RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,349
Posts: 5,354,375
Members: 24,619
Currently online: 615
Newest member: StarTrekSteve

TrekToday headlines

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 23 2013, 02:45 AM   #361
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

I read once that stop-motion animator Jim Danforth was not a fan of Go-Motion because he found it too constrained and programmed, or something like that. His preferred method of simulating motion blur was to double-expose consecutive poses so they'd overlap each other and smooth the transition. Which was really very smooth-looking from what I've seen of it.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2013, 03:39 AM   #362
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

Well, if you look at CAVEMAN (which Danforth started but got the boot and Dave Allen did the work), they did the pterodactyl wings with the multiple exposure and it looked really good, because it was a ways off. Try that trick close up and it looks like reverse action on a helicopter blade, really strobey weird (as in Q THE WINGED SERPENT, done for less than a pittance.)

I remember the DRAGONSLAYER stuff as looking really good, but I've never looked at it a frame at a time or deconstructed it (I haven't seen it since the laserdisc days, or maybe it was VHS.) There are some frames in CINEFEX 5 or 6 that show the motion blur on the head swinging round, and I think there is a matte line around it, so it may have been limited by the pre-digital matting tech, which wasn't always good with handling blur (you could do it with spaceships against black, as long as you weren't working for Bran Ferren on STAR TREK V, but most other situations allowed artifacting to show up.)

Go-Mo may have been more trouble than it was worth in some instances, as JEDI's Rancor pit monster was a rod puppet instead of go-motion.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2013, 03:41 AM   #363
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
The go-mo in EMPIRE was not exactly a rousing success. However a year later that process was used tremendously well (in tandem with rod puppetry) on DRAGONSLAYER.
Yeah. Empire was pushing the envelope, which was a good thing, but they might have pushed it just a little bit beyond what they were able to live up to. I'm so glad they did though.

Dragonslayer was utterly mind blowing to me, though. Is it considered to be at or near the apex of practical model animation?
As I recall the problem they felt was that go motion as applied in Empire was a half measure in that they blurred the legs but not much else, so it felt "wrong" when you looked at it, especially because there was blur when it was running, but when it stopped and looked around it got that typical staccato stop motion look about it.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2013, 12:40 PM   #364
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

Maurice wrote: View Post
As I recall the problem they felt was that go motion as applied in Empire was a half measure in that they blurred the legs but not much else, so it felt "wrong" when you looked at it, especially because there was blur when it was running, but when it stopped and looked around it got that typical staccato stop motion look about it.
... AGREED! Go-Motion was only partially successful. But isn't that so typical of HOLLYWOOD? They come up with this one solution to this one problem and try to use it as a catch-all, instead of trying to solve the entire scope of it.

Once computer graphic imagery hit the scene, instead of cheap-looking men in rubber suits, we got cheap-looking CGI. The point is, whenever one technique is over-used, or used to the exclusion of all other techniques, almost, the shortcomings of that technique tend to get magnified.

But yes, Dragonslayer was just a brilliant movie for its time, in all regards. The dragon itself, was handled absolutely right, with where technology was, at the time. Even so, the dragon didn't really feature much and about a quarter of its time onscreen does reveal the limitations of the time. It's herky-jerky, but you can kind of see, too, ILM trying to compensate for it. The angle would be such, that it would be less noticable, or the camera would move, or shake, to sort of mask the imperfection. I give ILM an "A" for effort ...
__________________
― It Takes Two.™
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23 2013, 11:56 PM   #365
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

trevanian wrote: View Post
Actually those spacesuited figures are all servo-activated with lots of joint motion built into them, kind of an electric version of the puppet stuff Apogee did later for LIFEFORCE.

They don't hold up to close scrutiny, hence what I've always found to be the most embarrassing moment, in TMP, when the little guy fleeing Epsilon 9 moves so badly at the end of the shot it looks like he did fall off his wire, though I've been told here it was an attempt to make it look like he was tripping on a piece of the station or being hit by the vger effect.

The guy doing the backflip on the dock looks really good though, I've always thought that was probably live-action. Trumbull did have the suits for the live-action and a control arm pole that went into one of them set up so he could flip a person and control him like the performer was a mo-con miniature. Can't believe they could have gotten that smooth an action on the dock guy (even in long shot) and then fail so epically on the Ep9 shot.


on the weird stuff between the E and K/S on the cards and promo pics, I always thought it was mylar or saran wrap lit with colored gels, which was an established zero-budget way of making mystical space shit for Super8 folks back then.
That's awesome, thanks! Once again you prove what a fount of knowledge you are.
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 12:19 AM   #366
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

2takesfrakes wrote: View Post
Maurice wrote: View Post
As I recall the problem they felt was that go motion as applied in Empire was a half measure in that they blurred the legs but not much else, so it felt "wrong" when you looked at it, especially because there was blur when it was running, but when it stopped and looked around it got that typical staccato stop motion look about it.
... AGREED! Go-Motion was only partially successful. But isn't that so typical of HOLLYWOOD? They come up with this one solution to this one problem and try to use it as a catch-all, instead of trying to solve the entire scope of it.

Once computer graphic imagery hit the scene, instead of cheap-looking men in rubber suits, we got cheap-looking CGI. The point is, whenever one technique is over-used, or used to the exclusion of all other techniques, almost, the shortcomings of that technique tend to get magnified.

But yes, Dragonslayer was just a brilliant movie for its time, in all regards. The dragon itself, was handled absolutely right, with where technology was, at the time. Even so, the dragon didn't really feature much and about a quarter of its time onscreen does reveal the limitations of the time. It's herky-jerky, but you can kind of see, too, ILM trying to compensate for it. The angle would be such, that it would be less noticable, or the camera would move, or shake, to sort of mask the imperfection. I give ILM an "A" for effort ...
Bashing Hollywood is easy, and I don't think anyone saw go motion as a gimmick to use all over the place, as the Rancor proves.

I just looked at sequences Dragonslayer and I don't know what shake you are referring to.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 07:51 AM   #367
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

The Rancor was handled as a hand puppet, because of effiicency in time, mostly. For whatever reason, they had to get it in-the-can, quick and dirty, somehow. I believe it was because Jedi's space battles pushed the envelope so much, that it started going overbudget. It may also have to do with the fact that Lucas wanted to have the Rancor realized as a monster suit, at first, despite protests from the crew that this "solution" presented many of its own problems. I've not watched Dragonslayer recently, I was going by memory, by the way ... though I'm convinced that what I said about the animated puppet dragon was only true - and very full of proof.
__________________
― It Takes Two.™
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 08:25 AM   #368
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

The Rancor itself was just fine. In fact, it was probably better as a puppet than stop-motion or any other alternative available at the time.

To my eyes, the biggest problems with the Rancor scene in 1983 were first and foremost the matte lines around Luke and/or the beast depending on the exact moment, and then came not matching the lighting between Luke and the model.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 08:50 AM   #369
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

I completely agree with the matte lines/lighting. When Luke stuffs a bone in its mouth, it's particularly evident. Even Lucas' revamps and redo's didn't do much about the apparent fakeness. I always hated the Rancor's copious, thick saliva ... it was way overdone, especially with this thing roaring, somehow - despite the fact that its throat is completely clogged with this garbage. When it eats the guard, though, it's a very pleasing effect. The pig puppet fits perfectly in its mouth and the creature's multiple chomps to get it down its hatch all look good. I hated its slow hand that you'd have to be so absurdly immobile to not be able to walk away and escape from. Aside from which, it did not seem to have much dexterity, even though the fingers and arms are extra long to grasp prey. But never mind all of that ... the closest the first six STAR TREK movies ever came to presenting us with a monster this size was a placid whale. Aside from a couple tail splashes and blowhole spouts, it was such a dud. What kind of shit is that? I wish I even knew ...
__________________
― It Takes Two.™
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 11:30 AM   #370
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

I just finished reading the new book The Making of Return of the Jedi and the decision to go with the rod puppet for the Rancor was because George didn't think the suit worked at all, despite his initial instance on using it, but some of the tests where they had people outside the suit operating the arms showed some promise, which supported the idea of a rod puppet approach. As the 50 shots in the sequence weren't possible to accomplish with go-motion given the schedule the decision was made to go entirely the opposite direction and use high-speed photography on a rod puppet because they could get tons of takes in very short order. Since it was shot "live" it also minimized the need for optical compositing. It wasn't a so much a quick and dirty approach as much as a "this will work, look good, require no motion control rigs, and work within our schedule" approach.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010

Last edited by Maurice; November 24 2013 at 09:15 PM.
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 04:31 PM   #371
Maab
Lieutenant
 
Location: Rome, Italy
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Has that ViewMaster ever been scanned in and put online somewhere?
I realize of course it's not 3D that way, but I wonder if the slides have been. I'd be interested to see it.

Here
you can find few slides of the TOS reels (The Omega Glory), including the two Enterprises special effect made with the AMT models. I've never seen the ones from The Motion Picture on-line. I may do that some time in the future, but it's more difficult that to scan standard slides.
The good thing is that, once you have the sterescopic pictures (left and right pictures), you can use any technology you want to watch them in 3D, from red-green glasses to modern 3D polarized glasses (well, assuming that you have the necessary hardware).

Best,
Maab
Maab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 09:03 PM   #372
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

2takesfrakes wrote: View Post
But never mind all of that ... the closest the first six STAR TREK movies ever came to presenting us with a monster this size was a placid whale. Aside from a couple tail splashes and blowhole spouts, it was such a dud. What kind of shit is that? I wish I even knew ...
Well, because the Trek movie scripts didn't call for giant, ugly monsters... until Shatner tried for a giant orange rock man for ST V and couldn't achieve what he'd imagined on paper with the budget he'd been given.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 09:13 PM   #373
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

[QUOTE=Maab;8933272]
SpHeRe31459 wrote: View Post
Here[/URL] you can find few slides of the TOS reels (The Omega Glory), including the two Enterprises special effect made with the AMT models.
The foreground one is the 3 footer prototype built for the show. The Exeter in the background is an AMT kit.
__________________
* * *
"If you wanted to get a good meeting... just go in and
say 'darker, grittier, sexier' and whatever."
—Glen Larson, 2010
Maurice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24 2013, 09:31 PM   #374
2takesfrakes
Commodore
 
2takesfrakes's Avatar
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Well, because the Trek movie scripts didn't call for giant, ugly monsters... until Shatner tried for a giant orange rock man for ST V and couldn't achieve what he'd imagined on paper with the budget he'd been given.
That's an excellent point, sir! Yes, the Rockmen would've rocked! Oh, well ... at least we got a CGI beasty in STAR TREK '09, at long last. Face flaps and all ...
__________________
― It Takes Two.™
2takesfrakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 25 2013, 07:18 PM   #375
Maab
Lieutenant
 
Location: Rome, Italy
Re: Star Trek: TMP questions and observations

Maurice wrote: View Post
The foreground one is the 3 footer prototype built for the show. The Exeter in the background is an AMT kit.
Oh, I didn't know it. I always tought that they were both AMT models. Thank you.

Best,
Maab
Maab is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.