ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Refit Enterprise from TMP

Garbaron

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 575

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 5:54 am

Quote (Admiral_JTK @ July 20 2009, 10:42 pm)
Kinda makes you wonder on all the designs of all the ships, as to why would anyone design a ship where its command center - the Bridge - is so incredibly exposed and right up against the outside skin, immediately next to the vacuum of space - especially seeing how it doesnt really have windows - so it doesnt really need to be in such a precarious location highly exposed and succeptible to easy damage in a fire fight.

I mean its not like a crows nest in a naval vessel - they have sensors for that - I'd think more deep in the heart of the primary hull would be a more logical location for a space faring vessel's command center - especially one that sees a good share of combat

Well that's because Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jefferies wanted to make the point, that 23rd Century technology would allow for such an exposed location of the bridge, since its defensive shield and screen technology would be able to protect the bridge up there the same way as if it was nested inside the saucers core.

That's why.

That's also the reason why the ships exterior shows no moving parts (minus the spinning bussards of the TOS E) or exposed piping and general technology inside the ship. The idea was to convey the feeling that 23rd century technology was so advanced that it simply would not show up.

And for 40 + years that was the principle of Star Trek ship and interior design which worked just fine.

But now a new generation must be lured in / be reintroduced to Trek. A generation that needs moving things and shiny lights all over the place as well as 2 second scene cuts to keep them occupied or they get bored.

And that's why we now have a fancy expanding navigational deflector, splitting warp nacelle fines, brewery engineering and rotating gun barrel hand phasers and action sequences that rival only the ones seen in "Quantum of solace".

Praise the new world

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 6:14 am

Quote (Garbaron @ July 22 2009, 5:54 am)
Well that's because Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jefferies wanted to make the point, that 23rd Century technology would allow for such an exposed location of the bridge, since its defensive shield and screen technology would be able to protect the bridge up there the same way as if it was nested inside the saucers core.

That's why.

Didn't really work in Nemesis or in Generations when the Duras Sisters were among the first enemies to figure out that you could just blow up the bridge!

Deep down in the ship they would likely be more protected, especially with the depth of, for instance, the Enterprise D saucer.  In fact, the battle bridge location probably would have been an ideal place, rather than at the top.  However, the top would have been chosen for aesthetic reasons more likely, which is fine I guess and pretty well accepted as where it is supposed to be.

Quote
And that's why we now have a fancy expanding navigational deflector, splitting warp nacelle fines, brewery engineering ?and rotating gun barrels at hand phasers and action sequences that rival only the ones seen in "Quantum of solace".


Save for the fact that you likely may not have known about an "expanding deflector dish" if it wasn't mentioned in an interview (and wasn't really obvious, if it was even there, in the film.)  Splitting nacelle fins?  Unless you were looking really really hard it wasn't anything I noticed personally or seems to be anything anyone else has made mention of, oh well.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 5:47 pm

Please take a close look at the side of the saucer (windows)!

Now compare it to this picture:



The nuTREK Enterprise is as long as the refit. Period.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 6:14 pm

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 22 2009, 5:47 pm)
Please take a close look at the side of the saucer (windows)!

Now compare it to this picture:



The nuTREK Enterprise is as long as the refit. Period.

Not according to ILM, Storma.  They kicked it up in size a bit to accomodate the new shuttles.  

The new Enterprise is 1200 feet = 365 m long according to that article I quoted on the other thread.  You can get the magazine if you don't believe me.  It's printed there in black and white.  

The original ship is around 300 m as you've said yourself.  Well, this new one is about 65 m longer.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 6:23 pm

No the number sounds right... I was still having that 700 meters something in my mind...

65 meters longer sounds right.  :)

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 6:27 pm

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 22 2009, 6:23 pm)
No the number sounds right... I was still having that 700 meters something in my mind...

65 meters longer sounds right. ¿:)

Oh, ok!  :laugh:

Yeah, find that size of the Enterprise thread if you want to get that magazine.  It is an industry one for special effects and is around $15.  It is the July issue.  They have a very long article, with some great pics, on the visual effects for Star Trek.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 6:29 pm

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 23 2009, 3:27 am)
Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 22 2009, 6:23 pm)
No the number sounds right... I was still having that 700 meters something in my mind...

65 meters longer sounds right. ?:)

Oh, ok! ¿:laugh:

Yeah, find that size of the Enterprise thread if you want to get that magazine. ¿It is an industry one for special effects and is around $15. ¿It is the July issue. ¿They have a very long article, with some great pics, on the visual effects for Star Trek.

