www.ditl.org

Tyyr wrote:Well since the Ent-E is really 17km long I don't see the problem.

As long as it isn't that stupid I'm pleased.

They needed the extra room for the iso-mega-quantum-ultra-phasers. Besides, by NEM they had finished adding the rumpus room and solarium.

Mikey wrote:Meh, ships named Enterprise in 'Trek have an illustrious history of referencing more decks than they actually have.

The fed are obviously experimenting with timelord tech - bigger on the inside.

colmquinn wrote:The fed are obviously experimenting with timelord tech - bigger on the inside.

Maybe it's a side effect of their turns-people-into-newts drive. That had a poor man's Time Lord as an intermediate stage.

Both products of the Gallifreyan Shipyards, no doubt.

It was a script goof. Nothing more than that.

Mikey wrote:Both products of the Gallifreyan Shipyards, no doubt.

This makes the most sense given the Ent-E has room for a bottomless pit in NEM.

Reliant121 wrote:Then in NEM, he has to send security details to deck 29.

tbh I don't think I have a problem with a Federation ship having 26 decks but the bottom deck being named number 29. kinda like how hotels in the US don't have a '13th' floor. With all the cultures in Trek and the happy-go-lucky attitude of the Federation and respecting every cultures superstitions that could lead to deck 26 being called deck 29

Maybe some dopey enlisted bod just painted the 6 on upside down.

JudgeKing wrote:This makes the most sense given the Ent-E has room for a bottomless pit in NEM.

One map somewhere had the Remans up on deck 19 or so when they fought. That would give a few decks for the Reman character to fall. Of course, if they had turned the lights up (to blind the Remans) or one of the Reman actors had them all get sports goggles (to reflect battle visors with light compensation), it would have made more sense.

Lt. Staplic wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:Then in NEM, he has to send security details to deck 29.

tbh I don't think I have a problem with a Federation ship having 26 decks but the bottom deck being named number 29. kinda like how hotels in the US don't have a '13th' floor. With all the cultures in Trek and the happy-go-lucky attitude of the Federation and respecting every cultures superstitions that could lead to deck 26 being called deck 29

I like the way you think!

There's too much over-analysis of this. It seems simple enough to write it off as a script/actor error. Big woop.

The movie is too damn good to let something like this, or other similarily small inconsistencies ruin it for you. Would be illogical.

Demon971 wrote:There's too much over-analysis of this. It seems simple enough to write it off as a script/actor error. Big woop.

Of course. But where's the fun in being a Trekkie if you don't ignore OOU explanations and analyze canon points like this from a strictly IU perspective?

Mikey wrote:

Demon971 wrote:There's too much over-analysis of this. It seems simple enough to write it off as a script/actor error. Big woop.

Of course. But where's the fun in being a Trekkie if you don't ignore OOU explanations and analyze canon points like this from a strictly IU perspective?

Aye, and it'd make conversations pretty damn short.

"X doesn't make sense because Y"
"Yeah, someone screwed that up"
"Sure did"
.....
......
.........
.............
*crickets*

Speaking of deck inconsistencies...

Welcome to the USS Enterprise-A, with decks numbering in the twenties.