Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
Huh? I feel your argument is specious, at best, because perspective is not the question here. Enterprise is staring down the shattered hull of Farragut - point blank. You suggest that Enterprise's orientation in relation to the other ship should somehow negate the fact that Enterprise's saucer is quite a bit smaller than her cousin's. It's like pulling a dime edge on to a quarter and trying to say the dime is is the same size.
Are there movie stills that back up your claim that both saucers are the same size in the next scene?
These recently added pics show a couple of different things: that the scale of Enterprise varies by scene and that she is a great deal bigger than her Prime counterpart.
But they're NOT the same design. There are no single-nacelled starships in that fleet, and none of them look like Kelvin.
We (well, YOU) have gotten used to thinking of new starship designs as kitbashes; even if the Kelvin-looking nacelles are the exact same engine design (which we do not know for sure) there's no reason those ships would have the same SAUCER design. Besides, Kelvin's single warp nacelle was quite huge; two or three of them could easily support the hull of a much larger ship.
What Star Trek movie hasn't?
No, I'm saying it's NOT smaller. It just LOOKS smaller because you're looking at something turned on an angle next to something spread out laterally.
If you're looking at a picture where one third of the "dime" is cropped on the outside of the picture, then you need to make sure that it really is a dime. I repeat: IN THE WIDE SHOT, THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE.
Only the one I posted the last four times somebody brought this up:
I see few to no aspects of those ships that make me think they are anything BUT kitbashes. From what are you drawing your conclusion?
So many scaling problems with that ugly ship! They should have done they homework better!
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yes, that's gotta be the best addition to this discussion as of yet; good foundations, good arguments, visual proof. Jolly good, sir.
Oh yes, that's gotta be the best addition to this discussion as of yet; good foundations, good arguments, visual proof. Jolly good, sir.
Is there really a need for this comment? He was simply stating his opinion.
Oh yes, that's gotta be the best addition to this discussion as of yet; good foundations, good arguments, visual proof. Jolly good, sir.
I don't see the difference between your addition to the discussion and his.
Yes.
Sweet Zombie Jesus, is this argument still going on?
The Enterprise changed sizes. It obviously changed sizes. It was frickin' huge when Kirk was staring at her longingly the night before he enlisted, and then it was about the size of the TOS Enterprise when he got onboard the shuttle at Riverside Shipyards. It was back to being frickin' huge when Kirk and McCoy's shuttle landed, and then it was back to being about the same size as the TOS Enterprise when we had that shot looking into the bridge from outside.
Personally, since the shot looking into the bridge from space was the only time we got a direct view of how large the ship is compared to a Human, that that ought to be considered the definitive shot. But that's purely my personal opinion.
The Enterprise changed sizes. It obviously changed sizes. It was frickin' huge when Kirk was staring at her longingly the night before he enlisted, and then it was about the size of the TOS Enterprise when he got onboard the shuttle at Riverside Shipyards. It was back to being frickin' huge when Kirk and McCoy's shuttle landed, and then it was back to being about the same size as the TOS Enterprise when we had that shot looking into the bridge from outside.
Personally, since the shot looking into the bridge from space was the only time we got a direct view of how large the ship is compared to a Human, that that ought to be considered the definitive shot. But that's purely my personal opinion.
Wait a minute Mangledduk, Disillusion has a opinion to, just like a butthole! Thanks for the comment Mangledukk!
Oh yes, that's gotta be the best addition to this discussion as of yet; good foundations, good arguments, visual proof. Jolly good, sir.
Is there really a need for this comment? He was simply stating his opinion.
Last edited:
Wait a minute Mangledduk, Disillusion has a opinion to, just like a butthole! Thanks for the comment Mangledukk!Oh yes, that's gotta be the best addition to this discussion as of yet; good foundations, good arguments, visual proof. Jolly good, sir.
Is there really a need for this comment? He was simply stating his opinion.
That should be an opinion, ncc-1701-e, but I didn't log in just to play grammar Nazi. Because true to this forum, we must discuss the size of the "butthole" involved.
Who's butthole is that? Certainly not mine, for it is safely secured in my bottom. 
Perhaps this is too much off topic.
Omega_Glory
Commodore
Is there any backstage info on the measurements of the viewscreen? I know there is a website that estimates them, but solid measurements would allowone to figure out the ships size pretty much exactly.
How about the fact that, in the REAL WORLD, aerospace engineers don't build new aircraft out of kitbashes? Things look similar because they are designed for a similar purpose, not because someone literally took parts from another design, slightly tinkered with them and then stuck em on a new design.
What we DO have in aerospace is upgrades (the various knockoffs of the Mig-21 produced by China) upscales (the Mitsubishi F-2, which is pretty much a giant F-16) and modifications (the difference between the Hornet and the Superhornet). You can't estimate the size of any of these aircraft by comparing their parts to similar aircraft, and the same is probably true of starships.
The butthole changes sizes in different scenes. Clearly a VFX error.
Well, based on an estimate of the window size at 6 to 8 feet high, I came up with a measurement of 710 to 760 meters. But that was 40 pages ago, when anybody still cared about that sort of thing.
The butthole changes sizes in different scenes. Clearly a VFX error.
No, I clearly remember a large analysis I made about the ship's butthole and what that meant for it's overall size; you are probably recounting the differences between Kelvin's butthole and the Enterprise's butthole. I believe I recall the Kelvin's butthole is somewhat tighter.
- Status
Similar threads
