Is the bridge at a funny angle?

[UssGlenn]

I'd much rather see the odd boom mic on an open matt than pan and scan or letterbox on a small 4:3 tv. Not really an issue any more with everyone having large widescreen TVs, letterbox is much less annoying now.

I still own Back to the Future on DVD in both open matt and Widescreen, however. When taking screencaps for movie prop replication purposes every bit of extra screen real estate counts.

 

[jackoverfull]

The alternative was "letterboxing," which shrunk down the wide image and had black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

or stretching. Hard to believe today that stretching the image horizontally was considered acceptable, but I had several VHSs where everyone was very slim.

 

[Scott Kellogg]

Back in the days of actual film reels being shipped to theaters (before digital projectors), the projector had a little plate that could be inserted in front of the film, with a slot in it the shape of the intended wide-screen image. This tiny plate covered the top and bottom of each film frame, so only the middle of the image would shine through the slot.

And that's how some wide-screen formats were projected. The whole frame was exposed during production, but the finished film was projected such that you would only see that middle slot, within which the movie was composed.

If a projectionist took the plate out, or just looked at the film frames outside the projector, he could see the top and bottom of the frame. The example I heard about was a movie in which Julia Roberts takes a shower. A projectionist felt compelled to look at the whole frame, and he saw that below the wide screen image, she was actually wearing a tube top. And that's something outside "the safe zone" better left unseen.

Now THAT'S Interesting!
A few years back, I'd heard that they were going to re-release "Lost In Space" in widescreen using the edges of the film. I'd assumed that they were simply going to chop off the top and bottom of the screen.

That's Very interesting! I didn't know about this! Thank you!

 

[Forbin]

There's an episode of Tales of the Gold Monkey on DVD where Stephen Collins is standing in a hot tub, and he's supposed to be all embarrassed because he's naked in front of Marta DuBois, but the DVD cropping (or lack of cropping) clearly shows several inches of the top of his shorts.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Now THAT'S Interesting!
A few years back, I'd heard that they were going to re-release "Lost In Space" in widescreen using the edges of the film. I'd assumed that they were simply going to chop off the top and bottom of the screen.

The Lost in Space Blu-ray set includes a wide-screen, 16:9 version of "Condemned of Space" with a 5.1 stereo remix, in addition to the standard version. Apparently LIS's 4:3 aspect was composed well inside the full 35mm frame, and what was visible off to the sides but never meant to be seen was almost always acceptable.

This seems like a good place to mention that the LIS complete series Blu-ray is absolutely loaded with extras and special features. Nobody leaves the table hungry on this one.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

There's an episode of Tales of the Gold Monkey on DVD where Stephen Collins is standing in a hot tub, and he's supposed to be all embarrassed because he's naked in front of Marta DuBois, but the DVD cropping (or lack of cropping) clearly shows several inches of the top of his shorts.

ST: TMP made up for that. In the footed-pajama uniform? We saw enough of his gold monkey to last us a lifetime.

 

[FormerLurker]

A few years ago people were yucking it up on the Internet about what an incompetent director Ed Wood was, because one of his films had a scene in an airliner cockpit and you could plainly see the overhead microphone in that shot, just hanging there in plain view for the whole scene. Ha ha. But the film had been shot for wide screen, and the theater projector would have covered up the top and bottom of the frame. The 4:3 TV version wasn't a proper pan and scan job; they just showed the whole frame, a slapdash decision that destroyed the composition of the whole movie.

Much of Ed Wood's reputation was unearned. Yes, his scripting could get histrionic, and he was never able to hire current A-List actors, but he knew filmmaking, and was extraordinarily prolific as a writer. TV savaged him, mostly due to showing his open matte films as is, letting stuff that would have been unseen in the theater show, making it look like he was incompetent. It was really unfair.

or stretching. Hard to believe today that stretching the image horizontally was considered acceptable, but I had several VHSs where everyone was very slim.

This is what happens when they don't put the anamorphic lens on the projector to record the film for home video. The end credits of the VHS for Dragonslayer is a prime example.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

The 11' model was exclusively filmed from the starboard side.

Because those shots were made with the ship in its 2nd pilot configuration before Datin and Co. made the series changes.

