Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[Mangledduk]

Goodness gracious this is neverending. Pages and pages of the exact same arguments..."No, Im right because..." "No, Im right because.." Well this scene shows it at one size....No, thats wrong, you are obviously blind and living in an imaginary world..." Geesh people, cant the small ship crowd realize that no matter what you say, the more vocal people on this thread have decided it is one size and they no matter what will not allow you to get the last word? Can't the large ship crowd except the fact that not everyone agrees with you and you are not the authority on all things Star Trek? Just agree to disagree because obviously neither side is going to have their minds changed...Can't we just do that and stop with the attacks and the name calling and charges of ignorance?....yes? ......Didnt think so, I think you all should fight it out to the death.

 

[Chrisisall]

Methinks that some people participating in this thread should go out and get laid.

*hic*
I know the place..!

 

[LisbonPlayer]

^^Don't you know this ship is exciting?
In a few months there's the blu-ray and HD caps to scutinize, and the haynes manual next year...
It will go on for ever I tell you!

 

[dougkeenan]

Methinks that some people participating in this thread should go out and get laid.

*hic*
I know the place..!

Let's go see!

 

[Chrisisall]

Let's go see!

In your *hic* condition?

 

[Kpnuts]

^ Bernd used that same image to prove that the ship is around 300 meters…

Ah yes, throwing perspective out the window whilst using computer screen pixels and blurry black spots of people to try and prove his utterly deluded point.

Just look at the thing!! The saucer, maaaybe is about 300 metres long, but the whole ship? Don't be stupid. Basic eye sight is the only thing required to see that the ship is far bigger than a measly 300 metres.

 

[Lashmore]

Ok I wen;t through the first ten pages, I wasn't going through the 50 or more pages to see if anyone considered certain things.

IF, and thats still an IF, the ship is so much bigger than it was in the original universe, then there is many plausible reasons why it is bigger on a technical note considering new timeline facts.

In the original timeline they didn't have these uber ships jumping out of blackhole pawning their starships in 20 seconds flat, did they?

800 people returning to starfleet with the story and most likely data recording of the event would cause R&D to rethink their designs and jump research moreso than they did previously in the previous timeloine. So of course, tis reasonable to assume the new reasearches and mindset from said events caused R&D to create their ship to be bigger and stronger than before.

It takes horrible events to make people decide their designs need working and complete new aspects taken into cosndieration in ship building.

 

[trevanian]

That's funny, KPNUTS, because I was driving a few blocks from a stadium downtown and realized I was approximating the shot in question by looking at the motorcyclist in front of me. Ballpark dimensions weren't anywhere near aircraft carrier-sized, but the view was quite similar. That'd put the ship and superstructure at 300 or LESS, and certainly not the ginormous retro-figure.

That was just eyeballing it without a protractor or a lot of thought on the lens that was being used in the movie (just as a guess, I think the real lens for the live-action does NOT correspond to the virtual lens used for the digimattepainting, which may contribute to my thinking the shot sucks), but there's a bit of realworld to consider.

Then again this is trek, so you can just look at the scale issues on the BOP in SFS and TVH and write all this off as ILM BS

 

[LisbonPlayer]

^ Bernd used that same image to prove that the ship is around 300 meters…

Ah yes, throwing perspective out the window whilst using computer screen pixels and blurry black spots of people to try and prove his utterly deluded point.

Just look at the thing!! The saucer, maaaybe is about 300 metres long, but the whole ship? Don't be stupid. Basic eye sight is the only thing required to see that the ship is far bigger than a measly 300 metres.

Look I'm here just for the fun.
Like JuanBolio and others, I prefer my Trek to be consistent. I stand for the size in which the ship was designed, mainly for a “in universe” continuity but also for the sake of design and engineering.
If they wanted a “huge ship” then they should design one instead of using the “resize 200%” command.
Now, I’ve always been respectful of other people opinions and I certainly never had to resource to insult like you’ve done to me and to Bernd. If that is the way to continue the discussion, then do carry on. I have other useless thing to do for my spare time…

 

[Chrisisall]

Look I'm here just for the fun.

