Bread and Circuses VFX reel on YOUTUBE
- Thread starter destructive
- Start date
It reminds me of an old roman coin, actually. The water/beard throws me, though, since beards weren't fashionable in the Roman empire (except for some brief periods, but those were long, fuzzy beards in the style of the Greek philosophers, and that beard looks close-cropped).
Or it could just be a man-in-the-moon.
Or it could just be a man-in-the-moon.
Was that deliberate?
I am fairly certain that the moons do not reflect their normal orbital motion. Barring that, the orbital shots were nice.
Then the phases of the moons would be different, they seemed to be the same, AFAIR.
Well, it would make sense that the ship would be on a holding pattern over the landmass where the landing party was operating, in which case the background would say the same from shot to shot as well.
That's what I guess "standard orbit" really means - a figure-eight above the landing party or other surface target of interest. A perfectly valid use of the word today, comparable to the orbits held by tanker or surveillance aircraft, or aircraft awaiting their landing slots.
...Of course, if the moons were on the background when the ship orbited over the landing party, why'd they be on the sky when the landing party beams down?
Ah, perhaps Scotty kept the ship on the opposite side of the planet to remain unseen?
Timo Saloniemi
Those would work for unpowered flight. The impulse engines on the Enterprise are so powerful that they can perform maneuvers similar to that.
Tell me how the Enterprise seems to sometimes orbit around the planet, but the orbit does not go through the center of mass of the planet without a lotr of extra force beng applied? How about orbiting around the planet(in orbital scenes) in maybe minutes?
Tell me how the Enterprise seems to sometimes orbit around the planet, but the orbit does not go through the center of mass of the planet without a lotr of extra force beng applied? How about orbiting around the planet(in orbital scenes) in maybe minutes?
It seems likely that the orbits in TOS are indeed powered. After all, when the ship loses power, the orbit begins to decay!
Considering that the transporter is essentially a line-of-sight device (mere two klicks of rock give it a pause), it would be eminently logical to keep the ship zigzagging above the horizon of the landing party, rather than have her spend some three-fourths of her orbit on the wrong side of the planet.
Timo Saloniemi
Considering that the transporter is essentially a line-of-sight device (mere two klicks of rock give it a pause), it would be eminently logical to keep the ship zigzagging above the horizon of the landing party, rather than have her spend some three-fourths of her orbit on the wrong side of the planet.
Timo Saloniemi
My eyes must be going, cause I don't see anything that remotely resembles a profile. Can you give me a hint as to where you see it?
wait, wait *chuckle*, a figure 8? I'm sure the ship is just orbiting above a fixed point. More or less, above the beam-down point.
Now, I don't think the shots contradict this (except for a curve in the ship's orbit, matching the movement of the original FX orbit) as the ships movement would be relative to us (the camera). That is, the ship would seem to zip past as we see in the shots. After all, planet's rotate at many hundreds of miles an hour.
And hey, without power the gravity of any mass would draw you in, unless you were at geosynchronous orbit. Right?
Now, I don't think the shots contradict this (except for a curve in the ship's orbit, matching the movement of the original FX orbit) as the ships movement would be relative to us (the camera). That is, the ship would seem to zip past as we see in the shots. After all, planet's rotate at many hundreds of miles an hour.
And hey, without power the gravity of any mass would draw you in, unless you were at geosynchronous orbit. Right?
Thanks for the annotated version.
Similar threads
- Locked