Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by WarpFactorZ, May 1, 2013.
It would probably trigger a meltdown.
If everyone is happy to accept 725 m then, the size chart will look something like this:
One last observation about this scale, is that the Klingon warbirds seen in the simulator would perhaps be the size of the mayflower, and therefore bigger than the original Enterprise.
They like bigger ships in this universe. Also the crew of the Enterprise looks totally different, phasers and communicators look totally different, uniforms look totally different, and Klingons look totally different. Even Khan looks totally different! In that context, who cares that the totally different Enterprise is a bit bigger?
Okay. I don't have an issue with larger starships. This is space, these things are still tiny in the grand scheme of things.
They are. And I won't dispute the size. But ya know, the volume of one of the new Enterprise's warp nacelles could almost house the entire TOS ship. That is why people felt very iffy about the whole thing - people being accidentally promoted to the same positions on the same ship, only 10 times larger in volume. I've made my peace with it, if they are going with that length - people only ever raised it in the hope they might issue a new size retcon for Beyond - that opportunity is now gone. I'm sure you can understand, even if not agreeing.
In the prime universe two main types of Birds of Prey were shown, the Brel class (scout) which was pretty small 50m long or so, about the same size as the defiant or thereabouts and a much bigger version the Kvort class which was around 150m long or so.
We don't really know how big and what classes are being used by the Klingons in the kelvin timeline, fair to say they may have received a size increase as well, plus the Klingons had Nero's ship for a long time as well.
Oh boy, we don't wanna get into Bernd Scnieder's argument about the B'Rel and K'Vort actually being the same size
I will say this much though; the idea was mainly introduced by the Okudas in the Encyclopedia, and he makes another case for why we should ignore visual evidence in that one case.
But I agree, if we are accepting much larger ships, there is no reason to not accept an unknown bigger class of Klingon battlecruiser. Thankfully they are visually different enough from the D7 that they don't have to be the same ship.
Fiction bends to the will of the creator. When you have something as long running as Trek, you are simply going to get different visions. Either one accepts it or moves on to other pursuits.
Didn't the size of the Klingon warbird change in The Voyage Home lol.
The Brel was always an early small scout BOP, while the Kvort was a light cruiser, I think the D12 were only really shown during the TOS TV era. According to memory beta the Kvort class size did vary over the years and the latter versions in the prime time line were really big, like 1701D big.
Apparently they just scaled it up, because they could.
Never ignore visual evidence even if you dont like what it means, talk is cheap but evidence on screen is king.
No argument/discussion was ever won by the side who simply discounted what they didn't like.
Star Trek is more than simply a serialized weird fiction magazine to me, its more like the mythopoeia of Tolkien. I'm not ashamed of that in any way. It's why many Trekkies treat their franchise differently to how Whovians treat Doctor Who.
In Doctor Who, there is little attempt to stay consistent, it is just like someone throwing together weird tales straight out of a weird fiction pulp magazine, and this is a feature of their very open Gaiman-like storytelling - the Daleks more or less have the same motives, but their ships and technology need not remain too recognizable.
In Star Trek there is a greater attempt to remain consistent, far more rigorous than comics, although not anywhere near as total as something like Tolkien. Either one accepts that, or movies on to other pursuits; it's just a feature of our culture and franchise. Like it or not, there will always be debates about how things fit in - I look at this facet of this hobby of ours with affection, rather than scorn.
Nah its just that the weight of the whale making the ship look big boned.
Ah but remember, he isn't discounting visual evidence in that way, he is giving ways in which ship's sizes could appear distorted - for example by being further in the foreground than the camera seems to indicate - so technically, he isn't just ignoring on screen canon. But anyway, like I said, I don't really want to get into a discussion about them - he can sign up and come on TrekBBS if he wants to
Star Trek blew its own consistency out of the water when they completely reimagined the universe in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Star Trek: Enterprise is not visually consistent with the original. The Enterprise herself was reinvented between the pilots and series proper, the much taller bridge dome and lower crew complement (203) points to a smaller ship.
Consistency in Star Trek is an illusion created by fandom, not the creators.
I'm not interested in handcuffing creators at the altar of an imaginary consistency. In your world, something like Starbase Yorktown is simply impossible because it doesn't match what came before. I have no interest in that.
The entire bridge changed in between movies. But somehow that is consistent.
DW is really not terribly more inconsistent than ST at all.
Both have been going for over half a century, it would be bizarre if they maintained such consistency. I agree with Bill, being hamstrung by a weight of continuity hurts creativity. If you have to get every script and design signed off by a Guardian of Canon, you've killed Star Trek.
Besides, there is nothing inconsistent. The writers of the 2009 film wisely set it in a parallel universe. It was only the supposition of the characters based on scant evidence that the timeline branched off with Nero's incursion. A lot of evidence points to it being a different reality from the outset.
Let's agree to disagree, because I don't wanna get into this for hours. I don't agree at all that TMP is some kind of event horizon of inconsistency after which Star Trek should be treated like a short story collection with a bare bones framing narrative. A 'complete re imagining' is hyperbole, in my opinion. TOS didn't even have much yet laid down to re-imagine.
Ironically perhaps, fans did contribute to making Trek's mythopoeia more than it's actual creator - certainly people in the production teams, etc, started as fans. B-canon sources that thought about what the Federation actually would consist of, became accepted by the actual production staff by TNG. But I don't think that lessens the legitimacy of mythopoeia in the franchise at all. I roll with it, and that's an enjoyable part of the culture, not an aberration, to me. Probably in Homer's time, someone would ask "and what was Odysseus up to, during all this", and he might have written them a short story about it into his rendition than night.
Perhaps some people might think Star Trek fans aren't being literary enough, by holding on to concepts like canon, instead of just treating it like a Twilight Zone of unconnected stories, but who is anyone to say this? Your view of what makes Star Trek what it is, is just as subjective as someone claiming that canon is an iron-clad orthodoxy. Like I say, there will always be debates on how to fit visual evidence in, and I like it, rather than resent it. My position is somewhere short of canon being ironclad, but much more consistent than comics.
And @BillJ - just to let you know, I had no problem with Yorktown and loved Beyond, so you assume too much.
But it doesn't match what we know of the time period or the size of various starbases that we've seen. Why be on about starships not matching but not starbases?
Why doesn't it match the time period?
Nero's technology had an unknown, un-quantifiable, effect on the advancement of material sciences and other sciences. It's also been people's argument for why the Enterprise is bigger, it's just that in that case, there were other extenuating factors, that made it controversial. There are no such factors with Yorktown.
Separate names with a comma.