Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by WarpFactorZ, May 1, 2013.
Really? I only noticed it at the end.
They only do it twice: once during the zoom-in immediately before the the "disarm torpedo" scene, and once at the very end of the movie.
Ah, I see why, because they needed to see the set, on the common CG model the view screen does not match with the bridge physical set. Now that I think of it, that might have also been done in XI.
The first time we see the high-detail bridge window model is actually in the 2009 movie, after Pike and Nero talk on the viewscreen.
As mentioned in the Cinefex article, it seems the Enterprise is ever-so-slightly bigger in Into Darkness - it looks like 733m/2405ft.
The Vengeance is a whopping 1460m/4790ft.
As a casual viewer of this thread, I would like to take the time to congratulate King Daniel on a well fought battle and a well earned victory against those who would not see what was right in front of their own damn eyes. The Enterprise is BIG, and she's beautiful!
This thread reminds me of that movie 'Shallow Hal'.
Ent looks like 751 or 731, hard to tell on that resolution. But that 3rd number is a 1.
Who ever did the 'length' comparisons for that image is wrong. First it says the Enterprise is about the Length of the Chrysler Building which is only around 319m, but the diagram says the ENT is 731. Then it says the Vengeance is 2 Trump Towers, which would only be 404m.
This is the problem in a nutshell. The length is wildly inconsistent.
I would imagine those are code names. Note the "Yankee Stadium Exterior".
Which obviously isn't the real world Chrysler Building as the drawing mentions it being 751 meters.
That was my impression too.
I totally missed that.
I remember an ILM size chart, back in the XI days, calling the Narada Hansen's Ranch, the Enterprise Cantina and the Kelvin Sweet Judy. I still have it somewhere.
edit: Here it is
Those are just code names used during production. The Enterprise was referred to as the Crysler Building, the Vengeance was called Trump Towers. It's part of their OCD security. You'll see in the Art of the Film book that Star Trek (2009) was referred to as "Corporate Headquarters" complete with faux logo (and in their size charts, the Kelvin was "Sweet Judy" and the Narada "Hansens Ranch", the shuttle hangar at the academy was "Tonto's Stage Coach Shop"), and in the concept art for Into Darkness, the film is referred to by the code name "Project HH"
EDIT: Ninja'd by everyone.
That makes more sense.
Sorry to bump this, but does anyone know for sure how big the "Military Transport" shuttles are? I'd been assuming 40ft/12m as per the two size charts in the art book, but I just bumped (back) into THIS article which claims the shuttles are only 30ft long. At that size there is suddenly a LOT more room for them in the engineering hull, and overlaid pictures with a 725m Enterprise much better resemble what we saw on-screen in ST and ID.
Oh, and here's that comparison of Enterprise schematics I meant to post earlier. As you can see, there is a lot of variation. The Bluray art looks to me to be closest to the actual CG model from the movie.
Separate names with a comma.