# OT: City Beneath the Sea on DVD



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

http://www.wbshop.com/City-Beneath-the-Sea-+EST-MOD/1000116269,default,pd.html

Also Roddenberry's Genesis II and Planet Earth...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I snagged a bootleg copy of this a few years ago. Talk about guilty pleasures. 

Of all the Irwin Allen projects CBTS is the Irwin Allenest; a big, silly, cheesy, star-studded sci-fi disaster movie with lame dialogue, terrible performances, snazzy art direction, cool FX, and Joseph Cotton. What more can a middle-aged sci-fi geek ask for?

Jeff, something you may know (if anyone does): Who wrote the score?


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> I snagged a bootleg copy of this a few years ago. Talk about guilty pleasures.
> 
> Of all the Irwin Allen projects CBTS is the Irwin Allenest; a big, silly, cheesy, star-studded sci-fi disaster movie with lame dialogue, terrible performances, snazzy art direction, cool FX, and Joseph Cotton. What more can a middle-aged sci-fi geek ask for?
> 
> Jeff, something you may know (if anyone does): *Who wrote the score?*


Rob -

The score was written by Richard LaSalle (IMDB.com is a great resource). As it turns out, LaSalle had worked for Irwin Allen before - he wrote the score for 7 episodes of Land of the Giants during Season 2. I rather liked the music myself.

When it comes to CTBS being one of the "Irwin Allenest" of them all, I was entranced by it at the age of 11. Even back then, you could spot the connections to Allen's other productions due to the use of models, costumes, etc. I still enjoy watching it from time to time, despite the cheese factor - as I do with all of Irwin Allen's televsion efforts.

Looking forward to getting a DVD of it though.

Bryan


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I still think this had great potential as a series, especially when compared to Allen's final sci fi potshot, the incredibly juvenile The Return of Captain Nemo. The setting was interesting and would have allowed for far more story variety than something like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea with its redundant monster-of-the-week template. And you'd still get to see the Seaview and Flying Sub periodically.

Looks like Planet Earth and City are nice-looking widescreen transfers and Genesis II is 4x3--but still great quality. Wonderful to have those holes plugged after all these years--the Warner archive is really a gold mine.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> . . . Of all the Irwin Allen projects CBTS is the Irwin Allenest; a big, silly, cheesy, star-studded sci-fi disaster movie with lame dialogue, terrible performances, snazzy art direction, cool FX, and Joseph Cotton.


_City Beneath the Sea_ is cheesy, all right. One hundred percent pasteurized process Cheez Whiz! But it's great fun -- a silly sci-fi movie and a silly disaster movie all in one. The only way it could be more Irwin Allen-ish would be if the Master of Disaster had given himself a cameo.

MODERATORS: I would suggest consolidating this thread and the _CBTS_ thread on the Moebius Models board with the third one on the Movies board.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Yeah, my bad--the news was just too cool to confine to one thread.

One thing about Richard LaSalle--he was infamous for regurgitating a lot of other composers' music, including his own! City Beneath the Sea has some leftovers from Lost in Space and a LOT of Jerry Goldsmith's Planet of the Apes in it. He did another TV disaster movie called The Memory of Eva Ryker with Natalie Wood that is wall to wall rehashes of Miklos Rosza's Time After Time score, and he also lifted tons of Planet of the Apes for a Buck Rogers score with Jamie Lee Curtis on a prison planet. Now we're really off topic...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

When I was a kid I dreamed I’d one day have an office just like Mike Matthews’…










Alas, the future isn’t what it used to be…












Gemini1999 said:


> The score was written by Richard LaSalle (IMDB.com is a great resource).


Thanks.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I don't know, Rob--yours is about as close as anyone has gotten yet...


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

jbond said:


> I still think this had great potential as a series, especially when compared to Allen's final sci fi potshot, the incredibly juvenile The Return of Captain Nemo. The setting was interesting and would have allowed for far more story variety than something like Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea with its redundant monster-of-the-week template. And you'd still get to see the Seaview and Flying Sub periodically.
> 
> Looks like Planet Earth and City are nice-looking widescreen transfers and Genesis II is 4x3--but still great quality.


Since all three pilots were made for TV in the 1970s, wouldn't they all have been filmed in full Academy frame (1.33:1)? Or would they have been shot so they could be shown in either full-frame or matted widescreen for overseas theatrical release?


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

I watched the whole movie over at youtube last night , kinda slow, still trying to figure out what the black and white thing is behind the lady in the green dress, looks like a heater duct to me. Fritz Lang poster,,,,, sweet


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Carson Dyle said:


> When I was a kid I


I assume that's an IA recycling of the J2 in the background..


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

woof359 said:


> . . . still trying to figure out what the black and white thing is behind the lady in the green dress, looks like a heater duct to me.


I think it's a leftover piece of the Vaillancourt Fountain in San Francisco.


----------



## Vindi (Mar 20, 2009)

bigjimslade said:


> I assume that's an IA recycling of the J2 in the background..


Certainly looks like it.

Didn't they also use some J2 hulls in the city views?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

You know, I always thought the 'blue glow' that the Spindrift flew into at the start of Land of the Giants was a process shot, but later 'behind the scenes pics showed it was a big ball that was lit up (and I assume some process work as well to enhance the look). So now I wonder if the FLAMING BALL OF DOOM that's just ONE of the problems to be dealt with in CBtS was the same effects model with red lights in it...