Thanks!!! Will get it. :)

God_in_an_Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4538

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 6:36 pm

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 3:14 pm)
Not according to ILM, Storma. ¿They kicked it up in size a bit to accomodate the new shuttles.

That doesn't make sense. The stardrive section of the new Ent is smaller than the stardrive section of the original Ent. Added to that, the orginal Ent had seven or eight shuttles, all of which where bulkier than the ones seen in the new movie, plus we only see one shuttle in the hanger bay at a time (I believe that the CGI remastered episodes of TOS may have changed that a little), all points to the original design being larger, at least in the stardrive section.

Quote
The original ship is around 300 m as you've said yourself.  Well, this new one is about 65 m longer.


The new design may be a bit longer bcause of the larger nacelles, but nowhere near 65m longer.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 6:40 pm

In defense of the film (I know... I am taking a strange position here :D ): It is not the first time that they messed up the scales in TREK.

Look at the Defiant in FIRST CONTACT... based on the Enterprise-E's flyby it would have to be 50 meters long.

Take the Bird of Preys used throughout the films and TV shows... Yeah, different subclasses an all, but the window-pattern was always the same.

300 - 400 meters sounds reasonable. The big problem is that the shuttlebay changed it's size within the movie. The first (huge) bay was shown when Kirk arrived aboard.
But when Pike left the ship in the same class of shuttle, the wings of the shuttle (fully extended) almost touched the bay doors.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 6:54 pm

Quote (God_in_an_Alcove @ July 22 2009, 6:36 pm)
Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 3:14 pm)
Not according to ILM, Storma. ?They kicked it up in size a bit to accomodate the new shuttles.

That doesn't make sense. The stardrive section of the new Ent is smaller than the stardrive section of the original Ent. Added to that, the orginal Ent had seven or eight shuttles, all of which where bulkier than the ones seen in the new movie, plus we only see one shuttle in the hanger bay at a time (I believe that the CGI remastered episodes of TOS may have changed that a little), all points to the original design being larger, at least in the stardrive section.

Quote
The original ship is around 300 m as you've said yourself. ¿Well, this new one is about 65 m longer.


The new design may be a bit longer bcause of the larger nacelles, but nowhere near 65m longer.

I'd say it's canon since the ILM guys were the ones who built the ship and layed it out so that it's size was consistent with the shuttles.  

The guy made a point of addressing the size difference and even said it allowed them to add more fine detail to the ship.

It appears as a 365 m ship on screen.  

Heck, if it has to be mentioned onscreen, did they ever mention the sizes of the original Enterprise or the Ent-D?  If not, then you could just as well say the original ship was larger than the Ent-D according to that logic.

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 6:55 pm

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 3:27 pm)
Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 22 2009, 6:23 pm)
No the number sounds right... I was still having that 700 meters something in my mind...

65 meters longer sounds right. ?:)

Oh, ok! ¿:laugh:

Yeah, find that size of the Enterprise thread if you want to get that magazine. ¿It is an industry one for special effects and is around $15. ¿It is the July issue. ¿They have a very long article, with some great pics, on the visual effects for Star Trek.

I have that issue of Cinefex and based on what they said it was originally intended to be about the same size as the refit Enterprise. Then they changed their mind because they felt the need to change the scale in regards to the shuttle bay. It seemed like they couldn't make up their mind.  :laugh:

God_in_an_Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4538

Report this Jul. 22 2009, 7:02 pm

Quote (rocketscientist @ July 22 2009, 3:54 pm)
Heck, if it has to be mentioned onscreen, did they ever mention the sizes of the original Enterprise or the Ent-D? ¿If not, then you could just as well say the original ship was larger than the Ent-D according to that logic.

It doesn't have to be mentioned specifically. We can determine approximate lengths through on-screen comparisons. For example, with both the original 1701 and 1701-D, we know how tall people are. We've seen then standing around and even inside shuttle craft. We've seen these shuttle craft into the shuttle bays (and leaving them, in the case of the 1701-D). And we've seen multiple shots of the shuttle bays, both interior and exterior. With all that on-screen info, we can extrapolate the size of the ships to within half a dozen meters. Probably closer than that.

With other ships, it's a bit more difficult, as usually you can only compare them to the ships we already have determined a size for, and even then you can usually only guess how far apart they are, which would affect the final result.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Drunkin Druid, darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum