adywan said:
savmagoett said:
Ady won't like it but you're making my point Angel :)
I'll explain later got to sleep now :o
I won't like it? you don't even know me yet you're making assumptions like that. I'm the first to admit when i am wrong, but in this case i have proved that i am right with the scale issue here. At least i'm providing logcal and illustrated proof to back up my arguments. I asked you a few times in the ESB:R thread, before you made this one, what you were using to calculate the scale of the stardestroyer in conjunction with the shuttle but failed to answer my question , yet keep harping on that you are right and i am wrong. So i'll ask again: how are you calculating the scale between the two? Your arguments for the scale of the shuttle would mean that the outer edges of the stardestroyer are only about 3 decks high?
Check the scale proof that i provided and there can be no question about the scale of the shuttle, and that;s taking into account the differences between the studio shuttle set and the miniature model. With the stardestroyer & executor towers being the same size the logical choice is to use the executor exterior bridge dome as a scale reference. The dome on the 1 stardestroyer model that has this feature is too big. Don't forget that the lights we see on the stardestroyer aren't for decoration. They are meant to represent windows, so if you go by the larger scale bridge, the windows would be more like portholes. lol
But i guess no matter how much proof i give, you will always be right ;)
Wow wow, Ady, I was just kidding (that's why I putted the smiley). Maybe my english was ambiguous, if so, I'm sorry. I'm a French talking guy who do his best to speak your language, and humor is the most difficult part of that. I assure you I wasn't making any assumption toward your personality.
Besides I'm not harping anything about you being wrong or me being right. I just said once "I think you are mistaken" and that I will develop my point of view later. The use of "I think" in a sentence is only to expose an opinion not to make an assertion, am I wrong? That's what I always try to do when presenting an argument, using conditional sentences and asking peoples what they think about my argument.
For the rest of your diatribe as you are so prompt judging me I will be as well, I'm sorry Adywan, but you're the one making affirmations here, saying "i have proved that i am right", "this shot is wrong", "this one is right", "this tower has an oversized bridge section", "the Executor is the only one that has the bridge section at the correct scale" (based on what please?). For someone who's "the first to admit when he's wrong" you don't sound very open to discussion…
You're even patronizing me about what I should consider as argument: "Forget about the so called sizes of ships that are documented because many are just so wrong". At least speak for yourself man! If I choose to use one such document it's because i find that one relevant, not because they are "official". I'm not taking them for granted nor as stand alone proof but I'm not systematically discarding them either. In the Tydirium continuity I used a SW Incredible Cross Sections document only to say "Very consistent inside layout from SW Incredible Cross Sections" in other words "here is a believable inside layout that says a 20 M shuttle is possible" nothing more.
Besides, for me there's no right or wrong in that matter, only contradicting shots regarding an issue (such as the ISD size), that's what I call discrepancies, isn't it the good term?
BTW I find your conning tower/Tydirium shuttle scale analysis absolutely correct. I only dissagree with the absoluteness of your conclusion. You said it yourself, it's the Executor tower not a regular ISD's. I'm the first one to say that similar conning towers in different ships must be meaning "same size" and to serve as a reference point for the viewer. But the very existence of that regular ISD coning tower establishing a different size in the same movie should a least raise some debate, not just "that one is wrong".
And anyway, as I said before, it's only one scale establishing shot. I was about to analyze other ones and then make open conclusions.
All in all my position is that if one wishes to solve scale continuity problems in a movie, one has to make a choice. And my opinion is that to make that choice one should consider all the scale establishing shots. Major shot and minor shots should be taken in consideration in relation to their importance, but one shouldn't completely discard a shot just because it doesn't get you where you want to go.
For example, If there are, let's say, five shots saying the ISD is 1 mile long against one shot saying it is bigger, shouldn't one at least consider the possibility that maybe the ISD was meant to feel like 1 mile.
I just wish to explain my point of view here (which can only be done trough several posts) and therefore answering your question. Sorry I failed to answer you question right away sir! Why are you getting obnoxious just because someone is challenging your statement. I'm not interested in a fight Adywan, and I don't just want to proof you wrong. TESB(R) is your project so it will be your call. I was just trying to present you with some document that you may not know and alternate reasoning that you may not have come up with, that's all…
But you just won't let me, don't you?