doubleofive

vaderios said:

Well isnt the second pylon turboil(?) missing from the second shot?

Its a turbolift (elevator).  You can't see it as the camera is right next to the one on the right and blocking the view of it. (I've marked the location in Shot 1 where the camera is in Shot 2)

ITs awesome how the lightning and shadows are changing in these 2 images..

How exactly is an animated turboil?

It glows bright blue, but in the movie you can see a shadow that is the elevator car coming to pick up Kirk.  However, I think this looks too similar to the engines, so they can be changed to non-lighted tubes if you wanted.

Nothing makes sense from architecture pov :P I guess they looked cool back then :D

I guess so.  Its supposed to be a cargo area behind the shuttle bay (which is where the model is coming from).  Kirk looks down on it on his way to the turbolift/elevator.

I wish I could explain it better...

Angel, here's a matte that is definitely in the movie that need some of your loving.

FF already has a post on this and he really likes these shots, I just feel that they could look less painted.

As you can, see, it has some wonky angles and things that look different from Shot 1 to Shot 2.  I made some notes for you here:

Click both for bigness/the ability to read it.

You can find the original TrekCore screens here.

This 3D Studio model could be used for some possible scaling/angle reference (though it changes too much in the live action plate area to be used flat out).

EDIT: Just noticed the guys pushing the huge cargo container in Shot 1 have completely vanished in Shot 2.  I feel like ImperialFighter, ruining my own enjoyment of the movie by finding random mistakes! ;-)

EDIT2: I don't know about FF, but I'm not set on the turbolifts.  They look too much like the warp cores of later series to me.  Maybe they could be changed...  It's all up to FF really.  He said he really liked these shots, maybe he won't want to change them at all.

Jeyl said:

doubleofive said: The theatrical cut is the theatrical cut, warts and all.

Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! 

Make the bad man STOP!

Hey, I was born in 1983, I have no ties to the theatrical cut.

Chewtobacca said:

Jeyl said:

Paramount has pretty much abandoned the Director's Edition of ST:TMP.

 

That's a shame, if it is true.  I like the director's cut.

I remember Robert Wise saying in his commentary that the Director's Cut audio mix was improved with extra sounds and effects that there was no time to integrate into the theatrical release.  I wonder if they were used for the theatrical cut blu-ray -- which I have yet to purchase. 

The theatrical cut is the theatrical cut, warts and all.

Jeyl said:

Daren is a really cool guy though. I've listened to all his commentaries including the startrek.com one that was an internet exclusive. I'd hate to be in his shoes thinking of the disappointment that Paramount has pretty much abandoned the Director's Edition of ST:TMP.

I had that commentary on my iPod and ended up listening to it more times than I've seen the movie, I think!

Oh, are you going to take a shot at getting rid of that pesky 'blue anomaly' that's seen on the bottom left of the screen during the Klingon approach and the Epsilon Nine tour??

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but I'm hoping the black level adjustment would fix it.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Yeah I'm not sure what to make of it.  If the goal was to take the silliest bits and make us look stupid, then I'm not sure I would have participated.

This would be my fear too.  You never know how interviews will be edited.  My wife and her friend were interviewed for a local news organization during a Harry Potter movie premiere.  They saw the other stupid people being interviewed and gave well thought out responses to the questions.  The next morning, a few people said "saw you on the news last night" and snickered.  We didn't get to see it, but I decided a great Christmas gift would be to get a copy of the interview from somewhere and surprise them with it.  I finally found a company that tapes everything on the news (for businesses who want copies of mentions they get).  I paid $50 to finally see and share the famous interview: it turned out to be a series of the DUMBEST things the people said.  My wife and her friend were right after a guy saying how he's actually dating "Hermione" (the character), and their segment was her friend yelling "HARRY POTTER!" and cut them off just as my wife started to talk.

$50 for something none of us want to watch.  It was a crappy Christmas from me.

But the ships weren't supposed to be gray in TOS!  For all of the detail Remastered did, I'm surprised they didn't use the original paint scheme.  They did on the Enterprise instead of making it the blue-gray it looked on TV.  Why not the Klingons?  Then we have "Trials and Tribble-ations" on DS9, where they added the Klingon ship and not only made it green-green, but gave it some of the details present on the TMP ship!

And I have to keep pointing out, I'm not "greening" the ships at all.  This is the color they turn when you make the running lights white instead of light gray and space black instead of dark gray.  I may have to add green to some shots to make them match, but overall I believe this is the true color of the ships.  DarenDoc agrees:

the original was green… (slightly)… I bet though that most of the green was muted due to Apogee’s Blue screen process… which would tend to desaturate and take out the blue bandwidths… so they just chose to make it less…

I'm not upset at you Jeyl or anybody at all, its just strange that no one has brought this up before.

EDIT: I don't think I ever posted the link to Daren's blog where I discuss this with him.  As I say in there, I love the internet.  How else could I discuss this with someone who, for all intents and purposes, worked on the movie?

EDIT2: Here's what I mean about the white balancing:

The window I point to has that shade of blue/gray that's above the white.  The area of space I point to has the slight shade of dark gray that's above the black.  If I set those areas to what colors they OUGHT to be, this color comes out.  However, you can choose what shade of green you want the ship to be by choosing different areas of space.  This is a little more subtle than what I've posted previously.

Bonusly, the black levels being set to space minimizes the appearance of the matte lines, which are solid black. :-D

Warbler said:

doubleofive said:

As a wise professor of mine once told us, "The question shouldn't be 'what happens to those who haven't heard?'; it should be 'why haven't you told them?'."

just how do you tell an aborted fetus or a kid that dies before he/she can speack about Jesus? 

It was more about the "tribes in Africa" part.

Timstuff said:

RoccondilRinon said:

During the making of ANH. It was the reason Carrie Fisher had to go bra-less under her costume, which caused certain... issues, resulting in having to tape down her breasts.

I heard that the bra strap was showing through the costume due to the thin material used, and so they decided go with tape instead (and for those of you who are unaware "tape" refers to athletic tape which is what women used before sports bras came along, so get those duct tape fetish images out of your noggins), but I was unaware of this being part of some canological "underwear doesn't exist in Star Wars" rule. The look of the costume would have been ruined if you could see a bra strap through it, and it didn't make sense to go back and re-design it when they could just ditch the offending undergarment. Maybe I'm wrong, but whatevs.

I was under the impression it was gaffer tape.  Hence "Gaffer Tape" and his Leia avatar.

Also, I don't mean to be a prude, but I think that removing the underwear from Leia's slave outfit is unecessarily risque (even considering the costume itself, lol), especially since the movie is rated PG. A few frames of digitally painted on ass seems like a kind of frivolous change to make.

And I already get weird enough hits on my blog without adding the words "remove Leia's underwear." ;-)

Jeyl said:

Ya, that's me. Didn't want to spoil my good old Jeyl name. That's for Trekmovie.com.

And that's why I knew I knew your screenname from somewhere!

And as you've stated in your links, your estimates would be correct. Just as long as you don't call it "Stardate: 2270.2", than I'll be happy. :)

Yeah, JJ's stardate system is pretty messed up compared to the original, but it keeps us from having to argue about what year it is in the new movie and how many years pass between scenes. ;-)

Jeyl said:

Question in regards to the new opening. The date shows 2270 when Kirk and Crew arrive at Earth with the Enterprise in preparation for it's refit. Shouldn't the date be a little earlier than that since V'Ger shows up in 2271? Kirk has been out of a starship for two and a half years before he took command of the Enterprise again, so shouldn't the date be about two years earlier when they dock the Enterprise? Like 2268 or 2269?

Is that you on YouTube too?  Here's what I put there:

There are debates as to when exactly TMP takes place, apparently.  I like the 5 year mission to be 2265-2270 myself, which brings them home in 2270 as in my video. I've read any year in the early 2270s, but I like 2273 myself (if we did the year on screen, that's what I'm going to suggest after the credits roll).

Memory Alpha gives any year between 2272 and 2277 for the date of TMP.  No one knows, apparently.  Besides, its just a mockup.  None of this is set in stone.  We could leave the year just as vague as it is now.

Quotes from MemoryAlpha:

There is some controversy over the dating of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The earliest the film could take place is late 2272 (based on information from VOY: "Q2", which stated that Kirk's first five-year mission ended in 2270, and information within the film that Kirk had not "logged a single star hour in two-and-a-half years." The latest the film could take place is 2277, since the Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan style uniforms are in use by 2278. (TNG: "Cause and Effect")

"Cup!"

(My first Necropost!)

vote_for_palpatine said:

Watto was one of the very few PT-only elements I enjoyed.

Oh, I can't wait to see your image. Let's make young Brittany's dream a reality!

Click for HD.  You know you want to.

Thanks FF.  While playing with the Vegas Movie Studio trial, I found that it doesn't do the white balance as awesomely as Photoshop did.  Tonight I'm going to play with the Premiere Elements 8 trial and hope it works better.  I did find that Premiere Pro has pretty much the same Levels tool that Photoshop does, so we could have you try to bring out the natural green in the Klingons.  Everything I did in Vegas just tinted all of the colors green, including space, which looked sloppy.  Just adjusting the levels to make space a solid black made the space shots look at least 75% better though.

Ripplin said:

Hey, this is the book that was written by an OTer, right? I believe Adywan mentioned it before as being a great read.

The paperback version is out now.

Actually the book written by the OTer is Zombie84's Secret History of Star Wars.  This is the non-secret version, but is still very straightforward (as it was mostly written while they were making the movie).  I read the first half before I had to take it back to the library, and it was awesome.

