JttFSotS Thoughts

I received the new JttFSotS DVD this week and rewatched it for the first
time in ... ohhh ... 30 years. The things which particularly struck me were:

* The look of the production was much more dated than I had expected. There
seems to be quite a gulf in production design between JttFSotS and UFO,
despite them being just one year apart.

* I was watching the nefarious goings-on of Herbert Lom when I suddenly
realised that his character was indistinguishable of The Hood in
Thunderbirds! The espionage device was just one step beyond the Robo-Mouse
that terrorised Lady Penelope in "The Mighty Atom"!

* EuroSec had *3* jeeps! I only recall ever seeing 2 jeeps in UFO, whatever
happened to the third?

* The Straker and Foster cars underwent quite a bit of re-modeling before
they appeared in UFO. I had previously thought that they were brought across
unchanged.

* I realise that the pace of editing has changed dramatically since 1969 ...
but I'm still surprised that no one tapped the editor on the shoulder and
said "Ere! You've spent a third of the film on the sleeping astronauts and
Zero-G transfer to the Dove sequence!"

* The sets were impressive, considering the puppet-scale size of everything
the Andersons had previously built. Much closer to a Bond flick than I had
expected.

* Roy Thinnes was enjoyable to watch. I had expected to be mildly annoyed by
Gerry's usual <INSERT AMERICAN HERE> hero, but Roy worked well.

* Some very good effects work - you could almost believe in the zero-G
transfer sequence; that technicians were standing in a vast vehicle assemble
building; the rocket launch; etc.

--
JasonH


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], "Jason Hellwege" <jhellwege@...> wrote:
>
> * I realise that the pace of editing has changed dramatically since
1969 ...
> but I'm still surprised that no one tapped the editor on the
shoulder and
> said "Ere! You've spent a third of the film on the sleeping
astronauts and
> Zero-G transfer to the Dove sequence!"
>
IIRC, it's been commented about that particular aspect of the movie;  
how in the first half of the film not a lot happens. I suppose that
it could be classed as exposition, but surely the story could have
been tightened up and trimmed a bit here and there. I've seen it
mentioned that the film could have started at around the rocket launch
and then gotten into the mirror image Earth plotline, which might have
made it a bit better.

I appear to have been wrong about the cars. According to Fanderson:
http://www.fanderson.org.uk/prodguides/movies2.html
there were actually *3* cars (again, what happened to the 3rd by the time of
UFO?). Straker's and Foster's cars just underwent a re-spray for UFO. It
must have been the 3rd car, with a distinctive bonnet, that's confused me.

The above page also mentions a major sub-plot, involving Roy Thinnes'
character's wife having an affair with a EuroSec PR officer, which is
missing from the final film. This better accounts for the scenes where the
wife returns from a mysterious drive around Portugal and the fight over the
contraceptives which Roy finds. It probably also explains why the sleeping
astronaut scenes (and the trippy 2001-style hallucination/flashback
sequence) went on for so long. Presumedly they needed to pad out the film
once a major plot strand had been axed. I wish they had just asked Derek
Meddings to blow some more stuff up!

--
JasonH


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I doubt that the deleted sub plot is the sole reason for the sedate
pace because the film runs, according to IMDB, at 101 minutes. It
would have been perfectly acceptable for the the film to be 90 minutes
or less. Films of barely over 80 minutes long were quite common. As
anyone who has ever cut a film knows, even 1 or 2 minutes judiciously
trimmed from a feature can pick up the pace far more than you would
imagine, let alone potentially cutting 10% or more of its length.

In one sense the missing subplot is significant though: If the subplot
was substituted for some of the present footage, the film would
probably feel shorter to an audience even if it were the same length,
as there would be more dramatic incident.

It's been a while since I've seen JttFSotS, I must dig it out, but
bearing that in mind, there are a few points, I hope, worth making.

It's not, then or now, uncommon for sci-fi films to include lengthy
scenes which are (or supposed to be) visually arresting or novel but
which have little or no plot or character value. 2001, a recent
release at the time of JttFSotS, was an extreme example and very
influential. Some films get away with it, many don't.

The pace of many mainstream films in the 60s and 70s slowed, partly
under the influence of the French New Wave. It was assumed that if you
were making a "serious" film, the pace had to be slower. Actors were
slower to pick up their cues, pregnant pauses became longer, long slow
tracking shots over inanimate scenes increased, static shots were held
longer. It became common to have scenes of characters doing little or
nothing of dramatic significance which in previous generations would
have been cut, if they had even been shot in the first place.
Many films were filmed largely with master shots and with fewer
alternate angles. This meant that when you came to editing and a
particular action needed to be seen in full, there were fewer
opportunities for speeding up that action by cutting between angles.

I'd hesitate to ascribe any one of these features to JttFSotS without
seeing it again, but it was part of the atmosphere at the time.

Ironically, Robert Parrish, a fine editor, in his autobiography talks
about cutting the over-long initial edit of "All the Kings Men". The
director Robert Rossen suggested in desperation that they cut all the
beginnings and ends of each scene, staring 100 feet before and ending
100 feet after the central point of the scene. The film won an Oscar.

I may be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Parrish wasn't around
much for the editing of JttFSotS. There's a long tradition of American
directors taking the next plane out of Heathrow after the production
wraps on a film they've been hired to make in the UK.

Regards
John

It's been yrs. since I have watched this movie. It's not bad. but there is another made for tv movie {was a pilot to a never produced series} out there with the simeler theme. The Stranger {1973} with the late Gleen Corbett.

The Stranger was I think the take on the idea used in JTTFSOTS. I would truly love one day to see it cleaned up and remastered and released to {regular} dvd.

Maybe someday... :)

April

Frankly, the one annoying thing I found about the special
effects of this movie, (otherwise, I thought they were top
notch) was the time scaling of the film.

Although the models looked very impressive, it looked
like they were hauling a bunch of impressive models
around, particularly in the rocket assembly sequence,
and the rocket launch off the pad.

You could see jiggle, quick movements, and the sudden
clapping together of pieces, as well as smoke that looked
like it was coming from a railroad flare just kind of lazily
drifting out the bottom of the rocket during launch.

They needed a serious amount of overcrank in the film
speed, to be played back at normal speed, to restore
that impression of massive rocket parts being lowered
into place, etc.

The zero gee transfer was handeled very well. I believe
they took a page from Douglas Trumbel's techniques of
suspending the actors and filming them from below for
that natural "zero gee" look. You can forgive them for
being unable to make the astronaut's umbilical cords
look right....you can see they are obviously hanging
downwards from their suspension points.

Otherwise, I've always thought that the "Gerry Anderson"
style of special effects were my most favorite of any I've
seen back then, or since. I prefer the genuine look of the
physical model work of Anderson's crew over the new
style exemplified by the likes of "Star Trek the New
Generation" anyday..

....Roy Thinnes was American?....
I learn something new every day.

Dave H.



------------------------------------------------------------------



----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Hellwege
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 1:43 AM
Subject: [SHADO] JttFSotS Thoughts


I received the new JttFSotS DVD this week and rewatched it for the first
time in ... ohhh ... 30 years. The things which particularly struck me were:

* The look of the production was much more dated than I had expected. There
seems to be quite a gulf in production design between JttFSotS and UFO,
despite them being just one year apart.

* I was watching the nefarious goings-on of Herbert Lom when I suddenly
realised that his character was indistinguishable of The Hood in
Thunderbirds! The espionage device was just one step beyond the Robo-Mouse
that terrorised Lady Penelope in "The Mighty Atom"!

* EuroSec had *3* jeeps! I only recall ever seeing 2 jeeps in UFO, whatever
happened to the third?

* The Straker and Foster cars underwent quite a bit of re-modeling before
they appeared in UFO. I had previously thought that they were brought across
unchanged.

* I realise that the pace of editing has changed dramatically since 1969 ...
but I'm still surprised that no one tapped the editor on the shoulder and
said "Ere! You've spent a third of the film on the sleeping astronauts and
Zero-G transfer to the Dove sequence!"

* The sets were impressive, considering the puppet-scale size of everything
the Andersons had previously built. Much closer to a Bond flick than I had
expected.

* Roy Thinnes was enjoyable to watch. I had expected to be mildly annoyed by
Gerry's usual <INSERT AMERICAN HERE> hero, but Roy worked well.

* Some very good effects work - you could almost believe in the zero-G
transfer sequence; that technicians were standing in a vast vehicle assemble
building; the rocket launch; etc.

--
JasonH

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.3/1693 - Release Date: 9/26/2008 7:35 AM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---Hey Guy, Like You I have not seen that film: Journey to the Far
Side of the Sun; for a VERY long time (twenty five years(+); and like
You I need to rent it (on DVD) and "re-watch" it...There is so much
about that film that I have forgotten..I don't even remember (that's
how much I've "forgotten")!!! About the only things I do remember
are: Roy Thinnes, the "cars" which were later used in: U.F.O.; and
the "Doppelganger" Ship...Wow, have I forgotten a lot!! Leo