Somehow I imagine someone from the production is following this thread waiting for us to decide how big it is...
I was thinking that earlier as well.
Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
I was thinking that earlier as well.
I doubt Gizmodo just pulled the 26' number for the on-set viewscreen out of thin air. That set is massive.
Why would they need to upscale it? In the alternate timeline the Enterprise serves more or less the same purpose as the Enterpirse-D; I'd think that they'd probably build ships the same size for about a hundred years while simultaneously adding more and more compact equipment into it. Remember, length aside, the E-D's nacelles are quite a bit smaller while her saucer is noticeably larger.
Same.
This Enterprise being nearly as big as the Ent-D just doesn't sit right.
How huge would the -D be to keep the "up scaling"?
There's a few other issues in the 26' measurement to consider:
1. Were they including the the aluminum frame around the view screen (that we would't see from out side).
2. Is that measurement of the actual arc length, or horizontal point-to-point.
They were estimating it horizontally.
You want a look at how wide the Enterprise bridge is, check this out:
Look to the left of the camerman who's on the left side of the picture. Allow for lens distortion and you still have a very wide set.
The helm/navigation station is at least twelve feet wide.
Someone I know who worked briefly on that set said that it was much larger than any of the previous Trek bridge sets - "huge" was the description that this person kept using - but alas, nothing quantifiable.
You want a look at how wide the Enterprise bridge is, check this out:
Look to the left of the camerman who's on the left side of the picture. Allow for lens distortion and you still have a very wide set.
The helm/navigation station is at least twelve feet wide.
Someone I know who worked briefly on that set said that it was much larger than any of the previous Trek bridge sets - "huge" was the description that this person kept using - but alas, nothing quantifiable.
New image:
Not entirely relevant, but I hadn't noticed the roll-bar and torpedo launchers on the other ships when I saw the movie. Looks like the upper ship is the Miranda-equivalent in the alternate timeline.
They were estimating it horizontally.
You want a look at how wide the Enterprise bridge is, check this out:
Look to the left of the camerman who's on the left side of the picture. Allow for lens distortion and you still have a very wide set.
The helm/navigation station is at least twelve feet wide.
Someone I know who worked briefly on that set said that it was much larger than any of the previous Trek bridge sets - "huge" was the description that this person kept using - but alas, nothing quantifiable.
I've heard from highly reliable sources that 3.1415^42 angels on heads of pins can fit comfortably in the new bridge.
Quantifiable enough fer ya?
Got any more pictures like that Dennis? Breathtaking if one likes behind-the-scenes stuff, thanks!
I believe that picture came from here -- more behind-the-scenes shots, a couple of movie stills and a pretty interesting article about the filming of the movie.
That came from icg via way of Trekmovie.com - didn't mean to suggest that it had anything to do with my friend who was on the set.
A much bigger ship makes sense to me, given the changed history. I would think that any Starfleet that met the Narada would build its newest ship *much* bigger than the previous generation, in case it runs into the Narada again.
Of course, having seen the film in IMAX, I was too busy getting motion sick to get a good sense of how big the darn thing was. {ProfJonathan}
Of course, having seen the film in IMAX, I was too busy getting motion sick to get a good sense of how big the darn thing was. {ProfJonathan}
That article also clears up exactly *why* I was so motion sick watching in IMAX:
"Another dicey situation: several shots where Abrams wanted the Steadicam to shake and stutter. To get the effect, the noted producer/director would stand behind Anderson and shake the magazine! “I’ve never experienced anything like it,” Anderson says. “It would take all my strength to keep actors in frame, much less worrying about composing the shot. It wasn’t easy on either of us, but the results were incredible.”
{ProfJonathan}
There coming out with the NU-ENT MANUAL! 
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/20/lib...hy-review-haynes-enterprise-manual-announced/
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/20/lib...hy-review-haynes-enterprise-manual-announced/
Let's start the letter writing campaign now. Send a postcard to the author with nothing on it but "{your preferred length} meters!"
Ya, like they'd listen to ''US''!
There coming out with the NU-ENT MANUAL!
Maybe they 2010 delay is for us to finally agree on a size, then they'll publish it.
Here's my Vote (and guesstimate).
457m
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3627/3548803994_3b3d59a733_o.jpg
Guys I have some info. Amearican Model company Round2 has announced that they are releaseing the NU-ENT in 1/2500 scale in 2010, and the people sculpting/molding/making the kit say it will be 1 foot! I measured my 1/2500 ENT-D, and if AMT got it right the first time, The ENT-D model is about 8 inch's. So I'm guessing that if the nu-e is a foot long at that smaller scale, then the ship must really be 700M! Am I making any sense or am I talking giberish?
Am I making any sense or am I talking giberish?- Status
Similar threads
