Just trying to keep cool.
Hey, I never noticed that before....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
To explain to the audience why they didn't spend the money to create cold-weather gear for the actors.
But why that specific temperature? It would have made more sense for Kirk to tell the landing party: "It's effing cold down there, so adjust your suit temperature to whatever you find comfortable."
It took me 30+ years of watching Spock’s Brain to notice Kirk’s order to the landing party.
Exactly. The detail of 72° was for universe immersion, like putting specific names on characters, planets, etc. that are only referenced once and never seen. Or maybe Shatner wanted a detailed line to maintain the portrayal of Kirk as knowledgeable, proactive, authoritative, and (perhaps especially) protective of his crew.
Same, but more like half a century for this old dinosaur, since I still haven't technically noticed it until after I forget this was pointed out and then I watch the episode again!It took me 30+ years of watching Spock’s Brain to notice Kirk’s order to the landing party.
I think people way overestimate the power that Shatner had over the scripts and the shooting of the episodes.
In his Starlog interview (Issue 135, Oct 1988), Ian Wolf (Mr. Atoz) said that Shatner "had quite a bit of say" in making the episode. And he praised the care Bill took in working out their stunts to avoid injuring him.
In Starlog #126 (Jan 1988), director Joseph Pevney complained extensively about the actors gaining too much power after NBC renewed for a second season, and Shatner was by far the one whose producer-like power annoyed Pevney the most.
So I think the belief has some substance.
Maybe Gene had a hidden 'Death of James T Kirk' script he threatened Shat with when needed. "It's a two part bottle show AND clip show of your worst moments and best bloopers - err cast remembrances, and Scotty plays O Canada on his bagpipes as your corpse is shot into a star. Pretty nifty ending, huh? Buzz around Desilu is that Martin is about done with Mission Impossible. He doesn't like the changes."
'That should scare him away for awhile, Coon.'
Watching the TAS episode “Bem” for probably the first time in fifty years, and just realized— unlike everybody else, the Ambassador has actual whites in his eyeballs!
EDIT: And hey, Arex and M”Ress have distinct eyeball-color too. But they’re regulars — so if they could afford separate eyeball-coloring for them, why not for the other regulars?
EDIT: And hey, Arex and M”Ress have distinct eyeball-color too. But they’re regulars — so if they could afford separate eyeball-coloring for them, why not for the other regulars?
Last edited:
Perhaps any character who has whites in their eyes in animation doesn't in real life, and vice versa.
Indeed. Some seem to believe he was on the level of day players and was subject to the kind of dismissive treatment joked about upthread. Clearly, he was not on that level.
It was not about affordability, which is a myth spread about Filmation for far too long (especially when many of their series were consistently of a higher quality than their competitors, as seen with TAS--obviously--Tarzan - Lord of the Jungle, The New Adventures of the Lone Ranger, The New Adventures of Flash Gordon, Bravestarr, The Space Sentinels, etc., ). Filmation had their own stylistic leanings--like any studio.
One of their primary stylistic leanings was animating on threes and fours. When they promised to animate "Happily Ever After" on ones and didn't deliver, instead falling back on threes and fours, as well as other stylistic leanings audiences didn't want from a feature film, it cost them everything.
Er, can someone explain what this means? Specifically the "animating on threes" etc.
It refers to animation method and, specifically, how many frames have completely new drawings done. Animating on ones would be a new drawing every single frame (24 per second). Animating on threes would be a new drawing once every 3 frames (8 per second). Animating on ones produces the smoothest, most fluid animation and the highest quality, but particularly back in the hand-drawn days would be very labor intensive and, as such, high cost. Animating on threes or fours would save tons of labor and money at the cost of smoothness, fluidity, and overall quality.
Disney films, for example, would be animated on ones or maybe twos, whereas most Hanna-Barbara Saturday morning cartoons would be on threes or fours.
Similar threads
