# 2009 Movie Enterprise (3D Model) Scale



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

In another post I made reference to the 2009 Movie Enterprise bridge viewscreen being located in the slot on the bottom edge of the bridge module, where on the old TMP refit Enterprise there are lights to illuminate the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 designation. This directly affects the scale of and physical size of any model we hope to build of the new Enterprise. The offical length is said to be 2500 feet which even I found to be unbelievable, until now. To illustrate what I mean look at this image from the new 2009 Star Trek movie of the outside bridge area. (You will need to be a free registered member of the official Star Trek Movie Forums at http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/ to view the following image link). Look at the size of the viewscreen from the outside looking into the bridge. This ship is huge:

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1221&d=1242002428

(I was going to upload the actual image here to HobbyTalk (and still can) but is that proper since it's taken from another site?)

This new Enterprise is indeed huge based on this image. I like many others was having a hard time digesting that it is supposed to be 2500 feet long (even at 1/1000 scale a model would be ((2500'x12)/1000)=30 inches long) but looking at the height of that bridge viewscreen opening (which is what, as big as a person?) I’m starting to believe the scale of it now. In this alternate Star Trek universe Starfleet must like to build big, and Nero’s to blame!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I was gonna put something together, but someone over on that message board beat me to it.

I think this brings things to pretty clear focus....


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

There's only one way to define this (if those are the 'real' numbers) - it's STUPID BIG...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And they gave command to a third year cadet on academic suspension.

Don't it make ya proud?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

According to this Trekmovie.com story about Paramount's "Experience the Enterprise" iPhone app site, at 2500 feet long the 762m Enterprise in your illustration is supposed to be it. But look at that exterior bridge window photo from the movie I linked (I hope this isn't a Spoiler movie image), the saucer could be 1100 feet in diameter! It is also supposed to be 625 feet high with 1100 crew members!

(heck I'm just going to direct attach it but if I shouldn't have to this forum please delete it or let me know and I will) 

Darn you Nero! I guess he made Starfleet better, LOL.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Captain April said:


> And they gave command to a third year cadet on academic suspension.
> 
> Don't it make ya proud?


Pike liked that Kirk thinks outside the box. He defeated a cheat with a cheat. Even in TOS he always bent the rules. Kirk has a quality Pike admires and has been missing from Starfleet for a long time.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Captain April said:


> And they gave command to a third year cadet on academic suspension.
> 
> Don't it make ya proud?


Actually, yes, it does. Star Trek doesn't suck anymore. And we have a world-beating crew of terrific actors. But it sucks, right?


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

The Bridge window is nearly floor to ceiling in height, as I saw it the 2nd time yesterday and paid attention to this detail.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Pike liked that Kirk thinks outside the box. He defeated a cheat with a cheat. Even in TOS he always bent the rules. Kirk has a quality Pike admires and has been missing from Starfleet for a long time.


A complete and total lack of experience? Recklessness bordering on the suicidal? Because he's just so gosh darned dreamy?


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

*Toldya' so Carson...*

Folks,

I was saying from the time I saw the first 20 minutes this new Enterprise was HUGE. Like STAR DESTROYER huge.

And really dumb, too.

But Carson Dyle said I was wrong.

Apparently, I wasn't.

BTW...STAR TREK is the most overrated movie in history.

As one of the biggest fans on the planet (with a movie to prove it) I can't BELIEVE how I'm being told I just don't "get TREK."

What Mirror Universe am I living in?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I kinda feel like we're on Elba II and Garth just took over.

Don't get too attached to the green chick, she ain't long for this world. And besides, she's nuts.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Wow look at this page featuring a size comparision to Battlestar Glactica but I think they got the BG size wrong, too small!

http://gizmodo.com/5253324/how-big-is-the-new-enterprise-compared-to-galactica#viewcomments


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

They're going by the officially stated sizes.

Looks like I got it right way back when I dubbed it the Battlestar Enterprise.

It also looks like that three-foot version that's been running around is closer to 1/1000 than 1/350.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^^ Yes you did!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Let's save folks the click...


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> And they gave command to a third year cadet on academic suspension.
> 
> Don't it make ya proud?


Way to infuse your dislike for the film yet again Capt.


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

Damn. Bigger than BSG??? That's insanely huge.

I'm willing to overlook a lot within the film, but that, and the _Kelvin_ already being more advanced before the _Narada_ arrived are just too much to take.

This is only a divergent timeline if it happened before the _Kelvin_ was built.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Just came across a post from the official Star Trek movie forum saying it's 2000 feet long or 609.6 meters, sighting this Film & Video article:

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/Reinventing-Star-Treks-VFX_10905.html

The dropdown box info when clicking on the Enterprise Under Construction picture says:



> Modelers and view painters (texture painters) at ILM built a larger, more streamlined Enterprise, the Romulan Narada, the drilling platform, and other ships and objects for the film, using Autodesk’s Maya, ILM’s Zeno, and Adobe’s Photoshop.
> 
> Although it stayed true to form, the Enterprise grew from 1300 feet to 2000 feet in length for this film. Its “neck” is thinner and more graceful, and it has more visible moving parts. The team worked from concept art created by Ryan Church and leaned on the experience of such crewmembers as Alex Jaeger, who was the visual effects art director at ILM for Star Trek: First Contact in 1996, and John Goodson, who was the model project supervisor for that film.
> 
> ...


Here is a new size comparision picture if I re-scaled it right, but at least 500 feet is shaved off according to these sources. I wish Paramount would get their facts straight instead of giving us all these varying measurements!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Just came across a post from the official Star Trek movie forum saying it's 2000 feet long or 609.6 meters


Okay, 609.6 meters is a figure I _guess_ I can live with -- at least in the sense that it _sort_ of jibes with what I feel like I'm seeing onscreen. 

Thanks for posting.




RMBurnett said:


> I was saying from the time I saw the first 20 minutes this new Enterprise was HUGE. Like STAR DESTROYER huge.
> SNIP
> But Carson Dyle said I was wrong.
> SNIP
> ...



Chill Mr. I Told You So, we were _both_ wrong. 

I was clearly in error when I stated a couple of months ago that the Abrams E appeared to be roughly the same size as the vessel from TMP (guess I'm not the best judge of imaginary spaceship scales. Chalk it up to all those Irwin Allen models I've built).

Thing is, you were even further off the mark with your whole big-as-a-Stardestroyer theory, so don't get too comfy on that high horse.  For the record, according to Wookieepedia, a Stardestroyer is 1,600 meters long.

BTW Robert, I'm sorry to hear you didn't care for Trek XI, but I wouldn't take its success personally. Those of us who enjoyed the film (despite its not-so-shortcomings) aren't out to spite you. We're just happy to be interested in, and entertained by Star Trek again. 

Cheer up; maybe the next one will be better.

BTW, for the record, the most overrated film in history is "Titanic."


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Here is a screen capture showing the new Enterprise pre-warp intercooler effects from the Burger King commercial. I tried to fix the compressed width aspect ratio. I wish there was a better image of this out there.


----------



## azdacuda (May 7, 2008)

I just hear in the 3d program that the New Enterprise is 2500 feet.

Check out the interactive site

http://www.experience-the-enterprise.com


----------



## d_jedi1 (Jan 20, 2007)

if you don't feel like messing around with it (you should, it's really cool) I made a video with my wife's help a few days back.




but yeah.. 2500 feet according to that site
edit: wierd, I didn't tell it to embed the video..


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

Even being close to BSG is hard to accept with the windows shown. They would have to be huge, wouldn't they? 

Also, does that measurement match scale with the shuttle? The shuttle can be seen leaving the hangar, and its scale can be probably judged from the hatch for height.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The shuttles are about the size of a phaser bank I think. It does make more sense since proportionally the shuttle bay is now much smaller--but with two decks of shuttlecraft in there it should be bigger than the Refit bay.

Don't worry RMB, I've been told I'm not a "real fan" too because I love the film so we're even. But I've seen it three times--have you? Come on, you haven't found nearly enough to hate about it yet!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

ThisGuy said:


> Even being close to BSG is hard to accept with the windows shown.


The BSG size in the comparison picture is understated. The length should be around 4640 feet (1414 meters) for the re-imagined series.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

ThisGuy said:


> Even being close to BSG is hard to accept with the windows shown. They would have to be huge, wouldn't they?


Yeah, that's one of the things that's really throwing me about the whole big-as-a-battlestar thing. Sizing stats to the contrary, it simply doesn't gel with the relative visual information I'm able to glean from watching these ships on their respective screens.



ThisGuy said:


> Also, does that measurement match scale with the shuttle? The shuttle can be seen leaving the hangar, and its scale can be probably judged from the hatch for height.


The shot of the Academy shuttle approaching the hangar bay must have been one of the last FX shots completed, because it never appeared in any of the rough cuts I saw. I'd love to get a closer look at the inside of that bay...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> The BSG size in the comparison picture is understated. The length should be around 4640 feet (1414 meters) for the re-imagined series.


Yeah, I thought "615 meters" sounded a bit stubby for the BSG...










This is why I generally avoid these sorts of scaling discussions. Everyone's an expert and no one knows anything (myself included).


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

The only reason I want to know the true or official scaling is that it will decide what size model to hopefully produce as a kit. If it truely is that big then it looks like a 1/350 scale model is out of the question so it will be 1/1000 instead.

At 1/1000 scale a 2000 foot ship as a model would be 24 inches long, and a 2500 foot ship model would be 30 inches long. 

At 1/350 scale a 2000 foot ship as a model would be 68.6 inches long, that's 5.7 feet so no way are they gonna do that as a kit!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Yeah, I like the idea of a 2 foot, 1/1000 scale kit...


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I also like, BTW, the idea that an Enterprise twice the size of the original is "stupid." Because we ALL know that 947 feet is PRECISELY the size that any real warp drive starship would HAVE to be, right?


----------



## miraclefan (Apr 11, 2009)

Steve Mavronis said:


> According to this Trekmovie.com story about Paramount's "Experience the Enterprise" iPhone app site, at 2500 feet long the 762m Enterprise in your illustration is supposed to be it. But look at that exterior bridge window photo from the movie I linked (I hope this isn't a Spoiler movie image), the saucer could be 1100 feet in diameter! It is also supposed to be 625 feet high with 1100 crew members!
> 
> (heck I'm just going to direct attach it but if I shouldn't have to this forum please delete it or let me know and I will)
> 
> Damn you Nero! I guess he made Starfleet better, LOL.


 WOW! that ships bigger then _*HELL!*_


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

Has anyone heard of any interest in producing this 
as a kit subject yet?

fortress


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Have there been any blueprints for the nuE issued?


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

Jeff,

Oh yes, I've seen the film three times.

And while I love the cast...there's so much more to dislike. I plan on seeing it a few more times to finally make up my mind.


