BTS The Star Destroyer bridges of the Original Trilogy

How does the Brass Star Destroyer fit into your headcanon?

http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-mysteries-exacting-executor-measurements

Assuming for the moment that From Star Wars to Indiana Jones's "11x" figure is considered accurate - and assuming that the Devastator really was intended to be 2242m long - then the Brass Destroyer would represent a Star Destroyer that is around 2930m long.

By contrast, if we ignore the slant of the domes (on such a tiny tower, the slant may be irrelevant) and have the Executor as being 11x length of the Avenger instead (using your 1270m Avenger figure), the Brass Star Destroyer would be around 1660m - pretty close to the EU's "1 mile standard star destroyer" concept.


In the context of the newcanon (which treats Avenger and Devastator as same length 1600m, and treats the Executor and the ROTJ SSD as the same, and specifies its tower diameter as 289m - appropriate for a Avenger-type ) then the Brass Star Destroyer ends up being a bit bigger - some 2257m long.

So if they "canonize" the Brass Star Destroyer scene as actually reflecting in-universe reality - that would suggest that there's a larger Star Destroyer in with the rest of the Hoth fleet, that is neither an Avenger-type nor a Devastator-type.

 

Iron_lord wrote

How does the Brass Star Destroyer fit into your headcanon?

I fail to see why you are suddenly becoming offensive, I provided authentic quotes from ILM's chief model maker Lorne Peterson on the issue and plenty of graphic images to illustrate the issue. If you feel my suggestions how to evaluate contradicting or not terminally conclusive data qualifies as "headcanon" then I can't help.

Thanks for the link, here are quotes from it and my remarks / questions directed at the author:

"If we accept that a regular Star Destroyer is a mile-long" "So if the little brass ship is supposed to be a mile long"

Fair enough, the author makes it clear that he is entirely working under the assumption that a regular Star Destroyer is a mile long, while I have abundantly shown that there is sufficient reason to doubt that the one mile figure applies to all regular Star Destroyers

In 1983, in The Empire Strikes Back National Public Radio Dramatization has Lando Calrissian eyeball Vader’s flagship to be about three times the size of Cloud City, a measurement that is no help given that Cloud City’s size is never specified.

That's incorrect, the ESB Sketchbook features a sketch of Cloud City (in its final proportions as seen in the film) and graphically indicates a diameter of 16 miles (IIRC, I'll look it up tonight and correct that, if necessary). The Radio Drama might be in error here, IMHO.

To this day, I don’t know where Velasco got the five-mile length from, but he had to have good reason.

Velasco simply misread Glut's "larger than the five" as "five times larger than", how difficult is it to consider this as the most obvious explanation?

But what was the intent of the modelmakers? Is there any way to figure that out?

Man, the author's article is from October 2013 and he neither looked up Lorne Peterson's statements in Sculpting a Galaxy (2006) or Rinzler's Making of TESB (2010)??? Is he aware that there is a large VFX conning tower model with bridge windows made for ROTJ that has been on several exhibits and in several Star Wars reference books?!?!

Iron_lord wrote

Assuming for the moment that From Star Wars to Indiana Jones's "11x" figure is considered accurate
...I have considerable doubts. Apparently that number (and the book, BTW) followed in the footsteps of the Marin County Fair 1988 exhibit and its (Don Bies?) display card with the "11x" figure, but again working under the assumption that it is one mile x 11.

As a side note I find it rather noteworthy that since 1995 we have an official Lucasfilm book that clearly states that the SSD is at least 11 miles long, but instead fandom followed the erroneous 5-mile West End Games figure. Why was there even the SSD length discussion after the release of From Star Wars to Indiana Jones? So fact became myth and myth became fact.

Fact remains that since 2006 and 2010 we have explicit and clear statements from ILM's chief model maker, that I for one cannot simply ignore.

The one thing in the article link I found interesting is the SSD VFX model length of 282 cm. Didn't Dr. David West Reynolds measure it exactly to arrive at the 277 cm figure? (IIRC, you were the one telling me the story). Frankly, I don't know how you measure the model exactly without touching it (I touched the model in 1988 with my index finger and instantly felt bad having done that), but based on the known SSD model conning tower width provided by Dr. Reynolds and the width of the large conning tower ROTJ model, I'd arrive at a length of 14.9 miles.

