ST09 Tidbits: Ayel Pic + 1 week box office + R2D2 In Trek? + Lucas Review + Enterprise Size + more May 15, 2009
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Great Links, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Star Trek has finished its first week by going over the $100M mark in the US. We have all the latest box office numbers below, plus a new shot of Ayel and a new Easter Egg contest for the movie. Also George Lucas and director McG give their reviews, Chris Pine strikes a pose in GQ and Gizmodo think they figured out just how big the new E is. All that and more in the final Tidbits of the week.
Box Office Watch: Trek’s First week = $154 Million
With $5.6M in domestic sales on Thursday Star Trek cross over the $100M mark for its first week with a total of $104.6M. For some comparison Wolverine grossed $3.5M on its first Thursday, bringing its one week total up to $102.6M. Combined with the reported international sales, Star Trek heads into its second weekend with $153.9M under its belt.
New pic of Ayel
In the flurry of publicity materials there was one actor that never had a picture, until now. Paramount, in a little ‘better late than never’ has put out a publicity still of Clifton Collins, Jr. as Ayel.
Click to enlarge
Paramount Easter Egg Sweepstakes – Find R2D2
Today a new contest was announced on Paramount’s Star Trek Facebook page. The question to enter the contest is:
What scene in the new film STAR TREK features the robot "R2-D2" from Star Wars?
If you know the answer, email it to facebook@paramount.com with "STAR TREK Easter Egg Sweepstakes" in the subject line for a chance to win an official prop from the film STAR TREK.
Have you spotted R2?
Lucas (and McG) like Star Trek
Speaking of a Galaxy far far away, yesterday we reported on some of the latest Star Wars/Star Trek chatter drawing comparisons, and there is even more. The New York Observer drawing comparisons and asking ‘is George Lucas going to sue‘?. But the man himself doesn’t see it that way. Lucas tells New York magazine he liked the film:
"I liked Star Trek growing up and I’ve seen the new one," Lucas told us, shortly before taking off at warp speed in the opposite direction. "It’s good. I liked it." But, we wondered, was there anything he’d have changed about the movie? "No, because I would never do a Star Trek."
And Lucas isn’t the only director giving praise. Terminator Salvation helmer McG is also impressed, as noted in this quick clip from Hollywood.tv, where when asked if his May movie is better he said "nothing is better than Star Trek."
Star Trek in American Cinematographer – Abrams talks lens flares
The cover story for the June issue of American Cinematographer features a cover story on the new Star Trek movie. They extensive article goes into the detail on tools of the trade used to make the film and includes quotes from cinematographer Dan Mindel, gaffer Chris Prampin, production designer Scott Chambliss, visual-effects supervisor Roger Guyett and director J.J. Abrams. TrekMovie has been given an advance look at the cover an story, and of course the subject of the film’s multitude of lens flares is covered and . Abrams tells the mag:
The flares often weren’t made by a light source in the frame, and to me, that implies there’s something extraordinary happening just off camera. It makes me feel like I’m not watching the average moment. And I love the idea of a motif that is so inherently analog and imperfect in its unpredictability; it serves as counterpoint to the sterile, controlled look that so many visual-effects films seem to have.
Dan Mindel and his gaffer, Chris Prampin detail how they achieved the effect by building lights into the set and aiming handheld flashlights down the barrel of the lens. Mindel also notes, "We’ll either get slaughtered by our peers or be really admired for it!"
The June issue of American Cinematographer should appear on newsstands during the last week of May. Additionally, the Star Trek cover story will be posted online at www.theasc.com around the middle of June. Here is a first look at the cover.
Cover (click to enlarge)
New Enterprise – 725.35 meters long?
One question that keeps coming up is, ‘just how big is the new Enterprise? Well Gizmodo says that they have got it confirmed that it is a whopping 725.35 meters long, or over twice as long as the original. Here is an info graphic they crated to help compare it to real and other imagined space vehicles.
Click to bigify at Gizmodo
Wassup Kirk?
The new GQ magazine contains a brief interview with Chris Pine talking about life as the new Kirk, here is an excerpt.
You play Captain James T. Kirk. Any razzing from old friends of late?
It’s pretty f—king inescapable. I play basketball with a bunch of guys at 9:30 a.m. and it’s like, “Yo, wussup, Captain Kirk!” I don’t have a smart comeback yet.
There is also a photo gallery of Chris showing off some summer duds, click image below to check it out.
It’s good to be the Captain
Finally: Sim Trek
In June Electronic Arts releases Sims 3, and to help promote the new game, they have jumped on the Trek buzz bandwagon and created this Star Trek trailer parody
Bits
even more Star Trek stuff
- Film & Video have a detailed article on the effects for Star Trek
- UK promotion: CinemasOnline have a trivia givaway contest for mouse and mousemat
- The Creative Screenwriting Podcast with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (from event we reported on yesterday) is now available at iTunes.
- Tampa Bay Rays pitcher Joe Nelson uses a changeup grip that he is calling ‘The Vulcan’.
Pitch long and prosper Joe
Thanks to Greg, Larry and Raphael
Loading ...
Comments»
I’m gonna look for R2D2 as soon as I see it again. The next time will be my eighth!
135th?
Dang, not 135th.
have no idea where R2 is…maybe in the rubble and debris when entering Vulcan space?
R2D2? Ok, no idea… I remember looking for the Falcon in FC as it was said to have been in the distance of the fleet battle. Never found it for certain though.
Anyone see him, haven’t heard of anyone noticing it?
No, all Lucas does anymore is sh*ty CGI cartoons and two of the worst sci-fi flicks ever to see the screen, (Phantom Menace and Clone Wars). Very sad considering he created 3 of the greatest sci-fi flicks ever, (i’ll let you guess which i’m referring to).
Almost first!!!
Trek Lives STRONG!!!
Ok, I haven’t posted here before but I have to say that the size for the Enterprise just can’t be that big. I mean, c’mon guys you can look at it in some of the shots and see that there’s no way that can be.
I’m tempted to fake a pic of R2D2…at least his dome as the nacelle caps (sorry bussard collectors ;).
I think I just might see the movie one more time to spot R2. Does anyone have any hints?
#8. I agree based of the windows on the rim and the bridge screen/window it looks to be about the same as the original/refit. I also for comparison put the new ent up beside my Asylum 1701 and refit and they seem pretty similarly scaled.
Daaannnnnnngggg look at that Joe Nelson salute. That looks painful!
His nacelles…uhh fingers look too far apart…
OUCH!!!
I have already confirmed that the model won in the ARG game is 1/350 scale. This puts the new Enterprise at the same size as the refit Enterprise.
No no no! Stupid stupid stupid! Enough Star Wars in Star Trek! Star Wars has no business in Trek.
It’s bad enough the Star Wars allusions Abrams put into ST09.
Found him! R2 was there ;)
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/2848/entr2.jpg
I always assumed that the new E is about the same size as the original. And based on the size of the windows compared to the ship as a whole, I think that’s about right.
If it was so huge, like around the size of the D, wouldn’t the windows/portholes appear very tiny? Like, well, on the D.
hate to alarm anyone but the galactica (wee the old one) is 1265 meters long (the new one is 1445 meters) , not 625.
I think the ship was created @ roughly TMP size, and then after someone noticed those huge breweries JJ was shooting in wouldn’t fit inside a 300m Enterprise, they just scaled up the ship to make the interiors fit.
There is NO WAY the new Enterprise is over 700 meters long.
Some of those windows would have to be 10 meters wide, if that were the case.
This isn’t the first time Star Trek and Star Wars have crossed over…
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/c/c9/Akira_and_Millennium_Falcon.jpg
If you compare the shuttlebays on the two Enterprises, the larger scaling makes sense – they’re about the same size, except that the new one is a little larger because it has those extra “shelves” for the shuttles. I can buy the new size as being accurate, even if it’s ridiculous and pretty lame.
Lens flares defended and explained! … And still. Worst. idea. ever.
Joe Nelson’s ta’al is gimped.
Anthony:
Whatever “Gizmodo” is, it sites no sources, and just tosses the pic up with Probert’s refit as tiny and the new E as big. And some ships from other shows. I still think the ship maxes out at 300m. I even chanced upon a Trek ship designer with Pocket (covers and calendars) on the new “CHAT” who says no way is it over 300m in the new flick.
All one has to do is look at the shot of JTK on his motorbike. And it doesn’t double in size from TOS. And my Playmates ‘09′ E is the same size as both TOS models and the TMP model.
Since it is an issue, maybe you could shoot a mail to Ryan Church and ask.
I think the big controversy regarding the size is based on the shuttle bay. The Church Enterprise’s shuttle bay, when the Church E is next to the TMP E looks far smaller than the TMP E’s shuttle bay. Yet, it is plainly a larger bay in the film- rows of shuttles, and shuttles much larger than the old Galileo. Further, due to the window on the bridge, you can see exactly where the bridge sits in the dome- roughly the same level as on the original. Yet, not only is the bridge itself larger than the TMP Enterprise, the doors to the new bridge do not open to just turbolifts, but rather to a series of hallways. That alone should make the dome proportionally larger than the TMP E.
However, the windows on the neck and saucer edge do reflect the original. The CGI model is rendered inconsistently. We will have to wait for an official determination to resolve the problem and hope the issue is fixed in the next film.
Who’d-a thunk it? The R2D2 contest is only open to US citizens. Lovely. Moving on…
#24, did you read the article? It cites “David B. from Bad Robot Productions”. It’s 725.35 meters.
Weerd1:
Once, the E had 203 on board. Then, after “Cage,” without too many changes, it went to 430.
I always defer to my Franz Joseph blueprints from 1975 for complement and size.
Of course, JJ Abrams gave us the Kelvin with over 800 on board, and a super-wide primary hull. E is much smaller in terms of crew complement.
Another indicator might be the pod kirk was ejected in…. when we see it landed its not very big and based on that and the port it was ejected from?
I have my own fanon theory regarding the Kelvin- I think it was a scout preparing for extended exploration at the edge of Federation space. So, it was carrying a colony which it would establish on a planet closer to their mission. That way, when it was time for shore leave, resupply, etc, they could just come back to the supporting colony and not have to come all the way back toward Earth. Naturally, some of the crewmembers would have family on board so they could live in the colony. Hence all the shuttlecraft as well- in case of emergency they would have to evac civilians. (Yeah, I know O and K said Winona was in Starfleet, so where was Sam?) Which colony? Well, Tarsus IV of course…
Love Franz Joseph’s work- I hope something similar comes out for the new universe!
12. Mee
I noticed the same thing. His two middle fingers are splayed almost as wide as his palm. He must have been doing this for a long time to be able to do something like that.
I am going to see the movie tomorrow for a 3rd time and want to see r2d2, i don’t care about the contest if someone knows where he is please comment b4 tomorrow after noon thanks.
Once again, this is the way I looked at the dreaded lens flares.
There’s an old Twilight Zone episode where a scientist (Russell Johnson-the professor from Gilligan’s Island) builds a time machine and inadvertently brings back a cowboy who was about to be hanged. When the bad ass cowboy inevitably kills the scientist, he runs outside and is completely blind sided by all the flashing lights, cars and sounds of 1960’s New York (remember this guy is from the 1800’s where things are dark and quiet) Now imagine one of “us” going over two HUNDRED years into the future. It would be overwhelming! Even now when I look at video games with 20 different things running on the screen at once, 50 years ago that would have been WAY too much to handle. Our frame of reference is in constant flux. Therefore for me, the lens flares artistically represent a visual reminder of how we would ACTUALLY feel in the future…overstimulated by all the flashing lights, sounds, and gadgets.
: )Paul
HA TOLD YA SO! I knew this sucker was huge!!! Could eat a Galaxy class for brunch and chomp on a Nebula for seconds!! where’s JT?? Hat Rick boys??
I guessed 600 meters or so based on my brilliant observations regarding the exposed interior space/ height of the outer saucer rim in the original teaser pics, the various shots of the interior of the new Galactica sized hanger bay, and enourmous engineering, water reclamation, Uhura listening station sets, ect.
Eat crow doubters!!
Bring on the Star Destroyers time to kick some Imperial ass!!!!
Regarding Size
There is no way in hell that the “New” Enterprise is that big. First of all, when Krik ride up to the shipyard it is not that big. When you look out the view screen/window, you can see the saucer section and it’s not very far from the end of it to the bridge. This ship is supposed to be a combination of 1701 Prime and 1701-A. This means that it’s size is somewhere in between. Sure the ship looks big, but it’s not. Also stop comparing your 1701-E models to your 1701 and 1701-A. THEY ARE NO WHERE NEAR EACH OTHER IN SIZE!
1701-E 685 Meters (Memory Alpha)
1701-A 304 Meters (Official 1701 TMP cross-section)
As far as the Kelvin goes, Pike could have been exaggerating in order to encourage Kirk to join Starfleet. Abrams is new at this so he’ll probably re-size the ship once he hears all the feedback from fans
In regards to Lucas
Yeah Lucas would never do Trek because he knows Paramount would say no after all the crap he’s put out. Also the film would suck. Lucas also would never sue because guess who got to do the special effects? ILM a Lucas ltd. company
And the ginormous new bridge cap that is two decks high with enough interior volume for spacious hallways on each side flanking the bridge as well as apparently a large officers lounge as well.
I am right !!!!!!!!!!!! And damn it feels good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are also forgetting in this new Universe they build Starships like they build navel vessels. You can cram 5,000 men on the Carrier CVN-65 and it has less volume than the Refit 1701.
Taking this into account the Kelvin can easily fit 800 men. If the interior of the Refit TMP Enterprise was built according to present day navel specs you could also fit 3 to 4,000 men inside.
The amount of crew has more to do with how the interior is arranged rather than the exterior size.
I get more and more outraged, about the movie and I actualy like it. Do not worry further JJ, you will be slaughtered. I hate the lens flares.
J.J., straighten this mess the hell out and be damn quick about it. How big is it? I’m sick of all these different answers.
31. The article says he has been throwing that pitch for 12 years now, and had to stretch his fingers in the beginning to make it work.
I call shenanigans on the lens flares. And the new 1701 being hat big? No way. Flat out, no way. It’s just ridiculous to even consider they would build it that big. What would be the point?
i’m totally fine with the size increase… bigger is better.
totally awesome!
oh, and i love lens flares… they put you in the action.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/3-enterprises.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm
I don’t see it as being twice the size of the original or sovereign that its being said to be… The bridge seems to sit lower where it would have more room like the BC deck would be on the other ships rather than the smaller dome on top. The window size and placement, docking ports seems to fit with the refit size. I just assume being bulit later it icorporates tech and design that would be used in the next class ships like the later refit from the original timeline.
LOL. That size comparison chart is hilarious.
#43 -
honestly, u’re not helping by giving JJ Abrams mixed signals.
The new Enterprise being that big would make the windows on it 2 storeys high, which is kindof ridiculous. It would also make the new enterprise bigger than Galaxy class starship and D’Deridex class Romulan Warbird. Which would make the Narada puny. These guys don’t know their Trek. And I’m getting this bad feeling that they don’t even care as long as they have their blockbuster “movie”.
ABRAAAAMMMMSSS!
It just irks me so much that we even have to have these conversations. Why would they make such a ridiculously– hahaha, sorry, got to stem my laughter for a second– ahem. Why would they make such a ridiculously sized Enterprise?? #45, yes!! And it just leads to more inconsistency and incoherence in their movie: #29 that’s right about the escape pod’s size! and #47 yes, two story high windows? I bet that’ll be cinematic, watching a little ant scurrying around inside… but no, then they’ll just change it again! Holy. And why– why! would anybody slop up his prized movie with camera flares and glare? This is dumbfounding. All of this.
And meanwhile there’s an R2D2 hidden in the movie? OMG, is there anything less freaking important??
How the hell is this new Connie larger than a Sovereign or a Galaxy class for that matter? I like the ship as much as Scotty but I dont feel that’s right. But, I guess thats what you get when you mess up the timeline.
What the heck? 725.35 meters long?
That would be even longer than the Sovereign class, that’s ridiculous!
Well, R2 was hidden in MI3, too, after all.
And if you look close you find a lot of anamorphic lens flares in FRINGE.
That is a pattern.
#51, the key word “if you look close”… in ST we didn’t even have to be looking at the screen to see them!
The Moore Galactica is 1,4 kilometers long.
Obviously the Enterprise in the new movie is big- how else would you have fit 10,000 Vulcan refugees in it…
I like it- it shows that Abrams and Co. knows how epic Star Trek should be and they have delivered. The Narada must be the size of a small moon but since it was originally a mining ship then its plausible.
@54…
I think the Vulcan survivors travelled by other means…
The registry for the new E in this comp-chart is wrong. There’s not supposed to be an “A” yet…
Wow, I am a nitpicker….. Damn…
Give it a rest guys, it is a fantastic movie, let us just enjoy it!
Just like Saving Private Ryan made shaky cam popular know this new Star Trek will bring in the cinematic era of the lens flare. I like it the future is for JJ is so bright he has to wear shades.
Its hard to say with the scale of the new E. In some ways it looks like its roughly the same size of the first, the center of the saucer seems to be 2 decks, the bridge is a bit bigger, but still. But then you have the shuttle bay, something that has like 10 shuttles in it where the old one had maybe 2. Idk, maybe JJ considered setting a scale too technical? But then again, if the Kelvin had 800 people on board, twice what the first E had, well maybe they suddenly make them closer to Galaxy Class size back then. I think he should have just kept the size the same, though, and then he would have had to of actually built a set for engineering instead of the epic failure that was the budwiser plant.
I don’t understand why a big E is ridiculous. The Enterprise is Starfleet’s flagship. It’s supposed to be the biggest, most powerful ship available.
There have been numerous sources giving numerous sizes. ILM gives one figure, Bad Robot gives another, etc. However, the fan consensus seems to be 300 meters as that is what it most closely matches. On Doug Drexler’s blog, under the tile “Holy Cow!” this debate has been on going. Ex-Astris-Scientia.org has the figure at 300 meters and clearly explains why. One fan however, disagrees with Ex-Astris-Scientia and agrees with Bad Robot. I have a feeling that this is a debate that will be ongoing. That said, I side with the 300 meter figure as it is not insanely large, like other sci-fi ships (i.e. B5 and Star Wars), and I got the impression that it was about the same size as the Constitution Class we all know, just redesigned. Further, the window placement is very similar to that of the TMP Enterprise. If this Enterprise is over seven hundred meters, then the TMP Enterprise would have to be as well. The best fit is the 300 meters figure, IMO. However, we should all keep in mind that since no figure was ever mentioned in the film, neither what Bad Robot or ILM say are canon. Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the matter.
I’ve no clue what the gentleman who made that gizmodo chart was thinking but I think he is way off , and here’s why . Look at the docking ports on the engineering hull of the TWOK DST Enterprise and the Playmates Enterprise , they are nearly the same size !
Each docking port is roughly 7 foot tall , allowing a 6 foot man to pass through without needing to duck , so do the math from there and you’ll have your answer .
Size of the Enterprise? Seriously? Because we think some art school grads are going to take reality over whatever image they want to put on the big screen?
This is the topic the mainstream media should mine for all the grumbling they can’t seem to find!
#54: “Obviously the Enterprise in the new movie is big- how else would you have fit 10,000 Vulcan refugees in it…”
I didn’t get any idea that the Enterprise was successful in rescuing 10,000 Vulcans. In fact, I had the impression the Vulcan elders were the only ones who survived via the Enterprise’s assistance… perhaps (perhaps off camera, some Vulcan ships and shuttles were able to leave in time as well).
I had the general idea it more likely that the more than 10,000 Vulcans were off-world (for example, traders, off-world teachers, ambassadors and their staffs on other UFP posts, etc.), at the time their homeworld was destroyed.
Joe Nelson does NOT pitch for the Hi-Def dvd format. He Pitches for the Tampa Bay Rays…formerly Devil Rays.
The Enterprise seemed to be about the same size as the original/refit when looking at the shots of it in the movie… such as when Kirk is driving around the shipyards, or when a shuttle left the bay etc. If it’s bigger than the Enterprise-E…well, that’s kind of rediculous really.
Also, how come the Romulans in this film don’t have the head ridges?
The docking ports on the neck of the ship are the clue to the size of a man to the ship. Think people. Otherwise in this timeline the people are giants compared to humans in the original series timeline.
#66 “Also, how come the Romulans in this film don’t have the head ridges?”
They shouldn’t have them in TNG, so the error has been corrected :)
#68
They dont have ridges because it is a alternate timeline. Look at Kirk, he has a mole below his right sideburn. In TOS he had no mole.
#54 says: “I like it- it shows that Abrams and Co. knows how epic Star Trek should be and they have delivered.”
And just imagine these creative improvements to other film franchises! Bring on the age of the epic, bay-bee!
* Star Wars: New pre-pre-prequels satisfyingly epic thanks to 9-foot lightsabers!
* Spider-Man: Audiences moved to tears by epic scale of Mary Jane’s new breast implants!
* Pirates of the Carribbean: New, more-epic Kraken blots out 84% of the sky when rising from the briny deep, instead of chintzy, not-sufficiently-epic 71%.
* Back to the Future: Long-awaited sequel electrifies audience with new, epic 4.42 gigawatts time-travel requirement! (and thanks to tested and successful science, new plotline in no way invalidates original trilogy)
* Lord of the Rings: “Hobbit” a moving and epic spectacle on a never-before seen scale as Hobbits now average nearly 6 feet tall!
* Indiana Jones: Twice as elderly means TWICE AS EPIC. Bring it on, Nazi wheelchair bastards.
#68 “They dont have ridges because it is a alternate timeline. Look at Kirk, he has a mole below his right sideburn. In TOS he had no mole.”
What?? This is a disaster!
Obviously, no one in this time line/universe configuration is aware that Spock Prime also brought back his “Green Screen Matter” (Patent Pending) and delivered it to the Star Fleet Shipyards CEO Shaamgtir M’rok (Sha Mrok to friends) in an earlier time trip, the one where he leaked the plans for Enterpise E in a deliberate violation of the Prime Directive. H…..
(Little known but true, it turns out Sha M’rok and Spock attended the same radical political meetings during their second year graduate programs and had a hot little xenoligua in common on alternate weekends.)
Anyway, Green Screen Matter is an amazing material that can change to anything you need at any moment. In my universe/timeline, the HoloTV jingle is well known, “Big, small, short, or tall Green Screen Matter Does It All. Works well and is fully compatible with Lens Flares (TM) and is especially good for Space Vehicle construction!” Some bearded guy named Billy something does to commercial announcement.
Now you know how the new E does it all.
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
#66 “If it’s bigger than the Enterprise-E…well, that’s kind of rediculous really.”
Yeah; given that we see the ship mainly in space, or at a distance, or otherwise in shots that offer no real sense of scale [stacks of shuttles being the standout exception], if they really did double the size of the ship it’s a very special achievement, proving that something can be simultaneously gratuitous _and_ invisible. If you think about it, that’s kind of impressive, in a way.
I, personally, loved the lens flares and the shaky cam. Made the movie feel real and is one reason for people liking it!
Personally, I think it’s absurd to suggest that the new Enterprise is any big than the TOS or TMP Enterprise; I would suggest that they are all the same size, but that’s just my opinion….
The ship is the same size as the refit constitution. If it was galaxy class sized then all the other ships would be dwarfed by the Enterprise which the aren’t.
Enough of the ridiculous dimensions.
Don’t be ridiculous if the big E was that big compared to the original everyone would be walking around half the size of there normal selves.
I just don’t see that size, when you look at it in the film it looks normal size compared to other versions, I don’t care what some stupid diagram says in the film it looks fine.
I don’t own the model but doesn’t have a scale on the box like cars do, I think one of my enterprise boxes says 1:350 or something, if it is the same scale as the other models then its the same.
#76: “The ship is the same size as the refit constitution.”
That’s how I see it, too. I think they just took some artistic license rendering the shuttle bay and thought racks of shuttles would look cool. But I imagine that eventually we’ll get an official call on it (if it really is Galaxy-scaled, I have a stack of snide jokes in a snide-joke-warmer right by the computer).
#74: “I, personally, loved the lens flares and the shaky cam. Made the movie feel real [...]”
If the real world seems shaky and flaring with extra lights, you may be experiencing an allergic reaction to the new Star Trek. Discontinue use immediately, and consult a physician.
#47
The D’deridex is over a kilometre long
You all are nuts. Get a frinken life already. ITS JUST A MOVIE!!!! I liked the new Star Trek, but my gosh, who the hell cares how big the ship is. Instead nit picking every little thing, just go and watch a movie for enjoyment. You will either like it or not. Be happy, JJ gave us another Star Trek movie to watch.
As far as the size of the E is concerned, I really don’t see how it matters “in universe”. In space, it doesn’t matter how big the thing is, since there is no gravity to add stress to a larger structure. The only issue is getting it off the ground originally, since this timeline shows it built on the ground, but presumeably, any technology capable of raising a 300 m ship would have no trouble with a 700m ship. It’s really just a choice a filmaker or storyteller has, and I don’t see why it matters, unless, visually the scale is clearly not right when compared to something of known size.
I am no engineer, or visual artist, but I would think it would be possible to deduce the scale from the film, because there is a seen that begins in the bridge, clearly showing people, then it zooms outside the viewport and shows the ship from the outside(it’s that shot where it appears from the camera’s perspective to be upside-down). It’s a moving shot, of course, and would be difficult to measure unless you could isolate the image digitally and do some measurements. But there you do have a clear shot of a person and the window in the same frame, and could compare the window to the actual ship and calculate the size of the thing. I’m not smart enough to do that, but I have no doubt someone on this site could.
As far as lens flares, they don’t bother me, since you see them in real life, when you’re driving your car and you get glare on your windshield, or glare on your window at home, or since I wear glasses, just at random times.
Abrams didn’t invent the technique, I’ve seen it at various times in movies for decades. Admittedly, he used it more than I can remember seeing before, but he didn’t invent it.
Just as a recent example, I just watched the original Planet of the Apes, since I saw ST, so I was thinking about it. There were lens flares in the 1960’s movie. Not a lot, granted, but they were there.
In my opinion, it reflects an attempt to make the scene look realistic, like news footage, instead of a “crafted” image. Some may find it annoying, but it’s a valid choice.
My wife normally hates “trendy” techniques like that, when they stick out. But she didn’t even realize the lens flares were there, until I asked her if they bothered her. She hadn’t even noticed them, because in most cases, they “made sense” within the scene.
the ship is not that big anyone can see it is just a little beefed up in design- maybe its a little longer.
I loved the film- some production issues- which could have been fixed if anyone consulted anyone with knowlege on star trek design…
im fine with the flares and i was ok with the redressed real locations for engenering untill the wide shots of kirk being led away by security guard cupcake- it looks cheap tacky and doesnt fit for scale- not to mention embarassing for a $150 million doller film not to have all the sets required built and resort to redressing a brewery? omg wtf?
The tmp engenering was the heart of the enterprise- this one feels a bit heartless- has anyone reminded abrams of a thing called digital matt paintings?
as for the shuttle bay- they just crammed it all in there and made good use of space- the old e was very spacious- lots of waisted space.
and as for corridors around the bridge- look at spocks arrival in star trek the motion picture- they just lowered the bridge into the biger dome and put a bubble ontop wher the old bridge was- for protection i guess its more ecure not floating ontop to be shot at…
#80 “You all are nuts. Get a frinken life already. ITS JUST A MOVIE!!!!.”
How I miss the threads about barcode scanners… ;)
@61 “fan consensus”
ahahahaha! nice one! as if such a thing will ever exist! xD
I love how so many people treat this like the bible… like because they believe the ship should be one way, that that’s the absolute truth and nothing can change that, even if there’s hard evidence staring them in the face…
anyway, just because the ship is longer than the Galaxy-class, doesn’t make it bigger. the sizes of the parts are different for one thing. the Galaxy saucer is around 450m wide while this new Enterprise’s saucer is probably about 300m wide. also the Galaxy has a wide neck and wide secondary hull. these are things most of you aren’t taking into account… plus the fact that the warp engines make up a lot of the length. I would estimate the secondary hull to be around 200-250m long, which isn’t really all THAT big especially considering it’s not terribly wide, and it has a huge undercut. the new E might be longer ’cause of the nacelles but that doesn’t make the ship bigger than the Galaxy.
the windows, which are pretty much the only argument I’ve heard from the 300m crowd, might be larger than the original, sure, but that doesn’t mean they’re super huge. they occupy one band in the edge, which is probably a deck. so I’d estimate about 6 decks in that part of the saucer, which is about right for a 300m wide saucer of that configuration. there wouldn’t be a zillion decks in the saucer at that size, nor would the windows be 2+ decks high. -_-
possible explanation for the size increase: decreased technological level, possibly due to someone who died on the Kelvin being important to the development of duotronics. could be someone who was close to Daystrom, causing him to lose focus or quit altogether. could’ve been Daystrom himself, or someone who helped him or improved on his work. could be a number of things, that’s the thing about changing the past; one sneeze and a million years later it’s raining donuts. :P it doesn’t take much for things to snowball. but anyway, if Daystrom never developed Duotronics, then perhaps things couldn’t be automated as much or as well, causing an increase in crew size and equipment. … there’s a zillion possible explanations that can work fine, but people would rather use their imagination to invent new ways to gripe about mundane things or to invent excuses to keep ‘holy’ details such as ship size within their comfort zones. -_-
Damn! Look at that finger spread on Tampa Bay Blue Ray pitcher Joe Nelson. He could have been a pianist or string bass player with a reach like that. He’s got a two and a half octave reach there. That’s inhuman. Who can do that?
I wasn’t originally remotely convinced about the ship’s size. But having spent 90 thread pages batting the evidence we can glean back and forth, I’m thoroughly convinced that it’s at least twice the length of the NCC-1701-A. And that’s just dandy. :3
I think i saw r2d2 beating into Kirk in the Iowa bar fight. Easy to miss though.
#3 I think you might be on the right track, didn’t the writers say that there was an Easter egg in the debris field?
I have to say, thank God Lucas wouldn’t do Star Trek!
Oh I am sure that’s a mistake about the size, that makes it longer than the Sovereign class Enterprise E
And the Galxy class were meant to be the biggest starships at it’s time.
It doesn’t matter because the new movie is in a parallel timeline and it did not ruin my enjoyment of the film. But I think someone got the scale off
I love the people who get pissy about people net-picking stuff. People do that in all movies! I think its fun. Also love the get a life! Yet you had to read all the comments to see that everybody is talking about the ship size? then you need a life lol!
Its sad to see some of the weaker minded people here saying Big is better (must be making up for something else huh?). So you didn’t like star trek until they made things bigger? Stuff blows up more often? Sad.
well i’ve seen the film 5 times now (three days in a row for the last 3 viewings!) and I haven’t spotted R2 yet! Not that I’ve been looking lol.
Chris looking very dapper in that picture. Its a measure of what a good job Pine did that I can’t imagine anybody else in the role of young Kirk now!
I’ll repeat it again in case they didn’t see it first time- JJ, Roberto (particularly Roberto as I have been less than generous to you at times on here) and Alex, and all concerned with the production of this film, you did one hell of a fine job.
Thank you so very much for all your hard work.
R2D2? Interesting. With a tribble in the cage above his desk, Scotty (on iced-over Delta Vega) has a lot of “stuff” lying around that desk! He must have fallen asleep playing with the toy, I would imagine. The toy R2D2 is right there — perhaps one of many toys Scotty took a liking to, as an engineer*. Maybe he likes old-Earth movies, particularly ‘vintage’ (as of the 23rd century) Sci-Fi movies, and “Star Wars” happens to be one of those. Let’s see the film again and see – and grin as wide as Dr. Phlox discovering a medical revelation.
*Actor James Doohan was into trains, and I’m also considered a “railfan” — and have such models around. Why would that human tradition end? I think it would go on forever. (Witness Jeordi’s ship in the bottle, in that episode of TNG…..)
@15: OK, that was hilarious!
“Oh I am sure that’s a mistake about the size, that makes it longer than the Sovereign class Enterprise E
And the Galxy class were meant to be the biggest starships at it’s time”
Guys, how many times will boborci need to repeat it: different universes…
BTW, am I weaker minded just because I like the bigger Enterprise better? Geez, we ST fans deserve all the bad publicity we get…
Ok, perhaps this long time fan (born the same year Star Trek premiered) doesn’t get it: Why is it such a big deal to all of you if the Enterprise is bigger? My feeling is that in this alternate timeline, everything is a bit bigger and a bit more badass. If I was Starfleet and I’d lost a ship in the way they lost the Kelvin, I’d be making things bigger and badder if possible. It’s still MUCH smaller than the Narada, but if you look, the Kelvin is tiny vs. Narada compared to the Enterprise. I’m just fine with that. It may also explain the immense size of our favorite moonshine factory….errr…engineering AND might explain the numerous “cores” being ejected at the end of the movie. Everything is just bigger and badder. The one thing that DID suprise me is that the bridge seemed much smaller than I expected it would be in this movie. Not complaining, was just pleasantly surprised that it still felt like it was around the size we all are used to.
I personally don’t nitpick because I need a life, I nitpick because I enjoy Star Trek. This wouldn’t be the first time Trek was inconsistent about the size of a ship (see Ex-Astris-Scientia’s diatribe on the Klingon Bird of Prey) and I am sure it won’t be the last. The next time it happens, I plan to debate that with fellow Techie Trekkies as well.
I also nitpick politics, the Bible, my kids’ grades, and the technical data relating to my job. As a technical report editor I look at the details all day. It’s nice to nitpick something which won’t have life or death consequences if I miss a detail! A friend of mine thinks its why I love ST:TMP so much; it’s basically flight recorder data, and I love in depth military documents!
Now- I am going to chart my own course here. I don’t think the new E is as big as Gizmodo says, but I think it’s bigger than the classic Enterprise. If you compare the shuttle bay heights rather than the saucer size, you can see the bay on the new E is smaller proportionally to the rest of the ship. If you increase it to the size of the TMP E, then you get a ship roughly 1/3 larger, or around 400-425 meters. Bigger, based on the perceived new Romulan threat exposed in 2233 and tech advancements gleaned from the Kelvin’s scans of Narada, but not ridiculously huge. So there!
Anyone have any Friday box office numbers yet?
I must be very unsophisticated, but I don’t know what the hell a lens flare is. I thought maybe I saw something that could be described as that in the movie, but only ONCE. Why is there such a big deal being made?
I actually happened to see R2D2 last night by pure luck – and not in the scene I was expecting. It goes by VERY quickly, and you can literally blink and miss it.
Saw the movie for the second time last night though – I honestly was on the fence about the movie after the first viewing, but loved it 10 times more the second viewing – I just ignored the plot holes and really enjoyed it. The theatre was actually almost full, and was pretty surprised since my theatre had 4 showings all within 20 minutes of each other, and this one was the third showing.
If you don’t want to wait for AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER to read about those megastupid lens flares, then go to:
http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2009/05/12/where-no-dp-has-gone-before/
for their cover story on TREK.
Ok. I have seen it 5 times now and I will now be looking for r2d2. Ok. Im 135th Ha Ha!!
I think the lens flares adds to the movie and i think they should keep that as well for the Next Trek Movie.
Back in the 70’s and 80’s, cruise ships averaged 30,000 to 50,000 tons…..then they built the first ships called mega liners at 75,000 tons and up to 90,000 tons. Around 2000, the first “Voyager” class ship from Royal Caribbean came out and she was 138,000 tons….people could not beleive it….then they upsized the design to 160,000 tons with the “Freedom” class ships and now, in late 2009, Royal Caribbean is launching Oasis of the Seas at a whopping 220,000 tons and she will carry around 6000 pax and crew. In the short span of 30 years, cruise ships are being built more than 5 times the size they were…..I realize this is not really relevant to Star Ship construction, but don’t think it would be impossible to build bigger….although to me, this is a matter of scale in the film when looking at the overall ship and then the details such as windows, bay size, escape pod hatch…I understand why we want these to match…because that is what Trekkers do….lol….
I’ll look for the droid tonight. I think ST will beat Angel & Demons for the weekend.
Ok Jeremy, come clean! Where was R2?!?!?!
Well the ILM Model Supervisor says the new Enterprise is 600 metres. Here is the article, http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/Reinventing-Star-Treks-VFX_10905.html
So in total with the completely inconsistent sizes given by various sources, touting that it is 900 metres(from the Post Magazine), 725 metres (Bad Robot productions)and 600 metres(ILM Model Supervisor), who on earth do we believe? We need some clarification, some final say. Not ridiculous inconsistencies. Personally I agree most with the ILM Supervisor, and so do the movie visuals.
I tend to side with those that think the Big E is roughly the same size as the Classic Trek Enterprise, But that’s just based on the drawing, which seems to indicate similar window placement/spacing.
As far as R2D2 goes, I would say that the bar would be the best place to organically put him. The bar was filled with space items (photo of Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, starship salt shaker, etc.). Just a suggestion.
look back to the very first teaser trailor with the construction of the enterprise, see the size of the little people walking atop the bridge dome.
Quite clearly this enterprise is much bigger than the 1701 A, as per when the bridge crew were walking on the edge of the saucer section.
Having R2D2 in the movie is utterly pathetic. It’s pandering to Star Wars fans, something Star Trek sound absolutely never ever do. It’s a completely different caliber. The general audience might like it, if they even spot him, but Trekkies sure as hell feel sold out. We, or at least I, don’t want a ”merging” of franchises no matter how ”cute”. It’s distasteful.
ILM built the CGI model therefore the source which states the Enterprise is 600 metres must be the most reliable one. The ILM Supervisor should sure as hell know what size the model is meant to be. He isn’t a clueless moron. He must have accurate dimensions.
#110 – where they’ve placed him, it’s completely harmless and does not detract from the movie in any way. And I don’t think it’s pandering to Star Wars fans…just an easter egg.
34, I don’t have a problem with a larger Enterprise. I don’t know why you would seem to think I do. I actually don’t mind if it’s 3,000 feet long. At the Star Trek Movie forums, I expressly stated that based on comparisons between the bridge window and the viewscreen, the is probably either 2,500 feet or 3,000 feet long.
Typo: I meant that the new ship is probably either 2,500 feet or 3,000 feet long.
The problem is, from what I’ve read across several Trek forums, including the Official site a lot of fans do have a problem with its ludicrous size. I never said you did. I take comfort from what the ILM Supervisor said. Everyone else seems to be plucking insanely measured figures from the top of their heads. There is no chance that the new Enterprise is larger than a Sovereign class. Obviously certain members of the production crew haven’t done their homework, or they don’t care. The Enterprise is the holy grail of Star Trek, to mess with that, you are of course risking affecting many, many fans.
I think haveing the R2D2 in the movie is ok. it is in a classic bar with classic items and in the 23rd century it would be a classic item as well since it is a Movie Icon from the 20th century. Just like Kirks Car that he drove and the Bike. Kirk did have a fondness for Antiques and R2D2 is an Antique Item especially in the 23rd century.
It doesnt matter how long it is or how long its supposed to be
This movie is a reboot disguised as a parallel universe contiuum thingy –
everything is out the window except for the character’s names and the number 1701
115, I agree that there is discomfort with the new length. This discomfort is noticeable and valid. My position is: IDIC.
The issue, I think, should be settled, and I will not be displeased one way or another.
Perhaps, in this case, IDIC should stand for: Indefinite Dimensions in Infinite Combinations.
118, I concur, the debate should be settled. An accurate size across the board even if it is hard to adjust to, should be clarified universally.
Over $100 million in its first week, I am beyond happy. Some say Star Trek is back…Star Trek never left! I have seen it twice (once in IMAX) and I plan to see it at least 3 more times. This movie is fantastic, it not like its done and over when you leave the theatre, you are still trying to digest what you just saw, all great movies do that.
Perhaps they are trying to reconcile the canon issue brought up in ST5, when it was revealed that hte ship had 78 or so decks?
But seriously, I hope this is resolved soon and not shown to be some length pulled out of thin air, os somewhere less illuminated, if you know what I mean.
Not the first time SW has shown up in a Trek movie as an easter egg. Remember the Millinium Falcon in First Contact? Reallly.
The article which discusses ILM is a little all over the map too. It says the Big E grew from “1300 to 2000 feet”. Well, the original ship was 947 feet, a tad under 1000. ILM would have a 54% increase in size if they truly believed the 1300 number. That would mean – at most – a ship that is about 1500 feet long.
Since the shuttle bay, the windows, the airlocks – in fact virtually EVERYTHING seems in keeping with the original scale of the ship from the Prime Universe, I think that a size between 1100 and 1500 is okay due to the longer nacelles. (Unless in this universe the average height of a human is 12 feet.)
ILM is really good at SFX. They are really lousy at ship design, though. So I’d take what they say with a large grain of salt.
Yeah but I imagine R2D2 is perhaps more noticeable in this film compared to the pea sized Millennium Falcon we saw in one battle scene in First Contact. Especially if he is in the bar, he would of course be the full sized R2D2 lurking in a corner. Unless he is a salt shaker.
Dang, that’s big.
So, Rick Sternbach, there’s your answer. But, here’s a question, why make it so big? Really? The original size was fine.
I said in my post it doesn’t matter because it is an alternate parallel timeline. I loved the film.
Just saying it seems like a big jump in size
#125: I still don’t think we have any definitive answer at all.
On another note: the reviews of the new film (which I thought was great) I REALLY want to hear are from Okuda, Sternbach, and Berman. Those would be interesting.
Pine / Kirk only has the mole in some shots
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/disappointing-angels-weekend-predictions-of-50sm-revised-down-to-40sm-star-trek-on-track-for-36m/
Friday Box Office Numbers.
Angels & Demons beats Star Trek.
McG was quite gracious in that video in his praise of Star Trek and of Abrams.
And he also looks a LOT like Danny McBride haha.
The lens flares were a stylistic choice that really did work.
(#103- In agreement.)
After seeing the movie again, I’m even more impressed with the cinematic direction JJ took the look of the film, which was carried through to ILM’s effects. It was all executed with an artist’s eye the likes of which has not been seen since the work of Douglas Trumbull, or since perhaps the look of The Right Stuff.
The “space” movie will never be the same!
In the Gizmodo article, they clearly have the TMP Enterprise scaled wrong, they have a scale of 288 metres when it is actually 305 metres in length. Do they do their homework at all. I mean if you want to do a comparison chart, at least have the decency to get the basic scales correct.
@ 133 “at least have the decency to get the basic scales correct”
- And the registries also for that matter. I mean, come on 1701-A? It’s obvious this comparison chart wasn’t well conceived. I don’t care who made it, it’s just plain inaccurate.
If J.J. doesn’t direct the next movie, I wonder if they’ll get rid of the lens flares. I hope Nicholas Meyer gets a shot at the next one.
Trek has overtaken “Wolverine” in the US for the first seven days, but “W” has clobbered it overseas. Trek’s overseas numbers are at under $50m, and its total today is $154m as opposed to W’s $259m (Box Office Mojo).
135 – I’m not sure where Wolverine has opened overseas, and this probably wouldn’t be enough to make up for it anyway, but Star Trek only just opened i places like Japan and China.
You can put me among those for whom the lens flares worked (although I certainly understand that some cinematic effects can take some out of a movie. The changing frame rate in Private Ryan did that for me.) In fact, the whole movie worked for me – if i had one nit it would be the engine room of the Enterprise.
But with so many rich emotional moments even that didn’t bother me.
I am filled with gratitude to the film-makers for getting the Star Trek movie I’ve been waiting and hoping for for many years. So glad to see Nimoy again, so happy to see him treated as the icon he is. I hope they find a way to keep him (and bring in William Shatner) for a much hoped for sequel.
130 – while I wouldn’t be surprised at those box office numbers, those are basically an estimate of an estimate. The actual estimates for Friday aren’t out yet I don’t think
#125 – I agree with 127; we don’t have an authoritative answer at all. It’s almost as if there’s a shadow ARG in operation to let us all stew about it and make our calculations, and finally someone will come out and speak the actual length. At which point we’ll get all Invader Zim on them and say “You Lie!” :D Personally, I’m going to enjoy a nice SoCal Saturday and get ready for this afternoon’s block party.
#128 – Hate the lens flares.
The MSM portrayal of “hardcore” Star Trek fans is bang-on. They’re unable to handle such ~bizarre concepts~ such as “style” or “change” or “fun”. They get their kicks by debating ~important issues~ like the relative size of the enterprise or the shades of various costumes.
My guess is that they are this angry and anal all the time, which explains why they have so much time alone to post long diatribes on inconsequential BS whilst fondling their phasers in the dark.
William Shatner is too self deprecating and self aware to portray Kirk. Besides having him show up would violate his death in Generations in the Prime Time line, it would diminish a moving and appropriate death. Nimoy is still very much the same iconic Spock we have always known, he doesn’t detract the audience away from the new cast. To have Shatner in the sequel would not be tacky. Let the new crew have a film on their own, they deserve it. We have had the Nimoy (classic actor) send off, now let them be on their own.
*would be tacky.
sorry about the typos. it’s cold in here and i shake.
They could have theoretically had him in this movie without violating canon – in the scene where Pine is given the shot and his hands swell up, they could have gone further and had him age and bloat so he would briefly appear as Shatner’s Kirk. In keeping with the context of the scene Shatner could have been self deprecating in a humourous scene withoutout pandering to canon issues.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/15/r2-d2-in-star-trek-astronaut-to-watch-new-star-trek-movie-in-space/
Nice story about Trek on the ISS
#37 – “You can cram 5,000 men on the Carrier CVN-65 and it has less volume than the Refit 1701.”
Perhaps so, cut the CVN-65 does not have to provide those 5,000 men with a closed, self sustaining nitrogen-oxygen environment for several months at a time.
I think Abrams’s explanation for the lens flares is pretty solid myself.
They kept the movie from being overwhelmed by the CGI and having that sterile videogame look of the SW prequels. It helped make this world feel like a REAL environment for once– instead of just a bunch of movie sets intercut with flashy special effects sequences.
Everything felt much better integrated.
146 – and I think they keyword for the CNV-65 is this: “cram” Aircraft carriers are basically as he described it crammed living quarters and a hanger bay with a landing strip on top.
I think we can all say that the Enterprise’s crew isn’t necessarily “crammed” and the ship appears to have a heck of a lot more things in it than I would imagine an aircraft carrier having.
#37 – “You can cram 5,000 men on the Carrier CVN-65 and it has less volume than the Refit 1701.”
Perhaps so, cut the CVN-65 does not have to provide those 5,000 men with a closed, self sustaining nitrogen-oxygen environment for several months at a time.
=============================================
Actualy in the event of a nuclear strike – it does.
Well Show Biz Data just posted some numbers, but something is obviously wrong. They have Monsers vs. Aliens #1 (with Angels and Demons no where to be found) with about 1,000 more theaters listed than even Angels & Demons have…so obviously a boo-boo there. Don’t know if the actual $$ is right or not, though.
Great, they forgot to put the SDF-1 on that chart. Now continuuity’s ruined for me, for all time!!!! Waaaaa!!!!!
#128: “I REALLY want to hear are from Okuda, Sternbach, and Berman.”
why?
#68 “They dont have ridges because it is a alternate timeline. Look at Kirk, he has a mole below his right sideburn. In TOS he had no mole.”
Romulans in this movie came from Prime. Oops. Your bad.
#80 “ITS JUST A MOVIE!!!! I liked the new Star Trek, but my gosh, who the hell cares how big the ship is. Instead nit picking every little thing, just go and watch a movie for enjoyment. You will either like it or not.”
Trouble is, if we don’t discuss these things and explore the movie, we certainly won’t get any explanation FROM the movie. I’ve liked the movie more only BECAUSE of discussions, because fans are debating and giving me the answers the movie has not. You’re right, I could very well say I did not like the movie and that it’s visuals were irritating, and the logical and narrative holes were despicable, completely unacceptable– except, I guess, in Star Trek. I could say that. But I won’t. Instead, let’s talk about it.
#137 “if i had one nit it would be the engine room of the Enterprise.”
you know, I am probably in the vast minority and I am not going to say my position is at all right, but I wanted to relay it. I loved the new Engineering. Not because it looked like a brewery or because I couldn’t see any of the engineering components besides a giant coolant system that didn’t appear to be attached to anything….. but because of the lighting near the end. It reminded me of an ending summer’s day. The orange quality to it was really touching and very impressive. It was the one and only time I wasn’t being frustrated by the illumination… and it soothed me. yay.
Ok…these numbers look realistic.
Angels & Demons was #1 Friday w/ $16.6 million (vs. Star Trek’s $26.9 million, Wolverine’s #34.4 million, and The Da Vinci Code’s $28.6 million opening day).
Star Trek rolls in at a relatively close 2nd at $11.9 million, a drop of 66% from Friday, which is a bit steeper drop that I’d like to see and if right, we’re probably looking at a sub $30 million weekend.
http://www.showbizdata.com/dailybox.cfm
This makes Star Trek the biggest Star Trek movie domestically ever, and should push it to #6 on the year ahead of Watchmen.
Dissimilar hull shapes make any length comparison versus crew compliment comparisons with modern aircraft carriers irrelevant. Having no real knowledge of what the support machinery for a 23rd Century starship either looks or is shaped like makes it even more irrelevant.
Comparing the secondary hulls of the TMP and Church Enterprise shows us the new one is proportionately thinner compared to the rest of the ship’s length. Make the assumption the shuttle bay is no SMALLER than the TMP Enterprise, and you have to increase the size of the ship. If you make them the same size, the new ship lengthens out to about 385 meters, making it larger so it matches the increased interior set size, yet not so big as to be ridiculous nor screw up window comparisons.
Something else to consider- Nero’s time incursion is different than what we have seen previously, possibly due to the nature of either the Hobus Star’s subspace instability or the nature of Red Matter. Hence, the quantum doubling rather than the simple jump to the past. Since this type of incursion is unprecedented, it is possible that the Narada’s arrival is the CENTER of the disturbance rather than the start point. Since we are already talking about ships being thrown physically into the past, further ripples may have been sent further back down the timeline. We’re talking quantum physics like Picard experienced in All Good Things- the cause does not have to occur before the effect in linear time. Assuming symmetry (and that is a huge assumption), since the cause begins in 2387, and extends to the Narada’s arrival in 2233, there should also be a major event of some sort in 2079 (154 years earlier) and 2208 (the mirror point from Spock’s arrival). Either of those could have had a significant effect changing the new timeline even further from the Prime timeline.
The New Enterprise can’t be that big. Look at the size of the windows compared to the TMP Enterprise. They must be huge floor to ceiling panoramic windows!
Lens flares were amazing. Get with it, old school trekkies. The blocky styles are gone.
You wanted a new movie, you got it.
There won’t be a movie that brings Picard, Pulaski, Crusher, Data, Lore, Locutus, Troi, Riker, Troi and Riker love child, Worf, Alexander, Ogawa, Guinan, Ro Laren, Laforge, Sela, Tomalak, Q, Janeway, Paris, Chakotay, Seven, Kes, Neelix, Kim, Torres, Doctor, Tuvok, Naomi Wildman, Ricky Redshirt, Sisko, Kira, Jake, Jadzia, Ezri, Nog, Quark, Rom, Leeta, Dukat, Weyoun, Odo, Damar, Winn, Kirk, Uhura, Scotty, Carol Marcus, Sulu, Chekov, Spock, Khan, Harry Mudd, and the entire Enterprise crew in a blast-off adventure where they all take down a giant galactic threat of unknown proportions with special guest star Fuzzy the Tribble.
It’s not going to happen. Unrealistic expectations (not hopes or idealist fantasy, actual expectations of a movie) are indicators of unhealthy emotional or mental stability.
Get over it. Nitpick for fun, not for real. That’s creepy.
Like the flares or not, they are there and won’t be released in a ‘non-lens-flare’ version of the DVD with special guest star Patrick Stewart as Picard who sings vaudeville on the bridge.
Serious comments of hatred towards a HOLLYWOOD MOVIE INDUSTRY as if it were a religious institution like the ones above are why people think fans of Star Trek are insane.
#157 “Lens flares were amazing. The blocky styles are gone. ”
This movie has raised the bar in terms of visuals and cinematics, this is for sure. Every future Trek will be influenced.
R2D2 is part of the device which sends the Red matter down to the planet
seriously…
guys, re-read this entire discussion on the size of the E.
if you have to meditate and clear your thoughts beforehand, please do.
now come back to it with a clear mind… add a cup of rationality to taste.
you are arguing… about the size… of a fictional ship. a ship that looks a hell of a lot more “true” to the original than any ship that would’ve been imagined by any other bigshot hollywood crew than the one that did this film. the SIZE of the ship… is not important as long as it’s big enough and not the size of a star, for god’s sake!
you’re letting ridiculous details ruin experiences. not only that, but you’re arguments aren’t even consistent. if you’re going to bitch and moan about that, then why not bitch and moan about every other detail that’s been changed? “the original series uniforms were not made of delta-shield fabric and were 0.00034 shades lighter in color! DAMN YOU AAAABRAAAMS!”
to quote the shat… “get a life, will ya?”
R2D2 is probably floating in the debris field somewhere. He was stuck on the Close Encounters mothership as well.
#158: “This movie has raised the bar in terms of visuals and cinematics, this is for sure. Every future Trek will be influenced.”
i agree. as has been said for years now, the motion picture was the only star trek film that came across as an actual film, instead of an extended television episode. i believe the new star trek can take its place next to tmp.
#159
Century, I am with you on this. I’m not interested in this kind of details. For me, Trek is imagination, mistery and characters. But I understand that for other fans the exact size of the ship (and barcode scanners and breweries, eh eh) are somewhat important. Infinite Diversities ;)
Boy a bunch of you are either eating lead paint as a hobby or just don’t know how to read or perhaps have the strage disorder known as jello-head-itus
Geniuses it’s official, not conjecture, from JJ’s production office
725.35 meters. Official, cannon, done
Next topic
The MUST bring back the lens flare for the new movie, ti was a beautiful effect!
I loved the movie. It didn’t have any more plot holes or inconsistencies than many preceding Treks. In the name of entertainment I’ve managed to forgive such things for over 35 years.
And I’ve decided FOR MYSELF that the ship couldn’t be that big. To me it looked about the same size as the original, give or take a dozen meters here or there.
And as far as my viewing experience is concerned that’s the way it is! Nobody else has to settle this for me.
OK, I didn’t like the Engineering set, the new phaser design, Kirk’s instant promotion to captain…I gave the bridge set a chance and found it to be too busy-looking. Yadda yadda yadda…
As I said, I forgave all previous Treks for similar things and more. I thoroughly enjoyed myself both times I saw this movie and will probably go back a few more times.
Star Trek is BACK, baby!
I’m going to have to agree, there is no way the new enterprise is as big as the above diagram shows!
I can see where people are saying that the shuttles are bigger and there are more of them in the hanger, which means the new E is a bit bigger than the original TOS E or the TMP E, but the diagram shows that the new E is nearly as big as TNG E. No way!
I hope we don’t have to wait til the next film comes out to settle this debate.
P.S. Glad to see someone used the classic Battlestar Galactica instead of Moore’s Bastardized Galactica.
#137—”You can put me among those for whom the lens flares worked (although I certainly understand that some cinematic effects can take some out of a movie.The changing frame rate in Private Ryan did that for me).”
Agreed on the first part.
Disagreed on the second. Having had the misfortune of combat myself, I can tell assure you that the camera work in SPR provided a more realistic view of real combat than in *any* such film before it.
It actually allowed me to overlook some of the more unrealistic points and outright historial inaccuracies of the film in judging it. In fact, without the bold and brilliant camera work, it’s basically just a dumb war movie.
159: No one is asking you to participate. I enjoy arguing the details, as I am sure many of the other debaters here do as well. If you don’t, then don’t play. I adored the new film, my concern over the technical details in no way ruined my enjoyment of the film, and as I have stated before provides an additional layer of enjoyment beyond what made it onto the screen. No amount of quoting Shatner from a 1986 SNL appearance will change the fact people want to talk about this. The fact you CAN quote Shatner from a 1986 SNL appearance belies a little bit of life needing on your own part, as does the fact you are reading 160 some comments in on a Star Trek discussion thread. You are complaining…about me arguing…about the size… of a fictional ship. This is part and parcel for Star Trek websites. The best way to avoid such discussions is to avoid the websites. I do not wish to be rude, but I understand your concern over this argument far less than you understand why I want to argue it.
I am glad you enjoyed the movie. I am sorry you don’t share my predilection for the technical details. I do not however plan to ridicule you because you don’t.
Though I might have to ridicule Lord Garth for spelling “canon” with two n’s. ;)
OK. The ship is the same size as the original. A little bit bigger is ok, but no more. That is that. Period.
The Governator has spoken
So Lucas would “never do a Star Trek” but he has done ‘Howard the Duck’ and three sub-standard Star Wars preqeuls.
Works for me Governator- here’s my vote:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ELMffYeep3OF7XxX_V6FYw?authkey=Gv1sRgCOubs_fP5p-dwQE&feat=directlink
If R2-D2 is in the new Trek film, then it will be the first GOOD movie he’s been in since 1983.
Lucas says he would never do a Star Trek film…?
THANK GOD!
At least one franchise we love is safe!
No way the 09 Enterprise is 700m long. Just watch the pod being ejected and the size of the windows and the size is nearly the same of the Refit and the original.
For anyone that thinks that this discussion is irrelevant, just skip the posts about it.
IMHO
Apparently I fail at math. Before I said Star Trek dropped 66% from last Friday, which isn’t all that great. However Box Office Mojo says it dropped 55%, which is fantastic. I think I know where my math went wrong (I think I saw that this week made like 44.5% of last week and just thought 100-44 = 66 lol).
Took a look at Wolverine and saw that it bumped up on Saturday from Friday, while most opening weekend movies seem to tend to drop, or at least stay constant, from Friday to Saturday, so Star Trek may have a shot – a slim shot – but perhaps a shot at beating Angels & Demons on Saturday. It’ll probably still come in 2nd for the weekend, however.
I should way, Wolverine did better Saturday than Friday in it’s 2nd weekend.
Tampa Bay “Blue Ray”? They USED to be called the “Devil Rays” and now just “Rays” just fyi
@167…
what about Band of Brothers, CT?
The Enterprise, when Kirk was looking at it from a distance, seemed like about 3 football fields … and the escape pod bay he was ejected from seemed to put it at roughly the same size, but a little chunkier, than the old Constitution-class.
But seriously, 700 meters? Somebody’s joking to try to get us tech nuts in an uproar. 700 meters? How big is the neo-Excelsior-class going to be then, a mile long? Get real.
As for the question of the “racks” for shuttles … the new shuttlebay seemed a little more crowded than the clean lines of the old one. And also … those shuttles aren’t that big, they’re about the size of a school bus (wider though, and not as long). You can fit a LOT of school buses on a football field.
I think the best way to figure it out would be to watch Pike & Co. get into the shuttle, then watch the shuttle leave the shuttle bay doors. Heck, you can probably actually see people inside.
#176—-I wondered if someone would catch that.
Do you have to surrender your credentials as a geek if you admit that you like sports too?
:)
#178—”what about Band of Brothers, CT?”
Even better (particularly with regard to historical accuracies), but it was done after SPR, not before it.
‘Band Of Brothers’ is wonderful work. My nephew and I rewatched the entire mini-series this past Memorial Day.
At any rate … 3 football fields is NOT a half mile in length.
Alright, guys . . . In defense of those of us who are debating the size of the ship . . .
To those of you who keep attacking us geeks for this, you are coming off as pretentious film snobs. You say that we don’t hafve lives (I have a life, and I am sure most others here do as well), and indirectly build up your own senses of depth in your apparent ability to set aside what you call pointless details and enjoy the film experience.
Get over yourselves.
One of the neat things about Star Trek is that it can be many things to many people. Yes, some of us like details. Some of us like pretty visuals and camera techniques. Some of us like deep storylines, and others like action. Star Trek, in all of its incarnations, has something for all of us.
I for one love the details of Star Trek. I enjoy debating them . . . but never do they stop me from enjoying the whole show (let’s face it, Star Trek has had plenty of inconsistencies). I think most who are debating the size of the new E are not throwing out the whole movie because of it, and many have said they have already seen it multiple times.
Details, to some of us, is just part of the fun and help make up part of the fabric of the Star Trek universe. Some of us were facinated at the work they did detailing the TMP Enterprise — it felt real because you could see just how the engine core went horizontally down the bay towards the two conduits that climbed up the nacelles. We applauded when in TWOK, Reliant’s blasts matched up on the model where the actually engineering set was, as it was damaged. It was a work of art how, from deep within the secondary hull, you could see the entire hanger bay and how it connected to the rest of the cargo decks — shuttles taxied from one part to another, and turbolifts could be seen moving between transparent shafts.
Details like these create a wonderful backdrop . . . and in 1979 they took a wonderful cast, drama, and set it against this backdrop. The result? A complete picture that helps you suspend your disbelief.
So yes, we’re Star Trek fans. And like anybody who likes anything, we will discuss what we like. And seeing what was possible back then, and then looking at a beer factory for engineering in a ship that the designers were too sloppy to even assign a proper scale to? Yeah, we’re going to talk about it. Unashamedly.
Again, it didn’t stop me (or most others) from enjoying the movie.
So if you want to be pretentious film buffs, go ahead. I was under the impression we were all united in a love for Trek . . . but if we detail-geeks are too embarassing to associate with, and are what you are afraid makes Trekkers look bad, then go ahead and keep making fun of us. We really don’t care.
#183—-”One of the neat things about Star Trek is that it can be many things to many people. ”
Well put.
I don’t personally care about technical details, etc., but I am glad that Star Trek offers many aspects for diverse types of fans to enjoy.
By all means—geek out all you want. And you won’t hear “get a life” from me.
I think that the new Enterprise’s size makes sense. You look at the refit 1701, it’s shorter than the CVN-65. That makes a starship almost two hundred years ahead of us right now shorter than an almost 50 year old aircraft carrier. That doesn’t seem right to me.
1174 feet is the length of the new E. Give or take a parsec. And I’d rather take a parsec than give one as it is very big.
#185
Just because something is newer doesn’t mean it is going to necessarily get bigger. Think about computers and technology. Look at a cell phone now, vs. ten years ago.
The same logic applies to ship building. Giant Spanish Galleons were eventually phased out in favor of smaller ships like sloops.
185, I would agree that larger seems more logical. But, playing the devil’s advocate here, consider that an ocean-going vessel is limited to the oceans. Perhaps a better analogy would be to current space vessels, the largest of which is the Shuttle. The Shuttle is much smaller than a supercarrier, but because of its capabilities, no one ridicules its size, since a Shuttle flies in space, whereas a supercarrier obviously cannot.
172. Weerd1
Works for me Governator- here’s my vote:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ELMffYeep3OF7XxX_V6FYw?authkey=Gv1sRgCOubs_fP5p-dwQE&feat=directlink
———-
Works much better for me. Thanks.
I like…I LIKE!!
#183 – Cato – Well put and to the point. I was going to ramble on about likening those folks who would have us view the film only as a couple of hours of entertainment as being the same kind of people who would stop for ten seconds in front of a Monet and then walk on without considering light and shadow, proportion, use of color, etc. At its best, film making is an art form worthy of our attention, and while Star Trek 2009 isn’t the same as, say, Lawrence of Arabia, I suspect that JJ and company would be off-put by moviegoers who see Trek and then mindlessly go look for the next cool thing.
Until there’s something on the screen that says “This ship is X meters long”, I’m content to go with whatever interpretation works for me. The size comparison posted by Weerd1 will do nicely, thank you!
But whatever might get established, it takes nothing away from this being a kick-ass movie that I really enjoyed.
#183–Well said. I’d like to add that if they have such a problem with us having fun discussing Star Trek endlessly, why are they here taking the time to read over 150 posts, just to complain about it? Talk about needing a life…
Oh and I can’t see how the new E could be much bigger than the Original considering similar space shots of both ships.
Oh, and one more thing, I’ve seen ST09 7 times so far, and my goal is 20 times. Yes I’m having a great time debating all the little details, and yes I’m also loving the movie as a whole.
Thanks guys, I’m glad I’m not alone in this! And well said Rick Sternbach, the analogy of the Monet painting. Art is art. There are many ways to appreciate it. You can like Lord of the Rings for the adventure and action, and you can like it for the many amazing details that they put into the costumes, armor, language, and architecture to bring the world to life. There is something for us all.
Scale has always been an issue in Star Trek, and so I would like to point out that my critique of the new E’s alleged size is not an attack on the new movie or JJ. In fact, I loved Deep Space Nine, and DS9 was a Scale-nitpicker’s nightmare. Ship’s sizes varied all of the time, relative to other ships . . . and then of course there was the Defiant — perhaps one of the neatest ships to come out — which was originally, I think, supposed to be bigger. The lower windows on the inner hull suggest many more decks than was eventually established. But despite any issues, I LOVE the show.
If, in the end, they officially make the big E a 700 meter ship, then so be it. I will disagree with it, but it’s ok. Just like the Defiant. Ultimately, they are going to have to make a decision that one group or another will disagree with. Either A). The ship is 700+ meters in order to accomodate the massive hangar deck, or B). the ship is 300ish meters, in order to accomodate the exterior details. One way or another, one detail will be sacrificed over another, and we will be left with a bit of an inconsistency.
Personally, I favor the smaller ship with the too-big shuttle bay, to the giant ship with too-big windows . . . but that’s just me. In the end, it’s the Enterprise, and the Defiant is the Defiant. The issues didn’t stop me from enjoying the film, or buying the toy of the ship to proudly sit on my desk.
I think the main picture everyone first saw, the first shot of the new Enterprise, should be easy enough to compare and contrast with that escape pod for size comparison.
The ejection port for that pod is dead center on the “neck”. The pod itself was cylindrical in shape, probably 6×6x12. And he couldn’t have stood up in it, since it was a thick pod. But he could possible stand up in the ejection hole, making it roughly six feet.
(Just on an aside … that’s a pretty small escape pod. Kirk looked cramped in it … and I guess you could squeeze two or three more people in but that’s not very logical)
As for the massive size of the communication center that Uhura was working in, it’s very narrow and tall, so I took that to mean the communication center was in the “neck” of the Enterprise, probably near the torpedo/ammunition bay.
According to what measurement’s I’ve been able to take, the new Enterprise comes to around a 700 foot diameter saucer section, 700 foot long Engineering hull, the neck is 120×66 (width unknown … less than 50 feet across), the new Enterprise comes out to be roughly 1000 FEET in total length, from tip of the saucer to edge of shuttle bay, and counting nacelles, 1500 FEET in total length.
Convert 1500 FEET into Metric and you’ve got yourself 450 METERS max, and my measurements skew over the actual length a little bit because there aren’t any clear, Okudagram style side shots of the new Enterprise to be found. But with the new Nacelles and the slightly sleeker, longer look of the new Enterprise, 450 M seems pretty accurate to me.
MYSTERY OF THE LIGHTENING STORM
I’m sure many of us have things we liked and things we felt could have been done better. However, I was wondering if I missed something – the “Lightening Storm”.
When Nero’s ship emerged from the black hole I saw lightening. When Spock’s ship came through there were the flashes of light. HOWEVER, when Kirk hears the report of a lightning storm over Vulcan I began to wonder: Does Nero’s ship always produce this effect?
NO. When the Narada enters and exits warp, no spectacular effect is seen. So, how was it that the Vulcans reported a lightning storm? Was not the lightening storm effect reserved for the black hole passage? True, Vulcan did end up in a black hole, but when the attack began what storm were they referring to?
Was this an error in the script or did I miss something?
#154
This article seems to indicate projections for a $38M 2nd weekend for Trek. Not bad.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/disappointing-angels-weekend-predictions-of-50sm-revised-down-to-40sm-star-trek-on-track-for-36m/
Thanks for your support Rocket Scientist- I can’t argue too much with Retro Warbird either- he did math! ;)
196- I do believe the lightning storm Chekov talks about is supposed to be Spock emerging from the Prime future. The effect wouldn’t be a great because the Jellyfish is so much smaller than the Narada (IMHO).
Anyone else spot the Vulcan ship from First Contact inside the Narada’s shuttlebay area? I only just spotted it today while watching in the IMAX!
I spotted the Vulcan ship on my third viewing. lol
#118: “Perhaps, in this case, IDIC should stand for: Indefinite Dimensions in Infinite Combinations.”
It will always stand for “I had a bunch of these little pins made. Let’s see if we can sell some! Hey Nimoy! Put this sucker on and quit yer grousing.”
Whenever I see IDIC mentioned, that, and only that, is what I see.
It’s amazing how huge the new Enterprise is. And I’ve never seen anyone spread their fingers as far apart for the vulcan salute as Joe Nelson did. I can do the vulcan salute but I can’t spread my fingers like that.
Actually who can’t do the vulcan salute?
#149 – “Actualy in the event of a nuclear strike – it does.”
I am now asking out of ignorance – not as a “challenge”.
Are you saying that a contemporary, real-world aircraft carrier, as built for and operated by the US Navy, is actually able to completely seal itself from the outside world (air, water, light, etc.), and sustain a crew of 5,000 for a period of months? Not take in and filter water, take in and filter air, etc…
(And even if it is, I remain pretty certain that it is NOT supplying it’s own *gravity*. [grin])
Not to beat a dead horse but…
http://tinyurl.com/pxpmdj
(lol)
@ 30. Weerd1 – May 15, 2009
Hey, that’s my theory, right down to the ship’s intended destination of Tarsus IV…
I came up with it & posted it here over a month before the movie came out.
Another STAR WARS connection. During the scene when the cadets are being assigned to their ships, the senior person reading out assignments calls out Vader, USS HOOD. Did anyone else notice that?
I just saw the movie. I liked it; but I would have liked it more if it were not for the following:
1. Lens flare nonsense. Seriously, it is extremely distracting and stupid.
2. VomitVision(tm). What is it with the constantly moving camera? Why does it need to shake and whip around? IT DOES NOT ADD TO “REALISM.” All it does is make me aware that someone with a neurological disorder filmed the scene.
3. The monsters on Delta Vega were silly. Why would a giant lobster (with jaws inside of jaws) go after a small meal after it already killed a much larger one?
My opinions are probably what they are because I am almost 42 years old and find that VomitVision is commonly found in filmed entertainment nowadays and I hate it.
205. SPOCKBOY
Not to beat a dead horse but…
http://tinyurl.com/pxpmdj
(lol)
_________
You know, I don’t hate the new E and can accept it as the old girl for this timeline…
…but I don’t love it. What you’ve shown here is a lot more pleasing to the eye.
Cool!
206- Great minds my friend, great minds…. ;)
Went to ST again tonight with my wife and two friends. My fourth trip to see it and my wife’s second. Our two friends had not seen the movie before. One is not a Trekkie at all and expected to not enjoy it, the other only knows Trek from hanging out with me for the last 12 years. They both loved the movie.
The theatre was 3/4 full.
I think ST will keep it’s #1 spot. Screw Angels & Demons.
Going to weigh in on the size issue. I read about half the comments and didn’t see anything similar mentioned.
Assuming the drawing provided is accurate, I took it into Photoshop and set up some guides. There’s a handy shot in the movie that pulls out through the main viewscreen/window showing Kirk and Spock standing on the bridge. Using that as a reference, and guesstimating the total size (floor to ceiling) that the screen is set in at 3 meters, the overall length of the ship extrapolates to about 700m.
Not saying that’s right or wrong, but I independently made a roughly similar estimate based on that drawing.
I would like to do another based on the relative size of the shuttlecraft to the hangar bay doors (comparing TOS to ST09 and estimating the amount of room the shuttlecraft has in fitting through the doors), but I haven’t had time to dig up the reference.
Not sure how I feel about the ship being THAT big (also makes the Kelvin similar in size, as it’s hangar bay seemed at least as large as the Enterprise’s), but I’m guessing it’s “intended” to be about the same size as the original. After all, if the Enterprise and Kelvin were in the 700m range, how the hell big was the Narada? Probably pushing 5-6km, if not more. A Borg cube, by comparison, is 3km square.
Following up on #212:
Decided to make a second estimate based on the inset representing the cutout for the viewscreen/window rather than the entire casing it’s set in. Guessing from the relative size of the actors in front of the viewscreen, and estimating the viewscreen is about 1.85m or so tall (roughly 6 feet), the ship would then extrapolate to only 285m.
