• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

JJ Enterprise Tech Specs

True or not?

Can be true, but not always. It's not an axiom.

Think of Diet Coke. A coke drinker decides that 'Diet Coke' has less calories and switches to it. Now, rather than drinking the same amount, he thinks "Now I can drink all I want" and overdoes it, making things worse than what he was doing with Coke.

Often, CGI is like that. Take "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" or most of the "Prequel Trilogy". There were many, many instances where CGI didn't fit the scene, honestly, and was obviously there to be 'kewl' rather than focus on the depth of storytelling that was sorely needed. CGI quickly becomes an overused drug.
 
I'm reasonably sure from my OWN reading of backstage material that most of Abrams' micro-managing was egged on by his tech advisors in the first place.

What tech advisors were those? The production designer didn't seem to have any tech advisors around, and Porco's involvement seems to have been limited to ILM's planet backgrounds and/or starfields.
 
Actually, no, Cicero, the working area of the TOS Enterprise is pretty close to the working area (as in, deck space) as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. This was a deliberate design decision for the ol' girl. It's just arranged unusually so it looks a lot more open.. but it's a LOT taller than a Nimitz.

Most people forget that the majority of the volume of a carrier is the hanger and engine spaces.

See these for example.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/aircraft-carrier-cut-away.gif
http://xbradtc.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ship_cvn-71_theodore_roosevelt_cutaway_lg.jpg


For those of you that want to argue using submarines:

The 688 boats in the USN house more than 100 people for 90 days in a space the size of a suburban house.

http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/navy/688_cutaway.jpg

Over half the boat is machinery. The forward most space is weapons and sonar leaving just a third of the boat for crew. Half of that space is still taken up with equipment. Keep in mind that a 688 is only 10m in diameter and a little over 110m in length.
 
Instead, he fired one of the most respected people in "Trekdom" from his movie because this guy had a picture next to his desk comparing the old and new ships.
You're the fifth person I've seen mention this but every time I ask for a source, nobody seems to have one. Please tell me you do, because I have a sneaking suspicion there was a lot more to it than just that (and the cynical part of my psyche loves a scandal).
I'm pretty sure I've already pointed you toward it at least once. It was a John Eaves statement, probably on his blog, though I suppose it could have been a post he made on Drexler's.

It was a blog post, but it wasn't Eaves'. And the blog that posted it deleted the entry so we're not even sure of that anymore.
 
Actually, no, Cicero, the working area of the TOS Enterprise is pretty close to the working area (as in, deck space) as a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. This was a deliberate design decision for the ol' girl. It's just arranged unusually so it looks a lot more open.. but it's a LOT taller than a Nimitz.

The ship is taller than a Nimitz (or a Ford-class carrier, from which I was calculating), but unless I'm missing something, its volume (which is the closest I can come to approximating deck space without extensive computation) is much smaller - by a factor of several - than that of a modern carrier. As a comparative measure (in lieu of calculating deck space), volume generally leans against the Enterprise, given that the decks we've seen aboard it were - like the ship itself - generally taller than those aboard a modern carrier.
 
^ And alot of the work done in Insurrection looked somewhat mediocre IMO. But that's a matter of style, I suppose.

As for the Pixar sentiment, the comparison is far from apt; CGI character animation is replacing hand-drawn cartoons, not live action scenes, which is basically what we're talking about in the difference between filming miniatures and filming CGI starships.
 
The 688 boats in the USN house more than 100 people for 90 days in a space the size of a suburban house.

http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/navy/688_cutaway.jpg

Over half the boat is machinery. The forward most space is weapons and sonar leaving just a third of the boat for crew. Half of that space is still taken up with equipment. Keep in mind that a 688 is only 10m in diameter and a little over 110m in length.

Which puts it a little under half the size of the TOS ship's secondary hull, I believe (being about 150 meters long and about 25 meters wide).
 
Instead, he fired one of the most respected people in "Trekdom" from his movie because this guy had a picture next to his desk comparing the old and new ships.
You're the fifth person I've seen mention this but every time I ask for a source, nobody seems to have one. Please tell me you do, because I have a sneaking suspicion there was a lot more to it than just that (and the cynical part of my psyche loves a scandal).