(it was a very, very bad week for Pacifica)

While I would have loved it if the pilot had led to a series, I suspect it would have run into the same problem that ST: DS9 and Babylon 5 ran into.

(sidebar: See, both DS9 and B5 were conceived as 'cheap to make' shows, with most of the budget going to the interior of the respective stations, and the concept that 'all the adventure comes to US' and so you'd have lots of heavy character driven drama...note that both shows eventually added spaceships so they could go out and do stuff and not be just walking and talking and sitting and talking and oh yeah, talking)

I figure that by the second season CBtS would either have added their own sub (most likely a modified Seaview) or the cast would be using a LOT of Aquafoils and flying about hither and yon. Or both. And I would have ate it up with a big ol' spoon. 

Hm, there's another interesting conjecture model to build. Play at being IA for a moment. You're adding a sub to the concept of the show because it's needful to go and do stuff, maybe visit other underwater cities or bases. You gotta do it cheap, so you're going to modify the 4-window Seaview. What do you do? 

You need to keep the FS bay, and you're going to save money by re-using launch and retrieve footage, maybe by using an optical printer to get in tighter to the bay to hide the manta fins, which you might remove from the model.

Other than that, what do you change? Might that not lead to interesting models?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It might. But Allen wouldn't change a thing so he could use stock footage from Voyage.  

I do think the concept would have allowed for travel to other facilities and plenty of investigation of weird underwater phenomena--in fact what happened on Star Trek and other shows is that these kind of wide-ranging story possibilities are built into the show, but as the series goes on budgets are reduced, actors are paid more and the producers are forced to do more and more "bottle" shows that stick to the series' standing sets. But at least CBTS would have had more potential stories that could take place within Pacifica than the limited palette available to Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Of course that's assuming Allen got a better class of writer on the show. John Meredith Lucas wrote City Beneath the Sea and he worked on some good Star Trek episodes--and City would have been in a perfect position to inherit some of Trek's other "out of work" scribes. But we'll never know...in some alternate universe Genesis II and City Beneath the Sea produced enough episodes to run in syndication forever...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, it *could* be Fox would object to the use of a stock Seaview because that's fairly iconic to VttBotS (and tied to the movie which is a different department and thus might be more prickly)..

Actually, I do wonder how it would work out. It was shot at Fox, using full access to the Fox prop and wardrobe warehouses and Fox's effects crew...hm.

Well, I think for merchandising they'd want a different looking sub. I dunno.

Altho I have to wonder, how did they get the Seaview back in shape after they altered it for 'In like Flint'? taking off the V fins was a pretty major thing to do..I wonder which one they used, was it the 17 foot surface runner? Blah blah blah


----------



## reticulan5 (Jul 2, 2009)

Hi guys glad to have stumbled on this forum.Yeah I dug the CBTS pilot made in 1970 released 71.But Irwin made a earlier CBTS in 68 same concept different cast.The flying Subs in that one used the Cockpit of the Spindrift(don't ask).CBTS was shot 1:33,or 4x3 AKA 12x9.So if you see it 16x9 it has been cropped for the DVD release.Alot of the movies I have bought on DVD at 16x9 are cropped from 4x3 as my VHS movies has more top and bottom.Pity it didn't become a series.A 5th or 6th Irwin Allen series I could live with that.


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

The earlier CBTS was a limited pitch film more than a pilot, but it did show more of the futuristic drill rig, you can see it here: 




The sub in "Our Man Flint" was not the Seaview, although they did use the control room, and deck set. They also used the CMDF set for Z.O.W.I.E. and practically every sf set piece Fox had.

I'd really like to get some of the Warner's Archive films, but they are just too expensive for what you get. Oh well, that's life

David.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

If you go to Warner's website, you will find that you can purchase any five of the archive collection titles for $49.99. That equates to $10 per title.
I was able to get _City Beneath the Sea_ as well as _Planet Earth, Genesis II, Earth II_ and _Countdown_, saving 50%.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Krel said:


> The earlier CBTS was a limited pitch film more than a pilot, but it did show more of the futuristic drill rig, you can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZrifEjU-H0
> 
> The sub in "Our Man Flint" was not the Seaview, although they did use the control room, and deck set. They also used the CMDF set for Z.O.W.I.E. and practically every sf set piece Fox had.
> 
> ...


Respectfully disagree on the sub in Our Man Flint (you have the right title, I always seem to switch the order of them for no good reason), I've watched that scene of the Galaxy sub over and over, and that sail and the whole aft end, the way it curves down, says Seaview. MAYBE the sail was replaced but it might just be an optical illusion.

I would guess (and I'm sure the super hardcore sub guys will correct me  ) they used one of the 2 foot models, as that water looks pretty 'big' to me.

also note the use of the full size 'Seaview at dockside' set, the careful framing to not show the planes on the sail or the missile hatches.

