Would a theatrical star trek work during tos 66-69 run.

[Maurice]

The distinction between special effects and visual effect was there in the 20th century.

In general:

Scenic backdrops/set backings/cycloramas/translights are on-set artwork/photographs used to extend a setting. They are not considered a special effect.

"Special effect" means an on-set effect, like squibs, fire, smoke coming off Chekov's arm, etc.

Matte paintings/matte shots/traveling mattes all refer to post production processes that involved the generation of mattes

Optical effects typically meant an optical printer was used.

CGI is a catch-all for effects created on or altered using computers.

 

[Christopher]

Squirming my way back towards the topic, the split between "visual effects" and "special effects" is something that developed in the 21st century

Not true. It was well-established by the time of TOS. I already mentioned that Jim Rugg, TOS's mechanical effects supervisor, was credited with "Special Effects," which was already a distinct industry term from what were known variously as special photographic effects, optical effects, or visual effects, i.e. effects that required special photographic techniques or had to be composited or edited into the film in post-production rather than achieved live on set.

In the 1980s, making a full-sized car appear to fly or an explosion go off on a set with actors wasn't that different in principle from how you'd do it with scale models on a separate stage. That's not the case in the age of animation.

It was quite different, in that one was done during principal photography and shot by the regular camera crew, while the other was done in post-production by the visual effects crew. So the two techniques occupied different stages of the production process and were handled by different specialists with different training. Yes, they were both achieved with physical techniques, but that doesn't make them the same any more than prop design and costume design are the same, or any more than sound effects and music are the same.

Also, of course, there has been animation in film since the very beginning, and many visual effects have always been animated by hand, such as lightning, ray gun beams, teleportation beams, force fields, monsters from the Id, or even Superman in flight in the 1948 & 1950 serials. Plus many effects were achieved by stop-motion animation of poseable models, from Willis O'Brien's King Kong to Ray Harryhausen's skeletons to Phil Tippett's tauntauns and ED-209. The "age of animation" has existed ever since George Melies discovered what you could achieve by stopping and restarting the camera.

Also, there are still a number of productions that do use physical miniatures and animatronics in the CGI era, including The Orville, The Mandalorian and other Star Wars productions, and the Ultraman franchise in Japan.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

The old Mohave scene would be called an "in-camera" visual effect, and also a kind of forced perspective. The distinction is that it was completely finished on the raw film negative, with no fx work needed in post production.

So everybody is right: it's true that there are no fx added to the shot, and also that it was a crafted effect.

The original painting of Mohave was one of those things you got a brief glimpse of, that fascinated me as a kid. Before the VCR, any given episode would take weeks or months to come around. And then, you just got this glimpse of something rare in it.

It was a different time, and scarcity made Star Trek seem a lot more precious. I didn't voluntarily miss a rerun until about 1980, and even then it was "And the Children..."

 

[mb22]

The original painting of Mohave was one of those things you got a brief glimpse of, that fascinated me as a kid. Before the VCR, any given episode would take weeks or months to come around. And then, you just got this glimpse of something rare in it.

It was also used (partially) as a backdrop for Planet Q in "The Conscience of the King".

 

[Maurice]

The old Mohave scene would be called an "in-camera" visual effect

No it wouldn't. That's not what industry people would call it. It's just part of the set.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

No it wouldn't. That's not what industry people would call it. It's just part of the set.

If the painting was just "part of the set," you could shoot it from any angle without concern. They were creating the appearance of a city in the distance, and doing it in-camera (without the need for fx added in post). It required a particular methodology to look right.

If front and rear projection, and forced perspective count as in-camera effects...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-camera_effect
...I don't see why a forced perspective backdrop (smaller than a city, and closer to the camera) would not.

 

[Maurice]

...WIkipedia...

The fact is people in the biz don't call set elements effects. That's the point. But hey, what do I know about film...

 

[ZapBrannigan]

...WIkipedia...

The fact is people in the biz don't call set elements effects. That's the point. But hey, what do I know about film...

This is just semantics. The backdrop is not an effect, but how they shot it was. It was a technique that "creates an effect."

