• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

So what's up with the trailer Enterprise proportions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ancient

ancient

Vice Admiral
Admiral
I've been trying to replicate the angle we see in the trailer by taking up-close pics of my 16" model. The following is the result:

littlefriendsae3.png


-The first pic is the model Ent.

-The second is the Trailer ship, obviously.

-The third pic is a manipulation to get my model to look like the trailer ship, at least as far as proportions. The nacelles are 150% normal size. The bridge is 50% normal size.

-The fourth pic is just another slightly higher angle.

So, what's going on? Are the nacelles chubby? Does the tiny Trailer'prise bridge mean anything? Is the whacky placement of the text permanent? (And just who are the overlords of the ufo?)

It's possible the trailer took some artistic licence with the proportions in order to get a good use of space - to allow them to be really tight but still have the nacelles/text in the shot.

Or the ship could have radically different proportions...
 
Good effort.

I think the nacelles are chubbier. I also think the saucer will be closer to the TMP Enterprise than the TOS one. Not sure about the USS ENTERPRISE. Are you saying that its too far forward on the model?

I think something similar needs to be done with the refit constitution.
 
The Enterprise is sporting a chubbie.

Hee-hee. :devil:




Nice workd, ancient. I think you're spot on in speculating that the over sized Enterprise is artistic license. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't go beyond the teaser.
 
ancient said:
It's possible the trailer took some artistic licence with the proportions in order to get a good use of space - to allow them to be really tight but still have the nacelles/text in the shot.
Click to expand...

Yes.

The teaser trailer was made to sell the movie to the average joe movie goer, not to the anal-compulsive, nitpicking Star Trek fan.
 
The hull lettering ENTERPRISE is quite a bit smaller, and closer to being rounded rather than straight. (EDIT: Smaller in relation to the numbers I mean)

I'm hoping those nacelles aren't as big as they seem in the trailer. I matched the sizes of the glowy fan-caps, but the new nacelles are still bigger. Anyway, it's perfectly possible that they're place-holders.

But the bridge size is so small. Either the bridge is moved down for some reason, or the scale of the ship is way way up.

Yes, I know the trailer was made a while ago, and is probably a temp-job, but I can't help wonder...
 
If what we see in the teaser is accurate, the nacelles are indeed a lot more "muscular" than we've previously seen.

It's also possible that the nacelles under construction are not yet attached to the engineering hull and are, in that shot, positioned closer to us than they would be in the final assembly.
 
I for one hope the Enterprise isn't any different in the movie - it's certainly an improvement on the original.
 
The scale of the bridge seems fine to me. If you accept that the bridge is a bit lower and the nipple on top is only the sensor dome, the scale is about the same.

As for the nacelles, yeah those suckers are hot-rods. There's no focal length distortion that would account for the size difference. It can't wait to see what this sucker really looks like.
 
Ahahahahah. GOLD.
"Mr. Enterprise, are you now or have you ever taken performance enhancing drugs...?"
 
There are several things about the Enterprise in the teaser that makes me think it’s not exactly what we’re going to see in the movie, or at least that there may be some significant tweaks yet to be made.

1. The name “U.S.S. ENTERPRISE” is decidedly off-center, probably so it would still be readable with the missing hull plates on the right side. This suggests that parts of the ship may have been altered just to achieve the desired effect for the teaser.

2. I may be wrong but I suspect the final shot of the ship from the front is a composite of several different layers. There’s the scaffolding in the foreground, the saucer section, the nacelles, and what seems to be a city skyline in the far background. If you watch the video playback very closely, the parallax between several of these layers does not appear to quite match as the camera moves upward. In other words, it does not look to me like the entire ship was “filmed” as a single object in a single camera pass. There is even a slight hint that the fronts of the nacelles with their Koerner-esque hoods are separate layers from the nacelle bodies behind them. I think it’s entirely possible that the nacelles were scaled up for a more dramatic effect when the shot was composited.

