Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
Seeing the initial on screen visual cues (trailer, most of the movie), that to me gave the ship a relation size similar to the the -A Refit (maybe a "smidgen" larger).
I.E. Bridge dome, saucer window placement/arrangement, docking ports,....etc
Then near the end of the movie they show the new window of the bridge placed at the location of the "Refit light bar"
Then now to read that the new ship is 725.35m long. (Personally I think is overkill)
This seems to somewhat adds up that there was a last minute change in scale of the Enterprise nearing the end of production. I think ILM may have modeled the Enterprise similar in scale to the Refit, then got word "we're scaling up the ship". And ILM was in too deep of the FX to make any substantial changes.
Just a thought/theory.
Or there may be some incorrect information from Bad Robot as well.
Seeing the initial on screen visual cues (trailer, most of the movie), that to me gave the ship a relation size similar to the the -A Refit (maybe a "smidgen" larger).
I.E. Bridge dome, saucer window placement/arrangement, docking ports,....etc
Then near the end of the movie they show the new window of the bridge placed at the location of the "Refit light bar"
Then now to read that the new ship is 725.35m long. (Personally I think is overkill)
This seems to somewhat adds up that there was a last minute change in scale of the Enterprise nearing the end of production. I think ILM may have modeled the Enterprise similar in scale to the Refit, then got word "we're scaling up the ship". And ILM was in too deep of the FX to make any substantial changes.
Just a thought/theory.
Or there may be some incorrect information from Bad Robot as well.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
After digging a bit, I found this on Memory Alpha Wiki
Class: Constitution class ship. Type: Heavy Cruiser. Registry: NCC-1701. Designer: W. Matt Jeffries [sic]. Construction Site: Starfleet Division, San Francisco Fleet Yards. Overall Mass: 495,000 metric tonnes. Length: 2500 feet. Saucer Diameter: 1100 feet. Ship Height: 625 feet
Crew: 1100
She's a bit bigger than she used to be
After digging a bit, I found this on Memory Alpha Wiki
Class: Constitution class ship. Type: Heavy Cruiser. Registry: NCC-1701. Designer: W. Matt Jeffries [sic]. Construction Site: Starfleet Division, San Francisco Fleet Yards. Overall Mass: 495,000 metric tonnes. Length: 2500 feet. Saucer Diameter: 1100 feet. Ship Height: 625 feet
Crew: 1100
She's a bit bigger than she used to be
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
Thanks!
Anybody out there seen any good ones for the two types of shuttle?
Thanks!
Anybody out there seen any good ones for the two types of shuttle?
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
Why do you keep saying this? The TOS Enterprise most certainly had Jeffries' tubes--we saw them in multiple episodes of Star Trek including "The Naked Time", "Court Martial", "The Doomsday Machine", etc. Where do you think the term "Jeffries Tube" came from?! It was the original series!
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
Well, Bernd is insisting that:
So he'll presumably stick with his misestimate of the ship's size. That's a pity, since his site has always been a source of interesting information and speculation - but if this is the approach he's going to take to the movie, then www.ex-astris-scientia.org just becomes one more pretty good collection of Trek pictures.
Well, Bernd is insisting that:
So he'll presumably stick with his misestimate of the ship's size. That's a pity, since his site has always been a source of interesting information and speculation - but if this is the approach he's going to take to the movie, then www.ex-astris-scientia.org just becomes one more pretty good collection of Trek pictures.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
I don't think that structure contains the bridge. My wife and I are seeing it again this weekend and I'll look again, but I'm pretty sure the bridge is a couple of decks below that.
The slits on the back of the bridge:
I don't know what these slits are (observation room windows?), but they seem to be on the same level as the bridge viewscreen window. As we know the bridge is always somewhat higher due to the dome, these should be one deck high.
I don't think that structure contains the bridge. My wife and I are seeing it again this weekend and I'll look again, but I'm pretty sure the bridge is a couple of decks below that.
Don't we see a continuous shot that pulls back from the bridge set and out the main window/viewer revealing that window to be in the base of the front of the teardrop?
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
To me the NU 1701 being larger then the Ent-E is just crazy....
I loved the new film, but this is just stupid imo. It should have stayed close to the original ... the time line changes dont explain this and a sudden jump in the size of ship building doesnt add up.
To me the NU 1701 being larger then the Ent-E is just crazy....
I loved the new film, but this is just stupid imo. It should have stayed close to the original ... the time line changes dont explain this and a sudden jump in the size of ship building doesnt add up.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
All in all, we never saw crawlways or such on TOS; except for two examples: the slanted tube in the neck which Scotty always crawls in or out of (we never saw, however, how far it actually did go) and the service corridor seen in ST:V. Certainly nothing to suggest there's a seperate crawlspace between the decks. Later MSD's account for that difference with a ridiculously large deck height (which we don't see on screen), and the Sovereign even has the Jeffrie's Tubes visible on it's MSD. TOS decks weren't that big, which seems to suggest -- along with the on-screen reference -- it didn't have them.
