And then watch an episode of TOS. Duh!
Are there any SPECIAL EFFECTS that you actually like in TFF?
- Thread starter Phantassm
- Start date
And then watch an episode of TOS. Duh!
I'm not saying I'm unaware of the difference. I'm aware that the effects in TFF are not as good as those in the other movies. My point is that "not as good" is not the same as "awful." They're still adequate effects, nowhere near bad enough to deserve the contempt they get from many fans.
The static shot of it in the window of the shuttle was terrible though.
To hug the mountain. to envelop--- that mountain"
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tffhd/tffhd0193.jpg
arguably the best shot of the movie. It's so real
The thing that makes it look fake is actually Shatner's posture. You don't fall like that.
I was just watching this movie last night, and I'd have to say I was pretty impressed with the look of Sha Ka Ri. It's really cool, and I have no idea how it was accomplished. The flight to the planet's surface is also pretty neat. If I remember correctly, some of those shots are actually microscopic images of a lobster's claw.
...Lobster claw? Which effect are you referring too?
That's what I've been wondering about for a long time now, too. How did they do that?
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I haven't seen the movie in a while, like 19 years...but I recall the hand phasers firing looking nice.
Sorry, I couldn't find a screencap, and also, I don't know for sure which shot this factoid is referring to, (I think I read it on imdb, so who knows if its even true?) so basically I don't actually know what I'm talking about, but I can make a fairly educated guess:
When the shuttle is entering Sha Ka Ri's atmosphere, there's a whole montage of POV shots showing us weird planetscapes as the big three and Sybok look on in awe. Some of those shots are weird mountain ranges and the like that could actually be electron microscopy. It wouldn't be the first time such techniques have been used; Kubrick used microscopic imagery to show the universe being created during the acid trip at the end of 2001
Those were nice, especially the impact effects. It's a pity it looks that good too because if you look around at the background you can see a lot of officers shooting their phasers but nothings coming out.
I really like the way the film was shot. If there's one thing that Shatner got right, it's the look of the location shots on the film.
He has an eye for framing a shot far better than Nimoy does. I think Shatner gets a lot of unjustified stick for his direction, but the location scenes especially in Star Trek V are some of the best for the entire Trek film series. To be fair, there's probably more location work than in most other films.
I think you blame the script, and the lack of support from Paramount. The Voyage Home made a big pile of cash for them, and they never reinvested it in the next film. They were too cheap to hire ILM, so the special effects were lacklustre to say the least. When it was obvious the rock monsters weren't going to work without extra money, they again took a pass, and the climax of the film is weak.
Seriously, I think that almost nobody would bitch about the movie had they been blasted away by ILM special and visual effects. Shatner didn't get enough money to do anything. Budget restrictions are in the whole movie. Just imagine how Nimbus III and the assault on the city could have really looked like with a bigger budget and ILM trickery, for example. An open shuttle bay like in The Motion Picture, realized with a couple of matte paintings. A larger budget and a different VFX company would have affected the entire movie in many, many areas.
Just think about it the other way: imagine Star Trek 2009 had the worst visual effects you've ever seen done by a crappy studio, a total joke compared to what has been standard in the last 10 years on the big screen.
Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYy_9LqD-yY
Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvRFPmHOMLI
Do you think people would then still like it as much?
Just think about it the other way: imagine Star Trek 2009 had the worst visual effects you've ever seen done by a crappy studio, a total joke compared to what has been standard in the last 10 years on the big screen.
Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYy_9LqD-yY
Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvRFPmHOMLI
Do you think people would then still like it as much?
STNG's Q Who aired around the same time as STV..to say that the FX in it were light years better than STV is an understatement.
You could have put Avatar-like FX in the movie and it still would have been one big non-sensical turkey.
True. But I could say the same about Avatar's plot. They could've got someone else to write the screenplay and shatner could've just directed. Simples
