Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[Mangledduk]

Wrong. The only "366 meters" source is Jeager saying the ship started out around 1200 (obviously rounded), but then the ILM crew and/or JJ decided to make it larger. That doesn't make 366 meters a valid length for the final design. It was just a starting value during the design process.

That's like saying the TOS Enterprise isn't 289 meters because MJ initially designed it as 165 meters in 1964 and, therefore, it must still be that smaller size despite all later intentions.

Let's look at some of your own quotes:

"Wrong. The only "366 meters" source is Jeager saying the ship started out around 1200 (obviously rounded),"
-SonicRanger

"To take the obviously grossly rounded "2000 feet" and "3000 feet" as serious values is rather disingenuous. "
-SonicRanger

Are you implying that rounding a number suddenly makes it invalid? If this is true, it would make your claims on the size invalid wouldn't it? On the 2000 feet figure, lets look at that quote....

Bruce Holcomb, ILM model supervisor
“The Narada was six miles long and the Enterprise is 2000 feet. When they fly into camera, we always had to do something to make them look that big in CG.”

That seems pretty solid to me. That does not sound like an estimate. The same article also says, "Although it stayed true to form, the Enterprise grew from 1300 feet to 2000 feet in length for this film." This quote can be interpreted in several ways. It does support the claim of Alex Jaeger when he says the ship went from 1200 feet to being upscaled based on the shot. This could be interpreted as saying the ship was set at 1300 feet before filming began and then scaled up, or it could mean that it appeared as 1200 feet and also appeared as 2000 feet. We simply do not know.

"In this case, if we are consistent, then ILM must be the final word: the ship is 741 ± 25 meters."
-SonicRanger

Roughly 741 meters give or take 25 meters...no, thats not rounding or estimating at all

"There are two from Entertainment Weekly, but I don't have a link to the online article (since I'm not sure it IS online) that tallied up comparisons between the old and the new. In one article the size is given as "almost 2500 feet" while in the other--about a month and a half later--it's given as "nearly half a mile" and both reference publicity materials from ILM's PR department."
-SonicRanger

I dont even need to comment on that.

"It "really" isn't any size. The ship we saw sits on a computer hard disk. We can only then establish about what size it is meant to be in-universe. That number is about 740 ± 25 meters according to the legitimate sources."
-SonicRanger



"To take the obviously grossly rounded "2000 feet" and "3000 feet" as serious values is rather disingenuous. "
-SonicRanger

Let's look at the Post Magazine article where they quote the Enterprise is 3000 feet..

"Another aspect was the daunting scale of the ships. The Enterprise is 3,000 feet long but bad guy Eric Bana's ship is designed to appear a humongous five miles long."

Once again, that does not sound like it is rounded. There is no reason to throw out ANY numbers. They are no less valid than the numbers that you cling to. Every number we have is from a source that is in some way "official". I have not, and I am not debating that the ship appeared as a 700 meter ship on screen, it is pretty obvious it did. But the quotes from Alex Jaeger and others have proved that the ship did not stay the same scale in the movie. The size changed based on the shot, that is the very reason we have so many different numbers. To say that you are absolutely right and to throw out clear evidence that goes against your firm conclusion is not logical. There is clear evidence showing both sizes, and you cant discount them by saying, "thats not valid" because the numbers you use have the exact same problems as someone who has opposing viewpoints to you. If ILM came out with one solid number and they said, "the ship is 9000 meters long" and everyone agreed. I would be firmly supporting that statement. The problem we have though is we have so many different numbers. There are more numbers that say that it is around 700 or so meters, but there are numbers that say it is much smaller and those same quotes leave it very open to the possibility it could be much smaller. Not to mention the construction scenes seem to show a ship of a smaller scale as well.

