24 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

'Special Effects Superman: The Art And Effects Of Derek Meddings'

Visual & miniature effects supervisor on six James Bond films

'Special Effects Superman: The Art And Effects Of Derek Meddings' Arriving Early

New book now slated for September 2008 release

[Mister E]

I always wanted to know about how Meddings did his stuff. I think his best work in Bond series was Moonraker followed closely by The Spy Who Loved Me.

[Qwerty]

This sounds like a great book to me. Planning on getting this one.

[sharpshooter]

That prop of Kananga's inflated ego is just priceless.

[Professor Dent]

One of the true pioneers in movie making. I can't wait to get my hands on this book.

[Qwerty]

Also available to pre-order at Amazon.co.uk:

http://www.amazon.co...5610117/cbn-21/

[Qwerty]

Arriving one month early...

'Special Effects Superman: The Art And Effects Of Derek Meddings' Arriving Early

New book now slated for September 2008 release

[Donovan]

Arriving one month early...

...to fill the void of The Making of QOS book, now scheduled for release one month later.

[marktmurphy]

Is it heresy to say that I think he was a bit rubbish? I mean, all of his model shots always looked like model shots. Compare the modelwork in GoldenEye (planes crashing into the dish) to that in The Living Daylights (bridge collapse/false perspective): in this and many other cases it's always Medding's stuff that looks pretty shoddy to my eye.
Superman II (cars being thrown through the streets); Batman (Batwing crash)... they're all a bit poor.

[Simon]

I think it was perhaps he was inconsistent. The Spy tanker looked the business and his Eyes Only work was good, both of which were filmed against unscaleable water.

But yes, the GE work was a bit off and I wonder if this was more budget related than skill.

Perhaps also he was more comfortable making models for the Thunderbirds, where the result Had to look like models...

[freemo]

Is it heresy to say that I think he was a bit rubbish? I mean, all of his model shots always looked like model shots. Compare the modelwork in GoldenEye (planes crashing into the dish) to that in The Living Daylights (bridge collapse/false perspective): in this and many other cases it's always Medding's stuff that looks pretty shoddy to my eye.
Superman II (cars being thrown through the streets); Batman (Batwing crash)... they're all a bit poor.

The miniatures of the valley town near-flood in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE are also very ordinary.

[marktmurphy]

I think it was perhaps he was inconsistent. The Spy tanker looked the business and his Eyes Only work was good, both of which were filmed against unscaleable water.

The tanker is good, yes; although they then go and ruin it by putting in those shots of it underwater once it's sunk, which reveal exactly how big it actually was. Odd choice. The FYEO stuff is decent enough, although if I were being cruel I might say that it being shot at night helped him a bit!
Often John Richardson's stuff is much better; I've occasionally been surprised to even find out that some of his shots are models: not a surprise I've ever had with Meddings'.
I went to see Superman II at the BFI on the weekend- seeing it on the big screen you really do wonder what Meddings was thinking: in the street battle scene he even uses tiny mechanised model people: they look awful.

Perhaps also he was more comfortable making models for the Thunderbirds, where the result Had to look like models...

Yeah, I always wondered that- his stuff always looked like Thunderbirds.

[Simon]

Haven't seen Supes II, but doesn't sound surprising.

Maybe there are some effects people that don't believe in the maxim of not drawing attention to oneself. I remember seeing the extras for The Rock and finding out the jets at the finale were CGI wire models with wrap around skins. But they were just filmed as one would a normal jet; ie, from far away.

CGI shots where the camera goes in and out of the rotating blades of a helicopter are just showing off and ensuring everyone knows its an FX shot. Wish they would just get over themselves.

[Mr. Du Pont]

Too bad we didn't get a better look at the Kananga dummy in the movie. It would have made his demise far more palatable. Somehow that still shot is far better than what we saw on film. The movie didn't show the face like that.

[trevanian]

Is it heresy to say that I think he was a bit rubbish? I mean, all of his model shots always looked like model shots. Compare the modelwork in GoldenEye (planes crashing into the dish) to that in The Living Daylights (bridge collapse/false perspective): in this and many other cases it's always Medding's stuff that looks pretty shoddy to my eye.
Superman II (cars being thrown through the streets); Batman (Batwing crash)... they're all a bit poor.

The miniatures of the valley town near-flood in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE are also very ordinary.

