Starship size does matter...

[Kelso]

Starships have had windows for viewscreens (third pic down) since the sixties. I, for one, appreciate this slavish devotion to canon.

Really, it's no sillier than the classic bridge placement or the skylight... the advantage, though, is that it makes the viewscreen more dynamic and better integrates the bridge set with the exterior CGI, helping to create the illusion that our heroes are actually on a starship.

NOTE: I did not read the entire thread, as I find such topics tedious. Feel free to disregard my comments if they're terribly repetitive.

EDIT TO ADD: Also, it should be noted that, in the new movie, the hull of the freakin' starship started to crack before the window did. Them things is made of stern stuff.

 

[ST-One]

Again with the straw man. I've already been over this, repeatedly. Like it or not there's a difference. If anything a starship would have most in common with a submarine.

The SpaceShuttle has windows, hell pretty much every spacefaring vessel has windows.

BTW: The submarine-comparison doesn't really fly either. They don't have windows because of the high pressure they are exposed to in great depths.
Starships would only have to deal with the pressure from the inside. (under normal circumstances)

Oh, and, since there actually exists transparent metal in our reality, guess what was one of the applications scientist and engineers thought of? Outfitting submarines with large windows.

 

[ST-One]

Starships have had windows for viewscreens (third pic down) since the sixties. I, for one, appreciate this slavish devotion to canon.

Really, it's no sillier than the classic bridge placement or the skylight... the advantage, though, is that it makes the viewscreen more dynamic and better integrates the bridge set with the exterior CGI, helping to create the illusion that our heroes are actually on a starship.

This.

EDIT TO ADD: Also, it should be noted that, in the new movie, the hull of the freakin' starship started to crack before the window did. Them things is made of stern stuff.

Technically we only saw interior ceiling elements crack before the window started to crack itself.

 

[Disillusioned]

Starships have had windows for viewscreens (third pic down) since the sixties. I, for one, appreciate this slavish devotion to canon.

And you'll notice that by the next episode they'd decided to lose the windshield and rotate the bridge by 35 degrees. Not that having the bridge on the very top like that makes much sense either.

Really, it's no sillier than the classic bridge placement or the skylight...

And you'll notice I've argued against both of those things.

the advantage, though, is that it makes the viewscreen more dynamic and better integrates the bridge set with the exterior CGI, helping to create the illusion that our heroes are actually on a starship.

I've already been over this, and there is no advantage that a window can provide over a viewscreen in a practical sense.

EDIT TO ADD: Also, it should be noted that, in the new movie, the hull of the freakin' starship started to crack before the window did. Them things is made of stern stuff.

And really the hull cracking should have been a problem because then the ship would be hemorrhaging air into space. It also would have considerably reduced the structural integrity of all the materials that fractured, which means that literally everything that cracked would have to be replaced in order to be as strong as it was before, and that might not have been practical depending on how much of the ship was damaged since the structural members themselves might have taken damage. Oh, and as big as some of those cracks were, I'm surprised there wasn't any explosive decompression.

The SpaceShuttle has windows, hell pretty much every spacefaring vessel has windows.

Yes, modern spacecraft have wondows, mostly for manual docking maneuvers and the like. That doesn't somehow automatically mean a 23rd century starship would need them.

BTW: The submarine-comparison doesn't really fly either.

Yeah it does. In fact it's a very apt comparison given the darkness of both environments.

They don't have windows because of the high pressure they are exposed to in great depths.
Starships would only have to deal with the pressure from the inside. (under normal circumstances)

And in a vacuum one atmosphere would actually create plenty of stress on the structure of the ship. The ship would also have to hold up against external forces in case anything hit it.

Oh, and, since there actually exists transparent metal in our reality, guess what was one of the applications scientist and engineers thought of? Outfitting submarines with large windows.

Link? And I'm going to guess they never bothered because at depth there really isn't a whole lot of light, and even in shallower depths visual range isn't all that far.

Really, it's no sillier than the classic bridge placement or the skylight... the advantage, though, is that it makes the viewscreen more dynamic and better integrates the bridge set with the exterior CGI, helping to create the illusion that our heroes are actually on a starship.

This.

And you actually know better because since you've been with this thread since the beginning you know that people have argued against both of those things.

 

[Silversmok3]

As much as you or anyone else can say that, I've already argued as to how it would be a pretty useful piece of equipment. But you can keep arguing against that and in favor of a windshield just because it's what Abrams had Ryan Church do for this movie.

It's just a variation on a theme (eye-candy for the audience).

Instead of a forward view on a display it's now an actual forward view.

Why shouldnt it be?

Think of it this way-the enemy knocks out your viewscreen and sensors. If this happened and all you have is a viewscreen, your literally in the dark. With visual window, you can basically navigate the ship -or shoot someone-without needing instrumentation.

Alternativelty this would solve the occasional problem in Trek where theres an anomaly that's plainly visible, but the sensors dont see it...or vice versa.

 

[Disillusioned]

And what do you actually think you're going to see in space unless it's self-illuminated?

And if an enemy knocks your sensors out, you're pretty much boned because there'd be no way to lock on to any target and chances are that if they knocked your sensors out they are planning on attacking you. Basic navigation is the least of your worries.

 

[Silversmok3]

Basic navigation is the least of your worries.

...not if you defeat the bad guys when the chips are down, after he's wrecked your deep space GPS.

Again, why not have a window? It doesnt hurt the ship any, the crew can see something besides raw bulkhead ,and it may have tactical uses too.

 

[Disillusioned]

Because it doesn't actually help, that's why. Again, what do you think you're actually going to see in space? Unless they're stupid enough to not only self-illuminate, but sit right in front of you within a few hundred kilometers, you probably aren't going to see them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Because it doesn't actually help, that's why. Again, what do you think you're actually going to see in space? Unless they're stupid enough to not only self-illuminate, but sit right in front of you within a few hundred kilometers, you probably aren't going to see them.

How close was the Narada when the Enterprise fired at it?

Better question: how close was the First Federation Warning Bouy when the Enterprise destroyed it? (Hint: somewhere between 0 and 100 meters).

...

This is the part where you explain that having the First Federation bouy approach that close to the ship was just retarded anyway and therefore they shouldn't have had a window. Therefore, all of Star Trek that doesn't agree with your preconceptions is lame and it's JJ's fault for not living up to your expectations when he made a new movie just for you.

 

[Disillusioned]

How close was the Narada when the Enterprise fired at it?

This goes back to my previous argument of how space combat is practically treated like two sailing ships getting alongside each other at pistol shot and trading volleys. And considering that staying in so close to Narda and firing at her almost resulted in the destruction of the ship, that kind of underlines the stupidity of that scene.

Better question: how close was the First Federation Warning Bouy when the Enterprise destroyed it? (Hint: somewhere between 0 and 100 meters).

Which has nothing to do with this argument.

This is the part where you explain that having the First Federation bouy approach that close to the ship was just retarded anyway and therefore they shouldn't have had a window.

Of the buoy was programmed to get in their face like that on purpose, because IIRC, that buoy was giving off a ton of radiation that was designed to kill them unless they could stop it.

Therefore, all of Star Trek that doesn't agree with your preconceptions is lame and it's JJ's fault for not living up to your expectations when he made a new movie just for you.

No, this is just a straw man argument.

 

[M'Sharak]

This is the part where you explain that having the First Federation bouy approach that close to the ship was just retarded anyway and therefore they shouldn't have had a window. Therefore, all of Star Trek that doesn't agree with your preconceptions is lame and it's JJ's fault for not living up to your expectations when he made a new movie just for you.

I could do without the explanation, to tell the truth. All this business about whether a window on the bridge is a good idea or not spun off of a post which talked about using the perceived size of the window (and a slice of the bridge area seen within) as a yardstick for determining the ship's size.

Remembering that the size of the ship, rather than the presence of a window, is the actual topic of discussion in this thread, and seeing that Disillusioned is determined not to give an inch (or is, at least, anxious to be perceived in that way) I think that two pages and 70-some posts is quite a long enough run for a side argument which essentially reached a stalemate some time back.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

How close was the Narada when the Enterprise fired at it?

This goes back to my previous argument of how space combat is practically treated like two sailing ships getting alongside each other at pistol shot and trading volleys.

Yeah, combat on Star Trek doesn't work the way you think it should work. That's between you and Star Trek. But it doesn't amount to a coherent point to complain about the new Trek movie violating technological considerations that Trek has never adhered to in the first place.

 

[Shaw]

Starships have had windows for viewscreens (third pic down) since the sixties. I, for one, appreciate this slavish devotion to canon.

Actually, the "window" was only there for the second pilot version of the 11 foot model and was a mistake. It was a costly mistake as it required cutting the bridge structure off along the top edge of the hole to remove it when the producers ask for it to be removed.

It wasn't there on the model originally and it was removed quickly from the model before the series went into production.

Jefferies wanted NO windows at all. Roddenberry wanted windows to add detail and show scale. No one (other than the model renovation team for the second pilot) wanted windows on the bridge in TOS.

The whole thing is academic... there isn't anything to look at in the darkness of space where everything is too far away and your ship is moving faster than the light you'd be seeing anyways. You are better off with a computer enhanced/generated display of the situation. Even in the pitch black of deep space a ship thousands of miles away can look like it is right there and brightly lit on a display.


People are emotionally attached to windows because they are on their cars and on airplanes (which need them for landing and other in plane view aspects for flight). On ships they aren't as needed as they once were (which is why the bridge of many ships has been moving towards the rear of the ships) and military subs don't have them because because you can only see between 5 to 25 meters under water (pressure isn't a factor, there are plenty of subs that have them that go far deeper than most military subs, but their whole purpose is to see what is down there).

A perfect example is the collision of the USS San Francisco with a mountain... windows wouldn't have helped because by the time you saw what you were about to hit, you've already hit it.

But the movie has moved away from this type of thoughtful insight and there really is no point in crying about it after the fact.

At least the top front of the saucer is lit up so you can see something... though if windows are that important, they should have just moved the bridge to the bow of the ship so nothing would be obstructing their view. Why have a window when half of what you need to see is obstructed?

 

[Disillusioned]

All this business about whether a window on the bridge is a good idea or not spun off of a post which talked about using the perceived size of the window (and a slice of the bridge area seen within) as a yardstick for determining the ship's size.

Isn't it kind of weird how conversations can shoot off on a tangent like that?

Star Trek doesn't work the way you think it should work. That's between you and Star Trek. But it doesn't amount to a coherent point to complain about the new Trek movie violating technological considerations that Trek has never adhered to in the first place.

That aspect of it is just a continuation of the same argument for me. That also doesn't cross itself off of the list of complains I have about the movie. Just pointing at previous examples of it happening hardly excuses making the same kind of mistake again, nor does it invalidate the criticism of the latest example of it. I'm really not getting why people keep trying to make that kind of argument.

Jefferies wanted NO windows at all.

I find that kind of interesting and kind of cool.

At least the top front of the saucer is lit up so you can see something... though if windows are that important, they should have just moved the bridge to the bow of the ship so nothing would be obstructing their view. Why have a window when half of what you need to see is obstructed?

Excellent point, and something I've kind of been getting at, too in my own way, though the window would still have a fairly limited field of view.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That aspect of it is just a continuation of the same argument for me. That also doesn't cross itself off of the list of complains I have about the movie. Just pointing at previous examples of it happening hardly excuses making the same kind of mistake again, nor does it invalidate the criticism of the latest example of it. I'm really not getting why people keep trying to make that kind of argument.

The point, in general, is this: after more than forty years in existence, Star Trek still exists, and Star Trek still makes the same "mistakes." It's not likely to ever change to become more like what you think it should be, which therefore leaves us with the possibility that maybe--just MAYBE--Star Trek is in the right and it is you who are mistaken in your assumptions of what is "supposed" to happen?

Jefferies wanted NO windows at all.

Which is incredibly weird considering that Captain Pike's room in "The Cage" had a window. Which is doubly weird since, by the scale of that window from the rest of the ship, the Enterprise in "The Cage" would be around 200 meters long.

 

[Disillusioned]

The point, in general, is this: after more than forty years in existence, Star Trek still exists, and Star Trek still makes the same "mistakes." It's not likely to ever change to become more like what you think it should be, which therefore leaves us with the possibility that maybe--just MAYBE--Star Trek is in the right and it is you who are mistaken in your assumptions of what is "supposed" to happen?

No, it's a common complaint about all shows like this. Just because something is done a lot doesn't make it "right" anymore than repeating a lie enough time makes it truth. What makes this example somewhat more damning when it comes to this movie was how JJ Abrams tried to sell this movie as going for more realism, and as it turned out really it didn't. Kind of like how he said the original Enterprise was too iconic to change, then proceeded to change it.