This is actually based on an unelaborated remark on John Eaves' blog. Remarkably enough, whatever actually happened - and as you're canny enough to note, you can be sure there was a great deal more to it and at least two sides - it didn't disturb Eaves enough to affect his own continued employment on the production or to diminish his current praise for the film or expressions of appreciation to the filmmakers. So in the absence of any real specific, public information about Mandel's leaving the production (not that it's anyone's business other than his) this repeated assertion pretty much has to be taken as no more than a histrionic bit of waving the bloody flag on the part of folks wishing to assume unearned high ground in an online disagreement.
 
You're the fifth person I've seen mention this but every time I ask for a source, nobody seems to have one. Please tell me you do, because I have a sneaking suspicion there was a lot more to it than just that (and the cynical part of my psyche loves a scandal).
I'm pretty sure I've already pointed you toward it at least once. It was a John Eaves statement, probably on his blog, though I suppose it could have been a post he made on Drexler's.

It was a blog post, but it wasn't Eaves'. And the blog that posted it deleted the entry so we're not even sure of that anymore.

I just spent awhile looking for it. It IS gone, but also ... it WAS from Eaves. He specifically talked about coming to work and finding Geoff gone, and then he ended the post with a !! mark and an intended-to-be-funny remark to the effect, 'lucky it wasn't me' which I was a little offended by. I've talked to Eaves a few time and met him once, and he seemed a very nice guy, but the remark as posted did not come off that way at all.

Just the fact that there is this much covering up on stuff is weird ... as was the ILM behavior with respect to confirming facts and arranging interviews (or not arranging interviews.) This was the first time in almost 20 years of dealing with ILM that I had absolutely no cooperation, nothing but stonewalling from them, and some outright misrepresentations, capped with a stall-out to cause us to drop the story altogether after I'd already talked to the PD. I should stress this is ILM PR I'm talking about, not the artists. Kerner Optical is credited as having worked on the film, and they used to be the physical part of ILM's operation. ILM PR, even though Kerner directed me to them, refused to acknowledge anything about Kerner's involvement, and I've noticed they have been shut out of all press on the film. Was there some stuff they did that got tossed? Or did they do stuff that they aren't being given credit for, because it has to be promoted as an all digital show?

How's that for the scandal stuff you said you wanted? Or do I need more of a conspiracy theory angle?
 
^ And alot of the work done in Insurrection looked somewhat mediocre IMO. But that's a matter of style, I suppose.

As for the Pixar sentiment, the comparison is far from apt; CGI character animation is replacing hand-drawn cartoons, not live action scenes, which is basically what we're talking about in the difference between filming miniatures and filming CGI starships.

I don't want to open another can of worms here, just sayin' that Pixar type stuff has replaced or supplanted not only the old animation you mention, but also a lot of what used to be done as live-action kiddie fare (and to be honest, Pixar has done it far better.)
 
I'm pretty sure I've already pointed you toward it at least once. It was a John Eaves statement, probably on his blog, though I suppose it could have been a post he made on Drexler's.

It was a blog post, but it wasn't Eaves'. And the blog that posted it deleted the entry so we're not even sure of that anymore.

I just spent awhile looking for it. It IS gone, but also ... it WAS from Eaves. He specifically talked about coming to work and finding Geoff gone, and then he ended the post with a !! mark and an intended-to-be-funny remark to the effect, 'lucky it wasn't me' which I was a little offended by. I've talked to Eaves a few time and met him once, and he seemed a very nice guy, but the remark as posted did not come off that way at all.

Just the fact that there is this much covering up on stuff is weird ... as was the ILM behavior with respect to confirming facts and arranging interviews (or not arranging interviews.) This was the first time in almost 20 years of dealing with ILM that I had absolutely no cooperation, nothing but stonewalling from them, and some outright misrepresentations, capped with a stall-out to cause us to drop the story altogether after I'd already talked to the PD. I should stress this is ILM PR I'm talking about, not the artists. Kerner Optical is credited as having worked on the film, and they used to be the physical part of ILM's operation. ILM PR, even though Kerner directed me to them, refused to acknowledge anything about Kerner's involvement, and I've noticed they have been shut out of all press on the film. Was there some stuff they did that got tossed? Or did they do stuff that they aren't being given credit for, because it has to be promoted as an all digital show?

How's that for the scandal stuff you said you wanted? Or do I need more of a conspiracy theory angle?

I know this is continuing to go OT, but what do YOU think is going on?

Why are they acting this way?
 
They never seem to get this point, among others. It's really not complicated at all.

BTW, the closeups of the Enterprise in this movie looked a great deal more like real, large objects than was ever managed with the ST:TMP model. A few people insisting otherwise doesn't alter that.

I have reality, and you have your illusion; wallow in that, don't try to dismiss my well-stated points with throwaway one-liners.

It does, though. You can dismiss it all you like with your "I wrote a bunch of articles for a bunch of magazines," but the ships in Trek XI look big, while the ships in TMP (though gorgeous) look like plastic models in comparison. The people who disagree with you are not blind. We just think you're wrong.
 
How's that for the scandal stuff you said you wanted? Or do I need more of a conspiracy theory angle?

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or if you really are as unhinged as your posts are beginning to indicate. Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Mandel quitting over something to do with the Kelvin's design (which is what I heard before this "he made a drawing!" rumor came out, but disregarded because it sounded like empty gossip). Either way, since you're here name dropping and gushing about how well respected you are with ILM, why don't you just call John Eaves on his cell phone and ask him what the deal is?:techman:
 
Thinking "in universe," remember that this Enterprise was supposed to be Pike's as well. And yet it clearly isn't a small ship with a crew of 200.
It's the same ship, but not EXACTLY the same ship. That is... it certainly saw significant external and internal reconfiguration. Hence my description of this as being two different "ships"... albeit more accurately two dramatically different configurations of the same ship. Seems like quibbling to me... you know perfectly well what I was saying.

The ship was the same size (well, it was the same FRAME, at least) in both configurations. But under Pike... and we have this on indisputible evidence (Pike's own words) that the crew, at that point, was only about 200.
So if we're going with the "no replicators, lots of storage" explanation, this ship makes sense in that regard; not a cruiser, but the Starfleet equivalent of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, storing the bulk of its material freeze dried or whatever long-duration method they use.[/quote}Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at... for April's time in command, Pike's time in command, and the first few months of Kirk's command.

The Enterprise, under that configuration, was a pretty standard "heavy cruiser," intended to stay reasonably close to home for the majority of it's deployment time, not going on multi-year patrols beyond known space without hope of resupply. It wasn't an EXPLORER until the "430-crew refit" took place. It could go on probes (like the barrier mission) but not extended duration tours without resupply or support.
OTOH, I personally do not believe--and have never believed--that you can feasibly explore a planet by beaming the Captain, a scientist, a doctor and five redshirts onto a random garden spot in one corner of it. Imagine, for example, trying to explore EARTH by landing seven Apollo astronauts in a forest in China. You'll get a narrow cross section of Flora and Fauna and you'll meet a sample of a variety of a third of the sentient life forms on the planet. Full exploration would require beaming down something like five hundred officers to two dozen points around the planet along with automated probes, equipment for drilling core samples, equipment for recovering and processing artifacts, mobile labs, triage units, tents, temporary and semi-temporary structures, bunkers, etc. Even if you only take a month to do it (and the shuttles will be getting an awful lot of work in such a mission) any decent exploration of the planet will require detailed examinations of at least thirty different sites on all seven continents, some of which will have some very extreme environments, and that's not even counting DEEP SEA exploration which will require alot more specialized equipment and a few more specialists.
Agreed... which is why I think that the Kelvin makes perfect sense as a "science vessel" with a "crew of 800."