Just my thinking


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Our Man Flint was released in 1966 so they would have been filming Voyage at the time--the reuse of props would have made perfect sense but a major modification of the show's hero miniatures wouldn't have. Anyone have frame grabs of those shots? I only have In Like Flint on DVD...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

jbond said:


> Our Man Flint was released in 1966 so they would have been filming Voyage at the time--the reuse of props would have made perfect sense but a major modification of the show's hero miniatures wouldn't have. Anyone have frame grabs of those shots? I only have In Like Flint on DVD...


Just popped the disc in to check the scene, it's really nothing more than an establishing scene, the sub on the surface coming to the Galaxy Island and entering a secret lagoon that's hidden by a waterfall, then it's cut to unloading Flint's coffin and the amazingly careful framing of the shot to not show the planes on the sail or the missile tube hatches.

As I know you know, water is always a problem with filming models. that's why the 17 foot Seaview is big, because water 'scales' so poorly.

Looking at the water in the shots, it looks 'big', there's no other way I can think of to describe it. Like the island wall model was only about 5 feet high, which is why I'm thinking it was one of the 2-foot models used. 

You don't really see much of ANYTHING, you see the deck almost to the limber holes, you see the sail (and a fairly obvious hatch placed on it at deck level, mirroring the full size Seaview set), and all the way aft to that distinctive point and curve where you expect the V fins to be. No wake, no bubbles, just foaming water churned by the waterfall.

Sadly my Mac doesn't seem to have a tool to do framegrabs. dammit.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I agree with Steve's "big" observation.










Given the Seaview-esque deck and sail configuration my guess is we're seeing an altered version of the seventeen-footer.

After all, the modifications required would not have been financially or technically prohibitive, even for a 60's era Fox B-picture. Certainly it would have been more cost effective to use an already existing miniature as opposed to constructing a new one -- especially given the size.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Sadly my Mac doesn't seem to have a tool to do framegrabs. dammit.


VLC works great for me. 

With this (free) and easy-to-install software it's easy to get a frame grab with a Mac; just hit control/shift 4, crop the shot however you'd like, and release.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

Unlike Mac's built-in DVD player, VLC will not prohibit you from grabbing frames during playback.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, that's interesting, they may well have modded 2 Seaviews, because the water looks much more 'out of scale' as the sub nears the waterfall.

Rob, I do have VLC but it's..I dunno. I guess I haven't played with it that much, I don't like watching movies on my computer so much.  

Altho I've had to with some of the VttBotS discs as they had odd coding that didn't play nice with my standalone DVD player


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Sadly my Mac doesn't seem to have a tool to do framegrabs. dammit.


Have you tried the screenshot command, Command-Shift-3? If you pause the video with the image at full-screen, the resolution should be pretty good.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

command-shift-3 still works? 

Cripes. I feel so lame! I've been using OS X for a couple of years now and I never even tried that. Duhhhh. 

Thanks guys! I should get back to using my toes to build my models.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

scotpens said:


> Have you tried the screenshot command, Command-Shift-3? If you pause the video with the image at full-screen, the resolution should be pretty good.


On my Mac Command-shift-3 (or 4 for selective cropping) is inhibited when the DVD player is engaged. VLC provides an easy way around that.

But, you know, whatever works.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

That certainly does look like the Seaview...


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> I agree with Steve's "big" observation.
> 
> Given the Seaview-esque deck and sail configuration my guess is we're seeing an altered version of the seventeen-footer.
> 
> After all, the modifications required would not have been financially or technically prohibitive, even for a 60's era Fox B-picture. Certainly it would have been more cost effective to use an already existing miniature as opposed to constructing a new one -- especially given the size.


I had completely forgotten about that scene, but it has been about ten years since I have seen the film. It is funny the things your mind fills in, I could swear that there was a scene in the beginning showing the submarine, and it was a conventional submarine model.

As for the Seaview, they probably just removed the tail fins for filming, then reattached them, I am willing to bet that they were just held on with bolts. I read once that the deck was removable for access to the Seaview's interior mechanisms and air bottle, so it would have been pretty easy to get to the fins bolts.

David.


----------



## Dave P (Jan 5, 2005)

Steve H said:


> Sadly my Mac doesn't seem to have a tool to do framegrabs. dammit.


Right, the screen shot command is disabled when the DVD player starts. Google DVD Snap. Sorry, I don't have the link to where I got it anymore. I've been using it for a few years. Works fine on my G5 and is easy to use.


----------



## modelnutz (Sep 21, 2009)

Not to go all OT or nuthin'...but this seemed to be the place to ask...
Compared to the Flying Sub...how big was the Aquadozer ?

Even better...can anyone offer up a screen grab that shows both vehicles?
I understand that there's a shot where the 'dozer lands on top of the "aquafoil".... that view would be ideal !


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Not the best images, but they'll give you a sense of the scale...



















Aquadozer aficionado Jeff Bond has some great pix of the filming miniature on his photo stream...

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=aquadozer&[email protected]


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

It's kinda funny, that Aquadozer seems a bit larger than it should, given the appearance of the cockpit from Jeff Bond's pics. I believe it's been stated that they used Aurora Flying Sub interior parts to 'dress' the model and it just seems oversized to the FS..um..Aquafoil it's squashing to me.

OTOH I may not be thinking correctly, because we really know nothing about the Aquadozers. It could well be they have a very large cabin because they're constantly in use and there are crews onboard that 'duty' shifts and 'rest' periods.

And I'm going to correct myself right here because I went and revisited Jeff's pics and holy cats the cockpit of the Aquadozer is GIGANTIC, compared to the FS figure inside as pilot. So, yeah, I take back what I said up there. What was going ON with that thing? is it mostly ballast tanks (to give it mass to push around cargo subs) or something?

Aaaaand it really doesn't matter because they only have the Aquadozer in order to create a crisis (one of many, it was a REALLY bad week for Pacifica!) and blah blah blah. 

Does make me wonder however. Since the Aurora FS kit was available, does anyone think that IA may have gone ahead and used them for some shots? Like background shots or something? How meta would that have been?


----------



## modelnutz (Sep 21, 2009)

Thank you Mr. Dyle.
Looks to me that the "engine/screw housing" thing is about the same length as the entire FS....agree ?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

To my eye the FS looks a bit longer, but it's tough to say.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

It's only just occurred to me, but if the Aquafoil model seen in Jeff's Photo-stream images was the only Aquafoil built for the pilot (and I'd say that's a pretty fair bet) then there's a good chance those FS miniatures are Aurora models. I mean, given the scale, what else could they have been?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Rob, it's been so long since I've seen the movie (and present issues prevent me from ordering it from Warner Bros because brother, I sure want to do that thing!) I can't recall how much screen time the Aquafoil(s) actually got. I'd be willing to bet any flying footage and the 'crash into the sea' landing were stock footage, but anything else is up for grabs.

But FWIW, what I recall is:

I would bet most of the effects were shot 'dry for wet'

I don't recall any major closeup footage of an Aquafoil that might not have been stock shots from VttBotS. No new angles or motions (again, from 30 year old memories).

In that one framegrab you can see 2 Aquafoil in the shot at the Aquadozer has its 'accident', and given the size of the 'dozer model I don't think there were two original Flying Sub in that size from Voyage. OTOH there were potentially as many Aquafoils available as they wanted to spend the $4.95 at the local hardware store, dime store or hobby shop. Or heck, could probably get cases of the things direct from Aurora for free, as 'promotional consideration' writeoffs for the company.

Man, I just want to go back in time and ASK PEOPLE QUESTIONS


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

Uncle Oldies has some photos of the dozer, and according to the site there were two of them made for the film: http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/irwin-props/00016.html

Most of the effects were done dry with masks used for the lighting effects. It could be that the only wet effects were the Auqadozer crash scenes. During VTTBOTS IA had them light the tanks so that the light reflections from the surface would be seen to show that the effects were actually filmed underwater. I guess he just liked the look because it was duplicated for the dry effects in CBTS. 

In other FS threads it was discussed that it was originally planned to repaint the FS with an overall white paint job as that is what the exterior nose FS set was painted. But there was probably no money to re-film the Flying Subs when all that stock footage was in the vault.

David.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Carson Dyle said:


> It's only just occurred to me, but if the Aquafoil model seen in Jeff's Photo-stream images was the only Aquafoil built for the pilot (and I'd say that's a pretty fair bet) then there's a good chance those FS miniatures are Aurora models. I mean, given the scale, what else could they have been?


If you look at the screengrabs you provided you'll notice the "fins" running along the top of the crushed FS are much thicker, most likely indicating the use of an Aurora FS kit. The other sub I believe is the one and only nine incher made for Voyage, notice it's features are much more subtle, the shape of the "wings", the details on the back, etc. It also appears to be slightly smaller than the other FS.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I always assumed as a kid the aquafoils in the dozer scenes were Aurora models but I thought Greg Jein shot that idea down. It would definitely make sense given the size of the aquadozer model, the punishment the miniatures would undergo in that shot, and the cheapness and availability of the Aurora kits. We might get a better idea if the image quality on the new DVD is improved enough...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Krel said:


> Uncle Oldies has some photos of the dozer, and according to the site there were two of them made for the film: http://www.uncleodiescollectibles.com/html_lib/irwin-props/00016.html


Interesting to discover there were two Aquadozers made for the film. Seems a tad redundant, but whatever (no wonder that thing's come up for auction so many times).

If the Aquafoil trapped under the (2 foot?) Aquadozer is not an actual Aurora kit it's certainly based on one; the raised pinstripes are a dead give away. Given the wet-for-wet nature of the shot the model shop may have cast a fiberglass copy of an Aurora FS for the sake of durability. Whatever it is, it's not a left-over from VTTBOTS.



Seashark said:


> The other sub I believe is the one and only nine incher made for Voyage, notice it's features are much more subtle, the shape of the "wings", the details on the back, etc. It also appears to be slightly smaller than the other FS.


Yeah, it's a tough call. It's either the 9-incher or a re-purposed Aurora knock-off.


----------



## Tony Hardy (Oct 23, 2002)

*Flying Sub 9 incher*

It's the 9 incher. I've compared it to my filming model. Apparently they cast a few of those up. My copy was never painted up & finished off. It languished for years in Irwin Allen's storage unit. I'm going to clean it up and finish it at some point. This filming model is just slighly larger than the Aurora kit, and is to scale with the 8 ft. filming model of the Seaview.

There was a smaller Flying Sub as well. A friend of mine owns the original studio plaster molds for both of these and I've inspected them, so that's how I know.

Look closely when the FS docks with the LIS Astrogator prop at the beginning of the film. Yes, that's the the full scale Lost In Space Astrogator set piece reworked. The flip-up control panel where the joystick was has been removed, and that's what the Flying Sub sails into for docking. I'm pretty sure that's the smallest model. I can't remember the exact size of it though.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Tony Hardy said:


> Look closely when the FS docks with the LIS Astrogator prop at the beginning of the film. Yes, that's the the full scale Lost In Space Astrogator set piece reworked. The flip-up control panel where the joystick was has been removed, and that's what the Flying Sub sails into for docking. I'm pretty sure that's the smallest model. I can't remember the exact size of it though.


Tony -

You're kidding me....! The J2 astrogator was reworked as the Triton aquafoil dock??? I remember that scene where you see the aquafoil goes into a rectangle shaped opening, but I had no clue as to what it really was. Boy, when it comes to reusing and repurposing, the SFX team for Irwin Allen Productions doesn't miss a thing....

I know what I'm going to rewatch when I get home from work tonight!

Too bad nobody has a picture of this!

(I found a pic of Pacifica, but it's a bit small:










Bryan


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I would think we would see some pretty good screen caps once people have the DVD in hand--I should have mine by the 20th.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

jbond said:


> I would think we would see some pretty good screen caps once people have the DVD in hand--I should have mine by the 20th.


Ya know, you'd think so, but I'm afraid that the mentality of many just might be "Ehhh, I've got my bootleg copy off eBay, I'm not gonna waste $20 on a movie I already have" and they're MISSING OUT...

it's a pet peeve of mine, the sense of entitlement some folk have, figuring a bootleg is better than an offical product just because it's cheaper and blah blah blah.

Sorry, something I deal with on almost a daily basis in my anime hobby life


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I did have someone on another board throw a fit that this wasn't remastered and didn't have any extras for the $20. The fact is most of the horrendous-looking bootlegs you find at conventions go for twenty bucks. I just got Genesis II and Planet Earth (which you can get discounted if you order them both) and the picture quality is EXCELLENT. These TV movies would NEVER see the light of day in any other format--there is simply not enough demand to justify mass market packaging and extras. Warners is doing something fantastic by digging so deep into their catalogue to make these things available to the people who DO want them and I fully expected to wait a few years for City Beneath the Sea--and I hadn't even considered that the Roddenberry pilots would be available.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I've got "bootleg" recordings of CBTS, Planet Earth and Genesis II - I could say that I'm happy with having those, but I can't wait to get DVD versions of all 3. The only reason I've hung on to the VHS copies is because they weren't commercially available in a better format. Now that they are.....I'll gladly switch over!

Bryan


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

This pic may be a little clearer...










Notice the size difference between the crushed Aquafoil and the one ramming the dozer...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hm, maybe it's my eyes, I'm not seeing any difference between the two 'foils.

It could be I'm viewing the 'perspective' wrong, without seeing the leadup to this shot I don't have a visual context. Is the one Aquafoil actually nosed under the aft of the Aquadozer? Because it appears to be just approaching to my eyes.

If it IS actually touching, then yes, there does appear to be a size difference, but not much.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I confess I'm not seeing the size difference either. Moreover, I'm skeptical that the FX crew would have proceeded with the shot without having two Aquafoils of the same size to work with. Granted Irwin Allen was not exactly a stickler for detail, but even he would have appreciated the visual advantages of identically sized miniatures in this instance (especially since the miniatures in question could have been produced on the quick `n cheap).


----------



## modelnutz (Sep 21, 2009)

My humble opinion ?

YES,YES,YES !!!!!!!

Perfect ! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: 

Thank you Seashark !

Just what I was looking for ! Now there's no question to the size of the 'dozer. Methinks there may be a master in the works very soon(ish)

Now...off to the drawing board !


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Seashark said:


> This pic may be a little clearer...
> 
> Notice the size difference between the crushed Aquafoil and the one ramming the dozer...


It does look a bit odd because Matthews' aquafoil is in the foreground and it appears smaller than Patterson's aquafoil underneath the 'dozer. Are they really different in size, or does it just appear that way? I guess that we'll never really know. Maybe the frames beyond this scene would be more telling after Matthews maneuvers his aquafoil under the dozer and lifts it off Patterson's.

I'm gonna have to rewatch this tonight - I was going to over the weekend, but it slipped my mind.

Bryan


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I just got my DVD--not to beat a dead horse but the aquafoil underneath the 'dozer (in BOTH "accident" scenes) definitely appears to be an Aurora kit based on the thick strakes. But it's hard to tell if the "Matthews" aquafoil is an Aurora or not--it does seem to have slightly thinner fins but I don't think we ever see the top of the craft, just the bottom.

Another thing I noticed is the background "Seaview" I had always seen during the tube shuttle scene is WAY more modified than I had thought it was. It has the mustard-colored "Pacifica" conning tower that slopes very gradually from the rear of the sail down to the deck surface far back on the sub, also looks like it may have other details removed towards the rear of the sub--I'll try to get a good screen cap, It appears later in one of the evacuation shots and definitely appears to have the sonar bulges of the second season Seaview. My guess is that this is a modified version of one of the small miniatures used in the aquarium shots in "Leviathan." They actually do a nice job of modifying the minisub miniature into a cargo sub--with interior lighting and the new paint job it actually looks pretty cool.

Did I hear someone say they were making an aquadozer master? Please check out the photos on my flickr site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazymodeler/sets/72057594132242988/

I presume we're talking about a 1/128 aquadozer...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

ohhhh, modified Seaview... 

But clearly not the cargo sub you've got pics of, right? yeah, you know the difference, you'd have said so.

does the way the sail looks seem akin to the Neptune modification?

Here's a REALLY stupid thought. If they're saving money by using Aurora FS kits, might they have also grabbed a couple Aurora Seaview kits to modify for background subs?

There are no dead horses here yet, they're just resting.


----------



## modelnutz (Sep 21, 2009)

jbond said:


> Did I hear someone say they were making an aquadozer master? *Could be...Could be  *
> Please check out the photos on my flickr site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazymodeler/sets/72057594132242988/
> 
> *Been there...done that...Thank you sir, very helpful !*
> ...


*Um, 1/350... mebby. We'll just have to wait and see *


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I suppose it's possible they used the Aurora Seaview but I doubt it--while the dry-for-wet shots didn't need the BIG miniature size Voyage used (no 8-foot subs in there) I think a 13-inch sub would have been TOO small to be of use. Also you can definitely see the nose look of the Flying Sub Seaview--since they weren't actually TRYING to duplicate the Seaview for that sub, there would have been no reason to modify the Aurora sub to make it look like the 4-window version.

The sail does look like the style of the Neptune sail but it seem more angular, not sculpted the way the Neptune looked.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

You're probably right. There's a world of difference between using the Aurora FS (a decent sized kit and not far off some of the smaller original filming models, it seems) and the Aurora Seaview (about half the size of the smallest filming model, which frankly looked like poor quality models as it was, I mean you could TELL when they whipped out a shot using a 2-footer in VttBotS). Maybe, MAYBE as just one sub meant to be far away in a forced perspective shot, akin to the use of Jupiter 2 hulls as office (?) buildings in the opening scene.

I really should stop posting in this thread, I'm REALLY getting wound up and wanting that darn DVD


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

modelnutz said:


> My humble opinion ?
> 
> YES,YES,YES !!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Glad I could help! I look forward to seeing what you come up with. 



> Another thing I noticed is the background "Seaview" I had always seen during the tube shuttle scene is WAY more modified than I had thought it was. It has the mustard-colored "Pacifica" conning tower that slopes very gradually from the rear of the sail down to the deck surface far back on the sub, also looks like it may have other details removed towards the rear of the sub--I'll try to get a good screen cap, It appears later in one of the evacuation shots and definitely appears to have the sonar bulges of the second season Seaview. My guess is that this is a modified version of one of the small miniatures used in the aquarium shots in "Leviathan."


Please do, I've been trying to get a good shot of that sub for years. If it's interesting enough I may try to replicate it using a Moebius 1/350 Seaview.


----------



## Tony Hardy (Oct 23, 2002)

*FS & Other Props*

I double checked freeze frames of the movie along with my 9 inch filming model of the Flying Sub and it's a perfect match, so that's what they used for the Aquadozer scenes anyway. 

Look for other Irwin Allen props in the show too. The Robinsons futuristic washing machine is in the water tank with the fellow who talks and breathes underwater (Aquila?). Also, that same tank (the green tank) was used for the filming of all the "Voyage" underwater sequences with the miniatures and divers.

You'll also see the Robinsons Force Field Projector welding a metal plate or something like that in a corridor. There are also a couple of the tunnel ring set pieces used in the main control room set that were scavenged from the "Time Tunnel." The "Voyage" Seaview crash door set piece is used in the control room as well (over a viewport). Just watch the film closely, I'm sure you'll spot plenty of other props and set pieces from other Irwin Allen productions.

The transfer of the film is nice. It's widescreen, plus it's the theatrical cut that was released to theaters overseas. I for one am pleased that it's available. It's the best I've ever seen it look. Much better than any of the bootlegs I've ever seen. So if you're fond of the Irwin Allen productions it's a worthwhile purchase.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The cargo sub also cruises past a big Lost in Space energy cannon prop on its way to the vaults--can't remember what episode it's from.

One really impressive thing about the production is the rear projection used to put footage of the city on the big control center viewscreen and windows in some other shots--it's pretty seamless.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

good lord, what did they do? just grab EVERYTHING in the prop warehouse and divide them into set dressing and city buildings?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Here's a Pacifica evac shot with the modified Seaview--it's actually a better look at it than you get in the tube shuttle background shot. Also check out the little "family sub" running ahead of the Seaview--this looks like a Spindrift or a modified Aurora Flying Sub. Also in this shot, an aquadozer with retracted "bulldozer blades" and the passenger sub that was a modified minisub from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazymodeler/4033879108/sizes/l/


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

nicely done but good lord...

Are those AUTOMOBILE GRILLS being used as building detail?

*ahem*

It looks like the Seaview has the bow windows painted/puttied over.

