The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > How many decks on the new Enterprise?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-18-2010, 11:28 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
You're probably right about FC - go figure indeed!

But hey, the more decks the better - when you do as much running around the ship as they do, you want plenty of space to cover!
Maybe the "E" has been a Tardis all along as some have suggested!
Just kidding!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-20-2010, 10:00 AM
Admiral Archer's Avatar
Admiral Archer Admiral Archer is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Posts: 743
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC-73515 View Post
The Enterprise also changed her appearance to an old rejected design just for a shield diagram in Nemesis
And this was not even the first time it happened! I heard that in one of Nick Meyer's Trek films (either 2 or 6, can't remember which) there was a computer diagram on the bridge which showed a TOS configuration Enterprise instead of the proper refit design. Oops.
__________________
"To boldly go where no man has gone before"

--ADMIRAL JONATHAN ARCHER--

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-20-2010, 06:52 PM
Jim in St. Louis's Avatar
Jim in St. Louis Jim in St. Louis is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Archer View Post
I heard that in one of Nick Meyer's Trek films (either 2 or 6, can't remember which) there was a computer diagram on the bridge which showed a TOS configuration Enterprise instead of the proper refit design. Oops.
That was the Search for Spock when Chekov scanned the life form in Spock's quarters. The display was TOS Enterprise.
__________________
jim
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:50 PM
Admiral Archer's Avatar
Admiral Archer Admiral Archer is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Posts: 743
Default

Oh yeeeah! Sorry, Mr. Meyer, for the false accusations!
__________________
"To boldly go where no man has gone before"

--ADMIRAL JONATHAN ARCHER--

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-21-2010, 11:16 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

I wager ten quatloos and a barrel of quadrotriticale the nuEnteprise has 72 decks. Why 72? 'Cos I sez so...


But as far as the Enterprise-E having more than 24 decks, that never bothered me in the slightest. It's was a brand-new ship barely a year of Spacedock. Anything below deck 24 may have been mostly empty spaceframe to allow for future expansion (like additional crew quarters or other mission-related facilities or equipment yet to come), IMO...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-21-2010, 12:03 PM
Admiral Archer's Avatar
Admiral Archer Admiral Archer is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Posts: 743
Default

I still think somewhere between 15 and 25 is perfectly reasonable, considering the various lengths that the ship has been given by various different speculators. Unless it really is 800 meters long, in which case it would be roughly 40 decks, which I think is just plain stupid for a TOS-era ship.
__________________
"To boldly go where no man has gone before"

--ADMIRAL JONATHAN ARCHER--

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-21-2010, 01:13 PM
Kaboom's Avatar
Kaboom Kaboom is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Archer View Post
Unless it really is 800 meters long, in which case it would be roughly 40 decks, which I think is just plain stupid for a TOS-era ship.

Unless it's 47 decks, perhaps? That'd be acceptable.
__________________
The way it is.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-21-2010, 01:19 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
I wager ten quatloos and a barrel of quadrotriticale the nuEnteprise has 72 decks. Why 72? 'Cos I sez so...


But as far as the Enterprise-E having more than 24 decks, that never bothered me in the slightest. It's was a brand-new ship barely a year of Spacedock. Anything below deck 24 may have been mostly empty spaceframe to allow for future expansion (like additional crew quarters or other mission-related facilities or equipment yet to come), IMO...
As far as attempting to rationalise what are basically script-checking errors that's probably as good a rationalisation as any if one wants to view it that way.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-21-2010, 01:47 PM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Archer View Post
I still think somewhere between 15 and 25 is perfectly reasonable, considering the various lengths that the ship has been given by various different speculators. Unless it really is 800 meters long, in which case it would be roughly 40 decks, which I think is just plain stupid for a TOS-era ship.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-21-2010, 02:53 PM
Admiral Archer's Avatar
Admiral Archer Admiral Archer is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Posts: 743
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Hete to say it Zim, but I do agree with you that the supposed 800 meter length of a Constitution-class starship is preposterous. Even the most outlandish alternate dimension wouldn't allow for THAT much of a change, and I found the original measurements for the ship (which was supposed to be 366 meters) to be much more plausible. There is no way in hell that a mere 30 year divergence in the timeline would blow a ship up to over three times its original size. Even Nero and the Narada in all their grim glory could not screw the timeline up THAT badly.
__________________
"To boldly go where no man has gone before"

--ADMIRAL JONATHAN ARCHER--

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:12 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.