Well, there are two parts to the flood. Meddings did the first part, which looks great, but he was off to MOONRAKER by the time the second got built and shot. I think Colin Chilvers did it. Anyway, the film's director, interviewed in CFQ, was very specific about saying he didn't have 'the maestro' for the bad part of the shot, and that is why it looked bad.

The realistic stuff he did is so good nobody knows it is a model, like the poppy field in L&LD (these are incredible shots.) Isn't the building blowing up behind Moore at the dock in FYEO also something he did? And the GOLDEN GUN island stuff looked absolutely genuine to me, as did the distant shots of the tanker in SPY. With what he was paid and the time he had, his work was pretty amazing.

Given the teensy bit of time he had to do MOONRAKER, it is probably as great an achievement as anything Trumbull (BLADE RUNNER, 2001, SILENT RUNNING, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, first STAR TREK) did, and from somebody who is in awe of Trumbull like I am, that is saying a lot.

The GE stuff that most impresses me is the shot where you see Boris in the foreground, the dish behind him and the dogs further back. Boris and the dogs are real, but the midground is all miniature, and it is all in-camera. Tremendous design and execution.

If I hadn't spent the money on this gorgeous Ken Adam book, I'd be all over the Meddings ... as is, I'll have to wait for it to go down in price used, but then I'll be very greedily pawing it.

[delfloria]

By the way I'm selling the only remaining copy of the inflated Kanaga head, which was a test pull out of the mold.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Haven't seen Supes II, but doesn't sound surprising.

If you ever do, make sure you watch the Donner cut. It's vastly superior to the Lester cut.

[tim partridge]

Is it heresy to say that I think he was a bit rubbish? I mean, all of his model shots always looked like model shots. Compare the modelwork in GoldenEye (planes crashing into the dish) to that in The Living Daylights (bridge collapse/false perspective): in this and many other cases it's always Medding's stuff that looks pretty shoddy to my eye.
Superman II (cars being thrown through the streets); Batman (Batwing crash)... they're all a bit poor.

You are not exactly being at all representative of Meddings' model work. You pick a film that had an unusually manic production (SUPERMAN II, which by the way features many many great miniatures like the helicopter hitting the barn, all of the shots of the Eiffel tower lift, etc) and then GOLDENEYE and BATMAN, two films where Meddings was perhaps at his most physically ill having to fight cancer.

You cite the worst example from GOLDENEYE (and I agree with you there, but you try suping a Bond movie when you have terminal cancer, not living long enough for the possibility of a reshoot), but what about all of these sequences from the same movie:

*All of the exterior Severneya sequences (aside from the studio insert medium and close ups). All the shots of the helicopter landing and taking off in front of it, the opening shot with the husky sleigh, Natalya walking through the snow in long shot

*The three Russian jets taking off from the runway

*The Tiger copter in the graveyard (long shots are all miniature), ejecting, exploding and the following parachute shot

*The tank blasting the train (and the collision which then destroys it)

*The Cessna plane being hit by the missile, skimming the lake and crashing into the jungle trees


Check out some of Meddings best movies for invisible special effects:

LIVE AND LET DIE (the poppy field explosion)
MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
SPY WHO LOVED ME
SUPERMAN (Golden Gate, Dam, Helicopter rescue, etc)
MOONRAKER (and I mean the inobvious stuff, like the waterfall dive, the opening circus tent)
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
SPIES LIKE US
SANTA CLAUS THE MOVIE (all of the reindeer take off shots for example)
HUDSON HAWK
GERMINAL (a French movie that has one undetectable shot of a mine blowing up)



As far as Bonds go, I think you'll find FYEO to be remarkable on the Meddings front, if you do the background reading. The helicopter flying through the gasworks, the Corfu docks explosions, the subs, the boat blowing up in the opening, the faked soundstage "underwater" work with double exposed bubbles. All first rate and totally undetectable (and arguably way more ambitious too than anything Richardson ever had to do, not to take away from his efforts either)!

I don't think Meddings was flawless by any means, but he excelled and with that in-camera miniature work, most of which will always stand the test of time. He was far and away the number one guy when it came to that approach. I think his worst work was easily the more optically orientated, fantasy movies like MIO MIN MIO (LAND OF FARAWAY), NEVERENDING STORY 2, even lots of KRULL I think was a bit flat and dodgy (though it still had some wonderful miniatures, particularly the forced perspective castle). Basically, anything where he was competing with the flashy style of ILM. Meddings was always best when his effects sunk into the background of the film. He was out of his element on NEVERENDING STORY 2 particularly, in my opinion (tinfoil city, static toy dragons, lifeless travelling matte shots). The more real world set NEVERENDING STORY 3 was really good though (and had Meddings venture for the first time into digital territory and CG).

By all means, stand by your opinion of what you think is good and bad. However, you are definitely underestimating and grossly misrepresenting the power of Meddings' work while at the same time proving to everyone just how good it is, because given the examples you cited you've only noticed the really bad stuff, (and the good stuff goes mostly undetected, as it should do)!

Edited by tim partridge, 10 October 2008 - 10:30 AM.

[trevanian]

MOONRAKER (and I mean the inobvious stuff, like the waterfall dive, the opening circus tent)

The circus tent was a model? Geezus, I was just watching the pts the other day and was wondering why they didn' t have extras standing around outside for the shot!

Geez, you can DUST me on this subject, I bow to you, sir.

[marktmurphy]

Is it heresy to say that I think he was a bit rubbish? I mean, all of his model shots always looked like model shots. Compare the modelwork in GoldenEye (planes crashing into the dish) to that in The Living Daylights (bridge collapse/false perspective): in this and many other cases it's always Medding's stuff that looks pretty shoddy to my eye.
Superman II (cars being thrown through the streets); Batman (Batwing crash)... they're all a bit poor.

You are not exactly being at all representative of Meddings' model work. You pick a film that had an unusually manic production (SUPERMAN II, which by the way features many many great miniatures like the helicopter hitting the barn, all of the shots of the Eiffel tower lift, etc) and then GOLDENEYE and BATMAN, two films where Meddings was perhaps at his most physically ill having to fight cancer.

You cite the worst example from GOLDENEYE (and I agree with you there, but you try suping a Bond movie when you have terminal cancer, not living long enough for the possibility of a reshoot), but what about all of these sequences from the same movie:

*All of the exterior Severneya sequences (aside from the studio insert medium and close ups). All the shots of the helicopter landing and taking off in front of it, the opening shot with the husky sleigh, Natalya walking through the snow in long shot

*The three Russian jets taking off from the runway

*The Tiger copter in the graveyard (long shots are all miniature), ejecting, exploding and the following parachute shot

*The tank blasting the train (and the collision which then destroys it)

*The Cessna plane being hit by the missile, skimming the lake and crashing into the jungle trees

Yeah, they all look like models too. The planes take off like the light radio controlled planes they are, the Cessna hits that globular bright blue water, the tank doesn't really match the real tank, the Tiger looks like a remote control model... I really don't think it's great stuff.

Check out some of Meddings best movies for invisible special effects:

LIVE AND LET DIE (the poppy field explosion)
MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
SPY WHO LOVED ME
SUPERMAN (Golden Gate, Dam, Helicopter rescue, etc)
MOONRAKER (and I mean the inobvious stuff, like the waterfall dive, the opening circus tent)
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
SPIES LIKE US
SANTA CLAUS THE MOVIE (all of the reindeer take off shots for example)
HUDSON HAWK
GERMINAL (a French movie that has one undetectable shot of a mine blowing up)

Of the stuff I've seen from that lot there are no surprises that it was modelwork. It looks like modelwork. Some of it he does as well as possible (the Superman helicopter rescue- can't think how that could be better), some of it is dreadful (the Superman dam stuff- but that is practically impossible stuff).

As far as Bonds go, I think you'll find FYEO to be remarkable on the Meddings front, if you do the background reading. The helicopter flying through the gasworks, the Corfu docks explosions, the subs, the boat blowing up in the opening, the faked soundstage "underwater" work with double exposed bubbles. All first rate and totally undetectable (and arguably way more ambitious too than anything Richardson ever had to do, not to take away from his efforts either)!

The gasworks are very impressive: the model of the building the helicopter flies through matching the real building is amazing- but the other stuff is pretty obvious to me. The subs are the worst stuff he did in that film- they don't match the real thing very well; I as remember the depth of field really gives it away. The docks stuff is okay and very much helped by being at night and the underwater stuff doesn't work at all- it looks unnatural.

By all means, stand by your opinion of what you think is good and bad. However, you are definitely underestimating and grossly misrepresenting the power of Meddings' work while at the same time proving to everyone just how good it is, because given the examples you cited you've only noticed the really bad stuff, (and the good stuff goes mostly undetected, as it should do)!

I tend to think that with this sort of stuff you're only as good as your worst work.

[trevanian]

Is it heresy to say that I think he was a bit rubbish? I mean, all of his model shots always looked like model shots. Compare the modelwork in GoldenEye (planes crashing into the dish) to that in The Living Daylights (bridge collapse/false perspective): in this and many other cases it's always Medding's stuff that looks pretty shoddy to my eye.
Superman II (cars being thrown through the streets); Batman (Batwing crash)... they're all a bit poor.

You are not exactly being at all representative of Meddings' model work. You pick a film that had an unusually manic production (SUPERMAN II, which by the way features many many great miniatures like the helicopter hitting the barn, all of the shots of the Eiffel tower lift, etc) and then GOLDENEYE and BATMAN, two films where Meddings was perhaps at his most physically ill having to fight cancer.

You cite the worst example from GOLDENEYE (and I agree with you there, but you try suping a Bond movie when you have terminal cancer, not living long enough for the possibility of a reshoot), but what about all of these sequences from the same movie:

*All of the exterior Severneya sequences (aside from the studio insert medium and close ups). All the shots of the helicopter landing and taking off in front of it, the opening shot with the husky sleigh, Natalya walking through the snow in long shot

*The three Russian jets taking off from the runway

*The Tiger copter in the graveyard (long shots are all miniature), ejecting, exploding and the following parachute shot

*The tank blasting the train (and the collision which then destroys it)

*The Cessna plane being hit by the missile, skimming the lake and crashing into the jungle trees

Yeah, they all look like models too. The planes take off like the light radio controlled planes they are, the Cessna hits that globular bright blue water, the tank doesn't really match the real tank, the Tiger looks like a remote control model... I really don't think it's great stuff.

Check out some of Meddings best movies for invisible special effects:

LIVE AND LET DIE (the poppy field explosion)
MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
SPY WHO LOVED ME
SUPERMAN (Golden Gate, Dam, Helicopter rescue, etc)
MOONRAKER (and I mean the inobvious stuff, like the waterfall dive, the opening circus tent)
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
SPIES LIKE US
SANTA CLAUS THE MOVIE (all of the reindeer take off shots for example)
HUDSON HAWK
GERMINAL (a French movie that has one undetectable shot of a mine blowing up)

Of the stuff I've seen from that lot there are no surprises that it was modelwork. It looks like modelwork. Some of it he does as well as possible (the Superman helicopter rescue- can't think how that could be better), some of it is dreadful (the Superman dam stuff- but that is practically impossible stuff).

As far as Bonds go, I think you'll find FYEO to be remarkable on the Meddings front, if you do the background reading. The helicopter flying through the gasworks, the Corfu docks explosions, the subs, the boat blowing up in the opening, the faked soundstage "underwater" work with double exposed bubbles. All first rate and totally undetectable (and arguably way more ambitious too than anything Richardson ever had to do, not to take away from his efforts either)!

The gasworks are very impressive: the model of the building the helicopter flies through matching the real building is amazing- but the other stuff is pretty obvious to me. The subs are the worst stuff he did in that film- they don't match the real thing very well; I as remember the depth of field really gives it away. The docks stuff is okay and very much helped by being at night and the underwater stuff doesn't work at all- it looks unnatural.

By all means, stand by your opinion of what you think is good and bad. However, you are definitely underestimating and grossly misrepresenting the power of Meddings' work while at the same time proving to everyone just how good it is, because given the examples you cited you've only noticed the really bad stuff, (and the good stuff goes mostly undetected, as it should do)!

I tend to think that with this sort of stuff you're only as good as your worst work.

So when you think "charlie chaplin" you're remembering COUNTESS OF HONG KONG? yikes.

I'd go point by point with you on this, but shoot, Tim has already done that.

[Qwerty]

Telegraph has published a tribute of their own...

http://commanderbond...n...&item=50904

[TheSaint]

Copies of the book were being sold at the Pinewood event for £25. I don't know how many were sold but, if they had offered it for less as some kind of show special, they probably would've sold more.

[Mark_Hazard]

Copies of the book were being sold at the Pinewood event for £25. I don't know how many were sold but, if they had offered it for less as some kind of show special, they probably would've sold more.

They did have a show special, you could have bought that and the book on the Gerry Anderson models for £40.

[TheSaint]

They did have a show special, you could have bought that and the book on the Gerry Anderson models for £40.

There's the rub. Was not interested in the Gerry Anderson book.