That's not something due to the refit; it changes size back and forth throughout the movie.Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.
Really? I only noticed it at the end.
That's not something due to the refit; it changes size back and forth throughout the movie.Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.
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.That's not something due to the refit; it changes size back and forth throughout the movie.Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.
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.That's not something due to the refit; it changes size back and forth throughout the movie.
Really? I only noticed it at the end.
Has the apparent bridge size with the 'refit' change been discussed? I have not looked over every page in the thread.
Either the View Screen got bigger or the bridge got smaller. Actually the new exterior view screen matches the physical set better.
Before:
After:
![]()
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..
Anyway, back on topic. With the digital release of Into Darkness there are tons more clips and screengrabs out there. Here's shuttlebay 2, located about where I'd guessimated:
![]()
And here are two comparison shots of the bridge windows, the lower-detail version for general exterior shots and the higher-detail version which was composited with the actual set. The taller high-detail model is scaled for a 725m Enterprise (see pics way earlier in the thread). I wonder if perhaps they made the lower-detail version shorter to obscure the view inside, which would have increased ILM's workload quite a bit (placing virtual actors at stations and ensuring it all matched up with where everyone was in the interior shots)
![]()
![]()
Finally, here is a shot of the atrium during the fall sequence, showing all the decks in the saucer section:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_F422arRuQ[/yt]

www.kadonaga.net/147068/1461499/set-design-gallery/star-trek-into-darkness
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.
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,
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,
This is the problem in a nutshell. The length is wildly inconsistent.
I would imagine those are code names. Note the "Yankee Stadium Exterior".
I would imagine those are code names. Note the "Yankee Stadium Exterior".
That was my impression too.

I would imagine those are code names. Note the "Yankee Stadium Exterior".
That was my impression too.
I totally missed that.![]()

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"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,
This is the problem in a nutshell. The length is wildly inconsistent.
This thread reminds me of that movie 'Shallow Hal'.

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"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,
This is the problem in a nutshell. The length is wildly inconsistent.
EDIT: Ninja'd by everyone.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.