Knowing that it's the J2 Astrogator being used as a building gives some idea of scaling and size.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

Thank you for uploading the screen shot. Man, that Seaview is ugly! It appears to have a fin just tacked on the back of the sail, the nose looks odd too; almost like the windows were shortened and the sonar bulges moved forward. To me the 'family sub' looks more like a Spindrift with the engines removed and the rear fin enlarged, but it could just as easily an FS. 

Notice the passenger sub in the foreground and the aquadozer behind it; that 'dozer must be massive to dwarf a sub that obviously has multiple decks. Unless of course they don't intend for the 'dozer to be identified as such and included it merely to liven up the shot. Also, to my eye the 'dozer doesn't appear to have the blades, although I may not be seeing them. I guess we must just accept these kinds of inconsistincies as being par for the course in an Irwin Allen production.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Steve H said:


> nicely done but good lord...
> 
> *Are those AUTOMOBILE GRILLS being used as building detail?*
> *ahem*
> ...


Yes, those are automobile grilles....and by the look of them, they come off of a 1969 Ford Galaxie or Fairlane. I didn't notice that last night, but when you point it out, that's what they definitely look like!

Bryan


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Steve H said:


> nicely done but good lord...
> 
> Are those AUTOMOBILE GRILLS being used as building detail?


They didn't even bother trying to disguise the cutouts for the headlights!

BTW, did the movie ever address the $64,000 question? Namely, WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO LIVE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FRIGGIN' SEA IN THE FIRST PLACE??


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

scotpens said:


> WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO LIVE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FRIGGIN' SEA IN THE FIRST PLACE??


Beats Detroit.


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

scotpens said:


> They didn't even bother trying to disguise the cutouts for the headlights!
> 
> BTW, did the movie ever address the $64,000 question? Namely, WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO LIVE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FRIGGIN' SEA IN THE FIRST PLACE??


I haven't seen the movie in years, but I seem to remember that Pacifica was suppose to be a scientific, and possibly also an aqua-culture community. Besides it was done in the era where they were still predicting overpopulation, and one proposed solution was undersea communities.

David


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Recieved my copy from Warner today, while not truely remastered ,the quality of the video is very well done, as is the audio. It is presented in Widescreen format and is an "Officially Licensed release". HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> Recieved my copy from Warner today, while not truely remastered ,the quality of the video is very well done, as is the audio. It is presented in Widescreen format and is an "Officially Licensed release". HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!


Yeah, one benefit of the Warner Archives releases, while they're not putting big effort in restoring or improving the movies, they ARE taking honest and reasonable care with the encoding, and since the menus are as basic as you can get, and no extras (which IS sad as I am an avowed DVD extras whore), no subtitles, no alt. language tracks, what you get has surprisingly beefy bitrate which I think ends up being the best possible thing for these releases.

I saw they have Earth II out as well, which in many ways is similar to CBTC only set on a space station. Man, ABC sure used to have some cool stuff with their Movie of the Week slot.


----------



## Erwin Alan (May 25, 2010)

The automobile grilles appear to be at the base of every one of the apartment complexes.

In another scene where Lunderson's submarine is outside the gold vault, you can clearly see (beneath the sub) an underwater structure that looks like the bottom of an egg carton! LOL!


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

Here is a pic of one of the subs from CBTS. Looks like they modified the large mini-sub from VTTBOTS. I think this was from an auction in the late '80's.


----------



## Erwin Alan (May 25, 2010)

Moonbus01, thanks for the photolink. 

Yeah, Irwin had *LB Abbott *and his boys go NUTS kitbashing all the remaining miniatures from *VTTBOTS* series to come up with new miniatures to fit the film. Even some full-size props were used as miniature underwater buildings and structures, like the weather-station from *LIS* as a gold-colored buliding.

*CBTS*, was the most expensive TV movie up to that time (just like *LOTG* was the most expensive series of it's time). Irwin was also no longer under contract with Fox, so it was produced independently with money from Irwin's old buddy, *Steve Broidy*. He owned Motion Pictures International, the cinema firm that released *CITY* as a feature overseas.

I really enjoy watching the film just to surprise myself by spotting something new that I missed on a previous go-round.


----------



## Erwin Alan (May 25, 2010)

Not rear-projection....superimposed a la *LOTG* effects. Some scenes aren't done well, like the 'Leviathan' footage of aquarium fish in a tank behind Adm. Mathews as he tracks down his ol' buddy Aquila in the Tank Room. There was also a lousy superimposition when Aquila is rescuing Woody in the Aquafoil. His image is too large for the scene at one point!


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

I recall seeing footage of IA talking about, I think, the making of The Towering Inferno. He said the miniatures alone would cost $1,000.000. Wow, what a major B-esser!! It might be from "The Fantasy Worlds of Irwin Allen"


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

One thousand dollars? Sounds like a pretty great deal to me...


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

My bad....I meant ONE MEEEELLION DOLLARS!!!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Wasn't someone working on an aquadozer to go with the little 1/350 Flying Sub and Seaview?


----------



## ajmadison (Oct 18, 1999)

There was an interview with the one of the FX directors for Star Trek 6, who stated that $750,000 was spent on the refit Enterprise miniature. Not clear if this figure is over the entire life of the model, or just the money spent to fix it up for ST:TUC. Though the context of the conversation suggests it was just the money spent for the one movie.