Obviously, one of my estimates is way off (or possibly both), and obviously neither of them is terribly accurate (and on top of that, only as accurate as the drawing).
I would say that my impression from seeing the ship in the movie is that it’s roughly the same size as the original. My second estimate bears that out. But, as Mark Twain said, there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics,” when it comes to the varieties of untruths. In the end, numbers can be manipulated to say anything you want them to.
I wonder if any of us will be alive when the new E size debate is over… :P
Afterall, the (Star Wars) Executor/super stardestroyer size debate has been up for almost 30 years… :D
I don’t mind the massive size of the new ship. It may have been nice to have a line from Pike to Kirk about how the Kelvin’s scans had increased Federation technology by a hundred years.
But hey…
183. Excellent in your opinion.
i just saw the movie again tonight, and I´m pretty convinced that is the same size as the Refit from TMP.
And very often, a big ship is not the best option in a dangerous enviroment like space.
Just remember the Tough Little Ship from DS9.
216. Eduardo Cordeiro from Sao Paulo Brasil – May 16, 2009
I think it’s got to be bigger than TMP unless the Kelvin is much bigger than the Enterprise.
Apparently 800 people on the Kelvin. Which seems out of whack for the technology of the Prime Timeline.
But ya know…
FWIW, to me, the clear and overwhelming preponderance of the evidence in the film suggests a ship comparable in size to the original. From structural details to shots of people and small craft nearby, the ship looks like it’s about as big, or maybe slightly bigger, than the original and refit versions.
The only thing that looks really out of place are the “lower decks” shots including engineering and the areas near the shuttle bays. Problem is, those areas make no sense *at all*, visually or in terms of size, so they didn’t seem to be reliable data points to me.
I think one thing that needs to be remembered about the bridge, too, is that it’s been set lower into the hull than before, and thus the width of the bridge itself, and the corridors and such outside, don’t necessarily suggest a bigger dome. It’s a whole different structure up there, and probably the upper sensor platform is larger and more complex, too.
#196 JR-Dammit Jim, I think you’re right! The lightning was only the two times the black hole temporal events occurred-The encounter that Kirk mentioned was the 47 Klingon ships destroyed when Nero came back to Rura Penthe to exact his revenge-Did Vulcan have a lightning storm,or thr Narudo when sucked into the big red ball caused black hole when all the red matter exploded? As others have mentioned you would think that particular black hole should have been much bigger and much more powerful than the 1 drop red matter black holes—ohhwell….
I am so suprised that there are actually people on here that think the “E” is bigger. Look at the windows, as well as the size of the shuttlecraft! Also look at wherethe escape poc came out and it’s size when we see Kirk emerge. Finally, look at when they leave for the academy, the shuttles fly right next to the ship. The original Enterprise from the TV series carried at least 7 shuttlecraft, plus many smaller ones (workbees, pods).The ship is about the same size as the “E” from the Motion picture. Abrams, and others want to say it’s bigger? The reason we have the problem is because of that brewery that he used to make the engineering section.. Thats the one thing i absolutely hated from this film! It actually made engineering look like the inside of a Borg cube, with no rhyme or reason for anything. Hopefully that will be corrected in the next film.. As far as I am concerned, and the fans should agree, until we see a person on the hull of the ship, or something used to guage the scale, I will say that all the evidence points to the ship being about the same size as the original series/movie Enterprise NCC-1701/ NCC-1701-A
I saw it again tonight at a full and mixed house in a digital theater. Loved it, and based on the smiles on faces, so did everyone else.
I do admit to being amazed that with all the questions being asked and things being wondered about I haven’t heard one peep about Vulcan having a blue sky. Interesting the things that get zoned in on and the things that get ignored.
Bob, was that a choice or a mistake? And why not Spock scanner? Did you guys forget that wonderful bridge device?
And finally, in case you didn’t see it in the other thread, I beseech you to script the next movie out away from Earth. Exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life, ya know that boldly going stuff. :)
Loved the movie.
Trek fans don’t deserve new content.
Well, we may have a chance to fiddle all we want with screengrabs and size calcs by the end of July. Supposedly tfaw.com has the DVD and Blu-Ray editions of the movie listed for release on July 29. Am I missing something? The DVD comes out barely three months after the start of the theatrical run?
Take a look at the first big trailer (the one that starts with the Corvette and ends with Nero saying “The wait is over”). Go to about :55 to :58, which is the big Enterprise shot looking over Kirk’s shoulder, as the ship is being built.
If you watch those few seconds, you can see individual people walking around on the hull or the scaffolding built around the ship.
If you measure the height of any of the guys up on the scaffolding, you can get some dimensions. For example, look at the guy walking along the horizontal walkway that’s right under the primary hull (and runs the radius). Luckily, the walkway is almost completely horizontal to our perspective, so it can be used as a guide for the primary hull radius itself.
If the guy on the walkway is 2 meters tall, the primary hull works out to have a radius of about 73 meters, or a diameter of 156 meters. Since the p-hull is just under half the overall length of the ship, it works out to a total length of 310-330 meters.
There is simply no way, based on the visuals in the film, that the new Enterprise is anywhere near 700 meters in length. The only shot that suggests a size like that is the shuttlebay with the stacked shuttles, and until we see a nice clean still of that, we can’t be sure they’re not stacked at some kind of angle (or hey, for all we know they fold up in some way when not in use).
People keep saying “The Enterprise can’t be that big, that would make it bigger than the D, or E & that’s ‘ridiculous’”
Why?
Why exactly is it ridiculous?
What’s so ridiculous about an imaginary spaceship having an imaginary size?
As far as size goes, the important thing about the Enterprise (any version) is that it’s supposed to be surprisingly BIG. Any number you assign to its dimensions don’t matter one bit so long as it establishes that the ship is large and complex. And in 2009, does a length of 1000′ feet really constitute “surprisingly big”?
No.
I’ve a hunch that the people objecting to the new scale are the same people who complained that the bridge looks “too advanced”
225: “What’s so ridiculous about an imaginary spaceship having an imaginary size?”
There are suspension of disbelief issues at work. If the new Enterprise was 10 kilometers long, would you think that’s too much? I suspect a lot of people would.
You get into some weird volume issues, too. People wonder how 800 people could fit into the Kelvin. 800 people could EASILY fit into the TOS Enterprise (unless a much larger percentage of her interior was taken up by machinery than was implied). A modern aircraft carrier is about 300 meters long and they have crews in the low thousands. WWII batteships often had crews of 1-2 thousand, and those ships were typically smaller than the TOS Enterprise.
The Enterprise D had 1000 people, and on that monstrously huge ship that worked out to something like 10,000 square feet PER PERSON. You could fit 5000 people on the Ent D without any cramming. 10,000 if you wanted to. It’s a small town.
So if the new Enterprise is indeed 700+ meters long, you have room for a crew of thousands. Do you need that many people to run the ship? Perhaps, but then you wouldn’t have just one Chief Engineer, or just one Chief Medical Officer, and so on. Each individual position (that we see) would really be represented by a team of people.
It also forces the question of why Starfleet would build such gigantic ships. Why put so many eggs (people) in so few baskets? Many smaller ships would be better than fewer bigger ones. Anyone who has a passing education in military history will tell you that monolithic weapons and vehicles lose to smaller but more numerous vehicles. Just look up the IJN Yamato if you want to see a perfect case study there…
#226:
OK, but if a length of 700 +/- meters is perfectly reasonable for TNG ships, why is it unreasonable here?
If there’s room for a big crew, then the ship has a big crew of thousands, and just because it’s a big crew doesn’t mean there’d be more than one chief engineer (or whatever), just like it doesn’t mean there’d be more than one captain. It just means that the chief of whatever-department manages a larger department, and delegates to a larger body of people.
Also, a substantial portion of the interior volume is going to be hardware.
I just don’t understand why 300 meters is ok, and 700 meters is ok for the E.-E, but 700 meters is not ok for the new Enterprise. If the E-D, or E-E makes sense at that size, why not this one? Is it because “The D & E are more advanced, so the old one has to be smaller!” Is that it? If that’s the reason people are objecting to the new size…well…it’s stupid.
Nah man. In the movie the 700 meter measurement looks like it fits, and the PEOPLE WHO DESIGNED it say it’s that big, so how can anyone even argue?
who cares about the size, seriously this is not really important in any way shape or form
800 people on the USS Kelvin is right to me. That ship is a generation before TOS, so the need for more crewmen is reasonable, due to low tech involved.
@223
Rick, that date has to be either wishful thinking or a misprint…
@230
Maybe not. I am pretty sure Roberto Orci mentioned something about the DVD being available “sooner that we think” in a soundbite from one of his many interviews. Not a bad idea, to be honest, for Paramount to get the most it can out of the box office, and then still strike while the iron is hot to release the DVD.
We’ll see…
Star Trek is showing legs fellas! Great word of mouth is really helping this flick! Terminator Salvation will assuredly take the number one spot next time, but Trek should hold solid at number two again. Amazing!
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/disappointing-angels-weekend-predictions-of-50sm-revised-down-to-40sm-star-trek-on-track-for-36m/
227- If someone made a movie about the Wright Brothers, and decided the Wright Flyer was now the size of an F-14, wouldn’t that play off weird? Yeah, I know, Apples/Oranges, reality/fiction- and I am not even fond of using the Aircraft Carrier comparison. Our established anchor for knowledge on what Starfleet vessels should be is TOS and the first couple of movies. Every other ship we see is based off the idea that the TOS Enterprise is around 300 meters- very clearly established, and in great detail in TMP. In her various incarnations she is cutting edge in tech as well (maybe not the B since the Excelsior is at least a decade older than her). This film is born out of those established rules, though allowing for some updates. I have a tough time believing the telemetry from the Kelvin allows Starfleet to start building ships on par with ships that should not appear for another century. Somewhat bigger? Sure- like my new 385 Meter theory. Seven hundred meters, larger than the 1701D? That’s like the Wright Brothers building an F-14. Or even a P-38.
As far as the “makers” saying it was so, if it ain’t on screen, it is supposition. Do you remember FASA? They produced the Role Playing Game in the 80s and early 90s. Paramount gave them a writer’s bible to the first season of Next Gen, and they put out an RPG supplement based on it. By the time season 1 was over, they had to put out an entirely different book. Things intended behind the scenes are often changed in execution. When further episodes made THAT rulebook obsolete, FASA wouldn’t renew their license (Actually, Mr, Sternbach I would love to hear what you know about all that, this is the “rumor” bouncing around in the gaming industry- I don’t wish to speak out of hand if that is not the whole story…)
Have no fear TOS purists. After my 4th viewing, I realized that in 129 yrs the Hobus supernova will reappear. Spock will kill Nero in the Romulan senate. Nero will never destroy the Kelvin and the original timeline will be reset. Oh and if we can put up with 4 years of the DAHLIBAMA, surely we can put up with 129 years of JJ’s trek.(had to throw ina lil political talk)lol
Although I did enjoy the new movie. I can’t wait to see what new and exciting things Kirk hangs on to next time.(how many cliffs and platforms can one man hold on to for dear life inna movie?)
If the ship is anywhere shy of 700 meters then how does one explain the double decker shuttlebay with shuttles the size of buses? These are the scale of TMP workbees compared to this new ship. The Prime Enterprise could hold maybe 4 shuttles MAX (2 onscreen per episode) and they were nowhere near so big. Interior space was at a premium on the TOS and TMP ships, that is not the case here. This size change cannot even be entirely attributed to Nero’s time incursion as the Kelvin had 800 survivors and its classes primary hull was already larger than the Enterprise’s. These are TNG sized ships, but then this is not the past of that timeline. In a way it is the displaced future…
“Is George Lucas going to sue?” Well, he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on even if he wanted to.
The Hero’s Journey has been told a gazillion times since the beginning of time.
Now, Joseph Campbell or Akira Kurosawa on the other hand…
Damn it Jim I thought we could beat Angels & Demons.
I did my part. I went for my forth trip, my wife for her second, and took two friends who had not seen it.
I wasn’t good enough damn it! I wasn’t strong enough!
lol.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118003795.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
208
After seeing the movie four times I agree its a fun, fast, wiz bang summer movie.
The lens flares,fast camera movement, and seven frame cuts are a bit too much. I enjoy being able to see the movie not just a collection of blurs. There is plenty to nitpick about this movie but I tried to set this aside while viewing and just let the images happen and try to experience the film as it was intended. A little less of the flares and tad slower pace would have been better. I sure there are several scenes that were cut to increase the pace that would have helped develop the story in a much better manner.
Closettrekker wrote:
“Disagreed on the second. Having had the misfortune of combat myself, I can tell assure you that the camera work in SPR provided a more realistic view of real combat than in *any* such film before it.”
I completely concur (although I’ve not been in battle.) The battles in Private Ryan were brilliant camera and editorial work and did give the vast majority of viewers a feeling of immediacy. It threw *me* personally out of the movie because I was learning video effects at the time. I don’t think film-makers should ever hold back their brilliance for the vast minority for whom an effect may not elicit the desired emotional response.
Heck, I loved Cloverfield, and i get motion sick very easily. But the Cloverfield shaky-cam gave me the feel of being there, being unable to see all dangers around me, and heightened the sense of jeopardy for me.
#233 – I haven’t a clue about how or why FASA lost their license.
I’m a complete skeptic that the new Enterprise is 725 metres long. If that were true, then the docking ports on the ship would be 4 metres in diameter, and they don’t even go much beyond 2 on the refitted Enterprise.
And that the viewports would be about a metre and a quarter in diameter. The refitted Enterprise’s viewports are only about 3/4’s a metre in diameter.
Sorry but Gizmodo is full of crap. The Enterprise is still in the 300 metre range.
And having the enormous bridge on the Enterprise not being on deck 1 this time, but on one of the decks below, makes a lot of sense especially with the concept of how you can fit the bridge that size on the ship.
Not only that, I did a size comparison to the first Star Trek trailer and to both a less than 300 metre long Enterprise and an over 700 metre long Enterprise, sorry, but a 300 metre long Enterprise is more realistic.
Look guys, all the debate I seem to have started about the size is all well and good. But the new E cannot be 700+ meters long. Just take a look at the original TMP, the scene where Kirk first comes aboard the refit. Look at the shuttle bay that you can clearly see in the background. It’s freakin huge compared to even J.J.’s lame excuse for a shuttle bay. If you can put several cargo transporters that are considerably bigger than the new shuttles in there then the ship has to be no more than 300 meters long. Also why the comparison to Moore’s butchered Galactica? I have failed to see how that ship can be any bigger than the orinal either. Have we all just lost our perspective in scale? The original base ships were huge in the original series and you could tell by the size of the Cylon Raiders coming out of it. Also you can tell the size of the new Eterprise by the size of the shuttles coming out of it’s hangar bay. If the stupid thing was that huge the shuttles would be tiny specks coming out of the bay. C’mon give me a freakin break and use the brains in your head for something other than a hat stand.
just some points..
The TOS bridge was about 25′ across. A lot of it was wasted space with that railing. The new bridge is layed out in an oval, roughly. Anyone from the set design people want to tell us the size of it? Oh, wait a minute. –James Cawley– you’ve built a TOS bridge, to perfect scale, and you’ve been on the bridge of the Movie. Is the movie bridge *that* much larger?
I’ve seen the movie in the hugeness of an arena-seating theater 4 times now. I’ve not seen any astromechs yet.
Saturday I spoke with the representatives of Round 2 models at Wonderfest. They have confirmed to me (at least what they’ve been told) that the TOS Enterprise will be a 1/350 scale kit (i.e. 3 feet long) and is scheduled for December 2010. It may be summer of 2011, however, because the tooling for such a kit is very costly. NEWS!! They just got the license for the Nu-E, and it will be 18″ in length…and according to what they were told, it IS twice the size of the TOS E. No release date yet, but they estimated summer of 2011. Just in time for Star Trek II. ;-)
oops. correction…
Round 2 announced they have go the license for a new Enterprise from the current movie. Plans are for a 1:2500 scale kit, which would make it about 12 inches. Look for this in spring 2010.
I didn’t mean 18″. That was one of the options on the questionnaire that they passed out for “builder choice of size”.
Good news!!
Star Trek will finish the weekend a close second to A&D! And I do mean close – about only 5 million or so. A disappointing opening for A&D, and a stronger than expected 2nd weekend for Trek. A drop-off of only 40-45%, less than the expected 50-55%, which means this film has some legs. It actually did better than Ironman did it’s second weekend. Good news all around!
Obviously, a big part of these numbers is repeat viewers. Which is not a bad thing. New Trek fans and us old-timers (lol) have shown Paramount that we WILL support a GOOD Trek movie with our cash!! Star Trek has new life.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2009&wknd=20&p=.htm
I can’t see any reason why the Enterprise should suddenly be bigger….
I count this as a BAD joke!
#244 – Jorg – Well, that would seem to nail it at 700+ m.
Honestly, what is this arbitrary competition thing?
Trek has ALREADY LOST three major battles as the fastest film to achieve record box-office to the Dark Knight:
Fastest to $100M 2 days
Fastest to $150M 3 days
Fastest to $200M 5 days
It is holding its own pretty well and within industry norms especially considering what else is at the box office. Terminator is likely going to smash all three films next weekend. So what? Trek has already done more to prove itself as a contender regardless of how any other movie has ever done at the box-office. It will most likely continue to make steady money for the rest of the year, especially since there is not much competition against this genre through most of July. The important thing is that Trek is back in some form and it is more popular than ever. It’s not like general audiences or hard core fans are walking away in droves disappointed in what they saw.
So enough with competing against films that don’t even matter. A&D has a totally different demographic than Trek and so will many others that have every right to do as well as or better than Trek. The important thing is that Trek is doing extremely well. Period.
#284, “Trek has ALREADY LOST three major battles as the fastest film to achieve record box-office to the Dark Knight:”
Because in addition to good action, the Dark Knight had a magnificent, insightful, engaging intelligence to it. Granted, it was too dark, but it still felt like a full meal afterward. STXI can’t match that sort of satisfaction. The numbers don’t lie.
#183 That is a great speech you’ve written there and it’s well worth anyone frustrated by this or any discussion to read. Good words.
248. RD – May 17, 2009
“Terminator is likely going to smash all three films next weekend. ”
Probably. But I bet ST stays at #2.
Terminator may not have the great return views that Trek is getting. If for no other reason than it’s bound to be a less fun film.
@ #248
Perhaps you missed my point.
It was only to relay information that this Star Trek film is doing extremely well, and that Star Trek, in general, has a new life. To hold that strong against a highly hyped new opening showed strength, repeat viewers, and good word of mouth. And that is crossing demographics, which is very important. It’s all better than we could have expected, realistically.
The Ironman reference was to compare it to last summer’s big hit, and that this Star Trek has legs. When was the last time you could say that about a Trek film? Approaching $200M worldwide in 11 days? Unheard of for a Trek film!
You’re the one that seems hung up on competition, frankly. Did I ever mention the Dark Knight, or box-office records? Perhaps you have other motives?
Paramount has to be ecstatic about the numbers so far. Star Trek lives, yet again. That was my point.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
#251, Brian, I’m happy that you think this thread is all about you. But I was not in fact replying to your post, but rather #238 and others like it I’ve seen throughout the forum. In fact, I had NOT EVEN SEEN YOUR POST, to miss your point, as I was busy typing mine when you posted yours.
Thanks for attacking me though. What other motive could I possibly have aside from trying to stop some childish competitive mentality where there’s no need for any? I’m as happy as anybody Trek is doing so well.
But in response to your post (this time), why does Paramount have to “ecstatic”? Trek is a proven franchise, Abrams is a proven franchise and if they didn’t think they had a winner on their hands, they would have never invested over $350 into this film in the first place. I think Paramount is and should be “pleased”, but ecstatic suggests they took a huge gamble and I doubt that was ever the case.
The R2 unit is in exactly the same place it’s at in Close Encounters. It’s just a nod. Just like it was in CE3K.
Hrm… Both Enterprises in the pic are labled “A”. It’s clearly NOT the A in the movie.
#252
Methinks you protest too much, and maybe lie a bit…….
You must be a slow typer, or slow reader. You’re response was more than an hour and a half after my original post.
The whole tone of your posts reveals your intentions. Backward compliments with factual innaccuracies. You first brought up the whole competition element, not me. My whole post was about the strength and legs of the movie. You replied with records. Huh? Dark Knight fan are you? That’s cool, so am I.
Star Trek has NOT been a “proven franchise” for at least 7 years, if not longer. Abrams is not a proven franchise, his track record in films and tv is “iffy” at best. Paramount paid about $150M to produce the film. Add another $100M for advertising if you wish, for a top end total of $250M. Where did you get your $350M figure from?
Paramount is (and should be) thrilled because they DID take a BIG gamble and it paid off! Consider the take of the last two films, the failure of the last series….Star Trek was dead. So yeah, it was a huge gamble
#255 and again with the libelous accusations. I have no idea when these posts cross paths. But I did NOT see your post before I wrote mine.
So I NEVER responded to your post, nor intended to.
If your definition of a proven franchise is making a blockbuster Summer movie, then Star Trek should have never survived for 40 years. Certainly the money that has been streaming into Paramount from licensed merchandise, DVDs and continued syndication must have surely hurt the franchise as well. Please, Paramount has been rolling in money from Star Trek since the 70’s Box Office failures notwithstanding.
For a little exercise, why don’t you adjust the box office numbers for inflation and number of screens, then apply the profits to the budgets and compare that to XI. You’ll see they have done pretty well by comparison.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm
Abrams, iffy? Really, he’s only had some of the highest rated TV shows on the air for the last decade. My point which you clearly missed is that Abrams has a huge fan base and so does Trek. Combined, it is a guaranteed result. The movie was unlikely to lose money. Now I assume you work in Hollywood since you know studios gamble $150+ million on things that are likely to be flops? They certainly don’t intentionally. I must “respectfully” disagree that this was NOT a huge gamble when you look at it all.
Lastly, where did you get your numbers? There’s a thread somewhere here that points to an LA Times article that printed the marketing budget was actually more than the film’s budget. In addition, you are not calculating interest on the money the Studio borrowed to make the film. No studio spends their own money and that interest continues to accrue until the principle is paid back. Also, NO published movie budget is accurate, the studios always under publish. The standard overage is around 10-15%. So taken as a whole, they have a lot of money to recoup.
In any event I NEVER mean to start a conversation with you, so for that I am TRULY sorry.
243: “and according to what they were told, it IS twice the size of the TOS E.”
Well, then we just have to accept that humans average around 12′ tall in the 23rd century…
227: “OK, but if a length of 700 +/- meters is perfectly reasonable for TNG ships, why is it unreasonable here?”
It’s a question of purpose.
Battleships got big because they needed a large platform for those honking 16″ cannons. They (relatively) rapidly bumped up against a limit there.
Aircraft carriers are big because they need space to store planes and the big deck to land them on, and for no other reason. You think we’d waste money building gigantic sea vessels if we didn’t need to?
Form follows function. What’s the function of a spaceship’s gigantic size? Every added meter in length should add many cubic meters in volume and related mass. There had better be a good reason for that. Is it all machinery in and engine? If so, how could Archer’s starship be so small? It’s about 1/50 the volume of the Enterprise D, with about 1/10 of the crew. Granted, maybe in the Abramsverse, 90% of a starship’s interior is taken up with machinery, but that’s not the impression we’ve gotten from earlier incarnations.
And yes, 600+ meters was silly for the Enterprise D, too. I already explained how they had way WAY more space on that ship than needed for 1000 people, especially considering they can create psychological space with the holodeck. In “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” Tasha mentions there are 6000 people on board, and I remember thinking at the time that that’s STILL inefficient.
LOL@ RD
With each post you further expose your ignorance. Even if you weren’t responding to me, where did you pullout the competition with the Dark Knight? Out of your a** obviously, since you were the first to mention it. I brought up Star Trek’s strong performance vs. the A&D premier. And I contrasted Trek’s strength to Ironman’s from last May. BTW, Paramount no longer owns the Trek series or any of it’s spinoffs, nor the marketing. CBS does, and has for a while now.
And actually your response was to #237, not #238 as you stated. Either way you make no sense. You were the first to mention any records, so WHO is obsessed with that. You seem to be trying to downplay this film’s success any way possible. Star Trek fan? Alterior motives? I’ve made up my mind.
#259. Wrote: “BTW, Paramount no longer owns the Trek series or any of it’s spinoffs, nor the marketing. CBS does, and has for a while now.”
Yeah, 3 years ago, 40 years after the series debuted. Just before the new film was announced. Interesting. Also, take a look at the studio that releases the DVDs, including the CBS-D remastered ones as well. Hmmmm… this article may help explain a few things.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/15216.html
Dark Knight was used to make a point. Perhaps you missed it.
Glad you feel you fully understand a person whom you, initially mistook as replying to your post, and otherwise know nothing about. But thanks for pointing out my mistakes. I was indeed responding to #237 and have no “Alterior [sic] motives”. And I’ll try to make more sense in the future.
“700 meters is too big, it goes against established canon!”
Please. Spare me.
Here’s why it does NOT go against f-ing canon.
The entire point of the starship Enterprise (all of ‘em!) is that it’s mind-blowingly huge and super advanced. In TOS, they were always referencing how large & complex the ship was. Remember when they beamed the fighter pilot from the 1960’s on board? Remember the conversation with Kirk & the pilot? The “dramatic purpose” of the Enterprise since DAY 1 is to give us, the viewers, the sense that the crew live on a HUGE piece of ultra-futuristic technology. That’s why the TNG E. was scaled up, so we, the now jaded viewers would once again say to ourselves “Wow, that’s a gigantic spaceship”
If the new Enterprise was scaled to any size other than one that would elicit a “wow-that’s-big” reaction, well then, THAT would be going against the spirit of the show, and in 2009 it needs to be bigger than 1000 feet to be impressive – just like how TNG E. needed to be bigger than the original so we’d all be impressed.
The same thing applies to the bridge; for those who say “It looks too advanced”, the Enterprise is supposed to be as futuristic as possible. If they intentionally made it look any less high-tech than they could have, THAT would be going against the spirit of the show, which is more important than f-ing “canon”.
Also, 700 meters is how big it looks in the movie, and that’s how big the people who made it up say it is, and A 700m length is EXACTLY as plausible as 300m when you’re talking about a fictional spaceship.
It’s 700m….it’s BIGGER than the Galaxy or Sovereign, and it is cool. Get used to it. 700m will be the number on all the models, tech manuals, and official imagery. The Galaxy & Sovereign are small now. Get used to it.
After watching for the 4′th time R2-D2 just sort of jumps out at you. He even seems to be moving his dome around to follow the camera angle. He is very easy to spot when you know where to look. HINT: Think where he sat in the x-wing fighter!
261: “Also, 700 meters is how big it looks in the movie”
Sorry, no. There are three shots that I know of that show scale.
1: Kirk looking at it on the ground, with (presumably normal-sized) people crawling over the hull.
2: The shot in the back with the shuttles lined up inside the landing bay.
3: Kirk being ejected in his pod out the side hatch.
In shots 1 and 3, if you compare the sizes of what’s know (the heights of the people working on the ship and the size of Kirk’s pod) to the details on the ship itself, it works out to roughly 300 meters.
In shot 2, unless the shuttle stack in some kind of angled way that would allow them to fit better, you end up with a larger size. I’ve heard 500 meters or more.
As far as I could see, the “300 meter” evidence outweighs the “700 meter” evidence two to one. And we’re not even sure the shuttle bay shot is all that conclusive yet.
So if the people who made it up say it’s 700 meters, they need to explain why Kirk is 12′ tall.
Speaking of Clifton Collins, jr.
I finally got around to seeing Sunshine Cleaning tonight, where Collins has a much more substantive role, and it was very good flick and he was very good in it (adding considerably to several scenes and carrying one of them beautifully). Nice to see what he can do with some real lines :/
# 263
I assure you…it does in fact look much bigger than the original. Here’s a good analysis that goes beyond just eyeballing some shots:
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2959468&postcount=202
Between this analysis, the fact that the people who drew the thing in the first place saying it’s supposed to be about 700m, it’s 700m. You can say it hasn’t been scaled up all day long, but it’s not your imaginary spaceship. It belongs to the people who made it up. If they say it’s 700m, then that’s what it is. If there is a 12′ person in a shot somewhere (which I certainly haven’t seen…I think you just think it looks like a 12 foot person), then we have to make up some reason the imaginary person is too big as opposed to making up a smaller imaginary measurement for the imaginary spaceship.
Okay kids, the 725 number that is being thrown around for the length of the new enterprise is not meters, IT”S FEET. If you go back and look at the original spect’s from 1968 the Enterprise was 219 meters. Which if you do the math is roughly 712 feet. Well within in the Abrams tolerance of canon. If you look at canon and the subsequent generations of ships, they always got bigger. Tie that to the historical fact that no navy in human history has ever down sized ships, much less thier flag ships. Then it stands to reason that Abrams and Co. were true to the original Jeffries design and it is 725 feet. It just looks big because all of the other ships of that era were much smaller.
