The Doomsday Machine

I think you're onto something here, Daren. It would be a lot of fun to take a stab at that as a solution. Better yet, can someone do it in less than a day (just for fun).

I'm curious about the blue tones in the color gel. If they blue-screened this model, wouldn't they have had a terrible time discriminating between the blue of the screen, and the blue of the DM model? Perhaps this is why it looks so transparent in some shots.

Alternately maybe the original model wasn't blue and instead was color-corrected to a blue tone during compositing? That wouldn't explain why the interior remains a nice orange color (unless they just bumped the crap out of it, and the blue we see is really just traces of bounce light from the bluescreen).

Fun to think about, thanks for doing the digging.
 
I don't think they bluescreened it. For most of the shots, it was actually just a still. The ONLY moving shot is when it turns towards the constellation... so that could have easily been composited against black and roto'd stars... it is quite possible that the shots taken of it were black and white, and then tinted... as you can see in the frame grabs, the orange glow seems very tint-y...

The other shots were photographed on an animation stand, I believe... with flat photographic art... (and the moire pattern projected behind)
 
Blackbirdcd said:
I

I'm curious about the blue tones in the color gel. If they blue-screened this model, wouldn't they have had a terrible time discriminating between the blue of the screen, and the blue of the DM model? Perhaps this is why it looks so transparent in some shots.
Click to expand...

Perhaps on this they used the "Black-Screen" technique like they did on the pilot. I'll have to go back and watch the episode (which BTW is my favorite TOS) but I know that you can see stars through it but I can't remember if it is in the dark areas. That certainly would lend me to believe that for the Doomsday Machine miniature filming that the blue screen was not used. The color could have been changed in post but we should be able to tell if there are any shots that show the interior maw (which should be aluminum foil color) along with the exterior.

Great discussion guys!
 
You have to be careful with what people write, what people say, etc. I've read a step by step of how Spock's ear prosthetics were applied in one of the authorized Star Trek books, and I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that some of the steps were wrong... it just would not have worked the way described. Just because it is in a book does not guarantee accuracy.

Also, back in the 60's especially, the word "cement" was often used in place of the word "glue". (How often did you buy a tube of Model Cement?) A windsock, braced with a wire armature and dipped, sprayed, coated, whatever with glue would look very much like the miniature did on screen. It could just as well have been coated with fiberglass resin. If Roddenberry made the statement (a little unclear from the quote) it may well be what he thought they did. He wasn't involved with every single aspect of production. He'd say, "Make this," and they would. He didn't supervise construction.

As to the transparency, I never figured the thing was transparent, or translucent. I figured it was the quality of the matt work at the time. Stars showed through the edges of things a lot, and they didn't have the time or money to re-shoot. I've often heard tales the effects people being embarrassed at what ended up on the screen; not that it made any difference to the average viewer.
 
Jaruemalak said:
You have to be careful with what people write, what people say, etc. I've read a step by step of how Spock's ear prosthetics were applied in one of the authorized Star Trek books, and I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that some of the steps were wrong... it just would not have worked the way described. Just because it is in a book does not guarantee accuracy.

Also, back in the 60's especially, the word "cement" was often used in place of the word "glue". (How often did you buy a tube of Model Cement?) A windsock, braced with a wire armature and dipped, sprayed, coated, whatever with glue would look very much like the miniature did on screen. It could just as well have been coated with fiberglass resin. If Roddenberry made the statement (a little unclear from the quote) it may well be what he thought they did. He wasn't involved with every single aspect of production. He'd say, "Make this," and they would. He didn't supervise construction.

As to the transparency, I never figured the thing was transparent, or translucent. I figured it was the quality of the matt work at the time. Stars showed through the edges of things a lot, and they didn't have the time or money to re-shoot. I've often heard tales the effects people being embarrassed at what ended up on the screen; not that it made any difference to the average viewer.
Click to expand...

Very well, put. Point well taken.
 
Jaruemalak said:
You have to be careful with what people write, what people say, etc. I've read a step by step of how Spock's ear prosthetics were applied in one of the authorized Star Trek books, and I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that some of the steps were wrong... it just would not have worked the way described. Just because it is in a book does not guarantee accuracy.

Also, back in the 60's especially, the word "cement" was often used in place of the word "glue". (How often did you buy a tube of Model Cement?) A windsock, braced with a wire armature and dipped, sprayed, coated, whatever with glue would look very much like the miniature did on screen. It could just as well have been coated with fiberglass resin. If Roddenberry made the statement (a little unclear from the quote) it may well be what he thought they did. He wasn't involved with every single aspect of production. He'd say, "Make this," and they would. He didn't supervise construction.

As to the transparency, I never figured the thing was transparent, or translucent. I figured it was the quality of the matt work at the time. Stars showed through the edges of things a lot, and they didn't have the time or money to re-shoot. I've often heard tales the effects people being embarrassed at what ended up on the screen; not that it made any difference to the average viewer.
Click to expand...


If the transparency is visable from the outside of the mouth and into the inside of the mouth, doesn't that eliminate matte work?
 
Ok, just went back and looked at the episode to make sure I am not nuts, when it first appears on the bridge screen, it turns. You can totally see dark spots on the inside through the outer mouth. It's comes off as pretty shiny looking too. You can see the reflections on the surface changing as it turns.
 
Actually I'm being stupid here.

We got it turning.

Therefore we have 3D pairs.

Just two screen grabs a little bit apart in time and cross yer eyes.

That should reveal more through perception of depth.

I gotta get going, but I'll do that later tonight if someone doesn't want to beat me to it.
Though I just have some crappy avi's. Blu Ray would be better.



EDIT

Just putting two viewers up and freezing the screen quickly shows a lot about the shape and clear covering.

Can anyone loop the same scene next to each other a second out of sync?
It would provide a moving stereoscopic pair.
 
Last edited:
If you guys are attempting to figure out the approximate size of the doomsday machine model, we have a few reference points that might be helpful. The Enterprise model being pulled into the doomsday machine is one of the two 3 inch models of the Enterprise made for Catspaw (obviously not the one encased in lucite). If those two models were made exactly to the plans that Jefferies had drawn up for them, then the models were about 3.5 inches long.

If we assume that the Enterprise model and the doomsday machine were shot together, and that the Enterprise was directly in front of the doomsday machine, then we can make some rough measurements.

dm_size_reference.jpg
 
Just cross your eyes.



Sorry, but screen grabs are from a crappy avi,
if anyone can redo it with hi def we will be rockin'.

doomsday3D.jpg


You can totally see inside through that clear scalloped out area on the side of the mouth.
There is a black spot on the inside.
I think it also shows it is wrapped in clear material pretty well too.
 
Shaw said:
If you guys are attempting to figure out the approximate size of the doomsday machine model, we have a few reference points that might be helpful. The Enterprise model being pulled into the doomsday machine is one of the two 3 inch models of the Enterprise made for Catspaw (obviously not the one encased in lucite). If those two models were made exactly to the plans that Jefferies had drawn up for them, then the models were about 3.5 inches long.

If we assume that the Enterprise model and the doomsday machine were shot together, and that the Enterprise was directly in front of the doomsday machine, then we can make some rough measurements.

dm_size_reference.jpg
Click to expand...

so, my estimation of about 7" diameter wouldn't be so far fetched... :) If they were shot together, that is. Which, I think, is possible.
Cessna, I included the hi def un marked frame showing the transparency in my post on page 2... it's not an animation, but you can still see through that "scalloped" section... where the "foil" seems to be pulled back...

Also, it's pretty clear that when we see the machine from opposite sides, it is, in fact, the same side... with the film flopped. I assumed that "turning" shot we saw in the viewscreen was the same one used for the turning after the constellation fires on it, but it might not be. There might be TWO shots where it moves, so I was mistaken in saying there was only one.

But the glint we see of the studio light reflection on the surface as it turns convinces me even more that it's gel.
 
Watched the episode last night. I think you really have something here as far as the construction of the doomsday machine.. I am not sure about the use of the "Catspaw" Enterprise though. To me it looks like a two dimensional element to the composite; not a model filmed with the doomsday machine (same as the shuttlecraft flying into the maw). Is it common knowledge that it is the "Catspaw" Enterprise? It is very out-of-proportion but I never thought they were the same. Another thing I notice was that in the shots of the Enterprise firing phasers down onto the doomsday machine that you could see stars through it just like on the doomsday machine. This confuses me.
 
darendoc said:
so, my estimation of about 7" diameter wouldn't be so far fetched... :)
Click to expand...
I think all of your analysis is right on the mark. Great work! :thumbsup

feek61 said:
Is it common knowledge that it is the "Catspaw" Enterprise? It is very out-of-proportion but I never thought they were the same.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it is common knowledge... I don't generally work from common knowledge. Common knowledge often stops people from actually looking at what is in front of them.

