My god, the new Enterprise must be HUGE

[Patrickivan]

Franklin,

I don't dispute the size of it at all. I made my statement simply in response that determining the size of our beloved ship, is pretty simple. If you want to do it the long way.

I know the size of the Enterprise. If the movie presents something that is not the Enterprise that I have known since I watched my first episode in the 70's (Doomsday Machine), then it won't be the Enterprise. I don't care what anyone else calls it. It's either the 1701, or not. Sure, through in some more detail- that's cool. But make her bigger, faster, have more decks, and steal her overall design, then it won't be the Enterprise.

It's already looking somewhat foreign in shape- but I am willing to wait for more pics to come out before making any huge judgment.

It's funny how so many people see so many different things in the same image though, eh? We're looking at the exposed bow of the ship and some people see extra decks, some see two, with crawl spaces between (one collosally large "crawl" space). Some people even see an exposed warp core area.

We can't even tell if it's a refit or being built from scratch (pre Pike for some reason). Though if it's a refit, why TF didn't they just do it in space?

 

[Woulfe]

I trust Vek on his observations.

I'm starting to think they might of eggagerated the size a bit so it'd be a heck of an impact on the BIG SCREEN.

Let's say for the sake of sanity that all the pipes and soforth are near or next to the outer wall, and we can't see past them to the inner wall or even the decks.

This of course means that the edge is two decks like it's allways been, HOWEVER, like a buliding there is things between each deck, crawl space, Jeffery's tubes, A/C, heating, water, electrical systems, and so forth.

So 60' could be reasoned if you break it down into these 'sub' decks with support systems between the decks, it's entirely possible to get that 60' out of that.

However even so that'd give us at least 3 decks if one uses the old sets with thier high cielings

Going by the corridor pic elsewhere, it'd be more like 4 decks with 3 'sub' decks between them of course. However Vek points out that his estimation might be wrong as well.

So let's go ahead and say it's 2 decks like allways, with 'sub' decks above and below each deck in the flat part of the saucer, what does that give us ?

- W -
* thinking about this LOGICALY, if that can be done useing of all things a teaser that has nothing to do with the film itself, but it's all we have right now *

 

[Wowbagger]

Look, The Making of Star Trek is a fine book, and certainly a must-have, but it's no more canon than the TNG Tech Manual or the ST Encyclopedia--probably less so, because, like Franz Joseph's work, it's become largely anachronistic. 947x417 is an apocryphal number. Simple as that.

But make her bigger, faster, have more decks, and steal her overall design, then it won't be the Enterprise.

Not to beat up on you repeatedly, Patrickivan, particularly after I misspelled your name in my last post, but all I have to ask is: does this "ideal Enterprise" of yours have 78 decks, as shown in Star Trek V on the Connie-class Ent-A, or the more rational 30-odd that the fandom generally believes in?

My point is that the precise specifications of the Enterprise and her successors has always been inconsistent. It always will be. To pillory the new team, which, in my opinion, has enslaved itself to canon far better than did their predecessors who ran ST: Enterprise, is just plain unfair. These guys have faithfully re-built the Enterprise-1701 and made it look bloody good. Following on the Great Bird's own statement that the Enterprise always should have looked like the TMP refit, but was limited by budget during TOS, the new team has taken this ship into a new century while keeping the same design, proportions, specifications, and nacelle spinnies. Maybe the size is a new one, but it's no different than the numerous other times the size of the Big E has spontaneously changed to serve a script.

 

[trevanian]

Wowbagger said:
Look, The Making of Star Trek is a fine book, and certainly a must-have, but it's no more canon than the TNG Tech Manual or the ST Encyclopedia--probably less so, because, like Franz Joseph's work, it's become largely anachronistic. 947x417 is an apocryphal number. Simple as that.

But make her bigger, faster, have more decks, and steal her overall design, then it won't be the Enterprise.

Not to beat up on you repeatedly, Patrickivan, particularly after I misspelled your name in my last post, but all I have to ask is: does this "ideal Enterprise" of yours have 78 decks, as shown in Star Trek V on the Connie-class Ent-A, or the more rational 30-odd that the fandom generally believes in?