Yes, but they were different then the crawlspaces that came after TOS. Not only that, but they weren't named "Jeffrie's Tubes" either until TNG.
All in all, we never saw crawlways or such on TOS; except for two examples: the slanted tube in the neck which Scotty always crawls in or out of (we never saw, however, how far it actually did go) and the service corridor seen in ST:V. Certainly nothing to suggest there's a seperate crawlspace between the decks. Later MSD's account for that difference with a ridiculously large deck height (which we don't see on screen), and the Sovereign even has the Jeffrie's Tubes visible on it's MSD. TOS decks weren't that big, which seems to suggest -- along with the on-screen reference -- it didn't have them.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
I'll tell you, apropos of nothing, that I hate this upscaling - just hate it. Yeah, I'm nitpicky enough that it diminishes my interest in the design quite a bit, for a variety of reasons.
That said, it is what it is and Bernd insisting that it's not going to be so on his website just because he doesn't like it is really beyond silly.
I'll tell you, apropos of nothing, that I hate this upscaling - just hate it. Yeah, I'm nitpicky enough that it diminishes my interest in the design quite a bit, for a variety of reasons.
That said, it is what it is and Bernd insisting that it's not going to be so on his website just because he doesn't like it is really beyond silly.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
Actually the term came from TNG production people as a tribute to Matt Jefferies.
While TOS had access corridors or ladders, they never showed Jefferies tubes like we know them from TNG on. The only thing CLOSE you could consider a actual Jefferies tube was the one that ran up the side of the Engineering room that Scotty tended to fiddle in sometimes.
In fact the first time we ever see TNG like tubes on a TOS era ship, is in Enterprise, with the mirror episode Defiant.
Actually the term came from TNG production people as a tribute to Matt Jefferies.
While TOS had access corridors or ladders, they never showed Jefferies tubes like we know them from TNG on. The only thing CLOSE you could consider a actual Jefferies tube was the one that ran up the side of the Engineering room that Scotty tended to fiddle in sometimes.
In fact the first time we ever see TNG like tubes on a TOS era ship, is in Enterprise, with the mirror episode Defiant.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
Yeah, I'm afraid ol' Bernd is condemning himself to irrelevance.
I think the upscaling went a little bit overboard, even if it is justified by the post-Kelvin incident bootstrapping of shipbuilding tech. But I also think the TOS Enterprise was a bit wee.
Yeah, I'm afraid ol' Bernd is condemning himself to irrelevance.
I think the upscaling went a little bit overboard, even if it is justified by the post-Kelvin incident bootstrapping of shipbuilding tech. But I also think the TOS Enterprise was a bit wee.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
I don't think that's correct. I watched "Journey to Babel" on the way home from work yesterday, and the Tellarite Ambassador's body is found stuffed into a Jefferies tube. You're correct they didn't use the term, though.
I don't think that's correct. I watched "Journey to Babel" on the way home from work yesterday, and the Tellarite Ambassador's body is found stuffed into a Jefferies tube. You're correct they didn't use the term, though.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
It's nearly the size of an aircraft carrier. I've never liked the gigantism in modern Trek or Star Wars or nuBSG, for that matter; just don't. I like the looks of the NCC-1701-D, but not really the scale.
That's my bias. I'd rather serve aboard the C-57D or hitch on Serenity than beam aboard these mega-fanboi specials.
And Bernd is right about something - this design appears to have been scaled up at some point after its detailing, which is lazy. It doesn't have plating or gridlines on its hull, it has fissures.
On the subject of tubes and ladders - in the movie, as Spock makes his way through the corridors during Kirk's voice over about how he's "resigned his commission" (not exactly) we see him pass someone climbing down a ladder from an upper deck. Made me smile.
It's nearly the size of an aircraft carrier. I've never liked the gigantism in modern Trek or Star Wars or nuBSG, for that matter; just don't. I like the looks of the NCC-1701-D, but not really the scale.
That's my bias. I'd rather serve aboard the C-57D or hitch on Serenity than beam aboard these mega-fanboi specials.
And Bernd is right about something - this design appears to have been scaled up at some point after its detailing, which is lazy. It doesn't have plating or gridlines on its hull, it has fissures.
On the subject of tubes and ladders - in the movie, as Spock makes his way through the corridors during Kirk's voice over about how he's "resigned his commission" (not exactly) we see him pass someone climbing down a ladder from an upper deck. Made me smile.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
I do understand: If it were the other way around (a big ship suddenly more then 2 times as small), I would have the same stance; it would be hard to reconcile with what came before. It isn't that hard to make stuff twice as big; it's also not very hard to fill up otherwise empty space. It would be a lot harder to miniaturize every single thing.
Perhaps it would be easier if they didn't make it look like the old Enterprise refit so much (especially the saucer). But of course, the same looks doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually the same. It just sort of implies it, unfortunately.
I agree that there seems to be a probability that they scaled the size of the ship up after the design phase; some elements seem out of whack no matter what size you put it in. If you set it at ~300m, half of the windows are at feet-height; which makes no sense -- why put windows there then at all? It could be called lazy. Nonetheless, even if it was scaled up, the final size is what it is; it seems strange to suggest the original size if most evidence seems to disagree. Even if they had scaled it down to 50 meters; that would be what it is. It's silly to think otherwise.
ILM might get a shot or two wrong due to bad communication or scaling for sense of purpose, but to have most of the exterior shots wrong? I'd like to think that, as a professional company with a lot of experience, they wouldn't be that clueless. And they probably aren't, or Paramount wouldn't have hired the lot.
However, setting that aside, I agree about Bernd. I have always loved his site. That being said, the way he stubbornly seems to refuse to accept anything about the new movie is a bit silly. Half of the plot points he mentions about the new movie I agree with; there are some rather large holes in that film. The other half, however, are personal preferences presented as fact.
He also states something like "Only a near-identical old Enterprise would have been acceptable" and "It's 300m, I will not support any other figure, even if the designers are lazy". Seems to me he thinks that by presenting facts he disagrees with, he's somehow complimenting the designers. I hardly doubt they care; it's probably they've long since moved on to the next job. I'm also a bit disappointed; I thought most of his articles to be unbiased; seems I'm wrong.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. My analysis had nothing to do with justifying a certain length but all the more with looking what actually seems to fit best. Only by chance does it seems to be in the larger scale which I preferred. If the smaller scale would pan out better, I would have presented that.
I do understand: If it were the other way around (a big ship suddenly more then 2 times as small), I would have the same stance; it would be hard to reconcile with what came before. It isn't that hard to make stuff twice as big; it's also not very hard to fill up otherwise empty space. It would be a lot harder to miniaturize every single thing.
Perhaps it would be easier if they didn't make it look like the old Enterprise refit so much (especially the saucer). But of course, the same looks doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually the same. It just sort of implies it, unfortunately.
I agree that there seems to be a probability that they scaled the size of the ship up after the design phase; some elements seem out of whack no matter what size you put it in. If you set it at ~300m, half of the windows are at feet-height; which makes no sense -- why put windows there then at all? It could be called lazy. Nonetheless, even if it was scaled up, the final size is what it is; it seems strange to suggest the original size if most evidence seems to disagree. Even if they had scaled it down to 50 meters; that would be what it is. It's silly to think otherwise.
ILM might get a shot or two wrong due to bad communication or scaling for sense of purpose, but to have most of the exterior shots wrong? I'd like to think that, as a professional company with a lot of experience, they wouldn't be that clueless. And they probably aren't, or Paramount wouldn't have hired the lot.
However, setting that aside, I agree about Bernd. I have always loved his site. That being said, the way he stubbornly seems to refuse to accept anything about the new movie is a bit silly. Half of the plot points he mentions about the new movie I agree with; there are some rather large holes in that film. The other half, however, are personal preferences presented as fact.
He also states something like "Only a near-identical old Enterprise would have been acceptable" and "It's 300m, I will not support any other figure, even if the designers are lazy". Seems to me he thinks that by presenting facts he disagrees with, he's somehow complimenting the designers. I hardly doubt they care; it's probably they've long since moved on to the next job. I'm also a bit disappointed; I thought most of his articles to be unbiased; seems I'm wrong.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
Why? If you're going to store enough fuel and consumables to survive an extended mission in outer space, more room better.
Why? If you're going to store enough fuel and consumables to survive an extended mission in outer space, more room better.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
Whatever you say. I don't like it.
There never was any chance, anyway, that I'd like most things about this version any better than TOS - just better than everything that's come along since 1969.
Whatever you say. I don't like it.
There never was any chance, anyway, that I'd like most things about this version any better than TOS - just better than everything that's come along since 1969.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
I agree that I like smaller ships better, but only in the 24th+ century, where energy-to-matter and matter-to-energy conversion is commonplace; it frees up a lot of space, if you think about it.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
Well, nothing I said was intended to impugn your analysis which I thought was entirely persuasive.
Given how cavalierly they did the upscaling,though, I imagine they could make it smaller (or even larger) next time out if they wanted.
I don't think of it in terms of Trek's (entirely fictional) technology. You decide what kind of ship you want, what makes sense for you based on various criteria, then you make up the technology to suit it.
As the ongoing discussion over at Drex Files indicates, there's not a lot of concern shown in the movie for the niceties of Trek's traditional technology anyway.
Well, nothing I said was intended to impugn your analysis which I thought was entirely persuasive.
Given how cavalierly they did the upscaling,though, I imagine they could make it smaller (or even larger) next time out if they wanted.
I don't think of it in terms of Trek's (entirely fictional) technology. You decide what kind of ship you want, what makes sense for you based on various criteria, then you make up the technology to suit it.
As the ongoing discussion over at Drex Files indicates, there's not a lot of concern shown in the movie for the niceties of Trek's traditional technology anyway.
Re: Size Of The New Enterprise
So he killed the crew of 6 ships, and Winona Ryder.
Yeah, but the God-less, green blooded, pointy eared Vulcans don't count.
So he killed the crew of 6 ships, and Winona Ryder.
- Status
Similar threads
