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

[mb22]

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...)

Trek remastered got rid of the smog (but not the fake grass)...

 

[kkt]

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...)

If you go to old cities today - London, New York, etc. - you see a mixture of old and new buildings. That's what I'd expect to see, and truthfully I'd be disappointed if all the buildings were modern geometric structures like the skyline in The Cage.
And if that's Mojave the climate change predictions are 180 degrees wrong.

 

[Christopher]

And if that's Mojave the climate change predictions are 180 degrees wrong.

Roddenberry's thinking was presumably that future technology made the desert bloom.

Though I often figure that what happened in the Trekverse was like the joke from a Futurama episode -- nuclear winter cancelled out global warming.

 

[Mudd]

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).

Some of the nicer and often subtle work done for the Star Trek Remastered version of TOS were new digital versions of mattes and backgrounds. The Remastered version of the "Mojave" set, creating a more natural transition and sense of distance between the stage floor and the diorama of the city is a great example:

 

[mb22]

Some of the nicer and often subtle work done for the Star Trek Remastered version of TOS were new digital versions of mattes and backgrounds. The Remastered version of the "Mojave" set, creating a more natural transition and sense of distance between the stage floor and the diorama of the city is a great example:

There seem to be fewer buildings, though.

 

[Mudd]

Aw, gee. "Or the whole thing was for nothing." Implies he was hoping it had some lasting import.

Everyone made a great deal more money from TV shows that ran five years than those cancelled after one. Or after a couple of pilots.

You're reading lofty aspirations where none are really even implied.

 

[Maurice]

Some of the nicer and often subtle work done for the Star Trek Remastered version of TOS were new digital versions of mattes and backgrounds. The Remastered version of the "Mojave" set, creating a more natural transition and sense of distance between the stage floor and the diorama of the city is a great example:


View attachment 29706

"Original Effects" hahahaha

There are no special effects in the original version.

 

[Christopher]

"Original Effects" hahahaha

There are no special effects in the original version.

There are no optical effects in the original version (aside from the ripple-glass wipes in and out of the scene), but in the industry, the term "special effects" is usually used to refer to practical or physical effects done live on set, like sliding doors, blinking lights, prosthetics, pyrotechnics, simulated weather, forced perspective sets, etc. You can see this in the TOS credits, for instance, where mechanical FX supervisor Jim Rugg was credited for "Special Effects" while others like Howard Anderson and Film Effects of Hollywood were credited for "Titles & Opticals."

I think a diorama painting of a distant city would qualify as a special effect in that sense, since it's an illusion created live.

 

[Mudd]

"Original Effects" hahahaha

There are no special effects in the original version.

I believe in those comparison videos the labels "Original Effects" and "CGI Effects" are static labels that don't move or vary from shot to shot as they show the changes made from the original broadcast episodes.

 

[Maurice]

I believe in those comparison videos the labels "Original Effects" and "CGI Effects" are static labels that don't move or vary from shot to shot as they show the changes made from the original broadcast episodes.

I know, but it's misleading nevertheless.

 

[Christopher]

I know, but it's misleading nevertheless.

It's just the standard labels they use for comparing the original shots to the updated shots, which usually involve visual effects in both cases. They aren't going to change the label just for the occasional exception.

 

[Mudd]

It's just the standard labels they use for comparing the original shots to the updated shots, which usually involve visual effects in both cases. They aren't going to change the label just for the occasional exception.

Yes, as I already said...

 

[Greg Cox]

That goes without saying, but I'm suggesting it would still be well under the budget or scale of something like Fantastic Voyage or 2001.

Maybe something comparable to THE GREEN SLIME or BARBARELLA, which came out around the same time?

 

[Maurice]

Oh dear, so difficult to change a text label... like 30 seconds difficult. But then, people call painted scenery matte paintings, so I know I'm crying in the wilderness here.

 

[Christopher]

Oh dear, so difficult to change a text label... like 30 seconds difficult.

As I said, it's their standard format used for multiple comparison clips per episode. Within that context, consistent labeling makes sense. The problem is that you're seeing it out of context, all by itself.

And again, it isn't even wrong to call the diorama painting an effect. It's not an optical effect, but it is a special effect. So there's really no reason to object.

 

[Mudd]

As I said, it's their standard format used for multiple comparison clips per episode. Within that context, consistent labeling makes sense. The problem is that you're seeing it out of context, all by itself.

And again, it isn't even wrong to call the diorama painting an effect. It's not an optical effect, but it is a special effect. So there's really no reason to object.

I'm sorry, but it is not.

What we're discussing here is a painted set backing, a basic bit of stagecraft. Depending on what's depicted you might describe it in a number of ways, but "special effect" is not one.

Why does this matter? You might be surprised to learn that in addition to areas of specialization among designers and set crews, there are organizations called guilds and unions on a production like this. What a thing is considered matters in terms of who is permitted to work on it or provide a service, and how and by whom they are paid.

Words and terminology matter.

 

[Warped9]

Strikes me that unless you’re filming on location outdoors then anything meant to simulate that reality on set is a form of special effect.

 

[Maurice]

Strikes me that unless you’re filming on location outdoors then anything meant to simulate that reality on set is a form of special effect.

By that definition any set is a special effect. It becomes a meaningless term.

 

[David cgc]

Oh, God, you just reminded me of Avi Offer, the (self-titled) NYC Movie Guru, who has a stock bit about how visual effects are "standard effects," while "humanism is a (truly) special effect."

Squirming my way back towards the topic, the split between "visual effects" and "special effects" is something that developed in the 21st century, as the nuts-and-bolts differences between how they were created became much more fundamental. In the 1980s, making a full-sized car appear to fly or an explosion go off on a set with actors wasn't that different in principle from how you'd do it with scale models on a separate stage. That's not the case in the age of animation.

Still, the labeling could've been worse on the comparison. What if instead of "CGI" the right side was labeled "remastered"?

 

[Warped9]

The term “visual effect” or vfx is nicely more specific.