New Build, USS Vengeance from Star Trek XII

[F. King Daniel]

Yeah, I know. The scales of both the Vengeance and the Enterprise change several times. In the first movie, when Kirk is looking up at the ship being built you can see several people on scaffolding which allows for a size comparison. I calculated that it was somewhere between 300 and 400 meters long. Then of course there's the shuttlebay shot which they scaled it up for. After that it seems to revert back to its original size and stay that way for the whole movie. You can even see that the rim of the saucer is only two decks thick.
In STID, it also seems to be around 350 meters or so. And the Vengeance is twice its size, until the crash scene where it seems to grow. Since it seems to be rather inconsistent I just choose the more plausible option of having the smaller sizes.

You've got it somewhat backwards - the new Enterprise was shrunk down for one shot over the shipyard (to fit the location used), but even then was detailed to be 725m - those poor workmen would never fit on the exposed decks!

The bridge, lobby behind (plus number of decks seen + spacing between), engine rooms and shuttlebay wont possibly fit inside a 350m Enterprise. See the Starship Size Argument and Bridge Set Plans threads in STXI for more details. Basically, for the ship to be 350m you have to ignore virtually the entirety of both Star Trek and Into Darkness.

...and the Vengeance is twice THAT size

 

[137th Gebirg]

Here is an excerpt from John Eave's blog, showing a pic captured from the 2009 movie DVD/BluRay special features. All signs point to 725m and have pretty much from the start. At least, the majority of the signs say 725m. There are some that imply 3-400m, but again, that seems to be pretty much the result of bad editing/CG scaling, causing oodles of problems with the Trek Tech fandom (who didn't see THAT one coming?).

I honestly don't know why people are still debating this.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^I blame www.ex-astris-scientia.org. The poor guy thinks that cataloguing trivia has given him the right to change the bits he doesn't agree with. This quote sums it up...

Seeing that the people in charge have lost perspective of ship sizes, we may decide that it all doesn't matter any longer, or we settle on a more reasonable size for the Enterprise, so we are dealing with a Vengeance of "only" some 750m, and not one mile.

In other words, I don't like the changes they've made, so I'm going to ignore it and fanfic whatever the hell I want!

 

[Johnny]

Here is an excerpt from John Eave's blog, showing a pic captured from the 2009 movie DVD/BluRay special features. All signs point to 725m and have pretty much from the start. At least, the majority of the signs say 725m. There are some that imply 3-400m, but again, that seems to be pretty much the result of bad editing/CG scaling, causing oodles of problems with the Trek Tech fandom (who didn't see THAT one coming?).

I honestly don't know why people are still debating this.

Is it me or does the original look a bit squished?
I'm flicking between screens and there's something not quite right with its proportions...
J.

 

[bullethead]

^I blame www.ex-astris-scientia.org. The poor guy thinks that cataloguing trivia has given him the right to change the bits he doesn't agree with. This quote sums it up...

Seeing that the people in charge have lost perspective of ship sizes, we may decide that it all doesn't matter any longer, or we settle on a more reasonable size for the Enterprise, so we are dealing with a Vengeance of "only" some 750m, and not one mile.

In other words, I don't like the changes they've made, so I'm going to ignore it and fanfic whatever the hell I want!

I know, right? Personally, I'm ecstatic that they went with a bigger ship - more room for redshirts and shuttles.

 

[captainkirk]

Like I said, it's inconsistent and none of the explanations really account for everything. I prefer a size under 400 meters just to be closer to the original. Also, in Into Darkness it looks like they scaled the bridge up slightly to make it look smaller. But it's not a big issue for me.

 

[Mage]

^I blame www.ex-astris-scientia.org. The poor guy thinks that cataloguing trivia has given him the right to change the bits he doesn't agree with. This quote sums it up...

Seeing that the people in charge have lost perspective of ship sizes, we may decide that it all doesn't matter any longer, or we settle on a more reasonable size for the Enterprise, so we are dealing with a Vengeance of "only" some 750m, and not one mile.

