Anybody Ever Notice...?
- Thread starter QuasarVM
- Start date
It's always fun when little production mistakes slip by into the final edit like that! 
ILM was not responsible for the sound effects on any Trek film.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Funny thing is, TFF has got a really good sound fx mix, especially the organic breathing stuff, very expressive. I remembered a muffled sound for the torp launch, but didn't realize how off it was till reading this. Maybe the local 'weather' at the center of the galaxy drowned out the usual noise fx.
Actually, although ILM certainly did a respectable job, I'd argue that Doug Trumbull, John Dykstra and their respective teams did a far better job with the effects on TMP than ILM did on any of their efforts.
If you look past the much-maligned (and deservedly so) visual effects, TFF actually has excellent production values. Perhaps the best of any of the TOS films.
The cinematography by Andrew Laszlo is excellent and one of the few Trek entries that's shot like a film instead of a TV show. The production design by Herman Zimmerman, particularly the bridge and the observation deck, is beautiful. The sound mix is quite good and adds a depth many of the Trek films lack. And the music by Jerry Goldsmith is, of course, masterful.
Methinks that perhaps the overall production value of TFF gets unfairly judged solely on the basis of its inept visual effects when, in fact, everything else production-wise is quite good.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Preaching to the choir, I'm right there with you on this.
I got to see ST 5 at a very well maintained theater (since destroyed) in Palo Alto, that actually had the right dimension of screen so nothing was cropped. That movie looked terrific there (not counting some of the opticals, obviously), and is definitely the best trek movie viewing experience I ever had. The too-soft look I associate with home viewing of TFF (on laser and to a lesser degree on DVD) was not present when I saw it that day (maybe that was the rare instance when a projectionist actually had the film properly focused!)
It's hard to hear on the DVD, but I remember that, in the theater, the sound of the torpedo also had a loud "beyooo!" sound over it, along with the TOS firing sound. It's still there, but you have to listen for it.
Agreed, there is no denying Shatner's visual sense is really good (okay, you can deny it, but you'd be wrong- lol). He was able to have an epic visual style brought into the films for the first time since TMP and got good performances from his cast (although directing himself was another matter). What always bothered me was why they let him contribute the story? Because Nimoy did in TVH? That was the downfall of the film, not the directing or even the effects. It was the fact that Shatner was not much of a writer and his idea of a "great story" is suspect.
You can lay the blame of the film's failure on Shatner shoulders, but some of that has to be shared with Harve Bennett and the production manager. Nobody seemed to keep an eye on the money, leaving the finale without adequate funds. And someone decided that having a Star Trek film climax with monsters was a good idea (until the rock man suitr didn't work). Maybe this would be fine for Irwin Allen, but Star Trek? In the 80's?
Hindsight is 20/20, but jeez.
Agreed, there is no denying Shatner's visual sense is really good (okay, you can deny it, but you'd be wrong- lol). He was able to have an epic visual style brought into the films for the first time since TMP and got good performances from his cast (although directing himself was another matter). What always bothered me was why they let him contribute the story? Because Nimoy did in TVH? That was the downfall of the film, not the directing or even the effects. It was the fact that Shatner was not much of a writer and his idea of a "great story" is suspect.
You can lay the blame of the film's failure on Shatner shoulders, but some of that has to be shared with Harve Bennett and the production manager. Nobody seemed to keep an eye on the money, leaving the finale without adequate funds. And someone decided that having a Star Trek film climax with monsters was a good idea (until the rock man suitr didn't work). Maybe this would be fine for Irwin Allen, but Star Trek? In the 80's?
Hindsight is 20/20, but jeez.
Last edited:
I must concur.
Not only that, but ILM didn't do the visuals for TFF. The wretched special DE-fects were created by Bran Ferren and Associates -- a New York based company that had created the visuals for Little Shop of Horrors prior to STV:TFF.
I also agree TMP had better VFX than any of the ILM outtings. I despised the ILM warp effect. It looked cartoony and animated. The TMP effect was really well done.
The only thing production-wise that I didn't care for were those flourescent tubes they used for the brig. I prefer the brig forcefields from TOS or TNG and afterward...
That, and I didn't like the net catching the shuttlecraft...seemed like something they wouldn't have done in the 23rd century...
We know that. I was just pointing out to Praetor that ILM's responsibility for visual effects did not extend into other areas such as sound effects. He seemed to be posting the sort of knee-jerk "TFF's effects were crap because they didn't use ILM" reaction, even though we weren't talking about the visuals.
I noticed that myself when watching the movie, but it never really bothered me at all. I like the nod to the series itself. Besides, sound effects in trek have often been interchangable in TNG the sound the controls made for phaseers firing was the same as the Photon Torpedoes.
A lot of ILM's effects work was pretty shit in some of the movies, too.
Not laugh-out-loud shit, but still shit.
honestly, who talks like that. you are trying too hard, and its not needed. no need to try and act really speak like spock.
What concern is it of yours how he talks?
I'm sorry, was that too formal? Maybe I should have asked you to 'chillax.'
Seriously, if you've got nothing better to contribute than nitpicking how people "talk" on this board, I'd suggest you move along.
I'm sorry, was that too formal? Maybe I should have asked you to 'chillax.'
Seriously, if you've got nothing better to contribute than nitpicking how people "talk" on this board, I'd suggest you move along.
"that is some sad commentary" look at the 2 threads ive posted in recently. and then look at your moderating. make the attempt to be fair. not condesending and insulting.
i wont make any assumptions about your education or social status, like you have with me.
but i can pretty much assure you that you havent been laid.
im sorry, copulated.
You're the one who seems to be getting bent out of shape over everything. I make no assumptions about your education or social status. Based on your behavior, I do assume that you're an insufferable twit. And speculations on the last time I got laid do nothing to endear you to me further.
Similar threads
