posted
I was quickly reading through Star Trek Communicator at the newstand. In an article about its design, I think I read that Enterprise's length is slightly less than 600 feet. I didn't buy the mag, so can someone confirm this? The article also mentioned that the original design look a lot like the Constitution class E.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Fanboys .. to your rulers and photo applications! Quickly, now.. we should have a cutaway by Friday!
I think the article said it used to look like the *refit* TMP Constitution-class.. that would have gotten us a little upset i think (even though it still does look it a little)
[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
So, I take it from the less than enthusiastic response to this thread that very few of us are at all interested in the technical aspects of this ship? (Or is this length already old news?)
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think there is. The Communicator quote is "a little over 600 feet" That's *very* specific and absolutely consistent with the bible's 190m. The writer, or whoever gave him the number, had probably seen a blueprint saying 6xx feet, and either forgot the exact value or decided to round for simplicity. This means the value is less than 650 feet, or 198m. It's probably the bible's 190 meters plus or minus a meter -- the producers' metric conversions are usually off a bit.
Besides, why bother specifying such an exact figure in the bible if you don't have it yet? Most bibles simply leave it out, or give a general number such as the Ent-D being "twice the length of the original Enterprise". The one time they were specific was when describing runabouts as "twenty meters long", which turned out fairly correct.
posted
Still, the bible inductive argument is there too. I was actually surprised that among all that preproduction info there wasn't a simple scale chart showing the length of the Enterprise. That's why I'm leaning towards the 600 feet being from an independent source (besides, why convert back to feet?
Doug Drexler is probably a much better source for the length, because he designed the ship and because Mike Okuda usually doesn't have such specific information at hand.
Back? The only production info we have on the ship is in metres. I'd be inclined to suggest that perhaps the article-writer was on the [possibly false] impression that his predominantly American reading audience might be more comfortable relating to a length in feet rather than a metric length.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
See the smiley-face, I was being sarcastic. But still, the Magazine always uses meters. The Encyclopedia and the TMs always use meters. The show uses meters. The only time we see feet is when somebody is quoting an Art Department source or a Visual Effects source. As Sherlock Holmes would say, there is a balance of probability that this is an independent Art Department figure or a Visual Effects figure.
For whatever it's worth, I've e-mailed David Lombardi of Eden FX (the guy who supervised the CGI-ing of Federation starships for "Sacrifice of Angels" and also converted the Excelsior himself) about the size a while ago, but he still hasn't responded. He did respond to an earlier inquiry of mine, and I know Eden FX did work with Foundation on the pilot, though I don't know if they were responsible for the ship shots.
posted
Phelps: I was under the impression that Foundation's doing the ship shots and Eden's doing the rest, with Black Pool handling overload and Illusion Arts doing mattes. But its worth a shot and we're grateful for the attempt.
Frank will also be pleased to note that David Stipes has made his resplendent return to Trek, supervising VFX last week for what I believe is the first time since DS9 ended. Perhaps we should ask him?
[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
That's great. His reply period can be as long as two-three weeks. But he's been great answering my questions, even when I bothered him too much, and I thank him a lot for that.
How about someone else asking Stipes? I've already asked him too many times.
posted
Ok, Mike Okuda doesn't know the exact size (I e-mailed him). He also can't confirm that 190m or 600+ feet are correct. Just so we don't get multiple e-mailings.
posted
What's the issue of the size anyway...we can always find out later on in the season or something.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If we find out as early as possible, it'll be reposted a billion times on various webpages, which makes it far more difficult for the VFX department not to know what the Art Department has established, for instance, or a licensed source to use something other than the official figure.
Robert Legato seems to have errorneously established DS9's size at 1609m already in the pilot, whereas the Art Department's figure was only 1097m. Imagine if we had the Internet back then!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