----------



## JerryUK (Jun 5, 2005)

2500 feet long?

Mmm think someone in officialdom has made a mistake.

Watching the film I certinly did not get the sense that it was so huge. The saucer looks pretty much in keeping with TMP enterprise.

Then again, maybe in this alternate timeline humans are 12 feet tall


----------



## JerryUK (Jun 5, 2005)

Another comment/query on this new enterprise..

Towards the end of the film did I see some articulation on the deflector dish? Seemed to be some movement going on..?

Actually In reality I hate the new design, and I only need one reason..It'll be much harder to make an authentic model of it..how do you light a wafer thin deflector dish? there's still astec painting which as we all know is NOT EASY.

Maybe for the second JJ movie they'll give it a lick of paint (one colour) + no astecs..please???

(translation..I'm a lazy modelmaker):dude:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

JerryUK said:


> Watching the film I certinly did not get the sense that it was so huge.


Nice to know I wasn't the only one. 

In a way I'm glad the ship is bigger. At least now there's room for all those shuttlecraft we've heard so much about.

BTW, I spoke to John Eaves at Wonderfest and even _he_ was surprised to learn the new Enterprise was in the 2300 to 2500 foot range. Kinda makes we wonder when and how these figures were arrived at.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Decided by committee?  I saw the film a 3rd time today. The bridge window appears to be about 6 feet high by 12 to 15 feet wide. I wouldn't go so far as to say 18 feet. The only time we get a good look at it as a whole is from the shot outside the bridge. Inside the bridge, we see parts of it, with the floor angling up to the bottom of the screen - er, window - and the ceiling curves down to meet the top of the window. The bridge, itself, is clearly oval shaped and does not meet the window slots on the sides of the superstructure. I guess other rooms are there.


----------



## JerryUK (Jun 5, 2005)

Regarding scale,
isn't the bottom line the answer to the question..is the saucer the same size as the refit saucer?

Just compare overall appearance, then look at window sizes, deflector grid lines size, size of phaser banks etc.

The 'new' old (!) enterprise saucer looks like it could quite happy ( with some minor changes) swap with the refit saucer. It looks 90% the same.

Looks lke a no brainer to me, the officialdom 'committee' just liked a bigger number. For me I'll just ignore them and assume it's 300 metres long.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

At 2500 feet, the saucer is bigger than the entire refit, stem to stern.



(Image by way of here. Click on the image for the big version.)


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I hope it turns out to be no bigger than 1500 to 2000 feet max!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think the 2500 foot length is pretty much confirmed at this point.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Take a look at this shot. How many decks do you see in the un-plated area? To me it looks like two full decks with an equipment space above and below. I think there is even a worker standing slightly hunched over in the upper equipment space.

Personally I think the new ship is a bit bigger than the originals. Perhaps the 10-15% that has been stated previously. But, 2500'?!! I think that is too much.

Todd


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Oh, no argument that it's too much, but apparently JJ's not familiar with the concept of "too much", especially when trying so danged hard to get that Star Wars feel to the whole shebang.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

JerryUK said:


> Watching the film I certinly did not get the sense that it was so huge.





Carson Dyle said:


> Nice to know I wasn't the only one.


I'm like you guys. I've seen it twice so far ...plan to see it more on the big screen and yes I got the feel she was bigger but not that much out of wack.



jbond said:


> I also like, BTW, the idea that an Enterprise twice the size of the original is "stupid." Because we ALL know that 947 feet is PRECISELY the size that any real warp drive starship would HAVE to be, right?


OMG now you throw logic into the mix...


----------



## JT1 (Nov 11, 2006)

The writers have addressed many of the decisions they made for the movie in a chat at trekmovie.

I can't say I agree with all their answers, but they reveal that there were reasons for what they decided to do.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/22/orci-and-kurtzman-reveal-star-trek-details-in-trekmovie-fan-qa/


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

No justification whatsoever for the cadet-to-captain leapfrogging, eh?


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

I love how they now shift blame to _Countdown_ after labeling it as "official". (ugh)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Can't even keep their own garbage straight.

This thing's going right into the same irrelevancy bin as the Gold Key comics.


----------



## Darkhunter (Dec 17, 2003)

The length of the new Galactica is 1438.64m (4720 feet ) This is based off of Battlestar wiki
Not sure where the 615m came from?

I know the argument rages on as to the size of the TOS Galactica but I have heard more often than not that it is one nautical mile long.

No matter how you look at it, the Movie-E is big!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Star Trek computer effects modeling article on CGSociety: http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=5071

Looks like the new official length for the Enterprise is 2357 feet long.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> No justification whatsoever for the cadet-to-captain leapfrogging, eh?


Actually there was.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Looks like the new official length for the Enterprise is 2357 feet long.


Lol, I love how specific this number is.

Whatever. Size-wise it's pretty obvious the new E ain't no Galactica (and it_ certainly_ ain't no stardestroyer).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Raist3001 said:


> Actually there was.


Right.

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still boloney.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

I get the feeling you did'nt like it.................


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Underwhelmed, by all aspects. But that's a matter of public record.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Kindly stay on topic.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Trying to find a way back to it.

Would "grotesquely oversized" be a fair assessment?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Right. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still boloney.



I see at least you found the explanation.

No problem, I love Bologna


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> Lol, I love how specific this number is.


Yeah I got a chuckle out of that too when I read the article.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

More interesting than the actual numbers size-wise would be the thought process by which the numbers were arrived at. 

Part of me wonders if it didn't have something to do with the size and number of shuttlecraft the filmmakers wanted the new E to be capable of berthing. 

I'd love to see an _accurate_ comparison between the new E and the ship from Next Gen.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, the Enterprise-D, according to Ed Whitefire's blueprints, is 2,108 feet long, while the Abramsprise is _now_ reported to be 2,357 feet long, so...



On the full size image, one pixel = one foot. The E-D is from the Whitefire plans and is sized at 2,108 pixels, the original Enterprise is from Charles Casamiro and is sized at 947 pixels, and the Abramsprise is sized at 2,357 pixels.

Enjoy.


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

That hurts to look at.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The nice thing about Round 2 coming out with a foot-long model kit is that it can be displayed (and kitbashed) with both the 1/1000 scale line and the 1/2500 line models for those who are on either side of the fence about the obvious size of 1000 ft. vs. the stated size of 2,357.

To me, I think the fugly thing's details make it out to be in the 1000' range, regardless of the stated size.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

This proposed JJ-Refit version was just posted on the Star Trek movie forums (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7915), sorry in advance if it's not okay to link another forum's posting? See the image attachment below; looks nice I think.

Here is the artist's site for more interesting stuff including a JJ Reliant concept: http://madeinjapan1988.deviantart.com/


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> To me, I think the fugly thing's details make it out to be in the 1000' range, regardless of the stated size.


Agreed. 

Unless the new ship's windows all fall within the 20" X 30" range, and assuming the dimensions given for the other versions of the Enterprise are correct, the 2,357 thing simply does not jibe with what we're seeing.

Captain April: Based on the 2,357 figure, can you approximate how wide the windows of the new E would have to be on the reference image you're using? To my eyes they appear to be roughly the length of a small shuttlecraft.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Trek Ace said:


> To me, I think the _*fugly*_ thing's details make it out to be in the 1000' range, *regardless of the stated size*.


 (Emphasis added)

As ever, Trek Ace, you are the soul of wisdom. :thumbsup:

M.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

A 50% size increase to within 1500' would not have been bad. I guess because of the Kelvin incident, seeing they have to deal with a 5 mile long enemy threat with superior fire power, it caused Starfleet to re-think the scale of the Constitution class starship and build big to be somewhat competitive!


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

Steve Mavronis said:


> A 50% size increase to within 1500' would not have been bad. I guess because of the Kelvin incident, seeing they have to deal with a 5 mile long enemy threat with superior fire power, it caused Starfleet to re-think the scale of the Constitution class starship and build big to be somewhat competitive!


You know, as odd as it seems now, that's the FIRST time I've seen someone point that out! :thumbsup: 

That almost makes the vast increase in size _reasonable_. (Didn't think I'd ever say that!) Yes, the impression that the Romulans had such a vessel, whether they admitted to it or not, and without (at _that_ time) the knowledge it was from the future _would_ probably have had Starfleet think bigger in terms of size.

That doesn't excuse the Kelvin with its 800 crewmembers, but the Narada could be blamed for this huge Enterprise.....to an extent, at least.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

ThisGuy said:


> You know, as odd as it seems now, that's the FIRST time I've seen someone point that out! :thumbsup:
> 
> That almost makes the vast increase in size _reasonable_. (Didn't think I'd ever say that!) Yes, the impression that the Romulans had such a vessel, whether they admitted to it or not, and without (at _that_ time) the knowledge it was from the future _would_ probably have had Starfleet think bigger in terms of size.
> 
> That doesn't excuse the Kelvin with its 800 crewmembers, but the Narada could be blamed for this huge Enterprise.....to an extent, at least.


Agreed. A perfectly reasonable explanation. This coupled with the scans taken of the Narada by the Kelvin, more than likely resulted in the advanced technology we saw and the larger constitution class vessel.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> I guess because of the Kelvin incident, seeing they have to deal with a 5 mile long enemy threat with superior fire power, it caused Starfleet to re-think the scale of the Constitution class starship and build big to be somewhat competitive!


Interesting theory, but I don't quite buy it if only because increased size does not automatically intuit increased firepower (if that's what you meant by being more "competitive"). 

Besides, maybe it's just me, but I don't get a particularly defensive or hawkish vibe from Abrams' Starfleet.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I think in the JJ alternate-universe it is just a simple premise or device to explain the upsizing in general. It is obvious that TOS scale of ship technology was not the starting point here. No sense picking this apart like TOS was non-fiction reality, after all it is science fiction and there is always room for exaggeration and literary license when anyone gives Star Trek their own take to bring it forward 40+ years. We are lucky we didn't get a Sin City style graphic comic book version on the big screen! As far as the Kelvin's 800 member crew, I got the impression the saucer had a much larger diameter than the TOS ships, so maybe everything was bigger from the start. Even so the Kelvin command crew must have crapped their uniforms when the Narada opened up on them.

I'm reading on the Star Trek movie forum that the Enterprise was built and dedicated in memory of the Kelvin. Also there is this bit:

_



Star Trek 2009 Canon Excerpt about the Enterprise

The Constitution class was conceived by a team of designers led by Janice Newfield, a brilliant engineer and visionary. The project was at the conceptual stage in 2232 and was targeted to have working products in 10 years time. While working on improving the USS Kelvin's engines in 2233, the ship was attacked by an unknown Romulan ship. Janice was killed when a bulkhead near her was destroyed and she was sucked out into space.