The mistake your comments above lead towards, if followed through to their natural conclusion, is that you're assuming a "one stop exploration" approach. I find that silly. You'd have multiple visits, multiple times, from multiple ships. First, a starmapping expedition would map out the system and identify a likely planet worthy of investigation. Then, you'd send a ship like Enterprise to do a "first glance" investigation. Then, you'd send a ship like Grissom to perform extensive scans of the planet from orbit. Then, you'd send an expeditionary science transport like Kelvin to deliver real surface-exploration assets. And once all that was done... if it were really interesting... you'd set up a colony, and let the colonists research the planet in depth.

Enterprise was just performing one simple, preliminary step in a much larger and more complex sequence of events. Of COURSE the Enterprise wouldn't be able to "know all that was knowable" about any given planet. But with a full science team of some 200 personnel, they'd be far better equipped to make that first-glance MEAN something.
Of course, the tech designers of STXI could gloss over this like the producers of every other Trek production, but they've done wonderful so far; in the next film, it would bring tears to my eyes to see Enterprise enter orbit of a new planet and suddenly drop two dozen shuttles to every corner of this world packed with an ARMY of scientists to scout this world for its secrets. To do that--and I know you'll disagree--you need a big ship with ALOT of spare equipment on board, not to mention a factory or two if you suddenly have a need for something you haven't brought with you. Replicator technology might some day allow all of this to fit in a ship the size of a TMP refit, but until it does, THIS gigantic Enterprise is the exploration cruiser of my fondest dreams.:vulcan:
In other words... "the Entire Federation in a Can."

Exploring a planet isn't a "few day" mission, no matter HOW many scientists you deploy by swarm-of-shuttlecraft. It will take years... decades... even centuries. How much of Earth, even today, remains unknown?

How long do you want to leave Enterprise and her "army of scientists" in orbit around that planet? Six years or so might do the trick...

Nah... that's not how it works in real life, and I don't want to see it work that way in fiction, either.
 
The mistake your comments above lead towards, if followed through to their natural conclusion, is that you're assuming a "one stop exploration" approach. I find that silly. You'd have multiple visits, multiple times, from multiple ships. First, a starmapping expedition would map out the system and identify a likely planet worthy of investigation. Then, you'd send a ship like Enterprise to do a "first glance" investigation. Then, you'd send a ship like Grissom to perform extensive scans of the planet from orbit. Then, you'd send an expeditionary science transport like Kelvin to deliver real surface-exploration assets. And once all that was done... if it were really interesting... you'd set up a colony, and let the colonists research the planet in depth.
In the prime universe, certainly. But the destruction of the Kelvin and possibly other timeline-busting events like the Temporal Cold War and others might lead to different thinking. Pike/April Enterprise as "long range survey ship" sort of like Kelvin on steroids makes sense, but the new Enterprise may not have been designed for anything of the kind.

In point of fact, Starfleet might not be interested in multi-stage exploration missions anymore. Enterprise is equipped for long range star mapping and can coordinate with other more specialized ships to get a fix on exploration targets. As a "first look" vessel it is adequate for that, but Starfleet might be interested in skipping the "Grissom" phase and having the first look expedition provide a much more thorough report than they would otherwise. This may be because of some grisly experiences with Jonathan Archer--not so much NX-01's landings, but Archer's epic failure to properly scout some of his newly discovered planets resulting in later expeditions running into somewhat grisly hazards. The other possibility is that the loss of the Kelvin got Starfleet wondering about the wisdom of sending poorly armed research vessels into harms way and started thinking about streamlining the survey process by combining functionalities of multiple starships into one larger package. In the revised mission plan, Enterprise would provide a much more thorough survey report, doing the job of both the first look team AND the orbital scan team.

In other words... "the Entire Federation in a Can."
Nah... more like a miniature starbase with warp nacelles attached. Of course, "the entire navy in a can" is exactly what a carrier battlegroup aspires to be; in this case, the battle group--or exploration group, if you will--is all enclosed in one hull.

