Resolution, not bitrate. (If we didn't nitpick, we wouldn't be geeks.)
Hey, I never noticed that before....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Resolution, not bitrate. (If we didn't nitpick, we wouldn't be geeks.)
I can't get behind you on that. I can't believe they would take apart Enterprise standing sets to make temporary huts on Stage 10. It would never look right, wouldn't be big enough, and also it was probably just easier to order up some cheap flats and do the huts from scratch.
[A nice touch would have been to build an extra "Deadly Years" hut at one-third scale, and put it behind the big one for forced perspective. But it was not to be.]
Granted, I was surprised to learn recently that the interior walls of Moonbase Alpha were all "temporary" placements, modular pieces, rather than permanent standing sets, on Space: 1999 Year One. Where did I just hear this? And the Main Mission set was so big, it had to be assembled for its scenes, and then taken right down, or there would be no room on the stage for anything else. Boy, I love that Main Mission set. Talk about gorgeous.
But the Enterprise interiors, weren't they built to a different design philosophy? You could pull out pieces here and there to make room for the camera, lamps, and mics, but only up to a certain point.
Remember when Star Trek Phase II was canceled and Star Trek TMP was ordered? The interior ship corridors intended for TV would look cheap on the big screen, but they were not lightweight, modular things you could sweep aside. So the film saved money by not tearing them down, but rather building the movie ship corridors inside them. That is why the TMP-and-on corridors are so narrow. The point being, I think Star Trek's standing sets were pretty solid, apart from the Bridge with all its removable pieces.
What if they were extra wall panels that were used for special sets that were not always present like the energizer room in "The Alternative Factor" or maybe that unique corridor outside of aux control in "The Way to Eden"?
In "Journey to Babel", it's a double take, but the sign reads "HANGER DECK", not "HANGAR DECK"
alternatively, its a super common mistake that people just keep on making.
Quite possibly. The look could be incidental. I agree that it is a stretch at most. But I do remember "The Enterprise Incident" where it definitely looks like Enterprise corridors were repainted, with the horizontal groovy plastic slats removed as well, to differentiate - that's where the association first came about when rewatching this episode.
Agreed!
I do recall Freiberger ordering the Main Mission set to be reduced in size and made easier to film, hence what looks like "Star Trek bridge, on valium" in season 2. It was a terrific set.
I vaguely recall reading something about the Engineering set that was built and Roddenberry (?) complaining how that wouldn't begin to work on a big screen budget (rightly so...) It's interesting they'd build new corridors inside the sets, hence being narrow... though I like the narrow design despite lack of filming angles, because it feels more like a cramped starship. Star Trek IV added to this by showing an actual aircraft carrier interior, which was narrow and bustling with activity too. Apart from that one giant bay, but TMP had the massive rec room too. Just not for the same function or reason.
I don't think it was ever an acceptable spelling, but it is a common (and understandable) mistake.
I had remember seeing WW2 planes hanging in the hangar deck and figured it was easy to mix them up since they are "hanging" the planes and I've read a US Navy flight deck/hangar natops pdf dated 2010 where "hanger" is used often in the same document.
However your Zeppelin comment I think has a very coincidental link to TOS. The Naval History and Heritage Command's page for UA 51.01 NAS Sunnyvale/Moffet Field calls the giant hangar facility that looks like the Enterprise's flight deck the "hanger facility". Maybe whoever named the "Hanger Deck" in TOS was thinking of this facility and its particular spelling?
As former resident of the Bay Area that brings back memories. My mother would shop at the Commissary at Moffett Field (Dad is ex-military) and my best friend's Dad worked there at a NASA office. So I would see the hangar quite often. It's called "Silicon Valley" these days, but when i was growing up most of my friends parents worked in aerospace. Including my father who worked at what was then called Ford Aerospace.
Foley is the recording of ad hoc synchronized sound effects, as opposed to using pre-recorded library effects. Foley artists use a variety of devices and techniques -- some of which go back to the days of live radio -- to create effects like footsteps, punches and kicks in fight scenes, the clinking of glasses and silverware in dining scenes, creaking doors, that sort of thing.
Looks like Wikipedia didn't get that memo:
Hangar - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
ah well, looks like it was a false etymology. However, researching this I found that most of the discussions about Hangar talks about the origin on relation to airplane hangers starting from the turn if the century. But the first hangars really were for rigid airships, like Hangar Y near Paris built in 1879 for the airship La France, in fact it still stands today.
The M5 in "The Ultimate Computer" - should have been voiced by William Marshall and not James Doohan, what with Dr Daystrom encoding the computer with his memory engrams?. Then again, that might invite "talking to one's self" as well...
Yeah, definitely not. No matter how arrogant I might be I would not want to hear my voice.
I never thought of that. The precedents (that came after) would be Mr. Atoz and Dr. Soong crafting their androids to look and sound like themselves. I would take Mr. Flint's approach, but that's just me.
The more I mull it over, the better I like having Marshall voice the M5. It would have such a deeper resonance, both literally and figuratively, and it could have been eerie as hell. They missed an opportunity there.
If "The Ultimate Computer" was a comedy, Daystrom would talk the same, but the M5 would speak Airplane! jive. And nobody on screen would think it was odd.
Edit: man, was I wrong. The comedy version of the M5 should be a more husky voice, like this:
Last edited:
M5 was made in Canada
I've seen videos of Foley sessions, I know what they are.
You'd be surprised at how many people think that any added soundFX are Foley, and call it such. They seem to be growing in number, and the term for added soundFX that are prerecorded escapes me, as it did for the post you commented on.
The point of that post was that added soundFX and looped dialog are different things, and have terminology to match.
“Day of the Dove”
The Klingon transporter effect is colorful. I just thought that some kind of sound effect would have been cool. Maybe Sound Effects Editor Douglas Grindstaff was just too busy to add one.
“Day of the Dove”
The Klingon transporter effect is colorful. I just thought that some kind of sound effect would have been cool. Maybe Sound Effects Editor Douglas Grindstaff was just too busy to add one.
Apparently, Roddenberry's rule was that everything should have a sound, to give it an identifiable screen presence. The GNP sound fx CD is a testament to this. Even the Enterprise: at least when the engines didn't rumble, the composers were told to give the ship a fanfare to assert its identity. It's mentioned in the liner notes of the 15-CD box set.
The silent Klingon beam down was a little jarring for breaking that rule, but the music editor did get in there and do something.
Similar threads
