AdmiralArcher33 GROUP: Members POSTS: 150  |
Report this
Oct. 23 2010, 7:49 pm
Why was the thing so stinking big. If you look at the model kits, a 1/1000 scale TOS and Ent-A enterprise is roughly 11 inches long, but the new movie enterprise only has 1/2500 scale kit coming out and it is the same size! Can someone explain this to me?  |
captbates GROUP: Members POSTS: 12614  |
Report this
Oct. 24 2010, 8:08 am
 New film bigger ship, simples.
If you can read this it means I've got something to work on here.
|
|
AdmiralArcher33 GROUP: Members POSTS: 150 |
Report this
Oct. 24 2010, 2:38 pm
Quote: /view_profile/ @ | Quote: /view_profile/ @ | >
>Why was the thing so stinking big. If you look at the model kits, a 1/1000 scale TOS and Ent-A enterprise is roughly 11 inches long, but the new movie enterprise only has 1/2500 scale kit coming out and it is the same size! Can someone explain this to me?
> |
Whiner.... |
They have two settings: stun and kill... It'd be best not to confuse them. ~~ Lt. Reed
|
jamesspock1 GROUP: Members POSTS: 461 |
Report this
Oct. 25 2010, 9:07 am
Because JJ and crew had no incling of the size comparition of what was, he may also have wanted to creat his own (Star Destroyer) since he is such a Star Wars fan. That what you get when you give Star Trek to people who know nothing of Trek. The Idea of (because its an alternate Universe is but an excuse for (Fu %$#&* up)
|
Vger23 GROUP: Members POSTS: 6718 |
Report this
Oct. 25 2010, 9:22 am
Quote: AdmiralArcher33 @ Oct. 23 2010, 7:49 pm | Why was the thing so stinking big. If you look at the model kits, a 1/1000 scale TOS and Ent-A enterprise is roughly 11 inches long, but the new movie enterprise only has 1/2500 scale kit coming out and it is the same size! Can someone explain this to me? |
Because the film was designed to entertain people, not cater to fans who care more about technical detail and accuracy than entertainment.
I don't like the design of the new Enterprise very much at all (inside OR outside), but it doesn't keep me from enjoying the film.
I AM KEE-ROCK!!
|
|
AdmiralArcher33 GROUP: Members POSTS: 150 |
Report this
Oct. 25 2010, 2:45 pm
It wasn't the look of the inside that bothered me it was the outside and the sheer size that annoyed me.
They have two settings: stun and kill... It'd be best not to confuse them. ~~ Lt. Reed
|
|
Vger23 GROUP: Members POSTS: 6718 |
Report this
Oct. 26 2010, 6:34 am
Why allow yourself to be annoyed by something so utterly inconsequential?
I AM KEE-ROCK!!
|
MichaelRiker GROUP: Members POSTS: 66 |
Report this
Oct. 26 2010, 10:07 am
Quote: Vger23 @ Oct. 26 2010, 6:34 am | Why allow yourself to be annoyed by something so utterly inconsequential? |
Not so inconsequential in the fact that the Enterprise is as much a character in Star Trek as the crew. That goes for about any other Star Trek series also with the Defiant, Voyager, and/or DS9 if you want to consider the station.
|
|
Vger23 GROUP: Members POSTS: 6718 |
Report this
Oct. 27 2010, 4:51 am
The Enterprise is an inanimate object. It has no life, no voice, and no soul. Is it "IMPORTANT?" Hell yes, it is! Is it "just as much a character in Star Trek as the crew." No, it is not. By definition, it can't be. That kind of phrase is a cliche designed to draw importance to sets, locations, vehicles, etc. But, BY DEFINITION, those elements are not characters.
If I'm not going to be outraged by Checkov not having a "Davie from the Monkeys" haircut or by Kirk having blue eyes, I'm certinly not going to be outraged by the dimensions of an inanimate space vehicle.
Both concerns are equally inconsequential and do nothing to impact the entertainment value of the story.
I AM KEE-ROCK!!
|
|
MichaelRiker GROUP: Members POSTS: 66 |
Report this
Oct. 27 2010, 7:10 pm
Quote: Vger23 @ Oct. 27 2010, 4:51 am | >The Enterprise is an inanimate object. It has no life, no voice, and no soul. Is it "IMPORTANT?" Hell yes, it is! Is it "just as much a character in Star Trek as the crew." No, it is not. By definition, it can't be. That kind of phrase is a cliche designed to draw importance to sets, locations, vehicles, etc. But, BY DEFINITION, those elements are not characters. If I'm not going to be outraged by Checkov not having a "Davie from the Monkeys" haircut or by Kirk having blue eyes, I'm certinly not going to be outraged by the dimensions of an inanimate space vehicle. Both concerns are equally inconsequential and do nothing to impact the entertainment value of the story. |
No life and no soul???? what kind of redundant thinking if you were a crew on a modern war vessel?...Heck with that how about the crew of the most of the sailing vessels today or in the past?...I beg to differ to your shallow interpretation bit the ship IS always "home".
|
jangler3 GROUP: Members POSTS: 46 |
Report this
Oct. 30 2010, 4:49 am
Quote: Vger23 @ Oct. 26 2010, 6:34 am | Why allow yourself to be annoyed by something so utterly inconsequential? |
Why no rep? This answer deserves rep!
|
|
AdmiralArcher33 GROUP: Members POSTS: 150 |
Report this
Oct. 30 2010, 6:25 am
I complain because I wish that JJ Abrams would have stuck with cannon and not copletely change the story. If you look at the ships in 1/2500 scale, the original Enterprise and the A are both about two inches long, the new movie one is 11 inches long. that is like comparing the Enterprise-J to the NX-01
They have two settings: stun and kill... It'd be best not to confuse them. ~~ Lt. Reed
|
Matthias Russell GROUP: Members POSTS: 7705  |
Report this
Oct. 31 2010, 7:39 pm
I agree with AA33, making so ship so GD big was ridiculous, reset the universe, okay, redesign the ship to be more modern, I'm all for it. But why make the ship so humongous? It doesn't jive with history at all. You can bring in a new audience without slapping fans in the face. The E is part of the soul of trek. If could look as ugly as it did without being so big. No way the Constitution was redesigned to overscale in the time since the Kelvin's destruction (which also was too big). The new ship goes beyond being cool and modern, it doesn't make engineering sense. Imagine if the Millennium Falcon were made 10 stories tall.
|
|
Vger23 GROUP: Members POSTS: 6718 |
Report this
Nov. 01 2010, 5:01 am
MichaelRiker-
You can "beg to differ" all you want. An inanimate object, no matter how important, BY DEFINITION has no life and no soul. You can feel for it, you can develop an emotional attachment to it, you can cry as it falls from the twilight sky of the Genesis planet....but it is NOT a personality. It has no life. It cannot interact, rationalize, emote, or die.
So, emotionalism and individual opinions aside, it's not a "character." You can slice it 1000 different ways, but it's not even an argument. The Enterprise is an object. A very important one? Yes. A "character," though? No. The Enterprise is no more a "character" than Jim Kirk is an "inanimate object." The definition does not fit.
I AM KEE-ROCK!!
|
|
Vger23 GROUP: Members POSTS: 6718 |
Report this
Nov. 01 2010, 5:05 am
jangler3-
There's no "rep" because it IS inconsequential. It's stereotypical fanboy yammering about stuff that doesn't matter....which shouldn't surprise me since that's about 90% of what this board has become anyway.
I AM KEE-ROCK!!
|
