Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by Warped9, Aug 1, 2015.
Does it have a flop?
Next door. Where they show the Clark Gable movies.
Even that would have been an anachronism since it wasn't established til 1939.
I liberated a yellow one from one of our school bldgs with permission. I used to be really into the cold war. IIRC, Kennedy admin commissioned the widespread fallout shelters (as opposed to blast shelters) after the discovery of the long-term effects of Strontium-90 and Cesium (I think) in the fallout dust. There was supposed to be a shelter for every X people, with barrels of water, crackers, and Star Trek lookin pink and green sugar cubes. Even a party games/morale guide so things in the shelter wouldn't get too Twilight Zone-ish for the couple of weeks you were supposed to stay in.
A lot of that era's gear is readily available on ebay. Almost bought a barrel of water, no lie, but then wised up. The sign is cool though.
Every so often people find sheters. There was a recent story--as well as this find a few years back
Different light source (Ship interior Vs. Planet)
In “The Changeling”, Spock is about to mind meld with Nomad, and he and Kirk are talking. There is a hole in the wall, about Kirk’s head high, right at a separator. You can see light coming through a small hole, about three inches long.
I think more likely to be a reflection off the chrome/silver strip they put in the spacer between wall panels. At first I thought it was reflection off a hinge, but if you look at later frames, the silver strip is obvious.
Oh, ok...poor lighting.
Why would it be England?
That's NOT poor lighting.
It is if it results in an object shining out above the rest of the scenery. Have you taken a photography class‽
Have you ever worked a film set?
How about everyone dial back the personal stuff before *I* get personal.
I would think you would need one before the other.
My point is that still photography is different that cinematography. Things MOVE in a film shoot. The actors move, the shadows move, and the camera itself often moves (dollies, trucks, etc.) during the shots, which means you have to light for the entire setup, not a specific angle. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with a highlight glancing off something metal. That's what metal does. If they were worried about that highlights they'd have used something matte finish on the sets. That highlight is not egregious is any way. The lighting in the shot is fine; Finnerman knew what he was doing. I've never before heard anyone comment on that shot, or any of 100 other shots on Star Trek where we see similar glints off the metal trim.
I don't have a response to your steadfast obstinance.
No, it's not poor lighting as remember - the DP also knew what the end result would be broadcast on. They could never haver expected that 50 years later they'd be digitally remastering the filmed scenes at a resolution 5 times better than the broadcast resolution of the 1960ies. And as other more versed in motion picture photography have told you, you light the WHOLE SCENE that will be shot, and don't obsess over minor things that the majority of your audience won't notice.
I cannot roll my eyes enough at this.
I think you didn't GET my previous caution. You have an official warning. If you keep getting personal and you keep ignoring the board manager, your tenure will be shorter than my temper.
Separate names with a comma.