• 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!

Starship Size Argument™ thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saved what? People would've moved on to the phasers being different colors, why is there a shield between the transporter operator and pad, why is there two exits on the bridge...

People love to complain. They would've found something else to complain about.
I know what it's really about, my girls nacelles are bigger than theirs and they don't like it. :drool:
 
I know what it's really about, my girls nacelles are bigger than theirs and they don't like it. :drool:

I like big nacelles, I also like small perky nacelles. :lol:

In all honesty, some people have put a lot of time into things being a certain way. The Abrams ship size upset their apple cart.
 
I like big nacelles, I also like small perky nacelles. :lol:

In all honesty, some people have put a lot of time into things being a certain way. The Abrams ship size upset their apple cart.
That's putting it mildly don't you think. (Space reserved for dead horse flog emote)

Yeah from what I have seen of the last couple of days of posts it seems that certain individuals have finally got past the denial, anger and bargaining stage with a bit of depression thrown in.

Mind you its taken them 6 years. :guffaw:

It should be plain sailing now all the way to acceptance and beyond.

Probably.

Not. :angel:
 
I've always been somewhat baffled by the opposition to the size of Kelvin-era starships, yet there is almost complete acceptance of the idea that in the 3-4 years between the end of the five-year mission and TMP everything looks completely different with very little design continuity whatsoever.
 
I've always been somewhat baffled by the opposition to the size of Kelvin-era starships, yet there is almost complete acceptance of the idea that in the 3-4 years between the end of the five-year mission and TMP everything looks completely different with very little design continuity whatsoever.

That the size matches up is all that matters!
 
I've always been somewhat baffled by the opposition to the size of Kelvin-era starships, yet there is almost complete acceptance of the idea that in the 3-4 years between the end of the five-year mission and TMP everything looks completely different with very little design continuity whatsoever.

It's possible that I would have been opposed to that, but I can't seem to see the two as being remotely the same - because one was a re-skin (essentially), and the other just a huge size difference with little scaling. But anyway, Pegg's comments solve it.
 
Yeah, but it was a reskin inside and out, with technological and engineering upgrades installed throughout the vessel.
This is not dissimilar to me upgrading my PC by replacing everything except the disc drive - but it's the same computer, right?
 
Yeah, but it was a reskin inside and out, with technological and engineering upgrades installed throughout the vessel.
This is not dissimilar to me upgrading my PC by replacing everything except the disc drive - but it's the same computer, right?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

^ I fear that another Refit v Original argument would end up like this :/
 
In my head--TOS lead up to the movies and TNG
No WW III.

Spaceflight progressed. TSTO shuttle ringships, etc.
First aberation was in The Voyage Home. This is in the timeline where we saw Voyager over Earth.

The tech jump is pronounced. Archer's Enterprise exists here--then to kelvin timeline
There is a WW III, but Earth actually progresses faster due to time meddling.

So Shatner's Kirk never had a father aboard the Kelvin--Kelvin never existed.
 
Saved what? People would've moved on to the phasers being different colors, why is there a shield between the transporter operator and pad, why is there two exits on the bridge...
Correct color and shade of nacelle caps/Bussard collectors... ?
 
It doesn't matter how 3D modelling "really" works. It is disingenuous to suggest that they didn't originally take a generic diagram of the Enterprise layout and change the scale.
It's disingenuous to suggest they DID, because that's not what happened.

By the time the decision to rescale it was made they had a rough 3D model for the ship with some of the details already taking shape. It was realized that some of the things they wanted to fit into that model wouldn't fit into a ship at the smaller scale, so additional details were added and/or changed to a smaller scale. Which is to say, they didn't actually make the SHIP bigger (there's no reason to do that with a 3D model) they actually made the DETAILS smaller and included significantly more of them. One of the earlier designs for the finished product had featured a totally different window arrangement to boot, reflective of the larger ship size; it was realized that this different window design looked kind of tacky, so they went back to the TMP-inspired dot-dash-dot pattern because it looked better.

It was rescaled several more times before even before a penultimate model was ever finalized, and the details changed significantly through subsequent iterations. The shape and position of the bridge, the shuttlebays, and interior details were all tweaked repeatedly, but in almost all cases the artists were primarily focussed on exterior details like hull paneling, hatches, window detail (and what you can see behind them) the shuttlebay, the torpedo bay, etc. These things were finally rendered to the new scale where they all ended up fitting together much better than they had in the smaller ship.

So no, it's not like some guy in photoshop hit the "rescale" button on a mostly finished ship. Between the decision "let's make it bigger" and the final product was something like four months of additional highly detailed work, some of which had to be REDONE to be consistent with the larger hull.
 
