In questa pagina abbiamo l'onore di pubblicare una serie di risposte che Mike Trim (Special Effects Designer) ha gentilmente fornito a ISOSHADO a fronte delle nostre domande sugli effetti speciali e sui modelli del set di UFO. Per conservare l'originalità delle parole di Mike, abbiamo scelto di pubblicare le domande in italiano e le risposte in inglese. Per la traduzione potete utilizzare il traduttore di Google.
Chiunque volesse porre domande a Mike sull'aspetto "modellistico" e sugli effetti speciali della serie UFO può inviare una mail a info@isoshado.org

As far as Moonbase is concerned there were two complete models it built. One was at the size shown in the Alan Shubrook photo, which was  something around 1/12 scale, while the other in the first photo was probably around 1/24 scale.  The largest  of these was created to be in scale with the large 3ft  model of the Lunar Module, while the smaller version was scaled to go with the 15 or 18 inch model of the spacecraft.  There are three very good photos showing the subtle differences between the two sizes reproduced in the large pink cover Japanese book, published many years ago now, covering all the Anderson series.
I also have a vague memory of a much smaller Moonbase model, although I cannot recall specifically why it was built or any particular episode it appeared in.  But it would have been done to give us the opportunity to create either an extreme long shot or a very high angle one.  One of the photos shown in the book mentioned above shows a high angled shot the small Lunar Model descending towards a Moonbase, but this is the 1/24 scale version and not the third very small model I'm talking about.

As you may know I was appalled to learn that Gerry loved my design for the Scarlet Moon Hopper and wanted to have it in UFO, which is why perhaps it was mentioned in that very early episode. However, I was determined to create an updated version which would hopefully look far more realistic, especially as it was going to be one of the main craft, and make it look as if the technology behind it was linked to others in the series like SID and Moonbase.
I certainly didn't want it hopping because, not only did it look very comical, it also created problems when it came to filming, especially when we needed to feature the model travelling across what were by now quite large lunar sets built on the studio floor.  A non-hopping craft could be suspended from a strong wire that spanned the set and simply pulled along it.  But if it was going to hop then it would have to hand flown, which would require someone to virtually run along a series of narrow boards erected above the set, lifting and lowering the model as they went.  Because we usually filmed at high speed this would need to have been done reasonably fast which would not only be dangerous for the operator,  but extremely difficult to do without breaking the legs of the model as it bounced across the set.  Also, the amount of time needed to construct the boards etc would have not been practical and the Moonmobiles would not have been able to get to their destination with any great speed.  So we ended up with the more realistic hovering version you all know and I'm pleased to say that Gerry was very happy with my changes.
As for there being any links between models from different series, the answer is not really.  I certainly don't recall having done this for the following reasons.  Each design was based on the requirements of the script and the constraints of time and ease of manufacture.  Therefore, what might have worked for a Scarlet story was unlikely to work for a UFO episode, as the stories were so different.  Also, as a designer, I always wanted to come up with something new rather than rework an existing concept and, had Gerry not brought up the idea of using the Moon Hopper, then the design of the Moommobile would probably have turned out to be quite different.  As for possible similarities between the Angle Interceptor and the UFO version, again there were none.  Derek Meddings designed the Scarlet one as a fairly conventional aircraft, where as I came up with what was a pure spacecraft concept which Derek then reworked into the final version.  The fact that both craft featured skis is purely coincidental, as in both cases this was the most appropriate and logical form of landing gear given how the craft operated.

The short answer is that it depended entirely on how complex the particular model was and how big.  I would think for something like the large I/12 scale Interceptors you would probably be looking at about two or three weeks, for carving the wooden pattern, making the moulds and casting the fibreglass pieces, assembly and finishing, then painting and final detailing.  With the large Skydiver it was probably a bit longer, although there may have been more than one model maker involved which would have obviously shortened the time.  On average the final detailing and dirtying down etc, would only probably take two or three days.
The decision as to whether to cast any particular model was usually driven by a number of factors.
Firstly, was more than one model need as in the case of the Interceptors and Mobiles?  And secondly there was the question of weight.  A six-foot long Skydiver all carved from wood would have weighed a great deal and would have been very difficult to hang on wires.  Thirdly, was this model just going to appear in a single episode or did it have to last for the entire series.
Fibreglass models were less vulnerable to damage than ones made of wood - especially balsa wood as was sometimes used to create a very light model.  Sometimes though, as in the case of the Lunar Module, even a model that would go right through the series would still be carved from wood, simply because there was only one needed of each scale.  And the last factor would time considerations.  Obviously, when making moulds for casting, you have to carve the model in the first place so, if time is short, it is quicker and easier to simply finish and use that wooden version.
With regard to the Interceptor launch bays, I did a quick design the was constructed in the model shop and I, and the crew in the dirtying down shop, detailed it.  If my memory is correct, the lifting of the platforms was achieved by using the camera dolly under the set, with a pole going up to the platform.  By its very nature, the dolly was able to give us a very smooth up and down movement.

The silver shields, or paddles, were originally placed  all the same way - I think with the points facing upwards.  But with this arrangement it was hard to see the thing was rotating at all. So Derek decided we should position them alternatively up and down to give a better impression of the spin.  However, if I remember correctly, the number of paddles on some of the models could not be divided by two to give an equal number of each position, which led to there being an uneven arrangement of two paddles both of which ended up pointing the same way.  This had an unexpected advantage, I seem to remember, of adding to the impression of rotation.  I can't recall whether this was the case on all sizes of model.
I am really not sure what happened when we needed to blow up a UFO because of the fact that they needed to rotate, which obviously required an internal motor which would have possibly been damaged in the explosion.  It is possible that we used a process known as a 'jump cut', where the normal model would have been removed and an explosive charge put in it's place.  The explosion would then have been edited into the UFO shot and the result would have looked convincing.  As Ian Wingrove is visiting you, and would most likely have been involved in many such shots, he would be perhaps be able to shed more light on this particular question.

I have to admit that, without being able to watch the sequence of the UFO emerging from the water, I am not at all sure as to how these shots were achieved and again, this might be a good question for Ian Wingrove.  I can, however, offer a possible suggestion.  It might be the case that the UFO was not in the water at all, but down behind the back edge of the water tank, with an explosive charge in the water in front of it to give the impression of it bursting out.  Given the very low camera angles we used, I can recall other occasions when similar tricks were used and I cannot see how we could have put the model in the water and still used its motor to spin it.  I shall be interested to see if Ian can give you  a definitive answer on this.

The Shado Mobiles were always pulled on wires, as were all the other vehicles, and had no motors fitted to them.  It has to be remembered that radio controlled models were few and far between in those days and the reliability of such systems was far from perfect, so we never used them.  Also, given the different camera speeds that were used for the various shots, it was far easier for an operator pulling a wire to vary the speed at which the model had to travel.  By the time UFO was filmed, the special effects crews had had a great deal of experience using wires and Derek Meddings was very loathed to put his faith in an alternative method.  Another factor that would have made radio controlled Mobiles impossible, apart from the lack of the necessary equipment, was the weight of the models.  In order to get their suspensions riding smoothly over rough ground they usually had a considerable amount of weight added to stop them bouncing about and it would have been difficult to obtain electric motors with sufficient power that would fit into what were quite small models and propel them at the sort of speeds demanded during filming.

On this last question I am not sure which special weapons the questioner is referring to, so perhaps they could give me some more details on this and I will do my best to answer.  Anyway, I hope these responses will be of interest and I look forward to receiving this expanded question.

As far as my involvement in the design of the weapons goes, the only one I was responsible for was a shoulder mounted rocket launcher fired at a UFO flying low over the Lunar surface by, I think, the actor George Cole - was that the Molly Bazooka?  Not knowing if this would be just a one off or if the weapon might appear in other episodes, and also if more than one might be required, I designed it to be easily constructed.  To achieve this I used components from a range of plastic water pipes, which formed the bulk of it, and a cheap hand-held 35mm slide viewer to act as the sighting display.  This then only required the thing to be assembled, some way of attaching the sight to be made and the whole thing sprayed, all of which could be done fairly quickly.  The pipe itself also gave the SFX technician plenty of room to install their charges and, from what I can recall, the whole thing work pretty well.    

As to the first new question I'm afraid I don't know the answer, having never had any real contact with the technicians that did the sound effects.  As far as I know it was all done by an outside company, but again I have no idea who or where they were.

As far as the source of our inspiration is concerned, I suppose there where several things that formed this.  Firstly, both Derek and I were aware of the technological developments going on at the time and, as I've often said before, our natural style was to design for the near, rather than far, future.  Therefore we would try and come up with something that was more futuristic, but which was not so outlandishly different to the things we were all familiar with.      

Secondly, from my own point of view, what the script required a craft or vehicle to do in the story was certainly a very strong factor in shaping the final appearance of a design.  The script writers had, thankfully, long ago given up writing descriptions of them, but things like the sort of terrain they would be operating in, the number of crew they carried, what sort of armaments they had and the size they needed to be would all help shape the final concept.  Sometimes the practical requirements of building and operating the models could also influence the design and ignoring this and simply going for the look of the thing in order to try and make it look different, as I did with the Russian Lunar Drilling Rig wheels, can cause significant problems in both areas.

As for the look of the Moonbase girls well, Derek and I can take no credit there, I'm afraid.  That was all down to Mother Nature and the skills of the wardrobe, hair and make-up departments!

With regard to the SID image, I'm assuming this is the remains of the small model of SID, judging by the size of the wood grain and the sort pieces it is constructed from. Obviously, for a model that was intended for use only as a long shot the details did not have to exactly match the larger version, but just give an convincing impression.
Therefore it would have been made up from a lot of bits and pieces that would not have withstood too closer scrutiny.
However, it is a very long time since I last saw the model and I cannot recall ever studying it closely enough to have made a note of how it was constructed.
I hope you can manage to negotiate a reasonable price for it.

This is a very interesting question.   I think it is a classic example of one of the problems faced when designing this sort of concept.  Do you concentrate purely on the look of the thing, trying to create something that will work well on screen, as well as being practical to make and operate?  Or do you begin by approaching the problem as if you were designing a real machine and make it accommodate all the things that it would have to fit inside it?

Obviously you are doing this right at the start of a production and, at that time, the only thing you have to work on is the pilot script and I can't remember whether the aliens themselves were featured in that, but I suspect not - therefore, they would never have featured in our thinking.  We were far more concerned with the external appearance of the UFO and how we were going to fly and spin it, as well as how we were going to make it and produce it in different sizes. 

By the time the later scripts introduced the aliens, it was too late to worry about how practical it was for aliens to be inside.  The fact that you have been able to come up with a scale for a UFO is purely down to two random factors.  Firstly, all of our vehicles and buildings, such as the house in ESP, were built to a common one twelfth scale throughout the series.  Secondly, the large UFO's size was dictated by the fact that we had to manufacture the clear perspex outer shell in house and that was the largest we could produce without having to involve an outside firm, which would have been costly and time consuming.  So when it became necessary to show both models in one shot, it was not possible to create a larger version of the craft.  And, to be truthful, I don't think it would have occurred to either Derek or myself that someone in the future would be working out the relative measurements.

So, in the end, I think it simply comes down to this.  In a series of this nature, produce for television with strict schedules tied into transmission dates, there simply is not the time to design everything in detail or to make lots of different sized models as you might on a film.  Also, on a film, you just have one script so you know from the start what a craft has to do and you do not get different script writers introducing fresh ideas as you go along.

As the various series that proceeded UFO went on we did, by trial and error, gradually narrow down the kits we bought and settled on a standard selection which we knew would give us really interesting well moulded detailed pieces.  Many of these came from companies like Revell, Aurora and Tamiya and we bought them in reasonably large quantities.  The boxes were discarded, the parts removed from the sprue and then put into large shallow trays that made sorting through them far easier and quicker.  Alongside this selection we would also order large boxes of kits from Airfix, as we had from the days of Thunderbirds, of things like the girder bridge, footbridge and signal gantry, as well as the B29 Superfortress.  Normally it would be the boys in the dirtying down workshop who would order these and, when something new and interesting came on the market, would dash off to the local model shop to get one. 

Your second question is a more difficult one to answer.  One thing is certain; if I were creating an updated series then the look of things would certain change, because the originals were very much a product of their time.  The difficult thing to do, however, is to try and imagine exactly what changes one would make without spending a lot of time drawing up new ideas.  When designing I very rarely start off with a clear image in my mind of what I want something to look like.  Normally, I just start drawing and developing the idea until I get a basic concept.  Once I have that I can then begin to refine it towards the finished idea.  Sadly, without going through that process first, I'm not sure I can come up with a satisfactory answer.

As for the photo, yes, I can see some similarities with the Shadomobile, aided I think by virtually the same colour being used.  Were a new UFO series being considered then something like this might work, although I find the design a little over complex and fussy.   But that is probably because my style is different. 

The reason that the original Interceptor design and the version that appeared in the shows are different is that they are not both my designs.  

When my boss Derek Meddings saw my concept he felt it did not look futuristic enough, although he had been perfectly happy with my designs for S.I.D, Moonbase and the Moonmobile, all of which I felt had the same sort of look.  I had created them to look as they were all designed and constructed using the same approach and technology.  He therefore chose to come up with his own smaller version which kept the same overall layout as my original, but streamlined it which, given the complete absence of any atmosphere on the moon or in space, was completely unnecessary.  He also ended up with a model which had less detail, like the exposed engine area and swivelling side pods that contained the vertical thrust engines on the original, which I always felt was a shame.  I had also intended that the exterior cockpit area of my design was simple enough to have easily been built as a live-action set, whereas there was, if my memory is correct, no such set ever created by the art department probably because of the more complex shape in Derek's design.  I am obviously biased here, but I do wish my design had been the final one selected.  However, Derek was in charge and he obviously had the final word.

Once again, Skydiver was designed by Derek and therefore I can only offer my opinion on this question, rather than give you a definitive answer.  Like you I was somewhat puzzled by the design of Sky1.  It seemed very odd to have a nose intake on a craft that went underwater, especially as it had to accelerate up and out of the water in order to take off.  And although I don't think we ever saw it land on water again, one had to assume that it did and so that intake would have again been impractical - if not extremely dangerous!  Before I was aware that he had started work on the Skydiver concept, I had begun to draw my own and therefore I know had difficult it was to overcome all of these problems.

I can only assume that Derek did not spend too much time analysing how this craft might work in reality when he designed it and simple went for the overall look of the thing.  Most designer have what might be called their trademark and intakes certainly were something that featured a lot in his designs.  Even back in the days of Thunderbirds he gave another submarine, Thunderbird 4, lots of intakes, so perhaps it is not surprising that one turned up on Sky1!

If we assume that the intake fed air to some sort of jet engine located in the fuselage there should, as you suggest, be jet nozzles at the rear of the craft and it is clear that there were not, as the flat rear end contained the door from the body of Skydiver itself, together with various connections between the two parts of the craft.  So exactly how the propulsion system for airborne flight works, I'm afraid I don't know.  

All I can say in Derek's defence is that, when designing right at the start of a series, it is not always possible to come up with a something that not only looks good on screen, but is also an entirely practical concept.  Sometimes tight preproduction schedules simply do not allow you that luxury. 

It is always difficult to answer a question like this without sounding overly critical of what has gone before and, in my case, also being critical of somebody else's designs.  However, this is an extremely interesting question so I will do my best on a case by case basis.

SKYDIVER .  I think I would redesign Sky 1 in order to overcome the problems identified by your previous questioner and also to try and make the main body of Skydiver somewhat less conventionally submarine like.  I would probably give it a wider more elliptical section, with a shorter, longer and more streamlined conning tower. 

INTERCEPTOR .  At the risk of sounding very egotistical, I would go back to my original design and rework it, in order to keep the same basic layout, but with one or two differences.  I would increase the size of the side pods to look as if they could accommodate a more powerful engine arrangement, with perhaps two large jet nozzles underneath.  And, although I'm not exactly sure what I would do with it, I would certainly change the one missile armament to accommodate a number of smaller, but equally powerful weapons.

SHADO MOBILE .  I would certainly make them bigger, giving them more height and length, as they were never big enough to contain everything they were eventually supposed to hold.  I would also give the cab a more streamlined appearance.  I always wanted to have the windscreen sloping more, but was originally limited in doing this by constraints on the full sized set.  I would also increase the amount of surface detailing at the rear of the vehicle to included grilled vents, to get rid of heat from the engines, and perhaps some small windows high up on the sides to give some daylight inside.  I would replace the now rather old-fashioned looking exhaust with something larger and more impressive looking on both sides of the vehicle.  I would also have fitted some form of permanent missile launchers on a turntable base mounted on the rear of the roof, as well as redesigning the large intake grill above and behind the cab and perhaps replace it with two slatted openings, one on each side.  It would also be great to be able to redesign the interior in order to make it reflect what else had to be accommodated inside the vehicle and give it a much more hi-tec look.

S.I.D .  Whilst keeping the same basic layout, I would redesign the rear section to make it look as if it had been assembled with components flown up from Earth, rather in the fashion of the International Space Station.  I would also add a lot more external 'gubbins' to add to this bolted together look - more boxes and cylinders, together with pipes and wiring.  I would certainly get rid of the rotating aerials and the slatted rear array, add more detail to the large communication dishes and replace the solar panels with something more modern.  I was never happy with them in 1969, but we were hampered by time and a limit on the right sort of materials available then, so I would certainly want something that looked like it had extended, was much longer and hopefully made of some sort of thin gold coloured material - again like the space station.

MOONBASE .  I would probably keep the idea of the separate spheres and the linking walkways, but again I think there needs to be more detail on them - some evidence of the vital life support systems that may have sat outside of the living areas themselves.  I would also add a lot more in the way of communications dishes etc, but the one big change I would make would be to locate the Landing pad away from the base itself, as I had originally intended.  The idea of having a fuel-laden Lunar Module landing and taking off so close just seemed mad to me and a transport system to and from a more distant launch pad would have added to the complexity of the base, as well as giving some quite interesting shots.

Accidents with models during filming were not unknown, although the film crews tried to take reasonable precautions to prevent this.  Flying shots were the things that perhaps created the greatest number of problems, because the very thin tungsten wire on which we flew models did break at times and there was no easy way one could stop a model dropping onto the set or, worse still, onto the studio floor.

By the time we were making UFO we had set up a proper model store and the idea was that, once the film crew had finished with a model, it would go back to the store to be checked over for damage.  The models would be cleaned and got ready for filming next time and, if there was any damage it would be repaired.  If the model was very badly damaged it would go back to the model shop to be repaired.

Only the main models that would appear throughout the series would be constructed prior to the start of filming.  All the rest would be built as we went along to meet each script's requirements. All crew members would get a copy of the script and I would distribute a copy of all the storyboards to the film crews and both workshops.  I would liaise with the live action art department whenever this was necessary.  It is very difficult to say how long it took to all of this, but normally we had about three months preparation at the beginning of the series and worked on a two week schedule for each episode.  Needless to say we sometimes overran this target!

The generic sequences mainly came from the fact that the first episode ever introduced the audience to all the relevant parts of SHADO and all the main craft launch sequences etc.  These became basis of what were known as library shots for use in the subsequent episodes.  Sometimes, as we shot those episodes, the decision would be made to save other potential useful shots for the library as well.  Every morning the whole film and model-making team would have the opportunity to view black and white rushes of the previous day's filming to establish whether any re-takes were required - hopefully before any major set was broken up.

All our underwater scenes were usually shot with a dry set filmed through a large, but thin, glass water tank, which did indeed contain some very small fish.  An air line was also often added to this tank to create a gentle stream of bubbles.  The only times the models ever actually got wet was when they were in our main water tank. Because of this we had to be slightly carefully about what kind of dressing we used on such models as they were quite likely to have to sit in water for some time during the preparation for a shot.  Things like tapes had to be used sparingly and probably only on those bits of the model that were likely to remain reasonably dry for most of the time.

As for your second question I think this was probably done using compressed air to create a bubbling effect and may have had a chemical, which was known as TTC, applied to the surface of the water to give an impression of steam.

I'm not sure, but I think your third question has the same answer as the first.  If it does not and the questioner is after some additional details then please let me know.

Many thanks for your latest questions.

!/  All the explosions were usually produced using a small explosive charge, around which was packed a lot of fine powder-paint, of various colours to suit the set, all of which was wrapped in polythene.  A small detonator was used to set the charge off - the explosive provided the flash and flame and the powder paint the smoke and dust.  Obviously even small quantities of explosive powder can be dangerous and cause injuries, so therefore they had to be handled with care.  There probably were a few minor accidents over the years, but as far as I know nobody was ever seriously hurt.

2/  It has to be remembered that the Century 21 premises were not a purpose built film studio.  At the time of filming UFO, it consisted of three small identical factory units all of which were occupied by the special effects department. The filming stages themselves were also very small by normal film industry standards which meant that we did not have the ability to leave sets permanently erected, not store large scale sets.  The only exception to this was the water tank. 

On the lunar set for example the only permanent part of it was Moonbase itself and that was made as a series of separate components assembled on stage.  The lunar landscape was built on the studio floor, using sand and polystyrene rocks, and the whole thing was then dusted with powder colour.  The reason why we used the floor to build on was because the studio buildings were very low and we wanted to obtain maximum height for our sky backings so that we could doing wide angle shots without seeing the top of backing and film lights above.  The camera was placed in a pit dug in the floor.  Once all the sequences had been shot, the whole set was dismantled, the rocks and Moonbase returned the store and the sand swept up.

If the next set was a country road the process was repeated.  The road sections would be laid down, sand and grass matting would be combined with polystyrene for the hills, individual trees and bushes of various scales would be added and again powder colour would be used to create the final effect.  Once all the shots were complete, then the set was dismantled.  Although this probably sounds like a very complex and time consuming way of doing things, this method did in fact make things a lot easier and the film crews became extremely good at constructing these kind of sets very quickly.  However, smaller sets like the interior of the Interceptor launch bay were built and stored as complete models.

3/  Yes, I think that is probably correct.  We were able to very rapidly provide different sets for each episode, sometimes creating them from new and at other times by adapting and redressing an existing set.  I have never been involved in the creation of any CGI shots, but I get the impression that the whole process is a lot more involved and requires a far greater degree of forward planning than ours ever did.  We had the flexibility to adapt to changing situations, with often no more that a quick discussion  and sketch involved in coming to a decision about what, and how we were going to do something.  I don't think it's quite that easy with CGI!