All this being said, there is a point where one has to realize they are arguing with someone who will not change their mind and will claim they are right no matter what. Since I think I can go into a neverending circular argument with several members on this board I will end this post by saying.."The ship is bigger than my house, and it flies in space What a bummer about Michael Jackson, and if the manual comes out and confirms SonicRanger's size, I will buy him a virtual beer I will say "SonicRanger was right" with a smile and I will move on with my life. I have said it before I don't care either way. I do like to approach things scientifically and I don't believe you can discount any piece of evidence, especially when they all come from similar sources. In conclusion, peace SonicRanger, hopefully we will find out a definate figure for the ship soon. When that happens I will back you up in any argument on this matter. Until then, I can not accept any one number as official when all the "official" numbers are different.

 

[trevanian]

(In his previous trek movie Jeager dwarfed the Defiant in relation to the E-E).

Jaeger had nothing to do with that, he designed new starships on FC, he didn't design fx shots. That is either ILMs John Knoll or Stu Maschwitz or a paramount directive, just as showing only one shield hit (in that same shot) in the whole movie was a paramount directive.

Jaeger is kind of the new Bill George at ILM, so he is probably accurate with his info. Then again, he hasn't commented on this on his blog, or responded to email inquiries about it, so maybe another 'Galileo recanting' is on the horizon?

 

[Mangledduk]

(In his previous trek movie Jeager dwarfed the Defiant in relation to the E-E).

Jaeger had nothing to do with that, he designed new starships on FC, he didn't design fx shots. That is either ILMs John Knoll or Stu Maschwitz or a paramount directive, just as showing only one shield hit (in that same shot) in the whole movie was a paramount directive.

Jaeger is kind of the new Bill George at ILM, so he is probably accurate with his info. Then again, he hasn't commented on this on his blog, or responded to email inquiries about it, so maybe another 'Galileo recanting' is on the horizon?

Would you mind expanding on your "Galileo recanting" comment? I'm not familiar with what you are referring to.

 

[gastrof]

Should we all stop arguing and wait until something official is published? Blueprints or something?

Nah.

I didn't think so.

 

[SonicRanger]

Are you implying that rounding a number suddenly makes it invalid? If this is true, it would make your claims on the size invalid wouldn't it? On the 2000 feet figure, lets look at that quote....

Bruce Holcomb, ILM model supervisor
“The Narada was six miles long and the Enterprise is 2000 feet. When they fly into camera, we always had to do something to make them look that big in CG.”

That seems pretty solid to me. That does not sound like an estimate.

He's rounding. If the ship is actually, say, 2453 feet, some people will round that to 2000 feet. Others will round it to 3000 feet. You could also round it to 2500 or 2450 feet. That is the nature of rounding: inexact shorthand.

"In this case, if we are consistent, then ILM must be the final word: the ship is 741 ± 25 meters."
-SonicRanger

Roughly 741 meters give or take 25 meters...no, thats not rounding or estimating at all.

No, that's not rounding. That is called an average and a range based on the range of valid lengths we've been given, ranging from 718 to 760 or so. We don't how the exact value yet, but it falls within that range.

"There are two from Entertainment Weekly, but I don't have a link to the online article (since I'm not sure it IS online) that tallied up comparisons between the old and the new. In one article the size is given as "almost 2500 feet" while in the other--about a month and a half later--it's given as "nearly half a mile" and both reference publicity materials from ILM's PR department."
-SonicRanger

I didn't write that, buddy. Learn to use the multi-quote button.

"It "really" isn't any size. The ship we saw sits on a computer hard disk. We can only then establish about what size it is meant to be in-universe. That number is about 740 ± 25 meters according to the legitimate sources."
-SonicRanger

I guess that means you don't have a rebuttal.

"To take the obviously grossly rounded "2000 feet" and "3000 feet" as serious values is rather disingenuous. "
-SonicRanger

Let's look at the Post Magazine article where they quote the Enterprise is 3000 feet..

"Another aspect was the daunting scale of the ships. The Enterprise is 3,000 feet long but bad guy Eric Bana's ship is designed to appear a humongous five miles long."

Once again, that does not sound like it is rounded...

No, that sounds exactly like a rounded number.

To insist that numbers like 2000 or 3000 feet don't sound like rounded numbers is either disingenuous or insane.

The Empire State Building is often said to be 1400 feet tall, but really it is 1453 feet and 8 9⁄16 inches. People aren't lying; they're rounding.

...blah, blah, blah... There is clear evidence showing both sizes, and you cant discount them by saying, "thats not valid" because the numbers you use have the exact same problems as someone who has opposing viewpoints to you... blah, blah, blah...

You're not getting it. Clearly I'm not set on one value if I'm happy quoting a range for now. And I have repeatedly said that I'm willing to believe that the artists tweaked the size here and there for different shots. But the ship "in universe" can only be one size.

Besides, it is perfectly acceptable to reject "opposing viewpoints" based on faulty data, inconsistent logic, or specious assumptions. People are entitled to their opinions, but it is insane to treat all of them as valid and give them all equal weight.



Okay, let's try this another way.

What sizes are the TOS Ent, the Ent-D, and the Defiant?

 

[Mangledduk]

Are you implying that rounding a number suddenly makes it invalid? If this is true, it would make your claims on the size invalid wouldn't it? On the 2000 feet figure, lets look at that quote....

Bruce Holcomb, ILM model supervisor
“The Narada was six miles long and the Enterprise is 2000 feet. When they fly into camera, we always had to do something to make them look that big in CG.”

That seems pretty solid to me. That does not sound like an estimate.

He's rounding. If the ship is actually, say, 2453 feet, some people will round that to 2000 feet. Others will round it to 3000 feet. You could also round it to 2500 or 2450 feet. That is the nature of rounding: inexact shorthand.

"In this case, if we are consistent, then ILM must be the final word: the ship is 741 ± 25 meters."
-SonicRanger

Roughly 741 meters give or take 25 meters...no, thats not rounding or estimating at all.

No, that's not rounding. That is called an average and a range based on the range of valid lengths we've been given, ranging from 718 to 760 or so. We don't how the exact value yet, but it falls within that range.



I didn't write that, buddy. Learn to use the multi-quote button.



I guess that means you don't have a rebuttal.

"To take the obviously grossly rounded "2000 feet" and "3000 feet" as serious values is rather disingenuous. "
-SonicRanger

Let's look at the Post Magazine article where they quote the Enterprise is 3000 feet..

"Another aspect was the daunting scale of the ships. The Enterprise is 3,000 feet long but bad guy Eric Bana's ship is designed to appear a humongous five miles long."

Once again, that does not sound like it is rounded...

No, that sounds exactly like a rounded number.

To insist that numbers like 2000 or 3000 feet don't sound like rounded numbers is either disingenuous or insane.

The Empire State Building is often said to be 1400 feet tall, but really it is 1453 feet and 8 9⁄16 inches. People aren't lying; they're rounding.

...blah, blah, blah... There is clear evidence showing both sizes, and you cant discount them by saying, "thats not valid" because the numbers you use have the exact same problems as someone who has opposing viewpoints to you... blah, blah, blah...

You're not getting it. Clearly I'm not set on one value if I'm happy quoting a range for now. And I have repeatedly said that I'm willing to believe that the artists tweaked the size here and there for different shots. But the ship "in universe" can only be one size.

Besides, it is perfectly acceptable to reject "opposing viewpoints" based on faulty data, inconsistent logic, or specious assumptions. People are entitled to their opinions, but it is insane to treat all of them as valid and give them all equal weight.



Okay, let's try this another way.

What sizes are the TOS Ent, the Ent-D, and the Defiant?

I'll quote myself...
"All this being said, there is a point where one has to realize they are arguing with someone who will not change their mind and will claim they are right no matter what."

SonicRanger believe what you want, ultimately what you or I have to say, or what anyone else on this board believes has absolutely no bearing on what the size will end up being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangledduk
"There are two from Entertainment Weekly, but I don't have a link to the online article (since I'm not sure it IS online) that tallied up comparisons between the old and the new. In one article the size is given as "almost 2500 feet" while in the other--about a month and a half later--it's given as "nearly half a mile" and both reference publicity materials from ILM's PR department."
-SonicRanger

I didn't write that, buddy. Learn to use the multi-quote button.