STARFLEET destroyers and battleships are not.
There were Starfleet "destroyer units" that were part of the fleet in "Sacrifice Of Angels," and a diagram of a Starfleet Saladin-class destroyer was shown in STII and III. (Also, not strictly canon, but the official backstory drawn out by writers bible for TOS said Kirk had commanded a destroyer before the Enterprise.)

And a computer screen in "Drone" (VGR) referred to the Defiant-class as a battleship, although I think this was a silly mistake since in "The Search" (DS9) Sisko says she's officially an escort, and the people who made that display likely just confused the specific term "battleship" with the generic descriptor of "warship" that he also used there.
 
There were Starfleet "destroyer units" that were part of the fleet in "Sacrifice Of Angels,"
And yet no Starfleet vessel has ever been referred to as such; it's not an official designation for any existing ship. Even the "escort vessel" of the Defiant class is about as militant as Starfleet generally gets in its classifications, as you yourself point out.

But an established visual pattern and intention is integral to a franchise - imagine if in Star Wars, someone suddenly had X-Wings flying with Newtonian physics ala Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica, instead of like WW2 fighters - this would constitute a break in the design aesthetic...
Dude, that would be FUCKING AWESOME!!!

But... yeah... design aesthetic... yeah, that's something we should be very concerned about... :shifty:

Voyager was never intended to be a flagship class; so bringing it up in comparison to the Constitution/Excelsior/galaxy/Ambassador is a disingenuous attempt to muddy the waters...
When was it ever suggested that the CONSTITUTION was flagship class? Even the term "flagship" was never applied to the original Enterprise, or even to Excelsior for that matter.

It WAS, on the other hand, applied to the Reboot Enterprise, which is volumetrically slightly smaller than an Ambassador class starship (thus failing to break the sacred "design aesthetic"). I'll also point out that the "tradition" of gradually-growing starships only exists between the Enterprise-C and -D, considering the Enterprise-E is slightly smaller than both of them.

Oddly, according to Rick Sternbach the Ambassador-class was originally meant to be shorter than the Excelsior-class: http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/vessel-dimensions-masses.82068/#post-2605350

Even then the Excelsior's length wavers between 466 and 511 meters, depending on the source: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Excelsior_class#Size
Rick Sternbach didn't even design the original Excelsior model and the TNG production crew was not intimately involved in the original movies. To say that there was a deliberate progression of increasing bigness from one generation to the next is a bit like trying to analyze James Bond's evolving taste in women.
 
And yet no Starfleet vessel has ever been referred to as such; it's not an official designation for any existing ship.
saladin_sftm.gif


(However, I am in agreement with your general points about the reboot Enterprise.)

Nah - I know what you are saying, but everyone from Rick Sternbach to Mike and Denise Okuda have always made it clear that was the intention. See a starship with nacelles and a saucer like that on an Excelsior class? It's more or less contemporary, in their view. That is how the Encyclopedia, by the Okudas always treated it, and therefore how Trekdom treated it - stuff like Ex Astris Scientia just follow that precedent. It makes sense, from an Air Force/Navy POV.

Like how everyone goes silent when the intention of the original timeline's production designers are brought up - because we all know that Sternbach, et al, intended the Excelsior/Ambassador/Galaxy to by the premier ships of their age - and these flagship projects to get larger reflecting their genera - and intended for each new "heavy cruiser" to represent a generational leap - from Constition > Excelsior > Ambassador > Galaxy > Sovereign. Trekkies have merely accepted their unofficial intent, not conjured this idea out of nowhere.

Yes - the intent of production designers is non-canon.
Of course, but the point is that this only applies as long as those particular designers (or like-minded ones) are working on the show and exerting an active influence. As soon as a new production team comes in, they may well decide to disregard it and go in their own direction. That's their prerogative. If they think something else works better for a particular story, or even just looks better, that's enough reason for them to go that route. It's fantasy, it doesn't have to all make sense in every detail, even though most of the time it only takes a bit of creative thought on our part to make sense of it if we are so inclined.
 
It's disingenuous to suggest they DID, because that's not what happened.

Your long-winded response not-withstanding, that's exactly what they did (and your post actually confirms it). They modeled the new Enterprise after the ORIGINAL design -- scale, window spacing, etc... THEN they realized they needed something bigger. So, whether you claim they rescaled after or rescaled before, it is irrelevant to the conclusion. Your argument of specifics is moot. The ship is rescaled from the original without attention to what a bigger ship would actually look like from the outside, because of the need to have a bigger interior. You yourself have admitted this in your post.
 
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