Assuming that the small brass Star Destroyer was done at the same scale as the Executor model (do we know that for sure? I haven't found any official statements, yet, that could clarify) I'd arrive at 2,847 m (closer to Peterson's 11,000 feet figure). On the other hand, with 2,257 meters length it would be perfectly compatible with the size of the Devastator-class that ranges somewhere between 2,242 and 2,400 meters, based on a Tantive IV at 148.8 meters length.

 

I don't see "headcanon" as an offensive term, when applied to something that contradicts "newcanon".

Yup - I was quoting from Curtis Saxton's Executor page on Star Wars Technical Commentaries.

If I remember rightly, the author was Pablo Hidalgo AKA Pabawan - so he is likely to have looked up stuff, up to a point.

 

From what I learned "headcanon" is usually applied for what somebody would like to be even if canon or irrefutable evidence suggests otherwise. I presented visual evidence, calculations, conclusions and quotes from the ILM chief model maker.

That's not "headcanon", it's called "scientific method".

 

I've never seen the word headcanon uses in a negative connotation. Everyone has a headcanon, I have headcanons, you have headcanons. It's just an unprovable theory that we like to think of being real. We know it's obviously not real, but it's fun just the same. Now fanon, that's a dirty word. When headcanon turns to fanon and people start trying to push their personal opinions like they're facts... that's when it gets messy.

 

I think the issue here is that the ILM model makers were not too accurate or consistent with proportions and scales with the various models. To quote MST3K, it is just a movie and we should just relax.

I have no problems with SDs and SSDs having identical bridges. On real ships, the bridge merely steers the ship. A SSD would just have more sub control rooms under its main bridge. Even VSDs in ROTS have identical bridges to OT ISDs despite having completely different conning tower designs.

 

And this is exactly the thinking that ultimately dimishes their contributions, and is all to often abused to raise conjecture above their suggestions, competence and authority. Frankly, since the beginning of this week, I find myself standing with egg in the face, beause for decades (!) I "believed" that the one mile figure should apply to ALL Star Destroyers, that the conning tower of the Exeutor was derived from a one-mile long Star Destroyer (and therefore an SSD is approx. 11 miles long) and that the ILM model makers screwed up when they designed the large VFX conning tower for ROJ beause the bridge windows are way too small for the conning tower of a one mile long Star Destroyer.

Having 'finally' realized that Lorne Peterson used a larger Star Destroyer's conning tower for the Executor SSD has enabled me to approach the large ROJ conning tower from a fresh perspective. As shown above, with that 357 meters wide conning tower the SSD is actually 15 miles long and that is pretty close to Lorne Peterson's original 16 mile figure published in Rinzler's Making of ESB. Assuming Lorne provided that "16 mile" figure during the production process of ESB, the large conning tower model created for ROJ is then a testament to the ILM model shops devotion to continuity as it is obviously compatible with an SSD ranging between 15 and 16 miles.

In case you are referring to the VFX composites seen in the Battle of Endor (showing the Rebel Blockade Runner in two vastly different and incompatible sizes) we should keep in mind that this was the work of Ken Ralston and ILM's VFX composers, but NOT the model shop! But considerng the stress under which they were working, these errors should be excused, IMHO.

P.S.
The scale drawing of Cloud City in the ESB Sketchbook suggests a diameter of 10 miles, not 16 miles.

P.P.S.

Read up on that 1-foot brass Star Destroyer created for ESB in Sculpting a Galaxy. All the text provides is the message that they wanted to have a miniature Star Destroyer for background shots so they wouldn't be forced to need larger rooms to put the camera at a distance to the ANH or ESB Star Destroyer model, and to have one they could have in the same frame as the Executor. The text doesn't indicate whether it was matched in size with Exeutor's conning tower or not and doesn't provide any "in-universe" size for the brass Star Destroyer.

 

If they're not using any "camera trickery" for those shots - then it follows that the model represents a size class in its own right - an unknown class of Star Destroyer that is around 1/8.4 the length of the TESB SSD.

It should be pretty clear that it's not matched in size with the Executor's tower - West-Reynolds measured the tower as 4.2 cm wide - on a 33.5 cm ISD-type model, the tower would be around 5.7 cm wide.

In the context of the newcanon, "conjecture" is raised above model maker suggestions.

