We're talking about Prime Constitution.The old:
The new:
Discovery Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
damn. I took that wrong turn at Albequerque. Sorry.
The question Prax asked was "what takes up all the space in the Kelvin Enterprise", so the cutaway is quite useful I'd have thought.
I appreciate the pics, and they're very nice, but I don't see how that answers my query.The old:
The new:
Are you speaking about me in the third person?It wont do any good, they don't want it to be that big and choose to ignore both the official size announcement and diagrams because they think they know better than the actual individuals who designed the new models and animated them on screen.
There really is no helping them, I can only assume they choose to be miserable about it, every now and then they bring up the subject again in the hope that reality has somehow changed since the last time, it hasn't and it wont.
Ruuuuuuude!!!
I have been active in this thread since it began, and have not made one disparaging remark about Discovery, Shinzhou, or Kelvin, et al. In fact, I have offered up some compliments along the way.
So let's go with the smallest, oldest ship, and apply this argument. The Constitution class....is only....3.3 football fields long(For the non US Americans out there, I'm referring to the kind of football that doesn't use a ball, and rarely uses feet). Is this too restrictive for detail? How large is the Millennium Falcon? It is an incredibly detailed cgi model.
My question was not about the Kelvin Enterprise, but an invite to the many on here saying that the older ships need to be changed/enlarged. The ones that keep getting mentioned above all others are the Constitution, and the Enterprise D. I've seen the Strategic Designs Blueprints for all of these, which seem to work just fine(http://oehler1990.bplaced.net/blueprints/ -not my page).
There seems to be a lot of "to protect the new from criticism-disparage the old" going on with these types of comments, similar to tactics used in many other discussions in this forum.
Other than that, yeah, I definitely dig those cutaways.
Because those blueprints cheat. Looking at the either Connie for example, it is obvious that the deck height doesn't match what is seen on screen, nor do the windows on the saucer rim match the decks.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Nope not specifically you, hadn't even read your post, saw that @King Daniel Beyond had posted and instantly knew why.
I don't mind the old designs but they were created before HD and advanced CGI, its a good idea that they be upgraded for the new series and films, just imagine if we were stuck with the same low res ToS Enterprise and special effects they had in the 60's.
The new designs just look better in all areas, plus they finally made the dimensions more realistic and in line with what is inside them and in doing so provides more space for different environments, sets and props for the actors to work with.
Just like the Kelvin timeline USS Enterprise 1701 the actual size of the Discovery has been settled by official sources, so in truth this thread is rather redundant now.
While I like the new dimensions
Stating that the new designs are better in all areas is your opinion
Personally I think the kelvin enterprise looks like a bag of shit. It only filmed well from the front. The secondary hull looks like a skinny shoe had sex with a glass Pepsi bottle.
The newer Hargrave 1701-A looks like slightly less like a bag of shit
Some of the new ship designs look good some look like bags of flaming dog shit (all the new Klingon ships)
I like the Kelvin, I like the Shenzou, think I like the Disco although it’s not by any means an all new design it’s actually a design almost 40 yrs old.
It’s all opinion
But I do like the updated sizes and look forward to a closer version of Jeffries Connie at 800 m
Doomsday clock moves one minute to Midnight.
If the size is official, it's official, I would just find it ridiculous if the 1701 would be as big as the Enterprise D.
There was not only a design linage in the past 45 years of Trek there was a size linage too and ships were smaller because they were less advanced.
The point is, the official Connie size was always way, way to small. Pretty much every ship has been screwy on the sizes as they pulled em out of thin air and never matched them to the sets or models. You can pretty much ignore any stated size.
G
Gonzo
Guest
That's fair enough, its not so much a case of all areas and more a case of me liking it in an overall sense and that I can understand what the designers were going for, I can appreciate that some may find the more bulbous Kelvin version a bit hard to swallow when the original was so slim in profile.
Don't even get me started on the cookie cutter, villain of the week, Klingon ships that really were sadly disappointing after the excellent yet understated update work they did with the Starfleet ships on the show, on saying that its possible that time travel is going to be involved and if so we may see changes to the Klingon ships depending on how far back they go and what is changed.
I also do think the Constitution class we see could be very big indeed but I suspect it will keep the slimmer profile of the original as they have done with the rest of Starfleet, if it does end up being 800m some members on this thread are going to have a fit over it... again.
G
Gonzo
Guest
I don't think the original Enterprise 1701 was that size due to the technology available in the ToS era setting but more to do with the limitations of the special effects and lack of CGI that was available for the show at the time of filming.
Hence why most of the ships in the new film/tv shows are now bigger, simply because it really does make sense that they should be bigger when proper design tools are used to design them and map them out.
The thing with the Connie is that they literally retconned the size between the pilots and the production episodes by reducing the size of the bridge and doubling the crew count. It was designed to be a certain general size, then they decided it should be bigger. No big deal.
The Bridge size module on the miniature wasn't reduced in width, just in height. Using the diameter of the Bridge set as a guide, there's no way even Pike's ship (with the taller Bridge dome) could be much shorter than 950' overall.
Unless you are referring to the "watermark" numbers on the secondary hull? While they could indicate a ship around 540' long (setting aside the fact that the Bridge dome on the model would be WAY too small), those numbers were in fact lifted from a much earlier draft of the model, before everything (even the shape of the components) was finalised. They were only added because of Gene Roddenberry's continual insistence for "more details" on the miniature.
Unless you are referring to the "watermark" numbers on the secondary hull? While they could indicate a ship around 540' long (setting aside the fact that the Bridge dome on the model would be WAY too small), those numbers were in fact lifted from a much earlier draft of the model, before everything (even the shape of the components) was finalised. They were only added because of Gene Roddenberry's continual insistence for "more details" on the miniature.
What? That makes zero sense. They're just models, either physical or digital. What their sizes are in universe has nothing to do with the real world tech level.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Exactly, they moved from being low detail/low budget physical models in a show which had a lukewarm reception and lasted only two seasons to high definition/high budget digital models in a show with a huge fandom and worldwide reach.
A lot more thought and work went into the digital models than ever went into the physical ones.
It matters a lot, as shown by the fact that it actually happened.
But that has nothing o do with scale.Exactly, they moved from being low detail/low budget physical models in a show which had a lukewarm reception and lasted only two seasons to high definition/high budget digital models in a show with a huge fandom and worldwide reach.
A lot more thought and work went into the digital models than ever went into the physical ones.
It matters a lot, as shown by the fact that it actually happened.
Also, a lot of thought went into the physical models in TOS, Enterprise in particular. Jefferies was pretty damn meticulous. Scaling issues arose when other people added windows that were not in his plans, as well as built interior sets that did not match the exterior.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Yes over time as technology improved and more details were added to the models it became clear that some of the sets and locations were not right, rather than change the sets and locations they changed the size of the models instead.
Jefferies designs were based on the thinking of the time, that was 50 years ago, our understanding has increased greatly since then and so has our ability to represent it on screen.
It is what it is, nothing is going to change it.
No, I think they just pulled the size of of their rears. They got the crew sizes from naval ships of the time IIRC.
Similar threads
