A stone's throw away

[LMFAOschwarz]

I can't believe it took me four decades to consciously become aware of this, but have you ever noticed how often landing parties beam down in front of big rocks?

 

[Sir Rhosis]

Real world answer: Studio set economics.

And wow, that is one wide post you have there. Might want to see if you can fix it. Or maybe it is my monitor, not sure.

Sir Rhosis

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

It looks just fine on mine, Sir Rhosis...but if you are having trouble, others could too!

Based on what you see, would stacking the pics help?

(Never mind...I just checked it in Internet Explorer..ouch! )

Hopefully it's better now!

 

[Sir Rhosis]

On my monitor, I can see as far as the pic from "That Which Survives" and half of the next one. The rest I have to slide over to see and they go on forever against this sites background. So, yes, maybe stacking.

But cool pics, nonetheless. Trek planet sets looked great even when they were pretty cheesy and bare except for rocks.

SR

 

[Sir Rhosis]

"Poifect!"

No, wait. I think some of them are now gone.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

I noticed that, and they are now restored!

There! It only took thirty-five posts, but I think I got it right now!

Thanks for the heads up, Sir!

 

[RandyS]

Real world answer: Studio set economics.

Better real world answer: They were trying to hypnotize the viewer.

 

[MikeS]

The transporter technician was just showing off...

When they first invented transporters it was suggested that people be beamed as far from rocky structures as possible, to prevent any rematerialisation "accidents" (you don't want your leg to rematerialise in a rocky outcrop). Enterprise technicians were the best in all Starfleet and just showing off their superior transporting skills.

 

[Metryq]

That's all the same rock. It had a contract to appear for a certain number of minutes every season.

 

[Forbin]

Luckily the pics are blocked here at work, so I'm having no scrolling problem.