Starship Size Argument™ thread

[Belz...]

Man, GRAVITY is going to be so refreshing. No cheating on the scale, no sound effects in space, and they don't swing the sun around 90 or 180 degrees to get it in a convenient position for the next shot.

Boring !

It'll probably be like the people who call the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy "realistic" when what it actually is would be more accurately described as "more realistic than most other comic book movies."

But is it ? You could fly a starship through the plot holes in that movie. For one, the plot doesn't make any sense unless the Joker has psychic powers.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^
[YT]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cznOcCahQaE[/Yt]

Because I like something that tries to play things honestly, I should hate all of STAR TREK? Does that include TMP, where they try to keep the lighting for space realistic much of the time?

And had that kewl Star Wars jump to lightspeed, as well as warp stars gushing past the ship like dust motes. Plus, that "realistic" self lighting on the Enterprise took a great many liberties, since the light sources weren't actually on the model itself.

, like 2001 did, and if they chose to deviate, they didn't do so by having the ISS built intact on Earth and lifted into orbit by Dumbo.

But the ISS is tin foil compared to the Enterprise. We've seen Trek ships crash, collide, fall through unstable wormholes and all sorts of other things, and they've never crumpled, owing to canonically-established futuristic materials and structural integrity fields. Your comparison is invalid.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It'll probably be like the people who call the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy "realistic" when what it actually is would be more accurately described as "more realistic than most other comic book movies."

But is it? You could fly a starship through the plot holes in that movie. For one, the plot doesn't make any sense unless the Joker has psychic powers.

I'm not looking to start a Batman tangent in this thread (I was just making an offhand point), and I'm not calling the trilogy realistic compared to the real world; I just said it's more realistic (especially in tone) than most comic book movies. I'm well aware that there are numerous plot holes in the films. Also, the Joker himself was in one movie, not the whole trilogy.

 

[Flake]

It is clear that many people including myself have allowed themselves to get bogged down in minutiae over the years and this is all an epic hangover from the Berman era of Star Trek. (not his fault, just his era)

If you allow yourself to become immersed in something like Star Trek it means you are going to notice the inconsistencies and errors whereas a casual viewer will not. I noticed them all when I was in the cinema and it did impact on my enjoyment of the movie to the point of being pissed off. It is only in the weeks and months after release that I am gradually letting go of this 'TNG Hangover' and simply enjoying the show. If or when you do that you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie because it is great really!

If you are determined to nitpick it will ruin the movie for you. Just accept that this is different and move on. Don't try and make it fit in with episode x, season x of show x because its not going to happen.

 

[Kruezerman]

And you know when they make a show again (which I do believe they will) we can get back into it like that again. But not now, it's not fair, around four hours of film can't take the place of four years of television.

 

[Flake]

Why isn't it fair and why does it have to replace what came before? I don't understand that

Its new Star Trek from a new production team in a new continuity. It is essentially a reboot.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It is clear that many people including myself have allowed themselves to get bogged down in minutiae over the years and this is all an epic hangover from the Berman era of Star Trek. (not his fault, just his era)

/thread.

 

[ComicGuy89]

It is clear that many people including myself have allowed themselves to get bogged down in minutiae over the years and this is all an epic hangover from the Berman era of Star Trek. (not his fault, just his era)

If you allow yourself to become immersed in something like Star Trek it means you are going to notice the inconsistencies and errors whereas a casual viewer will not. I noticed them all when I was in the cinema and it did impact on my enjoyment of the movie to the point of being pissed off. It is only in the weeks and months after release that I am gradually letting go of this 'TNG Hangover' and simply enjoying the show. If or when you do that you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie because it is great really!

If you are determined to nitpick it will ruin the movie for you. Just accept that this is different and move on. Don't try and make it fit in with episode x, season x of show x because its not going to happen.

"TNG Hangover" is a term i can see myself using.

