It's always great how some people like to cite my findings as being flawed, obviously without having read and trying to understand the article. But as there have been worse threads with people jumping on the "Anti-EAS" bandwagon and attacking me personally elsewhere, I think this is one of the places where another attempt to explain my stance makes sense.
For a big ship :
1) The shuttlebay landing shot.
2) The bridge window.
3) The engineering area. That place is HUGE. It wouldn't fit in a small ship.
4) The people who made the movie say it's big.
6) The view of the ship on the surface, compared to things around it.
5) The shots from the teaser trailer show it as very large, especially the top of the nacelle shot.
1) Agreed.
2) If we want the exterior and interior shots to match, then the ship would have to be well over 1000m long. It doesn't support the very size that it is supposed to be but an even larger one. Well, since it would at least be alleviated at 725m, agreed. It is just speculation but I am sure the error with the window would have occurred likewise without the decision to scale up the ship. Because in the shots looking out from the bridge it just wouldn't look good if it were submerged as it originally must have been designed.
3) You can kill me, but it doesn't exist. Even though it proves the point that I ignore things that I don't like, I stand up for ignoring it.
4) Irrelevant. You either believe the VFX people and ignore other evidence, or you go only with the actual evidence such as the shuttlebay scene. It is no additional point.
5) The teaser is not part of the movie, I'd say it's non-canon. It was obviously made with the "bigger" ship though.
6) Quite the contrary is true. The little people on the scaffolds indicate the ship is between 300 and 400m long.
Against that there's :
1) The launch of the pod, I am told, supports a smaller ship. But I am not so sure; need to look at it closely.
2) Pike's shuttle launch.
1) Probably yes. With the pod being somewhat more than 1m across and the hatch being some 2m on a 366m ship it would work.
2) Agreed.
But you forget to list all the structural issues:
3) The shuttlebay and torpedo launcher, which at 366m would be exactly the same size as on the original Enterprise refit
4) The window rows, which would leave *exactly* every second deck without a window on a huge Enterprise
5) The docking hatches. They would measure some 4m on the huge Enterprise.
6) The bridge dome. There would be two full decks above the bridge on the huge ship. Why?
Add to that the continuity issues with the Old Trek size-wise or ignore them if you wish to, there is solid evidence for a smaller ship.
I think one of the against arguments (though not an incredibly strong one) is that the size and number of windows on the hull would make more sense with a smaller ship.
It is an incredibly strong one. What a moronic idea would it be if exactly every second deck were without windows? How could we justify such an incredible coincidence? I have been using window rows as half-way reliable size references for years, and of all starships that I examined the immensely important lead ship of the Abramsverse should be so strangely designed? Come on.
Oh well, and someone mentioned the guy who scaled up all the Starfleet ships of Old Trek to insane sizes. Saying that window rows are irrelevant opens a can of worms.
...man, Bernd is really ignoring canon when he says the new Connie is 302-366 meters when its clearly larger from what the scaling had.
You should first check what canon actually means before making such a claim.
Bernd appears to be in denial over the new movie. Hell, he flat out admits that everything points towards it being pretty f***ing big.
On the contrary, I see a small ship throughout the movie, and just the shuttlebay scene didn't feel right.
My main gripe with all fans who now criticize me is that not a single person in the world had the impression that the ship was huge before the film came out. And even after the shuttlebay scene most of them were still with me that the ship was small, and discarded it as a one-off error. Only when the diagrams with the huge ship cropped up, many people suddenly changed their mind, because if the guys in charge tell us it must be true, and for many it is so cool that now Star Trek can compete with Star Wars and BSG. And now everyone who still sticks to what we previously all saw in the movie with countless good and mostly still valid reasons (and who believes in a still existing intra-universe continuity, size-wise) is being treated like a heretic.
However, at least one of the admins at SCN is sufficiently pissed off by his attitude that he came up with this label for their Trek XI forum:
It is just the other way round. You probably don't know but the sub-title has been there for well over two years, before the discussion became heated. I was tolerant enough to agree to the sub-title. I wish I could say the same about several people who saw that as an invitation to frequently flat out dismiss all of my arguments or who didn't even bother to read them. If anyone has a reason to be pissed it's me.
His only defense for a 300m ship, "That's the way I think it should be." Even for a fanboy that's pitiful.
Read the fucking page, fanboy.
Whilst I have the greatest possible respect for Brendt, to an extent he's always been this way. If you actually read through his stuff, a LOT of times he will dismiss visual evidence and official sources in favour of what is "logical" to his way of thinking. He tends not to like designs and capabilities that are radically different to other existing stuff, to the point where he will "rationalise" them to fit.
I am well aware that our approaches are different. But with all due respect, DITL criticizes errors or bad decisions of the Star Trek production just as well. I am just a bit more consequential at EAS when I dismiss *a few* things that simply can't be true to make the rest fit even better. Also, in many cases it is debatable anyway what are facts and what are just interpretations (even MA has issues with that), and if visuals really supersede everything else. The fruitless debates with a certain M.W. on a topic that must not be mentioned are a good example how far the very basic criteria may be apart. I'm sorry to say that the discussion with some supporters of the Huge Enterprise sadly reminds me of this guy's tactics.
