Size Of The New Enterprise (large images)

[JuanBolio]

Not at all, far from it. I just can't comprehend some of the die hard fanboys clinging to canon and continuity and 'what came before' as fact when it comes to the new ship.

Its not about canon or "what came before". Its about the fact that it makes no frelling sense for Starfleet to suddenly star building ships several times as large as they otherwise would have, while keeping the designs - right down to the layout of the windows, nearly identical.

I know you disagree. I don't really care. If you like the ship better at 700+ meters, that's your own weirdness. To me it doesn't make any sense. Mostly I balk at your arguments that there is no visual onscreen evidence for a ship close to the size of the original Enterprise, when it seems to me there clearly is. Also, since you seem to regard the word of Abrams and ILM as the holy canon, you consistently neglect to mention that they themselves couldn't settle on a size, and several different sizes - INLCUDING one at aroind 1,200 feet, were present on-screen. You're as guilty of wishful thinking and mindless adherence to your own personal canon as anyone else, and you don't even realize it.

...and I've yet to hear a good rationalization for that guy on the catwalk in the construction scene.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Its not about canon or "what came before". Its about the fact that it makes no frelling sense for Starfleet to suddenly star building ships several times as large as they otherwise would have, while keeping the designs - right down to the layout of the windows, nearly identical.

All of which has not a thing to do with whether the producers have made the ship much bigger. They have. They've explained it. You only get to decide whether you like it or not.

Starfleet doesn't exist and what they might or might not "sensibly" do has no bearing on anything.

 

[JuanBolio]

Its not about canon or "what came before". Its about the fact that it makes no frelling sense for Starfleet to suddenly star building ships several times as large as they otherwise would have, while keeping the designs - right down to the layout of the windows, nearly identical.

All of which has not a thing to do with whether the producers have made the ship much bigger. They have. They've explained it. You only get to decide whether you like it or not.

Starfleet doesn't exist and what they might or might not "sensibly" do has no bearing on anything.

The producers of Star Trek have made mistakes in the past, and put less-than-fully-thought-out stuff onscreen before. We've ignored it in the past - why not now?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The producers of Star Trek have made mistakes in the past, and put less-than-fully-thought-out stuff onscreen before. We've ignored it in the past - why not now?

Sorry, the only Star Trek I care about is on the screen. I'm far more likely to ignore obsessive fan rationalizations and complaints about what they don't like than I am to ignore aspects of a Trek show or movie that I'm actually enjoying. Because I just don't find the cult very interesting.

 

[JuanBolio]

The producers of Star Trek have made mistakes in the past, and put less-than-fully-thought-out stuff onscreen before. We've ignored it in the past - why not now?

Sorry, the only Star Trek I care about is on the screen. I'm far more likely to ignore obsessive fan rationalizations and complaints about what they don't like than I am to ignore aspects of a Trek show or movie that I'm actually enjoying. Because I just don't find the cult very interesting.

That's fine for you, but if I'm interested in a fictional universe I like it to make sense and be internally consistent, or as close as it can be while still being entertaining. As such it sometimes becomes necessary to mentally edit onscreen canon accordingly. For instance, in this movie we see an Enterprise scaled several different ways - I think the one that makes it closest to the size of the original is best, so I go with that and write off contrary evidence as a mistake.

I'm still just as entertained by the movie as you are, and the universe makes sense. Its win-win.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

That's just it: most scenes set it at a very consistent ~700m figure. So it's perfectly internally consistent; no need to muck about with it. It's not consistent with what came before, but that doesn't matter, since that universe is the old one. This universe is the new one; therefore, this one counts.

 

[SalvorHardin]

For fuck's sake
Someone finally put this retarded thread out of its misery

 

[JuanBolio]

That's just it: most scenes set it at a very consistent ~700m figure. So it's perfectly internally consistent; no need to muck about with it. It's not consistent with what came before, but that doesn't matter, since that universe is the old one. This universe is the new one; therefore, this one counts.

Except that it isn't a TOTALLY new universe. It branched off of the prime universe only 20 years prior to when the Enterprise was built - to think that Starfleet suddenly more than doubled the size of the Constitution-class while still keeping the exterior layout very much the same doesn't add up to me. There's no good reason whatsoever for doing so.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Except that it isn't a TOTALLY new universe. It branched off of the prime universe only 20 years prior to when the Enterprise was built - to think that Starfleet suddenly more than doubled the size of the Constitution-class while still keeping the exterior layout very much the same doesn't add up to me. There's no good reason whatsoever for doing so.

Yes, there is. And a pretty big reason, too. It's called the Narada.

 

[SonicRanger]

Except that it isn't a TOTALLY new universe. It branched off of the prime universe only 20 years prior to when the Enterprise was built...

Wrong.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3249639&postcount=2008

 

[JuanBolio]

Yes, there is. And a pretty big reason, too. It's called the Narada.

That's no reason to make the ship bigger, especialy not by that much. Starfleet encountered very large, hostile vessels before. Did it start building Galaxy-sized ships when the Enterprise took on the Doomsday Machine, or encountered the Fesarius? Of course not. Ship building progresses like evolution - step by step. The Narada incursion explains why some things are different, but it can't explain a gaff as big as a a 700+ meter Enterprise. Doesn't add up to me. At all.

Wrong.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3249639&postcount=2008

Anyone can pull random conjecture out of their ass. You could just as well use such an excuse if Abrams had decided to make humans 3 feet tall with purple tentacles, the Enterprise a polka-dotted sphere the size of a small moon, and the Klingons vegetarian pacifists. Sure, its possible, but it would still bug the hell out of people who see it as a change just for the sake of being different.

 

[Psion]

Except that it isn't a TOTALLY new universe. It branched off of the prime universe only 20 years prior to when the Enterprise was built...

Wrong.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3249639&postcount=2008

That is speculative and has no support from the movie at all. That doesn't mean I disagree ... I too have speculated that, based on the aliens seen on the Kelvin and elsewhere, Star Trek 2009 takes place in a completely separate reality that may have branched off with Star Trek: Enterprise, Gary Seven's work in the 20th century, Picard's mission in the 19th century, or even much, much further back. I simply think you have no basis to declare JuanBolio's post "Wrong." with such excessive drama.

 

[SonicRanger]

Wrong.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3249639&postcount=2008

Anyone can pull random conjecture out of their ass. You could just as well use such an excuse if Abrams had decided to make humans 3 feet tall with purple tentacles, the Enterprise a polka-dotted sphere the size of a small moon, and the Klingons vegetarian pacifists. Sure, its possible, but it would still bug the hell out of people who see it as a change just for the sake of being different.

Hardly random conjecture. In a Trek universe with rampant time travel, changing the future can actually change the past too.

 

[trevanian]

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.

a) leave this 'flagship of the fleet' thing alone. 1701 was a starship, not a flagship.

b) more significantly, there is no reason general starships would be the biggest things around. If KELVIN was science-based, they could leave whole CONTINGENTS on new worlds to explore, so you'd be loaded like a freighter and probably huge.

for example, just because a supertanker is huge, does that make it powerful and deadly? Only if it rams you or catches fire. That's why I never understand the mushroom spacedock being describded as powerful, when I never got the impression it was even significantly armed, anymore than the Moffet blimp hangar it so reminds me of.

 

[trevanian]

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.

Too bad they didn't lock it right at this point; that post should have been the concluding thought.

 

[L1A1 Rocker]

My only superiority over you lies in the fact that I am right, and you are wrong.

LOL, you soooo funy. So what time do they serve the strained peas at the rubber room farm?

You tell me... you're the one who thinks having Starfleet go from building 200-300 meter ships to ones 700 meters + in the blink of an eye without any corresponding design changes makes perfect sense.

The 700-meter crowd sure is HOSTILE. Always with the insults.

Hey bud. Step the Hell back. YOU started ratcheting this up with me and now want to play the victim? LOL. That shit don't fly with me. You want to dish it out but can't take it? Step on back and take a breath.

Now with regard to the "blink of an eye" get a grip. IT'S AN EF'ING MOVIE!!! Now I know that you for some reason want to cling to the hope that the E is not sized up but it is. The people that made the damn thing have said that they had to size it up. They started out at the original size but it simply didn't work. THAT'S why there are scaling problems and some evidence left that the E is at the smaller size. But the fact is, in mid production the E had to be scaled up to accomodate all the grand scenes and sets we see. That is that. I'm sorry this upsets your reality and shakes your being but you will have to deal with it.

 

[L1A1 Rocker]

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.

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.

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!

Possibly more so, in that having starfleet suddenly vastly increase the scale of its ships without ANY corresponding design changes is absurd in the extreme.

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.

Thank you. I'll repeat what I said from post 1980 (now THAT was a good decade)

I came over to this site just for the thead, after hearing about it on another bbs. I had not even considered that the Big E was any different in size from TOS until someone mentioned it on that BBS.

There are SOME inconsestancies with scaling. It seems that the over all idea was to keep the E the same size. But then as filming was done it was realized that to have all the grandness envisoned of this Nu E it HAD to be upscaled. Many (dare I say most if not all?) of the grand scenes simply could not be done on the smaller E. The giant engerning section (of wich I'm convienced that we've only seen a small portion in this movie - expect more in the next movie), the huge window on the bridge, the rooms and transporter located just behind the bridge, the giant shuttle bay all come to mind. These things are part of the "vision" of this new E. When it was discovered that this "vision" was not possible in the smaller sized E it was upscaled. Unfortunatly the scenes in the smaller scale were already in the can and left as is.

I came into this open minded about the size. In my mind overwhelmin evidence points to a bigger E. Yes there is evidence that the E is smaller but that evidence is little by comparison and in some cases controvertible. In order for this E to live up to the grandness presented in so many shots it has to be bigger.

 

[M'Sharak]

LOL, you soooo funy. So what time do they serve the strained peas at the rubber room farm?

You tell me... you're the one who thinks having Starfleet go from building 200-300 meter ships to ones 700 meters + in the blink of an eye without any corresponding design changes makes perfect sense.

The 700-meter crowd sure is HOSTILE. Always with the insults.

Hey bud. Step the Hell back. YOU started ratcheting this up with me and now want to play the victim? LOL. That shit don't fly with me. You want to dish it out but can't take it? Step on back and take a breath.

I think it's about time everyone took a deep breath and a step back. There have been a few too many posts on both sides of the argument which were about the person or persons holding an opinion, rather than about the opinion itself.

Remember: post, not poster.

 

[Chrisisall]

OMG GUYS!!! IT'S BIGGER!! LOL!!
Let's discuss how tall Pine is in millimeters now!!!
OMA*



*Apollo

 

[L1A1 Rocker]

OMG GUYS!!! IT'S BIGGER!! LOL!!
Let's discuss how tall Pine is in millimeters now!!!
OMA*



*Apollo

Who's Pine?