Excelsior!
Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)
- Thread starter Strat
- Start date
- Status
The NuPrise is 300 metres long, the earth is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese...
But seriously now, I like the large Enterprise - it looks great, it makes sense, and it's Nu-Cannon, so violate that!
But seriously now, I like the large Enterprise - it looks great, it makes sense, and it's Nu-Cannon, so violate that!
I've already made my arguments. You're sorely wrong in that this new universe has nothing to do with the old one, though. It branches off at a point not three decades before the bulk of the film takes place. You're also sorely wrong about the scale of the Enterprise in the shipyard scene. You also conveniently ignore the fact that the artists have said it was different sizes in different shots, and therefor internally inconsistent. My preference is as valid as yours.My only superiority over you lies in the fact that I am right, and you are wrong.
Still clinging to the deluded impression that the ship is ~300 metres, even though Paramount, ILM and visual cues in the film itself ALL point to a larger, ~700 metre ship?
What arguments do you have? Continuity? Doesn't exist, this is a new timeline, what came in the Prime timeline has nothing to do with this one and shouldn't be used as a reference point. Apart from that, all you have is, well, nothing. No good arguments anyway.
The ship was originally smaller, but had to be upscaled half way through. the smaller version is the goof, the larger, the canon 'proper' version.
If you think the ship looks 300 metres in the shipyard scene, you need to get your eyes checked. It looks closer to a kilometer if anything, and you thinking that saucer is 100-150 metres is laughable.
FFS even just the shuttlebay looks about 100 metres long!
No design changes?
WTF? You're saying the NuEnt is identical in design to the TOS Ent? That's the whole point! It's a new continuity, a new universe, a new canon, and a new design. A bigger one. Paramount said it, ILM said it, people with two eyes are saying it. Why is the idea of a bigger Enterprise so threatening to you? It's a new continuity, that's the whole point. Abrams has said it time and time again, they can do whatever they want. That's why the nacelles look different, the bridge is a window, the shuttle bay is 5 times bigger, the bridge is different and has corridors outside it, the deflector dish is blue, the engineering set is an enormous brewery, the ship has 5+ warp cores... and the overall ship is ~700 metres.
Any reason he had was sadly lost in the accusasions of "sloppy work" and "ignorant plagiarism". Saying "i dislike the new look" is fine, critique is fine, but the personal attacks on Ryan Church, Alex Jaegar, JJ and the rest is "pathetic" (to quote his attack on the bridge design). He needs to grow up.
Wost of all his rant isn't the least bit amusing.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. (and yeah, I heard that line -- and believed it -- before seeing TUC.) It's just a neat way to justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It MIGHT have been justifiable 32 years ago when they were going to do PLANET OF THE TITANS, but there's a lot more history accrued at this point, so it is more like throwing all the fish out along with the ocean.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
So just an unsupported opinion is fine to you, but if he gives reasons and context for his criticism, THEN you choose to dismiss him?
The bridge design is a joke, albeit a hard-on-the-eyes one ... Christ, the production designer thought using reflective surfaces in a space movie was something new and different (guess he hadn't noticed, oh, say, faceplates on helmets, or the door in Kirk's TMP quarters or ... list goes on to infinity like a SW title crawl.)
And if Bernd had been trying to be funny, he probably wouldn't be operating that site in the first place, he'd be writing for THE ONION. Presumably his criticisms are motivated in the same way David Gerrold's criticisms of TOS were ... out of love and/or devotion for what TREK could be.
Funny was the wrong word. What i meant was that it was the most miserable thing I've read though in ages.
I don't mind "the film has scaling errors, I hate the look" etc, i just thought he was a little too personal in flaming the people behind it. His attacks on the people behind the film wern't 'reason and context'. They wern't necessary to get the point across that the ship changed sizes.
I don't think the new Trek needs to be anything other than it is - fun entertainment.
Not necessarily. If, say, Picard and crew don't travel back to San Francisco in 1893 in this new timeline, then aliens will keep eating 19th-century Californians without interference, surely having profound effects on the future.
So Nero's interference could have ripples back to 1893 and even farther.
"Uhm"
no. The ship scale was only scaled up for the shuttle bay scene. Disregard that scene and you don't have a 700+m ship.In fact, that in itself isn't even conclusive- Who's to say that the shuttles weren't scaled down for that scene? If they have scale issues, then it could have been with anything, including that.
Last edited:
Damnit, don't make me defend that guy. He employed logical thought to arrive at a reasonable theory. I should have selected my words more carefully, because he actually didn't arrive at a conclusion, and he admitted that quite clearly.
That being said, his theories regarding the size are more no less reasonable then your conclusive statements. There is more then enough evidence to support both parties claim to the size of the Enterprise. While Bernd is quite out spoken about his dislike about the size (and other issues) of the ship, he presented the information to support his claims, just like all the larger ship camps do to support their claims...
Last edited:
I know- I should use the multiple quote feature, but I rarely do this...
Bernd's opinions and critques, are just that, his. When someone puts themselves in the public eye, they get reviewed by people. People attack his ideas all the time, how is that any different then what he does? That's a rhetorical question, because it isn't, and you know it.
He didn't attack JJ. He attacked his ideas and his product. An attack on him personally, would amount to something like: JJ is a jerk and his kids suck... That incidentally, though would be personal and childish, isn't even slanderous. If Bernd said that he JJ performed a criminal act, that would be completely different.
Now stop making me defend him! He pissed me off a couple of years ago and I still hold a grudge against him!
"Uhm"
You're right, disregard that scene and we don't have a 700metre ship.
Oh and:
The Under contruction shot
The 'shuttle craft the size of a letter on the hull flyby' shot
The part where Kirk and Scotty run through engineering with a huge towering ceiling
Not to mention official figures which state it to be ~700 metres.
Yep, disregard pretty much everything and we're not left with a 700 metre ship anymore. Bravo.
I don't get it, the 700 metre camp base their arguments on official facts and on screen evidence.
The 300 metre camp base their arguments on what was on tv 40 years ago, something that JJ has quoted time and time again to not hold much importance in this new timeline, as far as details and continuity goes.
Oh and funny how a ship (the Kelvin) can hold 800 crewmembers, when the original 1701, the flagship of the fleet, only had 400. The Kelvin would have to be pretty big in comparison, especially with mostly just a saucer. Once again, things are different in this timeline so guys, stop basing your arguments on what was shown in TOS. The ship is bigger. ILM and on screen evidence confirm it. End of story.
Except it doesn't make any sense. So no.... it isn't."Uhm"
You're right, disregard that scene and we don't have a 700metre ship.
Oh and:
The Under contruction shot
The 'shuttle craft the size of a letter on the hull flyby' shot
The part where Kirk and Scotty run through engineering with a huge towering ceiling
Not to mention official figures which state it to be ~700 metres.
Yep, disregard pretty much everything and we're not left with a 700 metre ship anymore. Bravo.
I don't get it, the 700 metre camp base their arguments on official facts and on screen evidence.
The 300 metre camp base their arguments on what was on tv 40 years ago, something that JJ has quoted time and time again to not hold much importance in this new timeline, as far as details and continuity goes.
Oh and funny how a ship (the Kelvin) can hold 800 crewmembers, when the original 1701, the flagship of the fleet, only had 400. The Kelvin would have to be pretty big in comparison, especially with mostly just a saucer. Once again, things are different in this timeline so guys, stop basing your arguments on what was shown in TOS. The ship is bigger. ILM and on screen evidence confirm it. End of story.
It doesn't make sense that a spaceship from over 200 years into the future is 700 metres long? It doesn't make any sense that along with the hundreds of other alterations the attack on the Kelvin created in this new timeline, Starfleet decided to build bigger ships? Along with making the nacelles huge, the shuttlebay huge, and the viewscreen a window.... etc
Different universe. Different rules.
Different universe. Different rules.
"Uhm"
You're right, disregard that scene and we don't have a 700metre ship.
Oh and:
The Under contruction shot
The 'shuttle craft the size of a letter on the hull flyby' shot
The part where Kirk and Scotty run through engineering with a huge towering ceiling
Not to mention official figures which state it to be ~700 metres.
Yep, disregard pretty much everything and we're not left with a 700 metre ship anymore. Bravo.
I don't get it, the 700 metre camp base their arguments on official facts and on screen evidence.
The 300 metre camp base their arguments on what was on tv 40 years ago, something that JJ has quoted time and time again to not hold much importance in this new timeline, as far as details and continuity goes.
Oh and funny how a ship (the Kelvin) can hold 800 crewmembers, when the original 1701, the flagship of the fleet, only had 400. The Kelvin would have to be pretty big in comparison, especially with mostly just a saucer. Once again, things are different in this timeline so guys, stop basing your arguments on what was shown in TOS. The ship is bigger. ILM and on screen evidence confirm it. End of story.
First off, you're jumping to the conclusion that I'm suggesting it's the same size as the TOS enterprise. That being said, even the original E is 9 decks high at it's highest point in the secondary hull. That ship is a lot bigger then I think you can comprehend. If the secondary hull was all engineering and flight deck, and you opened up all the spaces like in the new ship, you could get some pretty spectacular shots- heh, maybe even some people repelling like in the movie
So you want me to disregard all the scale facts on screen that suggest a smaller ship, and accept the larger scale facts?
It's hardly going to be official until it's on conclusively stated on-screen. There have been too many scale issues. Hell, even the makers admit it. They can change their minds by the next movie.
As for the Kelvin being bigger- I missed the part where a flag ship is determined simply by the number of people it carries. And the Kelvin is ripe with scale issues too. There's a shot of a window with a person inside. That window is quite small. Now, it's just one window in one quick shot, so I'll be more apt to judge it's size when I get a screen cap.
Not End of story, or no one would be posting here...
My only superiority over you lies in the fact that I am right, and you are wrong.LOL Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
You may outrank me on this BBS but that in no way denotes, superior.
Still clinging to the deluded impression that the ship is ~300 metres, even though Paramount, ILM and visual cues in the film itself ALL point to a larger, ~700 metre ship?
What arguments do you have? Continuity? Doesn't exist, this is a new timeline, what came in the Prime timeline has nothing to do with this one and shouldn't be used as a reference point. Apart from that, all you have is, well, nothing. No good arguments anyway.
Kpnuts, I don't know if its just me but every time I read your posts it almost seems like you are screaming in anger at the monitor. I don't know if that's what really happens, but a definite hostile vibe seems to come through your posts.
Fair enough. The way I see it is both sides actually have valid arguments supporting their chosen size. Just because somebody says the ship is a different size than what you believe it to be doesn't mean they are a fanboy clinging to canon and continuity. My brother saw Star Trek and knew little about it, he thought the ship was exactly the same as the original size and when I told him that it might be nearly twice the size, he thought, well thats dumb it looks the same size. Btw, hes a cgi artist.. I personally think they showed it in different sizes based on what looked good in the shot. I tend to think they really never nailed down a definate solid size until after the fact (if even then). Either way, if someone doesnt agree with you, who cares, they have their opinion for a reason and they really arent going to change it by you convincing them otherwise. Especially if you call them a fanboy. Chances are they will call you an a**hole and try even harder to disprove you. This is how we get these long drawn out pissing contests.
- Status
Similar threads
