A question on Doomsday Machine, remastered

[gastrof]

Look at the condition Decker's ship is in when we first get a good look at it.

Now, consider Spock's description-
'The bridge is uninhabitable. The rest of the ship is able to support life.'

Ummm...

That pie slice taken out of the top of the saucer...

The decks below open to space...

This is 'able to support life'?

Isn't that section part of 'the rest of the ship'?

Did someone not listen to the dialogue in the episode before designing the CGI for the wrecked ship?

 

[NTRPRZ]

As I recall, the original footage showed the bridge was intact.

I just think this is one of those circumstances where no one bothered to check the script before doing the model work.

As for why the CGI didn't show a damaged bridge, either they just wanted to keep the continuity with the original show, or they just didn't want to bother.

 

[Maurice]

As I recall, the original footage showed the bridge was intact.

I just think this is one of those circumstances where no one bothered to check the script before doing the model work.

As for why the CGI didn't show a damaged bridge, either they just wanted to keep the continuity with the original show, or they just didn't want to bother.

And just because the bridge isn't open to space doesn't mean it's habitable. The life support for it could be cut off.

 

[Wingsley]

^ Or the hull damage to the Bridge module could be of a nature not easily seen from a flyby angle.

 

[gastrof]

I think you guys are missing the point raised in the thread-starter.

The problem isn't with the way the bridge is shown. It being 'uninhabitable' could be due to any number of things you wouldn't be able to see from the outside.

We're not talking about the bridge at all.

The problem comes when you consider the statement that THE REST OF THE SHIP could support life.

Not with that big rip in the top of the saucer. There were a number of areas on the ship that I wouldn't want to try having my life supported by.

Who goofed? Spock, or the guys doing the remastered version of the ship?

 

[Forbin]

Why are y'all harping on just the remastered version? The original effects showed the same damage - big bites taken out of the saucer.

And since when did dialog match special effects in 1966?

 

[FalTorPan]

The bridge was an obvious place for the crew to beam over. Spock pointed out that the bridge was uninhabitable. By the rest of the ship being habitable, Spock might have meant all critical areas aside from the bridge -- areas such as the engine room and auxiliary control.

It's a stretch, but it works for me.

 

[pookha]

considering that different sections could be sealed off it is possible for one section of the saucer could still substain life even if other sections were open to space.

 

[gastrof]

Why are y'all harping on just the remastered version? The original effects showed the same damage - big bites taken out of the saucer.

And since when did dialog match special effects in 1966?

But this isn't exactly 1966.

Are you saying they went with sort of duplicating an original error? (Like the mixture of "E" styles in the credits once Kelly's name started being shown?)

 

[Forbin]

Why are y'all harping on just the remastered version? The original effects showed the same damage - big bites taken out of the saucer.

And since when did dialog match special effects in 1966?

But this isn't exactly 1966.

Are you saying they went with sort of duplicating an original error? (Like the mixture of "E" styles in the credits once Kelly's name started being shown?)

They're supposed to be duplicating the original effects shots as closely as possible, yes.

 

[Forbin]

btw, my favorite line in the episode is when Spock says "The entire bridge is uninhabitable."

The entire bridge, eh? All one room of it?

 

[gastrof]

Why are y'all harping on just the remastered version? The original effects showed the same damage - big bites taken out of the saucer.

And since when did dialog match special effects in 1966?

But this isn't exactly 1966.

Are you saying they went with sort of duplicating an original error? (Like the mixture of "E" styles in the credits once Kelly's name started being shown?)

They're supposed to be duplicating the original effects shots as closely as possible, yes.

You know...

I sort of like that.