subsmash

Forget to mention the lack of oxygen and hallucination.

I think that given the psychological strain,the possibility of impending death,physical weakness and lack of oxygen it is arguable and reasonable to assume from the director's point of view that an hallucination or some other form of conscious breakdown is entirely possible.

Mark UK

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

Hi all,


Thanks for the responses :-) I'm sorry for the length of this
reply :-D

Bryan wrote:

>Letting water into the sub would have been worse because of the
>delicate electronics and chance of shock.
 
In all the "submarine" films I've seen they all get flooded to some
extent and nobody (seems to) get electrocuted. There wouldn't have
been that much water from the hatch either; even if it were emptied
several times. Surely no electronics are more valuable than a human
life?

>It would also have made the sub more unstable, also water displaces
>air so the air would have run out faster.

Wouldn't they have lost air anyway, each time the escape hatch was re-
used? The only difference would've been in its quality, and if they
all get to leave within an hour or so, it wouldn't matter……?


Pat wrote:

>One possibility, maybe the escape hatch as a mechanism that prevents
>its inner door from opening, unless it's completely empty?

Don't all doors on a sub have a manual override, in case the power
fails?


Mark wrote:

>I think it's quite true that more than one person could have used
>the escape hatch, but I agree with Brian on this and I think most of
>the audience would assume that there is only room for one person.

Until they see "Reflections in the water" :-D


Pat wrote:

>1. I've always asked myself just that, why they didn't just open the
>hatch's inner door, and let the water out in the sub (and, just like
>for the emergency exit tunnel... that escape hatch looked big enough
>for two people to use it at the same time).

It occurred to me that the crash dive flood tube would have been
flooded anyway, since they did crash dive at the beginning of the
episode and Straker points out it can only be used once because it
can't be emptied unless Skydiver surfaces, which hasn't happened :-O


>Further, along those lines, why not just flood the sub and they
>could then have all escaped via the escape hatch or the coning
tower ?

If this really is an option, then the episode is over in about ten
minutes! :-D  

All this friendly nitpicking aside, the episode still works from the
viewpoint of looking at the character's reactions to the situation
they find themselves in, each one from their individual perspective
and experiences, which is obviously what it's all about. Ed B. says
it was written because of his own and Dolores' claustrophobia which I
can only think means the scriptwriter/ producer/ director decided
there would be more of an "edge" to their respective acting in it.  
Seems a bit cruel, especially for Dolores, which Ed hints at – "she
had to crawl through that bloody tube" - guess he wasn't all that
approving.


Mark wrote:

>I think that given the psychological strain, the possibility of
>impending death, physical weakness and lack of oxygen it is arguable
>and reasonable to assume from the director's point of view that an
>hallucination or some other form of conscious breakdown is entirely
>possible.

It's in the script directions:-  

118 INT. SKYDIVER - CONTROL (STUDIO)

START ON EXTREME LONG SHOT OF STRAKER.

HE HAS HIS EYES CLOSED, NEAR TO DEATH, SURRENDERED TO THE
INEVITABLE. HE SITS AS BEFORE, BACK AGAINST WALL OF SUB., SWEAT
ON HIS FACE AND UNIFORM.

WE TRACK IN ON HIS FACE AND WATCH HIM STRUGGLING FOR AIR. AS
HE SITS HIS LIFE FLAHSES THROUGH HIS MIND LIKE SOMETIMES HAPPENS
TO A DROWNING MAN.

I did some research on this. It seems the regions of the brain
associated with memory are particularly susceptible to lack of oxygen
that can cause a "seizure" – quote;

"Electrical stimulation of the lobes produces hallucinations,
distorted perceptions, and feelings of detachment, fear, sadness and
loneliness. Past experiences - sights, sounds, thoughts - are
recalled in great detail; yet the patient is still conscious of the
present. The recall stops when the electric current ceases. The
imagery content depends on the fears and hopes of the patient <snip>
replays a single audio and visual memory in real time. "


I think they got this pretty accurate! A very disturbing scene to
watch, IMO.  

Bryan wrote:

>I used to wrestle and a friend said he could put me in a sleeper
>hold . He made me pass out but I don't remember hallucinating.

Sounds like your friend cut off the brain's blood supply, in which
case you'd have lost consciousness pretty rapidly :-)

>People always want the Commanding Officer to have a love interest
>but it usually makes for a lower fan base

Why? Because he/she is "unavailable" – even in fantasyland? ;-)

On another group, it was mentioned that Jo Fraser was meant to be a
semi-regular character but Jane Merrow didn't hit it off with
Sylvia. Personally, I'd have liked to see Straker unwind a little;
goodness knows he needed it :-D


And finally………………

Mark wrote:

>Actually I think the ending is very good. A similar ending was used
>by Hitchcock in North by Northwest, so what is good enough for the
>master. It expresses the emotional relief in one straightforward
>cut. That is what I think was intended.

I see your point. Having watched "Subsmash" three times in the past
24 hours , it gets better each time. That's why I love UFO :-)

Sarah

> On another group, it was mentioned that Jo Fraser was meant to be a
> semi-regular character but Jane Merrow didn't hit it off with
> Sylvia.

This subject came up during the interview with Jane Merrow during
the recent Fanderson convention. Specifically, there was talk
during the production of bringing the Jo Fraser chracter back in
subsequent episodes, but for some reason it never happened.

As for Jane not hitting it off with Sylvia, Jane said that Sylvia
was initially unhappy with Jane's acting. Sylvia thought she
was "saving her acting for the close-ups", although Jane denied
that she was doing this. However, as filming progressed,
Sylvia seemed happier with Jane's work, and it sounds like any
initial conflict was resolved.

In my opinion, I think Sylvia was right -- Jane's acting did
seem a bit wooden to me at times. Although the same criticism
could be made about many of the actors on UFO... :-)

Marc

----- Original Message -----
From: "moonbasegirl" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:02 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Re: Subsmash



Pat wrote:

>>One possibility, maybe the escape hatch as a mechanism that prevents
>>its inner door from opening, unless it's completely empty?

>Don't all doors on a sub have a manual override, in case the power
>fails?


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


Most submarines, airplanes, space capsules, etc, anything
built to contain or hold out pressure, are designed so the
doors use that pressure to hold them closed and re-inforce the
sealing action. It is a safety issue. If that's the case in SkyDiver,
then it wouldn't be possible to open the door with the weight of
water behind it in a flooded tube, especially hundreds of feet
down.


Dave H.

--- In [hidden email], "moonbasegirl" <shaded2cinders@y...>
wrote:
 
Oh, don't misunderstand my earlier posts, I likethe episode just fine
as it is.

I was just watching it again today, with Ed Bishop's commentary... so
sad listening to that as he sounded quite ill...

Didn't Ed have a stroke in his later years ? You can't even recognise
his voice on the commentary to the point that the first time I played
it, I had to ckeck on the DVD cover to make sure that it was actually
Ed doing the commentary.

> I was just watching it again today, with Ed Bishop's commentary... so
> sad listening to that as he sounded quite ill...
>
> Didn't Ed have a stroke in his later years ? You can't even recognise
> his voice on the commentary to the point that the first time I played
> it, I had to ckeck on the DVD cover to make sure that it was actually
> Ed doing the commentary.

Are you listening to the US version? This commentary was recorded for
the UK DVD release, where the episode runs 48 minutes. In the US, this
episode runs 50 minutes, so they slowed down the commentary to match
the speed of the episode. So Ed's voice does sound worse on the US
commentary than the UK commentary. The same applies for the Gerry
Anderson commentary.

Also, I believe their was speculation that Ed either was recovering
from a cold, or just had a large lunch, etc. I know that I talked
to Ed months later, and he sounded fine then.

Marc

"they slowed down the commentary to match the speed of the episode"

I haven't heard the commentaries, but if this is the reason for the unusual
sound then it's appallingly sloppy and/or cheapskate. Software to "pitch
shift" the sound to make it sound normal after changing its length is so
common that no half-competent facilities house dealling in sound be without
it and many people have it on home PCs. It would take a matter of minutes to
correct the pitch.

John

Pat wrote:

> I was just watching it again today, with Ed Bishop's commentary...
>so sad listening to that as he sounded quite ill...


He does. He sounds like someone who is "short of breath" – cannot
exhale sufficiently and the result is the voice sounds weak, strained
and of a higher pitch than normal :-(


> Didn't Ed have a stroke in his later years ?

Not that has been stated anywhere I know of…? He doesn't
sound "slurry" to me; his diction seems as clear as ever.




Marc wrote:

>Are you listening to the US version? This commentary was recorded for
>the UK DVD release, where the episode runs 48 minutes. In the US,
>this episode runs 50 minutes, so they slowed down the commentary to
>match the speed of the episode. So Ed's voice does sound worse on
>the US commentary than the UK commentary.


