ORCA scratch build
- Thread starter flimzy
- Start date
flimzy
Master Member
it been kicking my ass going back and forth getting the bridge to fit my original bridge was almost right just a little to high but if the planks are 3 inch's everything else is OK. fitting it on my cabin model though doesn't line up until I thought perhaps its not line up on the center line.
why would they do that but I found a screen grab with a long lens ( low perspective ) just to test my theory.
not set in Rock yet I may be missing something
why would they do that but I found a screen grab with a long lens ( low perspective ) just to test my theory.
not set in Rock yet I may be missing something
BTW, I've read at least one vague reference to the USS Indianapolis scene being filmed in a mockup of the cabin on shore.
I've never seen photos of a fake mockup cabin set. But it would make sense from a practical POV.
I suppose they could be referring to a situation where they used the (real) Orca but it was tied up to a dock or something.
I've never seen photos of a fake mockup cabin set. But it would make sense from a practical POV.
I suppose they could be referring to a situation where they used the (real) Orca but it was tied up to a dock or something.
flimzy
Master Member
I can defiantly imagine them tying the ORCA up in the pond or close to bay. why spend crew time getting out to see. but building a separate set would involve construction costs and give you a reverse shot problem. we see the lamp and prop moving so we know the simplest option would be to shoot on the boat as moving a set also involve a big rig. Remember its not just the inside of the cabin you would have to move anything out side the windows like mast barrels.
I did design and build a rig like this for Casino Royal just for one shot sitting In a sunseeker. the director wanted to see the wine in the glass's move
the rig worked so well the crew got see sick. We did say it was a tremendous waist of money but they wanted it.
it was operated by one man sitting in a chair pushing it with his foot reading a paper. What we call a manamatic rig.
the shot is 2 actors sitting a a table inside, look how much set you have to make for coverage.
flimzy
Master Member
now I've notice the fly bridge not being in the middle I can stop noticing it, it defiantly is off to one side and explains why on my first build the roof looked so wide as I was only taking dimension form one side.
look at the distance near Hopper foot.
now look at the amount of space there is for all the poles. and the black cercal is paints to one side. It might have been a practical thing to counter weight the mast being off centre on the other side.
look at the distance near Hopper foot.
now look at the amount of space there is for all the poles. and the black cercal is paints to one side. It might have been a practical thing to counter weight the mast being off centre on the other side.
Last edited:
flimzy
Master Member
here's an interesting question to ponder over. I been working in SFX for over 35 years and I'm still scratching my head as to how they did the blood hits on Bruce. there are incredible good. and my copy of Jaws DVD has one shot that has not been Anamorphic desqueezed. this must be form the
remastering sessions.
remastering sessions.
joberg
Legendary Member
Interesting research flimzy; did they put that mast off-center because of the weight of the engine? Could be.
You're right about the POV shot in the cabin. As you said, would've cost an arm and a leg to build a manamatic rig for that scene
Your thoughts must be right: moor the boat and use the pontoon as a platform for the camera/crew; it's pretty close shot anyway.
You're right about the POV shot in the cabin. As you said, would've cost an arm and a leg to build a manamatic rig for that scene
Your thoughts must be right: moor the boat and use the pontoon as a platform for the camera/crew; it's pretty close shot anyway.
Indianpolis speech scene -
Re-watching the scene tonight, I don't think they used a mockup of the cabin. There's too much detail. It looks too cramped (like they couldn't remove any walls). You can see parts of the boat showing outside through the windows. If that's a mockup set then they went to a lot more trouble than necessary.
I was flipping through the photo gallery on the DVD. There's a single B/W photo that's hard to make out, but I wonder if it was during the filming of the Indy speech scene. Or at least during the prep work for it.
It looks like the Orca (#1) secured at a dock, with some of the left-side windows blocked off somehow (tinted darker?) . There's a big sheet of glass sitting vertical in the rear deck (helping to block light/wind into the cabin?)
I suspect they probably filmed the Indy scene during the daytime and darkened the windows. It would be more convenient than trying to stay up several nights to shoot the scene. And when the cast/crew comment about Robert Shaw's drunkenness during that scene, they seem to refer to "the first day" or "the second day".
A daytime shoot was probably the only way to keep the outside (ocean) horizon visible through the windows. If they had really filmed it at night then the interior lighting would have blown out the light levels and made the world outside just look black.
During the scene, when the shark starts ramming the boat, there's a shot where Dreyfuss is hanging onto the steering wheel and Scheider falls back through the swinging doors into the front hold. The front window looks much darker than the starboard side windows. Possibly more evidence of tinting/blocking off the window light.
Re-watching the scene tonight, I don't think they used a mockup of the cabin. There's too much detail. It looks too cramped (like they couldn't remove any walls). You can see parts of the boat showing outside through the windows. If that's a mockup set then they went to a lot more trouble than necessary.
I was flipping through the photo gallery on the DVD. There's a single B/W photo that's hard to make out, but I wonder if it was during the filming of the Indy speech scene. Or at least during the prep work for it.
It looks like the Orca (#1) secured at a dock, with some of the left-side windows blocked off somehow (tinted darker?) . There's a big sheet of glass sitting vertical in the rear deck (helping to block light/wind into the cabin?)
I suspect they probably filmed the Indy scene during the daytime and darkened the windows. It would be more convenient than trying to stay up several nights to shoot the scene. And when the cast/crew comment about Robert Shaw's drunkenness during that scene, they seem to refer to "the first day" or "the second day".
A daytime shoot was probably the only way to keep the outside (ocean) horizon visible through the windows. If they had really filmed it at night then the interior lighting would have blown out the light levels and made the world outside just look black.
During the scene, when the shark starts ramming the boat, there's a shot where Dreyfuss is hanging onto the steering wheel and Scheider falls back through the swinging doors into the front hold. The front window looks much darker than the starboard side windows. Possibly more evidence of tinting/blocking off the window light.
division 6
Master Member
Maybe that is the reason for the double reflection.
joberg
Legendary Member
Yep, filming a Day for Night scene would've been one of the trick they used.
flimzy
Master Member
That is totally possible and would explain the removal of the 3 harpoons from the out side of the windows to make room. it is widely know the shots of them on the deck shooting at Bruce are Day for night. and I double reflection would defiantly come from a ND screen. there is a shot of Hooper where the harpoons are back and its pitch back out side that could have been done at a later date as a night shoot pick up
The day-for-night scenes are one of the few things on JAWS that make me wish for a CGI-tweaked special edition. DFN does not age well. I think it was more watchable on projected film because the contrast & saturation levels were lower across the board.
It's one of these things like garbage matte lines in Star Wars. Sometimes CGI tweaks would be necessary just to deliver a video version that looks like what people originally saw in the theaters.
There's also a few shots in the final act of JAWS where the shore is visible at the horizon or at the edges of the frame. I don't think it would be any big artistic sacriledge if they erased that land in future video release.
It's one of these things like garbage matte lines in Star Wars. Sometimes CGI tweaks would be necessary just to deliver a video version that looks like what people originally saw in the theaters.
There's also a few shots in the final act of JAWS where the shore is visible at the horizon or at the edges of the frame. I don't think it would be any big artistic sacriledge if they erased that land in future video release.
Last edited:
flimzy
Master Member
The land is in sight on purpose to make you feel like if the boat had just kept going they would be safe. remember they have not gone to sea just off the coast where the shark is.
carbonitekid
Well-Known Member
And why they were in a position to paddle home.
Some of the land shots are clearly goofs IMO. There is one when they are in the heat of battle as the Orca is sinking, and you catch a glimpse of the shoreline off at the corner of the frame just a couple hundred feet away.
They filmed the final Orca scenes in Katama bay rather than the open ocean. In a lot of that footage you can vaguely see the strip of sandbar that closes off the bay from the ocean, and I don't think it was intentional. They were filming at the other end of the bay and they kept it at a distance. All the shots were carefully framed to hide the land in the bay as much as possible. The camera faced in the direction of the sandbar because the land was much closer in any other direction.
The sight of the Katama Bay jetty/sandbar is the kind of thing that most viewers wouldn't notice in the first few times they watch the movie. Not on a worn 35mm film print in a 1970s movie theater. It's too subtle to have been intentional IMO. I'm pretty sure Spielberg was going for the appearance of ocean all the way to the horizon.
Spielberg has commented about it before. He didn't want to see land during the Orca portion of the movie in general. I don't think he wanted land showing until Brody & Hooper were paddling towards it after the shark was dead.
This is the kind of CGI fix that I would welcome. (I think) it's 100% in keeping with the artist's original intent at the time they made the movie. It's in keeping with how the public remembers the movie. It would have been do-able at the time they made the movie originally. The only reason they didn't was because of money/scheduling.
Half the reason why the problem even shows today is because we are upgrading the footage to higher quality than they were planning around originally. Decades ago film crews shot stuff more quick & dirty because they expected it to be viewed on raggedy 35mm prints in theaters. And they weren't counting on the public having pause & rewind buttons to pick apart the footage at home.
They filmed the final Orca scenes in Katama bay rather than the open ocean. In a lot of that footage you can vaguely see the strip of sandbar that closes off the bay from the ocean, and I don't think it was intentional. They were filming at the other end of the bay and they kept it at a distance. All the shots were carefully framed to hide the land in the bay as much as possible. The camera faced in the direction of the sandbar because the land was much closer in any other direction.
The sight of the Katama Bay jetty/sandbar is the kind of thing that most viewers wouldn't notice in the first few times they watch the movie. Not on a worn 35mm film print in a 1970s movie theater. It's too subtle to have been intentional IMO. I'm pretty sure Spielberg was going for the appearance of ocean all the way to the horizon.
Spielberg has commented about it before. He didn't want to see land during the Orca portion of the movie in general. I don't think he wanted land showing until Brody & Hooper were paddling towards it after the shark was dead.
This is the kind of CGI fix that I would welcome. (I think) it's 100% in keeping with the artist's original intent at the time they made the movie. It's in keeping with how the public remembers the movie. It would have been do-able at the time they made the movie originally. The only reason they didn't was because of money/scheduling.
Half the reason why the problem even shows today is because we are upgrading the footage to higher quality than they were planning around originally. Decades ago film crews shot stuff more quick & dirty because they expected it to be viewed on raggedy 35mm prints in theaters. And they weren't counting on the public having pause & rewind buttons to pick apart the footage at home.
Last edited:
shaunsheep
Sr Member
Similar threads
