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

Another look at Church's design

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Nov. 24 2009, 4:33 pm

Yes I agree with your comments. There are more examples of production errors and mistakes whether with real models or CGI. It is very difficult to bring all elements together within a limited time and budget. There will always be a mistake or a goof but that does not mean the team did not try very diligently to do it right. Sometimes it was not a mistake from one person but a problem with communication and coordination. In this way I choose to cut them some slack and hope they can improve on the next approach.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Nov. 26 2009, 7:15 am

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Nov. 25 2009, 1:19 am)
Quote (trekbuff @ Nov. 24 2009, 12:57 pm)
There are considerable inconsistancies in STXI concerning the size of the NCC-1701 as seen in that movie.

If all of the scenes without shuttles are considered, the NCC-1701 appears to be one size - canon.

If all of the scenes with shuttles are considered, the NCC-1701 appears to be a different size - canon.

What is seen in the movie violates other things seen in that same movie.


They messed up.

True size issues have always been a problem in TREK movies. TREKXI is not the first movie in which it has happened.

FC ¿and various episode of DS9 have made determining the size of the Defiant(from DS9) a very big mess.

What I do find funny is that even if there were physical models ¿there are ways in which the scenes can be filmed that would provide the same results seen in TREK XI.

The fact a mistake has been made is not a secret.

Right... Just like the Oversized Enterprise-E in first contact, that one single shot of the cadets arrival in XI was just a mistake.

All other takes indicade a "400 meter minus long" starship.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 11 2009, 2:54 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Nov. 19 2009, 12:08 pm)
Temper, temper, kid...

Let's look at it again.

Here's the viewwindow from inside the bridge:



Now I'd say that portal is about, say, 20' feet across tops. Maybe as low as 16', but just for a round figure we'll say 20'.

Now, let's look at the outside...the lit rectangle we see to the top left at the base of the bridge dome (where the hull lighting units were located on the Connie upgrade Enterprise is that same viewwindow seen from the outside:



Now if we use that same 20' measurement of the inside of the window for the outside, what does that make the approximate diameter of the primary hull?

:logical:

Start here where we address this issue from before. Then read on from page 5.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 11 2009, 3:02 pm

Get the figures of the viewscreen from the production team. You are stuck in this argument for what reason I cannot determine.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 11 2009, 3:28 pm

No I am not worried for that. The truth of why I do not answer is because you have shown not to accept my observations and comments in the past on this issue. I do not wish to go through the whole argument again as I already know there are inconsistencies with the special effects as shown in the picture of Kirk seeing the Enterprise in Iowa. In that shot alone there are unanswerable inconsistencies. So this single shot alone is why I will not continue to make an argument. Instead I will express my belief of the measures given by the production crew and believe they will be even more evident in the upcoming movies. I will acknowledge there are confusing shots and this is why there is controversy. However I believe one side of the issue and you believe another. This is acceptable.

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