ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Forbidden Planet (1956)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 67, 68, 69 ... 141, 142, 143  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1950 to 1969
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since the original picture was shown on the old board it's pretty sure that it is a photographic transparency of a starfield from an observatory picture.

BUT------That's not to say that the M-G-M art department didn't do some touch up and enhancements to it. The application of airbrushed or stipple white opaque paint to make it more appealing would have been most likely.

_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

I wish I could say I had even the vaguest memory of the previously posted image you mentioned, Gord, but I'm afraid I don't. Without knowing the source of the picture or whether it was really an astronomical photograph, I don't think its appearance on the old board proves that the 11'X14' transparency used in the film was created from that photo.

I know I didn't post it, and I have access to Butch's entire Photobucket collection, so if he says he posted it, I can help him look for it! Very Happy

Today it occurred to me to that I don't really know how an 11'X14" transparency of a photography was created back in 1956. When was the technology to make transparency that large first developed?

Painting on glass or plastic film has been around for quite a while, but I'm not sure how a photograph was transferred to a sheet of plastic that size back in 1956.

I do agree, however, that the artists had a "reference photo" or two to work from. With the exception of the aliens and robots I've drawn straight out of my imagination, I've relied heavily on reference photos for my own portrait artwork, which includes all the Forbidden Planet paintings and drawings in the Art and Photo Gallery devoted to those pieces.

As for my claim that the mural demonstrates what appears to be an artistic stylization, I finally figured out what it reminds me of!

The flames painted on the sides of hot rods! Cool








I predict that Butch is thinking something like, "That's the car Robby made for young Edward and Julie Morbius to cruise around in on Altaira 4!" Cool
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robert (Butch) Day wrote:
Regarding the mural in Dr. Morbius' study i was always bothered that it was so washed out and blurry. I contacted an astronomer at Mt. Palomar observatory and finally got an explanation. The picture is of the Milky Way looking towards the center of the galaxy and was taken at the Mt. Wilson observatory in 1938. She sent me this color replacement.



Bud Brewster wrote:
The picture of the stars you posted doesn't look much like the one in Morbius' study...

If the astronomer sent an image taken at Palomar Observatory, one would expect it to look different from one taken at Mt. Wilson. The telescopes are different; the camera film was different; the exposures were different, the field of coverage was different, etc. And Butch said the photo from Palomar was sent as a replacement, not a better print of the photo used in the movie.

Bud Brewster wrote:
... and it certainly doesn't seem less "washed out and blurry" than the one in the movie.

Come on, Bud. You know very well what Butch does to his images before posting them!

Bud Brewster wrote:
I also learned that the 200" telescope at the Mt. Palomar observatory first went into operation in 1948 — so the photo used for Morbius' study couldn't have been taken in 1938.

Huh? You're saying what? The 200" Mt. Palomar telescope was first operational in 1948, so the photo in the movie couldn't have been taken in 1938 at Mt. Wilson? I'll need to have that one run by me again.

Bud Brewster wrote:
However, the caption in the lower right-hand corner of the blueprints on page 11 (image #10 in the Cinefantasti[q]ue article you and I posted) does in fact say ... that it was taken by the 200" telescope at Mt. Palomar.

So, we agree on the original source of the photo used in Morbius' study, but I'm not certain it's what the astronomer you talked to said it was.

I don't know where this conclusion comes from. Where does Butch imply that the photo in the movie came from the Palomar telescope? All I can find is that he said the astronomer identified it as being taken at Mt. Wilson.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

_________________________________

Wayne, our friend Butch made a simple statement.


Quote:
Regarding the mural in Dr. Morbius' study I was always bothered that it was so washed out and blurry. I contacted an astronomer at Mt. Palomar observatory and finally got an explanation.

The picture is of the Milky Way . . . and [it] was taken at the Mt. Wilson observatory in 1938.

Obviously Butch believes his astronomer source, despite the fact that it contradicts the magazine article. That's his right, of course. The magazine might indeed be wrong. Frankly, I now doubt it myself.

Wayne wrote:
Butch said the photo from Palomar was sent as a replacement, not a better print of the photo used in the movie.

Ummm . . . a replace for WHAT? Wow, you really lost me on that one. We don't need a "replacement". We just want to know the facts about the mural. And since the photo is clearly not the one used in FP, I don't understand either Butch's statement or yours.

Wayne wrote:
Bud Brewster wrote:
However, the caption in the lower right-hand corner of the blueprints on page 11 (image #10 in the Cinefantastique article you and I posted) does in fact say . . . that it was taken by the 200" telescope at Mt. Palomar.