Given that it sure doesn't LOOK like it is 78 stories up when you see the shot from the floor of the lift, plus the fact that nobody SAYS it is 78 decks, it is much much easier to buy into the notion that whoever labelled the decks is the same joker who programmed the doors, just another defect or defacing of the ship.

You can make your point w/o dropping in that teensy thing that so many have gotten overwrought for nothing over.

 

[Patrickivan]

Wowbagger said:
Look, The Making of Star Trek is a fine book, and certainly a must-have, but it's no more canon than the TNG Tech Manual or the ST Encyclopedia--probably less so, because, like Franz Joseph's work, it's become largely anachronistic. 947x417 is an apocryphal number. Simple as that.

But make her bigger, faster, have more decks, and steal her overall design, then it won't be the Enterprise.

Not to beat up on you repeatedly, Patrickivan, particularly after I misspelled your name in my last post, but all I have to ask is: does this "ideal Enterprise" of yours have 78 decks, as shown in Star Trek V on the Connie-class Ent-A, or the more rational 30-odd that the fandom generally believes in?

My point is that the precise specifications of the Enterprise and her successors has always been inconsistent. It always will be. To pillory the new team, which, in my opinion, has enslaved itself to canon far better than did their predecessors who ran ST: Enterprise, is just plain unfair. These guys have faithfully re-built the Enterprise-1701 and made it look bloody good. Following on the Great Bird's own statement that the Enterprise always should have looked like the TMP refit, but was limited by budget during TOS, the new team has taken this ship into a new century while keeping the same design, proportions, specifications, and nacelle spinnies. Maybe the size is a new one, but it's no different than the numerous other times the size of the Big E has spontaneously changed to serve a script.

Oh, I don't care about a mis-spelled name. It happens. Kind of like an error of 78 decks being put in ST:V. Some things have to be over looked because it's FICTION and writers make mistakes. Producers make mistakes. Editors make mistakes.

So either the meatheads who made the teaser messed up with the scale, which is bad enough, or Abrams fucked up the Enterprise. DS9, Enterprise, and the remastered TOS, have all proven that you can take the original Enterprise and give her a more detailed look without compromising the design of the ship.

If you take a classic car, say the original Mustang, and put it next to an 07 Mustang, they both have the same name, but they are NOT the same car, and no one would try to pass one off on the other. An 07 isn't even a slight alteration- it stole some design elements and they made an entirely new car. It's NOT the same. It's not even a remake. It's a new car that has the same name... But if you take that same old Mustang, fix it up, put in some re-tooled parts, a few modern stuff, you still the essence of that original model left intact.

So what is Abrams doing with the Enterprise here? Well it's hard to tell with the horribly dark fleeting images he put out. But what is in the Teaser is not the original Enterprise. It doesn't even look like it. It's an '07 model trying to pass itself off as our classic ship.

As for consistentcy- obviously because of the errors over the years, the most reasonable approach to extrapolating data, is to take most of the stuff that is consistent, and disregard the rest as errors. Otherwise this fictional show would make even less sense then it sometimes already does. Kinda like why Geordi was still wearing his alternate timeline uniform at the end of Yesterday's Enterprise, or why Data apparently went through a shit load of different coloured cats named Spot. It goes on and on. Take the stuff that is consistent and run with it. Disregard the rest.

Now I'm hoping the scaling is right- and when it's painted, it'll look like our ship. But so far, I can only wait and see.

 

[Kadratis]

Size doesn't matter... it's how they use it.

 

[[[[MAC]]]]

Vektor said:

This is where I can see the CG guys being a lot less careful. All they really need to do for the purposes of this teaser is show some plausible looking “guts” beneath the missing hull plates. I wouldn’t lay any bets on them actually corresponding to identifiable internal structures like decks and crawlspaces, though, simply because those kinds of details have probably only been worked out to a rudimentary degree, if at all. Frankly, I think anybody who believes they can look at these images and puzzle out a meaningful deck arrangement including heights and clearances, or identify specific compartments like bars or lounges or crew quarters or whatever, is doing little more than providing amusement to some guys back at ILM who just put together some pipes and trusses and paneling and stuck it in there so it looked good.

My best judgment as a draftsman, 3D modeler and design/construction professional is that the saucer is about 60’ thick as shown in the teaser, but that the ship’s overall size has probably been exaggerated for dramatic effect. The 947’ overall length may not be canon, but I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that the people who built this model are well aware of it and that the “real” version is a lot closer to that dimension than to 3,500 feet long or any of the other extreme measurements various people—including me—have come up with.

You're right that there is no real reason for them to put these things
that we think we're seeing in this model, because unless the construction
(or the destruction) of the ship is a part of the movie these things will
never be seen through the 'skin' of the ship when its on screen in action.

At the same time, I do think that what many of the posters are saying they
can discern is exactly what is there in the model used for the trailer.

Why would they put this stuff there that is totally unnecessary to what
will be necessary for the movie?

First, its a level of realism that is noticed, even if only subliminally,
and even stuff might not be in the movie will register with the people
that see it. This will be important for overcoming that 'Oh, not that
Star Track crap again...' that 'non-fans' are going to react with when
they see the trailer in theaters.

That's why its a very dirty looking ship, too. Non-fans will look at it
and get sucked in, maybe even think its something else, another Aliens or
something, before they even realize its Trek. Look at what they show and
when. The meat of the trailer is 2/3's done before anything is seen or
heard that would indicate that its Trek.

With that being true, why would they even care at all about putting things
inside the ship that are 'real' and recognizable? To do exactly what is
happening on this BBS. These things are there, and they are what we think
we're seeing, to generate interest in the fan community. They are Easter
eggs for Trek Nerds.

I've been a fan from the very first episode broadcast. It has been a whole
lot of cold turkey these last couple of years with nothing new to talk
about. Now I'm interested again. I've been looking at the trailer over
and over looking for new things that I may have missed. I haven't been
this jazzed about anything Trek in over a decade. That's why its there
and that's why its not just 'plausible looking guts'. Its to get us talking.

I think that the red/brown shape that we see through the opening on the
rim is the bar/lounge, the original series version of Ten Forward (?Six
Forward?). Do I believe that when the movie rolls on the screen next
year there will be a bar that we'll be able to see on-screen through the
hull right at that location and looking like that. No. Maybe not - but
maybe, yes, too.

I don't think they are intentionally misleading us. If something can
be picked out of the trailer, such as the ship being two decks thick at
the rim, that's the way that it will be next year (unless they have a
plot point that makes them have to change it).

The spin monsters in J.J.'s marketing machine want us to see this stuff and
talk about it right now. I think there's a lot more detail in these images
than the first glance would lead 'common' viewers to notice (and we Trek
Nerds have proved ourselves over and over to be anything but common
viewers). There are things to find. They are 'real'.


Another example; are we seeing into the bridge through the openings
up on the command module? Its lower than we would expect to find the
bridge, but if there isn't an Easter egg up there, why did they pick
that part of the ship to expose? When you look at the hi-res video it
gives a sense of depth and openness. (The same visual 'feelings' are not
there with caps. You have to view the hi-res video, paused, and 'rocking'
it back and forth with the slider.)

The general profile that we can see of the internal structures is an
almost exact match of many of the plots, blue prints, and cut-aways that
have come up over the years for the original E's bridge. I think its
the bridge...


So that's my 'spin'. Is it 'real'? I think it could end up being real
and it is as real as they can make it. Every shape, every color, every
pixel is carefully calculated. There is no sloppiness and no accidents.
Its all there with the purpose of getting as many people as possible
talking and excited about what the movie will be - and 'everyone' includes
the Trek Nerds. And I also anticipate that over the next year they'll
roll out new clips in small installments that will give us a few more
nuggets just to keep us on the edge of our seats. Insidious, if you ask
me...

MAC