I was hoping you might be able to shed some light on this, so let me reword the background and my question in a more technical way:

My understanding is that, lacking motion control, the ship was shot in moves that were not able to be repeated exactly. This means that the reversed decals alone could not be re-shot and then added to moving footage of the ship. Going by that, then the famous "side-view" shot would have to be done from scratch AT LEAST TWICE during the pilot days: once going left-to-right, followed by a decal change, then right-to-left. The unused right-to-left version, nearly identical but not, would go unused for almost two years until it was remembered and used in during Mirror, Mirror.

This does make sense as something that could have been done, and Star Trek is full of situations where an asset was "lying around" and then finally got used.

Here's what does not line up for me. The Star Trek 365 coffee-table book claims that right-to-left footage of the Enterprise is re-used pilot footage and does not suggest reversing decals but rather that the pilot version of the 11-foot model had been filmed for both sides.

In one of the print-sources I have read (I think it was "The Making of Star Trek of the Star Trek Sketchbook) someone referred to "saving" reversed decals to use in future right-to-left shots. Did this just never actually happen?

The "right-to-left" shot looks to be in better condition than the "left-to-right" version. I used to think that meant it was newer footage. (I suppose this could be explained away by the fact it was copied less.

The procedure I described, which took a whole paragraph to explain, seems like a lot of trouble to go to for a shot that was not even used in the pilot.

I was aware that the Mirror, Mirror ship was the pilot configuration, but I'm hoping that your research can provide more insight into the timeframe of the creation of this effect shot.

P.S. At the beginning of "The Doomsday Machine," if you count the stations on the side of the bridge next to the science station as Kirk walks around the bridge, you can see it's the wrong number.

I noticed that after several viewings on VHS.

This was already answered but to reiterate: It is astonishing how much ship footage from the pilot is used throughout the show. The very last shot of the series? From Where No Man Has Gone Before. The second and third season titles? Entirely from the two pilots.

 

[Maurice]

[...]Here's what does not line up for me. The Star Trek 365 coffee-table book claims that right-to-left footage of the Enterprise is re-used pilot footage and does not suggest reversing decals but rather that the pilot version of the 11-foot model had been filmed for both sides.

It's wrong. Lots of officially licensed books are wrong.

There's a very simple way to tell.

1. There were never any windows drilled out on the port side of the 11'2" model (just holes for wiring).
2. The boxy things on the engineering hull which bracket the dish housing were only built on the starboard side and underside. One doesn't exist on the port side, and you can see its absence in shots where the ship is coming at the camera. (You can see its omission at 3:30 in the video linked.
3. There are rectangular "flaps" under the nacelle domes, but only the ones directly underneath and to the starboard were built. There are no matching ones to the port.
4. The indented "trench" inside the nacelle was only built on the inside facing of the port nacelle, just visible from the starboard side. They faked it on the inside of the starboard nacelle with paint alone.

Since you see a) lit windows in the portside shot, 2) that boxy thing with the pennant, and 3) those under the nacelle cap "flaps", that's three clear indicators it's the starboard side with reversed decals.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

It's wrong. Lots of officially licensed books are wrong.

There's a very simple way to tell.

1. There were never any windows drilled out on the port side of the 11'2" model (just holes for wiring).
2. The boxy things on the engineering hull which bracket the dish housing were only built on the starboard side and underside. One doesn't exist on the port side, and you can see its absence in shots where the ship is coming at the camera. (You can see its omission at 3:30 in the video linked.
3. There are rectangular "flaps" under the nacelle domes, but only the ones directly underneath and to the starboard were built. There are no matching ones to the port.
4. The indented "trench" inside the nacelle was only built on the inside facing of the port nacelle, just visible from the starboard side. They faked it on the inside of the starboard nacelle with paint alone.

Since you see a) lit windows in the portside shot, 2) that boxy thing with the pennant, and 3) those under the nacelle cap "flaps", that's three clear indicators it's the starboard side with reversed decals.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Wow. I was able to confirm the many details you are pointing out by looking at another page of the same book before I even had to load the video.

I mean, I guess it would have been more work to put the ship back to its pilot configuration. But the blurb in that book could have been worded better. It's so odd that if that "mirror" footage existed already that it had never been used before.

 

[jackoverfull]

Much of Ed Wood's reputation was unearned. Yes, his scripting could get histrionic, and he was never able to hire current A-List actors, but he knew filmmaking, and was extraordinarily prolific as a writer. TV savaged him, mostly due to showing his open matte films as is, letting stuff that would have been unseen in the theater show, making it look like he was incompetent. It was really unfair.

