Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
I heard that what actually happened was after Abrams upscaled the 1701 from 366 meters to 790 or whatever, the increased weight pushed the Earth downwards, freeing the ship from its gravity.
There was a time when Trekkies had plenty of time and a dearth of new material, so we did things like write to fan magazines and read The Best of Trek to come up with all sorts of questions and debates and then try to answer them with all sorts of creative rationalizations and explanations. Seems like that part of the "culture" has been lost sometimes.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I heard that what actually happened was after Abrams upscaled the 1701 from 366 meters to 790 or whatever, the increased weight pushed the Earth downwards, freeing the ship from its gravity.
Have you read THE GALACTIC WHIRLPOOL? There is an 'explanation' in that novel of centrifugal/centripetal forces which is almost as funny.
There was a time when Trekkies had plenty of time and a dearth of new material, so we did things like read and write to The Best of Trek to come up with all sorts of questions and debates and then try to answer them with all sorts of creative rationalizations and explanations. Seems like that part of the "culture" has been lost sometimes.
I'm all for creative rationalizations and explanations. I have nothing against your idea of exoskeletons in fact. The eye roll is mainly in response to the fact that you and others continually attack others for speculation and then you post something like that.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Now that it has come up, I have a 'legit' justification for exoskeletons. in the Bova novel KINSMAN, he has had a guy living in low-gravity on the moon for a long while, so when he returns to Earth he literally cannot take the strain and has to wear an exoskeleton just to stand and get around.
Now think of all those dockworkers in this abrams trekthing who used to assemble starships in orbit, who are displaced and have lost jobs. Maybe they had to come back down to Earth, now that starship assembly has been routed dirtside in honor of this Kirk guy's memory. They probably didn't have medical benefits for a slow reintroduction to gravity, so they're taking lower-paying versions of their old jobs, but are hobbled by full earth gravity. So they are wearing exoskeletons not because they all want to be like Ripley, but because they need them to walk.
there you go, a sociological problem for them to solve in a trek movie. They don't even have to go anywhere in space to find the trouble, it is right under their starbases (well, a few thousand miles beneath the base.)
Does all that fit in with the BEST OF TREK kinds of extrapolation that we all miss so? (didn't BEST OF TREK declare Uhura's first name was Penda, and that Sulu's was Walt?)
Now think of all those dockworkers in this abrams trekthing who used to assemble starships in orbit, who are displaced and have lost jobs. Maybe they had to come back down to Earth, now that starship assembly has been routed dirtside in honor of this Kirk guy's memory. They probably didn't have medical benefits for a slow reintroduction to gravity, so they're taking lower-paying versions of their old jobs, but are hobbled by full earth gravity. So they are wearing exoskeletons not because they all want to be like Ripley, but because they need them to walk.
there you go, a sociological problem for them to solve in a trek movie. They don't even have to go anywhere in space to find the trouble, it is right under their starbases (well, a few thousand miles beneath the base.)
Does all that fit in with the BEST OF TREK kinds of extrapolation that we all miss so? (didn't BEST OF TREK declare Uhura's first name was Penda, and that Sulu's was Walt?)
Indeed - it seems some people only support explanations of this sort when they're used in favor of the Enterprise being a Battlestar-sized goliath.
There was a time when Trekkies had plenty of time and a dearth of new material, so we did things like read and write to The Best of Trek to come up with all sorts of questions and debates and then try to answer them with all sorts of creative rationalizations and explanations. Seems like that part of the "culture" has been lost sometimes.
I'm all for creative rationalizations and explanations. I have nothing against your idea of exoskeletons in fact. The eye roll is mainly in response to the fact that you and others continually attack others for speculation and then you post something like that.
No, that's Captain Robau. Please, pay closer attention!
Pedantic time: even at 900 meters, the new Enterprise is considerably smaller than a Battlestar. That chart going around that shows the Enterprise being bigger got the size of the Galactica wrong.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Can I up-pedantic your pedantic? Which Galactica?
(i think he was using Galactica for exaggeration effect, honest.)
The new one, which was the ship used in this chart. Odd that Doug wouldn't catch the mistake, being an effects supervisor for the show, but somebody on another board corrected the length in another image. I just don't recall what thread.
ETA: there's an otherwise identical image here using the old ship. As I recall the original Galactica was smaller than the new one, so maybe the chart using the reboot version got their measurements mixed up.
Uhm, what? I was explaining exactly what I was doing.