 

[BillJ]

If you allow yourself to become immersed in something like Star Trek it means you are going to notice the inconsistencies and errors whereas a casual viewer will not. I noticed them all when I was in the cinema and it did impact on my enjoyment of the movie to the point of being pissed off. It is only in the weeks and months after release that I am gradually letting go of this 'TNG Hangover' and simply enjoying the show. If or when you do that you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie because it is great really!

I use to get bogged down in the non-sense. It got to such a point that I was no longer enjoying Trek. So I had to either let the non-sense go or let Trek go.

But I'm still hungover from Modern Trek. There was just so much of it in such a short period of time.

 

[trevanian]

^
[YT]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cznOcCahQaE[/Yt]

Because I like something that tries to play things honestly, I should hate all of STAR TREK? Does that include TMP, where they try to keep the lighting for space realistic much of the time?

And had that kewl Star Wars jump to lightspeed, as well as warp stars gushing past the ship like dust motes. Plus, that "realistic" self lighting on the Enterprise took a great many liberties, since the light sources weren't actually on the model itself.

, like 2001 did, and if they chose to deviate, they didn't do so by having the ISS built intact on Earth and lifted into orbit by Dumbo.

But the ISS is tin foil compared to the Enterprise. We've seen Trek ships crash, collide, fall through unstable wormholes and all sorts of other things, and they've never crumpled, owing to canonically-established futuristic materials and structural integrity fields. Your comparison is invalid.

You're really intent on pursuing this? Do I need to weigh in on the even more realistic intents on TMP (with respect to perspective changes on objects approached at high-speed, spectral shifts as objects approach and recede, and the kind of dimensional warping that was later somewhat successfully implemented on TNG) that couldn't be realized due to switchover in VFX companies and inflexible delivery dates, none of which would even be considered for inclusion in this current era of what I guess I'd call NonTrek?

If you know about the searchlights on the model not providing the real illumination (which has absolutely ZERO worth in mentioning here, because that really is a difference that makes no difference, it may even be a new standard for that notion, it is so irrelevant here), then you probably are aware of all these other valid notions that would have enhanced credibility AND visual interest (which is one of the points of my mentioning this in the first place, since adhering to science only works for entertainment purposes if it embellishes the story.)

And we have most definitely seen starships crumple -- your word -- and be torn open from impacts. NEMESIS anyone? And that's not even getting into what phasers and torps do in TWO & TUC?

 

[Kemaiku]

nIn Nemesis, the only reason it worked at all was because the Enterprise struck the shuttlebay doors, the weakest points of the entire ship, like kicking someones door down, try kicking the wall and see it that works as well.

The Enterprise was skinned and the Scimitar lost two doors, hardly the main structure crumpling.

And torpedoes have a yield of many isotons, which if they line up to nuclear yields of megatons, means it takes 60+ megatons to blow a hole in one of them.

And "non-trek"? really? why should I even be wasting my time with someone possessing such a hateful agenda against a movie.

 

[BillJ]

You're really intent on pursuing this? Do I need to weigh in on the even more realistic intents on TMP (with respect to perspective changes on objects approached at high-speed, spectral shifts as objects approach and recede, and the kind of dimensional warping that was later somewhat successfully implemented on TNG) that couldn't be realized due to switchover in VFX companies and inflexible delivery dates, none of which would even be considered for inclusion in this current era of what I guess I'd call NonTrek?

I simply have never watched Star Trek for actual science, I watch because I love the characters. I do love Hard Sci-fi, love reading books by Clarke and Asimov and Baxter.

I think on some level, what Star Trek is is really incompatible with hard sci-fi. Sometimes it can work (I like The Motion Picture) but is it something that I want out of Trek every episode and every movie? I've got to say no. I fell in love with Trek watching the Enterprise spinning down on a collision course with PSI2000, watching Kirk fight a giant lizard man, watching Spock fall in love thousands of years before he was born, watching the Enterprise crew fight an 11,000 mile-long single cell organism and so on.

Star Trek to me is a mix of fun action-adventure and pop sci-fi. YMMV.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

And torpedoes have a yield of many isotons,

What the heck is an isoton? Something similar to a ton, I guess? Because 'iso' sure isn't a standard metric prefix.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Because I like something that tries to play things honestly, I should hate all of STAR TREK? Does that include TMP, where they try to keep the lighting for space realistic much of the time?

And had that kewl Star Wars jump to lightspeed, as well as warp stars gushing past the ship like dust motes. Plus, that "realistic" self lighting on the Enterprise took a great many liberties, since the light sources weren't actually on the model itself.

, like 2001 did, and if they chose to deviate, they didn't do so by having the ISS built intact on Earth and lifted into orbit by Dumbo.

But the ISS is tin foil compared to the Enterprise. We've seen Trek ships crash, collide, fall through unstable wormholes and all sorts of other things, and they've never crumpled, owing to canonically-established futuristic materials and structural integrity fields. Your comparison is invalid.

You're really intent on pursuing this? Do I need to weigh in on the even more realistic intents on TMP (with respect to perspective changes on objects approached at high-speed, spectral shifts as objects approach and recede, and the kind of dimensional warping that was later somewhat successfully implemented on TNG) that couldn't be realized due to switchover in VFX companies and inflexible delivery dates, none of which would even be considered for inclusion in this current era of what I guess I'd call NonTrek?

You're making excuses for the failings of what you like, nothing more.

If you know about the searchlights on the model not providing the real illumination (which has absolutely ZERO worth in mentioning here, because that really is a difference that makes no difference, it may even be a new standard for that notion, it is so irrelevant here), then you probably are aware of all these other valid notions that would have enhanced credibility AND visual interest (which is one of the points of my mentioning this in the first place, since adhering to science only works for entertainment purposes if it embellishes the story.)

I think, when someone cites the lighting in TMP as "realistic", it's very much relevent to point out that the lit parts of the ship don't match the light sources. The light source below the bridge module on the classic movie Enterprise (in the location of the window of the new version) couldn't light the name and number of the ship as seen. The idea of a self-illuminated ship is all well and good, but the execution was poor.

And we have most definitely seen starships crumple -- your word -- and be torn open from impacts. NEMESIS anyone? And that's not even getting into what phasers and torps do in TWO & TUC?

This is the kind of crumpling i was referring to, completely unlike what we've seen happen to ships in Trek.

 

[M'Sharak]

And torpedoes have a yield of many isotons,

What the heck is an isoton? Something similar to a ton, I guess? Because 'iso' sure isn't a standard metric prefix.

This:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Isoton

...

And "non-trek"? really? why should I even be wasting my time with someone possessing such a hateful agenda against a movie.

You shouldn't. Every single time discussion has gone down that alley, it has turned out to be a dead end; better just to leave it alone.

At the very least, it's a separate topic, and one which does not fit within the scope of this thread.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Bear in mind, we're just gonna have to deal with this kind of shit for ANY sort of science fiction (or even loosely "science") story in film or television. Written science fiction tends to be a lot more conscientious about their stories making scientific sense, mainly because the kind of people who READ science fiction are the type of people to notice that kind of thing (plus, in written form, it's a lot easier to notice).

Television, though, that's a different beast. Most of it's gibberish, the rest is out of context, and the producers don't have the patience or the inclination to step back and think "You know, I wonder how much of our audience is going notice that we don't know what the hell we're talking about?"

 

[Captain_Amasov]

How many decks would there be along the rim of the saucer section if the Enterprise is 700 odd metres in length?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Two at the very edge, but there's room for three a little further in. The deck spacing is wider than the old Enterprise - this one actually has space for all those steps and complex ceilings that Trek set designers are so fond of!

 

[Tuskin38]

Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.

Either the View Screen got bigger or the bridge got smaller. Actually the new exterior view screen matches the physical set better.

Before:


After:

 

[ATimson]

Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.

That's not something due to the refit; it changes size back and forth throughout the movie.