 

[Christopher]

Okay, technically it's a reach to call a backdrop a special effect. I never denied that. i was just trying to be forgiving about the site's use of the "Original Effects" label for that shot, to say that it wasn't completely invalid if you were willing to be flexible and philosophical about it. But the main explanation is as I said, that it's their standard label format for comparison shots and it's overly nitpicky to complain about them not changing it for the infrequent instances where a new CGI shot replaced a non-VFX element in the original. And I'm saying that as someone who's very nitpicky. It's just not worth making a fuss over.

 

[alchemist]

There are no optical effects in the original version (aside from the ripple-glass wipes in and out of the scene), but in the industry, the term "special effects" is usually used to refer to practical or physical effects done live on set, like sliding doors, blinking lights, prosthetics, pyrotechnics, simulated weather, forced perspective sets, etc. You can see this in the TOS credits, for instance, where mechanical FX supervisor Jim Rugg was credited for "Special Effects" while others like Howard Anderson and Film Effects of Hollywood were credited for "Titles & Opticals."

I think a diorama painting of a distant city would qualify as a special effect in that sense, since it's an illusion created live.

One of the seminal, technical FX books is “The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography” by Raymond Fielding (Focal Press). It was first published in 1965 and regularly updated until 1985. It’s a terrific book but a little dense in spots. It's also available at the archive.

Here is how Fielding defines special effects (p.1):

Broadly speaking, special-effects work falls in to two categories – photographic effects (sometimes termed ‘visual effects’, ‘optical effects’, or ’process cinematography’) and mechanical effects.

Mechanical effects are usually accomplished during live action shooting, which is how Rugg operated.

If the painting was just "part of the set," you could shoot it from any angle without concern. They were creating the appearance of a city in the distance, and doing it in-camera (without the need for fx added in post). It required a particular methodology to look right.

If front and rear projection, and forced perspective count as in-camera effects...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-camera_effect
...I don't see why a forced perspective backdrop (smaller than a city, and closer to the camera) would not.

Here's what Fielding says (p. 2):

The techniques which are available can be classified in a number of different ways. Basically, they can be described as being.

1. In-the-camera effects, in which all of the components of the final scene are photographed on the original camera negative.
2. Laboratory processes, in which duplication of the original negative through one or more generations is necessary before the final effect is produced.
3. Combinations of the two, in which some of the image components are photographed directly on to the final composite film, while others are produced through duplication.

Fielding then goes on in the book to classify rear and front projection as combination techniques because, and simplifying for brevity, the element projected on the screen must be photographed separately and processed in the laboratory. However, since all the components of the scene are photographed on the same camera negative, it's also in-the-camera (in-camera).

 

[Christopher]

Here is how Fielding defines special effects (p.1):
Mechanical effects are usually accomplished during live action shooting, which is how Rugg operated.

True, and the general public understands "special effects" to encompass visual/photographic effects as well as mechanical effects. But when you see someone like Rugg credited for "special effects," that can be taken to mean on-set mechanical or practical effects as opposed to photographic (or digital, these days) effects. That's the way it's usually used in the industry, when it's used at all.

Fielding then goes on in the book to classify rear and front projection as combination techniques because, and simplifying for brevity, the element projected on the screen must be photographed separately and processed in the laboratory. However, since all the components of the scene are photographed on the same camera negative, it's also in-the-camera (in-camera).

The old-school term for projection scenes was "process photography," I think.

It's ironic how the industry has now come full-circle. Rear or front projection was one of the earliest ways of creating composite shots, yet now it's become cutting-edge again with productions like Star Wars and Star Trek using rear-projection LED screens that display 3D digital scenes shifting perspective with the camera in real time. Which means the kind of FX work that used to be done in post-production now has to be done before principal photography.

 

[Mudd]

This is just semantics.

It absolutely is not, and I explained why not.

 

[publiusr]

the kind of FX work that used to be done in post-production now has to be done before principal photography.

Putting discipline back in filmmaking…and giving actors something to react to.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

It is the single funniest Adam West adventure ever with six memorable action setups.....arguably the RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK of its day, yet having this and only this installment in movie houses was akin to a ''very special episode'' of TV, so attendance probably suffered as a result.

I think the 1966 Batman movie proves that the series worked best in small doses. A half hour segment played perfectly. At an hour 45, it got exhausting.

It's definitely not a show that works well as binge viewing. If you watch too many episodes in quick succession, you become very aware of the plot formula they used in every episode. But as something watched every once in a while, it still works beautifully.

True--in fact, the movie was a flop, thanks to Dozier producing the film after the end of the series' first season, which was already suffering from a steep decline in the ratings. Dozier also reasoned (paraphrasing), "Why would anyone pay to see something they get for free at home?" Somehow, he did not think of that when producing the movie. By the fall of 1966, "Batmanina" was over, and Dozier's response was to re-use movie footage of new vehicles (the Batcycle, Batboat & Batcopter), shoot a few three-part episodes and pile more of his celebrity friends into the series as villains--and that too, failed to work.

Yeah, people tend to forget that the 1960s Batman phenomenon did not last for very long. A few months at best. But it cast a LONG shadow over how Batman was perceived by the public at large for the next few decades. The addition of Batgirl in the third season was another attempt to goose up the ratings, but one that didn't really work, as by that point, the series was just airing once a week instead of twice, and it really had too many characters to comfortably fit into a 30 minute show.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I
Yeah, people tend to forget that the 1960s Batman phenomenon did not last for very long. A few months at best. But it cast a LONG shadow over how Batman was perceived by the public at large for the next few decades.

Thankfully, by the time the series aired its final episode in March of 1968, the comics were already returning the character to his darker, detective roots in the hands of writer Frank Robbins and artist Irv Novick, which flowed right into the Neal Adams / Denny O'Neil era. Despite their gargantuan contributions in the restoration of Batman (and Adams art becoming the standard for DC licensing art for nearly two decades), yes, the TV series was a visual/ideological anchor, especially in the minds of those in the film industry, hence the reason when Frank Price approached Kenneth Johnson about adapting The incredible Hulk, Johnson instantly bristled at the idea of a comic-based series, thinking of the 1966 Batman series. Bill Bixby also feared working on anything that would be adapted and/or seen like the '66 series, until Johnson promised Bixby the content would be taken seriously.

The addition of Batgirl in the third season was another attempt to goose up the ratings, but one that didn't really work, as by that point, the series was just airing once a week instead of twice, and it really had too many characters to comfortably fit into a 30 minute show.

Too many leads, guest-stars going through the motions (e.g. Caesar Romero's Joker, Meredith's Penguin, et al.), and plots that made episodes of Super Chicken seem like a dramatic stage play by comparison.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Yes, Batman's scripts definitely took a nosedive by the third season. Partly because they were writing the show as more outright camp (as opposed to the treading the line between camp and straight as in the first season, letting young kids take the show at face value while adults enjoyed the humor), and partly because they were no longer adapting some of the stories directly from the comics. The budget cuts didn't help either, I'm sure.

 

[mb22]

Despite their gargantuan contributions in the restoration of Batman (and Adams art becoming the standard for DC licensing art for nearly two decades), yes, the TV series was a visual/ideological anchor, especially in the minds of those in the film industry,

Not to mention various kids' animated versions from 1968 through the early 80s.

 

[Maurice]

Yes, Batman's scripts definitely took a nosedive by the third season. Partly because they were writing the show as more outright camp (as opposed to the treading the line between camp and straight as in the first season, letting young kids take the show at face value while adults enjoyed the humor), and partly because they were no longer adapting some of the stories directly from the comics. The budget cuts didn't help either, I'm sure.

Arguably they started going downhill in the second season. Some years back I ran across a site that reviewed the show episode by episode and charted how the writing got increasingly lazy.

 

[Maurice]

One of the seminal, technical FX books is “The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography” by Raymond Fielding (Focal Press). It was first published in 1965 and regularly updated until 1985. It’s a terrific book but a little dense in spots. It's also available at the archive.

Here is how Fielding defines special effects (p.1):

Mechanical effects are usually accomplished during live action shooting, which is how Rugg operated.

Here's what Fielding says (p. 2):

Fielding then goes on in the book to classify rear and front projection as combination techniques because, and simplifying for brevity, the element projected on the screen must be photographed separately and processed in the laboratory. However, since all the components of the scene are photographed on the same camera negative, it's also in-the-camera (in-camera).

Z'actly

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Arguably they started going downhill in the second season. Some years back I ran across a site that reviewed the show episode by episode and charted how the writing got increasingly lazy.

Yes, the first season of Batman is definitely the strongest. It didn't help that Frank Gorshin, the show's best guest villain, didn't return in the second year. (He made a token appearance in the third after the disappointing substitution of John Astin as the Riddler in season two.)