Kind of "Pot calling the Kettle Black" with "creative rationalizations and explanations” in trying to explain the size of the figures on the crane gantry. (or that's just how the different statements seem to add up)
This movie has major scaling issues all over the place - Even with the limited time we saw the Kelvin on screen. Not only would the amount of shuttles we saw (their storage requirements would have virtually eliminated engineering within the secondary hull), but on the exit sequence from inside the hangar bay, it was substantially larger than the exterior hull would have allowed.
For me personally, the initial construction had the Enterprise at 1200ft(366m), and then it just grew in size for the rest of the movie. Not that I like it, but can accept it.
This movie has major scaling issues all over the place - Even with the limited time we saw the Kelvin on screen. Not only would the amount of shuttles we saw (their storage requirements would have virtually eliminated engineering within the secondary hull), but on the exit sequence from inside the hangar bay, it was substantially larger than the exterior hull would have allowed.
For me personally, the initial construction had the Enterprise at 1200ft(366m), and then it just grew in size for the rest of the movie. Not that I like it, but can accept it.
Last edited:
^^^
The difference is simple.
The ship cannot change sizes in-universe, and the most persuasive evidence about its size comes from the massive shuttlebay and expansive engineering decks, both of which support the large sizes quoted by ILM folks as the final size the ship was decided to be. If, in fact, there are visuals remaining in the film with the ship at its smaller size (of which I am not convinced), then we are left to explain creatively those remnant shots so that they fit in-universe with the larger size.
That is not the same as saying that the ship really is smaller (based on either on personal preference, one subjective opinions, or on a few extremely blurry silhouettes that may or may not be people in one shot) and completely neglecting the shuttlebay and engineering decks, both of which were shown in detail multiple times.
I'm using the final ILM size as well as persuasive evidence for the larger size and trying to explain creatively one shot that is, at best, arguably problematic and, at worst, utterly inconclusive. Others are rejecting, well, the rest of the film in favor of that one shot and trying to... um, I'm not sure... bitch about the rest?
The fun of "Star Trek Mysteries–Solved!" in The Best of Trek was finding in-universe ways to explain inconsistencies... not moan about them or lambast people who worked on the series.
The difference is simple.
The ship cannot change sizes in-universe, and the most persuasive evidence about its size comes from the massive shuttlebay and expansive engineering decks, both of which support the large sizes quoted by ILM folks as the final size the ship was decided to be. If, in fact, there are visuals remaining in the film with the ship at its smaller size (of which I am not convinced), then we are left to explain creatively those remnant shots so that they fit in-universe with the larger size.
That is not the same as saying that the ship really is smaller (based on either on personal preference, one subjective opinions, or on a few extremely blurry silhouettes that may or may not be people in one shot) and completely neglecting the shuttlebay and engineering decks, both of which were shown in detail multiple times.
I'm using the final ILM size as well as persuasive evidence for the larger size and trying to explain creatively one shot that is, at best, arguably problematic and, at worst, utterly inconclusive. Others are rejecting, well, the rest of the film in favor of that one shot and trying to... um, I'm not sure... bitch about the rest?
The fun of "Star Trek Mysteries–Solved!" in The Best of Trek was finding in-universe ways to explain inconsistencies... not moan about them or lambast people who worked on the series.
I unfortunately agree with you, it seems scaling was a bit all over the map in this film.
Aside from one scene that can be argued over, all other scenes in the movie show the Enterprise pretty consistently, including the shuttlebay and engineering scenes.I unfortunately agree with you, it seems scaling was a bit all over the map in this film.
Aside from one scene that can be argued over, all other scenes in the movie show the Enterprise pretty consistently, including the shuttlebay and engineering scenes.I unfortunately agree with you, it seems scaling was a bit all over the map in this film.
Well when you really look at the big picture, any one of the scenes except maybe the shuttle bay scene could be debatable on what size the ship appeared in. There are very few shots of the Enterprise that show it in reference to an object of known size, except for the construction scenes, and the shuttle bay scene..
I guess this argument will go on until the ship manual comes out. It's funny, 1877 posts over 94 pages on the size of a fictional ship on a fictional show. For all any of us know Mr. Abrams could be screwing with fans and intentionally changing the size of the ship from scene to scene. This could be why no one is officially stating what the size of the ship could be?
Why should the ship manual change anything? It isn't canon.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Unfortunately, in this bizarro-universe trek, there is the possibility it will become canon. All it probably takes is a foreword from Abrams or his production designer at the head of the book, indicating 'deez r de fax,' and then scads of folks will be citing and reciting that until the next reboot.
- Status
Similar threads
