View Single Post
Old January 11 2013, 05:50 PM   #40
Rear Admiral
Re: The STAR TREK III-Love & Appreciation Thread

22 Stars wrote: View Post

As far as the planet stuff, it's not simply that the money to do other stuff took away from the Genesis Planet set, there is a huge budget differential between going on location and shooting on set, any set. They could have thrown a million more dollars at the Genesis set and it wouldn't have looked much better. Unfortunately with today's fx tools, they could shoot some second unit stuff on location and seamlessly merge that with the live action and make Genesis look like something from Lord of the Rings instead of movie set.
You're almost certainly right about all that. I remember reading that the original SFS plan involved shooting Genesis in Hawaii and possibly Mt St Helens (!!!) and Vulcan in Red Rock Valley or some longtime Western movie locale, but budget issues scotched all that early on.

I'm kind of torn on the 'how convincing do you need to be' thing, because I deeply believe what Joe Jennings said (according to Mike Minor anyway) is right, that to postulate a whole new world with its own unique virgin ecosystem, but then deliver a touched up version of our own planet with all the erosion and signs of being tampered with, is NOT GOOD SCIENCE FICTION.

But it is hard to argue with films that combine deftly-integrated location work with clever and imaginative VFX touches. And part of my problem with SFS is that it seems like the budget is shrinking as the movie progresses, going from some expansive (if unconvincing) Genesis stuff to the mountaintop on Vulcan, which looks like BAD DAY AT STRATOS ROCK if you know what I mean. Maybe if they kept the big procession with the big head sculptures it would have helped.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote