Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[Search4]

I hate to be a drag, but a few questions. Seems like the ground ship is generally viewed as smaller than the orbiting ship.l..

1) do we know, canonically, that the ship on the ground in Iowa IS the same Enterprise? If not, the ground size could be vastly different than the orbital size as they could be different ships.

2) do we know, canonically, that in the three years between ground and orbit they didn't decide to rebuild it larger? Three years is a pretty long time given the advanced stage of construction seen in Iowa.

3) and please, please, please, stop arguing and get a life. Its as big as the plot requires.

 

[EJD1984]

At the risk of degrading into extreme sarcasm - Are we in the SonicRanger forum?....................

 

[SalvorHardin]

1) do we know, canonically, that the ship on the ground in Iowa IS the same Enterprise? If not, the ground size could be vastly different than the orbital size as they could be different ships.

Yes, it is the same. You can see NCC-1701 on one of the nacelles when Kirk & McCoy's shuttle departs for the Academy.

 

[Mangledduk]

Except for two facts: (1) the ILM folks have given a range of final lengths all within about 25 m of 740 m and (2) your own illustrations demonstrate that the shuttlebay as shown demands a size well in excess of 366 m.

1)They have given length that are in that range, but they also have given lengths of 3000 feet (over 900 meters) and they have said that it was originally scaled smaller. Then we also have Alex Jaeger saying that the scaled changed depending on the scene. Like I said before, if they came out with ONE official number it would be different, but they haven't. This fact along with the fact that it was clearly not in that larger scale in every shot of the movie.

2) Thank you for noticing that, because that was the point of those illustrations. I said from the beginning that no one size can explain everything we saw in the film. I did comparisons for both lengths showing how in one shot it showed a large ship, and in another a smaller ship. I even tried to find a middle ground size to possibly explain why there were inconsistencies. I tried to figure out how and why we were seeing what appeared to be differing sizes based on the scene in the movie. Then we got quotes from ILM saying that the scale was not consistent throughout the entire film. I don't know why certain people continue to try and use "my illustrations" to prove a point against me, when if you look back on my illustrations, you will see that I presented both arguments.

 

[RobertMfromLI]

Re: Size Of The New Enterprise

Agreed... until you take into account that the production design team had no concept of scale, and put no attempt into making the interior fit the exterior. Matt Jeffries and Andy Probert, on the other hand, did.

Except for the facts that (1) the shuttlebay as shown in TOS won't fit inside the TOS Enterprise and

Actually, in Jeffries' drawings, it quite certainly does. Though I've never went back and checked the veracity of it - but then again, he did such things for real life objects for a living, or so I thought I read.

(2) the rec deck as shown in TMP won't fit inside the TMP refit.

Which was not the way Probert designed it. It did fit in his design. They axed the part of the design that allowed such a fit. But the effort was there.

Point is, no such effort seems to have been made on the part of the JJ Trek team.

Let's not even mention the much larger TOS shuttle interior than its exterior.

All Trek incarnations have suffered from this problem.

Yes, AMT screwed up. Or so Jeffries sketches and designs would indicate - but then again, that wasn't the design team that just didnt care.

 

[RobertMfromLI]

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.

Weird... the only thing the first two establish to me is that they can have two full saucer width decks - and that they have somewhat different window placement and window widths.

The problem is when you look at the heights of the windows, and assume each is a deck, then compare the saucer edge height to the rest, it makes things murky again.

 

[RobertMfromLI]

Re: Size Of The New Enterprise

I think the new enterprise size is a complete cockup! i have just thought about it, and i can see 2 decks in the saucer rim, and judging by the size of the windows, its this big:

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t207/phatt_tony/comparisongabsss.jpg
You can still fit that engineering into the secondary hull

Anyway, i will go for the new enterprise to be about excelsior size, no bigger!

Because you are clearly biased!

Oh? how? cause i dont want star wars sizes?? lol. i just dont think there is the need for that much space. i dont like change :P

I'd agree with that size...

[And I'll convert that image to a link to prevent horizontal stretching. - M']

 

[RobertMfromLI]

Re: Size Of The New Enterprise

I'm going for smaller and here's why. On the original Enterprise, the bridge is in the top "bubble" of the saucer. On this Enterprise the bridge appears to be in the section below that. If you compare the window/viewscreen from inside and outside views then the ship would be slightly smaller than the original.

