Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Valias
I'm just saying that if there is an official size chart it's probably better to use that rather than to rely on something some fan came up with, or inconclusive references from episodes and movies that show the ships at totally different sizes.
Either that or we can outright acknowledge that there is no canon size for anything in Trek that wasn't outright stated and never contradicted by actors or displays on-screen. Take your pick.
|
So you'd prefer to use a size chart that is known to be completely flawed and that is also known to scale ships not based on criteria like their physical arrangement and deck structure but because of the personal sense of aestetics of Mr. Stipes, as we saw with the Miranda that was scaled so the Defiant would look good next to it.
So the chart is not based in any consistency but you use it as a source
for consistency, don't you see the gaping hole in your logic there?
Also I'm not talking about what fans made up, I'm talking about the people who
made the ships, like Drexler and Propert who buit the ships with a very specific size in mind and an arrangement that is based in that size.
Like the two deck thick saucer on the Constitution refit and the Miranda were based in a 305 and 243 meter long ship respectively.
In addition all the ships that I mentioned, including the Akira, are years older than the DS9 chart.
However based on your logic, the size chart that was created years after the ships, of which none was made for DS9 by the way, is right and
the ships are wrong.
How can a chart that was created after the fact be right and the ships and the people who built them be wrong?
Beside as "Message in a Bottle" clearly shows this size chart had about as much influence on the VFX people as a glass of peanut butter.
Take your pick, either they disregarded the size figure given for the Defiant or for the Akira, either way it shows a lot about the worth of a VFX size chart when the VFX people don't use it and instead scale the ships in a way that is consistent with the original intent of 150 vs 400 meters.