The space-dock that first appeared in ST:TMP ended up costing $250,000 in late 70's dollars. Though that number was partially due to a completed miniature having to be reworked at the request of the director, essentially doubling the original cost.

A million dollars for an entire miniature city? Might actually be a bargain.


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

I'm sure that there was some "showmanship" in Irwin's figure for Towering Inferno. It could be that the miniatures budget was $ 1M which would include shooting, not just construction.

Mind you, the "miniatures" for Towering Inferno were in name only; you need large scale with fire and pyrotechnics. The building apparently came in at about 70 feet tall.


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

Here are a few bts shots of the tower miniature filmed at Sersen Lake.


----------



## Patterson (Apr 21, 2010)

And they call it a miniature!!


----------



## Erwin Alan (May 25, 2010)

I'm completely convinced that the two Aquafoils are Aurora models.

Not only the thick striping is a give away, but so is the lack of detailing on the rear panel on both subs. All the VTTBOTS miniatures I've seen have more detailing on the rear panel to match up with the full-scale rear exit port (as seen in "Fires of Death"). The jet ports had a cross-hatch design that Aurora did not copy for their kits. Also, the Aurora kits rear panel only have a partial corrogated detail on the rear panel, while the studio models were completely corrogated.

Study some screen-grabs and you will see what I mean. And if they are not genuine Aurora kits then LB Abbott and his boys went and casted molds based on the Aurora kits for CBTS. I suspect that the original FS-1s were either too 'battle scarred' or not the right scale to match with the Aquadozer.


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

Erwin Alan said:


> I'm completely convinced that the two Aquafoils are Aurora models.


The cockpit detailing, and pilot figure in the Auqadozers were taken from Aurora Flying Subs, so they are in scale with them. 

David.


----------



## moonbus01 (Jun 4, 2010)

Cockpit photo


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

I have a photo like that. I took it at the 96 World Con where it was on display. Somewhere along the way the top hatch went awol, and was replaced by a Plastruct elliptical dome.

David.


----------



## Tony Hardy (Oct 23, 2002)

The Aquafoils in "City Beneath The Sea" are cast from the 9 inch studio Flying Sub molds (I have one). One of the ways you can tell is due to the angle on the back of the engine section. The 9 incher is very, very close in size to the Aurora kit. It was primarily used with the 8 1/2 ft. Seaview model in "Voyage."


----------



## Erwin Alan (May 25, 2010)

Doesn't explain why the 9 inchers of CBTS have Aurora type details and not details following the other studio miniatures. My eye tells me those are Auroras or Aurora-casted models.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I always thought the same thing but I think no less an authority than Greg Jein told me they were not Auroras. I think one easy way to tell is the wing taper--the Aurora kits had very blunt wing edges while all the actual Flying Sub miniatures had nice, sharp, tapered edges.


----------



## Erwin Alan (May 25, 2010)

I respect Greg Jein, his work and his vast collection of LB Abbott (and other miniatures) but he was not there when CBTS was filmed.....he -- like the rest of us -- can only guess as to the motivations of the film crew at that time.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Greg knows whereof he speaks in this case because, at one point or another, he owned the miniature(s) in question. For all I know he still does (you never quite know with Greg).

In any event, given the rigors of live-in-camera, wet-for-wet tank filming, it is unlikely in the extreme that the FX crew would have used build-ups of the Aurora FS kit -- especially given their access to what would have been much sturdier castings of the 9-incher. Under the circumstances, there would have been no reason to use anything else.

I too wondered at one point if perhaps castings of the Aurora model had been made, but after having studied the relevant shots in the movie I now believe the visual evidence supports Greg's assertion that castings of the 9-incher were used.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It does look like the rear end of the two aquafoils in the first 'dozer sequence are different--the rear bulkhead on the one underneath the aquadozer seems more perpendicular and less slanted than the one on Stuart Whitman's ship. I wonder too whether the 9-inch hulls were close enough to the Auroras that maybe they could have used the rear bulkheads from the Aurora kits as detail. It does seem like the Aurora kit would have been too fragile to stand up to repeated smashings from the aquadozer--I've held that model and it's fairly heavy and solid.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

jbond said:


> It does seem like the Aurora kit would have been too fragile to stand up to repeated smashings from the aquadozer--I've held that model and it's fairly heavy and solid.


Yeah, there's no way a styrene model would have been used for that sequence.

Could the FX crew have made fiberglass castings of the Aurora kit? Anything's possible I suppose, but given the existence of the 9-incher it seems unlikely.

At least to me it does.


----------



## Tony Hardy (Oct 23, 2002)

Yeah, when you sit there and freeze frame the film with the Auroral kit and the 9 inch studio model in your lap......well, it's no contest. It's the 9 inch studio model.


----------



## idMonster (Jun 18, 2003)

Tony Hardy said:


> Yeah, when you sit there and freeze frame the film with the Auroral kit and the 9 inch studio model in your lap......well, it's no contest. It's the 9 inch studio model.


I'd ask why you're freeze-framing a movie with the Aurora Flying Sub in your lap but I'm afraid of the answer 

Gordon


----------

