There's nothing on that chat that says they were all Constitution class ships.
Amen, but we're stuck with the foolish fan idea that has since been canonized, ergo they are.
If I recall, the registry of the Farragut is on that list, a ship we now know to not be a Constitution.
Not correct. 1697 is what the chart says (often identified with the name Essex), not 1647.
The Shuttlebay? Won't fit in 289m ship.
Sure it does.
A. The camera angle we see in TOS is fundamentally impossible as it would have been viewed through one or more walls, so its scaling utility is limited.
B. It's a 4x3-framed view of a round-topped room where the camera caught some model extensions.
What should they have done with the unrealistic invisible-walls shot instead? People like to count those upper corner views as demonstration of this or that, but the shuttlebay's fine.
Rec Dec? Won't fit in 305m ship.
Everyone knows of Michelson's Folly. He intentionally built it without regard to correct scale. Reasonable people thus disregard his choice.
Cargobay/Shuttlebay Complex? Won't fit in 305m ship.
Sure it does. There might be some edge issues with the manually executed matte painting, but this is also the era of a little variability in the printed width of filmed shots, which is probably why the Rec Deck senseless turboshafts and the matte painting turboshafts are of different proportions despite their being no distinction in cars.
More broadly, if the aft end of the shuttlebay in the matte painting wasn't quite tapered enough or if Deck 17 (the lowest observed cargo bay deck) doesn't seem to curve in quite enough (with
assumed cargo pod sizing), that's not really adequate excuse to ditch the established scale, especially if it's a very minor error.
Also, let me just pause here to note that it is incredibly ironic, if not altogether outrageous, for the rescalers / length truthers who want the Discoprise length accepted to be complaining about this. The TMP matte paintings were done at a time before CGI could have allowed people to get things perfect, though now that we have it no one in the new productions cares to do so.
Seriously, if you're gonna be all "yay 442 at last!", consistency dictates you immediately move on to the next length based on these shots, which is like a mile or something. I'll wait.
Two decks in saucer with 9ft ceilings? Won't fit in 289m ship.
Sure they will. _
The average deck height in the TMP saucer is 10.4 feet, and using the Jefferies 21 deck drawing of the TOS ship fits very much the same. _ We also have evidence of variable deck heights based on TOS window row spacing differences, which further reinforces the notion that we need not freak out about any one particular spacing issue.
To my mind, then, anyone who uses some particular interior shot as an effort to rescale the ship (even when they try to abuse some corridor quicky-ceiling slapped together with less than adequate scaling caution) is just trying to rescale, not analyze.
Pretty much anything in the neck? Nope.
Rescaling doesn't help this. She's got a skinny neck. I tend to think of it as having been thought necessary for separation due to early warp core non-ejectability, retained in the redesign, but part of why the class was retired in favor of the Mirandas. But, either way, the neck's always going to be almost a waste of deck space. It'd be far better to shift the gravity orientation sideways and make it a huge flat room to truck things and people back and forth, but for whatever reason that isn't a thing. Point is, though, even a 50% upscale doesn't make much difference here.
The idea of Engineering in the saucer has always been wrong. If you're talking about the TMP Engineering area, I'm actually reviewing this now. If you assume unseen details then no, the hallway outside of TMP and TWoK engineering doesn't work, but I think it actually will provided you place the core area where I'm thinking it ought to be. We'll come back to this at another time.
How about the fact that even Doug Drexler, a canon purist, couldn't even make the 289m length work when he made a Constitution cutaway?
{...}
This cutaway was later used onscreen, making it canon.
Hah, wrong on multiple counts.
1. Drexler isn't a purist on this front. His Enterprise-B MSD is notoriously huge, a 34 deck monstrosity. Also, isn't Drexler involved with the Discoprise stuff? Yeah, nah.
2. You're trying to mix the non-canon presentation of the pic from Drex Files with the imagery seen in the canon show, then suggest the non-canon bit is canon. That's naughty.
3. The cutaway he posted on his website features an incorrect number of saucer decks, assuming TOS-TMP continuity of saucer decks. This issue tends to serve to inspire rescalers, but it's just an error.
As I described the issue elsewhere:
The only real issue here is Drexler's Defiant cutaway from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Pt. II", but fortunately that's so busy that the fact it was so bungled is easily disregarded. The wide view without quite so much detail gives an appearance of a saucer deck count, but if you look at the lower engineering hull it looks, on-screen, like four decks below the level of the bottom of the deflector dish (his "cargo bays", per a labeled version he posted). Then, once the shot zooms in you just end up with a whole lot of jumbled mess other than a teeny tiny misscaled shuttle that doesn't fit the bay as it should, et cetera. So, the Drexler cutaway doesn't seem like a deficit, as far as I'm concerned.
That is to say, if the shuttle doesn't even fit the bay, it's clearly a bad image, and you can't then go on to assume what's a deck or not from that mess anyway. As such, it's useless.
No, but it's a strong argument for the fact that sometimes the holders of the intellectual property like to change their minds.
On the contrary, it means that an intellectual property is the work of many hands. The right ones sometimes don't know what the left ones are doing, which is how you end up with James R. and phasers drawn in on the wrong filmed shots (which also happened on Voyager once with a downward-firing secondary hull torpedo tube). Accidents happen, and sometimes people go all Michelson like Shatner and don't care what the accurate deck count is.
Besides, was there anything in Star Trek VI to really prove there weren't 78? If not, why aren't you arguing for 78 on the refit, for consistency's sake?
)