Which is incredibly weird considering that Captain Pike's room in "The Cage" had a window. Which is doubly weird since, by the scale of that window from the rest of the ship, the Enterprise in "The Cage" would be around 200 meters long.

Uh, I don't see how that's strange at all seeing as it just shows Matt Jefferies was overruled. After all, the filming model also contained windows even then. How is it weird then that Matt Jefferies never wanted them?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The point, in general, is this: after more than forty years in existence, Star Trek still exists, and Star Trek still makes the same "mistakes." It's not likely to ever change to become more like what you think it should be, which therefore leaves us with the possibility that maybe--just MAYBE--Star Trek is in the right and it is you who are mistaken in your assumptions of what is "supposed" to happen?

No, it's a common complaint about all shows like this. Just because something is done a lot doesn't make it "right" anymore than repeating a lie enough time makes it truth.

Funny choice of words here: how do you define "truth" and "lies" in what is, by definition, a work of phenomenal speculative untruth?

What makes this example somewhat more damning when it comes to this movie was how JJ Abrams tried to sell this movie as going for more realism, and as it turned out really it didn't.

Realism from a filmmaker's perspective involves LOOK, not scientific plausibility. That 99% of all aliens in the Federation are bipedal and vaguely humanoid is vastly more improbable than the utility of a window on the bridge, but Trekkies have taken this for granted since the beginning.

OTOH, intentionally trying to avoid the pitfalls of "forehead aliens" is something we can give JJ credit for. The matter of style and function on the bridge of the Kelvin and the Enterprise is another. You have a difference of opinion with him in terms of both the utility of a window on the bridge and the distances at which starships will usually engage in combat.

But Given that JJ Abrams is the director of a multi-million dollar film production and you are just some guy spewing vitriol on a message board, I think it's a safe bet to trust his opinion more than yours.

 

[Shaw]

Jefferies wanted NO windows at all.

Which is incredibly weird considering that Captain Pike's room in "The Cage" had a window. Which is doubly weird since, by the scale of that window from the rest of the ship, the Enterprise in "The Cage" would be around 200 meters long.

Windows were added over Jefferies objections in the second week of November 1964 (and Jefferies had to answer to at least three other people on production issues), the scale of the window in Pike's room is fine considering that it was closed (unless you have a thread where you have shown your work to say otherwise )... the windows in Kirk's room were a problem and were eventually covered over because of it.

I don't mind if you wish to be guided by bad info... just don't expect others to follow (or respond further). Show us your serious about researching this stuff and I'll be happy to reconsider a further discussion with you.

Nothing personal, but this is as mush time as your worth.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Windows were added over Jefferies objections in the second week of November 1964 (and Jefferies had to answer to at least three other people on production issues), the scale of the window in Pike's room is fine considering that it was closed

How does closing a window make it smaller? Or bigger? Or... what?

Anyway, I don't remember completely the original version except that the window was on a curved wall that was implied to be either the dome under the bridge (unlikely considering the hallway outside) or somewhere in the secondary hull (a bit more likely considering the hugeness of the room). Either position would still make the Cage Enterprise considerably smaller than the final version.

The windows in Kirk's room were a problem and were eventually covered over because of it.

I figured, since by then they had revised the scale of the ship to be larger than before and the windows didn't fit anymore. You'll notice they did the exact same thing in STXI, with those "communications stations" in the corridor parked in front of ovoid and circular features that were almost certainly meant to be saucer rim windows; they no longer fit the upscaled version, so star fields were omitted and they were left as featureless white lights.

 

[Disillusioned]

Funny choice of words here: how do you define "truth" and "lies" in what is, by definition, a work of phenomenal speculative untruth?

Realism from a filmmaker's perspective involves LOOK, not scientific plausibility.

Except that isn't what he said. Essentially he was bashing Star Trek for doing exactly the kinds of things he ended up doing in his movie.

But Given that JJ Abrams is the director of a multi-million dollar film production and you are just some guy spewing vitriol on a message board, I think it's a safe bet to trust his opinion more than yours.

Ah, yes, him having more money means my opinion doesn't count. Except it doesn't. Honestly, your arguments make no sense at all.