Ship sizes: ALL LIES! (big pics)
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Remember this?
http://bruts_3.tripod.com/public_resource_enterprise/
EDIT - good lord, coming up on ten years old!
http://bruts_3.tripod.com/public_resource_enterprise/
EDIT - good lord, coming up on ten years old!
So we are decided then?
New E = 1200 M
Old E = 433
This would make TMP E = 445ish?
My alternate future era E where Picard dies on Veridian instead of Kirk
Designed by Montgomery Scott = 1350
New E = 1200 M
Old E = 433
This would make TMP E = 445ish?
My alternate future era E where Picard dies on Veridian instead of Kirk
Designed by Montgomery Scott = 1350
LOL
Nice pic!
But I don't think you'll get much agreement over the ship sizes - especially amongst the hardcore Treknical fans.
But I don't think you'll get much agreement over the ship sizes - especially amongst the hardcore Treknical fans.
^You didn't read the thread, did you?
Not entirely, no, but 1200m was written on what appears to be a rough draft of the scale chart, not the final version. As you can see in the later charts, the Enterprise was scaled down, along with other ships, so we can't expect 1200m to be validated by future canon. Either they'll stick to 2379.75 feet or there will be a recurring size issue which will eventually force a scale change, like the MSD forced the Defiant's rescaling from the VFX' 171m to the MSD's 110-120m or so.
It's not about whatever number is offically assigned to the ship, it's about figuring out the size the ship "really" is. The shuttlebay full of 12m shuttles, the doors at the rear or the ship, the 7' tall bridge window etc show that the Enterprise CG was detailed at that 1200m size. (although it was shrunk down significanty in the shipyard scene, to "fit" the power plant location. Note that the workers on the hull wouldn't fit in the exposed decks)
Apparently, JJ and his merry band are under the impression that one of the kitchy charms of the original series is blatant technical inconsistency, so in his own twisted, sick way, having the Enterprise shift sizes from shot to shot is his idea of an homage to TOS.
That, or it's a big honking middle finger to those of us who actually pay attention to what we watch.
That, or it's a big honking middle finger to those of us who actually pay attention to what we watch.
The ship "really" has no size; it exists only as a CG model and therefore doesn't HAVE a definite size and shape. FYI, the Enterprise-D was "really" six feet long in some shots, four feet long in other shots, and two feet long in still other shots. That's about as solid as you're going to get, because the nature of television in general and sci-fi in particular means you will never have a shortage of scaling errors even on the most thoughtful productions (and even TNG was hardly immune to this problem).
Suffice to say, MOST of the meaningful FX shots intended for the ship to be about 760 meters long. The few visual cues that suggest otherwise are vague enough not to matter in the long run.
I think you mean 1200 feet. It was actually scaled UP from 1200 feet to accommodate the larger shuttlebay and to make the interior sets seem more plausible.
More likely, it's a complete and utter lack of any serious consideration for the feelings of viewers "who actually pay attention to what they watch." Evidently, he was too busy directing a 128 minute film to notice the 12 seconds of footage--all of which are post-production FX shots--that contain slight scaling inconsistencies for the Enterprise.
What an asshole, right?
You're missing the point. I mean the size it would have to be to fit what we've seen.
No, I mean 1200m. That's the size all the details on the CG model points to. Read the thread for details.
You do know that the director is also responsible for the effects shots, right? The effects people do what the director tells them to do.
To which I disagree, because the ship fits just fine at the "official" length of 762 meters. Moreover, BECAUSE it is a CG model and not an actual spacecraft, there isn't any concrete way of pinning down how large it "should" be because there's no physical conflict between the interior and exterior, because they are two completely different things. That's the sucky thing about filming miniatures in general; there are ALWAYS inconsistencies, and sometimes the best you can do is to fudge an estimate that comes as close as possible to what is otherwise known.
As if this is the first thread to ever discuss this particular issue.
I've read through these responses, and I disagree with the conclusion that 1200 meters fits the evidence best. That works fine as an upper-limit margin, but ONLY that.
Last edited:
Yes, just like I know that a major motion picture like this involves several THOUSAND different effects shots, most of which are being constructed, edited and redone for continuity and visual impact.
Of course, clearly you are a better director than JJ Abrams since you would have been able to produce a film of identical or superior quality as STXI without overlooking all of those otherwise insignificant scaling errors in the post-productoin FX shots.
Even if we assume that all the 1200m calculations are correct (I haven't checked them), with no room for uncertainty, they are still on shaky ground because of the 2379.75-foot official size. We know that 2500 feet appeared on an ILM scale chart, with full support from Alex Jaeger no less, so my guess is that 2379.75 feet is the built-in scale of the CG model. It would explain the unusual precision. Therefore I would be extremely wary of any calculations that suggest a larger size or 366m; the next movie could easily show a deck chart that would put all doubt to rest.
Last edited:
My "official" Art of the film coffee table book says 1200 meters
I say 1200 Meters. The scale of the Bud Beer Brewery alone off the 405 would neccesitate a ship of that size if you have ever seen it from the hwy
I say 1200 Meters. The scale of the Bud Beer Brewery alone off the 405 would neccesitate a ship of that size if you have ever seen it from the hwy
