View Single Post
Old May 11 2013, 02:13 AM   #174
Rear Admiral
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel wrote: View Post
^The airlock they entered was the same height as the secondary hull windows a few floors below.
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
^The "78 decks" thing was added at Shatner's insistece, over the objections of the producers.
But... but... the people who MADE THE MOVIE said 78 decks! Who are you to argue with Shatner? It's his movie! The arrogance of some fanboys is staggering!

Besides, if you don't trust Shatner on the 78 decks (which of course is ridiculous -- the Enterprise is not that big), why should you trust him on the accuracy of the shuttle bay layout (which was just a recycled TNG set rented on the cheap)?
It was actually the throne room from Coming to America redressed. The shuttlebay on the refitted Enterprise, scaled at 305m as per all the manuals, should be about 16 meters wide.

Now, tell me how they'd fit two rown of 12m shuttles in there horizontally with all the room to spare that we see if the new Enterprise was that same size.

They are the same size on orthographic views.
- the shuttle is the size of the "C-" as it flies over the rim of the bay, directly over the camera
No, sorry. I advanced it frame by frame as the shuttle emerged from the bay. It's above the lettering, so there are two possibilities:

1. It's directly over the rim, in which case its size matches precisely to the letter spacing (which spanned C-17).

2. It was further up, in which case the lettering would look BIGGER than the shuttle (see "perspective"). So, even if the shuttle only spanned the "C-", as you claim, it would actually be bigger because it's further away from the camera.

Same size, see?
I haven't scrutinized any of this but you could get the impression of screwed up perspective depending on the taking lens -- wider ones distort foreground, longe ones compress whole view.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote