BTS The Star Destroyer bridges of the Original Trilogy

I think scaling has its merits, but not with any exactness (especially when it comes to physical models and compositing. With CG it's another matter).

Curtis Saxton speculated that the multi-nodule bridge tower built for ROTJ was to represent the larger communications ship mentioned in the ROTJ novelization. In the novelization, the main Imperial communication ship (described in the novelization as "one of the larger Destroyers") had been disabled in the fighting but would still be able to be repaired and was still being used to jam the Alliance ships. The first evidence to support this hypothesis came to light quite a few years after Saxton quit his writings on Star Wars with the release of the Star Wars Saga on Blu-Ray. In the unused pilot scenes for the battle, the dialogue matched the dialogue used in the scene in the novelization (such as "Stay clear of their front batteries!" and "Starting the attack run on the main power tree.")

 

Mange wrote

The screenplay does identify the "window" as the main viewscreen.



INT. IMPERIAL STARDESTROYER – COCKPIT
On the main viewscreen, the lifepod carrying the two terrified robots speeds away from the stricken rebel spacecraft. In the foreground a huge mechanical arm lifts a computer panel out of a cabinet

There is no hint of a window in the ANH screenplay.

Well, in this instance, I think Lt. Hija is plain wrong: It's a standard ISD-I.



The real-life width of the Star Destroyer bridge control deck is an established figure, and we have two conning tower models - i.e. the Rogue One conning tower and the large conning tower module built for ROJ with two differently sized exterior bridge modules - that enable us to determine the overall length of each Star Destroyer type.

Curtis Saxton speculated that the multi-nodule bridge tower built for ROTJ was to represent the larger communications ship mentioned in the ROTJ novelization

But interestingly it matches the conning tower size of the Avenger, that had already been suggested / established by the Falcon stuck to that conning tower's back in ESB. I rather think it was an opportunity seized by the ILM model builders to (finally) feature the (correct) front of an Avenger-class Star Destroyer, something they couldn't do in ESB.

 

You have a fair point, but there's no hint of a "huge mechanical arm" in the movie nor a hint of a gun in the screenplay. Also, for some reason this was changed for the novelization.

No. The Rogue One conning tower is based on the conning tower of the original Star Destroyer model. The only difference that stands out is that the Rogue One conning tower has an Executor-style observation nodule where the original model simply had a dark aperture (and that in the same place as in the later towers).

Doesn't seem probable as another tower model was also used in close-ups. I also don't see the need for a bridge tower with its vastly different appearance (with the multiple nodules which seem) if it wasn't made for a specific scene (but which didn't end up in the movie. It would be nice though to have something tangible).

The conning tower you refer to as belonging to an Avenger-class Star Destroyer was really made for ROTJ (pg. 130 of Rinzler's Making of ROTJ). The Avenger-style tower model had the trapezoidal windows, but had a flat-faced design instead. Another tower was also made.

 

Mange wrote

You have a fair point, but there's no hint of a "huge mechanical arm" in the movie nor a hint of a gun in the screenplay.

IIRC, the issue had been whether a "window" had been mentioned in either the screenplay or the novelization, but in both cases there is just a reference to a "viewscreen".

No. The Rogue One conning tower is based on the conning tower of the original Star Destroyer model. The only difference that stands out is that the Rogue One conning tower has an Executor-style observation nodule where the original model simply had a dark aperture (and that in the same place as in the later towers).

That wasn't the point. The point was that the visible exterior bridge control deck "balconies" enable us to calculate the width of each conning tower (and ultimately the length of each Star Destroyer type), therefore we have different dimensions for

• Super Star Destroyers (e.g. Executor) conning tower width approx. 357 meters (same width for Devastator which was used as the orientation for the Executor, revealed in the shot of that Imperial fleet arriving in the Hoth System)
• Star Destroyers Avenger-class conning tower width approx. 203 meters (based on Falcon attached to its back and brief SD conning tower front view in ROJ)
• Star Destroyers Dauntless-class (Rogue One) conning tower width approx. 152 meters

The visible conning tower size differences are there for everybody to see.

Doesn't seem probable as another tower model was also used in close-ups. I also don't see the need for a bridge tower with its vastly different appearance (with the multiple nodules which seem) if it wasn't made for a specific scene (but which didn't end up in the movie. It would be nice though to have something tangible).

I'm not sure I can follow. For ROJ only one (large) conning tower model was built, yet the ILM model makers deliberately created two versions of that, i.e. one with a small and one with a large balcony bridge. If we were to seriously believe that all conning towers had the same size, there would be no good reason whatsoever for the model makers (working under tremendous stress to get everything ready for filming) to devote extra time to such variations, unless they deliberately wanted to emphasize that there are differently sized conning towers and ultimately differently sized Star Destroyers.

The conning tower you refer to as belonging to an Avenger-class Star Destroyer was really made for ROTJ (pg. 130 of Rinzler's Making of ROTJ). The Avenger-style tower model had the trapezoidal windows, but had a flat-faced design instead. Another tower was also made.

I already examined the issue in the course of this thread, here is what I suggested earlier: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...riginal-trilogy.50044307/page-3#post-54183759

I.e. the ILM model builders somehow didn't receive word, that the Avenger bridge concept had been changed during production, hence we ended up with an exterior VFX shot of the Star Destroyer model (no bridge balcony) which was incompatible with the UK film set footage (bridge balcony).
I don't believe the ILM model builders were too happy about this continuity error (made it look as if they didn't know what they were doing), hence they used the opportunity in ROJ to show us (briefly) what the Avenger bridge would or better should have looked like already in ESB.

 

The thing is, the one with the "proportionally larger bridge module" also had many smaller "bridge modules". If they just wanted an Avenger, they wouldn't have needed to add the extra mini-modules.

 

^ On the contrary, these extra window modules emphasized that this was not the same conning tower as the one of the Super Star Destroyer - where these are missing. Admittedly, their function is somewhat unknown, but I believe they are an echo of an (Alliance) ESB production design that almost made it into ESB (i.e. even a miniature cardboard set was made to discuss size, costs and camera setups but ultimately never constructed):

 

Hence Saxton's theory that the extra modules proved that there was a non-Avenger, non-Executor, at Endor - a Communications Ship.

 

^ So he was suggesting they needed these extra modules for communications, i.e. to flash visual signals in morse code to other vessels?

 

Probably not in Morse. Think of them as like telephone call centres - but coordinating messages from ship to ship, in whatever future-tech medium they're using (holograms?). A separate "bridge module" for each major battle group.

Real life has command/communications ships, too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_ship

 

^ Still doesn't explain why you'd need such a physical exposition and windows for such communication rooms.

Add to this that the one of the Executor actually appears to be in the center of the conning tower, i.e. where Piett learns that the Emperor demands Vader to make contact and delivers the message to the (forward) operations room.

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...riginal-trilogy.50044307/page-2#post-54159525

 

A screenplay isn't set in stone and things may change. However, it's a minor issue so I will put that aside for now.

No, while I haven't done any scaling myself in 10+ years (I don't think it's of much use when it comes to details), but the odd duck out seems to be the Executor bridge nodule. What I see are variations of conning towers that most likely are intended to be the same size.

Also, I don't agree with your scaling of the Avenger-class tower. What size were you using for the Falcon? It's getting late on my end, but a quick and dirty scaling puts the tower at a width of at least 330 meters.

No, we know that different conning towers were built (at least one was built specifically for pyrotechnics as per Rinzler).

It's somewhat obscured: It's of course possible that a single tower (excluding the pyrotechnic one) was built and modified to serve different purposes, but there are variations: An Executor-class tower with terraces, a modified Avenger-style tower without terraces and with a single bridge nodule (the one I referred to earlier on pg. 259, not on pg. 130) and the multiple nodule conning tower.

The Avenger-style and Executor-style conning towers are similar, though the Avenger-style conning tower has some greeblies that both the Executor and the multi nodule ones (which has a much more prominent protruding bridge than the Avenger-style tower) are missing. One thing all three have in common are the six recessed areas, three on either side of the bridge nodule (and that also was seen on the TESB Star Destroyer model), though the center recessed area to the left of the bridge on the multi-nodule conning tower is somewhat obscured by a greeblie (to its left when looking at model photos, it appears it was flipped for the movie).

Also, as Iron_lord pointed out, what's the need for a standard Avenger-style tower to have additional bridge nodules? Especially considering the Executor, firmly established as a command ship, lacking such nodules?

Yes, the model makers were under heavy pressure and were short on time. George Lucas wanted some shots made for the space battle which simply couldn't be done on time (such as the very ambitious shot SB-92 which would have been the most complicated one to create). I don't agree with Dr. Saxton on quite a few issues, but considering scenes were shot that matches the attack on the "main communications ship" responsible for the jamming that prevented the Alliance ships to get a reading on the shield (as also established by the movie) in the novelization (hence the reason to disable it) and that said jamming was gone without explanation later, is telling (in the novelization the jamming disappears as the ship is finally destroyed and Ackbar informs Lando that the shield was still up).

According to the novelization, the Falcon leads an attack on the "main communication ship" that is described to have suffered damages to its tower. What is interesting in this context is that the wider bridge nodule is flickering, suggesting fires. I firmly believe what we see in the movie as the Falcon passes the conning tower is the remnant of the scene that was never finished (or maybe never even begun besides the tower).

Yes,the first part is circumstantial and the latter part is somewhat speculative... I have no idea if it's included, but I may have to order the Star Wars Original Trilogy Storyboards...

I misread you (I was in a hurry when I wrote the reply, I even got the page number above wrong). However, I contend that the multi-nodule conning tower is not an Avenger-style tower, but rather a separate ISD-subclass.

I really appreciate your work, Lt. Hija, and this very interesting discussion!

 

This was it:

The Falcon's width is actually just over 25.61m.

Millennium Falcon: Incredibuilds, scaled it to 25.61m using a Falcon length of 34.37m. Other sources make it very slightly longer (34.52m - The Force Awakens Incredible Cross Sections , or 34.75m - Databank).

 

^ Thank you, Iron_lord.

I have no problem whatsoever of applying a Falcon's width of 26 meters, as a result Avenger's conning tower would still be only 220 meters wide (and that Star Destroyer type would still only be 1,376 meters long).

Mange wrote

What I see are variations of conning towers that most likely are intended to be the same size.

Unfortunately the differently sized command bridge windows (where those are visible) do suggest otherwise.

We know that different conning towers were built (at least one was built specifically for pyrotechnics as per Rinzler).

Okay, let's do that one step after the other:



For ESB they built an oversized conning tower without the front part (illustrated above) to use that as the back of the Executor (deliberately tinted in blue) and the Avenger (with the ESB large Falcon VFX model attached to it).
One could say that since it's the same model for both, so the size is the same, but the moment the scene cuts to the stern view of the Avenger ESB Star Destroyer VFX model (with the smallest ESB Falcon VFX model attached), it's a different stern section (i.e. the stern of this large conning tower model is not compatible with the stern of the Star Destroyer model in terms of detail).

For ROJ they built - again - one (only!) oversized conning tower model (and an isolated upper part to film the deflector shield power generator explosion):



The "platforms" protruding from the tower are there in both variations filmed for ROJ (in that scene with the large command bridge window module, that variation was shot so that the platforms were outside the image - compare screenshot in post # 181). The detailing of the conning tower front is exactly the same, except for the known variations:

A) The 'Avenger' variation features a large command bridge module and several, smaller substations with windows.

B) The Super Star Destroyer variation features a smaller command bridge module, the small substations are absent.

TBPH the discussion about what these small modules on the conning tower variation next to the larger command bridge window module are good for is obfuscating the issue. The essential question remains:

Is the large command bridge window module seen briefly in ROJ compatible with the size of an Avenger-class conning tower (with the Falcon attached to its stern being the size reference) or is it not? (you can see the answer in post # 187 - )

 

And I'm telling you that you are flat out wrong when you claim that a single tower with the platforms out of picture was used. I can't write a proper reply yet, but this is the multi nodule tower model used without platforms (notice how far down the neck extends):
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/isd/tower3.gif

 

Given that all the details on the "multi-nodule tower" and the Executor tower, absent nodules, match up - it's safe to say that they're the same model, and that the platforms, and nodules, were removable.

 

I entertained that idea yesterday and it's more than possible, but there are more differences in the detailing between them than Lt. Hija seems to think.

 

Using Complete Locations's 285m bridge tower as the standard, the domes would be around 34m wide, and the bridge window section would be around 10.2m across.

Not too far out from the proposed 12.8m wide bridge window section.

It makes the domes a little larger compared to the Falcon than what we actually see on screen - but I can live with that.

 

Mange wrote

And I'm telling you that you are flat out wrong when you claim that a single tower with the platforms out of picture was used. I can't write a proper reply yet, but this is the multi nodule tower model used without platforms (notice how far down the neck extends)



My bad, I should have been more precise. What you see in the above image (unfortunately we do only have 3 "official" BTS images in low resolution of the 'Avenger' ROJ large VFX Star Destroyer conning tower at our disposal, and I've been trying for years to talk Tim Ketzer into sharing his high-res close-ups photographs of that variation with us, even the Japanese authors of the latest Star Wars Chronicles book were unfortunately not able to feature something better which tells me something about the bad shape the Lucasfilm Archives are apparently in) is obviously the tower with the 'head' standing on some kind of reflective surface, partially mirroring the VFX model.

For the scenes featuring the Super Star Destroyer several modifications were applied to the 'face' and the tower structure was extended with the platforms being added on to it:



I don't know if you can already notice, but the black & white image of the 'Avenger' tower on top is flopped / mirror-inverted. The rectangular aperture in the tower's port side should be visible but isn't, explanation: it's only on the starboard side of the tower, see here:



And to make the issue totally irritating, please check out this BTS publicity still from ROJ (notice the missing platforms!!!):



Based on the actual image of the model taken at an exhibit (the one in Paris I presume, that's were I met the model) this further tells us, that the actual film footage had been flopped / mirror-inverted:



In terms of chronology I think we might be looking at this order of model modifications:

• model is shot first in its 'Avenger' variation with the large command bridge module and the substation modules
• model is stripped of the substation modules, the smaller SSD command bridge module replaces the larger one. The "Sinking of the SSD2 is shot
• model maker (or is it Howard Kazanjian?) poses with SSD head (only) while the tower base is extended for the Tydirium shuttle approach scene
• destroyed deflector shield power generator is replaced with new one for Tydirium approach scene
• after filming conning tower model goes into the vault, but first George Lucas and others (Lorne Peterson below) take publicity shots of the ROJ models:

(notice large conning tower on the right with starboard deflector shield power generator intact)

Iron_lord wrote

Using Complete Locations's 285m bridge tower as the standard, the domes would be around 34m wide, and the bridge window section would be around 10.2m across. Not too far out from the proposed 12.8m wide bridge window section. It makes the domes a little larger compared to the Falcon than what we actually see on screen - but I can live with that.

12.8 m is not a proposal but the minimal width of the actual film set, published already in this thread. You reduce it by 80% to arrive at a figure you believe should be right? And the Falcon's length is now used as its diameter to compare it to the domes? Neither very scientific nor reliable, IMHO.

 

It's only the windows that need to be 10.2m - not the whole set itself. The set may be slightly wider than the window section.

The Falcon being "a little too large in imagery relative to the bridge tower than official sizes demand" is forgivable.

I think we can safely say that they are not going to change the size of the Falcon much, or the size of the Avenger, and that "1600m" being the official size of the Avenger (and the Devastator) is here to stay.


I notice that both Multi-Nodule and Executor are mirrored in film footage. That's not too surprising - things often get mirrored. Even the DS2 is mirrored compared to the actual prop.

Given that the Falcon looks quite a bit smaller compared to Multi-Nodule (when it is passing around it)

- wouldn't that mean, if you're arguing that Multi-Nodule is just a regular Avenger, that the Avenger in TESB was smaller than its "true" size (represented by Multi-Nodule) and that, rather than having a 203m wide tower, Multi-Nodule The Avenger, has a wider one - at least 285m?


IMO Saxton, when helping with the writing of Inside The Worlds Of The Star Wars Trilogy (which would later become Complete Locations) made the Executor's tower 285m for good reasons - it was the size that was most compatible with (assuming same sized tower) a 1 mile Avenger. It didn't distort the bridge size to a catastrophic extent, or the "Falcon on Avenger" scene - so it was the size he put down.

 

Iron_lord wrote

I think we can safely say that they are not going to change the size of the Falcon much, or the size of the Avenger, and that "1600m" being the official size of the Avenger (and the Devastator) is here to stay.

So you are saying we should rather believe what we're being told (based on what exactly, a rough one mile figure whose origin remains inconclusive?) instead of what we can actually see and calculate?

Sorry for the pun, but check this out at around 1:35':



Given that the Falcon looks quite a bit smaller compared to Multi-Nodule (when it is passing around it) - wouldn't that mean, if you're arguing that Multi-Nodule is just a regular Avenger, that the Avenger in TESB was smaller than its "true" size (represented by Multi-Nodule) and that, rather than having a 203m wide tower, Multi-Nodule The Avenger, has a wider one - at least 285m?

That puts us back to the discussion whether we should rather trust in those compositing the VFX for ROJ (which reportedly had been done under immense stress) or the model makers that built the models and provided details for size reference. I obviously find the model makers' work to be much more reliable.

 

Saxton's theory for the origin of the 1 mile figure:

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

Professional model makers at ILM and elsewhere maintain consistency in their creations by conforming to a certain set of standardised scales employed by model kit companies for models depicting real-world. There is good evidence that the effects modellers of STAR WARS esteemed the classic scales too. The model of the Avenger created for The Empire Strikes Back was 2.59m long and was detailed with thousands of parts from warship model kits. These warship kits are produced in several standard imperial or commercial scales. One such scale is 1/620; it was used by some manufacturers at the time when the classic trilogy was filmed. Scaling the star destroyer in accordance with its constituent and decorative parts yields a total length of almost exactly one mile long: 1606m. To within the precision of our knowledge of the model's size, this is perfect agreement.

 

I know. What I was referring to was the bridge tower section on the 2.59 meter filming model that features the same recessed areas, not a separately built tower.

I concede that a single tower was built that was redressed (and a section with a larger scale sensor dome was built as well).

However. I still stick to my guns that the (redressed) tower was intended as the "communications ship" and not an Avenger (ISD-II) subtype and I'll continue to refer to it as the multi-nodule tower. It's quite possible the tower could have been redressed to represent three ships as per the picture in Rinzler's book where the tower is redressed as an ISD-tower but without the platforms and large bridge but with greeblies (the circumstantial evidence for the "communication ship" is there and I'll continue to look for more). I do not think that an in-universe reason for the multiple nodules "obfuscates" anything.

Indeed, as I wrote yesterday, its layout as the multi-nodule tower had also been flipped in the movie.

Actually, it's a reduction by 20%. It's reasonable and the method is pretty much the standard when it comes to scaling. Set dimensions aren't gospel.

 

Iron_lord quoted

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

Professional model makers at ILM and elsewhere maintain consistency in their creations by conforming to a certain set of standardised scales employed by model kit companies for models depicting real-world. There is good evidence that the effects modellers of STAR WARS esteemed the classic scales too. The model of the Avenger created for The Empire Strikes Back was 2.59m long and was detailed with thousands of parts from warship model kits. These warship kits are produced in several standard imperial or commercial scales. One such scale is 1/620; it was used by some manufacturers at the time when the classic trilogy was filmed. Scaling the star destroyer in accordance with its constituent and decorative parts yields a total length of almost exactly one mile long: 1606m. To within the precision of our knowledge of the model's size, this is perfect agreement.

1. the Tamiya naval model kits featured a scale of 1/700, so 1,813 m would be more appropriate based on that hypothesis
2. we do have size references in form of visual composites (e.g. Tantive IV sitting in Devastator's ventral main bay in ANH, Lambda-class shuttle ST 321 leaving Star Destroyer's forward ventral bay in ROJ) and actual model size references (e.g. Falcon attached twice to stern of Avenger's conning tower models in ESB, two differently sized balcony bridge modules in ROJ)
3. The premise of Saxton's hypothesis stands on the assumption, that the ILM model makers intended the Star Destroyers' windows to have the same size as those on the kit-bashed warship model parts.

As I already posted earlier in this thread - http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...riginal-trilogy.50044307/page-4#post-54221466 - we have the ESB Star Destroyer's model maker Lorne Peterson stating a length of "11,000 feet" aka 3,353 m for what can obviously only be an original length intention for either the Devastator or the ESB VFX Star Destroyer model, put simply: Lorne Peterson originally intended the kit-bashed warship model parts to feature Star Destroyer windows twice as big (as their Earth counterparts)
(in other words: Since the availability of Rinzler's The Making of The Empire Strikes Back Saxton's hypothesis is dead and buried).

Mange wrote

I still stick to my guns that the (redressed) tower was intended as the "communications ship" and not an Avenger (ISD-II) subtype and I'll continue to refer to it as the multi-nodule tower

I can't tell you what to believe or not, but it looks to me like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

If there is one thing we know for certain from the materials at our disposal (e.g. Chapter Nine of the ROJ novelization), the "Empire's main communications ship" (responsible for jamming the Alliance's reading on whether the shield protecting the Death Star is up or down) was "one of the larger Star Destroyers" (the corresponding screenplay passage, referring to "one of the larger Imperial ships" appears to have been cannibalized and mixed with new footage assembled in post-production to create a scene that wasn't there originally).

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...urn-of-the-jedi.50041047/page-2#post-53639124

As a "larger" Star Destroyer - yet with identical conning tower proportions - logic dictates that the windows of the balcony must then be smaller, thus it can't possibly be this (small conning tower)



but it would be much rather this (large conning tower):





As a matter of fact (spent some time this weekend to think things over) I'm now more confident than ever before (thanks to your input) that what we actually see in the BTS conning tower image above is the original explosion of the "main power tree" of the "Empire's main communications ship" that was ultimately reused for the "sinking of the Emperor's Super Star Destroyer", very much like they reused the original explosion of the head of General Veers' Snow Walker in ESB (because of Hobbie's Kamikaze crash into it) for Luke's detonation device planting scene inside a Snow Walker.

Except for the final film edit, there is nothing in the screenplays or the original storyboards that remotely suggests that the Emperor's Super Star Destroyer in ROJ ("Executor") ever lost a deflector shield power generator on the top of the conning tower! http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...urn-of-the-jedi.50041047/page-3#post-53649538

Same goes for the videomatics by Ken Ralston which suggested the Super Star Destroyer to go down with both domes on his conning tower intact!

 

I updated the Endor space battle thread with the above observations and added another post with a new visualization, that actually surprised me upon closer examination (i.e. something at least I could or should have noticed many years ago...): http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...urn-of-the-jedi.50041047/page-9#post-54588318

 

Interesting... The videomatic was quite amusing, but I don't know how literal one should be when interpreting it.