So, we agree on the original source of the photo used in Morbius' study, but I'm not certain it's what the astronomer you talked to said it was.

I don't know where this conclusion comes from. Where does Butch imply that the photo in the movie came from the Palomar telescope? All I can find is that he said the astronomer identified it as being taken at Mt. Wilson.

You're right, Butch did not say the photo came from Mt. Palomar. My statement wasn't clear on that point. I was confused by the fact that the astronomer from Mt. Palomar said the photo was from Mr. Wilson. I didn't read closely enough. Rolling Eyes

But we do all agree that the Cinefantastique article says the mural was made from a photo that came a Mt. Palomar photo.


Bud wrote:
I also learned that the 200" telescope at the Mt. Palomar observatory first went into operation in 1948 — so the photo used for Morbius' study couldn't have been taken in 1938.

Wayne wrote:
Huh? You're saying what? The 200" Mt. Palomar telescope was first operational in 1948, so the photo in the movie couldn't have been taken in 1938 at Mt. Wilson? I'll need to have that one run by me again.

Okay, here it is again, and hopefully it will clear up that part of this mess.

I meant that IF the photo in the movie was taken in 1938, it couldn't have been taken at Mt. Palomar, as stated in the magazine article. I never said it couldn't have been taken at Mt. Wilson . . . in fact (as you'll recall) I now don't even think it's photograph! I think it's a painting.

In conclusion:

I think Butch's alleged astronomer is mistaken, one way or the other. I don't think the mural is from a photo . . . but if it is, I'm inclined to believe the magazine article's claim about the source.
'
I don't know why Butch thinks the mural in the movie is blurry and washed out. It isn't.

I don't know how a photo that IS blurry and washed out could be a "replacement" for one that is NOT. Especially since it looks completely different from the mural.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we're making progress here.

Bud Brewster wrote:
I don't know how a photo that IS blurry and washed out could be a "replacement" for one that is NOT. Especially since it looks completely different from the mural.

I covered this in my previous response. What does Butch typically do to dark images before posting them? What makes you think the image he posted from the astronomer looks the same as when it was sent to him?

I also covered the reasons why the photo taken by Mt. Palomar's telescope would look different from the photo taken by the Mt. Wilson telescope.

As far as the astronomer referring to the Palomar photo as a "replacement" (assuming Butch was repeating her terminology), it's we who are focused on the sci-fi application of the photo. To the astronomer, it's just an old photo of the Milky Way, much better versions of which have been available now for quite some time. She was quite happy to send Butch a replacement for his poor old low-rez Wilson antique, captured from a movie, no less.

Finally, what source does the Cinefantastique article cite for its claim that the mural photo came from Mt.Palomar?

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

_____________________________

As usual, you make good sense, Wayne, even when we don't agree on everything we're discussing. We don't disagree on anything you said above, so we're in good shape. As for this:


orzel-w wrote:
Finally, what source does the Cinefantastique article cite for its claim that the mural photo came from Mt.Palomar?

The article cites no specific source for that particular claim, but it does provide a wealth of sources for many of the facts it states.

For example, on page 6 (picture #5 in the post about the article) in the first column, the two authors thank the folks by name who were actually interviewed or who provided documents that included production details.

He says that the folks whose names are in italics on the list were actually interviewed by the two authors of the article. Art director Arthur Lonergan is on that list of folks actually interviewed.

Lonergan was the one responsible for all the decisions concerning matters like the mural in Morbius' study, so it's reasonable to assume that authors Frederick C. Clark and Steven Rubin either got the info about the mural in an interview with Lonergan or from the research material that he provided.

Perhaps there was a document which merely stated that the referenced photo used by the art department for the mural was a Mt. Palomar photo.

It's also possible that a comment in an interview with Lonergan was "simplified" a bit when the article was written. In other words, if Lonergan said, "The mural was a transparency created by the art department. The source they used was a Mt. Palomar photo."

Lonergan, being an artist in his own right, didn't specifically state that it was a painting created from a reference photo from Mt. Palomar.

Perhaps the art department "cleaned up" their version of the star-crowded photograph (thus explaining all those dark areas that probably wouldn't be in an actual photo of star field), along with some artistic stylization in the form of those "hot rod flame patterns" I pointed out.

Thus when the comment in the article which says, "The curved upper wall of the study was a 11'X14' star field transparency, taken by the 200" Mt. Palomar telescope. lit from behind," it omits the fact that Mt. Palomar provided a standard photograph of the star field, and the art depart created a large version to serve as the mural.

This seems like a much more practical and logical explanation than to suggest that the method they used to create the mural involved —

(a) projecting the photograph from Mt. Palomar onto a huge piece photographic film that was 11'X14' (if such a thing even existed in 1956, which I doubt), and then —

(b) developing it in a giant tank of photographic fluid (another unlikely assumption).

A more likely explanation would be to assume the talented MGM artists went to work with paint and brushes and created this —






— which has a pleasing compositing (the angled nebula, accented by embedded stars) with large black areas to keep the whole thing from being too "busy" looking. Very Happy

One that note, I found the image below, taken at Mt. Palomar as part of the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (1949 - 1958). Although it's similar to the mural, it's obviously not the one used in FP. But it does make my point about how a real photo would look different in several ways than the mural.






The profusion of stars is one big difference. And notice that the nebula itself is not embedded with stars, the way the one on the mural is. In fact, the mural actually reverses the distribution of stars: only a few outside the nebula, but dozens of stars inside it.

All in all, I think there's plenty of evidence to indicate the mural is not just a copy of a photograph.

As for Butch's earlier posts, I've had another problem with his statements which I've been reluctant to mention.

It seems unlikely that a professional astronomer would be so certain that the mural in a 1956 science fiction film was a picture of "the Milky Way looking towards the center of the galaxy and [it] was taken at the Mt. Wilson observatory in 1938."

Assuming Butch has related the story to us accurately, this would mean the astronomer is very familiar with the movie (which is not hard to believe), and she not only feels certain that the mural is a photo of Milky Way (even though it really doesn't resemble such a shot), and that the specific photo used by MGM was taken by the Mt. Wilson observatory — which contradicts the source identified by Arthur Lonegan, the art director on Forbidden Planet. Shocked

I hope Butch will forgive me if I point out that on several occasions in the past, he's made statements on All Sci-Fi that turned out to be . . . ummm . . . imaginary. And he later admitted it me in phone conversations after I'd proved it. Confused

So, ever since this discussion started, I've been somewhat skeptical of our friend's claim concerning the source of the mural.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Krel
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
Painting on glass or plastic film has been around for quite a while, but I'm not sure how a photograph was transferred to a sheet of plastic that size back in 1956.

I don't know if they could make photo enlargements that size back then. But if anyone could do it, it would have been a major movie studio. In an old technique, they would use a projector to enlarge the image to the size they needed when projected onto a wall with the transparency mounted to the wall. They would trace the image onto the transparency, then fill it in.

David.
Back to top
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
Assuming Butch has related the story to us accurately, this would mean the astronomer is very familiar with the movie (which is not hard to believe)...

Due to the "replacement" photo allegedly provided by the astronomer, I had to envision an e-mail exchange between her and Butch. Such a hypothetical exchange could have been a way for Butch to provide the astronomer with a screen grab from the movie.

But, as you say....

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adjusting the color and contrast of Butch's whole picture gives us this :



Not completely dis-similar from the movie version, especialy if you consider it could have been "touched up" by the art department.

I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt in Butch's veracity in his relating what he was told. The astronomer may just be incorrect.

_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Gentlemen, all of your proposals are very plausible suggestions for the solution to this fascinating mystery! Very Happy

Obviously we're all on the same page now concerning the way certain events might have happened, what creative procedures would have been possible, and what probably didn't happen concerning the post by Butch which started this wonderful discussion!

Krel, your description of how the artists at MGM might have used the photo from Mt. Palomar is exactly the way I used a slide taken with a 35mm camera in an Atlanta "art house" movie theater in 1980, which was used by me to prepare the canvas when I painted this picture from Forbidden Planet!

I later improved the background by pasting the two figures in my painting over a screen grab of the same scene the slide it was from! Very Happy






Gord, your suggestion is similar, in that the artists started with the Mt. Palomar photo and painted over it to produce the mural used in the movie.

Wayne, as a long-time member of All Sci-Fi, I know that you completely understand my concerns about our friend Butch's tendency to embellish his accomplishments, his knowledge, and his personal VIP connections. He means well, but he doesn't always get this facts straight.

I really admire Gord's faith in our friend's integrity, but he isn't aware of the long history Butch has over the last ten years on All Sci-Fi with his many claims that have been proven blatantly false. For example, his description of being close friends with Bill Malone and having dinner at his house — during which Bill allowed Butch to operate Robby's controls — were later refuted by Bill Malone himself through Facebook messages between the two us. Sad

Other semi-famous people Butch claimed to be close to have also been corrected when I contacted them to ask about statements Butch made.

