So, I was just looking at some measurements:

[Shaw]

According to people in the know, it's not even up for debate anymore. We know for a fact that the ship is about 725 meters long.

It is funny... people in the know on TOS were informed of the scale of the Enterprise years before the show was green lit for production. By contrast people in the know on XI were still scurrying around trying to figure out the scale long after the movie hit theaters. And I wouldn't ever qualify Eaves as a person in the know on this subject (considering that he was asking Alex Jaeger on his blog if a figure had been reached in mid June).

I'm not sure why you refer to Eaves so much though... the guy is a great artist, but really has no head for technical details. But lets let Eaves characterize it in his own words...

June 10, 2009: "She was always planned to be a huge ship,, No scaling up and the original TOS wasn’t even used as a measuring rod,, They set out to make a big ship, drew up the concepts , set a rough figure of measurement and then went for it!"
June 14, 2009: "only because these are the figures coming from ILM!!!! SOORY nothing is confirmed but this is what Keep’s coming out!!"
June 15, 2009: "it was all over the place in scale when I was there and there was never a version less than 3000 feet in the talks. I was done in October of 07 and the size had not been defined as of yet but it was monstrously huge in all the talks when they were trying to work out the deck counts,,, this one is still a big mystery and I am sure once the actual figure is announced no one will buy it with all the cross talk going on!!!! HAAA!"
June 16, 2009: "... great work Alex! Hey BTW do you know the actual length of the new "E"???"
June 16, 2009: "Thanks, It was bigger when I was on the show,,, It was being tossed around between 5000, and 3000, feet in those early days!!! Would you mind if I unofficially used that figure to do a scale comparison on my blog??"
November 20, 2009: "I told you all it was big!!!! But no one would believe me!!! Well, here is the proof right off of the new DVD and out the KING, Alex Jeager’s, mouth…2379.75."​

Of course it was Jeager who Eaves was asked back in June, and his response was...

June 16, 2009: "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 "​

So apparently being a back stage source in XI leaves you just as confused as the hapless fans trying to figure it all out. But at least Eaves admits that he was long since out of the loop and is not to be considered a source (even though, sadly, you won't let the poor guy off the hook).

In this (reported) $150 million film the size of the main setting was a mystery to those working on it in an age of instant information, where as a 1960s TV show (pilot) was able to nail down such details before the start of production.

Frankly, the people making XI were told that attention to details was what killed Trek and that they would have none of that in production... which is fine, it is their show. But don't try to rewrite history after the fact and don't expect me to take any XI Tech seriously. Because if they didn't take it seriously, I'm not going to waste any time trying to.

They wanted it to be a fast paced, fun summer movie... and it was. I enjoyed it, so did a lot of other people... it was a success at what it was meant to be. Summer is over, time to move on. The movie wasn't intended to be dwelled upon, so lets not.

 

[Timo]

IMHO, the interesting thing here is that STXI was always intended to launch a wave of sequels. It's rather likely that at least one more movie will be made, based on this summer's piece of fast-paced entertainment. So... What will "based" mean? Will the ship in the next movie be 300 or 700 meters long? Or again both? Will the VFX people have learned anything from the first time? Will they have a say? Will it matter?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Gepard]

I can't believe people are still arguing this. You can't fit the shuttle bay and the bridge window as shown into a ~350 meter ship. You just can't; the shot pulling back from the bridge to the whole saucer should blow a hole in the "it's the same size as the old version" argument all on its own. And all the shots that supposedly support the smaller size are far more ambiguous about how big things are and how close the human figures are to the ship. Why the scale got changed is irrelevant to the fact that it did.

 

[Timo]

Then again, the subject matter of this thread is that the entire Starfleet is that big in this new movie, if not bigger, and that this has consequences. It's not internally inconsistent as such, but it's a bit difficult to swallow. The bigger the ships, the lower the odds that a small set of heroes would interact, or that a young and low-ranking hero would ever make a name and a difference.

Where this all shall lead in the next movie will be interesting to see...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nevyn]

Maybe by then the writers wile have come to a consensus about the Enterprise's size.

 

[Vance]

Of course, the earlier point stands: you've just yourself claimed that the new Enterprise isn't much bigger than the old one, but the only reason we know anything about the TOS size is because of those back stage sources and art books. If you want to disregard the new sources, I can disregard the old ones, and you'd be correct: the new ship is 716 meters long because the TOS Enterprise was 716 meters long.

Okay, now you're starting to just be rediculous, with your whole argument being "only things that agree with me count!"

Look, we've got the XI crew admitting to scaling errors left and right. We've got documentation that they confused feet and meters in multiple places, but you're defiant on all counts using circular and tangental logic to defend something that simply doesn't even occur.

Then you resort to lying about the TOS ship and dimensions.. which were, in fact, on screen both in TOS and in the movies, though admittedly not very clearly.

If you can't simply be intellectually honest, Alpha, why should we talk to you?

 

[Vance]

Where this all shall lead in the next movie will be interesting to see...

It's just "Star Destroyer" envy, nothing more. It's pretty clear that no one involved in the production really gave a shit past 'pretty colors' and 'lens FLARES'! (By their own admission). The only frustrating thing is the small number of fans who insist that there's both heavy effort and deeper meanings in this film.

There's not. Period.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Frankly, the people making XI were told that attention to details was what killed Trek and that they would have none of that in production... which is fine, it is their show. But don't try to rewrite history after the fact and don't expect me to take any XI Tech seriously. Because if they didn't take it seriously, I'm not going to waste any time trying to.

They wanted it to be a fast paced, fun summer movie... The movie wasn't intended to be dwelled upon, so lets not.

That's the whole movie in a nutshell.

The "stardestroyer envy" remark is also rather apt.

 

[Dukhat]

Frankly, the people making XI were told that attention to details was what killed Trek and that they would have none of that in production... which is fine, it is their show. But don't try to rewrite history after the fact and don't expect me to take any XI Tech seriously. Because if they didn't take it seriously, I'm not going to waste any time trying to.

They wanted it to be a fast paced, fun summer movie... The movie wasn't intended to be dwelled upon, so lets not.

That's the whole movie in a nutshell.

And because of that, the movie was a huge success. Which you conveniently left out of Shaw's quote when you quoted him above.

 

[Vance]

And because of that, the movie was a huge success. Which you conveniently left out of Shaw's quote when you quoted him above.

Could also have been in spite of that, since I doubt that consistant tech in the movie would have changed all that much. Making the 'red matter' into a torpedo, etc, consistant ships, etc.. nothing major for the casual audience, but would have made a world of difference to forums like this one.

In case you're confused by my point, please refer to the title of this forum.

 

[Dukhat]

Thanks for your input Vance, but I don't recall addressing my above statement to you. And I know the title of the forum. And I also know what April was doing in not requoting parts of a quote that didn't agree with his line of thinking, thank you very much.

But to answer your post, whether it was "in spite of" or "because of" makes no difference. The film was still a success either way.

And now we can all go back to talking about ship measurements.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

According to people in the know, it's not even up for debate anymore. We know for a fact that the ship is about 725 meters long.

It is funny... people in the know on TOS were informed of the scale of the Enterprise years before the show was green lit for production.

Interesting but irrelevant.

Frankly, the people making XI were told that attention to details was what killed Trek and that they would have none of that in production... which is fine, it is their show. But don't try to rewrite history after the fact and don't expect me to take any XI Tech seriously.

Who's rewriting history? You know good and damn well they didn't hash out the technical details until after character/story/dramatic elements had been established. I suppose in your mind this makes it inferior to TOS, which apparently had the final design of the Enterprise "Years" before the writers had any idea who any of the characters would be; whatever. In the end, the technical details WERE established, and they are no longer up for debate. The question of WHEN they were established is, once again, as interesting as it is irrelevant.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then again, the subject matter of this thread is that the entire Starfleet is that big in this new movie, if not bigger, and that this has consequences.

No, only the Enterprise is bigger. We never saw any of those other ships in the Prime Universe and there's no indication that they didn't exist off-camera even then. There's exactly zero reason to think the larger starship sizes we saw in TNG were strictly a 24th century phenomenon; if a 350 meter Intrepid class can exist in 2373, then a 550 meter patrol ship can exist in 2233.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course, the earlier point stands: you've just yourself claimed that the new Enterprise isn't much bigger than the old one, but the only reason we know anything about the TOS size is because of those back stage sources and art books. If you want to disregard the new sources, I can disregard the old ones, and you'd be correct: the new ship is 716 meters long because the TOS Enterprise was 716 meters long.

Okay, now you're starting to just be rediculous, with your whole argument being "only things that agree with me count!"

Not at all. I'm talking about consistency. The production sources have STATED the size of the ship in simple numbers. You refuse to accept them because of some garbled complaint about "six meter tall people" or something. If you don't accept back stage sources on STXI, then you shouldn't accept them for TOS either.

Look, we've got the XI crew admitting to scaling errors left and right.

No, we have the crew admitting a conscious decision to CHANGE the scale when they saw a need to. That's an "error" in the same sense as the TOS crew changing "lasers" to "phasers" after The Cage.

We've got documentation that they confused feet and meters

We have your claim tot his effect. I haven't seen that documentation. Not that even this claim makes any sense since a 716 foot starship would be quite a bit smaller than the TOS ship.

Then you resort to lying about the TOS ship and dimensions

Who's lying? If you want to ignore the backstage information, then ignore ALL of it. This way you can do what you have continued to do: make up and damn fool excuse you want for why the ship is as big as YOU think it is and why the people who designed the ship don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Vance]

No, only the Enterprise is bigger. We never saw any of those other ships in the Prime Universe and there's no indication that they didn't exist off-camera even then. There's exactly zero reason to think the larger starship sizes we saw in TNG were strictly a 24th century phenomenon; if a 350 meter Intrepid class can exist in 2373, then a 550 meter patrol ship can exist in 2233.

Other than TNG saying so? Other than the shock at the sheer size of the Excelsior from TFSF through TUC? Other than its designation as a heavy cruiser, which is one of the heaviest designations in a fleet?

 

[Vance]

Who's lying?

You are.

The TOS specifications were shown in "Enterprise Incident", then screens in TMP, TWOK, TFSF, then on the diagrams shown in TUC, and in the TNG episode "Naked Now".

And, yes, I'm saying, unequivocally, the people who designed the NuTrek Enterprise did not know what they were talking about. I've already cited the meters/feet error (see above), you just choose to ignore it.

 

[Shaw]

Who's rewriting history?

You are attempting to... just not doing a good job of it.

You know good and damn well they didn't hash out the technical details until after character/story/dramatic elements had been established. I suppose in your mind this makes it inferior to TOS, which apparently had the final design of the Enterprise "Years" before the writers had any idea who any of the characters would be; whatever. In the end, the technical details WERE established, and they are no longer up for debate. The question of WHEN they were established is, once again, as interesting as it is irrelevant.

I know good and damn well that the technical details were at best an after thought. I know good and damn well that they didn't start hashing out the technical details until not only after character/story/dramatic elements had been established, but also after principle photography was completed and much of the CGI effects were finished. And most importantly, I know good and damn well that all those people who should have been in the know on this stuff during production of the movie were still scrambling around attempting to figure it all out afterwards (some even having to wait for the release of the DVD of a movie they worked on to get something of a final answer).

But here is something you should keep in mind... people listen to me on this stuff because I nail down the facts. What facts do you have? Almost everything from you is vaporous and lacks even the basics of the details.

You say they knew in production... but they're own comments prove otherwise. Some examples...

Alex Jaeger: 1,200 feet (before rescaling), 2,500 feet later
Alan Dean Foster: 3,000 feet
John Eaves: 3,000 feet
Russell Earl: 2,357 and 3,000 feet (discussed "numerous changes in scale")
Interactive web site: 2,500 feet
Bruce Holcomb: originally 1,300 feet, later 2,000 feet
Bad Robot (David Baronoff): 2,380 feet​

You can say what ever makes you feel good about this until your blue in the face, but the facts of this production aren't going to change just so you can feel better about it. The world doesn't work that way, and repeating what you want to have happened over and over again won't make it real.

My suggestion... learn to live with the facts as they actually are.



As for my opinion on the size... what size? We (the audience) weren't supposed to care, so I didn't and still don't.

On the other hand, the history of how this one issue got totally FUBARed is quite interesting and I have enjoyed following it.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Thanks for your input Vance, but I don't recall addressing my above statement to you. And I know the title of the forum. And I also know what April was doing in not requoting parts of a quote that didn't agree with his line of thinking, thank you very much.

But to answer your post, whether it was "in spite of" or "because of" makes no difference. The film was still a success either way.

And now we can all go back to talking about ship measurements.

This is a public forum, so anyone can jump in when and where they please.

As for what I left out, well, let's go ahead and revisit the Clintonian game of parsing words, since you're being so touchy on the matter:

They wanted it to be a fast paced, fun summer movie... and it was. I enjoyed it, so did a lot of other people... it was a success at what it was meant to be. Summer is over, time to move on. The movie wasn't intended to be dwelled upon, so lets not.

It's a matter of record that I didn't enjoy this film, and that I don't give a rat's ass how many others did. A bad, stupid, brainless explodapalooza of a movie is still a bad movie, no matter how many millions it makes.

So, other than the bits where I part with Shaw, I still think that his comment is dead-on accurate, and you find yourself in the position of defending a mindless piece of pap as something that was actually worthwhile.

Your mom must be so proud.

 

[Unicron]

* sighs *

You know, I'm pretty lenient when it comes to OT discussion, and I don't mind people using examples relating to a specific topic (the new movie for example). But lately it seems like whenever the film comes up in regards to some tech subject, it quickly devolves into personal crap about the quality of the movie itself, and not its relationship to tech stuff.

Since this thread is heading in that direction, I'm closing it. Again, I don't mind discussion of Trek XI and other episodes as long as they're relevant for the forum, but the bickering and insults need to stop. Comments to PM.