Christ, we're back to buttholes again.I wonder about you guys...
Buttholes? Where? I know nothing.
Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
Buttholes? Where? I know nothing.
The Kelvin hull was composed of three parts: saucer, nacelle, engineering pod. The saucers of the fleet ships were somewhat different from the Kelvin, with slightly different bridge configurations and lacking the "humpback" that was the base of Kelvin's engineering pod. The nacelles also had slightly different proportions, most of them seeming slightly shorter than Kelvin's.
Basically, these ships are less of a kitbash than, say, the Constellation class or the Nebula or even USS Reliant.
I just find the jump from Archer's small NX-01 to a kilometer long 1701 a bit of a rather large jump.
It is roughly the same as size increase per year as the 1701 Prime to 1701-E.
We have a new reference image:
Unfortunately, it's very small. Too small to be able to do anything with it. But, we've also got a new wallpaper to drool over:
Both from roddenberry.com.
Unfortunately, it's very small. Too small to be able to do anything with it. But, we've also got a new wallpaper to drool over:
Both from roddenberry.com.
The ship was EXACTLY 2500' in the teaser trailer (I spent/wasted an hour in Paint Shop Pro 'proving' this)
I once didn't care. Now I want to shake people until they agree the ship is 762 meters. I blame EAS' childish 12-page rant flaming everyone from JJ to Ryan Church and on down for my "conversion".
I once didn't care. Now I want to shake people until they agree the ship is 762 meters. I blame EAS' childish 12-page rant flaming everyone from JJ to Ryan Church and on down for my "conversion".
I hereby proclaim the BIG E to be 762 m long!
Oh come on- It's the guy's own site, and it's not like he didn't use reason to come to his 366m conclusion.
As far as on screen evidence goes, it boils down to what scene you want to use as evidence. If you decide on the shuttle bay, or everything else.
If you go by the non-conclusive off screen interviews about the whole scaling issue, then you're obviously on-side with the plus 700m camp.
Personally, I'm in the 366m one. I don't see any visible difference that made this ship look over 700m long. And it's not like 366m is small by any stretch of the imagination.
When I saw the movie I thought the filming (CGI) was really well done- it made a ship look larger then life, not unlike the flyby of TMP's Enterprise. And the new ship looked not much larger then TMP's...
Then I read all the arguing over the size, came to my own conclusion based on the on screen evidence, watched the movie again, and did not see one thing that suggested the ship was over half a km long other then the shuttle bay scene.
The 2 pivotol scenes for me were when they panned away from outside the bridge window (and people walking on the scaffolding in dry dock).
Even the Kelvin had scale issues. There was one scene that quite clearly showed someone in a window (very briefly), and that was a small window.
Now I'm not saying that one window is conclusive- I'm just saying there are issues in the whole movie, and I think that the next movies may help clear those up. Hopefully.
Hopefully you all can keep this thread alive until then.
Uhm, no. The shuttlebay is the same scale as just about everything else, multiple analysis have proven that. It simply boils down to the belief that the Farragut's saucer section is supposed to be the same or smaller then the Enterprise's saucer section, invalidating all other shots, or if it indeed can be larger.
Correct.
Oh come on- It's the guy's own site, and it's not like he didn't use reason to come to his 366m conclusion.
...
Personally, I'm in the 366m one. I don't see any visible difference that made this ship look over 700m long. And it's not like 366m is small by any stretch of the imagination.
When I saw the movie I thought the filming (CGI) was really well done- it made a ship look larger then life, not unlike the flyby of TMP's Enterprise. And the new ship looked not much larger then TMP's...
Very reasonable post, Patrickivan (and we could do with a few more of those in this thread). I agree that while Bernd can be a bit stubborn, it's not like he doesn't provide evidence to back up his beliefs. But he has became a bit of a whipping boy for anyone who disagrees with him.
I vastly prefer the shorter version of the ship, but freely admit that the evidence is contradictory. However, I wouldn't hold out on the next film answering any questions. Knowing Trek's history I think its far more likely it will provide a whole new set of contradictory evidence...
And, as I've said before, when I watched the movie on screen the Enterprise looked right (whether 366m, 700m, of 10km long). That, to me, was the most important part. I never felt I was watching an "extreme" Enterprise, pumped up in size for no particular reason. The only "huh?" moment was in some of the interior shots of the brewery where we saw the ceiling towering far above.
It was a mistake to do the wide shot of Kirk and Scotty running through the engineering levels. I was fine with the brewery stand-in when it was shot in a tight frame, like the landing party strut to the shuttlebay or the com stations or Scotty's little swim, but the wide frame bounced me right outta the movie on my second viewing.