The best thing to do is to compare the models. The 3 inch model has some very unique aspects to it (compared to, say, the 18 inch AMT model... which was used for the Constellation)...

small_starships_2.jpg



At one point I thought that the smaller model might have also been an AMT model (like the one used in Tribbles), but it is obviously the 3 inch model when studied more closely.

Don't expect me to be working from common knowledge, I generally don't trust it (and usually start with the assumption that it is wrong). I trust the results of analysis far more.
 
I would make the model but I'm currently tied up with a DS9, Enterprise D and E, Polar lights 2nd pilot enterprise, a replica of the AMT filming model enterprise, a 33 inch enterprise, a 1/1000 Klingon D7 and a romulan warbird. All on top of my classes.
 
Shaw said:
I don't know if it is common knowledge... I don't generally work from common knowledge. Common knowledge often stops people from actually looking at what is in front of them.

The best thing to do is to compare the models. The 3 inch model has some very unique aspects to it (compared to, say, the 18 inch AMT model... which was used for the Constellation)...

small_starships_2.jpg

At one point I thought that the smaller model might have also been an AMT model (like the one used in Tribbles), but it is obviously the 3 inch model when studied more closely.

Don't expect me to be working from common knowledge, I generally don't trust it (and usually start with the assumption that it is wrong). I trust the results of analysis far more.
Click to expand...

I never thought the Enterprise in those shots was an AMT model or the "Catspaw" miniature. Looks to be a drawing or 2-D picture. The extended (long) front dorsal, small nacelles, super large bottom sensor dome, thinness at the back of the secondary hull (the hangar deck area) and shape of the lower saucer section doesn't look like the "Catspaw" miniature to me. I would think they would have used the same technique for the sequence of the shuttlecraft flying into the doomsday machine as they did with the Enterprise shots. Obviously they didn't make a small shuttlecraft to film that scene. Personally I think it is unlikely that the Enterprise and Doomsday machine elements where filmed together and I doubt that the "Catspaw" model is what we are seeing here. If they were filmed together we would most likely see some sort of change in the lighting or reflection on the Enterprise as it moves down towards the doomsday machine maw.
 
Last edited:
feek61 said:
I never thought the Enterprise in those shots was an AMT model or the "Catspaw" miniature.
Click to expand...
I never said or implied that you thought anything... but good to know (I guess).

Looks to be a drawing or 2-D picture.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea... more expensive from a production stand point than doing as much in camera as possible, but interesting none the less

The extended (long) front dorsal, small nacelles, super large bottom sensor dome, thickness at the back of the secondary hull (the hangar deck area) and shape of the lower saucer section doesn't look like the "Catspaw" miniature to me.
Click to expand...
Which is why I don't rely on others to do my visual analysis for me. That would be as bad as relying on common knowledge.

My conclusions are based on measurements (some of which I pointed out, most of which I didn't), not on if it looked one way or the other.

But, as you brought it up... what reference are you using for the shape of the lower saucer section? I don't have a good photo of the underside, but the best side shots seem (like most of what you brought up) to match the measurements comparison.

If they were filmed together we would most likely see some sort of change in the lighting or reflection on the Enterprise as it moves down towards the doomsday machine maw.
Click to expand...
small_starships_3.jpg

Personally I think it is unlikely that the Enterprise and Doomsday machine elements where filmed together and I doubt that the "Catspaw" model is what we are seeing here.
Click to expand...
That's fine... it isn't like it makes any difference in the final analysis. The only thing that matters to me is that which can be measured.
 
This thread is more than 13 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

BrundelFly
The Dave Jones Pyro Xwing
Replies
0
Views
455
BrundelFly
BrundelFly
J
War Of The Worlds
Replies
4
Views
710
edge10
edge10
E=MC2
Looking for the Alien Resurrection Bettys decal picture
Replies
10
Views
663
E=MC2
E=MC2
DaddyfromNaboo
Documentation "The miniature world of Matt Irvine"
Replies
3
Views
539
baron von blondle
baron von blondle
moffeaton
The unfortunate TIE
Replies
6
Views
1,282
joberg
joberg
Back
Top