Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by WarpFactorZ, May 1, 2013.
I think we've already covered that some of the close shots have lens distortion.
It's not just that.
At the end, after the refit, the bridge-window and the dome above are different.
Yeah, but when you're highlighting/targeting another vessel, it makes sense for it to enlarge on the display to make it easier to fix on a certain location, in this case the airlock.
The two ships lined up face to face pretty much right along the centerline, so I think that's probably the best judge of scale until (if) we get something more definitive like an artbook or concept art with the dimensions.
We don't know about the window after the refit, because we didn't get to see them. The different windows are from before the refit.
I'd say the small Hot Wheels ship looks to be in scale with the big Vengence version.
It definitely looks more like 3 times the size especially in width and length but perhaps not in depth, I am talking about the difference between the two ships not the front view.
We do see it in the movie.
I think the second picture in King Daniel Into Darkness' post is from the end of the film - I could be wrong though.
No I checked very closely when I saw it the second time around. We don't see the ship from the front.
I really wouldn't try to look for consistency or sense in this. Clearly the filmmakers prefer composition over consistency, in every aspect of filmmaking, from writing to filming to editing.
I'd be more inclined to take this seriously if you weren't using something as silly as the slightly inconsistent size of a window to make your point. That doesn't exactly bode well for the quality of the rest of your complaints.
Inconsistencies in Trek didn't originate with and aren't exclusive to JJ Abrams and his team.
Difference is that those inconsistencies span over several episodes and films, sometimes meaning different creative teams. But the Abramstrek films are inconsistent within themselves.
And I don't even think that's negative. They prefer style over continuity, why not? But I just wouldn't look for consistency (and fight battles over it) where none is.
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.
That is plainly wrong.
Also, you seem to think the director is some sort of omniscient micro-managing deity, and that every single aspect and decision of a massive production lasting months to a year and employing thousands of people receives exactly the same level of scrutiny and choice from them.
It really isn't.
He doesn't have to. The script says "The camera zooms in on Kirk looking out of the window" and the director works with the storyboard artist and director of cinematography and the VFX supervisor on that scene. And at some point the VFX supervisor realizes that the ship model they currently have doesn't have such a big window. And they change that to fit the vision of the director.
The director doesn't even have to know about that, but the change happens.
And as a result, you get inconsistent shots, one with a big window, one with small windows. But none of those individual shots is an oddity.
Heck, and I do think Abrams is very involved. At the end of the film, the Enterprise has a larger impulse engine, it's a refit. They didn't just do that for the heck of it because one of the 3D modelers had too much spare time and just slipped that modified version into the pipeline unnoticed. That's a conscious decision that the director certainly approved of.
So, we'll add infallibility not only in themselves but also in everyone that works for them to the list of alleged directorial superpowers.
Yes it is. We've seen plenty of high-budget movies with VFX errors, or plain laughable ones. You are wrong.
That shot is from the end, during Kirk's speech. The camera swoops around the ship, eventually looking almost directly into the window. But we also see this version of the window earlier on, during the big zoom-in when the Enterprise is waiting in the Klingon Neutral Zone, and in the last movie when the camera zooms out the window and flips just before Pike, Kirk and Sulu take the shuttle to the Narada.
Earlier in the thread, someone speculated that this taller window may be a sign that they shrunk the Enteprise from the 725m/2380' on the bluray and in the art book. I was curious to see it that was the case, and it appears not.
JJ Abrams is a big fan of camera trickery - in the 2009 movie he used children in half-sized sets for Kirk's run into the cave on Delta Vega and (in deleted scenes) Nero being marched to an interrogation on Rura Penthe, and Sam and young Jim Kirk had a scene speaking in front of a dollhouse-sized barn. I'm having fun figuring out what was done similarly involving the Enterprise.
I don't want to argue with you, but we do see the bridge-window after the refit.
Aw, come on. Of course you want to argue with me. I'm fine with that. I love arguing. And it appears that I'm wrong anyway. You know what that means, right ? Yep, I'll have to see the movie again !
Separate names with a comma.