Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[Lyon_Wonder]

ILM: Enterprise was supposed to be 1200 ft, 366m

According to the latest issue of Cinefex magazine, ILM scaled the Enterprise at 1,200ft or 366m. The shuttle bay scene makes the ship look a lot bigger though.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8359

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: ILM: Enterprise was supposed to be 1200 ft, 366m

According to the latest issue of Cinefex magazine, ILM scaled the Enterprise at 1,200ft or 366m. The shuttle bay scene makes the ship look a lot bigger though.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8359

Already being discussed in this thread. I will merge...

 

[miraclefan]

Re: ILM: Enterprise was supposed to be 1200 ft, 366m

According to the latest issue of Cinefex magazine, ILM scaled the Enterprise at 1,200ft or 366m. The shuttle bay scene makes the ship look a lot bigger though.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8359

Already being discussed in this thread. I will merge...

Where were you when we called for this forum to be closed a cupple pages back? And with this latest news from Cinefex, Now it's to late to kill the beast that is this thread!

 

[Firebird]

This is the thread that never ends... yes, it goes on and on my friends...

Can we just get everyone to agree on the figures given in the article? Or, are we just too entrenched at this point?

Either way, I'm having fun!

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

I'm good with 730 metres. Enough room for the crew, the shuttlecraft, and at least three Starbucks.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Dang! I see SOOO many similarities of line here...wonder if Gabe is gonna wind up getting paid some dough...

I see even less similarities then with the original, almost every line is different, so no, probably not. What similarities do you see? Can you point them out for us?

Dang! I see SOOO many similarities of line here...wonder if Gabe is gonna wind up getting paid some dough...

Really? I think this side-by-side comparison makes the two designs look even more different than I thought they were -- if anything, for me, this illustration emphasizes their differences. And it also proves to me the Church/ILM version is the one which better fits the existing Trek universe.

Ok, off the top of my head:

1) The exaggerated "saddlebags" port and starboard on the bridge superstructure that wrap around the rear.

2) The extended "sweep-ness" of the main interconnecting pylon between the saucer and the Engineering hull. Church's is a bit more elongated obviously, esp the aft edge.

3) The "cowling" around the forward torpedo tubes

4) The humpback cowling on the fore end of the warp nacelles.

5) The "dragging Y" profile of the nacelle pylons with the additional rebracing going aft at the nacelle junction point.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Sailing into uncharted waters, I see.

It's better than "the ship's too big", "it's just right," "is not" "is so" until infinity or until the post count gets to 1701.

Uhura: "The ship's too big!

Spock: "It's just right."

Uhura: "Is not!"

Spock: "Is so."

Ok, I'm gonna get in trouble for this, but I gotta remark on the irony of you having THIS Uhura remark on Spock's "ship" being "too big"...

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Ok, off the top of my head:

1) The exaggerated "saddlebags" port and starboard on the bridge superstructure that wrap around the rear.

2) The extended "sweep-ness" of the main interconnecting pylon between the saucer and the Engineering hull. Church's is a bit more elongated obviously, esp the aft edge.

3) The "cowling" around the forward torpedo tubes

4) The humpback cowling on the fore end of the warp nacelles.

5) The "dragging Y" profile of the nacelle pylons with the additional rebracing going aft at the nacelle junction point.

Granted, I can see the things you mention, but their similarity is vague at best. The items are there on both models, you are right about that. However, they are executed in completely different ways; the lines are all different.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Ok, off the top of my head:

1) The exaggerated "saddlebags" port and starboard on the bridge superstructure that wrap around the rear.

2) The extended "sweep-ness" of the main interconnecting pylon between the saucer and the Engineering hull. Church's is a bit more elongated obviously, esp the aft edge.

3) The "cowling" around the forward torpedo tubes

4) The humpback cowling on the fore end of the warp nacelles.

5) The "dragging Y" profile of the nacelle pylons with the additional rebracing going aft at the nacelle junction point.

Granted, I can see the things you mention, but their similarity is vague at best. The items are there on both models, you are right about that. However, they are executed in completely different ways; the lines are all different.

Ok, I want to make sure we're not having a semantics disagreement...

When refering to a ship's "lines", we are referring to the general configuration, placement of masses, etc...is that correct?

You are right that their implimentation is different, but that refers to details, not lines as I understand the term.

There are also two big "detail" similarities: the redesign ot the Bussards to appear more "mechanical" and less energy field based, even in operation, and the "greebling" added to the deflector dish.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Ok, I want to make sure we're not having a semantics disagreement...

When refering to a ship's "lines", we are referring to the general configuration, placement of masses, etc...is that correct?

You are right that their implimentation is different, but that refers to details, not lines as I understand the term.

There are also two big "detail" similarities: the redesign ot the Bussards to appear more "mechanical" and less energy field based, even in operation, and the "greebling" added to the deflector dish.

Observant; because we probably are talking about different things. When I talk about "lines", I mean the actual lines, curves, shapes and relation of those to each other.