Actually you did in comment #1452

 

[ancient]

Well, they at least established that the bridge faces forward. But, following the example of God himself, they closed a door while opening a window.

Clearly ILM went for the awe and the art, not the scales. After all, blueprints make things look tiny and blue! The guy who did the CGI model definitely didn't have a quick and sure answer. Whatever scale they choose is going to be decided after the fact. I don't think they were being payed to waste time looking at the scale meter on the computer. Now that a book is coming out, now someone is being payed to do that.

Then it will be really really real. Really.

 

[SonicRanger]

I'll quote myself...
"All this being said, there is a point where one has to realize they are arguing with someone who will not change their mind and will claim they are right no matter what."

You're right. I do realize now that I am arguing with someone who will not change his mind and will claim he is right no matter what. Thank you for pointing that out. I'll stop trying to use my fancy logic anymore.

 

[miraclefan]

Any predictions on how many pages this thread will have? I say 5000 by the end of the year!

 

[Mangledduk]

Should we all stop arguing and wait until something official is published? Blueprints or something?

Nah.

I didn't think so.

Any predictions on how many pages this thread will have? I say 5000 by the end of the year!

LOL I think we can keep it going for awhile. Im pretty sure SonicRanger and I have kept it going for at least the last three or four btw, I'm more than willing to wait for the official manual. I voted to close this thread down ages ago.

 

[miraclefan]

Should we all stop arguing and wait until something official is published? Blueprints or something?

Nah.

I didn't think so.

Any predictions on how many pages this thread will have? I say 5000 by the end of the year!

LOL I think we can keep it going for awhile. Im pretty sure SonicRanger and I have kept it going for at least the last three or four btw, I'm more than willing to wait for the official manual. I voted to close this thread down ages ago.

SO DID I!

 

[trevanian]

(In his previous trek movie Jeager dwarfed the Defiant in relation to the E-E).

Jaeger had nothing to do with that, he designed new starships on FC, he didn't design fx shots. That is either ILMs John Knoll or Stu Maschwitz or a paramount directive, just as showing only one shield hit (in that same shot) in the whole movie was a paramount directive.

Jaeger is kind of the new Bill George at ILM, so he is probably accurate with his info. Then again, he hasn't commented on this on his blog, or responded to email inquiries about it, so maybe another 'Galileo recanting' is on the horizon?

Would you mind expanding on your "Galileo recanting" comment? I'm not familiar with what you are referring to.

Well, the first stuff we heard from John Eaves about MANDEL getting fired off this trek movie seems to have just about gotten vanished off the internet, and there is a lot of playing-way-too-close-to-the-vest with making-of info on this picture, and clearly a lot of backtracking on the size issue with the ship. That sets up the kind of situation where somebody makes an innocent accurate comment, and then has to do the 'oops, that didn't come out right' disclaimer after, to keep in good graces. Just hoping that isn't the case here.

And historically, there was a certain issue with cosmology and Galileo and the church, and matters of heresy and having to recant proven facts in order to avoid suffering at the hands of the powers that be ... just the usual stuff.

 

[ancient]

Logic is hard to apply to their after-the-fact scale choice. It's not like it's based on any real logic, the scale is completely arbitrary. I don't really care about what size it is, at least in theory. My only problem is, the ship has bad scaling cues for us trekkies. By itself, it looks the same size as the TOS ship. I think just upscaling it without changing any detailing was a real hack job. It looks small by itself, 4 window rows would've been nice on the saucer rim, for example. What a jip.

It's a 2500 foot ship that looks the same size as the 947 foot ship did. Now that's progress.

 

[Rick Sternbach]

In 40 years of trek, what we call the “official” dimensions of a starship has always been established by the artist that imagined, planned and designed her. Jefferies, Probert, Sternbach, Eaves and Drexler, their words have always been final.
The final word regarding this new Enterprise should be given by Ryan Church and only him. Not to the cgi modelmakers that can shrink or expand a model just to fit to the scene. (In his previous trek movie Jeager dwarfed the Defiant in relation to the E-E).

Amen, I'm in total agreement

Yes, but ILM did a lot of work on the design after Church gave them a very rough draft. Just compare the Enterprise painting on his website to the final design. It is more of a concept than a final design.

Jefferies, Probert, Sternbach, Eaves, and Drexler all did much more detailed final design work, and some of them worked on the final blueprints for the models, either physical or CGI.

There have been quotes from ILM artists about all the design work they put into it too.

EDIT: Here's the article about ILM: http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/how-ilm-came-up-with-the.php

I've been very lucky in that the sizes of the ships I've designed stayed pretty much where I intended. However, I'm sure my similar-era colleagues would all remind folks that we were not the ones running the zoo, and things changed even when we specified certain designs be certain sizes or shapes or colors. We were just playing in someone else's sandbox, and folks higher up the food chain made decisions we didn't necessarily agree with. That's just the biz. I can't speak to the design situation of the new movie, since I wasn't there, but I don't believe that the original designers of ships and other hardware seen in the film had the last word.

Rick

 

[Mangledduk]

Jaeger had nothing to do with that, he designed new starships on FC, he didn't design fx shots. That is either ILMs John Knoll or Stu Maschwitz or a paramount directive, just as showing only one shield hit (in that same shot) in the whole movie was a paramount directive.

Jaeger is kind of the new Bill George at ILM, so he is probably accurate with his info. Then again, he hasn't commented on this on his blog, or responded to email inquiries about it, so maybe another 'Galileo recanting' is on the horizon?

Would you mind expanding on your "Galileo recanting" comment? I'm not familiar with what you are referring to.

Well, the first stuff we heard from John Eaves about Drexler getting fired off this trek movie seems to have just about gotten vanished off the internet, and there is a lot of playing-way-too-close-to-the-vest with making-of info on this picture, and clearly a lot of backtracking on the size issue with the ship. That sets up the kind of situation where somebody makes an innocent accurate comment, and then has to do the 'oops, that didn't come out right' disclaimer after, to keep in good graces. Just hoping that isn't the case here.

And historically, there was a certain issue with cosmology and Galileo and the church, and matters of heresy and having to recant proven facts in order to avoid suffering at the hands of the powers that be ... just the usual stuff.

Ahh, very interesting. Thank you, you are a gentleman and a scholar

 

[Mangledduk]

Logic is hard to apply to their after-the-fact scale choice. It's not like it's based on any real logic, the scale is completely arbitrary. I don't really care about what size it is, at least in theory. My only problem is, the ship has bad scaling cues for us trekkies. By itself, it looks the same size as the TOS ship. I think just upscaling it without changing any detailing was a real hack job. It looks small by itself, 4 window rows would've been nice on the saucer rim, for example. What a jip.

It's a 2500 foot ship that looks the same size as the 947 foot ship did. Now that's progress.

Agreed wholeheartedly

 

[Anticitizen]

I hope the official manual says it's 513 meters long, just so this thread can hit nine thousand posts

 

[Shaw]

Well, the first stuff we heard from John Eaves about Drexler getting fired off this trek movie seems to have just about gotten vanished off the internet...

Wow, I hadn't heard about Drexler working on the movie... But I can provide the exact quote of what John Eaves said about what happened with Geoffrey Mandel.

As for Eaves about Drexler, your on your own about that one.

 

[trevanian]

Well, the first stuff we heard from John Eaves about Drexler getting fired off this trek movie seems to have just about gotten vanished off the internet...

Wow, I hadn't heard about Drexler working on the movie... But I can provide the exact quote of what John Eaves said about what happened with Geoffrey Mandel.

As for Eaves about Drexler, your on your own about that one.

My bad, I was sleepy and meant Mandel. Geez, is that how the bad rumors start? Sorry!

 

[Silversmok3]

Logically,it is illogical to expect engineering precision from people who are by trade,not engineers.

As the Enterprise is a fictional vehicle,it can be as large -or as small-as the moviemakers wish.Insisting the figures ILM released are wrong presupposes someone here knows better than the effects artists who were paid to create the shots used for 'evidence' here.