Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [probe_control] That Elusive Invisibility Movie

Expand Messages
  • Robert McNay
    Actually, according to the TCM info, this is a United Artists film. Sony owns MGM, which just recently remerged with UA. Sony has an MoD program, like Warner
    Message 1 of 28 , Apr 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, according to the TCM info, this is a United Artists film. Sony owns
      MGM, which just recently remerged with UA. Sony has an MoD program, like Warner
      Bros. Maybe it could be submitted as a future release under that?

      Rob McNay
      Chicago IL



      ----- Original Message ----
      From: "LambuLambu@..." <LambuLambu@...>
      To: probe_control@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, April 3, 2012 2:32:31 AM
      Subject: [probe_control] That Elusive Invisibility Movie

      OKAY! I finally found it! (Thank you, Turner Classic Movies archive list!)


      The Movie was "Matchless", and you were right, Geoff; it was not a pilot for a
      series but a theatrical film (although it would have made a great pilot for a
      series).


      From the TCM site: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/17221/Matchless/


      "Mistaken for a spy by the Communist Chinese, New York journalist Perry
      "Matchless" Liston is tortured to obtain information about a lethal chemical
      substance. An elderly Oriental with whom he shares a cell gives Liston a ring
      that, when rubbed, makes him invisible for a short period of time. With the
      ring's help, he escapes from a Chinese firing squad but lands in the U. S.
      military's torture chamber for his presumed knowledge about the same chemical.
      He reluctantly agrees to assist U. S. intelligence forces in recovering the
      formula as well as samples of the substance held by Andreanu, a sinister
      international gangster. Aided by agent Arabella, whom he meets in London, Liston
      plots to get the material out of a Munich bank, but he encounters competition
      from foreign agent Tipsy and American traitor Hank Norris. Eventually Liston
      succeeds in extracting the formula and samples by employing the magical ring.
      Not trusting even the U. S. military with the dangerous information, Liston
      throws everything into the harbor at Hamburg. Unknown to Arabella, however,
      Liston keeps the magic ring."


      There is one small clip I could find on Youtube (which sadly doesn't show much
      of the invisibility thing), but I think everyone here will recognize the bad guy
      in it:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjAajM35yl0


      And it does have a St. John starring in it: Howard St. John. It also stars
      Donald Pleasance (Blofeld in "You Only Live Twice"), Sorrell Booke (Boss Hogg
      from "Dukes of Hazzard"), Patrick O'Neal (he's the one who gets the ring), and
      Henry Silva, among others.


      And the good news is it's available for Instant Viewing on Netflix! (And yes;
      I've already added it to my Instant Queue!) If you go to this TCM link:
      http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/17221/Matchless/user-reviews.html?view=review
      in the upper right corner there is a button where you can vote to have the movie
      released on home video. It's currently not available for that, but like with
      'Search', if enough people vote, we could see it on DVD one day. (It will ask
      for your e-mail address when you vote, but that's just to make sure the same
      person doesn't keep voting again and again and again...)


      I'm going to bed now.


      Dino.



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



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

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • LambuLambu@aol.com
      Geoff, I have taken photos of my garden, and various rooms in my house at times, and when you compare the photos to the actual garden or rooms, they look like
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Geoff,


        I have taken photos of my garden, and various rooms in my house at times, and when you compare the photos to the actual garden or rooms, they look like what were photographed.


        In the 'Voyager' footage, that bridge looks hugely wide, which had to be a trick of the camera lens (focal length or something like that - I'm not a photographer so I can't explain it in detail, but I do have a friend who is and maybe she could go into the gory details). I do know that my friend at Paramount did say they used a wide-angle lens for the filming to make the bridge look larger than it was because after standing on that set and seeing it first hand, I can say it was nowhere near as large (or as wide as in the footage) as it appeared on screen. It was a small cozy space, which amazed me because after watching the show for two years by then I was expecting to see this huge area.


        Personally, I would have liked to see it appear "life-sized" on screen rather than artificially enlarged by a camera lens because in person it had more of a "vessel's bridge" feel to it. I've been on large ships many times - stationed aboard and just visiting - and they all had a bridge that wasn't much larger than a 24 x 18-foot room, even the battleship USS WISCONSIN which isn't far from where I live (aircraft carriers excepted: never had the chance to visit one of them to see their bridge).


        Dino.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Geoff Willmetts <gfwillmetts@...>
        To: chat search <probe_control@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tue, Apr 3, 2012 5:07 am
        Subject: RE: [probe_control] Re: all in the camera

        Hello Dino

        Have you ever photographed, assuming you
        have one, your garden and without recognisable landmarks, know it was your
        garden?? In the viewfinder, the camera isolates the amount of information your
        head normally takes in.

        I�ve seen the same thing when my town
        appears on TV. It appears bigger than it really is for similar reasons. It
        tends to make you be wary of scale with anything on TV.

        Geoff





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • LambuLambu@aol.com
        That s not a bad idea! (Time to visit the Sony site!) Dino. ... From: Robert McNay To: probe_control
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 4, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          That's not a bad idea! (Time to visit the Sony site!)


          Dino.


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Robert McNay <CptMatt@...>
          To: probe_control <probe_control@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tue, Apr 3, 2012 4:35 pm
          Subject: Re: [probe_control] That Elusive Invisibility Movie





          Actually, according to the TCM info, this is a United Artists film. Sony owns
          MGM, which just recently remerged with UA. Sony has an MoD program, like Warner
          Bros. Maybe it could be submitted as a future release under that?

          Rob McNay
          Chicago IL

          ----- Original Message ----
          From: "LambuLambu@..." <LambuLambu@...>
          To: probe_control@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, April 3, 2012 2:32:31 AM
          Subject: [probe_control] That Elusive Invisibility Movie

          OKAY! I finally found it! (Thank you, Turner Classic Movies archive list!)

          The Movie was "Matchless", and you were right, Geoff; it was not a pilot for a
          series but a theatrical film (although it would have made a great pilot for a
          series).

          From the TCM site: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/17221/Matchless/

          "Mistaken for a spy by the Communist Chinese, New York journalist Perry
          "Matchless" Liston is tortured to obtain information about a lethal chemical
          substance. An elderly Oriental with whom he shares a cell gives Liston a ring
          that, when rubbed, makes him invisible for a short period of time. With the
          ring's help, he escapes from a Chinese firing squad but lands in the U. S.
          military's torture chamber for his presumed knowledge about the same chemical.
          He reluctantly agrees to assist U. S. intelligence forces in recovering the
          formula as well as samples of the substance held by Andreanu, a sinister
          international gangster. Aided by agent Arabella, whom he meets in London, Liston
          plots to get the material out of a Munich bank, but he encounters competition
          from foreign agent Tipsy and American traitor Hank Norris. Eventually Liston
          succeeds in extracting the formula and samples by employing the magical ring.
          Not trusting even the U. S. military with the dangerous information, Liston
          throws everything into the harbor at Hamburg. Unknown to Arabella, however,
          Liston keeps the magic ring."

          There is one small clip I could find on Youtube (which sadly doesn't show much
          of the invisibility thing), but I think everyone here will recognize the bad guy
          in it:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjAajM35yl0

          And it does have a St. John starring in it: Howard St. John. It also stars
          Donald Pleasance (Blofeld in "You Only Live Twice"), Sorrell Booke (Boss Hogg
          from "Dukes of Hazzard"), Patrick O'Neal (he's the one who gets the ring), and
          Henry Silva, among others.

          And the good news is it's available for Instant Viewing on Netflix! (And yes;
          I've already added it to my Instant Queue!) If you go to this TCM link:
          http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/17221/Matchless/user-reviews.html?view=review
          in the upper right corner there is a button where you can vote to have the movie
          released on home video. It's currently not available for that, but like with
          'Search', if enough people vote, we could see it on DVD one day. (It will ask
          for your e-mail address when you vote, but that's just to make sure the same
          person doesn't keep voting again and again and again...)

          I'm going to bed now.

          Dino.






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • John
          I am surprised they gave it such an illusion of being larger, because I would expect an Intrepid class ship to have a smaller bridge...a smaller everything.
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 4, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I am surprised they gave it such an illusion of being larger, because I
            would expect an Intrepid class ship to have a smaller bridge...a smaller
            everything.

            The damn thing is small enough to land after all.

            On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:54 AM, <LambuLambu@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > Geoff,
            >
            > I have taken photos of my garden, and various rooms in my house at times,
            > and when you compare the photos to the actual garden or rooms, they look
            > like what were photographed.
            >
            > In the 'Voyager' footage, that bridge looks hugely wide, which had to be a
            > trick of the camera lens (focal length or something like that - I'm not a
            > photographer so I can't explain it in detail, but I do have a friend who is
            > and maybe she could go into the gory details). I do know that my friend at
            > Paramount did say they used a wide-angle lens for the filming to make the
            > bridge look larger than it was because after standing on that set and
            > seeing it first hand, I can say it was nowhere near as large (or as wide as
            > in the footage) as it appeared on screen. It was a small cozy space, which
            > amazed me because after watching the show for two years by then I was
            > expecting to see this huge area.
            >
            > Personally, I would have liked to see it appear "life-sized" on screen
            > rather than artificially enlarged by a camera lens because in person it had
            > more of a "vessel's bridge" feel to it. I've been on large ships many times
            > - stationed aboard and just visiting - and they all had a bridge that
            > wasn't much larger than a 24 x 18-foot room, even the battleship USS
            > WISCONSIN which isn't far from where I live (aircraft carriers excepted:
            > never had the chance to visit one of them to see their bridge).
            >
            > Dino.
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Robert McNay
            ... From: LambuLambu@aol.com LambuLambu@aol.com Personally, I would have liked to see it appear life-sized on screen rather than artificially enlarged by a
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message ----
              From: "LambuLambu@..." LambuLambu@...

              Personally, I would have liked to see it appear "life-sized" on screen rather
              than artificially enlarged by a camera lens because in person it had more of a
              "vessel's bridge" feel to it. I've been on large ships many times - stationed
              aboard and just visiting - and they all had a bridge that wasn't much larger
              than a 24 x 18-foot room, even the battleship USS WISCONSIN which isn't far from
              where I live (aircraft carriers excepted: never had the chance to visit one of
              them to see their bridge).
              ------------------------------

              You are right, but kinda wrong, too. Comparing Star Trek bridges to current
              naval ships is not really fair. In operational US Navy ships, the bridge is just
              that, the bridge, and nothing else. In Star Trek, the ship's bridge function as
              a bridge, but also as the ship's CIC, and even Fire Control. On current Navy
              vessels CIC is usually a whole other area somewhere further down in the ship's
              structure.

              To me, the most "realistic" bridges were the NX-01 and the 1701/1701A. They
              weren't overly large, not much wasted space and pretty functional. The 1701D/E
              bridges looked like damn concert halls.

              Rob McNay
              Chicago IL
            • LambuLambu@aol.com
              Yeah. They wanted VOYAGER to be a small ship. Since they kept getting bigger and bigger with each succession of ENTERPRISE, they wanted a starship that was
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Yeah. They wanted VOYAGER to be a small ship. Since they kept getting
                bigger and bigger with each succession of ENTERPRISE, they wanted a starship
                that was small enough to land occasionally, and have a small crew where the
                members were more well-known to each other. (And they could make a filming
                model nearly the same size as ENTERPRISE-D, but give it far greater details
                that would be visible on screen because the "real" ship was smaller, if you
                know what I mean.)

                Sadly, I could only get that info from the production staff as VOYAGER
                herself lived at ILM, so I never got to see her model in person.

                Dino.


                In a message dated 4/4/2012 10:44:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                actingman6@... writes:




                I am surprised they gave it such an illusion of being larger, because I
                would expect an Intrepid class ship to have a smaller bridge...a smaller
                everything.

                The damn thing is small enough to land after all.

                On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:54 AM, <_LambuLambu@..._
                (mailto:LambuLambu@...) > wrote:







                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • LambuLambu@aol.com
                Funny you should mention that, Rob. I ve seen the CIC on many Coast Guard Cutters (as the Electronics Chief I spent most of my time in them), and a few Navy
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Funny you should mention that, Rob. I've seen the CIC on many Coast Guard
                  Cutters (as the Electronics Chief I spent most of my time in them), and a
                  few Navy ships, and some of them look more like a starship bridge. In fact
                  the most accurate portrayal of a "real" ship I've seen in SF productions was
                  the CIC on the New 'Galactica'. Even in the Coast Guard, for the most part,
                  CIC does all of the navigating and radar scanning, radio comms, et al. We
                  have a separate Radio Room for classified comms, though. CIC calls the
                  shots (literally sometimes with the fire control system to aim the gun), and
                  the Bridge alters the course and speed accordingly. In emergencies, CIC takes
                  total control, the Engine Room handles speed control, a compartment in the
                  stern called After Steering does the course changes, and the Radio Room
                  handles ALL comms, not just the classified ones.

                  Also, have you ever seen the original model for the ENTERPRISE-D bridge
                  during their pre-production phase? They had photos of it in Starlog Magazine
                  when the official word about TNG was released. It was supposed to be,
                  according to the size of the little people they had in it for scale, larger than
                  the Main Mission set from Season 1 of 'Space: 1999'. It was supposed to
                  have a 2nd level balcony around the aft end (which was turned into the
                  platform where Worf spent most of his time), and a large, round conference table
                  almost in the center of the space.

                  The reason it turned out as "small" as it did was because the plans were so
                  grand that Paramount didn't have a sound stage large enough to fit the
                  thing as designed! (If anyone has that Starlog issue, it's all in the article,
                  along with a cartoon of a structure sticking out of a wall with a huge
                  hole knocked into it, and two guys looking at it with one saying, "Well, I
                  guess they got that new ENTERPRISE bridge set to fit after all!")

                  Dino.


                  In a message dated 4/4/2012 1:45:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                  CptMatt@... writes:

                  You are right, but kinda wrong, too. Comparing Star Trek bridges to
                  current
                  naval ships is not really fair. In operational US Navy ships, the bridge
                  is just
                  that, the bridge, and nothing else. In Star Trek, the ship's bridge
                  function as
                  a bridge, but also as the ship's CIC, and even Fire Control. On current
                  Navy
                  vessels CIC is usually a whole other area somewhere further down in the
                  ship's
                  structure.

                  To me, the most "realistic" bridges were the NX-01 and the 1701/1701A.
                  They
                  weren't overly large, not much wasted space and pretty functional. The
                  1701D/E
                  bridges looked like damn concert halls.

                  Rob McNay
                  Chicago IL



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.