Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[JuanBolio]

Haven't you been advocating exactly that for months, where weapons yield is concerned? More boom is better?

No, for YEARS. Not better in and of itself, just more accurate as far as what the technology is supposed to be. Photon torpedos are uber-nukes and should be treated that way, at least when "maximum yield" is specified. Hand phasers are capable of blowing up a sizable chunk of a mountain.

I just like consistency.

If you like consistency, you must hate Star Trek.

I love Star Trek. I simply love it more when they get things right.

 

[Gil T.Azell]

But being bigger makes a thing cooler, right?

Well, women always say size doesn't matter... as long as it's big enough.

But in the commercial on Sirius, all the women say it's 'THICKNESS' that matters,

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

But being bigger makes a thing cooler, right?

Well, women always say size doesn't matter... as long as it's big enough.

But in the commercial on Sirius, all the women say it's 'THICKNESS' that matters,

I'd imagine one can't very well do much with it, if it's very thick but only one inch tall.

 

[trevanian]

Is Starfleet in this goof-a-verse run by the LooksLikeMetalCeramics Company?

I'm sensing here that you have some issues with Abram's movie...

enuf that I won't pay to see it.

But to be honest, he lost me at hello (with the builtonearth stuff in the first teaser trailer.)

 

[Chrisisall]

But to be honest, he lost me at hello (with the builtonearth stuff in the first teaser trailer.)

All we are say-ing...
is give Trek a chance...

 

[Creedence]

No, for YEARS. Not better in and of itself, just more accurate as far as what the technology is supposed to be. Photon torpedos are uber-nukes and should be treated that way, at least when "maximum yield" is specified. Hand phasers are capable of blowing up a sizable chunk of a mountain.

I just like consistency.

If you like consistency, you must hate Star Trek.

I love Star Trek. I simply love it more when they get things right.

And who decides what's 'right?'

Roddenberry and his wife are both gone. We all agree that the people behind Insurrection and Nemesis were idiots. Everyone has there own opinions about bad Trek (cough, cough... Enterprise). Who is to say that JJ's recreation won't be the most consistent Trek of all.

 

[JuanBolio]

And who decides what's 'right?'

Me.

Who is to say that JJ's recreation won't be the most consistent Trek of all.

It might end up being that way, I don't know. I certainly like what I see so far, overall. I kinda have to call it into question, though, when the size of the ship varries by hundreds of meters from scene to scene, and they "officially" settle on the size that makes less sense. *shrugs*

Like I've said from the beginning, I like what I see. I just have a new notes.

 

[RAMA]

Is Starfleet in this goof-a-verse run by the LooksLikeMetalCeramics Company?

I'm sensing here that you have some issues with Abram's movie...

enuf that I won't pay to see it.

But to be honest, he lost me at hello (with the builtonearth stuff in the first teaser trailer.)

..and we still don't care.

 

[saddestmoon]

I like the bigger Enterprise, simply because it looks good that way.

She is obviously the flagship of Starfleet - and I suspect that she won't be the biggest starship either, in terms of starships to come...

Perhaps she is the standard for all other starships to come out of Starfleet, during this period... or is she unique size? A one-of-kind flagship, like no other...

Hmmmm... much to ponder for the next movie...

 

[The Castellan]

I would doubt it's that huge....I mean look at the NX ( I assume Archer's antics still happened in this universe ), we go from something under 300 meters to 900 meters in less than a century?
And that bridge must be the size of a parking lot, then. o_O

 

[Gepard]

I would doubt it's that huge....I mean look at the NX ( I assume Archer's antics still happened in this universe ), we go from something under 300 meters to 900 meters in less than a century?

We went from the Wright flier to 747s in less than 60 years. So what's your point?

(Also, ~700 meters.)

 

[F. King Daniel]

I like the bigger Enterprise, simply because it looks good that way.

She is obviously the flagship of Starfleet - and I suspect that she won't be the biggest starship either, in terms of starships to come...

Perhaps she is the standard for all other starships to come out of Starfleet, during this period... or is she unique size? A one-of-kind flagship, like no other...

Hmmmm... much to ponder for the next movie...

The rest of the fleet was scaled up too, not just Enterprise. Plus there was that big saucer in the debris field (that has the same details as the Kelvin)

 

[trevanian]

I'm sensing here that you have some issues with Abram's movie...

enuf that I won't pay to see it.

But to be honest, he lost me at hello (with the builtonearth stuff in the first teaser trailer.)

..and we still don't care.

Wasn't talking to you.

 

[SonicRanger]

...I kinda have to call it into question, though, when the size of the ship varries by hundreds of meters from scene to scene, and they "officially" settle on the size that makes less sense. *shrugs*

Some people claims this, but no one can point to a scene that conclusively shows the smaller size. And, no, "it just looks smaller [to me]" in scene such-and-such doesn't count.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm sensing here that you have some issues with Abram's movie...

enuf that I won't pay to see it.

But to be honest, he lost me at hello (with the builtonearth stuff in the first teaser trailer.)

..and we still don't care.

Pretty much as usual.

The larger size is the one that makes the most visual sense given the shots in the movie that most specifically establish scale relative to human beings - those being the shuttle shots approaching the Enterprise. We have good reference for the size of the shuttles relative to people, and therefore for the size of the shuttles relative to the Enterprise. Bits and pieces like the "giant saucer" in the debris at Vulcan have less specific reference.

 

[Psion]

I'm sensing here that you have some issues with Abram's movie...

enuf that I won't pay to see it.

But to be honest, he lost me at hello (with the builtonearth stuff in the first teaser trailer.)

..and we still don't care.

Just make sure your use of "we" doesn't include me.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

This thread is still in progress? REALLY? Sheesh. Carry on...

 

[M'Sharak]

enuf that I won't pay to see it.

But to be honest, he lost me at hello (with the builtonearth stuff in the first teaser trailer.)

..and we still don't care.

Just make sure your use of "we" doesn't include me.

No, it's more of a superfluous and smug royal "we" and wasn't worthy of one response, let alone three.

 

[Mangledduk]

...I kinda have to call it into question, though, when the size of the ship varries by hundreds of meters from scene to scene, and they "officially" settle on the size that makes less sense. *shrugs*

Some people claims this, but no one can point to a scene that conclusively shows the smaller size. And, no, "it just looks smaller [to me]" in scene such-and-such doesn't count.

I would agree with you, but its pretty clear in the movie when the ship is sitting on the ground under construction that there are people walking around on the hull.

 

[JuanBolio]

...I kinda have to call it into question, though, when the size of the ship varries by hundreds of meters from scene to scene, and they "officially" settle on the size that makes less sense. *shrugs*

Some people claims this, but no one can point to a scene that conclusively shows the smaller size. And, no, "it just looks smaller [to me]" in scene such-and-such doesn't count.

Yes, yes we can and we HAVE. The construction scene when Kirk rides up on his bike being the most glaring example. Even the digital artists have admitted the size varries greatly scene by scene.