• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

TOS ‘Cheesy’ Special Effects

Moonraker (1979) used the same technique for its big finale at the villain's space station. There were a lot of components in the shot, with U.S. Air Force Space Shuttles mounting an attack.

I heard they had to rewind that one precious roll of film so many times, they were terrified it would come out with a scratch on it. And if that had happened, there was no time for a do-over. The movie would just have to end without the epic battle being seen. Maybe James Bond would hear a play-by-play over the military radio describing the battle.
That’s certainly an exaggeration. That sequence is not a single shot.
 
Exactly.

The effects shots on Blakes 7 look terrible now, but back when it was made they were...terrible !

:lol:

There is a book about the making of Blake's 7. The BBC gave them the budget of the show they replaced 'Softly, Softly'.

The producers told the SFX team to go see this new movie 'Star Wars' in order to get visual effects ideas.

The two sat there in the theater watching the Star Destroyer cross the screen.

One turned to the other and said, 'We are in serious trouble'.
 
For the most part, the TOS space effects are an epic fail: they don't create the illusion of things happening, but are just filler or abstract cues to mark the spot where I'm supposed to imagine that I actually see things happening. Basically comparable to being forced to make the wooshing sounds oneself when piloting the scale model across the room by hand.
What space effects, if any, do you find convincing?
 
For the most part, the TOS space effects are an epic fail: they don't create the illusion of things happening, but are just filler or abstract cues to mark the spot where I'm supposed to imagine that I actually see things happening. Basically comparable to being forced to make the wooshing sounds oneself when piloting the scale model across the room by hand.

[ ... ]
Damn kids and their CGI these days. Killed their imagination and they expect everything to look real. grumble.gif

Of course they're cues. All effects were cues for the imagination to pick up and run with. That was the contract between storyteller and audience. Star Trek's effects were better visually than were most of that time, but still very much functioned as prompts for imagination and never pretended to be anything else.

Now get off my lawn, grumble grumble grumble... grumble.gif
 
What space effects, if any, do you find convincing?

Well, the point is that everybody knows what space looks like. The same way that everybody knows what sea looks like, even if one hasn't ever actually been aboard a boat or anything. The expectation is there, and just like a tempest-in-a-teapot scale model of water always utterly fails to deliver, so does a starfield that doesn't look like a starfield.

Any space effect that describes something unfamilliar to us is fair game for "being good enough" unless there are damning factors such as poor stability or focus or whatever. Every instance of the Galactic Barrier thus convinces the bejesus out of me. The Doomsday Machine is great. Balok's Fesarius is awesome.

The space in which they supposedly exist is not. That is, it's not space. And the movements of the Enterprise, arguably an acceptable spacecraft, are not movements, but merely sorry imitations thereof.

Modern VFX can do photorealistic space (even if it's quite a bit on the dull side) and convincing movement. Nothing back then could, not even on a movie budget, but certain movies at least got significantly closer.

Between that and old-style visuals lies an uncanny valley parsecs wide. It simply fails to deliver, when every filler shot of a cop show or a cowboy series automatically succeeds (unless they try to get smart and portray movement with back projections or reality with sets, but the point is that they don't need to do that). This in turn digs another deep and wide chasm, this time between space scifi and almost all the rest. And Trek sits on the wrong side of that chasm, in the 1960s and the 1990s and basically in the 2020s still. But not all of it: modern Trek manages to slip in some shots that meet the cop show or sitcom standard of convincing, while TOS never did.

As regards the space shots, that is. To step outside the parameters of your question, many of the surface sets and associated mattes were quite effective, sometimes by virtue of being convincing, sometimes by virtue of being fantastic. But the space shots only succeed when they describe the fantastic. Which, thankfully enough, happens often in TOS...

Timo Saloniemi
 
I always thought the simple special effect scene where Kirk stuns Luma in ‘Spock’s Brain’ was cool. :cool:

spocksbrainhd0597.jpg
 
The "green flash for stun" effect first showed up in Season Two. Prior to that, "stun" had the same visual effect as the "kill" setting.
Actually it didn't. In the first season most of the time the sun effect was a blue beam, and a phaser on kill was a red beam. (But like everything else across TOS visual effects-wise; It still wasn't 100% consistent)
 
The "green flash for stun" effect first showed up in Season Two. Prior to that, "stun" had the same visual effect as the "kill" setting.

And there’s a couple of first season episodes where the special effects house misaligned the angle and/or point of origin of a phaser pistol.

thedevilinthedarkhd249.jpg
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top