To be fair to Butch, he has apologized to me profusely during phone conversations over the last few years, and he's promised not to repeat this compulsive behavior. I've warned him that I would explain the situation to All Sci-Fi's members if he started doing it again. Rolling Eyes

And yet, despite my initial doubts concerning his statement about the lady astronomer from Mt. Palomar who supposedly claimed the mural was not what the Cinefantastique article says it is, I'm grateful to Butch for challenging us to seek the truth and uncover the evidence we needed to learn what the producers of Forbidden Planet really did back in 1956! Very Happy

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In all fairness to Butch too, he said it was a color "REPLACEMENT" for the original picture, not that it WAS the original. It was a contemporary version of the old original photograph of that area of space.

Makes sense to me.

_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my path of logic I also made the assumption that the "replacement" photo sent (allegedly) by the Palomar astronomer would have been a later one shot by the Palomar telescope, rather than a better copy of the Mt. Wilson photo.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:32 am    Post subject: Some musings on "the residence" Reply with quote

Some musings on "the residence"



I've long been fascinated by Dr. Morbius's house on Altair 4. How and why was it built where it was? There are some assumptions that can be made from hints given by the movie itself, but I think there is a bit more to it.

There is no information about what the exploratory ship BELLEROPHON was like, but one can assume it had many of the attributes of the C-57-D. When it approached Altair 4 it probably picked up the same energy that the C-57-D did as it came in. The ship no doubt landed quite close to the area where the entrance to the Krell lab was located.

I would imagine it had some excavating machinery on board and it was put to work clearing the area around the opening to the tunnels, and they set up their habitat close to the excavation. After the scientists began exploring and Morbius took his "brain boost", the discussion regarding the return to Earth took place and the destruction began.

Morbius claimed that he "tinkered together" Robby using skills learned from his research in Krell knowledge. The Krell were not humanoid in shape, but Morbius created Robby in a very human form, so he couldn't have used "spare parts" laying around, he had to form them himself: therefore he probably used some kind of 3D printer type machine to do so. In fact it's suggested that Robby used some kind of 3D printer to fabricate material. He may have put the original material to be analyzed and copied into his "hopper" but he didn't shoot the results out of his butt. He must have uploaded the data into a fabricator device that did the actual creation. It's mentioned that Robby had a "lab" where this fabrication took place. I think that this device as well as construction machinery was used to build Morbius' residence on the site of the Krell laboratory entrance tunnel.

One thing always bothered me....the residence as shown always looked to me more like a breezeway covered patio than true living space. No bedroom, no bathroom, no kitchen etc. to be seen.



It's obvious that a couple of the walls are raw rock. The area beside the patio where the stairs are located is shown to be rock, as well as the area behind Morbius's study on the opposite side.



Besides, the matte painting of the house doesn't show any rock ledges. The original drawings of the residence show the house embedded in a overhanging rock ledge, but that idea was scrapped in the plans for the actual set construction.







The answer is obvious! The part of the house shown in the movie is the lower level nestled in the rock excavation and the house in the matte painting is the section ABOVE it! The house as shown in the painting is a back view of the house resting on top of the dug out area.

This is also evidenced by the positions of the security panels. They cover up only the open sections of the substructure. The roof above, which is also the floor for the upper living section was already made of adamantium metal, so when closed up they formed a sort of "panic room" with the other areas made of the rock wall. A sliding panel covering the area by the stairs would also have been necessary.

Also the painting shows two box like structures on the back and patio side of the dome structure. I think a drawing more like this illustrated these as well as the rock wall substructure.





The upper floor then probably looks more like this....







_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part 2 -

As further evidence of the "3-D printer matter duplicator" look at the various art objects decorating Morbius's home.
Possibly one of the BELLERAPHON members had a flash drive containing images of art objects and artifacts. The decorations in the home were probably not Krellian in origin, although that could also be a possibility.





The grave stones and markers in the BELLERAPHON graveyard were not standard ships stores either, and must have been fabricated in Robby's lab using the 3-D printer.




_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17019
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Great posts, Gord.

I do need a bit of clarification. What part of the Morbius home are suggesting is underground?

The living room / dinning room area is clearly on ground level with the front entrance and the pool area, and the only steps we see in the house lead up the bedrooms in the dome section.

In the screenshot below you can actually see the dinning room right in between the open front entrance and the open pool entrance.



Obviously the Morbius house does not have a level below the one represented by the set. And the Krell lab is also on that same level, although it's back inside a hill that adjoins the house, one which the matte painting fails to show.

The matte painting is beautiful, but it's not consistent with the way the set was built.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1950 to 1969 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 67, 68, 69 ... 141, 142, 143  Next
Page 68 of 143

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group