• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Are there any SPECIAL EFFECTS that you actually like in TFF?

Phantassm

Phantassm

Vice Admiral
Admiral
I was just looking at some HD screen-caps from Star Trek: The Final Frontier and a couple of the special effects shots were decent. In particular I liked the shot of Kirk standing in front of the Bird-of-Prey on Shakiree and then most of the shuttle work was good. Are there any effects in the film that you liked?
 
Enterprise moon shot was nice. Unfortunately, nothing else really jumped out at me as superb. They seemed to at least look very flat to me.

I still liked the movie, though.
I certainly have never thought much of TOS' special effects, but always loved that show.
 
I never really got the harsh criticisms of TFF's effects. They weren't top-grade, state-of-the-art stuff, perhaps, but they weren't actively bad, just kind of average. Maybe it's because I grew up with TV shows and movies that had fairly limited FX work, but I've never had a problem seeing visual effects as more impressionistic than literal and suspending my disbelief when they fall short of realism.

LOKAI of CHERON said:
Agree, TOS is/was never about SFX - although it's great when they do work.
Click to expand...

Actually, to a large extent, it was. You're right that it was primarily about the stories and characters, but by '60s standards, TOS's effects were revolutionary, cutting-edge stuff -- the most elaborate and innovative visual effects work in the history of television up to that point, requiring the unprecedented cooperation of four of Hollywood's top effects houses, sometimes more. Star Trek was nominated for visual-effects Emmys three years in a row. And a 1967 study showed that ST was the number one reason why people bought color televisions that year. The show's visual spectacle was one of its primary attractions.
 
Christopher said:
Actually, to a large extent, it was. You're right that it was primarily about the stories and characters, but by '60s standards, TOS's effects were revolutionary, cutting-edge stuff -- the most elaborate and innovative visual effects work in the history of television up to that point, requiring the unprecedented cooperation of four of Hollywood's top effects houses, sometimes more. Star Trek was nominated for visual-effects Emmys three years in a row. And a 1967 study showed that ST was the number one reason why people bought color televisions that year. The show's visual spectacle was one of its primary attractions.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand what you're saying - I always considered the SFX form 60's TOS extremely sophisticated and innovative for the time. Certainly, for a television audience back in the day, SFX may well have been a spectacle. But as the years progressed I think this aspect of the show quickly became considerably less important, and as you say, the true genius of the stories and characters became apparent.
 
Almost every shot of the Enterprise in this film is a still image that is animated across the background. It's truly wretched.
 
Christopher said:
I never really got the harsh criticisms of TFF's effects. They weren't top-grade, state-of-the-art stuff, perhaps, but they weren't actively bad, just kind of average. Maybe it's because I grew up with TV shows and movies that had fairly limited FX work, but I've never had a problem seeing visual effects as more impressionistic than literal and suspending my disbelief when they fall short of realism.
Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with whether one has grown up watching science fiction with limited effects or not--after all, most people who have seen STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER are fans of STAR TREK. It may feature effects that were cutting edge for television at the time, but they look primitive compared to any of the STAR TREK features.

The problem with the effects in TFF is pretty clear to me--they don't stack up to the effects in the previous three movies (nor, to be honest, the effects in STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, as flawed at times as they may be). It's a big step back, and it's jarring, especially if you've just seen any of the previous features.

Of course, it doesn't help that the movie stinks. I wonder if people would complain so much about the effects if the movie were more engaging? And, yes, I understand the movie has its fans--I'll just have to agree to disagree with them.
 
Harvey said:
I don't think it has anything to do with whether one has grown up watching science fiction with limited effects or not--after all, most people who have seen STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER are fans of STAR TREK.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying it's a factor in my own willingness to be patient with poor FX. I'm not asserting that it is or should be a universal pattern.


The problem with the effects in TFF is pretty clear to me--they don't stack up to the effects in the previous three movies (nor, to be honest, the effects in STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, as flawed at times as they may be). It's a big step back, and it's jarring, especially if you've just seen any of the previous features.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't see how "not as good" translates to "awful." I may not find, say, the Kraft cheddar cheese I buy from the grocery store to be as delicious as the imported Australian cheddar I had when I visited my aunt and uncle recently, but that doesn't mean I don't like it at all or will condemn it as horrible cheese. It's not bad, it's just not as good as the best.
 
I've never had a problem with the FX in STV. By the time I came to TOS, it's effects were awful by then-current (TNG) standards and it didn't bother me an iota. I still watch in it's original form over TOS-R.

Then again, I never saw STV at the cinema. To me back then (5-ish), it was a new, double-long TOS episode on video.

I very much liked the swirly gaseous planet at the centre of the galaxy - of course, in true TOS fashion, the planet's surface and sky bore no resemblance whatsoever:lol:.
 
I liked the scene where they are in the observation room heading towards the Great Barrier. One can see the stars and the Barrier as they approach. I guess the most dissapointing shot was when the Bird of Prey engaged the Enterprise in the Nebula. The 78 decks that were not only bogus but reversed was funny when I was a kid but don't hold up with time. A digital edit can easily correct that problem. Heck, Picard didn't know how many decks were on his ship in FC.:wtf: Overall, I cared more for the plot and story. This film had those elements. If I want to see some better F/X, I'll pop in my ST VI laserdisc.Cobra
 
There are a number of really nice effects. I can't access the picture links from the office, so I don' know what's posted here. For some reason Trekcore is blocked. Yet Flickr isn't. Tell me, which one is more apt to have offensive pictures?

Anyway…

The Enterprise against the moon shot is very nice. I appreciated the reflection in the window, but I would have liked it more if you saw the image grow larger as they approached the ship.

The shot of the shuttle leaving Yosemite was really pretty.

When the God Beam leaves Sha'Ka'Rhee and passes in front of the Enterprise, that is fabulous. The Enterprise model is drifting to the side, really selling it.

I loved the look of the God Planet, with the swirling gasses, especially during the reveal after breaching the barrier. The final shot of the Enterprise and the BOP in orbit is also nice.

The BOP decloaking during the shuttlecraft run from Nimbus III is wicked, especially how it looks to burst out of the screen. Shots like these make up for some that don't quite make it.

Other practical effects done in camera that I liked were the meld scenes in the Observation Room. They were set up like a stage play and all the more theatrical for it. Whatever his ability (or lack thereof) as a writer, Shatner as director was really excellent. The rear projection starfield in the same scene is outstanding. The barrier gradually enlarges as they approach and it's blurry. I read that this was an accident, but it works logically and truly adds to the reality of the scene. Whenever Trek used rear projection for the viewscreens or windows, it made it very real. Unfortunately, it wasn't done nearly often enough. However, it doesn't always work…

Such as when Kirk falls off the mountain. The close up of Shatner calmly waving his arms and legs against the screen, with nothing to show wind resistence, is just laughable. It happens so early in the film, it's a downer. As far as less amazing model shots, sometimes it really did look like the Enterprise was a cut out slid across the screen. The shot of it going to warp and evading the torpedo shot should have been a fist in the air moment. But the graphic let it down and ended the sequence with a thud. There were others, but we all know 'em.
 
Christopher said:
I never really got the harsh criticisms of TFF's effects. They weren't top-grade, state-of-the-art stuff, perhaps, but they weren't actively bad, just kind of average.
Click to expand...
Watch the motion picture and watch this after. You'll really notice the difference then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
TFF vs. TUC Enterprise Shots
4 5 6
Replies
103
Views
8K
FormerLurker
F
Nerys Myk
Pitch a Better Movie
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Jedi Marso
Jedi Marso
Riley
TOS: Deviations
2 3
Replies
48
Views
4K
mb22
M
Warped9
TMP continued…
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
10K
Procutus
Procutus
Tallguy
Star Trek: Generations at 30
8 9 10
Replies
197
Views
17K
DonIago
D
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top