rec.arts.movies.past-films

In article <$@trnddc06>,
peachy ashie passion wrote:

> 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.
> >
>
> Maybe. What in show context told us it was the biggest sub ever?
>
> I mean, aside from the interior.

You see those huge hatches on the outside?

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
/board/