Hobbyist Forums banner

OT: City Beneath the Sea on DVD

9K views 95 replies 22 participants last post by  idMonster 
#1 ·
#2 ·
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?
 
#3 ·
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
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#9 ·
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?
 
#6 ·
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...
 
#14 ·
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? :)
 
#15 ·
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...
 
#16 ·
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 :)
 
#17 · (Edited)
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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.

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.
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 :)
 
#21 ·
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...
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
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.
 
#25 ·
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
 
#32 ·
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 !
 
#34 · (Edited)
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? :)
 
#37 ·
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?
 
#40 ·
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.
 
#38 ·
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 :)
 
#39 ·
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.
 
#42 · (Edited)
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.

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.
 
#41 ·
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...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top