The things that look the same but where the lines differ are probably there on both models because they're natural 'progressions', at least, that's what they look like to me. Lines have to echo each other; so if you make the neck swept forward (because it has to look 'fast'), then you'll automatically have to change some other lines as well.

In that view, it isn't all that unrealistic for two different designers to come up with the same solutions to aesthetic problems like that.

But still, you are right, the elements you mentioned seem to be on both ships, though implemented differently.

About the Bussards: I think that's a nod to TOS. Those bussards always looked a bit mechanical to me, spinning around like that. More then the TNG+ Bussard collectors we've come to know.

 

[Praetor]

Well, the TOS domes did have a spinning conic "fan blade" thingy with blinking Christmas tree lights underneath in there...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Observant; because we probably are talking about different things. When I talk about "lines", I mean the actual lines, curves, shapes and relation of those to each other.

The things that look the same but where the lines differ are probably there on both models because they're natural 'progressions', at least, that's what they look like to me. Lines have to echo each other; so if you make the neck swept forward (because it has to look 'fast'), then you'll automatically have to change some other lines as well.

In that view, it isn't all that unrealistic for two different designers to come up with the same solutions to aesthetic problems like that.

But still, you are right, the elements you mentioned seem to be on both ships, though implemented differently.

I think the word I was struggling with earlier was proportion. The lines are very similar, but the proportions of the elements are different.

I think also that the differences in shading, windows, greebling, etc partially hide the similarities. Try taking all that off (at least in your head) and ONLY focus on the "silouette".

About the Bussards: I think that's a nod to TOS. Those bussards always looked a bit mechanical to me, spinning around like that. More then the TNG+ Bussard collectors we've come to know.

Agreed it's an "homage", but even in TOS we didn't see the "mechanics" of it so much as the "energy field" it generated (the "glow").

 

[M'Sharak]

According to the latest issue of Cinefex magazine, ILM scaled the Enterprise at 1,200ft or 366m. The shuttle bay scene makes the ship look a lot bigger though.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8359

Already being discussed in this thread. I will merge...

Where were you when we called for this forum to be closed a cupple pages back? And with this latest news from Cinefex, Now it's to late to kill the beast that is this thread!

I was around. Didn't get the memo about having to jump to obey whenever anyone snaps their fingers and says "Do this!", though. :P

It's better than "the ship's too big", "it's just right," "is not" "is so" until infinity or until the post count gets to 1701.

Uhura: "The ship's too big!

Spock: "It's just right."

Uhura: "Is not!"

Spock: "Is so."

Ok, I'm gonna get in trouble for this, but I gotta remark on the irony of you having THIS Uhura remark on Spock's "ship" being "too big"...

Irony? I'm afraid I don't follow.

 

[Praetor]

About the Bussards: I think that's a nod to TOS. Those bussards always looked a bit mechanical to me, spinning around like that. More then the TNG+ Bussard collectors we've come to know.

Agreed it's an "homage", but even in TOS we didn't see the "mechanics" of it so much as the "energy field" it generated (the "glow").

I don't know - I could see the mechanics in the TOS one pretty clearly. It's like frosted glass versus transparent glass comparing to the nu.

Oh, and on the Koerner/nu resemblance, I can definitely see it. The overall directions, I feel, are somewhat different, but some of the same cues are there.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Uhura: "The ship's too big!

Spock: "It's just right."

Uhura: "Is not!"

Spock: "Is so."

Ok, I'm gonna get in trouble for this, but I gotta remark on the irony of you having THIS Uhura remark on Spock's "ship" being "too big"...

Irony? I'm afraid I don't follow.

Ahem...JJ-verse Uhura...in a "relationship" with jj-verse Spock...complaining about the size of the Vulcan's "ship"...

Oh never mind...it's not as funny when you have to explain it...

 

[Mangledduk]

Re: ILM: Enterprise was supposed to be 1200 ft, 366m

According to the latest issue of Cinefex magazine, ILM scaled the Enterprise at 1,200ft or 366m. The shuttle bay scene makes the ship look a lot bigger though.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8359

When ILM originally designed the new E they made it 366 meters..

Then when they realized that the shuttles were way too big for the shuttle bay they decided to make it.....725 meters!!

Just in case you are wondering that is actually to scale

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: ILM: Enterprise was supposed to be 1200 ft, 366m

Then when they realized that the shuttles were way to big for the shuttle bay they decided to make it.....725 meters!!

Just in case you are wondering that is actually to scale

That's actually a pretty effective way of putting it across, I must say.

 

[Masao]

Why couldn't they have just increased the size of the shuttle bay and left the rest of the ship the same? As designed, the new Enterprise has a skinny ass.

 

[Deks]

The initial length of the ship was supposed to be at 366 meters ... but ILM had to effectively double the size due to the shuttles being the size they are, and having a large count.

I would surmise most of the living quarters are in the saucer ... whereas the secondary hull has the engine room and all of the technological guts along with a large shuttle-bay.

 

[saddestmoon]

Gotta say - I still prefer Church's design to Gabe's design, in every way, shape and form...

But Gabe did a nice job too... to give him his dues...