No... the bridge seems in the same spot. The bulge below the "top bubble"/sensor dome.

Which makes the "lifted from the TOS pilot - but it wasn't a window in it" viewscreen another key piece that shows the ship was not scaled properly from scene to scene.

It was scaled to be huge in some, scaled to be almost TMP sized in others. And it was built (cgi model) for the most part to be a little bigger than TMP E size.

As for the hangar deck... the TOS E's was over 80' wide, and a similar length. With docking slots, it coulda fit quite a lot of shuttlecrafts in it. That size/scale, btw, is directly from Matt Jefferies' drawings.

 

[The Doctor]

Then we also have Alex Jaeger saying that the scaled changed depending on the scene.

You're really reading into the quote now. There's absolutely no evidence, either on-screen or in quotes about the movie that the ship scale varied in final effects shots.

 

[Chrisisall]

Never thought this thing would go the distance...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, for YEARS. Not better in and of itself, just more accurate as far as what the technology is supposed to be. Photon torpedos are uber-nukes and should be treated that way, at least when "maximum yield" is specified. Hand phasers are capable of blowing up a sizable chunk of a mountain.

I just like consistency.

If you like consistency, you must hate Star Trek.

I love Star Trek. I simply love it more when they get things right.

Consistency =/= right. Especially when the thing they did the first time was wrong.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, yes we can and we HAVE. The construction scene when Kirk rides up on his bike being the most glaring example.

Except that doesn't conclusively show a smaller size.

That guy walking on the gangway beneath the saucer is pretty darn conclusive. If the ship is 700 meters long in that shot, he's a titan.

Is this anything like the giant people walking around under the wing of the Klingon Bird of Prey in TVH?

 

[JuanBolio]

Except that doesn't conclusively show a smaller size.

That guy walking on the gangway beneath the saucer is pretty darn conclusive. If the ship is 700 meters long in that shot, he's a titan.

Is this anything like the giant people walking around under the wing of the Klingon Bird of Prey in TVH?

More like the correctly-scaled people walking on top of the saucer in TMP.

 

[Mangledduk]

Then we also have Alex Jaeger saying that the scaled changed depending on the scene.

You're really reading into the quote now. There's absolutely no evidence, either on-screen or in quotes about the movie that the ship scale varied in final effects shots.

Heres the quote from Alex Jaeger from his personal blog...

" Thanks guys!
The actual length of the the new E from the film is Big... 2500 ft according to my chart, but that was early in production, I forget if we shrank it back down some. It was basically what ever looked good in the shot :-P
June 16, 2009 10:08 AM "

I'm simply repeating what he said himself, not reading into it.

 

[gimpy117]

Just when you thought it was safe...

the debate rages on!

 

[Vance]

It's about two feet long and made of plastic!

It also has an annoying sound problem.. damn thing won't shut up...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That guy walking on the gangway beneath the saucer is pretty darn conclusive. If the ship is 700 meters long in that shot, he's a titan.

Is this anything like the giant people walking around under the wing of the Klingon Bird of Prey in TVH?

More like the correctly-scaled people walking on top of the saucer in TMP.

The original or the remastered one? I seem to recall the original "wingwalk" scene was quite ghastly and inaccurate, distorting the dimensions of the ship in a pretty obvious way. The scale in the remastered DVD release works, but the original does not.

Of course, having re-watched that scene I'm still not convinced those ARE people on the scaffold, since all of them remain extremely still whenever they are visible.

 

[Chrisisall]

Of course, having re-watched that scene I'm still not convinced those ARE people on the scaffold, since all of them remain extremely still whenever they are visible.

Fairy (CGI) magic!

 

[SonicRanger]

Of course, having re-watched that scene I'm still not convinced those ARE people on the scaffold, since all of them remain extremely still whenever they are visible.

Those could be construction workers using power loaders...

http://i.current.com/images/asset/889/582/88/0kaN1P.jpg

... or some other sort of strength-enhancing exoskeleton:

http://www.villeart.com/gallery/exoskeleton.jpg

 

[Mangledduk]