In other words, I don't like the changes they've made, so I'm going to ignore it and fanfic whatever the hell I want!

You know, I love that site for its resources, but that poor fella running the site really needs to take a chill-pill. Same goes for other fans. The size of the ship has nothing to do with the story being told, I just don't understand how people can obsese over it so much.
And trust me, I understand obsessions.

 

[captainkirk]

We're Trekkies! Nothing matters but insignificant details!

 

[F. King Daniel]

It just rankles me that anyone can wilfully ignore all of this (large image). Saying the new Enterprise is about the same size as the old is like insisting that the Earth is 4,000 years old while standing in a museum of ancient fossils, or something. It's my Trekkie pet peeve, I guess.

 

[captainkirk]

Well I don't think it's the same size I think it is larger but not over 700 meters. Mainly because it wouldn't make sense to have almost the same design but be twice the size. But that's just my preference.
The ancient fossil thing though, I could go on for hours about how un-ancient they are if it wasn't for the fact that Madman is probably already tired of us derailing his thread.

 

[F. King Daniel]

All I'll say is that the bridge and lobby's location is 100% indisputable, and scaled perfectly to fit exactly in a 725m Enterprise as shown in the infographic. Any smaller and they don't fit.

But yeah, we should take this to the Starship Size Argument in the XI+ forum. Apologies for derailing your thread, MadMan1701A!

 

[Belz...]

Note to the OP: You could check out the Artisan model of the Vengeance for scale. Looks pretty legit to me. Considering the price, I think you'll have to settle with pictures from the net, though.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Yeah, $10k. That's just...wow...

 

[MadMan1701A]

Note to the OP: You could check out the Artisan model of the Vengeance for scale. Looks pretty legit to me. Considering the price, I think you'll have to settle with pictures from the net, though.

Wow... that looks incredible! If the same guys that built the ST2009 Enterprise model built that one, I might know who built it. Trying to find out now.

Sorry about the lack of progress... been way too busy around here.

-Ricky

 

[Colonel Midnight]

I just realized... You should do a "Starships" avatar of the Vengeance, Sir Madman!!

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Kotowboy]

I wanna see this finished !

Have you seen this : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t3QsoLyF3...to+Darkness+USS+Vengeance+artisan+replica.jpg

Might help with detail ?

 

[Praetor]

Exquisite work as always sir, although I do find the original design itself leaves a bit to be desired. Your work, however, remains beyond reproach.

 

[Kotowboy]

Is it just me that loves Vengeance *because* it's so ugly ?

Like - it wasn't built for looks in any way. It was built purely for battle.

I think it looks like a beast.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I kind of like it. In fact, a part of me likes it better than the NuEnterprise because it's basically a new design, even though it has all the familiar shape primitives and configurations. The Enterprise itself, in my own personal aesthetic, has deviated too much from the original design and in too many odd ways (curved pylons, bulbous nacelles w/ blue bussards, absurdly huge size, brewery, etc). Vengeance is a nasty looking thing, but as you say, it was built for combat and nothing else. I personally think it works. It isn't the Enterprise, so anything can be done to it as required by the plot.

I think a lot of folks don't like it due to the political aspects within Starfleet that it represents in the post-Roddenberry multiverse. It is Section 31's hotrod, for lack of a better term. Many Roddenberry loyalists vilify DS9 in general and S31 in particular for egregiously deviating from the Great Bird's "vision" of the future (for the same reason that I think DS9 is the best Trek series since TOS). It's a psychosomatic response, not to ugliness of the design, but rather to how far the ideal has fallen from Utopian principles, symbolic of the "ugliness" that has permeated Trek and its alter ego of the Federation.

Then again, maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.

 

[Mage]

Slightly off topic, but where BSG fans complaining this much about the look of Galactica in the reboot a few years ago?

Loving the model though man, seriously great work!!