rec.arts.movies.past-films

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <$@trnddc03>,
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> In article <$@trnddc03>,
>>> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article <47ca200f$0$36376$742ec2ed@>,
>>>>> "Dimensional Traveler" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <$@trndny05>,
>>>>>>> Derek Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And that old standby: A 5 mile long Nautilus?? In the
>>>>>>>>> canals of Venice?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Again with the Venice!...Get over it, people!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A five mile long Nautilus is bad enough. No Venice needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, where is this "5 mile long Nautilus" meme coming from?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was on the official website at the time of the movie. Along
>>>>> with the tesseract interior. They showed the device that makes
>>>>> it bigger inside in the film although I don't know that they
>>>>> addressed that's what it did.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe they did, nor do I think they discussed the 5
>>>> mile bit.
>>>>
>>>> So that's off limits.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's not, since they SHOWED the submarine in the movie. It's
>>> supposed to be 5 miles long. All the website gave us was the size
>>> numerically. They still have a 5 mile sub depicted on screen, even
>>> if they didn't say it's exact size.
>>>
>>
>> But they didn't SAY it was 5 miles long, so I didn't see it as 5
>> miles long. It was just a sub.
>
> It was the biggest sub ever, by a long shot.
>
> Ugly, too.

I think you need to take a look at how big modern military subs are.
They're bigger than most surface warships these days.

--
Sig under construction