How long do you want to leave Enterprise and her "army of scientists" in orbit around that planet? Six years or so might do the trick...
What trick are you trying to pull, exactly? In modern terms, you can send an amphibious warfare vessel to land a bunch of troops on some crappy little island country and perform a lightning raid for a hostage rescue or whatever. The same vessel can also drop 3000 troops and support the first stage of a major invasion/occupation mission.

Now Starfleet does not invade planets or occupy them, so what we have here is the "carrier exploration group" so to speak. It's designed to deliver expeditionary missions to their operations area and support them from orbit with shuttlecraft and material support. This can either be short term "scout and look" missions in preparation for a larger ship, or it can be the first stage of a longer term exploration mission after which Enterprise will leave orbit sans twenty shuttlecraft and twenty five hundred persons (not to mention a subspace communications rig and a few hundred tons worth of sheetmetal and insulation).

Nah... that's not how it works in real life, and I don't want to see it work that way in fiction, either.
Um... you happen to know how interstellar exploration of alien planets works in real life?:confused:
 
They never seem to get this point, among others. It's really not complicated at all.

BTW, the closeups of the Enterprise in this movie looked a great deal more like real, large objects than was ever managed with the ST:TMP model. A few people insisting otherwise doesn't alter that.

I have reality, and you have your illusion; wallow in that, don't try to dismiss my well-stated points with throwaway one-liners.

It does, though. You can dismiss it all you like with your "I wrote a bunch of articles for a bunch of magazines," but the ships in Trek XI look big, while the ships in TMP (though gorgeous) look like plastic models in comparison. The people who disagree with you are not blind. We just think you're wrong.

And it took how many thousand posts from you guys in the abrams forum to get the idea across that you think folks who disagree with you are wrong? (there isn't an emoticon that can convey how far up my eyes rolled in my head over THAT awesome stunning revelation.)

Gee, you disagree? Figure out what you're disagreeing about. I didn't say the trailer shot failed in making the ship look big, I said it looked painterly, as in NOT PHYSICALLY THERE.

Test of time will win out, I hope. Lots of folks thought the NEM vfx were excellent a few years back, even though they looked pretty cartoony, but nowadays they seem to place pretty low even on the Trek pantheon of fx.
 
How's that for the scandal stuff you said you wanted? Or do I need more of a conspiracy theory angle?

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or if you really are as unhinged as your posts are beginning to indicate. Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Mandel quitting over something to do with the Kelvin's design (which is what I heard before this "he made a drawing!" rumor came out, but disregarded because it sounded like empty gossip). Either way, since you're here name dropping and gushing about how well respected you are with ILM, why don't you just call John Eaves on his cell phone and ask him what the deal is?:techman:

Actually, I'm now persona non grata with ILM, just because of this non-article and the fact that I called Steve K of their PR dept. on his shenanigans. Funny how nothing like that never happened as a result of anything I wrote and sold about them.

I haven't spoken to Eaves since INSURRECTION, but I can post on his blog, SAME AS YOU ... then again, I wouldn't be getting paid to do so, which eliminates most of the incentive for me (I'll talk with pros endlessly about projects of interest to me for no profit, but as far as Trek goes, that only includes TMP and TFF and TWOK.)

And I wasn't being sarcastic with the scandal thing, just showing some consideration by catering to your own post.
 
Last edited:
It does, though. You can dismiss it all you like with your "I wrote a bunch of articles for a bunch of magazines," but the ships in Trek XI look big, while the ships in TMP (though gorgeous) look like plastic models in comparison.

This is true. trevanian continually makes assertions on the subject of CG versus practical models that aren't well-founded in current fact so much as in an extreme attachment to an obsolete set of conventions and outdated observations - "it doesn't look like the way movies used to look" is not synonymous with "it doesn't look real." Some of what he says was true a decade ago, but the experiences of the vast majority of people who actually watch movies simply belie his fixed opinions. Nor does dismissively quoting dialogue from old TV shows or bad no-budget movies of the 1970s constitute supporting argument.
 
Nobody should blame him; it's hard for someone who's obviously got much knowledge and fondness for the technology of those days to move on; it's like throwing out your baby. Even though it's an ugly one who poops and pisses.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top