TMP on Blu-Ray
- Thread starter Flake
- Start date
Thanks for the "tour", Maurice
But harmless compared to this one?
It never ceases to amaze me, that VFX guys - probably living in the same state - can get it so wrong when depicting a very well known and documented landmark.
Bob
But harmless compared to this one?
It never ceases to amaze me, that VFX guys - probably living in the same state - can get it so wrong when depicting a very well known and documented landmark.
Bob
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
This likely had to do as well with the timing factor for how many times a theater can show a film. Generally, this goes in ~128 minute blocks. If the movie in question is longer, it means the theater has to sacrifice another showing and thus the ticket sales as well. If a theater is going to show a longer, 2hour+ film, it's because the studio convinced the theater it would be a big seller. I'm not saying this is the case every single time, or even that it was the only case with The Abyss, but it is fairly common practice in Hollywood nonetheless.
I would defer to Maurice's take on Director's cuts myself. Especially when it comes to franchise films. I find it very difficult to believe that, say, David Carson had final authority over Generations or Stuart Baird over Nemesis with Rick Berman in the picture. Likewise, Joss Whedon clearly knew what he was doing with The Avengers and has had input on each of the Marvel films since then, but there's no way Marvel executives like Kevin Feige wouldn't be able to overrule him if they felt it was in the best interest of the film in question.
The point is, you're right - films are collaborative process but my point is that the Director is rarely the only "voice" authoring the picture these days.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
ILM guys did that TUC shot, because MATTE WORLD didn't have enough time. That was live-action water and bridge, with the left part of the frame a miniature, rather than a matte painting. Part of the problem is that it was supposed to be a night scene, but then after it was done, Paramount wanted it brighter or closer to dawn, which kind of made the thing implode.
So the world will end if they aren't?
Well, the original elements weren't available, true, but the completed FX themselves were available -- they were part of the film master, and as such have been remastered in HD along with the rest of the show. They don't look as good as they would have had the show been pieced back together from original elements the way TNG is being done, but that's what the show actually looks like on film so I'm okay with it. And, in fact, some of the original shots actually hold up pretty well in HD. To me, the original shuttle launch in "Galileo 7," despite a wobbly starfield, looks better then the new CGI version, which to me looks like a crappy video game.
That ST VI bridge shot is a disaster. Look at the hillside as it passes behind the cable just to the left of the far bridge tower. Notice anything utterly effed up?
Also, WTH is up with that landscape behind the bridge? I guess "the big one" was strong enough to create an entire new hill but not strong enough to knock down the bridge. Riiiiight.
P.S. People keep talking about how it's too bad that the DE effects weren't rendered out at motion picture resolution. Well, apparently some frames were and this one sure doesn't hold up at high res (click on it to zoom to full res). The windows and the human/vulcan/deltan figures in particular are totally awful.
If I had seen a shot like that back in '79 instead of the fucked up shot we did get I would have drooled.
To be fair, if done now for 1080p or higher, it would be shaded much better, and the CG figures would have proper textures of the actors faces mapped to them, etc.
Their final project target was DVD resolution, and they knew it, so they took the shortcuts needed to make it good enough for the resolution.
In 480p (DVD) you really can't tell it's that bad.
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tmp/ch29/themotionpicture1357.jpg
That ST VI bridge shot is a disaster. Look at the hillside as it passes behind the cable just to the left of the far bridge tower. Notice anything utterly effed up?
Also, WTH is up with that landscape behind the bridge? I guess "the big one" was strong enough to create an entire new hill but not strong enough to knock down the bridge. Riiiiight.
The layout of the Starfleet buildings and or the city itself seems to change with pretty much every appearance:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/starfleet_buildings.htm
It's a mess in the JJ'verse movies too, they move famous landmark buildings around at will so they're in the shot they want to use.
And along the lines of the VFX guys knowing better: what's really sad is that ILM was across the Golden Gate Bridge in San Rafael for years and these days is literally now in the city of San Francisco itself at The Presidio.
But you know it's all about what the client wants, even if the artists know better...
^^^One of these days I'll take an hour or two and go take photos of the bridge from the same angles and show exactly where these locations would be.
In the meantime here's me at Fort Baker, aka the location of SFHQ in Enterprise, but closer to the water than they typically showed.
In the meantime here's me at Fort Baker, aka the location of SFHQ in Enterprise, but closer to the water than they typically showed.
There will be a series of earthquakes between the 22nd and the 23rd Century, so Starfleeet HQ has to constantly rebuild and re-arrange the area, bridge included.
Bob
I like that un-used matte shot. It fits the asthetic of TMP, in that it's kinda different to anything we see anywhere else in Star Trek. I wish they'd been able to use it.
The shots that they used in the Director's Edition are terrible. It was just an exercise in trying to make it all look like certain similar shots from later movies and tv shows, rather than it being a case of the original film-makers intentions actually being honored. It was revisionism of the worst kind.
The shots that they used in the Director's Edition are terrible. It was just an exercise in trying to make it all look like certain similar shots from later movies and tv shows, rather than it being a case of the original film-makers intentions actually being honored. It was revisionism of the worst kind.
I agree, but on second thought, the tram terminal looks way too high up. The height of the terminal is what? 64 feet?
In the official shot we can see that the whole tram terminal is obviously below the Golden Gate Bridge's motorway level:
The DE would have been an opportunity to bring various elements from the films and series somehow together. Obviously this area from ST IV (and TNG) didn't exist, yet, during TMP.
Bob
I agree, but on second thought, the tram terminal looks way too high up. The height of the terminal is what? 64 feet?
In the official shot we can see that the whole tram terminal is obviously below the Golden Gate Bridge's motorway level:
First, I agree that the unused shot appears to get the scale wrong on the hillside relative to the size of the Terminal, even compared to the original exterior matte shot (not DE version).
Second, it's very easy to misread perspective and relative height in a shot like the Terminal interior. It looks lower than it is, but there's a pretty simple trick for figuring out how high the viewer is from the water...basically, the horizon line is always at your eye level (up to a point) and if you can compare where the horizon line crosses an object of a known size, you can easily figure out the height of the viewer.
The deck of the Bridge is curved, but at the middle it's about 24 stories above the water. The camera in the interior shot appears to be at least 18 stories above the water.
As per my notes on the image above, because matte paintings had to take into account the effects of lenses, my breakdown is crude at best, but I believe it's in the ballpark.
Exterior view (original)
The red lines were using details on the towers to figure the approximate horizon line (where they cross). The long yellow line follows the "roadway" on the painting as it gradually descends to the Terminal. The two short yellow lines indicate the approximate height of the viewpoint from inside the Terminal (top line) and the level of the water below (bottom line).
Notice that as in the interior shot, the tram station facing is not parallel to the bridge, but angled a different way.
Last edited:
JJTrek4ever!
Lieutenant Junior Grade
What happened to Angel Island?
First, I agree that the unused shot appears to get the scale wrong on the hillside relative to the size of the Terminal, even compared to the original exterior matte shot (not DE version).
"Unused shot"?!?
I see, I was wondering about the airtram cabs parked on the upper right level, but had assumed the Golden Gate Bridge to have the same position as in the final film. That would explain my irritation.
But still, the unused shot of the airtram approach would beg for explanation. Considering the height of the station terminal's opening (judging by the characters in the distance tall enough to allow the landing of a Klingon Bird of Prey
) the airtram cab would be quite below the landing bay and rather hoovering below it...Bob
Similar threads
