View Single Post
Old August 5 2011, 04:25 AM   #435
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Enterprise WIP

MGagen wrote: View Post
Your ideal scale is a hair over 2% larger than 947' -- Given the references available for the size of the bridge set and the exterior dome, this is well within the margin of error. It is hardly conclusive enough to support an uncompromising rejection of the originally stated length. Either figure may work. We just know one of them was stated by the designer.
Not really true... (1067-947)/947 * 100 = 12.7%. Pretty far from 2%.

I did alter one detail... I made my lift shaft tube a bit taller than was on the production version of the ship, as well as having it straight, and of a constant diameter (the part on the miniature is pretty crude, really, and seems to have been just sort of "stuck on and puttied" without too much care for precision). It's not really too noticeable, but it's a compromise I made with full admission that I was deviating from the real miniature.
Not sure who you're arguing with, here. I began and ended my post with an acknowledgment that everyone is free to imagine an Enterprise of whatever size they wish.
Not "arguing" so much as "discussing."

You posted the comment about the bridge sizing, so I was replying to you in that regard, but I'm not "arguing" with you. just tossing out comments about the issue we're discussing.
I was merely responding to a post that maintained that the hangar deck was the only reasonable driver for finding the scale of the ship. I made a well reasoned argument for why the bridge is a more reliable guide.
Yes, you did. I didn't agree with that particular conclusion, however, based upon my own work, but that's another case of "your mileage may vary."

I find it odd, sometimes, how people seem to read in "intent" to posts on the 'net. It's a discussion... it seems sort of "dead" to say that nobody can argue opposing points.
And at the very least, MJ's original figure of 947' is not "silly." Neither are those of us who prefer his scale. That is all I have to say about the matter.
Don't misquote me... what I said was only that those who treat that number as some sort of "holy article of faith" are being a bit silly, not that it's silly to prefer it. Nor was I necessarily attributing that to you... quite the contrary, in fact. As you said, you did make it quite clear that you don't have a "religious level of ferver" about this... and my comment was thus clearly not directed towards you.

There are a few people who actually get ANGRY if you question the "holy 947'" however... on the same level as if you'd suggested re-editing the entire TOS series to use the JJ-Prise instead of the TOS ship, as if a small shift in scale (which, I would argue, helps things match up better) is somehow on the same level as a total eradication of the original series design.

THOSE people are... yes, silly. I'd hope you'd agree.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote