View Single Post
Old June 10 2013, 06:56 PM   #563
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
No I checked very closely when I saw it the second time around. We don't see the ship from the front.
Yes we do. The same overly large window appears on the refit as it did in that one brief scene where the bridge window appeared oddly enlarged to zoom in on kirk. My distinct impression was that this was a second version of the CG Enterprise model with the window shape and proportions altered and that ILM "cheated" and used the new model (shown only from the front) earlier in the movie because the same shot didn't look right using the older one.

Ironically, it's kind of like what happened with TNG between the 4 foot and the 2/6 foot models. The 4 footer, built much later into Trek's run, looks VERY different from the 2-footer OR the 6-footer, has different textures, different proportions, different window sizes, etc.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Oh and I wasn't the one talking about the bridge window, that was King Daniel Into Darkness.
Yeah, but he's just discussing it as a curiosity. You extended it to a commentary on the entire film and the filmmakers, instead of just a VFX oddity, which is silly.
In a 200 million dollar production, there is no such thing as a VFX oddity. The camera zooming in on Kirk standing behind the bridge window is an elaborate shot that needed a specifically created CG model. So if that one is different to the other model, it is clearly because the filmmakers favor composition over continuity. They didn't go: "oh gee, we wanted Kirk standing behind the big glass viewscreen, but the model doesn't have that window, so let's skip that shot".

It's basically the same thing as 78 decks on the Enterprise-A in The Final Frontier. Shatner wanted an exciting scene in a turbolift shaft. So he decided continuity wasn't as important as the excitement of the sequence.
This.

And IMO it worked pretty well. It's not a mistake to favor style over continuity when the style is AWESOME.

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
That is plainly wrong.
It really isn't.
So, we'll add infallibility not only in themselves but also in everyone that works for them to the list of alleged directorial superpowers.
Actually it's the exact opposite of that. In addition to not being the focus of the Director's intention, internal consistency isn't even the VFX artist or Editor's intention. It's only an error if they DIDN'T INTEND to do it that way (the famous error that pops up in various movies where a car chase begins in the afternoon but ends at night because it literally took all day to finish shooting it).

If, OTOH, you intentionally under-expose the film to make the final part of the car chase darker because it's a very dark moment for both characters (or because they've driven into a part of the city that's supposed to be smog-covered and polluted and sort of dystopian) that's a style choice, even if it's inconsistent with other parts of the movie where the street scene wasn't nearly that dark in daylight.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote