Subject:
|
Re: how large would the ISD be compared to the Enterprise-D?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars, lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:39:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
38 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Adrick Tolliver writes:
> The conclusions drawn by Dr. Saxton in his Technical Commentaries are false.
Some of them sure are :)
> The "true" (as true as any fictional ship can get) length of a Super Star
> Destroyer is either 12,800 meters as stated on SW.com's databanks, or the
> 8000 meter RPG length. Both are official, and appear in *official* LFL
> products.
Yeah, unfortunately, the guage of "accurate" could be measured:
#1 - Canon - anything taken DIRECTLY from the RELEASED movies. Even scripts
or uncompleted scenes aren't canon.
#2 - Official - anything lisenced by Lucas. If the movie disagrees with the
"official" source, the movie is correct. Otherwise, if the movie is
inconclusive and doesn't conflict with an official source, the official
source is gold
#3 - Pure speculation - things implied from the movies, books, video games;
incomplete scenes from the movie which weren't released for some reason or
another (since you can't prove they would have been released that way), etc.
> Saxton's site is completely inaccurate, as he fails to take the
> official material into account (not just with the SSD article, the errors
> and fallacies on his site are too numerous to list.) An accurate
> perspective can *not* be achieved from the shots in the movie (there is no
> way to accurately judge distances by sight in space)
True and false. One could derive high and low values for most objects in the
movie. For instance, if we see a shot of Star Destroyers CLEARLY located
*behind* the SSD, we can get a MAXIMUM value for the SSD, assuming we know
how big the ISD's are. Similarly, if we see an ISD in *front* of the SSD, we
can get a MINIMUM length for the SSD. But no better than that.
> or by measuring the
> models used in the film (model sizes do not always correspond directly with
> the sizes of other models.)
That's one of the things he does on his site that's mildly annoying. Just
because models *tend* to be built in scale with one another does not mean
that when they're photo-composited together that they'll remain true to
their respective scales, UNLESS they were filmed together for the shot. And
even then, I just don't buy that ILM constructed models INTENTIONALLY with
specific scales in mind.
He does that in quite a few places. He gets the number he *WANTS* from *ONE*
supposedly canon source, and then treats all other *CONFLICTING* canon
sources as though they're disposable, or ignores them completely. The
biggest mistake I've found to date though was AT-AT stride length. He
assumed it was 10 meters long, for no reason in particular, and stating no
sources whatsoever. And given the movie stride length, and his *OWN*
estimations of AT-AT size, their strides were 5.5 meters! In order to match
his 10 meter stride estimation, the AT-AT's would be 137 feet tall! :)
Anyway, I always take everything on SWTC with a grain of salt. If you don't
follow his logic closely, he may try and pull a fast one :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
83 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
