Doug Drexler scaled up the ship by about 33% for his cutaway, an undetailed version of which appeared in "In a Mirror, Darkly". Here's his cutaway scaled to 947' with a 6' Mr Spock. Compare him with the redshirts Drexler put in...
Yep. You need to scale up the ship by about the third in order the stuff seen on screen to actually fit in it.
How big would the TOS Connie be if we account for the actual size of the hallways we saw in the show?
About 1500 feet, going by the MSD Doug Drexler make for "In a Mirror Darkly."
Much as I admire Doug Drexler, I've always had some issues with his cutaway of the
Enterprise, and one of them is that I think he scaled it up a little
too much. Lots and lots of discussion in the Trek Tech subforum around here has left me convinced that the optimal size for the ship (to fit the interiors into the exterior) is actually 1080 feet (329 meters), just a 14% increase from the semi-canonical 289m.
Fun fact, IIRC the designers have said they have the interior of Discovery mapped out for writers to look at for when they want to add a new room or use an existing one, but if the story calls for a room that doesn't fit, they'll still make the one that doesn't fit.
The DSC designers have worked out the interiors, yet haven't
shared them with anyone?
Do they not grasp how much fans crave that sort of thing?
Nah, it's just a new visual continuity. Some of the narrative beats might be the same as the original, but the aesthetics have been updated with 2018 production values
I like the way you limit yourself to saying "updated" in that phrase, as opposed to "improved"...
Hence why I was so happy with the Abramsprise when the first of the new films was released, as it was clear that someone had really put some thought into it.
Wow, it's amazing how differently we perceive this. One of the (many, many) things that bugged me about the Abrams films was how clear it was that nobody put a minute's thought into how the interiors of the ship would fit into the exterior. (We all know about the last-minute rescaling, for instance. And seriously... brewery, anyone?) By way of contrast, Matt Jefferies' work on the original is
famously intricate and detailed, above and beyond anything that could be seen on screen... and if it's a hair too small in the end (14%), that doesn't detract from how impressive it is compared to most other TV and film productions, then or now.
The Discovery Enterprise is close enough to the TOS version to be really an inconsequential change.
You're kidding, right? I could list all the differences at length, but others around here have already done so. Sure, it's a lot more faithful than the Klingon designs, but that's damning with (very) faint praise.
No, it means it's a make believe TV show, and I'm not going to bang my head senselessly trying to rationalize why it doesn't look identical to previous incarnations. "Close enough" is good enough for me (and this comes from someone who has been a Trek fan essentially since the beginning).
And yet you're participating in a discussion thread that's specifically dedicated to speculating about ship sizes?...
I'm sure you know as well as I do that whether we're talking about interiors vs. exteriors or relative sizes of one ship to another, starship scales have always, repeat ALWAYS, been subject to arbitrary "cheating" based on what looks aesthetically and dramatically satisfying to the show/filmmakers when it comes to any given shot of any given miniature, or the practicalities of building a given set in such a way as to accommodate a given camera setup, or what have you. ... If one is the sort of person who needs to see it all as "real" down to that level of concrete detail, rather than a loose artistic depiction of a written screen/teleplay, then in that pursuit, paradoxes will inevitably arise, and compromises will have to be made, because that's a bar rarely (if ever) entirely cleared by any past Trek production. They all fudged various things, multiple times, to one extent or another. Not a novel phenomenon by any stretch.
I mostly agree with this, although I wouldn't ever use the phrase "
loose artistic depiction." Reconciling the discrepancies and fine points is one of the fun parts of fandom, though!...
I do not perceive anything shown thus far on DSC to require significantly more suspension of disbelief and fudging than any number of previous "re-imaginings" and subsequent "fixes," nor as creating any significantly greater contradictions.
...and this, I simply can't agree with. IMHO DSC goes
significantly farther than any past production in terms of stretching my suspension of disbelief, and if the show hasn't quite broken it yet, well, it's not for lack of trying.
Does anyone really think DSC will both (1) reach a point where it is precisely contemporary with TOS, and (2) make no further visual concessions toward what is depicted there? I certainly don't.
No, but only because I don't think (1) will ever happen, so any speculation about (2) is basically moot.
