^Don't feel bad - I'm Aug 19.
New unofficial Making of TMP book
- Thread starter SpHeRe31459
- Start date
Mine finally arrived today, and although it's not one of the signed copies, damned if this book isn't simply packed to the rafters with absolutely fascinating facts and information. Still reading the first section (the extended '70s development hell), and can hardly put it down.
They have a brick and mortar store; if you call them up, they're pretty responsive.
Given that these are now going for a second printing, it seems like demand was a bit more than they anticipated. Hopefully, if Creature Features does more publishing like this in the future, they'll get a better handle on distribution.
Read this passage a few days ago. Didn't Nichelle claim in her memoir that Gene forced her to stay on the show during this period, rather than leave to co-star on Mannix?
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Meant to comment --- got my copy the day before flying home. Loving every page so far; the guys at Creature Features did a great job, Jones did a great job, and it's wonderful to have a properly researched and written book on the subject.
Nichelle's memoir is one of the ones I don't yet own; Google Books only offers a partial preview, but it looks like this comes up around page 191.
Got the order is complete email on Dec. 22. So im sure I receive my copy next week sometime if I'm lucky. Thanks everyone for posting comments and reviews. Looking forward to checking it out.
Got my order complete email last night. Looks like I'll need to plan a trip to my US mailbox shortly after New Years.
Relatedly, if you want to hear Doug Trumbull's (more contemporary) telling of what happened on TMP from his POV, you can hear it via The Optical podcast here, starting at about 32:00.
Yes. I'm finding Part III far less compelling than Parts I & II. Not that there isn't interesting stuff in Part III, but I find myself skimming through big sections about the nuts & bolts of how a traveling matte works, for example. I'm sure some readers will love these bits, but I just don't have the technical background to make sense of it.
I'm really torn on this one. Mine came a few days ago and I tore right into it. I'm finding parts of it very interesting, and other parts unbelievably ponderous.
I don't know why two pages are needed to have the set designer's background explained by the assistant art director. I'm completely uninterested in knowing what the educational background and pet names are of the person who designed the upholstery for Ilia's chair. Holy crap.
On the other hand, the passages quoting Povill, Foster, Livingston, Roddenberry and the actors are riveting.
I'm hoping it gets more focused as I get into it. Right now, in the first 100 pages, I'm finding a great deal of it to be unfathomably uninteresting. I seriously wouldn't be surprised to have multiple pages devoted to the color and consistency of the toilet paper used in the restroom nearest the office of the associate assistant footware designer.
I don't know why two pages are needed to have the set designer's background explained by the assistant art director. I'm completely uninterested in knowing what the educational background and pet names are of the person who designed the upholstery for Ilia's chair. Holy crap.
On the other hand, the passages quoting Povill, Foster, Livingston, Roddenberry and the actors are riveting.
I'm hoping it gets more focused as I get into it. Right now, in the first 100 pages, I'm finding a great deal of it to be unfathomably uninteresting. I seriously wouldn't be surprised to have multiple pages devoted to the color and consistency of the toilet paper used in the restroom nearest the office of the associate assistant footware designer.
Wasn't it said that the manuscript was left intact because, after all this time, they didn't want to risk removing stuff, only to realise people wanted more on that topic, after it was too late? Presumably, if this work had ended up in the "Cinefantastique" double-issue in 1980, it would have been trimmed down by the CFQ editor.
Keep in mind that we all have our eccentricities over the film making process - I read all the Fred Phillips' quotes about makeup first, using the index to locate them. I'm sure I'll skip some of the intricacies of lighting the sets and what settings they used on the cameras.
For those of us really interested in the filmmaking process, much of the minutia is in fact interesting. I'm actually happy to know what materials were used to cover the bridge flooring, and what fabrics were used and why, but I can get why a lot of people would be bored by such things. But, here's the thing, this is THE account of the making of the film, and I'd much have the tome err on the side of too much information than to cut stuff that we'll probably never know otherwise.
I don't mind that kind of info. I'm interested in filmmaking myself. I just don't understand why I need a page devoted to telling me about the set designer's life story (and seemingly every other minor contributor). I want to read about Star Trek, not have a deep understanding of who the person was that sewed the braids on the actors sleeves and how she has an associates degree in business administration from Johnson College and knew Lee Cole in the 3rd grade and worked on the drapes that were in a deleted scene in Silent Running.
It's like saying you're going to leave every scene that was filmed in a motion picture's final cut just in case some audience members might've found it fascinating.
You're not interested, but that doesn't mean no one is. Like Maurice said, if you leave it all in, the reader can skim over what they don't want to read. But if you cut it out, it's gone.
As a reader, I found Part I (preproduction) and Part II (production) compulsively readable. I appreciated the sections that went into the backgrounds of the people involved in making the picture. These were real people, many of whom put there lives on hold for months at a time to get this picture made. I appreciate the humanizing elements of the book.
I'm finding Part III (postproduction -- and half of the book) a bit of a tough slog, simply because I don't have the technical background to grasp the intricacies of all the optical work. I love how it looks on film, but I don't know a grain of wheat light from a grain of rice light, so...
But for the gear head readers, I'm sure this is the best stuff in the book. I don't begrudge its inclusion simply because I don't get it. So, I breeze through those pages to get to the next section where Goldsmith talks about weekly scoring sessions, as FX footage came in. This I find (to coin a phrase) fascinating.
I rate this book 10 out of 10, for the incredible depth and breadth of the material, as well as for how it's organized. Jones has done a stellar job here.
The only thing I would add would be to datestamp each interview section, when it was recorded. Some stuff sounds like it was done in the heat of battle (as it were) and other parts feel like they have the benefit of months or years of hindsight. It would interest me to know when a particular statement was made. But that's a terribly minor quibble.
I'm finding Part III (postproduction -- and half of the book) a bit of a tough slog, simply because I don't have the technical background to grasp the intricacies of all the optical work. I love how it looks on film, but I don't know a grain of wheat light from a grain of rice light, so...
But for the gear head readers, I'm sure this is the best stuff in the book. I don't begrudge its inclusion simply because I don't get it. So, I breeze through those pages to get to the next section where Goldsmith talks about weekly scoring sessions, as FX footage came in. This I find (to coin a phrase) fascinating.
I rate this book 10 out of 10, for the incredible depth and breadth of the material, as well as for how it's organized. Jones has done a stellar job here.
The only thing I would add would be to datestamp each interview section, when it was recorded. Some stuff sounds like it was done in the heat of battle (as it were) and other parts feel like they have the benefit of months or years of hindsight. It would interest me to know when a particular statement was made. But that's a terribly minor quibble.
What really hurts the technical stuff is the lack of any illustrations, which were clearly intended to accompany the texts. For The Tressaurian Intersection's final act (notably this shot, where the "sparkles" build up) I used the slot-mask gag techniques which are extensively described in part 3, but minus the aforementioned illustrations even I had a bit of trouble following Leslie Ekker's descriptions of the artwork involved.
That said, I'm still glad all the text is there.
That said, I'm still glad all the text is there.
Last edited: