View Single Post
Old May 3 2013, 08:05 PM   #36
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
That's Tobias Richter's first attempt at the 2009 Enterprise, made prior to the film's release. Here is his revised and more screen-accurate model.
OK, thanks. Same size.

They are not "artistic elements" that "look cool" they are EVIDENCE. I'm working from what the films show us, and the people who made the damn thing tell us. You are working from obsolete assumptions and nothing else. It's the Trekkie equivalent of saying the Earth is 4000 years old.
First, that's a ridiculous analogy. Second, your "evidence" doesn't even provide a consistent scale size. The ship grows and shrinks depending on how they decide to match interior to exterior. How is that reliable? It was an image superposition where one image (ship) was arbitrarily scaled up so the second image (people / shuttles) would fit in and the composite would "look cool."

Anyway, Kirk's personal escape pod is seen being ejected from one of these hatches. No way that thing was 5m in diameter. Does that "evidence" get thrown out?

I really don't care what artists think the size is, based on their need to make something "look cool." That's why there's a term "artistic license", which means to stretch the truth because you can.

I match the form with the function. The Enterprise shouldn't have 5m diameter hatches. Who thought of that? Can you explain what they're for? It makes no sense for the ship to be over 200m tall (as high as a 70 storey building). etc... etc... etc... Shall I repeat: THOSE DIMENSIONS MAKE NO SENSE.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote