you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (9 children)

The transporter VFX were cheaper than filming model ships?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's a single frame, where they would make a mask of the person and run the same film on that part every single time. The film they used was a slow motion shot of falling metal dust, upside down.

    It probably took minutes to make those shots once they had the stock footage made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The film they used was a slow motion shot of falling metal dust, upside down.

    I swear I read it was gold glitter in water that was swirled

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not just the model. You have to build a full shuttle on the planet set every episode. Want to do an episode with on location shoots? Oh boy, that's going to be fun to haul out there. Almost might as well leave it at Vasquez Rocks permanently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    It was a 3/4 size model, wasn't it? Surely they could tow it on a trailer?

    Edit: from wikipedia

    Art director Matt Jefferies originally envisioned a sleek, streamlined shuttle based upon his background as a pilot. The curved shape proved too expensive to build for the first episodes.[3] AMT offered to build a full-sized shuttlecraft at no cost in exchange for rights to market a model kit. The final design of the mockup, by Gene Winfield,[4] is 24 feet (7.2 m) long and weighs one ton, has a plywood hull, and was built in two months by a team of 12 people. A separate set was used for interior scenes as the mockup was too small for filming.[5]

  • source
  • parent