TheBoost said:

sean wookie said:

I really have no problem with religion or people if they don't have a problem with me. I just wish instead of those super stadium-like huge churches some of that money should be used to help the poor. I know most churches arent like that but do we really need any of those? I would assume doing good things would get you out of a bad list more than getting church built.

So you disagree with Rick Warren and his type's specific theology? That doesn't sound very respectful.

You can agree with his theology and not how he spends his church's money, which I do.  Megachurches rub me the wrong way for just what sean is saying.  Golden crosses and waterfalls in the foyer aren't going to help anyone, whether they go to that church or not.

The church I went to in TN was fairly small, but gave over half of their money to missions.  That's how it should be done.  Or like currently I help lead a bible study in someone's home.  No money changes hands at all, we just invite our neighbors over to encourage them.  That's what its about, not vast sanctuaries and video screens.  Relationships.

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Coud you really 'respect' that? And if I genuinely beleived in that, could I be expected to 'respect' your ridiculous beleifs in science, YHWH, Ganesh, or The Force?

its more or less about respecting the rights of people to believe what they believe.  People have to decide for themselves which, if any religion to follow.   I'm not going to play God and tell which to go to.  

As for the belief that all those that don't worship Christ will go to hell,  I admit I do have a problem it that I've never been able to resolve.   What about all the people whom had no chance to hear the word?  what about children that die before they even have a chance to understand?  Are they all in hell?   Hitler was a Christian, a catholic I think(although obviously not a good one),   Gandhi was not a Christian.   Is Hitler in heaven and Gandhi in hell?   What about all the people who lived and died before Christ was even born?   Are they in hell? Are the 6 Million Jewish people who died in the Holocaust in hell?   All the aborted babies whom are supposedly full fledged humans with souls, are they hell?  These are the things I can't accept.   It has caused a sort of schism between myself and my religion and my church.   I don't know what else to say.  

I believe that's where the "judge not" comes into play.  It's not our call, its not ours to understand.  As a wise professor of mine once told us, "The question shouldn't be 'what happens to those who haven't heard?'; it should be 'why haven't you told them?'."

I'm kind of enjoying this thread.  We've managed to be pretty civil to one another.  I'm proud of us. :-D

Yeah sorry, I'll write back later.

I kind of think its interesting.  I don't think the thread is limited to religious beliefs.  Belief is something being wrong in someone's eyes counts as well.

Warbler said:

Davnes007 said:

I know someone's gotta say it...so I'll pull the pin on the grenade......

 

Religion causes more problems than it solves.

 

I await your brutal backlash

I don't know if that is true or not.  All I can say that I think a large part of the problems is that too many people have decided to hate because of their religious beliefs.   As member of my religion(Christian, United Methodist Church), we are not supposed to show hatred for our enemies or those of different beliefs and what not.   We are supposed to show love.   That is what I try to do.  That's why I can't stand Pat Roberson or those freaks that protest funerals.  They give my religion a bad name. We are not supposed to judge.  That's Gods job.    I think also part of the problem is people sometimes follow their beliefs without a does of common sense mixed in.    God or Nature or whatever gave us logic and reasoning for a reason,  we need to use it.  

Warb and I are on the same page, it seems.

TV's Frink said:

doubleofive said:

I haven't seen VINH since we flat out questioned his username.

?

Don't "?" me, you made the thread.  I'm just saying I haven't really noticed him much since.

I haven't seen VINH since we flat out questioned his username.

Davnes007 said:

I know someone's gotta say it...so I'll pull the pin on the grenade......

 

Religion causes more problems than it solves.

 

I await your brutal backlash

I may shock you, but I agree.  Religion does seem to cause more problems than it solves on a global scale.  However, personal belief seems to solve personal problems, so it works both ways.

(that's what she said)

As a Christian, I appreciate your respect.  I have my beliefs and even went to Bible College, but I'm not going to run around screaming that everyone else is wrong.  I doubt many people have come to believe through picketing, yelling, and being holier-than-thou.  Its all about relationships, not preaching at people.

What I really feel is unfair is that some people judge the Independent Churches of Christ (the non-denominational denomination I associate myself with) by what some other people associated with the group say (ie, "9/11, Katrina, etc is because of the gays" and so on).  We're INDEPENDENT churches, as in what those guys say are independent of what I may believe.

Also, in before the title change. ;-)

vote_for_palpatine said:

Top Secret! The best ZAZ movie of them all.

Surely you can't be serious.

I had to watch it again, just to make sure they were commenting on the same video I watched a while back.  I mean, the one where the overdramatic voice over was all about the only print being one of those tiny "spin the wheel to make 30 seconds of the film play at whatever speed you wanted".

It sure is.  What's wrong with people, do they just watch the first 15 seconds of a video, get fed up, comment, then not finish it?