3. I don’t think the model of the ship was completely finished for the teaser. I don’t just mean the fact that it’s still under construction and hull plates are missing and so forth. Again in the front view, there are some details of the lower sensor dome that look, well, unfinished. I say that as a 3D modeler with some experience in how models like this are built, and I can’t tell you exactly why I get that impression, I just do. It makes me wonder just how finalized the ship’s design actually was at the time this teaser was being put together.

Bottom line: It wouldn’t surprise me if the ship in the movie looks quite a bit different, especially the proportions of its major components, than what we see in the teaser.
 
^ Vektor, that was a reasoned, coherent and well-spoken analysis. And it has no place on this board ;)

Seriously, I think it's a given the E is far from complete, and nearly every aspect of its appearance in the teaser was designed specifically for same (down to the *gasp* welders).

Which makes it all the more hysterical how some people are losing their frikkin' minds over the design. From a few brief flashes, some have decided the movie will be a dark, shakey-cam Goth monstrosity, with an Enterprise that looks like a cobbled-together Reaver vessel bent on rendering the entirety of the Trek universe as a twisted axis of evil. Or something.
 
Arlo said:There's no focal length distortion that would account for the size difference.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what makes you say that. It looks to me that with a long focal length the nacelles could easily look as big as they do in that picture.
 
Kinnison said:
I'm not sure what makes you say that. It looks to me that with a long focal length the nacelles could easily look as big as they do in that picture.
Click to expand...

Focal length is definitely a factor, but that alone cannot account for how big these nacelles are relative to the saucer section. This becomes obvious if you look at a front orthographic projection of the original design. These nacelles are simply too big and too close together to be anywhere near the size of the originals.

I'm all but convinved they've been scaled up for effect.
 
^^^
Anywhere near the size of the originals? I donno... those were pretty honkin' big too. But yes, certainly closer together.
 
Transformers did the same thing with their first Teaser. The Decepticon on mars does not fit the shape or form of any Decepticons in the movie, Its modelling was actually a lot simpler and more Cartoon looking in design than the finished designs too.

Of course they ended up putting that scene into the movie since it literally only lasted a second. I dont expect this construction scene to make it into Trek XI
 
Vektor said:
Kinnison said:
I'm not sure what makes you say that. It looks to me that with a long focal length the nacelles could easily look as big as they do in that picture.
Click to expand...

Focal length is definitely a factor, but that alone cannot account for how big these nacelles are relative to the saucer section. This becomes obvious if you look at a front orthographic projection of the original design. These nacelles are simply too big and too close together to be anywhere near the size of the originals.

I'm all but convinved they've been scaled up for effect.
Click to expand...

I hate to contradict someone who's obviously spent a lot more time looking at orthographic views of the Enterprise than I have (I followed your original USS Constitution project with great interest), but unless the proportions of Franz Joseph's blueprints (which I'm using for comparison) are way off, the new Enterprise looks entirely plausible to me. I admit it's been a few years since I was last elbows-deep in blueprints, so I could be looking at it wrong or something.
 
ancient said:
The hull lettering ENTERPRISE is quite a bit smaller, and closer to being rounded rather than straight. (EDIT: Smaller in relation to the numbers I mean)

I'm hoping those nacelles aren't as big as they seem in the trailer. I matched the sizes of the glowy fan-caps, but the new nacelles are still bigger. Anyway, it's perfectly possible that they're place-holders.

But the bridge size is so small. Either the bridge is moved down for some reason, or the scale of the ship is way way up.

Yes, I know the trailer was made a while ago, and is probably a temp-job, but I can't help wonder...
Click to expand...

I'm convinced that the bridge is moved down in the command module from where
we'd expect to find it. I think if you look at highest deck you can see into
where the hull plating is missing on the command module that is the bridge.

If you look at the shape of the exposed support braces they are almost the
exact shape that we've come to expect between the bridge and the hull around
it, especially if there is a service corridor around the outside of the bridge
behind that all of bridge stations, again like most plans and cut-away drawings
that have been made in the last several decades.

MAC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top