This is topic Discoprise Length in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2859.html

Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
They've officially started the process of confirming the 442 meter figure in the new canon material. Episode 9 of Strange New Worlds had a background image of the class of ship made of "Constitution parts" (by which they seemingly meant "all of them) and while some measurements from the previous 289 meter graphic (the Discovery one with the unswept nacelle pylons) remained, the length (mistakenly marked width) was given as 442 meters.

https://mobile.twitter.com/timothypeel1/status/1544405659663405059
 
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
 
With proper "Classic" (tm) dimensions for the Engine length and beam of the Saucer..?!?@$?
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Those dimensions are all over the shop. For the correct length, the primary hull length/width and secondary hull length are about right. And the secondary hull width - assuming it includes the beam, across the nacelles, too. I don’t know how I feel about the overall height but it’s maybe not far off. But then the secondary hull height can’t be right, unless it includes the neck - which I guess if the width includes the nacelles, then why not?

So maybe it is the 440m that’s just wrong. Which it has to be. OK some of the scales it was filmed at especially in DSC were fucking stupid, but it’s not unprecedented to repeatedly botch the scaling on a hero ship.

Also, am I the only one who hates the way infographics and records get laid out these days in film and TV? Lots of useless information to pad it out, with a nice big picture to do the same thing. Anyone whose ever seen personnel databases knows they’re nothing like that.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
quote:

So maybe it is the 440m that’s just wrong. Which it has to be.

Only insofar as they used to have it scaled at 515, assuming a 750m long Discovery. Between the helm screen and the fact a reconstruction basically required 515 to work with the camera zoom and field of view, it was pretty solid, if I say so myself.

 -

At 442, the Discovery is 683 meters, but they've probably abandoned this relative scaling now.

 -
 
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
I’m quite happy to just ignore the comparative sizing from DSC s2, as I say it’s not the first time scaling has been botched. And certainly I’m not doubling the size of THE Enterprise just because of how they showed it a couple of times next to that stupidly-designed fuck-ugly anachronistically-oversized piece of shit called (likely moronically) the Crossfield-class…
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
I actually don't have a problem with the upscaling. I always felt that the TOS and TMP Enterprises, the Excelsior, and the Grissom should have all been much larger than their 'official' sizes. The only thing I don't care for is that the length of the Crossfield class is 750 meters, while the Galaxy class is 642 meters, mainly because of those stupid unnecessarily long nacelles.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lee:
And certainly I’m not doubling the size of THE Enterprise

Just so I am clear . . .

So you're ignoring the info released to licensees, two separate bits of scaling work (of a type we'd hunger for back in ye olde days, really) from the show itself (one of those debatable for its complexity but the other literally right there on their computer screen in 2D like its "The Enterprise Incident"), and now the demonstration that this information is being used backstage.

That's not even counting the likelihood of other corroborating effects shots like the suicide or shuttles from the bay, et cetera.

Is that all correct? I mean, it's cool, you do you. That's just not how I tend to approach things.
 
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dukhat:
I actually don't have a problem with the upscaling. I always felt that the TOS and TMP Enterprises, the Excelsior, and the Grissom should have all been much larger than their 'official' sizes.

I've seen many of those arguments on TrekBBS. None of them really work for me. The TOS shuttle set issue (interior standing room set versus design and exterior that wasn't) basically makes that entire argument of set height (for TOS, especially) a non-starter for me.

There will always be issues of practicality and artistic license to consider . . . and after all, why stop at TOS and the Excelsior? TMP requires a much larger 1701 refit since the floor wasn't as Probert advised them to make it. TNG necessitates a ship of at least a kilometer or more to fit Ten Forward. One guy scaled the spacewalk from ST: FC and found the Enterprise-E to be 13 kilometers long, and I'm pretty sure the Nemesis hole in the tiny Eaves bridge module necessitates similar. And so on.

I'm certainly willing to overlook backstage info that contradicts what we see (Stipes!) or otherwise seek a synthesis of disparate data that makes the most sense (Defiant 120), but the rescalers generally seem to be taking a proverbial wedge issue and trying to expand it beyond reasonable fit, in my view.

But, to each their own.
 


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3