Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[Mangledduk]

I find it hard to believe that every time I check this forum one side tries to claim their size is correct. ILM said clearly that it changes scales, and they made it whatever scale worked best for the scene. How can anyone claim that they are right when its pretty clear they changed the scale and admitted it? Guess what it IS 366 meters, and it IS 700+ meters...sheesh people, stop trying to claim victory, because its clearly both depending on the scene. Who knows what other sizes we were shown, Im probably guessing 3000 feet, 2357 feet, 1200 feet, 1300 feet to 2000 feet, the list goes on and on....I find it funny that people have latched onto the 718 meter figure based off of a length that was quoted WITH the other lengths months ago and was just rediscovered about a week ago.

 

[JuanBolio]

I find it hard to believe that every time I check this forum one side tries to claim their size is correct. ILM said clearly that it changes scales, and they made it whatever scale worked best for the scene. How can anyone claim that they are right when its pretty clear they changed the scale and admitted it? Guess what it IS 366 meters, and it IS 700+ meters...sheesh people, stop trying to claim victory, because its clearly both depending on the scene. Who knows what other sizes we were shown, Im probably guessing 3000 feet, 2357 feet, 1200 feet, 1300 feet to 2000 feet, the list goes on and on....I find it funny that people have latched onto the 718 meter figure based off of a length that was quoted WITH the other lengths months ago and was just rediscovered about a week ago.

This is what I've been saying - that it is shown as both enormous and relatively normal-sized, and I prefer one over the other.

 

[saddestmoon]

This is the best thread - period!

Everytime I come to this forum, this thread is one of the few that actually puts a smile on my face...

I like the 700 meter Enterprise - I think it's a great size!

And I like the fact that Canon is it's own violation. Size issues have always been present in Trek - so the belief that Abrams' movie is the harbinger of all things 'canon-violating' only makes me chuckle harder...

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Am i the only one that doesn't care about the size of the ship?

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Am i the only one that doesn't care about the size of the ship?

What, the "it's not the size that counts, but what you do with it" myth? You of all people should know that's not true.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Am i the only one that doesn't care about the size of the ship?

What, the "it's not the size that counts, but what you do with it" myth? You of all people should know that's not true.

You just called me a size queen, didn't you?


Well ... i guess i kinda am ...

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Am i the only one that doesn't care about the size of the ship?

What, the "it's not the size that counts, but what you do with it" myth? You of all people should know that's not true.

You just called me a size queen, didn't you?


Well ... i guess i kinda am ...

Don't worry, it's completely normal.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Bigger is better.


Well, sometimes.

 

[Kpnuts]

It'll be closed when they go back and re-do all the effects shots that make it out to be 366 meters

The ship looks huge in ALL shots. None make it out to be some small 300metre ship.

as well as confirm that all the Kelvin-era ships were enormous as well.

What would you like them to say "The Kelvin was massive"? Or have a character in Star Trek 2 say "The USS Kelvin from 25 odd years ago was huge you know". The ship was big, it held 800 people in mostly the saucer section. Of course it's huge.

Until then I'm perfectly valid in thinking its smaller, since it is clearly shown to be in most scenes (including the construction scene).

You can delude yourself into thinking that if you want. Realists will believe the official figures and visual evidence.

but the test of a great mind is being able to hold two opposing ideas at the same time

Self important much? As if you are sooo open minded about it being 700 metres.

Your need to have this ship be ONLY the official and absurd length of 718 meters is curious and amusing.

I don't 'need' to believe anything, but funnily enough I listen to official dimensions, interviews and visual cues, rather than make things up to make myself feel better.

I do find it funny how you think the ship in the under construction shot looks 300 metres though. If anything that's the best shot that proves it's ~700.

 

[JuanBolio]

You're winging those estimates on the construction shot. Come back with some mathematical evidence. I don't think you fully realize how huge a 366-meter starship would look if it were set up on stilts, on flat ground from only a couple hundred yards away.

By the way, I just watched it again. That gantry crane IS touching the saucer, just above the lower sensor dome. You can see it clearly when the recruit's shuttle takes off. That makes the figures walking along it perfectly proportioned to a ship of similar dimensions to the refit Constitution class.

I'm not saying that some shots don't show it to be 700+ meters long - they certainly do. But most other evidence - the construction scene, Kirk's escape pod, the windows and airlocks - point to its originally intended size of 366. The larger length is something they fudged to accomodate all those shuttles, I'm guessing. Why they upped the size and made it completely inconsistant with itself and the rest of the fleet instead of just saying "Oops, we wanted a big shuttlebay" I have no idea.

Since there are at least two different sizes shown on screen, what the hell is wrong with me liking one better than the other? I AM being open-minded. I fully acknowledge that some shots make it out to be a spacegoing leviathan comparable to a Galaxy or Sovereign class ship. You're the one who's saying the smaller size is absurd and totally unsupported when its anything but.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

But most other evidence - the construction scene, Kirk's escape pod, the windows and airlocks - point to its originally intended size of 366.

The airlocks don't support a size of ~300m, that makes them way too small to be useful. Same with the windows; you're assuming a window size comparable to that of the Refit. Sorry, but those were tiny portholes; judging by the design of the interiors of the new enterprise and the bridge window, it's certainly no stretch to have the windows stretch from (visible) ceiling to floor, and have a corresponding width. Kirk's escape pod don't point to either size; it's going too fast to compare.

Actually, if you look at the similarities to the Refit, I believe the Refit should actually be ~700m, not smaller.

 

[JuanBolio]

But most other evidence - the construction scene, Kirk's escape pod, the windows and airlocks - point to its originally intended size of 366.

The airlocks don't support a size of ~300m, that makes them way too small to be useful. Same with the windows; you're assuming a window size comparable to that of the Refit. Sorry, but those were tiny portholes; judging by the design of the interiors of the new enterprise and the bridge window, it's certainly no stretch to have the windows stretch from (visible) ceiling to floor, and have a corresponding width. Kirk's escape pod don't point to either size; it's going too fast to compare.

Actually, if you look at the similarities to the Refit, I believe the Refit should actually be ~700m, not smaller.

Given that we've seen human figures standing on the hull of the refit, I think that's impossible. For that matter, we've seen human figures standing on and near the hull of the new ship, making 700 meters impossible for most shots.

No, the airlocks would be perfectly sized for personnel transfer. Yes, you can see the escape pod perfectly when it ejects. Yes, the saucer rim windows COULD be scaled up to be floor-to-ceiling deals, but why would you? Practically speaking, starships shouldn't even have windows. They're dangerous. Keeping them small and limiting their number would be prudent, if you absolutely HAD to have them.

 

[Kpnuts]

You're winging those estimates on the construction shot. Come back with some mathematical evidence. I don't think you fully realize how huge a 366-meter starship would look if it were set up on stilts, on flat ground from only a couple hundred yards away.

I'm not estimating anything on the contruction shot. I'm stating OFFICIAL and CONFIRMED figures as to the size. ie. ~700 metres.

You have no mathematical evidence either by the way. 'The airlocks are too big' isn't evidence. Trek is filled with inconsistencies like that. The best information to listen to is the official stuff.

But most other evidence - the construction scene point to its originally intended size of 366.

You need to have your eyes checked if you believe that.

Since there are at least two different sizes shown on screen, what the hell is wrong with me liking one better than the other? I AM being open-minded. I fully acknowledge that some shots make it out to be a spacegoing leviathan comparable to a Galaxy or Sovereign class ship. You're the one who's saying the smaller size is absurd and totally unsupported when its anything but.

Official stats show the ship to be ~700 metres. Therefore that's what it is. It was SUPPOSED to be smaller, but it ended up getting upscaled.

Deal with it.

 

[JuanBolio]

You don't seem to grasp the fact that the "official" length was decided on to incorporate the shots which made it larger, and that most shots still leave it at the smaller size. Yes, the official word is 700 meters, but that flies directly in the face of most of what we saw on screen. The FX guys know this, and have admitted to it. Why can't you?

 

[Kpnuts]

You don't seem to grasp the fact that the "official" length was decided on to incorporate the shots which made it larger, and that most shots still leave it at the smaller size. Yes, the official word is 700 meters, but that flies directly in the face of most of what we saw on screen. The FX guys know this, and have admitted to it. Why can't you?

No it didn't fly in the face of 'most of what we saw on screen' FFS.

The airlocks and windows supposedly being too big is not "most of what we saw on screen"

A couple of shots, maaaaybe make the ship look smaller than it actually is. THOSE are the goofs and inconsistencies. The official length is ~700 metres.

Make a length up in your head to delude yourself and make yourself feel better if you want... but that's not how big the ship is.

 

[Patrickivan]

Arg- I wasn't going to jump into this killer thread, but we all know that it's not official until it's seen on screen... blah blah blah, but that's our unofficial rules that we try to work with...

That being said, I'd be super surprised if they didn't provide some concrete evidence of the ship size in the next movie.

 

[EJD1984]

However, dabbling in 3D does train your sense of perspective.

Well..... yes & no. Working in the bubble of computer 3D engineering can take away any sense of scale.

Example: I'm currently working on a satellite(s) that is basically a 10ft x 3ft octagon, and we never really got a scale of it, or in it's stacked configuration until we made the mockup this past spring, now the project heads are seeing how huge this really is, along with the logistics of integration and testing for the four spacecraft.