Very interesting, thanks. I guess that by now his fame of being bad is being intentionally overplayed to help sales: not many would buy an old movie from an obscure director, but when plan 9 from outer space is “the worst movie by the most incompetent director ever” you have a market among the lovers of camp!

The procedure I described, which took a whole paragraph to explain, seems like a lot of trouble to go to for a shot that was not even used in the pilot

on the other hand, I seemed to understand they did film a lot of the original model in the early days with the idea of reusing it in the series, as it was relatively cheap to film the model once for more shots than several times for shorter periods.

 

[GNDN18]

It's so odd that if that "mirror" footage existed already that it had never been used before.

I seemed to understand they did film a lot of the original model in the early days with the idea of reusing it in the series

This is from “Dagger of the Mind:”

I’m sorry I couldn’t find a GIF or video, because there is an awkwardness about the shot that defies description.

 

[jackoverfull]

Why do you find it awkward? And of course it’s yet another shot that was done at the time of the pilots.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Speaking just for myself, the primary aspect of its awkwardness is that the ship isn't headed in the direction it's pointed in. In before someone says, "But in space, there's no aerodynamic drag." The point is, it makes it look awkward. In a visual medium, looking good is better than having to appeal to some rationale to excuse looking bad.

 

[GNDN18]

Why do you find it awkward? And of course it’s yet another shot that was done at the time of the pilots.

To me, the tilting and the motion toward the planet are not convincing. It looks like a 2D cutout instead of a physical model.

The shot I posted—as a single frame–is fine, even striking. But the motion picture was disappointing. YMMV

 

[BK613]

To me, the tilting and the motion toward the planet are not convincing. It looks like a 2D cutout instead of a physical model.

The shot I posted—as a single frame–is fine, even striking. But the motion picture was disappointing. YMMV

You're probably right, after sliding in from the right, it does look like a single frame that falls away into the distance.
At 1:35

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[GNDN18]

You're probably right, after sliding in from the right, it does look like a single frame that falls away into the distance.
At 1:35

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Thanks for posting that: I completely forgot about the comparison videos.

The running lights are blinking at the beginning of the shot, but later it has an almost zigzag motion. @Maurice or @alchemist might be able to speak to how the shot was done. My guess is that an optical printer was used to enhance the filmed movement.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

This is from “Dagger of the Mind:”

I’m sorry I couldn’t find a GIF or video, because there is an awkwardness about the shot that defies description.

I literally just watched this shot today. I've got to admit that, it is a neat angle in the sense that it was rare, but it did not have smooth motion.

This is partly my point. Why use this shot in "Dagger of the Mind" when the "Mirror, Mirror"shot existed? This could literally be something made for the pilot that got cut because there were smoother choices. This must be a flipped shot with the reversed decals. In still it looks pretty clear considering that.

I'm supposing that they wanted to convey the Enterprise was going "back" by showing it going the other direction, but that could have been done with the "Mirror, Mirror" shot. Conversely, Mirror, Mirror could have used flipped footage of the current model configuration like "Shore Leave." (By the way screencaps from Shore Leave appear to be the "left-to-right" shot, flipped. So that is something different from the actual "right-to-left" shot?)

The reasoning behind these choices would be fascinating to learn.

 

[jackoverfull]

Speaking just for myself, the primary aspect of its awkwardness is that the ship isn't headed in the direction it's pointed in. In before someone says, "But in space, there's no aerodynamic drag." The point is, it makes it look awkward. In a visual medium, looking good is better than having to appeal to some rationale to excuse looking bad.

ah yes, this could happen at times in TOS. Honestly invthe video I don’t feel it looks THAT bad though...and not as bad as the sliding into warp shot in STV.

 

[GNDN18]

Why use this shot in "Dagger of the Mind" when the "Mirror, Mirror"shot existed?

I think this was intended to show the ship entering standard orbit. It moves to the right of Tantalus V so when it swings around the port side would be visible orbiting from left to right.

I read a memo (probably in TMoST), complaining about the approach shot from WNMHGB and I speculated that this was an alternate. Since main title had that shot of the ship in every first-season episode, maybe this was the one that provoked the memo writer.