That's why Wookieepedia still says the Executor and the ROTJ Super Star Destroyer are the same ship and are 19 km long - because that's what's been established, and until a new source comes out changing that, those are the official figures.

Officially, the ROTJ SSD is the Executor, and its tower is 289m wide, regardless of what the model makers originally intended.

Similarly, officially, the Rogue One Star Destroyers are 1600m Imperial I class, even if we might think the computer model makers intended them to be 955m Dauntless class.

However - we can still create a list of "what we think the model makers intended" figures - as long as we recognize that those will not be official - at least, not until we can talk someone at Lucasfilm into changing the old figures into the new ones.

It may help us to keep track - that we keep them listed as two separate classes - official - and what we think they ought to be.


Something like:

(proceeding under the assumption that the Executor and the ROTJ SSD are different sizes, and the Executor is 11x the length of the Avenger)

 

lol.

 

It's worth remembering that the "three window viewport" exactly matches the alcove seen on the side of the Avenger bridge:

"Our first catch of the day"

Spoiler

Avenger bridge with alcove

Spoiler

Maybe it's not a window but a set of viewscreens, projecting an image from cameras/sensors on the ship that were pointed foward. Not sure what the alcoves are used for (targeting certain weapons maybe?) but it's an alternative explanation.

 

Fair enough, but ONLY because Lorne Peterson ("model maker suggestion") indicated the length of the SSD to be 8 times (Sculpting a Galaxy) that of an "11,000 feet" (Making of TESB) smaller Star Destroyer.
Now, I do not know what made him suggest a smaller Star Destroyer with an overall length of 3,353 meters, but the 1-foot brass Star Destroyer could be the answer. The way I see it he either thought the Devastator-class should be that long to be able to accomodate the Tantive IV in its bay (definitely necessary for the larger "Alderaanian Cruiser" seen in ROTS) or one could take that 11K' Star Destroyer as a hint for the mysterious Tector-class, supposedly seen briefly in ROJ.

But again, I remain confident that the issue was finalized or settled when the model shop created the large VFX conning tower model for ROJ, suggesting a conning tower width of 357 meters, compatible with a Devastator-class conning tower width at a vessel's length of 2,242 meters.

There is this one tiny thing you either erroneously or deliberately tend to ignore in all these various discussions:

What we do see in the actual films is ABSOLUTE CANON according to "newcanon" (and George Lucas Canon)

Thus, according to newcanon (too)

1. The Devastator is much longer than 1,600 meters (1 mile) because otherwise we wouldn't see the Tantive IV in its main bay the way we did in ANH.
2. The conning tower of the Avenger(-class) is only 203 meters wide, resulting in an overall length of this class of 1,270 meters (based on the Millennium Falcon size reference and the larger balcony bridge module briefly put on the SSD's large conning tower model):

(back to the original topic for a moment: You can see here my original in-universe layout for the command bridge complex of the Executor. However, there are a few things that don't make too much sense in the final film, so I already made a draft to fix these and will showcase these here ASAP. Nevertheless you can already see how the Operations Room comes after the control deck and is followed by the Communications Room on the starboard side)

3. Only the Star Destroyer seen at the beginning of ROJ is one mile long (i.e. 1,622 meters) beause of the known dimensions of its forward bay and the Lambda-class shuttle itself emerging from it.

4. Shuttle Tydirium is dwarfed by the SSD's conning tower during the flyby scene in ROJ. Now, somebody could calulate the speed and trajectory of the Tydirium passing the conning tower in this scene (I might be crazy, but I'm not that crazy) and would probably arrive at a conning tower width vastly exceeding 357 meters. In this case I rely on the physical conning tower model and the dimensions of its visible bridge windows which has been illustrated as early as The Art of ROTJ (illustrated below) to convey the accurate scale and size of this conning tower:



5. The Rogue One Star Destroyer features a bridge that suggests a conning tower width of only 152 meters and ultimately a length of this Star Destroyer of 'only' 955 meters. I'm confident that once the film has been released on home video screencaps of corresponding close-up scenes will yield the same findings.

In a nutshell:

The onscreen evidence (absolute canon) is irrefutable and reveals a lot of secondary canon "official" figures to be erroneous.

Once we are able to take Yoda's lesson to heart ("Unlearn...you must unlearn") we'll find that there really isn't any reason to believe that the "one mile figure" (published first in a posterbook for TESB) has to be adopted religiously as the standard size for every standard Star Destroyer.

I'll freely admit that I myself have been believing for a loooong time, too, that the one mile figure is the leading one for Star Destroyers. It's a red thread running through all my examinations in previous decades and let myself to the erroneous conclusion that the large VFX Star Destroyer conning tower model is flawed.
Turns out - as revealed in this thread - that the flaw is actually me believing that it should or has to match the conning tower of a mile-long Star Destroyer.

A great man was absolutely correct when he said "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

That was Albert Einstein.

CC Pabawan

Yes, I stated that explicitly in post # 54 - http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...riginal-trilogy.50044307/page-3#post-54183759 - that the film set alcove windows where used to simulate the forward bridge windows of the Vengeful ("first catch of the day").

That's the obvious conclusion because it'd be technically impossible to see Hoth either from the starboard or port side alcove windows.

 

Models sometimes contradict. It's not just a Star Wars thing (Star Trek Klingon Birds of Prey change size noticeably within the same movie).

That's why, instead of invoking a new class for each scene, I prefer the interpretion that what we see, even if it is so-called "absolute canon" has some flexibility due to this issue.

To me, instead of having two classes of Star Destroyer (1622m Invader and 1270m Avenger) that use the same model, it is much easier to have one class of Star Destroyer, and upscale the Falcon.

TFA upscaled the Falcon. While the upscaled Falcon doesn't perfectly match the Avenger scene, it's close enough.

Similarly - the Databank downsized the Tantive IV, saying it was 126m.

While a 126m Tantive IV inside a 188m bay might not perfectly match what we see - again, it's close enough.

The newcanon says the Executor's tower is 285m wide - which corresponds to a bridge window section of 10.22 m instead of 12.8 m. Again, the difference is not huge. Perhaps, close enough to pass muster.

In a world where an 80 ft long TESB Falcon prop and a 114 (or so) ft long TFA Millennium Falcon prop, represent exactly the same ship - what we see can't be taken too literally. Model mismatches can be glossed over - at least, up to a point.

In this fashion, "Han working on the Falcon in TESB" - while it happened, the Falcon was "really" a bit bigger than it appeared in the movie imagery.

Hence "They're not windows, but a Star Trek-style vidscreen."

 

Iron_lord wrote

Models sometimes contradict. It's not just a Star Wars thing (Star Trek Klingon Birds of Prey change size noticeably within the same movie).

I'm not convinced it really is a Star Wars thing, but I concur that the size relations of the Klingon Bird of Preys in ST-TNG aren't exactly a example of good continuity regarding the final VFX compositions.

I prefer the interpretion that what we see, even if it is so-called "absolute canon" has some flexibility due to this issue.

Of course, I can't tell you what you should prefer or not. I'd probably agree if we were to look at 12 differently sized Star Destroyers in just 3 original and 1 new movie, but as it stands it's just 3 or 4 different Star Destroyer types.

To me, instead of having two classes of Star Destroyer (1622m Invader and 1270m Avenger) that use the same model, it is much easier to have one class of Star Destroyer, and upscale the Falcon.

Considering that we have two scenes supporting the1270 m figure (Falcon attached to Avenger's conning tower, large bridge module on conning tower in ROJ) ad only one supporting the 1622 m figure (Vader's shuttle disembarking from Star Destroyer forward bay) I might consider the possibilty that the Lambda Class shuttle appeared too small in that scene.

Regarding the Falcon I'm too well aware that the interior sets don't fit into the exterior, but not only has the proper real size of the ship been suggested by

1. Docking Bay 94
2. Death Star Bay 327
3. Hoth ice hangar
4. Bespin landing platform
5. Tatooine departure (deleted scene ROJ)

for everybody in the audience to see, but ultimately by the size of its cockpit. That provided the audience with an accurate sense of scale and size, although some interior sets are too big to fit inside. IMHO, common sense suggests that the actual exterior dimensions of the life-size prop lead the way in such discussions.

Similarly - the Databank downsized the Tantive IV, saying it was 126m.

I would really like to learn the reason for that, as it is (and will become obvious, soon) the Alderaanian Cruiser has to be a lot bigger than 150 meters to accomodate the port side corridor in the hammerhead section Bail Organa used in ROTS to get to the cockpit.

Regardless, with a Devastator main bay being approx. 1.9 times the length of a 126 m Tantive IV, the overall length of the Devastator would still be 8.48 times the length of that bay, i.e. 2,030 meters.

The newcanon says the Executor's tower is 285m wide - which corresponds to a bridge window section of 10.22 m instead of 12.8 m. Again, the difference is not huge. Perhaps, close enough to pass muster.

Then the newcanon figure is obviously erroneous. The film set was 12.8 m wide (plus the exterior casing would be more like 13 m), so the width of the observable bridge on the large conning tower model (perfect front view shots during the Paris exhibit were a bit difficult because of the security glass reflections) can be accurately calculated and be independently verified (see below).

It rather looks like a few people with an almost religious fervor are trying to manipulate these figures in order to uphold this "one mile figure for all standard Star Destroyers" and deliberately ignore the chief model maker's statements which is clearly "16 miles" for an SSD (more precisely 15 if the SSD model's conning tower is 4.2 cm wide while the overall length of the model is correctly 282 cm according to later measurements).

 

Didn't Saxton imply that the 282cm figure came first in published books - and the 277 cm figure was demonstrated later?

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html
Scaling conventions
Warship model kits are built to certain discrete conventional scales. Special effects artists like the modellers of Industrial Light & Magic adhere to these standards in order to help maintain consistency in the on-screen dimensions of their creations, because they incorporate parts from commercial warship models, and in deference to tradition. One of the most common natural scales for battleship models is 1/620, which appears to have been used for the Avenger model of the common Imperator-class star destroyer.
In books, the length of the Executor model is usually stated as 2.82m, which obviously puts it at a different scale. For such a stupendous vessel none of the ordinary scaling standards is applicable. However [according to Martyn Griffiths] the natural extension to the set of standard scales is 1/6200. If this is correct then the precise length of the real Executor is 17.5km, which at 10.9 miles is neatly at the low end of the range of possible dimensions indicated by other lines of reasoning.
David West Reynolds has directly measured the model at 2.77m, which is somewhat shorter than the published version.

I'd say it's a bit more innocent than that (at least in the case of people like Pablo Hidalgo and Leland Chee who oversee the newcanon) - simply a case of - they had Complete Locations to update to the newcanon - they assumed that everything that Saxton and Luceno had written had been well researched - so they chose not to change the tower size, but take the writers' word for it.

 

Iron_lord

Thanks for the heads-up. I was under the impression that the 282 cm figure came from a later, more precise measurement (because it was featured in that SW.com article from 2013 you provided a link for).

Within the context you now provided, it's not like that, i.e. because 282 cm was provided as an original figure and Saxton doubted that he specifically asked DWR to take exact measurements and those were 277 cm or 2.77 m.
Looks like the genuine figure.

I'd say it's a bit more innocent than that (at least in the case of people like Pablo Hidalgo and Leland Chee who oversee the newcanon) - simply a case of - they had Complete Locations to update to the newcanon - they assumed that everything that Saxton and Luceno had written had been well researched - so they chose not to change the tower size, but take the writers' word for it.

I concur, it sounds like the most plausible explanation. However, the one thing I do not understand is how apparently nobody considered the idea to independently verify these figures:



IIRC, the left image (of the SSD conning tower) was also published in the old / first Star Wars Chronicles around 1996 and clearly reveals the proportions of the bridge in relation to the overall conning tower width (and IIRC further was accurately reproduced in Complete Locations).
But I concede that the exact dimensions of the film set many not have been known, as it (still) appears that the film set blueprint I published in post # 17 of this thread somehow got lost in the Lucasfilm Archives or elsewhere (I would really love to know whether they created the Star Destroyer bridges in RO just by "eye-balling" the original sets or else...)

 

Another possibility is the SSD may only have a larger tower simply to extend the shuttle flyby scene, similar to the intro to Taxi where they looped the bridge footage to make the bridge long enough to last through the credits. Looking at the films, it seemed originally the SSD had a same size bridge tower as ISDs to act as a handy reference point so viewers can more easily see the scale comparisons between a SSD and ISD.



In this shot from TESB, the SSD bridge tower appears to be the same size as the ISD tower behind it.



Again, in this TESB shot, the SSD bridge tower is a similar size to its ISD escort.



Yet again, the Escort ISDs and SSD have similar size bridge towers.



Here with the long view from ROTJ, the SSD bridge tower still appears to be the same size as ISD bridge towers. It seems only the cloce up model is a larger size than the ISD close up models. Perhaps it was a late in production change? Perhaps they just wanted a bigger model for the sake of extending the flyby scene, as Lucas likes to change establish plot elements from film to film to suit the stories he wants to tell. Afterall, he regards continuity as for wimps.

 

Slicer87 wrote

Looking at the films, it seemed originally the SSD had a same size bridge tower as ISDs to act as a handy reference point so viewers can more easily see the scale comparisons between a SSD and ISD.

That's correct, that's exactly what ILM chief model maker Lorne Peterson intended (remember, Joe Johnston's design sketch illustrated at the beginning of this thread did not feature a conning tower!) but the issue we are talking about is: Based on which Star Destroyer (size)?

According to Lorne in Rinzler's Making of TESB the conning tower of the Executor was modelled after an "11,000 feet" long Star Destroyer and the Executor would be 8 times its length (Sculpting a Galaxy), i.e. 16 miles!

The problem with the quote is that we don't know the context, i.e. when was it made? Assuming Lorne had only the Devastator to use as a size reference at the beginning (approx. 2,242 meters long) it's possible that's where the figure comes from (i.e. he assumed the Tantive IV to be larger than 150 meters?).

Let's take a look at some of the screencaps you provided:



The Star Destroyer on the left could have a conning tower same size as Executor's but it could also be smaller. Judging by its stern appearance I'm pretty confident it's a cruiser, Dauntless-class, 955 meters long (i.e. the Vengeful aka 'Tyrant").

The Star Destroyer off Executor's starboard side to the right must have a conning tower the same size as Executor (or larger). We can see the big guns on its port side so this has to be a battlewagon (or battleship), Devastator-class, 2,242 meters long, seen again in the image below in the foreground (notice that the lights of the large ESB VFX Star Destroyer have been separately filmed and have now been overimposed to create lights the ANH Devastator model never had!):



In the background of both shots we see what is probably the small 1-foot brass Star Destroyer. In the fleet arrival shot near Hoth this must be one of three battle or heavy cruisers, Avenger-class, 1,270 meters long (according to the ESB novelization Vader arrived with 5 Star Destroyers. One of these was a cruiser, one of these a battleship and the three others must have been Avenger-class Star Destroyers as we later see those three almost colliding with one another at close range during the Falcon pursuit, where all three ships are revealed to be of equal length).

Perhaps they just wanted a bigger model for the sake of extending the flyby scene, as Lucas likes to change establish plot elements from film to film to suit the stories he wants to tell. Afterall, he regards continuity as for wimps.

I'm not (yet) aware of a Lucas Statement indicating his dislike for continuity, but regardless, what matters at the end of the day is what the model shop accomplished and built.

And here I see beautiful continuity: In real life the conning tower of the SSD would be 357 meters wide (according to the large VFX model built for ROJ). A Star Destroyer's length is 6.28-6.29 the width of the conning tower, so the smaller Star Destroyer (whose conning tower the ILM model makers adopted for the Executor) would be between 2,242 and 2,245 meters long.

Such a Star Destroyer would have a main bay large enough to accomodate the Tantive IV as seen in ANH, thus it stands to reason that the Executor conning tower was adopted from a larger Devastator-class Star Destroyer (and in return the large SSD's coning tower model helps us to arrive at a proper length figure for the Devastator-class).

 

The Executor model at 277cm is just over 8 times the length of the Brass Star Destroyer model (33.5m).

However the Executor's tower is rather small - 4.2 cm. Based on the Brass Star Destroyer image I've seen, which shows it looks roughly the same shape as both the Avenger and the Devastator, (so all are around 6.28 or 6.29 x as long as their towers are wide) the Brass Star Destroyer would have a tower 5.7 cm wide.

Conclusion - the conning tower of the Executor cannot be the same size as the conning tower of a Star Destroyer 1/8 the Executor's length.

Instead, it must be the same size as the conning tower of a Star Destroyer that is proportionally smaller. Hence From Star Wars To Indiana Jones saying "11x as long" rather than "8x as long".

Looks to me like both Star destroyers on either side of the Executor are roughly the same size (within the constraints of distance)- one is further away, but not so much further away as too look vastly smaller than it is.

It seems to be that they both look like they could be 1/11 the Executor's length - rather than one being 1/8 the Executor's length and one (the closer one) being 1/19 the Executor's length.


Plus - given that this is long before Rogue One anyway - there's no reason to believe the TESB designers would see any point in using the same 3 ft Devastator model to represent two ships with one more than twice the length of the other. Much more likely that, when they were compositing the scene, both star destroyers on either side of the Executor were intended to be the same length.

 

I agree that both ISDs appear to have the same size conning towers as the SSD adjusting for distance.

Lucas once told Dave Filoni, "continuity is for wimps." He also told another TCW writer to not be married to the films. Years before TCW, in a interview Lucas remarked, " I always had trouble with continuity." If you watch the 6 films, you see Lucas is not afraid to go against continuity to suit his story. That is he does not write his stories to fit established continuity, rather he will change and retcon prior plot elements to suit the story he is currently telling. Quite a few writers operate this way.

Found another image from ROTJ.



Here the SSD conning tower appears roughly the same size as the ISD conning towers. Lucas isn't afraid to completely rearange stuff from film to film or even scene to scene, such as the ever changing interior layout of the MF.

here is another angle of the SSD approach on Hoth.



The starboard ISD escort looks pretty sclose to the size of the SSD.

 

Iron_lord wrote

Conclusion - the conning tower of the Executor cannot be the same size as the conning tower of a Star Destroyer 1/8 the Executor's length.

Step by step please. It would be compatible with a Star Destroyer 11,000 feet in length, but which would ultimately and probably be that mysterious Tector-class that doesn't have a lot of serious following, IIRC.

The point you are constantly circumventing is that those original figures provided by Lorne Peterson were somewhat fixed / finalized by himself and the model shop when they created the large conning tower for ROJ. In real life it would be 357 meters long. 357 divided by 4.2 cm = "?" divided by 277 cm. "?" would be 23.545 meters in real life, suggesting an SSD length of 14.63 miles.

That was their last word on the SSD size issue, based on the proportions of that conning tower.

Looks to me like both Star destroyers on either side of the Executor are roughly the same size (within the constraints of distance)- one is further away, but not so much further away as too look vastly smaller than it is.

You are aware - SURPRISE! - that both Star Destroyers used as a size reference for the Executor's conning tower in that film scene and VFX composition shot are Devastator-class Star Destroyers / the ANH Star Destroyer model with collapsed jamming and com-scan array???

(nobody, then, could know or foresee that the RO filmmakers would somewhat retroactively turn the Vengeful aka 'Tyrant' into a Dauntless-class Star Destroyer 36 years later)

 

If Edlund's 500 mile wide Death Star II can be wrong, can't Peterson's 15 or 16 mile Executor estimate, be wrong?

Regarding the use of both 3ft and 6ft Star Destroyer models to represent the same ship - I think that demonstrates that the designers did not care nearly as much back then about model differences - it wasn't a one-off goof, but a case of them treating the models as to all intents and purposes, interchangable.


Once Rogue One comes out on DVD - maybe someone can take some screencaps of various other scale-determining factors besides the width of the bridge?

For example, the Hammerheads - established as around 90m long in Rebels - use the Hammerhead collision to determine how big the Star Destroyer needs to be.

 

This is the first time I am hearing about all these supposed sub classes of ISDs in the films. Going by the films alone there only appears to be ISDs and SSDs IMO. Even identical classes of ships can have individualized setups like with their arrays. The Iowa had a open bridge while her later sister ships had enclosed bridges, later on the Iowa had it bridge enclosed but it still looked different from her sister's bridges.

 

Curtis Saxton's big list of differences:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.html

Subclass Features

ISD-I (ANH, some TESB scenes)

ISD-II (most TESB and ROTJ scenes, especially with the Avenger).

Other differences he doesn't mention here:

Dome shape
ISD-I has hexagonal panels along the equator of the dome, and smaller panels above and below it.
ISD-II - all panels are triangular. Also, there's some rod-like vanes pointing vertically, on top of the domes, in a ring:

Shape of "tractor beam targeting array between domes" -he does mention this elsewhere:
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#array

These differences can be seen on these Bridge images:

ISD-I

Spoiler

ISD-II

Spoiler

ISD-I with "lowered linear array" (there's no close-up available)

Spoiler

The EU, Saxton, and the newcanon all took the approach that the differences were enough to qualify them as separate classes - ISD-I and ISD-II.