I think that with the disappearing art of model building, and the relative ease and manipulation of CG EFX, we're bound to be seeing more scaling issues in future movies.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

However, dabbling in 3D does train your sense of perspective.

Well..... yes & no. Working in the bubble of computer 3D engineering can take away any sense of scale.

Example: I'm currently working on a satellite(s) that is basically a 10ft x 3ft octagon, and we never really got a scale of it, or in it's stacked configuration until we made the mockup this past spring, now the project heads are seeing how huge this really is, along with the logistics of integration and testing for the four spacecraft.

I think that with the disappearing art of model building, and the relative ease and manipulation of CG EFX, we're bound to be seeing more scaling issues in future movies.

That's a very good point.

 

[buzzknox]

Arg- I wasn't going to jump into this killer thread, but we all know that it's not official until it's seen on screen... blah blah blah, but that's our unofficial rules that we try to work with...

That being said, I'd be super surprised if they didn't provide some concrete evidence of the ship size in the next movie.

They might provide such evidence, but only if they contradict it in the next film in true Trek style.

This debate has taken on a greater life than where the photon torpedoes are on the original Enterprise. And this debate, along with the torp one and the many others that have divided Trekkies, reveals one critical fact: the producers didn't make a movie to please "hard core Trekkies" or "true fans" or whatever term dogma leads one to use, because they knew they couldn't please them. Too many wouldn't have been satisfied by anything that wasn't a rehash of TOS, and others would have considered the new movie crap unless it conformed exactly to their version of the "gospel of TOS."

(262)

 

[Mangledduk]

You don't seem to grasp the fact that the "official" length was decided on to incorporate the shots which made it larger, and that most shots still leave it at the smaller size. Yes, the official word is 700 meters, but that flies directly in the face of most of what we saw on screen. The FX guys know this, and have admitted to it. Why can't you?

No it didn't fly in the face of 'most of what we saw on screen' FFS.

The airlocks and windows supposedly being too big is not "most of what we saw on screen"

A couple of shots, maaaaybe make the ship look smaller than it actually is. THOSE are the goofs and inconsistencies. The official length is ~700 metres.

Make a length up in your head to delude yourself and make yourself feel better if you want... but that's not how big the ship is.

You claim that the ship IS 718 meters, because you chose ONE of the figures ILM gave us...You are ignoring several other "official" numbers and choosing the one you like best. Is the 718 meter figure magical or something? It seems that everyone latches onto it like its the final say when in reality, its just another number from another interview. We've gotten so many different numbers its ridiculous. I have seen you criticize people for making analysis's of screencaps from the movie saying that screencaps are subjective and can't be used to prove things, yet, you suddenly latch onto screen evidence in support of your viewpoint and pick the ONE number you like because it fits your view. ILM said it was different sizes, they said that it was rescaled based on the shot they wanted at the time. You say that certain shots support a certain scale but I cannot remember one bit of analysis that you have shown at all in support of your claims. I could be mistaken, and if I am about you supporting your claims with proof I apologize. Unfortunetly I feel like a lot of your comments have been unfounded and it seems like you throw out all the numbers that they have been quoted and choose the one you like best..

Taken from Memory Alpha (Sums up the different sizes we have been given)
Various sources agree that the Enterprise is much bigger than the refit Constitution-class from the prime universe, despite the similarities. ILM Art Director Alex Jaeger explained the size in Cinefex #118:

The reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations — approximately 1,200 feet [370 meters] long compared to the 947-foot ship of the original series. Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments, it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale — shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined — so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail. [3]​

In a comment on his blog, Jaeger quoted a figure of 2500 feet (760 meters) from an early chart, adding that the size may have been somewhat reduced later on. [4] Other sources provide the following numbers:

• The length is given as 2357 feet (718 meters) in a CG Society article on ILM's visual effects work for the film. [5]

• ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb states that the Enterprise is 2000 feet (600 meters) long in an interview for Studio Daily. [6]

• Gizmodo blog writer Jesus Diaz revealed a figure of 2379.75 feet (725.35 meters), citing as his source a "David B." of Bad Robot Productions. [7]

• The Post Magazine article 'Star Trek' Returns gives a length of 3000 feet (900 meters). [8]

• The Enterprise Tour includes the following dimensions:
  • Length: 2500 feet (760 meters)
  • Saucer diameter: 1100 feet (340 meters)
  • Height: 625 feet (190 meters) [9]

• Tom Lowe of Round 2 said that their first model kit of the new Enterprise will probably be released at a scale of 1:2500, making it around 11.5 inches in length. This works out to approximately 2400 feet (730 meters). [10]

It's impossible to claim one size is the correct size because we have been given so many. If ILM would just come out and say...guess what, this is the size, its the final word, that would be great. Unfortunately they can't because I have a feeling there is not one size yet.