The issues with the Falcon touch upon some basic issues of Trek, too, chiefly because both use a very convenient conceit: since they are flying saucers, their corridors are curved, making them perfect for shooting because you can't see around the bend and can't tell the set is actually tiny.
What follows is degree-of-curvature wars. The big flying saucer of the Trek ships necessarily would call for varying curvatures at varying spots, but there's only the one set. The small saucer of the Falcon in turn faces practical issues with making the corridor curve too much. But happily enough, the human eye is piss-poor at judging curvature - and OTOH perfectly accustomed to the optics of movie cameras perverting whatever little sense of curvature we possess. So there are many well-working solutions for placing the corridor sets of SW or ST within their respective saucers, by adjusting the curvature as needed.
Of course, that's at most half the job done, because sets also tend to be flat and the 3D structure of the ships doesn't work with that. So the Falcon is postulated to have all sorts of telescoping bits, say. But Trek ships are multi-story, in at least two senses: a given deck can be flat because the stuff above and below generally always has another deck to go to, and there are more stories there in the ST episodes than in the SW movies, allowing the exploration of several locations represented by the same set, the modification of the set for the purpose, and the intuitive establishing of the in-universe aspect of this, that is, there's always more to the set-represented fictional location than meets the eye.
LDS seems to use "sets", too: the rooms on the Cerritos are likely to be CGI constructs on top of which the action is drawn, for ease of animation. So there's little point in whipping out the ruler, and we have all the usual reasons for squinting, especially as regards curvature...
Timo Saloniemi
