View Single Post
Old July 3 2014, 12:24 PM   #61
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: its Star Trek IIIs 30th anniversary!

It's been commented elsewhere that Leonard Nimoy's direction involved mostly close-ups and wide-angle shots - with the implication that this was somehow indicative of lack of talent in the director's chair. But I see it from ... a different perspective. The intensity of the close-ups, for one thing, hightened the tension and helped to build on the drama. Movies are great for focusing on actor's faces, anyway. But there was also the fact that, even though TSFS had more money than TWoK to work with, a lot of the sets were pretty bad. Particularly - and most painfully - on the planet Vulcan.

Mount Seleya - where the actors were standing around - was represented, basically, by painted canvas, on the set! Like amateur night, I guess. And Nimoy - very wisely - chose to focus the lense on the actors as much as possible and tried to blur out the background as best he could, in-camera. The worst of these canvas backdrops was a sort of stack of blocky, boulder like formations going up the side of the mountain. It looked like a mural, it was so bad. Nimoy's direction positioned him in front of that, more so than the others, whom he chose to stand against the orange Vulcan sky. But how these things got agreed upon boggles the mind. The minute someone said, "we're going to use painted canvas to represent Vulcan" I would've fought against that. And maybe Nimoy did, but obviously ... they'd won out. Lenny didn't have enough clout, I guess ...
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote