And I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, I do it just as much as anyone else here. If I'm a geek, I'm in damn good company.