I suppose one good way to get a size comparison to a human being would be to look at the original trailer where workers could be seen walking on the rear of the warp nacelle. I’m at work and don’t have access to a good enough computer to watch the tailer at the moment though.
#266 – where did you get “725 feet” exactly? It clearly says “meters”
#267 – Good idea! I looked at “Trailer #1″ The New Enterprise does look generally bigger. The last shot, as the camera booms up past the front of the Primary Hull… well, it looks like there are four decks instead of the canonical two decks in the Original E and Re-fit.
Given all the speculative data, it certainly appears the New Enterprise, like the movie itself, is much bigger than anyone expected. I like it (et al)! ;)
Er, I won’t weigh in on the size thing (I already have, actually). I would just like to state, however, for all of the people who are raging against Star Trek fans being nerds and being retarded for nitpicking the details of this movie, at least one of the writers that made this movie possible, that made this movie so good, is a self-admitted nitpicker himself. He gets it in terms of details and working out interesting explanations for why things are the way they are. So, if fans like this didn’t exist, would we even have this new installment? And, if we did, would it have been half as good, or half as recognizable as Star Trek for that matter?
Think before you rage on others.
Personally, I am somewhere in the middle. I’ll nitpick for fun and if I have some time to waste. I can totally see how some people like to take it further, or if others are happy with whatever their given. To each their own.
-P
JJ just wants to show off his bigger one, that’s what it is…
On the lens flares: it seems a little against “realism” if you design your set to artificially create lens flares where there would have been none. If it had happened a couple of times in a natural way, it would’ve made sense (as would the explanation), but the fact that they overhauled the bridge to look like a series of cliche movie star vanity mirrors in order to create more lens flares than reality would warrant seems a little too far, in my opinion (please feel free to disagree). Since this is a genuine stylistic critique, I hope the geek watch doesn’t single me out for being a nitpicking nazi.
In summary, to artificially create an effect to create realism seems like a loopy concept.
Still enjoyed the film, gratuitous lens flares and all.
-P
265: “If there is a 12′ person in a shot somewhere (which I certainly haven’t seen…I think you just think it looks like a 12 foot person), then we have to make up some reason the imaginary person is too big as opposed to making up a smaller imaginary measurement for the imaginary spaceship.”
It’s not hard to find. I believe I pointed out where they appear in a previous post.
So, 12′ people, 100 square foot windows, 16′ diameter side hatches that a (what appears to be) 7-8′ escape pod just fits through…
Ok, fine, the new Enterprise is inflatable. It’s about the only explanation that makes sense.
Disillusion has come up with a pretty solid analysis of the 700+ meter Enterprise on the TrekBBS:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2959468&postcount=202
I buy it. Again, I don’t see why Starfleet couldn’t build it and lift it off Earth, I just feel the size is odd when coupled with the perceived similarities to the 1701 Refit.
#271: You think he is compensating for something?
274: “I buy it.”
In one of the earlier trailers, there’s a scene where Kirk has just driven to the construction site and is looking up at the guys working on the ship. You can see walking figures, and two of them at the front of the starboard nacelle. On that scale, they’re way larger than humans would be if the ship was the larger size.
I guess we just have to accept that as an effects goof?
276 – For the length of time that shot is visible, it might have been a VFX decision to make figures big enough to at least be visible. Exact human scale might not have attracted the eye, with so much else going in in the shot. Closer shots make a lot more sense to dissect, of course.
#274 – Agreed, Mr. Sternbach — the size seems odd when the similarities to the 1701 refit are added up.
It begs a couple of questions. A lot of people argue that there is nothing wrong with a 700+ meter length ship, and essentially, they are right. There is nothing wrong with it.
But, if you were going to create a ship of that size, why proportion it out to where window patterns are an exact match with the original refit, requiring said windows to be enormous?
Also, why change the size in the first place? There is clearly nothing going on in the story that requires the size to be changed, nor are there any on-screen mentions of the ship’s dimensions.
In the end, I suspect the new E was originally planned to be somewhere near the size of the original refit . . . but then was changed in order to accommodate the interior of the shuttle bay. And, if that’s the case, I find it rather disappointing. (Let’s face it, Voyager was a small ship, and the interior scenes of the shuttle bay and hanger indicate rooms that would not even come close to fitting inside of the hull).
I’ll also refer everyone to a couple of shots.
This is one angle of the hangar deck. Pretty spacious, isn’t it?
showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/PL_Enterprise_Refit_WIP_1_files/ShuttlebayCeiling-1.jpg
showcase.netins.net/web/marc111creations/PL_Enterprise_Refit_WIP_1_files/Kirks_View_from_walkway_near_docking_entrance.jpg
And on this schematic, you can see where it was meant to fit inside of the secondary hull. This actual graphic is not necessarily canon, however it is based on the graphic depicted in “Mr. Scott’s Guide to the Enterprise,” and if I am not mistaken, is visible on some of the bridge graphics on the ship.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/enterprise-deck-plans-sheet-4.jpg
I’m not making any conclusions here, per se. Just some food for thought.
278 – Cato said: “But, if you were going to create a ship of that size, why proportion it out to where window patterns are an exact match with the original refit, requiring said windows to be enormous?
Also, why change the size in the first place? There is clearly nothing going on in the story that requires the size to be changed, nor are there any on-screen mentions of the ship’s dimensions.”
Why, indeed. I haven’t a clue as to why they modeled the saucer so closely after the Refit or why they copied the window patterns, if they were just going to inflate the size. You might be correct about possibly going with a smaller ship initially, but someone may have wanted it way bigger. A worker in the art department did question the size of the ship and the fact that there were “30 foot wide windows”; I do know that much. So that, taken with Disillusion’s graphic analysis, nails the 700+m ship for me. *Why* they did it will likely remain a mystery until more effects-related interviews get published.
I haven’t measured the internal size of the Refit shutte/cargo areas, but I believe they’re a fairly close match to the hull; well, maybe a bit wide. The 1/350 plastic kit replicated those areas pretty well (I think). Voyager’s shuttlebay was very close; I -was- able to match the set blueprints to my ship blueprints, and the digital mattes weren’t too far off, since the CG folks were given some pretty detailed data to go by. The max internal width of Voyager’s bay was around 75 feet, IIRC (the “garage door” was unfortunately smaller at about 45 feet, for reasons I won’t go into here). Again, it might have appeared a -bit- wide in some shots. You want to debate stuff that doesn’t fit, look at the Delta Flyer. Seven of Nine’s aft compartment bio-bed sticks out into space. Not my fault, honest. :) It’s those darned set designers.
279- Rick, thanks for detailed info concerning Voyager’s bay. I’m always glad to be proven wrong when it makes something make more sense to me. The thing that always made me itch concerning the bay, though, wasn’t so much they bay itself as much how various ships were supposed to fit inside its door. The Flyer, for one, and then there was an episode where a -really- wide alien shuttle was parked in the hangar bay next to it. I have no idea how they got in there. There is a good picture of it here:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/delta_flyer.htm
Hehe, I actually hadn’t noticed the part about 7’s bio-bed. I’ll have to look at that! :)
The thing is, I’ve always noticed different inconsistencies with size in various science fiction. The shuttle in TOS is bigger on the inside than it is on the out, the Millennium Falcon in Star Wars has a deck that is too tall to fit into the hull, and then of course there is Starbug in Red Dwarf (I love their explanation for that one!). :) But, when it all boils down to it, as much as I love to look for these details, I tend not to get bothered for it. There is usually some kind of story or production related reason to justify the inconsistency (Actors have to be able to move, as well). The thing about the new E that bothers me is just the lack of apparent good reason for it. It just reeks of sloppiness. If they want to make the ship huge, that’s fine . . . just don’t make it look like it matches the refit. Ya know? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that this ship has very few windows, relative to other designs, and of the very few windows, most of them are enormous.
And if you’re interested, Rick, here is a really interesting site with an article that explains the designs of the refit hangar bay and cargo deck, along with Probert’s original sketches. It’s a really good read. Let me know what you think of it.
http://www.ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/tmp_18.php
Oh, and Rick . . . I’ve just also got to say what a big fan I am of your work. I’ve been a big sci-fi design nut since I was a little kid, and your work on Trek (as well as the tech manuals and blueprints) was always amazing to me. I’ve been designing my own technology (ships, devices, interiors) for various stories I that I’ve written just for fun over the years and I think your work has been one of the biggest inspirations I’ve had. So I really owe you many thanks. Cheers! :)
280 – Cato – Well, I’m not out to prove anyone wrong; we’ve been wrong occasionally on the shows but our hearts were in the right place and we always discussed things with anyone who wanted to talk tech. And I’ve butted heads with the writers and producers over stuff, but as long as I could present an intelligent argument, that’s all that mattered. I think we had an 85% batting average. Except for the overuse of “technobabble.” I personally never wanted so many three-word terms, really (sobs mightily). Recombinant isogenic perfusion never came out of my typing fingers (or anything like it). It’s only babble if it doesn’t make any sense.
Anyhow, I know that scene with the Flyer and the other ship; I think the bay is aligned L-R, so maybe I’m safe. :) We also had a “Shuttlebay 2,” which was -forward- of the landing area; the writers forgot we had only one entrance/exit, so the second bay was a maintenance facility and not a separate take-off door. Silly writers.
I also know of the Forgotten Trek material. Yep, very interesting stuff. I’ll revisit it.
As to the NuEnt, I totally agree that they threw us a curve ball by copying the Refit saucer elements so closely and not helping us a whole lot to understand the specs of the ship right from the get-go. I’ll accept any well thought out explanations for things, but they never engaged us. Maybe they’re still figuring out how it all fits together.
282 – Cato – Gorsh, Mickey, thanks! Keep up whatever you’re doing; it can only make us smarter.
281 – I meant 281. Really.
280: “The thing about the new E that bothers me is just the lack of apparent good reason for it. It just reeks of sloppiness.”
This is my sticking point. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the ship was designed to be roughly 300 meters long and very late in production someone decided to pump it up to 735 or whatever.
If they gave us a ship that looked 735 — meaning it had various relatable “cue” features that sold the scale — I wouldn’t have any kind of problem relating to disbelief. I might not like the larger size (Ent D always seemed too big to me, too), but I wouldn’t be trying to call shenanigans on it.
282: “Well, I’m not out to prove anyone wrong; we’ve been wrong occasionally on the shows but our hearts were in the right place and we always discussed things with anyone who wanted to talk tech.”
If we’re interested in the truth, being proven wrong is a kindness.
-282. Haha, Rick, I completely agree about the techno-babble. I’ve found that while watching sci-fi (mostly Star Trek, and maybe Stargate), as well as in my own writing, Techno-babble is a double-edged sword that can make it, or break it. Used properly, it can add to the complexity and depth of a story. Used improperly, it can make me cringe to hear — it can sometimes be an unfortunate shortcut in writing that works as a cop-out. So yeah, there is good tech lingo, and bad techno-babble.
Ah yes, Voyager’s 2nd shuttle bay. Silly writers indeed. :) That’s not one that seriously bothered me, though. As you said, it can be explained away with an additional maintenance bay. Not nearly as big of a deal as the ever-changing amount of decks on the Enterprise-E, or the mysterious elevator shaft in Star Trek V that has seventy-something decks (That one bothered me right from the moment I saw it in the Drive-In theatre as a kid. haha).
I agree that they are probably still trying to figure things out on the new E. In the end, they have given us plenty of evidence to sell it as a 700+ meter ship, and some fairly solid evidence to suggest it was not intended to be that big. I wish at least, if that were the case, that they would have re-designed the cgi-model to have proper windows and airlocks (They gave themselves plenty of extra time before the release after all). In the end, the ship appears nothing more than a modified TMP-era refit with a really massive interior shuttlebay.
Then of course, maybe there is a good techno-babble explanation for all of it. Temporal dilation within the space-time continuum appearing within the Alpha Quadrant 25.2 years BEFORE the appearance of the Narada caused quantum fluctuations which grew exponentially in magnitude by a power of 3 out to a radius of 73.65 light years. These fluctuations, which were in the high upper EM band (and therefore invisible to conventional sensors) had an adverse effect on the pituitary gland in the mind of the human male, causing highly increased levels testosterone. And although correlation can not equal causation, it is suspected by the Vulcan Ministry of Science that the unexplainable testosterone spike within the human race has caused an increase in the phenomenon whereby males compensate for feelings of masculine inferiority by having or creating big and flashy things. Initially, the new Enterprise was sitting on the drawing boards at Utopia Planetia R&D and measured in at 385 meters. However, as soon as testosterone levels started to fluctuate, the ship was hastily up scaled. Exterior hull detail and proportions remained the same, with the exception of the warp nacelles, which were for some reason redesigned to be bigger and more phallic. Starfleet engineers, having come to behave more illogical and sophomoric with their heightened testosterone, demanded that the engineering department double as a brewery. Further, these high EM band quantum fluctuations had adverse effects on the human eyes, making them less sensitive to light. This resulted in high intensity vanity lights being placed illogically through key facilities on the ship.
There we go. Problem solved! All it took was a little techno-babble. ;)
#286 – What the heck are you still doing here? Actually, why am -I- checking on long-forgotten threads? :)
Hey, fun explanation. I’m getting…I’m getting the subspace vibe that it has to something to do with Z-depth compensation.
Yeah, like you said. I thought I saw the c-word in there. I’ve been staring at screens too long today and missing half of what I’m reading.
Coffee…need coffee.
Actually, after the coffee, I’m going back to my audiobooks of Doc Smith’s LENSMAN series (read ‘em in the early 60s). The origin of all we know.
-287. What am I still doing here? Well, I think I am caught in some kind of temporal loop. I just keep doing the same thing over and over. Either that, or I have some kind of Trek-based OCD. ;)
Lensman, eh? I can’t say I’ve ever read that. I might just have to give it a try, if it’s the origin of all we know.
I wonder just how much ‘canon’ will apply to future iterations of STAR TREK. It is quite possible that the strict adfherence (as such) to ‘canon’ may well have contributed to the TV and movie downturn TREK experienced.
In terms of the people seen building it, it didn’t register with me until later that the policeman who pursued Kirk was an android. There were also a fair number of exotic aliens in the film.
So it’s entirely possible that the workers seen COULD be twice normal human size if that’s what the filmmakers want to say.
They could be androids, aliens, humans modified by Transporter tech to be double-sized… any number of rationales for why the scale in that scene doesn’t matter.
And I thought it was said at some point that none of the windows actually “look out” and that all interior windows are viewcsreens.
For that matter, depending on the nature of the tech in this universe, the ships might grow or shrink during construction, after construction or even on demand.
I think I’ve found R2D2 but as a Star Trek fan I don’t like the way they have put it in the film. I’ll just say that some symbols shouldn’t be touched…