Me too. Just my two credits here, my take was that the new E was about 1 1/2 times the size of the original just from watching the movie. Definitely bigger, precisely how much is something I will ascertain from freezing & analyzing the DVD.
Truth is, it doesn't matter to me all that much- I like the new Enterprise design, and I totally grooved to the flick, which is more than I can say for Nemesis.

I'm a happy Yosemite camper.

Row row row your boat....

 

[Mangledduk]

^ Bernd used that same image to prove that the ship is around 300 meters…

Ah yes, throwing perspective out the window whilst using computer screen pixels and blurry black spots of people to try and prove his utterly deluded point.

Just look at the thing!! The saucer, maaaybe is about 300 metres long, but the whole ship? Don't be stupid. Basic eye sight is the only thing required to see that the ship is far bigger than a measly 300 metres.

Look I'm here just for the fun.
Like JuanBolio and others, I prefer my Trek to be consistent. I stand for the size in which the ship was designed, mainly for a “in universe” continuity but also for the sake of design and engineering.
If they wanted a “huge ship” then they should design one instead of using the “resize 200%” command.
Now, I’ve always been respectful of other people opinions and I certainly never had to resource to insult like you’ve done to me and to Bernd. If that is the way to continue the discussion, then do carry on. I have other useless thing to do for my spare time…

Well said sir, I do commend you for taking the high ground and not resorting to childish insults and accusations when presenting your point. Thank you, its because of posters like you that I continue to visit this forum.

Look I'm here just for the fun.

Me too. Just my two credits here, my take was that the new E was about 1 1/2 times the size of the original just from watching the movie. Definitely bigger, precisely how much is something I will ascertain from freezing & analyzing the DVD.
Truth is, it doesn't matter to me all that much- I like the new Enterprise design, and I totally grooved to the flick, which is more than I can say for Nemesis.

I'm a happy Yosemite camper.

Row row row your boat....

I could not agree more, well said

 

[Mangledduk]

That's funny, KPNUTS, because I was driving a few blocks from a stadium downtown and realized I was approximating the shot in question by looking at the motorcyclist in front of me. Ballpark dimensions weren't anywhere near aircraft carrier-sized, but the view was quite similar. That'd put the ship and superstructure at 300 or LESS, and certainly not the ginormous retro-figure.

That was just eyeballing it without a protractor or a lot of thought on the lens that was being used in the movie (just as a guess, I think the real lens for the live-action does NOT correspond to the virtual lens used for the digimattepainting, which may contribute to my thinking the shot sucks), but there's a bit of realworld to consider.

Then again this is trek, so you can just look at the scale issues on the BOP in SFS and TVH and write all this off as ILM BS

Very well said

 

[JuanBolio]

Why? We're right.

If you honestly think that this:

http://geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2008/11/2008-11-19-trek_construction.jpg

[Hotlinked image converted to link. - M']

is 300 metres, not only are you deluded, but you seriously need to have your eyes examined.

Based on the size of the people crawling around on the ship and on the superstructure it is CLEARLY comparable in size to the original and refit Enterprise. Oh, and if you still think that gantry is not touching the saucer I suggest you watch the move again and take a close look at the scene when the recruit's shuttle takes off - you can see the gantry clearly from another angle, and this one leaves no doubt whatsoever that it IS touching the saucer. Sorry, but you're wrong. The ship is clearly on the order of 300+ meters in this shot, and probably others as well. Get over it. Deal with it. Accept and embrace it. You'll feel better.

If you think otherwise I would suggest you get a better idea of just how big a 366-meter starship would look when placed up on stilts on flat ground from only a couple hundred yards away.

If you can't do that the least you could do is explain how you can look at that and think its some 700+ meter monstrosity.

 

[Chrisisall]

Based on the size of the people crawling around on the ship and on the superstructure it is CLEARLY comparable in size to the original and refit Enterprise.

Look again at Spock & Kirk outside the Enterprise in TMP- there is CLEAR (well, to me, anyway) size differential.
But, like it's been said in T1, in a hundred years, who's gonna care?

 

[Mangledduk]

Why? We're right.

If you honestly think that this:

http://geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2008/11/2008-11-19-trek_construction.jpg

[Hotlinked image converted to link. - M']

is 300 metres, not only are you deluded, but you seriously need to have your eyes examined.

Based on the size of the people crawling around on the ship and on the superstructure it is CLEARLY comparable in size to the original and refit Enterprise. Oh, and if you still think that gantry is not touching the saucer I suggest you watch the move again and take a close look at the scene when the recruit's shuttle takes off - you can see the gantry clearly from another angle, and this one leaves no doubt whatsoever that it IS touching the saucer. Sorry, but you're wrong. The ship is clearly on the order of 300+ meters in this shot, and probably others as well. Get over it. Deal with it. Accept and embrace it. You'll feel better.

If you think otherwise I would suggest you get a better idea of just how big a 266-meter starship would look when placed up on stilts on flat ground from only a couple hundred yards away.

If you can't do that the least you could do is explain how you can look at that and think its some 700+ meter monstrosity.

To me that shot definitely looks like its a shot of a 366 meterish ship.

 

[JuanBolio]

Thank you. I agree.

 

[M'Sharak]

Why? We're right.

If you honestly think that this:

http://geeksofdoom.com/GoD/img/2008/11/2008-11-19-trek_construction.jpg

is 300 metres, not only are you deluded, but you seriously need to have your eyes examined.

[Hotlinked image converted to link. - M']

Please don't hotlink to images not on your web space.

Also, the "not only are you deluded, but you seriously need to have your eyes examined" part is one of several instances in this thread (involving several people) of getting more personal than is strictly necessary or desirable.

Things like this:

I see the 300m brigade are still tilting at windmills and building castles in the sky.

Let it go for your own good.

...might be seen as baiting, and this:

Methinks that some people participating in this thread should go out and get laid.

...really isn't called for in any way, nor has it anything to do with the topic.

Spirited debate is all well and good, but the personal digs -- even if only broadly-aimed -- are something we can do without.

 

[Kpnuts]

The ship is clearly on the order of 300+ meters in this shot, and probably others as well. Get over it. Deal with it. Accept and embrace it. You'll feel better.

Deal with what? Some fanboy who cares more about his cherished continuity than anything else? Who's making up something just for the purposes of making himself feel better?

I'd rather listen to official figures, thanks, which have it at ~700 metres. Sorry, but that's how it is. Get over it. Deal with it. Accept and embrace it. You'll feel better. It's canon. Unlike your fanboy estimation that is just that, worthless to everyone but yourself. The official canon length of the ship is ~700 metres.

And I still find it laughable that people think the ship looks 300 metres in that under construction shot. Maybe time for some of you to get out and open your eyes, because the ship in that shot looks closer to 1km in length than a measly 300 metres. The shuttlebay is probably about 100-125 metres long ffs.

 

[Chrisisall]

The official canon length of the ship is ~700 metres.

I don't care WHAT cannon says!!!
It's obviously 698.3 m long!!!

 

[SonicRanger]

To me that shot definitely looks like its a shot of a 366 meterish ship.

Again, "it looks to me..." is not an acceptable argument.

I'm baffled why some people claim that the windows are scaled wrong for the ship to be 700 meters.

Here are the saucer windows on the 300-meter TMP ship:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp/ch29/themotionpicture1355.jpg

Here are the saucer windows on the nuEnterprise:

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xi/screencaps/prerelease/enterprise579_l.jpg

Clearly the nuEnterprise windows allow for a much bigger ship.

Same for the airlocks:

TMP:http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp/themotionpicture0184.jpg

Like the windows, the airlocks are proportionally smaller, especially considering that the new airlocks also double as escape pod hatches.