Would a theatrical star trek work during tos 66-69 run.

[TREK_GOD_1]

The matte painting in the background could be more realistic looking as well, although the scene in general still works because it's not supposed to be real anyway.

The picnic was Pike's illusion, but I believe to the viewers (and Pike, obviously), it was supposed to play as real (note his reaction to the city and Tango the horse), not surreal as in some strange dream sequence. He knew he was seeing what the Talosians wanted him to see ("We're in a menagerie--a cage!"), but it was sold as perfectly real, to the point he did not say something to the effect, "..this appears artificial". That painting was one of the few visually weaker areas of the pilot.

 

[mb22]

The lawn isn't that real looking either (see the visible square shaped sections), although still better than the flat mine floors in "Devil in the Dark" (necessary to keep the cameras in place).

 

[alchemist]

"The Naked Time" was conceived with a cliffhanger. The script describes the episode as "Part 1" and the ending was partially reshot over a month after principal photography to make it less open ended.

However, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" was never intended to be the second part. Dorothy Fontana's story outline is dated October of 1966, after "The Naked Time" had aired with the non-cliffhanger ending we all know.

At the end of Black's version, in addition to the ship traveling faster than light, Kirk is still infected and exhibiting rage to everyone he encounters.

 

[Christopher]

I think the 'picnic scene' on Earth might have been done differently -- it definitely looks like an interior set, not the outdoors. The matte painting in the background could be more realistic looking as well, although the scene in general still works because it's not supposed to be real anyway.

Again, it depends on the budget of the putative movie. You can no doubt find many '60s movies with fake-looking backdrops and sets. Back then, audiences were still more accustomed to live theater and more forgiving of movies looking like theater rather than reality.

 

[mb22]

Again, it depends on the budget of the putative movie. You can no doubt find many '60s movies with fake-looking backdrops and sets. Back then, audiences were still more accustomed to live theater and more forgiving of movies looking like theater rather than reality.

The planet backdrop seen at the end of When Worlds Collide has got to be one of the most blatant examples. Even on a low res black and white TV 45 years ago it looked incredibly fake to me when I saw it as a kid. And that was a high budget film.

 

[mb22]

Done decades later, I still find these TWOK effects to be less than convincing as well:

 

[Christopher]

Done decades later, I still find these TWOK effects to be less than convincing as well:

I think I read that even the ILM team was unhappy with that second one, and that it was scaled back from what it was conceived to be. The shape of the set piece suggests to me that it was meant to be part of a spherical bubble within the planetoid, sort of a mini-Pellucidar.

 

[drt]

The lawn isn't that real looking either (see the visible square shaped sections), although still better than the flat mine floors in "Devil in the Dark" (necessary to keep the cameras in place).

My headcanon for that is the miners dug their tunnels with phaser bores that left some melted rock to cool as a flat surface.

I'm not sure why you think that's "wishy-washy." It was done out of budgetary practicality, since the sets and assets were already built and there was no sense in wasting them. It turned out to be a very wise move, since sets built for TV are built to last for years, while feature sets are only meant to hold up for weeks. So they were able to keep redressing and reusing the sets through the movies, TNG, and VGR, keeping them in continuous use for more than two decades.

I meant wishy-washy in the sense they were going back and forth on how they wanted to revive Star Trek.

Maybe I didn’t explain it well, but it was also my point that transitioning from stuff made by Roddenberry for the TV series to TMP and beyond meant things were more likely to maintain more visual continuity than if they had made something like Planet of the Titans first, or if Bennett and Meyer had free reign and weren’t forced to use what was left over from TMP. Although, I suppose for the latter, if those assets didn’t exist Paramount probably wouldn’t have made Wrath of Khan at all considering how little budget Bennett and Meyer were given.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Done decades later, I still find these TWOK effects to be less than convincing as well:

Like most artificial environments created for film of the previous century, you are bound to see some loss of the "magic", but the frames (and scenes) above still work in creating a dreamy, beautiful landscape. What I find rather inexcusable is that in 2022--decades into full-on CG EFX, viewers are still subjected to markedly inferior CG environments and characters (the two heroes of She-Hulk are positively awful and video-gamey, nearly all EFX created for the CW/DC TV series, etc). Its a credit to the artists of four decades ago that they were able to create a semi-realistic "inner world" to the degree seen, especially when hundreds of CG EFX artists today barely generate one realistic character.

 

[Maurice]

Like most artificial environments created for film of the previous century, you are bound to see some loss of the "magic", but the frames (and scenes) above still work in creating a dreamy, beautiful landscape. What I find rather inexcusable is that in 2022--decades into full-on CG EFX, viewers are still subjected to markedly inferior CG environments and characters (the two heroes of She-Hulk are positively awful and video-gamey, nearly all EFX created for the CW/DC TV series, etc). Its a credit to the artists of four decades ago that they were able to create a semi-realistic "inner world" to the degree seen, especially when hundreds of CG EFX artists today barely generate one realistic character.

Creating a matte painting is a helluva lot less work than trying to create an entire character that can give a performance. And these modern VFX vendors are being worked to death, so it's unsurprising they can't deliver the highest quality.

 

[Neopeius]

The planet backdrop seen at the end of When Worlds Collide has got to be one of the most blatant examples. Even on a low res black and white TV 45 years ago it looked incredibly fake to me when I saw it as a kid. And that was a high budget film.

That's funny. The f/x were the only thing we liked about the film!

 

[fireproof78]

Creating a matte painting is a helluva lot less work than trying to create an entire character that can give a performance. And these modern VFX vendors are being worked to death, so it's unsurprising they can't deliver the highest quality.

Indeed. The amount of shit they are expected to fix in their work is ridiculous. There's a reason I'm not harsh on VFX when it comes to a film.

 

[Maurice]

The planet backdrop seen at the end of When Worlds Collide has got to be one of the most blatant examples. Even on a low res black and white TV 45 years ago it looked incredibly fake to me when I saw it as a kid. And that was a high budget film.

I can't speak to the accuracy of this, but this article claims that:

The biggest faux pas of the movie is, of course, the crude matte painting in the very last scene showing the new world of Zyra. It seems odd that Pal would have settled for such an amateurish matte to end the film with, and of course that wasn’t his intention. Pal had originally wanted to create the landscape as a miniature, but time and money ran out. On board he had astronomical expert and painter Chesley Bonestell, who had created the breath-taking lunar landscapes of Destination Moon, but he was on board only as ”technical consultant”, and painted a rough sketch of the landscape of Zyra, intended as a blueprint either for a miniature or for matte painter Jan Domela (Dr. Cyclops [1940, review], The War of the Worlds [1953], Conquest of Space [1955, review]) to work on. But Domela never had time to paint the huge landscape, so Pal was stuck with Bonestell’s sketch.

Source
​

 

[mb22]

I can't speak to the accuracy of this, but this article claims that:

The biggest faux pas of the movie is, of course, the crude matte painting in the very last scene showing the new world of Zyra. It seems odd that Pal would have settled for such an amateurish matte to end the film with, and of course that wasn’t his intention. Pal had originally wanted to create the landscape as a miniature, but time and money ran out. On board he had astronomical expert and painter Chesley Bonestell, who had created the breath-taking lunar landscapes of Destination Moon, but he was on board only as ”technical consultant”, and painted a rough sketch of the landscape of Zyra, intended as a blueprint either for a miniature or for matte painter Jan Domela (Dr. Cyclops [1940, review], The War of the Worlds [1953], Conquest of Space [1955, review]) to work on. But Domela never had time to paint the huge landscape, so Pal was stuck with Bonestell’s sketch.

Source
​

Thanks. I just read elsewhere that Paramount thought that 'blueprint' painting "it looked acceptable", so that was that. It would be mildly interesting to see if some VFX artist could re-do this scene and make it look more like it was supposed to.

 

[Neopeius]

Per the July 1967 Yandro, in a letter sent by Roddenberry himself (so probably composed in June '67):

"...With Desilu now merging with Paramount Pictures there is some talk of releasing [The Cage] overseas as a motion picture and so it appears there is some chance that we may some day break even on the unusual costs involved in making two pilots...

[Concession that the f/x of the show aren't always the best followed by:]

"...All of us here would someday like to have the greater latitude permitted by a motion picture. The idea of having a million or more dollars in the budget is terribly appealing. Maybe someday. For the present, the television is our medium and although we criticize it too, work constantly to do what we can to change and improve it, we must work within existing limits and must bring in a mass audience or we simply go off the air and the whole thing was for nothing."

 

[plynch]

Aw, gee. "Or the whole thing was for nothing." Implies he was hoping it had some lasting import. I mean most shows in the sixties were on a few years, then gone.

They did alright without "one MILlion dollars."

They inspired me in how to be a person.

 

[Neopeius]

Aw, gee. "Or the whole thing was for nothing." Implies he was hoping it had some lasting import. I mean most shows in the sixties were on a few years, then gone.

They did alright without "one MILlion dollars."

They inspired me in how to be a person.

Beautiful.

Of all the shows from the 60s, I think Trek is the clear winner in terms of cultural impact.

Second raters include Mission: Impossible, I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, Gilligan's Island, I, Spy, Lost in Space, The Fugitive, Andy Griffith et. al., Batman

Brilliant shows that should be remembered include Burke's Law, East Side/West Side, Route 66, Green Hornet.

Shows best left in the 60s... well, there are a LOT of them

 

[ZapBrannigan]

"The Naked Time" was conceived with a cliffhanger. The script describes the episode as "Part 1" and the ending was partially reshot over a month after principal photography to make it less open ended.

However, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" was never intended to be the second part. Dorothy Fontana's story outline is dated October of 1966, after "The Naked Time" had aired with the non-cliffhanger ending we all know.

Solow and Justman said Star Trek in its first year couldn't dream of doing an actual two-parter (as opposed to "The Menagerie" as a clip show), because they could not know in advance what order the episodes would air in. The first season shows could not air until their fx shots were finished, and that order was unpredictable.

So "The Naked Time" being intended as a cliffhanger must have been shot down very quickly by the producers.

 

[kkt]

still better than the flat mine floors in "Devil in the Dark" (necessary to keep the cameras in place).

My thought is that the mine had heavy equipment that rolled or glided and needed level floors to do so.

 

[Henoch]

The lawn isn't that real looking either (see the visible square shaped sections), although still better than the flat mine floors in "Devil in the Dark" (necessary to keep the cameras in place).

If a theatrical Star Trek takes us to Earth, then would Earth city architecture circa 2250 be similar to the Mojave background painting seen in the Cage/Menagerie, or something like TMP San Francisco? (Looks like 2250's California still has smog problems...)