When Janice died, the project was put on hold for a decade until a very bright engineering student (who, in the original timeline, many years later, oversaw the Constitution refit) named Tsi Sang helped restart the project submitting his own unique changes that were never included by the original designer, Janice Newfield (this is why the ship is more advanced looking in the movie). The project was restarted in 2244 under Sang's supervision. 

The 17xx registry number set was held for the Constitution class, the prototype, the USS Constitution - 1700, tested in 2252 had many issues, while most were resolved a structural support issue could not be, so the ship was decommissioned in 2253. Sang resolved the structural issue and all the other issues and Starfleet decided to build the next Constitution (1701) on Earth where it could give the structure better gravity stress tests. 

Starfleet was so impressed with this new ship that they made the first one (The Enterprise) the flagship and assigned veteran captain Chris Pike as it's commander. The Enterprise was so new in fact, that only few Starfleet personal were trained in her systems. Realizing this, Starfleet Academy started to train its students on these new systems in 2257, so by 2258 many of the older academy students could be a part of the Enterprise's crew. 

According to Janice's logs it was always her intention for the first production Constitution to be named the Enterprise after the famous pre-Federation ship from the mid 22nd century. Starfleet did, respectfully, name the first production ship (1701), Enterprise even though Sang wanted the name to be The USS Yorktown.

Click to expand...

_I don't know if that is true but it would make sense for Star Trek to build bigger to try maintaining a level of space superiority cover over Federation protected regions.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

:freak:

The sad thing is that these guys actually think this covers everything, while failing to note that the Kelvin seems to be just as big as the bloated charicature that is the Uglyprise. Which reminds me of another irksome bit: Since when do starships have, or even _need_, auto pilots? Just point it in the right direction, fire up the impulse engines, and plain old Newtonian physics does the rest.

I'm leaning more and more with a review I saw last night from a Scottish fan, who was rather upset that this film pretty much wipes out the past forty years of continuity, and therefore turns its prime conceit against it.

"The new Star Trek movie? Never happened."


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

Raist3001 said:


> Agreed. A perfectly reasonable explanation. This coupled with the scans taken of the Narada by the Kelvin, more than likely resulted in the advanced technology we saw and the larger constitution class vessel.


Hmm, it sounds worse when someone else says it. 

I'm not entirely sold, but it's a plausible theory at least.



Carson Dyle said:


> Interesting theory, but I don't quite buy it if only because increased size does not automatically intuit increased firepower (if that's what you meant by being more "competitive").


You forget troop quarters.



Carson Dyle said:


> Besides, maybe it's just me, but I don't get a particularly defensive or hawkish vibe from Abrams' Starfleet.


Early SF was more militaristic. After seeing the Narada, I could see why they might even commission dreadnoughts. 

Still, it's hard to swallow the scale as shown.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> :freak:
> 
> The sad thing is that these guys actually think this covers everything, while failing to note that the Kelvin seems to be just as big as the bloated charicature that is the Uglyprise.


Nope, never got that sense at all. Enterprise appeared much larger.



> Which reminds me of another irksome bit: Since when do starships have, or even _need_, auto pilots? Just point it in the right direction, fire up the impulse engines, and plain old Newtonian physics does the rest.


Your kidding right? So when the TOS enterprise entered an orbiting planet, the bridge crew kept a vigilant watch over their orbit as opposed to the computer? 

What other small detail will not cease to irk you? 



> I'm leaning more and more with a review I saw last night from a Scottish fan, who was rather upset that this film pretty much wipes out the past forty years of continuity, and therefore turns its prime conceit against it.


Actually that would be very inaccurate. Since elder Spock exists in the new time line, the time line SPOCK came from is intact. Just as Orchi explained it would be. The events of TOS still happened, and the E-E with Data in command (according to the countdown series) still goes on.

Really, it's time to get over the fact that this is not TOS.



> "The new Star Trek movie? Never happened."


I guess the 190 million dollars the film has made would beg to differ. 

I for one can not wait for the sequel


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Raist3001 said:


> I for one can not wait for the sequel


Even before Star Trek hit theaters, Viacom’s Paramount inked deals with the filmmakers to prepare a sequel. Viacom chairman Philippe Dauman talked up the performance of Star Trek and noted that the Trek franchise (and others) will be a key part of Paramount’s future: "That’s why ‘Star Trek’ is so important. We greenlit ‘Star Trek 2′ several weeks before the release of ‘1′ because we knew what we had," he said.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/27/via...tant-for-paramounts-future-box-office-update/


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Since when do starships have, or even _need_, auto pilots?


Well, I presume they have all those crew members for some reason other than just to have people to talk to. There's also that business about the "automation center" or whatever Scotty called it in _Star Trek III_ (wherein it was also damaged).

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

ThisGuy said:


> Early SF was more militaristic.


You’d have to put that statement into some sort of context for it to make any sense. 

In the case of Star Trek, the extent to which Starfleet (as it came to be known) functions as a military enterprise tends to vary in accordance with the dramatic needs of a given film or episode. 



Raist3001 said:


> I guess the 190 million dollars the film has made would beg to differ.


Not to get side-treked by the boring numbers stuff, but in the interests of accuracy Trek XI today will become the highest-grossing movie of 2009 when it surpasses the $193.8 million domestic box office take of "Monsters vs. Aliens.” As it stands, Trek looks set to finish its domestic run in the neighborhood of $250M making it *the seventh biggest blockbuster in company history for Paramount*.

Mind you, that $250 million figure refers to the _domestic_ gross only, and does not account for overseas B.O. nor subsequent revenue from DVD sales and other ancillary markets. Iron Man, for example, (which performed slightly less well than Trek during its domestic run) has to date grossed $582,030,528 worldwide. My educated guess is that Trek XI will have cleared $600 million by this time next year.

Suffice it to say Paramount is more than pleased with the Trek XI’s performance. Taken in accord with the overwhelmingly positive critical response, the film may fairly be considered that rare breed of commercial _and_ artistic success (although in this case I use the word “artistic” lightly. I mean, let’s face it, Citizen Kane it’s not).

None of which will dissuade those who dislike the film from bad-mouthing it to anyone who’ll still listen (fundamentalists in general are seldom swayed by such trivial matters as facts, figures, and the public record). 



Steve Mavronis said:


> Even before Star Trek hit theaters, Viacom’s Paramount inked deals with the filmmakers to prepare a sequel. Viacom chairman Philippe Dauman talked up the performance of Star Trek and noted that the Trek franchise (and others) will be a key part of Paramount’s future: "That’s why ‘Star Trek’ is so important. We greenlit ‘Star Trek 2′ several weeks before the release of ‘1′ because we knew what we had," he said.


Well, that statement is partially true. Viacom did give the go ahead for the development of a sequel, but that “greenlit” quote is nothing more than politically self-serving b.s. Bean counters like Dauman love to make grandiose statements like “We knew what we had” because they think it makes them look aesthetically savvy to those artists and filmmakers they’d like to be in business with (none of whom are ever fooled, btw).

Anyway, getting back to the topic of the thread, I have yet to see or read anything to substantiate the dubious and seemingly arbitrary claim that the new Enterprise is 2,300 feet long. Cooberating evidence notwithstanding, I shall remain skeptical yet open-minded.



Captain April said:


> I'm leaning more and more with a review I saw last night from a Scottish fan, who was rather upset that this film pretty much wipes out the past forty years of continuity, and therefore turns its prime conceit against it."The new Star Trek movie? Never happened."


I wonder what he’d have to say about Evolution or the Holocaust? On second thought, no I don’t.

As a fellow Scot I can say this; the guy’s a bleedin’ idjit.

Honestly, Trek XI detractors would do well to dig up a fresher bone of contention than the tediously lame-brained lament that Trek XI’s alternate timeline “wipes out” TOS continuity. The occasional Scots git to the contrary, most Trekkies I’ve talked with have little trouble accepting the notion of multiple Mirror Universes exiting in conjunction with that which was established in TOS. All it requires is _one scintilla_ of imagination.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> Honestly, Trek XI detractors would do well to dig up a fresher bone of contention than the tediously lame-brained lament that Trek XI’s alternate timeline “wipes out” TOS continuity. The occasional Scots git to the contrary, most Trekkies I’ve talked with have little trouble accepting the notion of multiple Mirror Universes exiting in conjunction with that which was established in TOS. All it requires is _one scintilla_ of imagination.


And truer words could not have been spoken.

Well said


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> You’d have to put that statement into some sort of context for it to make any sense.
> 
> In the case of Star Trek, the extent to which Starfleet (as it came to be known) functions as a military enterprise tends to vary in accordance with the dramatic needs of a given film or episode.


To clarify, I'm referring to the wars with the Romulans and Klingons. Those conflicts and armistices are more fresh in the mind of the Starfleet we see here compared to TOS. The _Kelvin_ may have been serving alongside a fleet of more vessels built primarily for combat. (Destroyers, Dreadnoughts etc) The warfaring mindset wanes slowly, and I think we may be seeing a more militant SF than we do in TOS despite the acceleration of events and innovations.

The _Narada_ surely had some effect on that SF's commissioning of new ships. Even decades later the Dominion war brought us the _Defiant_, a ship built for war.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

ThisGuy said:


> Even decades later the Dominion war brought us the _Defiant_, a ship built for war.


It was actually built in response to the threat from the Borg, though we first saw it deployed against the Dominion.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

ThisGuy said:


> I think we may be seeing a more militant SF than we do in TOS


Gotcha. When you typed "SF" earlier I read it as "science-fiction" and not "Starfleet."

At any rate, from my obviously subjective perspective, Trek XI doesn't support the sort of militarized conclusion you seem to be drawing. I mean, if the intent here is to rationalize why the Enterprise is so much bigger (and I'm still not convinced _is_ that much bigger) I think it's stretching to attribute this to events depicted in the film vis a vis the Narada. 

But, you know, whatever works for you.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Well the CGI model has to be built to some sort of scale, especially fitting the CGI shuttle hangar into the hull. I hope some of the CGI artist speak out or maybe release some CGI illustrations (partial or whole) that prove what scale they worked the Enterprise and Kelvin up to. Here is a screen capture (not mine) that I found on the Net looking into the hangar bay - ooow and here's another one too:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Well the CGI model has to be built to some sort of scale, especially fitting the CGI shuttle hangar into the hull.


Yeah, from a design standpoint that would seem like a logical place to have started: Determine a size for the shuttles, decide how many shuttles you wish the Enterprise to be capable of berthing (based on the presumed needs of subsequent films), design an appropriately sized hangar, and derive the overall size of the Enterprise from all the above. If this process yields a starship of 2,300 feet, so be it. I for one will not take issue with a vessel capable of berthing more than one or two shuttlecraft. I'm just not convinced the 2,300 figure adds up based on the visual evidence I've seen thus far. 

I'd love to see side-by-side comparison shots of the new Enterprise and Refit hangar bays. I know such a shot appears only fleetingly in Trek XI, but based on having seen the film(s) is it the general consensus that it's vastly more spacious than that of the Refit?

EDIT: Wow Steve, you read my mind! :thumbsup:

Okay, using the shuttles as a basis for measuring, one of you drafting/ engineering types needs to determine the approximate width of the bay based on the image Steve posted. Obviously it will be a rough projection, but I'd be very curious to know if it supports the 2,300 foot-long theory.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I used a Vulcan mind meld on you Carson!

There's a scene from one of 1701-A movies showing a shuttlecraft crash landing into the hangar bay. It might be a forced perspective set so I'm not sure if its actually useful to campare with. Let em see if I can find it and I'll attach the image here. For now here is a ST6 fantail shot that I guess you can make estimates from the door hatches of each side if that's what they are. I found another angle (there's a man floating in the foreground so don't scale to that) but not the close-up crash scene yet.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> There's a scene from one of 1701-A movies showing a shuttlecraft crash landing into the hangar bay.


Yeah, it's from Trek 5 IIRC (the Shatner-directed installment). 

Don't we also get a fleeting glimpse inside the original TMP hangar?

EDIT: Damn, you did it again! 

The new E is bigger, no question, but based on these (admittedly inconclusive) images I'm having a hard time believing it's _that_ much bigger.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

The emergency landing scene is from this video clip: 






It's obviously a forced perspective model not in scale with the Enterprise model.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Well, yeah, that just doesn't help us at all.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Just eyeballing those images of the hangar, it looks about twice as big as the Refit's (TMP).




Captain April said:


> "The new Star Trek movie? Never happened."


You might be interested in joining these guys then:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Given that the new ship's shuttle bay is a lot smaller in proportion to the rest of the ship than the old one and still appears to be about twice as large as the refit's I'm not that freaked out by the idea of a ship that's 2.3 times larger than the Refit. I'm not sure I understand how a 2300 foot long starship is ridiculously large but a 1000 foot long ship is EXACTLY THE RIGHT SIZE to be believable. There are scale cues in the movie that indicate a very large ship--in addition to the shuttlebay shots there are the shots of the shuttles moving over the primary hull disc and behind the impulse engines (and I very much like the way this is done as a mini-homage to the TMP drydock scene).

It's funny because while I appreciate the attempts to cover their bases canon-wise with the time travel plot and I think it opens up some exciting possibilities for future movies, it should be obvious that many of these changes have been done for aesthetics and practical reasons and you're not going to plug every conceivable hole with the alternate reality idea. And I say WHO CARES? The idea of maintaining canon I think is as much a courtesy and a note of respect to fans (necessary or not) as it is some fix-all for the differences in this Trek universe. It's an alternate AESTHETIC take on Trek in the long run and I think that is perfectly valid given that this is NOT reality we're talking about here, no matter how many hours of television, movies and whatever that came before. 

Ultimately the people who are determined to hate the movie and everything it stands for have plenty of ammunition in the form of inconsistencies and aesthetic choices they dislike, while people who enjoyed it are going to continue to enjoy it--no one is going to "prove" that they're on the side of the angels one way or the other.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Back on topic, we have these two pics of the hangar deck of the Battlestar JJprise...


















I have serious doubts about a designer that would put those big beams crisscrossing *a landing area!*

And then we have this jewel from TMP...










Note the work bee parked in the corner.

Have at it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Krako said:


> Just eyeballing those images of the hangar, it looks about twice as big as the Refit's (TMP).


Twice as big, huh?

Okay, if you say so. 

I'm still not reading it as being that large, but I know a number of you guys have spent _a lot _of time analyzing the Refit (in its various incarnations) and I'm happy to defer to your judgment.

At least until another expert provides a sound reason not to.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Take another look at the pics I just posted nice and big, so's direct comparison is so much easier.

Those thirty-odd foot shuttles in the new ship seem to be around the same relative size, as in shuttle-to-hangar, as that workbee in the refit.

Here's the work bee, including relevant stats...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Here are some more ripped images I found over on TrekBBS from ST2009 for scale discussion:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think JJ is overcompensating for...something....


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Krako said:


> You might be interested in joining these guys then:
> 
> http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
> 
> http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html


LOL


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Captain April said:


> The sad thing is that these guys actually think this covers everything, while failing to note that the Kelvin seems to be just as big as the bloated charicature that is the Uglyprise.


A lot of our real-world stuff gets smaller and more efficient with advancement. Cell-phones, portable computers etc. I totally buy that the TOS Constitution was "capable of doing twice the work as the old 'Kelvin class' with less than half the crew and at a fraction of the size! Call now! Operators are standing by!"

Thanks to the Narada's appearance and the subsequent design team changes we get the Starfleet Excursion instead of the Starfleet Escape. It's perfectly plausible and even downright likely given the human tendency to sometimes over emphasize size. Also note that in the unofficial explanation the lead designer is a woman in the original timeline and a man in the new one. :lol:


----------



## ThisGuy (Apr 29, 2009)

sbaxter said:


> It was actually built in response to the threat from the Borg, though we first saw it deployed against the Dominion.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


Ah, yes. Same difference, though.  It's still more a product of war than exploration.



Carson Dyle said:


> Gotcha. When you typed "SF" earlier I read it as "science-fiction" and not "Starfleet."
> 
> At any rate, from my obviously subjective perspective, Trek XI doesn't support the sort of militarized conclusion you seem to be drawing. I mean, if the intent here is to rationalize why the Enterprise is so much bigger (and I'm still not convinced _is_ that much bigger) I think it's stretching to attribute this to events depicted in the film vis a vis the Narada.
> 
> But, you know, whatever works for you.


Obviously, you are holding out hope that the difference in size isn't as vast as some of the previous posts would indicate. I sympathize, and hope you're vindicated in your hesitance. However, _if_ this vast increase in size we are discussing is confirmed as true, then there needs to be some justification in the eyes of the "community" or the inevitable street riots will ensue. 

I still stand by this being a more militaristic SF than TOS, even if marginally so due to being closer to the ends of those conflicts. Even Pike looks battle worn. 

All that aside, a ship as fast and vast in size as the _Narada_ from a race that SF warred against not so long ago would certainly spur some increased defense funding. Even *if* the JJprise is the same scale as TOS, and even if SF _knew_ that the _Narada_ was from the future before it was built, there would surely be some increased r&d and shipbuilding if not an upscale on new classes.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

ThisGuy said:


> Obviously, you are holding out hope that the difference in size isn't as vast as some of the previous posts would indicate.


Yeah, well, some of the previous posts suggested an Enterprise the size of a bloody stardestroyer, lol. 

Personally I'm fine with an E in the 2,000 foot range (if that's what it turns out to be), and I don't require a lot of tedious canoniacal dot-connecting to spell things out for me. My imagination is perfectly capable of filling in the alleged "plot holes" re: the stylistic gap between TOS and Trek XI without the sort of elaborate, exposition-filled, back-story-belaboring, dramatically irrelevant road map some Trekkies can't live without (although it would be fun to write a detail-filled satirical history explaining Starfleet's decision to phase-out Burke chairs, beehive hairdos, and Cuban-heeled Beatle boots). 

Mind you, I would never begrudge a fellow Trekkie his God-given right to obsess over pressing issues like why post-TOS Kingons resemble dinosaurs, but it's honestly not something that keeps me up nights. 

My only concern at this point is determining if the 2,300 foot figure actually jibes with the physical characteristics of the Enterprise depicted in Trek XI. To my eyes that figure still seems a tad high, but, you know, also within my personal margin-of-error.

Just don't show me any more half-baked charts depicting the new E as being the size of the Galactica (even at 2,300 feet the new Enterprise would only be about half as long as either incarnation of the BSG).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Is there a firm, or even slightly aldente, figure for the size of the original Galactica?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Approx 4,150 feet according to these guys...

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_(TOS)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Okay, and that same site has the reboot version at 4,720, so.....


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

So...the length of both versions of the Galactica far exceeds that of the Trek XI Enterprise.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Photobucket undoubtedly chopped the full size pic down to size somewhat (the original is 5000 x 2500) but it's still plenty big...



In the interests of full disclosure.


----------



## bizzybody (Jun 3, 2009)

All this, and nobody's yet mentioned that concrete poured in wooden forms seems to be a major component of federation starships in this alternate timeline. 

"Star Trek" brought to you by Nokia and Budweiser...

The detail that bugs me on the newest Enterprise is why do the doors need to tilt up? Should be plenty of room to simply retract to the sides.

(I'm on the hunt for plans, drawings, blueprints, patterns etc for the TOS command chair.)


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Captain April said:


> Okay, and that same site has the reboot version at 4,720, so.....


Thanks for your work on this captain, I've read the same thing several times myself. This is one of the reasons I don't care to ever own a 'physical' model of the new ship. With 'Length Over All' ranging from close to the refit to almost a half a mile long, I'm surprised you guys want one for reasons other than 'it looks cool'. 

I was never the hyper accurate modeler that many of you are, but it seems impossible to model this when parts will NEVER jive in scale or size. 

On the ground, I agree with Rob - the E is not more than twice the size of the refit. The shuttle sequence however, shows something approaching the landing bay of the Galactica in scale, several times larger than the TOS E. But scale that up and the windows, docking ports, etc. don't match. Scale them down and you can't put dozens of those large shuttles in the bay.

Then there is the great Engineering 'set'. It looked like the full (or most of) length of the secondary hull of TOS E. 

P.S.
Actually, I'm thankful that Abrams did this, since I thought it was a parody and nothing could be trusted. Of course we seen junk like this before (with the link to the youtube video of ST-V). That crappy set work used to depict the shuttle crash was as horrendous then in scale as this is now. At least back then, they were able to reuse the 'Regula I' and 'Airplane II' blinky lights on the set. :drunk:


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

bizzybody said:


> The detail that bugs me on the newest Enterprise is why do the doors need to tilt up? Should be plenty of room to simply retract to the sides.


I don't think the hangar doors tilt up. I believe there is a third bottom door that drops down as the two side doors split open.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

hubert said:


> I'm surprised you guys want one for reasons other than 'it looks cool'.


For me I never build a model for any other reason.

As far as scale goes, from the movie I see it as slightly larger than the refit. I'm choosing to file the two shuttle/bay shots in the same "ignore me" file as the giant Bird of Prey hovering over the whaling ship in Star Trek IV.

Everything else as I recall (granted I've only seen it once) fits just fine with a ship slightly bigger than the refit.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

guartho said:


> For me I never build a model for any other reason.
> 
> As far as scale goes, from the movie I see it as slightly larger than the refit. I'm choosing to file the two shuttle/bay shots in the same "ignore me" file as the giant Bird of Prey hovering over the whaling ship in Star Trek IV.
> 
> Everything else as I recall (granted I've only seen it once) fits just fine with a ship slightly bigger than the refit.



Happy for you. Might want to erase the scenes of putting whales that BOP also. Yes, this was pretty much Science Fantasy as well. Should have gone with urchins instead. Hey, it brought in all those 'new' fans...


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Yeah, we've made a lot of jokes about BoPs and whales in the TrekBBS thread on the same topic.

This is why it was a good thing that TOS almost never showed two ships in the same frame.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

hubert said:


> I was never the hyper accurate modeler that many of you are, but it seems impossible to model this when parts will NEVER jive in scale or size.


I guess I'd better go throw out all my kits of the _Millennium Falcon_ and the TOS shuttle ... 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## JerryUK (Jun 5, 2005)

Steve Mavronis said:


> This proposed JJ-Refit version was just posted on the Star Trek movie forums (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7915), sorry in advance if it's not okay to link another forum's posting? See the image attachment below; looks nice I think.
> 
> Here is the artist's site for more interesting stuff including a JJ Reliant concept: http://madeinjapan1988.deviantart.com/


Is this the point where Star Trek merges with Galaxy Quest?..Stylistically it's looking similar to The ship in that film (can't remember it's name). Hey maybe we can have Alan Rickman in the 2nd JJ film! (The brits are coming )


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

While you're at it, ask Gary Kerr how easy it was to fit the Power Core into his plans for the new Moebius J-2. 

I'm still not convinced the new Enterprise doesn't "work" in terms of its interior fitting inside its exterior. I _do_ wonder if the 2,347 foot figure (or whatever it is) isn't a bit exaggerated, but until someone steps up to the plate with conclusive data one way or the other I'll take the ILM guys at their word. I mean, a figure that specific had to come from _somewhere_, lol.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

guartho said:


> This is why it was a good thing that TOS almost never showed two ships in the same frame.


Good point. It can be overlooked in certain circumstances, certainly. In 'The Trouble with Tribbles', a Klingon warship (and the Enterprise for that matter) orbiting 100 kilometers away would be a speck when caught as a reflection of a sun. Writing that the ship was 5 kilometers away would have perhaps sounded silly (to simply match the effect).


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

sbaxter said:


> I guess I'd better go throw out all my kits of the _Millennium Falcon_ and the TOS shuttle ...
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


Since at least one original Falcon was built on a sound stage, I suspect that ILM has attempted to stay faithful to the dimensions (even with CGI updates).

If you show me whales in the Millennium Falcon or a scene where there is a brewery in a TOS shuttle, I guess you will need to.

To me, whales and Brewery scenes are the equivalent of Christopher Reeves character in 'Somewhere in time' finding a paypal receipt in his pocket. Yes, thankfully, most of the movie-going public could care less - just make it look cool.



Carson Dyle said:


> I _do_ wonder if the 2,347 foot figure (or whatever it is) isn't a bit exaggerated, but until someone steps up to the plate with conclusive data one way or the other I'll take the ILM guys at their word. I mean, a figure that specific had to come from _somewhere_, lol.


I think the number would have been better if it was '2345' - then the joke would have been complete.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

hubert said:


> Since at least one original Falcon was built on a sound stage, I suspect that ILM has attempted to stay faithful to the dimensions (even with CGI updates).


They may have, but the interior we saw cannot be made to match the exterior unless the thing is like a TARDIS. That was my point.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

hubert said:


> I think the number would have been better if it was '2345' - then the joke would have been complete.


I don't get it. Unless it is a _Lost_ reference, in which case it would need to be 2,34_2_ feet.

If the 2347 figure is indeed deliberate (as with Rob, I'm still not sure I buy it), it may have been obtained by adding a round number to the TOS figure of 947 feet. Or perhaps it was done to get in another reference to "47."

Qapla';

SSB


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

sbaxter said:


> They may have, but the interior we saw cannot be made to match the exterior unless the thing is like a TARDIS. That was my point.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


Thanks, I did understand the original point. Mine is that there is no 'suspension breaker' in either of those examples. I don't know the inner details of the MF but it is never shown in a way that 'jumps the shark'. The same is true (for all its failings) of TOS shuttlecraft. 

Part of the satisfaction I receive of (building and/or owning) models is in visualizing scale. I have on my desk in front of me a sailing ship in a bottle. It is a model of a vessel I served upon as a cadet. As God is my witness, earlier today, someone mentioned "that is a pretty ship, how big was it?", I replied "yep, It was 297' long, no wait, 2013' ft, long, no - well It depends on the way you look at it."  (well, someone did ask how big it was)

Personally, I might as well buy the toy. To each, his own...



sbaxter said:


> I don't get it. Unless it is a _Lost_ reference, in which case it would need to be 2,34_2_ feet.
> 
> If the 2347 figure is indeed deliberate (as with Rob, I'm still not sure I buy it), it may have been obtained by adding a round number to the TOS figure of 947 feet. Or perhaps it was done to get in another reference to "47."
> 
> ...


Wouldn't know, I've never seen Lost. No, I simply meant 2345 as consecutive numbers (or use prime numbers), or whatever.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Here's some other captures someone posted in another forum, this time of the JJ Enterprise neck showing Kirk's pod launch.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Okay, that aperture is clearly quite a bit wider than the similarly located TMP travel-pod docking ring. 

Thanks for posting, Steve. The "official" figures are starting to make a bit more sense to me visually given exterior tell-tales like that.


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

It is a case closed for me...I am sold as far as the size now...read on...

*
The 34" model that was given away for the Star Trek ARG game is 1/350 scale. It was also displayed at the arclight in Hollywood...I got to see it in person. So we know for sure that the ship is much closer to the TMP refit. They built it using the ILM specs.*

Also take a look at this picture.....He scaled it to the people we see walking on top of the ship when young Kirk sees it being built. He scales it at around 450 meters. This really matches up with what I saw on screen.









Here is a comparison shot....


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

That looks much more in line with the visual effects from the movie. Biggger for sure, but the Galactica is in no danger of being de-throned just yet! I wish Moses would come down from the mountain and tell us for sure how big it's really supposed to be.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

JeffG said:


> That looks much more in line with the visual effects from the movie. Biggger for sure, but the Galactica is in no danger of being de-throned just yet! I wish Moses would come down from the mountain and tell us for sure how big it's really supposed to be.


It does if you erase the shuttle (and I'm sure other shots) from your mind. At that scale only one shuttle could tightly squeeze in since the shuttle is easily 2 to 3 times the size of the originals and the hanger deck look on-par (height & opening wise) with the refit. The problem with this will continue to be which reference do you use? Construction, Shuttle, etc. Since it looks like they scaled the Enterprise to their particular fancy for the shot (ie. 'it needs to be bigger'), we probably we never have one answer. 

Plus this scale isn't anything near ILM official numbers. Maybe by the next movie they will figure it out.

I still would have preferred 30 seconds of fast rewind at the end of the movie with Kirk being born in Iowa with family around.


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

hubert said:


> Good point. It can be overlooked in certain circumstances, certainly. In 'The Trouble with Tribbles', a Klingon warship (and the Enterprise for that matter) orbiting 100 kilometers away would be a speck when caught as a reflection of a sun. Writing that the ship was 5 kilometers away would have perhaps sounded silly (to simply match the effect).


Perhaps we were viewing the K7 station through a telescope from very far away, maybe even from Sherman's planet.


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

hubert said:


> Plus this scale isn't anything near ILM official numbers. Maybe by the next movie they will figure it out.



There are no official numbers. Every number in every article about the Enterprise is not from a direct quote. It's always written and stated by the author. And every article that quotes ILM numbers has a different number.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

guartho said:


> Perhaps we were viewing the K7 station through a telescope from very far away, maybe even from Sherman's planet.


No, the other shots. As mentioned, all models in same frame or the model in the background, flying past the window, on a stick...



newbie dooby said:


> There are no official numbers. Every number in every article about the Enterprise is not from a direct quote. It's always written and stated by the author. And every article that quotes ILM numbers has a different number.


Thanks, That's the kind of model I want. When someone asks me its size, I can then reply ... "how big do you want it to be?" , "As big as the old refit" or "how about the size of the Galactica" or "More than a thousand but less than a mile". I'll just get the 'tow behind' toy on wheels with the blinky lights. Can I pay someone here for an aztec paint job commission? :freak:

Though I personally like the scale of the nuPrise as shown in this diagram, I can't erase scenes. It's like the instruction.. "The jury will disregard the testimony you've just heard" - Sure... I will.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

newbie dooby said:


> There are no official numbers. Every number in every article about the Enterprise is not from a direct quote. It's always written and stated by the author.


Well, not exactly.

In the Studio Daily article posted upthread ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb is quoted as saying the Enterprise is "2000 feet [600 meters]." Was he just "rounding off?" Maybe.

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/Reinventing-Star-Treks-VFX_10905.html

And, of course, the Tour of the Enterprise pegs the length at 2,500 (although I'm not sure how authoritative a source this is).

http://www.experience-the-enterprise.com/ww/

At this point I'm content with the "real" figure being somewhere in the 2,300 foot range. As alluded to in the CGSociety article...

_"Though all prior Star Trek films used miniatures in some way, Earl and VFX Supervisor, Roger Guyett, realized “due to the scale of the film and the compressed schedule, we ruled out [traditional] models early on.” There were no traditional models or miniatures used in the finished film.

One challenge was to sell the weight and scale of the ships that ranged from a 30 foot shuttle to the new Enterprise at *2,357 feet long*, to the nemesis ship, the Narada, five miles long."_

Granted, this is not a direct quote but I'm intrigued by the specificity of the figure. I mean, I doubt the author of the article pulled that precise number out of his behind. No doubt someone at ILM gave it to him. The real question is whether the number jibes with what we see on screen, and based on some of the images posted above I'm beginning to believe it does.

With any luck the pending Cinefex or American Cinematographer coverage will solve the issue once and for all. But, you know, at this stage I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> One challenge was to sell the weight and scale of the ships that ranged from a 30 foot shuttle to the new Enterprise at *2,357 feet long*, to the nemesis ship, the Narada, five miles long."[/I]


"My friends, the 'great experiment'", a ship built on primes after all. 

The joke would be complete and I could appreciate their brilliance...


----------



## gojira61 (May 21, 2008)

newbie dooby said:


> It is a case closed for me...I am sold as far as the size now...read on...
> 
> The 34" model that was given away for the Star Trek ARG game is 1/350 scale. It was also displayed at the arclight in Hollywood...I got to see it in person. So we know for sure that the ship is much closer to the TMP refit. They built it using the ILM specs.


This unfortunately was based on the information given at the time the builds needed to be done for the "Enterprise Project". That scale has since changed.

QMx is waiting for the final word on the definitive size of the Enterprise so that the correct scale can be announced for the large and mid size replicas that will soon be produced.


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

newbie dooby said:


> It is a case closed for me...I am sold as far as the size now...read on...
> 
> *
> The 34" model that was given away for the Star Trek ARG game is 1/350 scale. It was also displayed at the arclight in Hollywood...I got to see it in person. So we know for sure that the ship is much closer to the TMP refit. They built it using the ILM specs.*
> ...


Good job. Looks similar to the 457m scaling that I came up with a while ago.









I used the relative size of the docking ports to work up this scaling.

There been alot of discussion sround the internet about the NuEnterprise being twice the size, but I think those people are taking that as a linear measurment.

I'm looking at it as total interior 3D volume. This scaling of 400/457 meters gives you around twice the interior volume, while still maintaining enough space to accomodate everthing seen on camera (and then some)


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

EJD1984 said:


> I used the relative size of the docking ports to work up this scaling.


There's the rub.

Initially I thought the new E's docking ports were the same size as those found on the Refit. Now I'm not so sure.

Take a look at the screengrabs found in post #19. To me the diameter of the port in question appears somewhat wider than the Refit port. Admittedly, it's hard to tell without better reference data.

I hafta say, size of the portals notwithstanding, the scale shown in your diagram certainly conforms with my impression of the ship I'm seeing in the film. Previous assertions that the new E was the size of the Galactica or (lol) a stardestroyer always struck me as being patently absurd based on tell-tale surface details like the ports and windows. 

If we could just verify for certain the size of those ports. You may already have done so, but, as I said, I'm not convinced they're the same size as those found on the Refit.


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

I came up with the relative size of the NuE docking port based on the o.d. of the escape pod as it's being ejected, which appears to have a 42-48", and that gave me an dia of 7-8' for the port.

I think the issue that we have it that the initial CG model and a portion of the EFX were done to one scale, and at some point during the production there was some up sizing decision made.

Most of the exterior details give you perspective of it being a smaller scale.

Looks like in this picture (and comparison), IML had thought the bridge would be in it's "normal' location, and added upper detailing to simulate the placement of the elevators - similar to the TMP Enterprise.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

EJD1984 said:


> I came up with the relative size of the NuE docking port based on the o.d. of the escape pod as it's being ejected, which appears to have a 42-48", and that gave me an dia of 7-8' for the port.


Yeah, the frame grabs in post 119 obviously don't show the pod itself, but I would think that would be a good place to start in terms of trying to arrive at a reasonably reliable scale for the ports. Assuming your figures are in the ballpark we're obviously talking about a starship _exterior_ significantly shorter than the "2,357 feet" we've been hearing about.



EJD1984 said:


> I think the issue that we have it that the initial CG model and a portion of the EFX were done to one scale, and at some point during the production there was some up sizing decision made.


Which raises the question, if such is the case, where does the aforementioned up-sizing manifest itself in the film? Is it your impression that the shuttle bay interior glimpsed briefly in the film (and shown several posts upthread) is out-of-whack size-wise with the ship depicted your diagram?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> Which raises the question, ...where does the aforementioned up-sizing manifest itself in the film? Is it your impression that the shuttle bay interior glimpsed briefly in the film (and shown several posts upthread) is out-of-whack size-wise with the ship depicted your diagram?


If up-sizing did happen it must have been after the under construction scenes. That's probably the last "normal" size views of the Enterprise. This might include when the shuttle carrying Kirk to enlist in Starfleet the first time launch and fly from under the Enterprise still being buillt. The shuttle doesn't look so tiny there. See the screencap attached here.

I'm recalling from memory almost a month old now, but the first up-sized shots we see of the Enterprise was in space when the shuttles flew up to it in orbit. You have the tiny shuttle flying over the saucer and later after a bidge set acting scene with Pike and Kirk it does the first of 2 pan outs going through the viewscreen window to the outside bridge view. I wish whoever is getting these bootleg DVD screenshots would do some more showing the viewscreen pan-out for a more outside frontal shot.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> Which raises the question, if such is the case, where does the aforementioned up-sizing manifest itself in the film? Is it your impression that the shuttle bay interior glimpsed briefly in the film (and shown several posts upthread) is out-of-whack size-wise with the ship depicted your diagram?


Just joking but don't forget Engineering. No way can you fit that several hundred ft of set into the secondary hull of a refit sized secondary hull and include a shuttle bay that's several hundred ft long. 

I like the 450m diagram but it would not hold the massive # of shuttles shown.

Maybe, the easier answer is that this ship is like "the watermelon woman" from Brazil :thumbsup:


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Even if you look at these comparison pictures, the new movie Enterprise shuttlebay doors as shown are SMALLER (slightly shorter) than the Refit's. That bay has to be at least SLIGHTLY larger to hold two decks of shuttles that size even if you're going to argue that it's not twice as big. Whatever it is, it ain't SMALLER than the Refit's!


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

jbond said:


> Even if you look at these comparison pictures, the new movie Enterprise shuttlebay doors as shown are SMALLER (slightly shorter) than the Refit's. That bay has to be at least SLIGHTLY larger to hold two decks of shuttles that size even if you're going to argue that it's not twice as big. Whatever it is, it ain't SMALLER than the Refit's!


Agreed.

Plus assuming the bridges are comparable in size, this photo always 'indicated' to me that this portion of the ship was twice the original size, since we know the approximate dimensions of the view screen, window, uh thingy. I always wondered what was in the space above the bridge. Perhaps it is the iAttic for storage boxes, but it definitely looks like a observation area above that.

BTW, I'm sure it has been discussed but would love to know if what I saw was correct (probably not). The one shot that pulled out of the bridge looked like it was (a battle bridge, I assumed - though they are normally hardened within the superstructure) at the bottom of the saucer upside down (orientation wise)? I only saw the movie once and may have been dreaming...


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

hubert said:


> Just joking but don't forget Engineering. No way can you fit that several hundred ft of set into the secondary hull of a refit sized secondary hull and include a shuttle bay that's several hundred ft long.
> 
> I like the 450m diagram but it would not hold the massive # of shuttles shown


All of this leads me to think Abrams went for an artist-license-impressionistic style during the production (and may be a final fall back excuse).
_*Even with the "supersized' 700m theory, there doesn't seem to be enough room on the starboard side of the bridge to accommodate the corridors seen on screen._
(Which I could go onto a long rant about that kind of easy access to such a sensitive operational area of the ship)

I can see the ship/sets changing somewhat in the next movie as a finalization and correction.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

hubert said:


> I always wondered what was in the space above the bridge. Perhaps it is the iAttic for storage boxes, but it definitely looks like a observation area above that.


To me it looks as if those sensor domes (nice to have clear illuminated ones again) are just that; semi-translucent "bubbles" containing scanning apparatae.

Whatever. Be nice to see a close-up of the inner detailing in any case.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

EJD1984 said:


> All of this leads me to think Abrams went for an artist-license-impressionistic style during the production (and may be a final fall back excuse).


Hey, it worked for Harper Goff, Irwin Allen, Stanley Kubrick, and George Lucas.


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

I think that there were definitely some mid-course changes in the size, and ILM didn't have enough time to make the substantial changes to the CG to reflect the new "supersize"

There this picture of of the NuE under construction. With what appreas to be a regular sized human(oid) walking. His relative size does support the smaller scale, 400(ish)meter ship. The gantry also appears to conform to the underside contour of the saucer. I can't see it being excessivly that far away from the ship (i.e. closer to the camera) since it's there to support the construction on the ship.

Plus the panning/zoom of the shot gives the perspective that the crane-gantry is under the saucer.










Taking all of this in, there is some major conflicts and inconsistencies within the film.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Maybe those guys on the hull play for the Lakers.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

EJD1984 said:


> Taking all of this in, there is some major conflicts and inconsistencies within the film.


That's the whole movie in a nutshell.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yeah, cuz TOS was tight as a drum.


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

I think the only time Trek got everything correct was in the TMP movie - Scaling of the ship/miniature in relation to the sets (and practical engineering standards)


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

In this discussion thread link from the official Star Trek movie forum there is mention of high-rez schematics of the new Enterprise now on the Cygnus-X1 site, here is the direct link to the schematics:

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/STXI-Enterprise.php


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, cuz TOS was tight as a drum.


Just because the previous owners put a few dings in the fender doesn't mean it's okay for the new owners to drive the thing into a telephone pole.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm telling you - or anyone else - again. *Stop talking about ST:XI, Bob.* Talk about the ship from the movie all you want, but *STOP TALKING ABOUT THE NEW MOVIE ITSELF.*


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think I was defending TOS more than anything else, but okay, point taken.

Ship's still ugly, no matter what size it is.

Maybe it's inflatible. Anyone checked for a valve stem on the thing? Or a warning to not inflate more than 35 psi?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I think I was defending TOS more than anything else


No, you're trolling for a fight is what you're doing.

I mean, your feelings re: the new Enterprise aren't exactly a mystery. It's not like you're presenting us with any new, insightful, constructive criticism with comments like "ship's still ugly." You're simply beating the same dead horse you've been beating for the last couple of months in the hopes of starting an argument with someone, anyone, who finds the tedious repetition of your comments to be annoying. 

Striking the same note over, and over, and over gets old after a while -- and this is coming from someone who, like you, dislikes the new Enterprise design. 

You are not a fan of Trek XI. We get it. The constant sniping serves no useful or constructive purpose, so for the last time kindly knock it off.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Thank you Carson. Times 10.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Well, when kits finally come out I hope someone is brave enough to try an Enterpise under construction diorama! I think that would look cool. It could even incorporate a Starfleet recruitment center w/shuttles and even a really little Kirk figure on his bike looking on!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Well, when kits finally come out I hope someone is brave enough to try an Enterpise under construction diorama! I think that would look cool. It could even incorporate a Starfleet recruitment center w/shuttles and even a really little Kirk figure on his bike looking on!


That could be an opportunity for someone to come out with a brass and resin super detail kit.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

The photo-etched Kirk-on-motorcycle is going to be nearly microscopic, still, I love the idea of a shipyard diorama.


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

Here's an interesting comment from ILM's supervisor Bruce Holcomb.
_"Although it stayed true to form, the Enterprise grew from 1300 feet to 2000 feet in length"_

*Link to Article*

Based on ILM's Bruce Holcomb comments, here's the *2000ft (609m)* NuE.

With this scaling, the docking ports are approximately 11ft dia, where as at the 1300 scale they'd be 7ft dia.

Though we're back to an old familiar issue. Looks like the hanger bay doors are of a similar height as compared to the TMP.








The statement by Bruce Holcomb seems to add some substantial validly that they may have initially modeled the ship at 1300ft, and completed some efx using that model, i.e. construction sequence. Then word came in that Abrams wanted it scaled up to 2000ft.

That could be why there appears to be a "normal" TMP style bridge at the top of the saucer, and with the upscale they were forced to use the "light slot" for the placement of the bridge. I would have liked to of seen the bridge set scaled 54% up as well to match, and truly have made it a massive command center. Though the set may have been built by that time & it was too late (and expensive) to change it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a new director comes in for the next movie and the ship shrinks back down to the now suspected original *1300ft (396m)* scale.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I kinda doubt that it'll shrink back down to a similar size as the earlier ships mainly because making it roughly the size of the refit would take a LOT of space out of the interior of the engineering hull especially the way the fantail cuts in. There would be no reasonable explanation for the size of the engine room as we saw it in the film. I'm fine with the larger size, but they've painted themselves in a corner by showing the vastness of the hangar bay and engineering.


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

JeffG said:


> I kinda doubt that it'll shrink back down to a similar size as the earlier ships mainly because making it roughly the size of the refit would take a LOT of space out of the interior of the engineering hull especially the way the fantail cuts in. There would be no reasonable explanation for the size of the engine room as we saw it in the film. I'm fine with the larger size, but they've painted themselves in a corner by showing the vastness of the hangar bay and engineering.


I wouldn't doubt that the choice to use the immense brewery as engineering was the single _"biggest"_ factor in scaling up the Enterprise.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

EJD1984 said:


> I wouldn't doubt that the choice to use the immense brewery as engineering was the single _"biggest"_ factor in scaling up the Enterprise.


I would agree. We all know that the CGI work is often done in post. Kevin Smith was beaming this time last year talking the movie up. So I assumed principal photography was completed well before the FX were.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, then, do you think we could also put an end to slams on TOS to justify XI's sloppy approach? (_"Yeah, cuz TOS was tight as a drum."_) If only in the interests of basic fairness, there's no way to just let stuff like that go unchallenged, even if it does come from a moderator.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Until you had to take another cheap shot at the new movie, I don't see where anybody was taking pot shots at TOS Trek. So, the above comment - since you can't seem to leave well enough alone - gets you a seven day vacation. Rob's comment was perfectly w/in his rights to make, as he wasn't discussing ST:XI beyond reminding you that TOS - like pretty much every TV show out there - had it's continuity issues, as well. 

And yes, you can let things go unchallenged. Especially when you're warned to stop and you don't stop. You then get what you've been told was coming. The comments and behavior you make along these lines are disruptive. If you see someone make negative comments like that, hit the REPORT POST button or PM/email a Moderator directly - even if it's a Mod doing it. 

Next tim that _I_ catch you doing this, I'll make it permanent. _That_ particular ball is in your court. We've got discretion on how we enforce the rules and your good graces with me on this issue have ended. Rob/Carson Dyle and I have been more than fair in putting up with your eccentric personality quarks. 

BTW, your Refit pylon parts will go out sometime later this week. I apologize for not getting them out sooner. They've been sitting boxed up for about three weeks and got shuffled off to the side right before WonderFest. 

.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

EJD1984 said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised if a new director comes in for the next movie and the ship shrinks back down to the now suspected original *1300ft (396m)* scale.


Or if the bridge is expanded into a two floor, open atrium type control center. That actually has possibilities.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^^ Hmmm, that sounds like an interesting concept.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

JeffG said:


> Or if the bridge is expanded into a two floor, open atrium type control center. That actually has possibilities.


I've been wanting to see that on a Star Trek ship forever!


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

Well folks, the NuE has now gotten even larger, 2357ft - _*Link to Article*_

OK, seriously does Abrams have size issues, and a bad case of "starship envy"?!

There is no logical reason for this ship to be scaled up to this size. Plus given that it strongly sounds and appears from the visual styling cues, and comments from Bruce Holcomb that the CG model may have initially been created at 1300ft (396m), then super-sized up.

Seriously, by just adding some extra windows in the saucer rim to visually reference that there could be 3-4 decks would have gone a long way to alleviate the confusion. But ILM may not of had the time to make the substantial changes (or Paramount wouldn't give them the extra funds).

The windows are now approximately 5ft in height, and the docking ports 14ft diameter!

I'd been slowly warming up and liking this design, but at these scale numbers - not so sure anymore.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Technically, the new Enterprise has no scale whatsoever, as it exists only in the virtual world. :tongue:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^^ So true, PixelMagic.

I don't know why they couldn't have easily scaled it down to say somewhere between 1000-1500 feet. They would only have to raise the height of the shuttle bay door end. That would have thickened up the rear half of the secondary hull (and would have looked better) making it more structurally sound at the engine pylon attachments. They would have also had to increase the size of the exterior bridge viewscreen window on the 3D model. But maybe the problem is how they built the bridge set with that large curving corridor behind it just to show Kirk running into the bridge. That all could have been on another deck (just use 2 turbolifts) and the viewscreen as a window could have been dropped. I'm thinking the viewscreen was just a prop to give us a cool zoom out pan to the outside. Why couldn't they have done the same thing with an actual bridge dome pullout shot like in The Cage? That would have been just as beautiful. But it's all water under the dam now and arm chair quarterbacking, which ends up being pointless now. All we can do it re-invent in our minds what this film has re-invented itself!


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

Steve Mavronis said:


> ^^^ So true, PixelMagic.
> 
> I don't know why they couldn't have easily scaled it down to say somewhere between 1000-1500 feet.


From this *Article*, it appears that IML may have initially modeled and scaled the ship around 1300ft, then............................_SUPERSIZE_


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

EJD1984 said:


> From this *Article*, it appears that IML may have initially modeled and scaled the ship around 1300ft, then............................_SUPERSIZE_


Yeah I could easily live with the 1300 foot figure. At this point I don't really care if it's that or 2357 feet long. But by the time they come out with the new Enterprise Tech Manual their interior diagrams (deck plans or cross-section) should appear to match whatever length they do officially settle on. Too many people involved in the production are saying different things. It's almost like some Government committee designed this ship!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

By the time the next film rolls around, I'm thinking a lot of these wrinkles will have been figured out. Maybe we'll even get a new bridge thrown in too. After all, currently with the ship the size they're saying and with the bridge lower in the hull, that leaves quite a bit of room above that deck. With the constant revisions we've seen throughout the films, they could always blame it on engineers constantly tinkering. Because as you know; those engineers love to change things. Maybe this is one of the reasons we (or at least I) haven't seen an 'Art Of...' book yet. They still probably don't have all the particulars nailed down.


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

When the shuttle carrying Kirk flys under the pylon of the warp engine when leaving the ship yard you can see the rec deck windows on the back of the saucer...looks like a 300 meter ship! You can also compare the people on the ground to the secondary hull. Those rec deck windows would have to be just huge if the ship is over 2000 feet long.


----------



## actias (May 19, 2003)

Go here! Everybody knows who John Eaves is, right? All kinds of various ship and other info here:thumbsup:


http://johneaves.wordpress.com/


----------



## guartho (May 4, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> It's almost like some Government committee designed this ship!


Which really makes it more realistic when you think about it.

My arm-chair speculation is that they designed it at 1300 feet and scaled it up later to accommodate the brewery footage.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

BTW the Kelvin's engine room was filmed in an old water treatment plant! Also, has anyone else noticed that the Star Trek Movie site's "secret code" image of a starship hallway is from the Kelvin too?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I just found this screencap someone made. It shows a shuttle flying over the saucer and it also shows the bridge viewscreen window for a size comparison. This ship is huge!


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

It doesn't look any bigger than the TMP Refit....

Just put a 1/350 scale figure on the 1/350 saucer section and you will see how big the Refit is....

That screen shot doesn't look much bigger. I think the fact that the bridge sits lower is throwing people off. It makes it look bigger than if the bridge was located in the dome.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

The TMP bridge occupied the whole deck above the 3 lighting slots. Here though in this movie, you have to remember that the two lit side slots are instead now windows from other adjacent rooms next to the bridge on a lower deck. Behind the bridge interior set there is a circular hallway connecting all of them. The viewscreen window height is about as tall as a man. These lit slots are not the old TMP saucer lights because you can see in this version the lights are more in front of the bridge area just above the USS Enterprise name. This bridge fits into about half the same shape a deck below, further reinforcing that the ship is said to be 2357 feet long.

Edit - here is the shuttle flyby showing the bridge location (center lit window in upper left) and 2 others I found last night showing the beginning of a bridge zoom out shot. You can see the corner curve of the hull slot on the one.


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

I was just pondering the new/official size of 700+ meters, in relation to the visual details. What if the confusing/smaller scale details were done that way on purpose in order to give future directors the option to scale the ship differently. Depending on storyline requirements and visual aesthetics desired by the director.

JJ did state that he doesn't want the NuTrek to be tided down by any excessive canon, and this could be his way of setting the new "nonstandard".


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I Googled and found added 2 additional exterior bridge window shots in my post #176 above.


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

I think we now have *another* "official" scale for the ship over at the Trek Movie website. 2,875ft (876m)?

"Round 2 will be releasing a brand new 1:2500 scale (11.5") snap-together model of the Ryan Church redesigned USS Enterprise from the new Star Trek feature film."

*Link to Article*

I just give up!

At this rate, we should just make up our own personal scales, and be done with it.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

EJD1984 said:


> At this rate, we should just make up our own personal scales, and be done with it.


Just like the Klingon BOP ...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Cinefex magazine is supposed to have a cover story article mentioning the scale of the ship, saying it was originally designed at 1200 feet then scaled up later in order to fit the shuttle size which turned out to be bigger than they had imagined.

Check this image of the new Enterprise model kit box art over at TrekMovie.com and look at the bridge window and how the usual round portholes are now square!

http://img.trekmovie.com/images/merchandise/r2-st09-1.jpg


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Well that's just the last straw!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Cinefex magazine is supposed to have a cover story article mentioning the scale of the ship, saying it was originally designed at 1200 feet then scaled up later in order to fit the shuttle size which turned out to be bigger than they had imagined.


Yeah, that's what I figured. The only reason to "scale up" would have been so the ship could realistically berth a number of rather large shuttles. 

Guess I'll run to the bookshop next door and see if I can find that copy of Cinefex...

EDIT:

Okay, back from bookstore run with Cinefex #118 (first issue I've bought in years). Quoting ILM Art Director Alex Jaeger...

_"The reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations-- approximately 1,200-feet-long compared to the 947-foot ship of the original series. Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale -- shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined -- so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail."_

There's lots more, but I also found this bit of photo description kind of interesting...

_"Added details included a transparent dome above the bridge, which ILM modeled with structures beneath suggesting sensor arrays and radar dishes."_

What I've yet to find is a statement indicating exactly how long the up-scaled ship is supposed to be. Based on previous comments from ILMers I'm guessing "2,357" is as close as we're going to get.

Given the comments above it seems likely that when ILM executed the early shots of the ship under construction (i.e. the shots required for inclusion in the teaser trailer -- shots which do not appear in the film) they were working off the "1,200" number, which is why the construction crewmen appear so large in relation to the hull.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Doesn't this cavalier attitude towards the technical specs of their own ship strike anyone as a bit on the amateurish side? Especially in light of the amount of money the studio threw at this thing?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Its typical Hollywood. Honestly not that different that all the arguments we have trying to rationalize the interior of the original Enterprise or the refit.

But you'd _think_, they'd try to get it right for once.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Guys, if a legendary perfectionist like Stanley Kubrick couldn't get the interior of the Discovery to fit (and it doesn't) we shouldn't expect JJ Abrams to fare any better.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I think we should all not lose sight of the fact that to 90% of the audience it not only doesn't matter, they don't even notice.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The primary differences between the original series _Enterprise_ and the one from the new film can be summed up in one word: Verisimilitude.

The original was a work of science fiction, and was created to be as believable as possible in scale, structure and details. Viewers found it credible enough to suspend their disbelief and accept it as a "real" craft.

The new one has been described by members of the production staff as a "sci-fi fantasy" creation, and therefore any notion of suspending one's disbelief becomes all the more difficult when you attempt to address exterior details and interior spaces that make little design sense in order to resolve it's "reality" and therefore any feeling of "scale".


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

Carson Dyle said:


> _"The reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations-- approximately 1,200-feet-long compared to the 947-foot ship of the original series. Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale -- shuttles initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined -- so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail."_


BINGO! Finally some conformation about the upscale/super-size. This seems to confirm the ship was still at *1,200ft* when the efx were done for the construction sequence.

Now I wonder if this may be leaving a loophole for the ship to be scaled back down.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> The primary differences between the original series _Enterprise_ and the one from the new film can be summed up in one word: Verisimilitude.
> 
> The original was a work of science fiction, and was created to be as believable as possible in scale, structure and details. Viewers found it credible enough to suspend their disbelief and accept it as a "real" craft.
> 
> The new one has been described by members of the production staff as a "sci-fi fantasy" creation...


Well, I suppose it depends on who's doing the talking.

Quoting Alex Jaeger again...

_"J.J. Gave us the reigns. He said "`You guys have been building this ship for two decades -- add what you think will make it feel real. I had to walk a fine line between continuing what Scoot Chambliss had set up for this sleek, 60's-looking ship and J.J.'s desire to see a tactile, functional ship."_

Thing is, back in the 60's, Trek played closer to "hard" sci-fi than it does, or could, in 2009. Today it plays closer to fantasy, but this has partly to do with the fact that in the 40 years since the series debuted we've moved a few steps closer to "the future," and it shows little signs of becoming Star Trek-esque any time soon (at least not in the cool warp-driving, phaser-zapping, molecule-teleporting ways TOS would have had us believe). 

At the end of the day accepting _any_ incarnation of Trek as "real" is going to require a leap of faith.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

You mean...Trek isn't real? Shakka...when the walls fell!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So....in '64, with a limited budget and a crushing production schedule, the original production team was able to do a _better_ job at keeping things straight and consistent than the new bunch with a much more forgiving schedule and a budget higher than all three seasons of TOS lumped together in one big pile. Additionally, we shouldn't expect the new guys to even attempt to do their jobs _even as well as their predecessors,_ never mind improving on it.

Got it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

You just can't leave well enough alone, can you Bob...?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

There are all kinds of inconsistencies in the original series---argh, this is driving me meshugenah!!! Where were you people screaming in EVERY episode when the engines change from having vents in the rear to domes and back again every other shot? Also the length of the Enterprise is as far as I know NEVER mentioned in the run of the original series. A whole lot of these "facts" that get regurgitated over and over are actually conjecture from technical manuals and fan musings like the ones on this board. The Enterprise was believable in its day because we KNEW so little--we didn't know how space flight was going to work or what would really be needed on a starship (assuming such a vessel was even remotely possible). There are no maneuvering thrusters on the original Enterprise, no visible hatches, and the "realistic" engines are flashy orange lights, which we now accept as the ultimate, inviolate method of showing matter/antimatter disintegration or something. And good point, Carson, about 2001--consistently called the most scientifically accurate sci fi film ever made. We've had decades to make "sense" out of every widget that sticks out of the Enterprise even though most of this stuff was put on the model to give the ILLUSION of a real spaceship. The inside of the shuttlecraft never matched the size of the exterior--and people are shown to be entering and exiting from the rear compartment of the shuttle to the outside when there is NO DOOR THERE. Where's the outrage, people? The bottom line is you're either gunning for the movie or you're not. Go and read The Saucer Fleet if you want to see an endless list of the inconsistencies and things which make utterly no sense about most of these fictional spacecraft we know and love. It's a movie spaceship, not the friggin' Ark of the Covenant...


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Oh and another thing...wasn't the scale of the original Enterprise miniature designed to be much smaller, hence the raised bridge dome--oh NO, they RESCALED the original Enterprise too!! Man, we better burn Roddenberry and Matt Jefferies in effigy for that kind of effrontery--what did they take us for, fools?!? And then they put footage of that DIFFERENT SCALED Enterprise in almost EVERY episode!! What a cheat, man...well that does it, if they couldn't even come up with a consistent SCALE for the original Enterprise then as far as I'm concerned that original series is NOT STAR TREK and I shall boycott it in perpetuity. Omigod, the original Star Trek raped my childhood!!


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

jbond said:


> we better burn Roddenberry and Matt Jefferies in effigy for that kind of effrontery


Just wanted to say I always enjoy seeing a word such as "effrontery" get some use! :thumbsup: Whether I agree or not became secondary when you brought that one out! :wave:

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

jbond said:


> Oh and another thing...wasn't the scale of the original Enterprise miniature designed to be much smaller, hence the raised bridge dome--oh NO, they RESCALED the original Enterprise too!! Man, we better burn Roddenberry and Matt Jefferies in effigy for that kind of effrontery--what did they take us for, fools?!? And then they put footage of that DIFFERENT SCALED Enterprise in almost EVERY episode!! What a cheat, man...well that does it, if they couldn't even come up with a consistent SCALE for the original Enterprise then as far as I'm concerned that original series is NOT STAR TREK and I shall boycott it in perpetuity. Omigod, the original Star Trek raped my childhood!!


Give it a rest, you guys. I've grown tired of this stuff from _both_ sides of the argument. No poking with a stick just because you think you can get away with it - you can't.


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

With the conformation from ILM about the up-sizing, could this be why there doesn't seem to be a scale on the packaging for the model - since it could be changed in the next movie.


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

Well that answers that...wonder why they didn't resize the windows too.


----------



## JerryUK (Jun 5, 2005)

I'd believe the upscaling if were not for the fact that the saucers of JJ's E and TMP E look 99% interchangable, and as others have said... the window sizes are too big on JJ's E to support the larger size.

It's a shame they've messed this up. This forum is about Scale Modelling..so accurate scale and consistancy of scale and believability of scale are quite important.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Unless of course they are now larger observation windows which run from about your knees to the top of your head. An unfortunate alteration? Yes. Implausible? No. I'm curious to see how they play it in the next film. In a sense, I'd actually prefer to see them go back and upscale the ship like they did rather than what's typically done in sci-fi; cram 10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag. I think what's throwing the acceptance off for some of us is that it's much larger, but essentially the same shape as what we've come to know as 1,000 or so feet.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

It reminds me of the movie "The Jerk"

It begins with Navin Johnson (Steve Martin) and his large family in a small run-down shack .

At the end of the film, his family comes to take him back home and due to the fact they saved the money Navin had been sending all those years, they were able have a much bigger house - only it was exactly the same run-down shack only waaay bigger. Bigger windows, bigger door, bigger everything. It had the same proportions as their old shack.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

JeffG said:


> Unless of course they are now larger observation windows which run from about your knees to the top of your head. An unfortunate alteration? Yes. Implausible? No. I'm curious to see how they play it in the next film. In a sense, I'd actually prefer to see them go back and upscale the ship like they did rather than what's typically done in sci-fi; cram 10 pounds of sh&% in a 5 pound bag. I think what's throwing the acceptance off for some of us is that it's much larger, but essentially the same shape as what we've come to know as 1,000 or so feet.


Jeff,
personally, I wish they'd find some time before the DVD release to re-do the shuttle scene to scale the bay back down to a more reasonable size. maybe something that could only fit the one "troop transport" shuttle.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I wish they'd find some time before the DVD release to re-do the shuttle scene to scale the bay back down to a more reasonable size. maybe something that could only fit the one "troop transport" shuttle.


Interesting idea. Of course the other alternative to bring scale in sync with the whole movie, could be accomplished by redoing the shipyard construction scene and new recruit shuttle takeoff scene by re-scaling the Enterprise bigger there.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Interesting idea. Of course the other alternative to bring scale in sync with the whole movie, could be accomplished by redoing the shipyard construction scene and new recruit shuttle takeoff scene by re-scaling the Enterprise bigger there.


you would also need to rescale the "Kirk marooning pod launch" shot.

I can even buy the existing "bridge pull out from the viewscreen" shot as more 
"expressionistic" rather than "actual" 

Sorta like the establishing shot from "the Cage"


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> you would also need to rescale the "Kirk marooning pod launch" shot. I can even buy the existing "bridge pull out from the viewscreen" shot as more "expressionistic" rather than "actual" Sorta like the establishing shot from "the Cage"


I'm not sure Kirk's pod launch would have to be changed. The docking port is larger than TMP with an inner ring or launch port. As far as spaceship window effects, in all movies these are sort of fudged whether it be rear projection used in 2001 or CGI effects like in Star Trek. Those bridge pull out scenes were impressive to see though.


----------



## JerryUK (Jun 5, 2005)

Maybe we should start a campaign for TMP-E scale to be revised. 700 metres? :devil: :jest:  :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Feet. Use feet. Something I can understand!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

JeffG said:


> Feet. Use feet. Something I can understand!


Just bring up a Google search and type 700 meters to feet, then you get:

700 meters = 2 296.58793 feet

Also 2,357 feet would be:

2357 feet = 718.4136 meters


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

JeffG said:


> Feet. Use feet. Something I can understand!


http://www.worldwidemetric.com/metcal.htm


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I think I started a monster and I was only kidding! Cool link though. Thanks!


----------



## EJD1984 (Jun 3, 2009)

JeffG said:


> I think I started a monster and I was only kidding! Cool link though. Thanks!


I was just being a little humorous & playful. 

Plus I use this website for work all the time.


----------