That shot of Kirk and Scotty running through the massive engineering set pretty much shows that the ship is far bigger than in TOS.
That and Abrams clear fetish for making things BIGGER and more hot-rod like.
No, he didn't.
He used logic to justify his conclusion, which is a different thing altogether.
Bernd didn't approach the study of this thing without bias; he began with the assumption based on the look of the design and Trek history that this ship was approximately the same size as the original (within, say, 15 to 20 percent).
He then systematically favored bits of evidence that support the "smaller ship" hypothesis while presenting rationalizations for discounting evidence - including direct statements by the designers - that it's much larger.
Why? Because he doesn't like the idea of the larger ship. It contradicts too much oldTrek continuity that he has an emotional investment in.
That is not "using reason to come to a conclusion" - it's working backward from a conclusion and using logic to defend it. And that is why it irritates so many people - not because we have a preference for the larger ship theory. In fact my own preference would be for it to be exactly the same size as the TOS ship and I can look at the design and justify that - but I also know that within the context of Abrams's Star Trek, I'm simply mistaken.
I agree. He used logic that was based on the unreasonable and faulty assumption that design elements in the new universe have to be exactly the same size as in the old one.
Bernd is a stubborn guy, and it's hardly like I agree with all his conclusions.
But I find it amusing that he is going to great lengths, not to dismiss Abrams-Trek or marginalize it, but to bring it into the fold with the rest of Trek history by trying to smooth out the inconsistencies, and yet he's constantly treated like some heretical figure for daring to do so.
If Abrams-Trek really is an alternate universe version of the "original" Trek (and not a reboot) then taking the time to examine and perhaps explain away the inconsistencies - and a kilometer-long Enterprise certainly counts as an inconsistency, like it or not - is a legitimate enterprise...no pun intended.
But I find it amusing that he is going to great lengths, not to dismiss Abrams-Trek or marginalize it, but to bring it into the fold with the rest of Trek history by trying to smooth out the inconsistencies, and yet he's constantly treated like some heretical figure for daring to do so.
If Abrams-Trek really is an alternate universe version of the "original" Trek (and not a reboot) then taking the time to examine and perhaps explain away the inconsistencies - and a kilometer-long Enterprise certainly counts as an inconsistency, like it or not - is a legitimate enterprise...no pun intended.
Yeah, but so far, I haven't seen him explain the inconsistencies at all, merely stating that the Enterprise should be a specific size and that from this point of view a lot of the effects are plainly "wrong". That's not bringing it into the greater Star Trek fold, that's simply polarizing the issue because of personal taste. There's nothing wrong with personal taste, however, one should not present that as fact. Sort of like journalism is supposed to be unbiased.
I came over to this site just for the thead, after hearing about it on another bbs. I had not even considered that the Big E was any different in size from TOS until someone mentioned it on that BBS.
There are SOME inconsestancies with scaling. It seems that the over all idea was to keep the E the same size. But then as filming was done it was realized that to have all the grandness envisoned of this Nu E it HAD to be upscaled. Many (dare I say most if not all?) of the grand scenes simply could not be done on the smaller E. The giant engerning section (of wich I'm convienced that we've only seen a small portion in this movie - expect more in the next movie), the huge window on the bridge, the rooms and transporter located just behind the bridge, the giant shuttle bay all come to mind. These things are part of the "vision" of this new E. When it was discovered that this "vision" was not possible in the smaller sized E it was upscaled. Unfortunatly the scenes in the smaller scale were already in the can and left as is.
I came into this open minded about the size. In my mind overwhelmin evidence points to a bigger E. Yes there is evidence that the E is smaller but that evidence is little by comparison and in some cases controvertible. In order for this E to live up to the grandness presented in so many shots it has to be bigger.
There are SOME inconsestancies with scaling. It seems that the over all idea was to keep the E the same size. But then as filming was done it was realized that to have all the grandness envisoned of this Nu E it HAD to be upscaled. Many (dare I say most if not all?) of the grand scenes simply could not be done on the smaller E. The giant engerning section (of wich I'm convienced that we've only seen a small portion in this movie - expect more in the next movie), the huge window on the bridge, the rooms and transporter located just behind the bridge, the giant shuttle bay all come to mind. These things are part of the "vision" of this new E. When it was discovered that this "vision" was not possible in the smaller sized E it was upscaled. Unfortunatly the scenes in the smaller scale were already in the can and left as is.
I came into this open minded about the size. In my mind overwhelmin evidence points to a bigger E. Yes there is evidence that the E is smaller but that evidence is little by comparison and in some cases controvertible. In order for this E to live up to the grandness presented in so many shots it has to be bigger.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
