So how much would have quality SFX in TFF helped the movie to you?

[Viper78]

Better VFX would have made TFF more enjoyable for me. I do believe better effects can improve most sci-fi/action films and I would say that if it wasn't for awsome effects in the Abrams films then they would be completely crap!

 

[JonnyQuest037]

You know, comparing the Trek movies to the Superman films (another 1980s movie franchise) makes me realize how lucky Trek was to have its 25th Anniversary coming up in 1991.

If they didn't have the extra push of the Anniversary to get a movie out that year, I can easily see Paramount deciding that the Trek movies were more trouble than they were worth & not making another one after V. The Superman films had a similar disappointment to TFF with The Quest For Peace, and it was enough to kill that franchise (and ironically enough, Superman had his 50th Anniversary in 1988 - just one year later & not enough time to get another film into theaters).

 

[Sybok Was Wrong]

I like bad FX so it wouldn't matter.

The rock man bit would be good to add in with a special edition, but I doubt they shot any Kirk footage to add CG to.

 

[Khan 2.0]

im trying to imagine Trek V with ILM FX.

obviously the spaceship model FX would be up to Trek III/VI standard (wed have seen some new mushroom spacedock stuff as in VI instead of reusing the end of IV). The El Capitan fall would've looked more convincing and the Great Barrier and God light show would've been more ILM looking and for the revelation I think theyd have been able to realise The Shats original Hell vision (not rockmen) and delivered something truly visually exciting and Hell-ish for the climax - something akin to their stuff in Poltergeist, Raiders' angels end (TFFs end is very similar), Golden Childs devil, and Ghostbusters II (ILM didn't do GB1 - why didn't Shatner get whoever did them for GB1?) with gargoyles etc a combination of animatronics/early CG/animation/man in suits

so ultimately if ILM had done it (their 'A' team) I think Trek V would've got away with being thought of as a decent Razzie free entry - not as good as II,III,IV obviously but probably better than TMP. however with the FX the way they were there was little chance of that

 

[Christopher]

The El Capitan fall would've looked more convincing

I'm not sure what part of this you're referring to, since the fall itself was real -- stuntman Kenny Bates set a world record for a stunt fall using a descender, a wire rig that lets a stunt performer freefall but slows them safely toward the end of the fall. And most of the stuff with Spock rocketing down after Kirk and catching him was done live with wire work and set pieces on stage, so most of that wouldn't have been Ferren's work.

so ultimately if ILM had done it (their 'A' team) I think Trek V would've got away with being thought of as a decent Razzie free entry - not as good as II,III,IV obviously but probably better than TMP. however with the FX the way they were there was little chance of that

I really don't think that most of the complaints about the film were due to its visuals. The problems were with the story and the forced, unfunny comedy. And the fact that Shatner was committed to a "search for God" story that ran afoul of a controversy-wary studio and thus ended up being at odds with itself and watered down to irrelevancy. The mediocre effects were a minor, superficial addendum to the film's other woes.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I meant the blue screen fx of Shatner and Nimoy 'falling'

 

[Timby]

(ILM didn't do GB1 - why didn't Shatner get whoever did them for GB1?)

I don't think Boss Film Studios had the capacity to do motion-control work. There just weren't that many effects houses that could work with the eight-foot Enterprise model.

 

[Christopher]

I meant the blue screen fx of Shatner and Nimoy 'falling'

To be fair, bluescreen mattes were intrinsically a flawed technique. Even ILM had trouble making them look good. They were commonly used due to their convenience, but it was hard to get the mattes to line up perfectly and avoid visible matte edges or blue spill. There were much better matte techniques like Disney's unique sodium matte process used in films like Mary Poppins and The Black Hole, and which Hitchcock borrowed for The Birds because it was the only technique good enough to work for matteing live birds with fast-flapping wings, but the special prism they used was pretty much impossible to duplicate, so most FX houses were stuck using inferior techniques like bluescreen. Even ILM's bluescreen shots were usually quite recognizably bluescreen shots.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Couldn't modern tech be able to make it look like Captain Kirk didn't change clothes in mid-air?

 

[Maurice]

I meant the blue screen fx of Shatner and Nimoy 'falling'

To be fair, bluescreen mattes were intrinsically a flawed technique. Even ILM had trouble making them look good. They were commonly used due to their convenience, but it was hard to get the mattes to line up perfectly and avoid visible matte edges or blue spill. There were much better matte techniques like Disney's unique sodium matte process used in films like Mary Poppins and The Black Hole, and which Hitchcock borrowed for The Birds because it was the only technique good enough to work for matteing live birds with fast-flapping wings, but the special prism they used was pretty much impossible to duplicate, so most FX houses were stuck using inferior techniques like bluescreen. Even ILM's bluescreen shots were usually quite recognizably bluescreen shots.

Actually, I just happen to be reading the old Cinefantastique double issue on The Black Hole and they didn't use the sodium vapor process on it because they were shooting anamorphic and it was too much trouble to adapt the system for those lenses, ergo the compositing is largely blue-screen.

The root problem with the optical falling shots is they were stupidly conceived in the first place. You don't just hang an actor there and roll a scrolling background behind him like it was scene of people on a train with a rear-projected background. The ideal solution, with '89 tech, would have been the Zoptic process (or equivalent) as used in the Superman films.

 

[Christopher]

^Really? The mattes in The Black Hole look way too good to be bluescreen.

 

[Vger23]

There isn't much that new special effects can do to improve some of the story elements...but they could certainly improve the overall quality of the film. Just like musical score, sound effects, production design etc etc etc...they are an integral part of a film and, in the case of TFF, they were an obvious glaring failure.

I think improved special effects would be a great addition from that perspective.

Think of it this way- would having the guy who did the soundtrack for the Woody Woodpecker commercials do the soundtrack for TMP DETRACT from that film? I think the answer is "absolutely," particularly where the musical score is a glaring positive in that production. It's not the ONLY positive...but it's one that would change perceptions of the film. It's the same with TFF. The visual effects are a glaring negative. Not the only one, but certainly a prominent one. So, improving them would change the quality of the movie. No doubt.

 

[Maurice]

^Really? The mattes in The Black Hole look way too good to be bluescreen.

Yep. The behind the scenes photos show the traveling mattes shot on blue. If they used the SVP (sodium vapor process) on any shots, I've not seen it documented in the article. They also did a fair number of shots in-camera without compositing.