I think we've already covered that some of the close shots have lens distortion.
It seems the USS Vengeance may actually be larger than we thought. It's 2.5x the Enterprise's size in this graphic:
![]()
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.
It seems the USS Vengeance may actually be larger than we thought. It's 2.5x the Enterprise's size in this graphic:
![]()
And here's the ever-changing bridge window. It seems the taller, narrower veraion seen when the Enterprise is on the Klingon border and again at the very end correctly matches the window on the set (which has a definite height of 8', I guesstimated a width of 25'):
![]()
Forgive the shitty quality of the pics, they're from YouTube clips. Enterprise pic from www.cygnus-x1.net.
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.
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 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.
Difference is that those inconsistencies span over several episodes and films, sometimes meaning different creative teams. But the Abramstrek films are inconsistent within themselves.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.
Also:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/defiant-problems.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/excelsior-size.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/oberth-size.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/akira-size.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/delta-size.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/bop-size.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/ship_classes.htm
Inconsistencies in Trek didn't originate with and aren't exclusive to JJ Abrams and his team.
Oh and I wasn't the one talking about the bridge window, that was King Daniel Into Darkness.
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".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.
It really isn't.That is plainly wrong.In a 200 million dollar production, there is no such thing as a VFX oddity.
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.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.That is plainly wrong.In a 200 million dollar production, there is no such thing as a VFX oddity.
It really isn't.
It's not just that.
At the end, after the refit, the bridge-window and the dome above are different.
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.
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.
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.No I checked very closely when I saw it the second time around. We don't see the ship from the front.
No I checked very closely when I saw it the second time around. We don't see the ship from the front.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.