Is this true? I'm going to have to listen to both now, to compare,
I've not listened to the commentary on the A&E set. Dear God, that's
going to be six times in 48 hours or so I'll have had to
watch "Subsmash" – sorry Mark :-O :-D



John wrote:

>I haven't heard the commentaries, but if this is the reason for the
>unusual sound then it's appallingly sloppy and/or cheapskate.
>Software to "pitch shift" the sound to make it sound normal after
>changing its length is so common that no half-competent facilities
>house dealing in sound be without it and many people have it on home
>PCs. It would take a matter of minutes to correct the pitch.

If this is true – then it's *infuriating!* >:-(

Sarah

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:38:39 -0000
"JKS" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "they slowed down the commentary to match the speed of the episode"
>
> I haven't heard the commentaries, but if this is the reason for the
> unusual sound then it's appallingly sloppy and/or cheapskate. Software
> to "pitch shift" the sound to make it sound normal after changing its
> length is so common that no half-competent facilities house dealling
> in sound be without it and many people have it on home PCs. It would
> take a matter of minutes to correct the pitch.
>

Your second sentence is quite correct, but the first is a tad
unreasonable.

Even if the original pitch was restored, and maybe it was - the
commentary would still have been "slowed down" regardless, and that
would have a minor detrimental effect.


--
Dig It : a forum for Euro Beatles fans - http://beatles.dyndns.org/

frustration: the act of hitting the wrong key and
closing a window when you're not finished!!!!!!

argh.

<pant, pant, pant>

ok, let's try this again. according to my slim
knowledge of such things (mostly gleaned from Alastair
MacClean novels) another reason why you don't let
water into the sub is that it compresses what air
remains making it harder on the people remaining in
the sub. which is why i always figured that straker's
hallucinations were due to: oxydep and claustrophobia
in combination. (somewhere along the line, i swear the
claustrophobia was made mention of early in the
series. although how the man got to be an astronaut
and assigned to work in an underground facility with
claustrophobia ................ )

why ufo? Uhm, because in 1970 it was about the only
first run Sci-fi available at any time on the tube in
New Orleans. The pilot was slick and the characters
were well delineated with some interesting quirks and
the aliens were dastardly. ok, actually, Dr. Jackson
was potentially dastardly and the aliens were
incomprehensible. (or was it dr. jackson was
incomprehensible and the aliens went well with salsa
.....?) <giggle> sorry, the remains of the intestinal
flu are making me a little stranger than usual. salsa
wouldn't have been an option in 1970 in NOLA ...
altho' ketchup .... now there's an idea. southern deep
fried alien ... <snerk>

then again, it may have been the intriguing alien
vehicles which ensured that the aliens could not fire
and hit anything on the first shot. I have frequently
wondered how they walked straight when they landed <g>
And what the insides of the alien ships looked like.

well, back to workland ... ciao

dragon



__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

> Even if the original pitch was restored, and maybe it was - the
> commentary would still have been "slowed down" regardless, and that
> would have a minor detrimental effect.

What they *should* have done is inserted some extra silence in
between where he's talking, so that his commentary didn't need
to be slowed down at all.

But even on the UK version, Ed does sound a bit "off". But not
as bad as on the US version. Like I said, that shouldn't be
an indication of how he really sounded in general, because
I heard him after this, and he sounded fine.

Note that on the A&E UFO commentaries, the ones for KILL STRAKER
and TIMELASH are playing at the correct speed, so they should
sound okay.

Marc

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:

> Even if the original pitch was restored, and maybe it was - the
> commentary would still have been "slowed down" regardless, and that
> would have a minor detrimental effect.

Ed's commentary definately sounds to me to be at about the same pitch
difference as the episodes (Carlton v A&E)

 
> What they *should* have done is inserted some extra silence in
> between where he's talking, so that his commentary didn't need
> to be slowed down at all.

That would've worked :-) Ed's voice does sound worse on the A&E set
and the slowing down of his delivery does give the impression of
slurring, which is the same effect you get comparing the soundtracks.

 

> But even on the UK version, Ed does sound a bit "off". But not
> as bad as on the US version. Like I said, that shouldn't be
> an indication of how he really sounded in general, because
> I heard him after this, and he sounded fine.  

I don't think I've heard Ed's voice after this commentary was done
(2000?) unless he did that CH 4 thing after this - where he's Capt.
Aquarius............



> Note that on the A&E UFO commentaries, the ones for KILL STRAKER
> and TIMELASH are playing at the correct speed, so they should
> sound okay.

Stupid really, how it's impossible to hear Ed correctly in both the
commentary and the soundtrack *at* the same time (goes away and bangs
head on wall) :-D


Having watched "Subsmash" (again) I wanted to add how well I thought
George Sewell played Alec in it, really used the few scenes/ lines to
great effect. Mike B. commented how Alec Freeman kind of linked the
various events in "Kill Straker" to help clarify the storyline.
In "Subsmash", he's expresses the concern we viewers are feeling,
whereas the rest of the guys are shrugging their shoulders and saying
how hopeless it all is.  

Alec effectively saves Ed Straker's life by being so persistent and I
always smile at the bit where he winks at Straker as he leaves the
medical centre, effectively his last scene in the series :-(  

Mike B. refers to Freeman as being a faithful (canine) companion to
Straker, which is true (if unflattering) but you sensed early on in
the series that if a decent "down-to-earth" guy like Alec thought
highly enough of Straker to stick around, he couldn't be the
cold "hard-ass" the series was making him out to be :-)


Sarah

Nail on the Head award of the day!

And i think this is a lot of why the series still
holds up, that kind of connection. We keep waiting to
see the vindication of his evaluation ... and
sometimes do get it.

dragon



__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

Thank god if that's all ot was (yes, I have the US version).

Man... it actually did not sound like him, so much his voice sounded
different. Pity, as Ed had such a sharp, distinctive voice !

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:
>
> > I was just watching it again today, with Ed Bishop's
commentary... so
> > sad listening to that as he sounded quite ill...
> >
> > Didn't Ed have a stroke in his later years ? You can't even
recognise
> > his voice on the commentary to the point that the first time I
played
> > it, I had to ckeck on the DVD cover to make sure that it was
actually
> > Ed doing the commentary.
>
> Are you listening to the US version? This commentary was recorded
for
> the UK DVD release, where the episode runs 48 minutes. In the US,
this

--- In [hidden email], "moonbasegirl" <shaded2cinders@y...>
wrote:
>
> --- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:
 
Good point about why Alec stuck with Ed so long as was friends with
him. Yes, a compassionate and so feeling man as Alec would NOT have
worked so long with Ed, had he been as cold-hearted as he seemed to be
at times.

Pity they didn't have a more memorable exit for Alec, a promotion or a
cool death scene...

Just wondering... the US DVD runs 2 minutes longer than the UK one...
is it because some bits were deleted from the U.K. version, or simply
because of the speed diffrence between the DVD formats ?


--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote:
>
> > Even if the original pitch was restored, and maybe it was - the
> > commentary would still have been "slowed down" regardless, and
that

Pat wrote:
> Just wondering... the US DVD runs 2 minutes longer than the UK one...
> is it because some bits were deleted from the U.K. version, or simply
> because of the speed diffrence between the DVD formats ?

There is a difference between the video formats in the US and the UK.
In the US, video runs at 30 frames/sec, while in the UK, video runs
at 25 frames/sec. UFO was filmed on 35mm film (like a movie), which
runs at 24 frames/sec. Because of these different frame rates, when
converting film to video, the resulting video speed is different.
The US video runs very close to the original film speed, while the
UK video runs 4% faster.

And this doesn't just apply to UFO -- it applies to all theatrical
films.

Marc

> Man... it actually did not sound like him, so much his voice sounded
> different. Pity, as Ed had such a sharp, distinctive voice !

In the same year that Ed's UFO commentary was recorded, he also
recorded the voice for Captain Scarlet for a demonstration film
about what a new computer-generate Captain Scarlet would look
like. He voice sounded very "old" in this as well. This baffled
me, as I was chatting with him at a Fanderson convention after
this and thought he sounded fine. Perhaps he wasn't feeling
well when that was recorded (he was battling Leukemia), or perhaps
being surrounded by fans at a convention perked him up?

Marc

> In the same year that Ed's UFO commentary was recorded, he also
> recorded the voice for Captain Scarlet for a demonstration film

Correction: he recorded the voice for Captain Blue, not Captain
Scarlet!

Marc

Hi
a wonderful series a great combination
of real life actors and gerrys fab animation
and of course the lovely Gabriel Drake
I ve got some fab scans of her in UFO
I think the best screen captures I ve ever seen on the web
I was going to attach a couple
but the powers that be don t allow attachments
I dont get it
but then thats your decision
cest la vie








Best wishes
Tim

Yahoo E Mail
Scanned by Norton







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.

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