MovieChat Forums > Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1961) Discussion > Musings on various goofs, issues and ill...

Musings on various goofs, issues and illogic... (Some SPOILERS)

posted 16 years ago by hobnob53
43 replies | jump to latest

A bunch of things about VTTBOTS, in one thread instead of fourteen....

The sinking ice. Much has been made of the early scenes of the Seaview running into ice plunging deep into the water. There's a "Goof" entry on this as well. The point is well-taken, but in fairness, an explanation for this seemingly illogical phenomenon was offered in a second-season episode of the TV series, which re-used the scenes and part of the plot from the movie. There, when a crewman asks how ice can sink, Admiral Nelson (Richard Basehart) replies using the analogy of dropping an ice cube into a glass: the cube always sinks before rising back to the top. I guess Irwin Allen was belatedly responding to criticism of this in the movie.

The "lit-up" underwater scenes. Also mentioned on the threads. Quite correct that deep underwater it's pitch black. Unfortunately, depicting a black screen because there's no light wouldn't be very exciting and isn't conducive to following the action. Anyway, why single out Voyage for this exercise in illogic? Every underwater film ever made depicts a lit-up, visible bottom. Artistic license.

High heels? Even Barbara Eden says she argued with Allen about having her and Joan Fontaine wear heels on a submarine, but he insisted. It's not only utterly ridiculous, it's completely pointless. What does it add to the film? Another Irwin Allen specialty.

Where did they walk Alvarez's dog? Self-explanatory question. And why bother with a dog in the first place? (See the high-heels entry.)

If "there's nothing flying anywhere in the world"......then how did Dr. Zucco and the world's other "top brains" get to the UN from Europe so fast?

The UN's water fountains. Okay, here we are in the middle of a global heat crisis, with water supplies drying up (as noted in the newscasts), and when they run out of the United Nations the fountains are still turned on, gushing water??! What's that stuff about the appearance of impropriety? (The latest DVD version is also missing the original red tint shown in that sequence, which was at least in keeping with the rest of the movie, as I pointed out a while back in an uncommented-upon thread below.)

The minefield. Now first, the Admiral orders the sub to go on despite the loss of sonar and radar because "these are safe waters." A few hours later, they run into a minefield. "The predominant scientific genius of our time" -- yeah. Anyway, some questions: why didn't they post a lookout in the sub's nose specifically to watch for hazards ahead? There usually was someone present up there. (With Alvarez alone in the room, had Lt. Connors not happened to come in just before they sighted the mines, Alvarez would have happily allowed the sub to have sailed into the field -- The End.) Then, why was this minefield so deep -- deep enough that they had to use the minisub because it was too deep for divers? It couldn't have been for surface shipping. An anti-submarine screen? Possibly. But look where they had to have been at this point in the movie. It's never specifically stated, but from the rough timeline it has to have been somewhere past South America, out in the open Pacific someplace. Where and why would anyone place a minefield in the middle of the Pacific? There are no ports or approaches to guard against there (it's not like trying to sneak into Tokyo Bay or Pearl Harbor). And who laid it? The logical conclusion is it's a leftover WWII field, but then the other factors come into play. The minefield sequence is a good one, but its presence doesn't bear much scrutiny. (I also added a Goof about the need to use the minisub here because it's too deep for divers, while it was not too deep for men to go out to tap the telephone cable earlier -- even though, judging from the depth to which the Seaview is shown descending in that scene, any diver would have been crushed immediately.)

Is that liquor? When the Chief goes to the cremwan's locker and takes a swig from that mysterious bottle, it looks like it contains raspberry syrup. An odd-looking liquor bottle for sure. Also, why does a crewman have "spirits" in his locker? And why does the Chief, otherwise thoroughly on the side of the Admiral, react with such dismay at the announcement that they're going on with their mission? (The same goes for "young Jimmy", who smashes his checkerboard together at the news. I thought he was such a defender of the Admiral.)

Why does the intercom echo all over the ship during the "private calls" between the officers? Addressing the entire vessel, sure. Private summonses between the Admiral and Captain? Hmmm.

WAS HODGES A SABOTEUR?? This I've never quite figured out. When Dr. Hiller walks out of the reactor at the end and meets Captain Crane, he realizes, "So you were the saboteur." But did she commit all the sabotage? Hodges allegedly killed himself because he sabotaged the generator, leading to the deaths of Gleason and Smith in the minisub while freeing the Seaview from the mine -- according to his suicide note. But was he in fact innocent of this crime? Did Hiller sabotage the generator, then stage the suicide and type the note to lay the blame on Hodges -- which means she would have had to have murdered Hodges in her effort to cover up her deed? That's pretty heavy stuff for this movie, and an intriguing plot line -- but it's all left unclear at best at the end. (But I don't think the two notes written on two separate typewriters means anything -- you're in a different room, you use the typewriter immediately available. Certainly not conclusive of anything.)

GAS?? While extinguishing the fire in the Admiral's quarters, Commodore Emery rushes up to the Captain, grabs him and, pointing to the ventilator, yells, "Lee -- it's not smoke, it's gas!" Gas?? Huh? Meaning someone introduced gas into the ventilator system to kill them all? Okay, maybe. But what has that to do with the fire? The gas alone wouldn't have caused the fire; someone would have had to ignite it, and then there would have been an explosion, not merely a fire. Who or what did cause the fire, we never precisely learn (presumably Dr. Hiller). In any case, Emery was wrong, in part -- there was smoke, from the fire, even if there was also gas. But where did this gas come from, and how? A very odd plot conflation, and one no one pursues or even mentions again.

The voices in Dr. Hiller's head when she emerges from the reactor. I've already had a goof posted about the reactor alarm not sounding when Hiller enters and leaves the site. But I'm curious...as she leaves, we hear three voices in her head: "If you pick up a fatal dose of radiation, it glows red." (Dr. Jameson, explaining the dosemeter's workings, as Hiller looks down at her own red-glowing badge.) "The Admiral's scheme is suicidal insanity." (Dr. Zucco at the UN.) And: "You gotta stop the Admiral. He'll destroy the world!" Ah, but who uttered that deathless line? Seems like an outtake to me -- it's nowhere to be heard throughout the movie. Sounds like a young crewman, but not readily identifiable, though presumably it's someone we've seen or heard in the movie. I'd like to know.

Why doesn't the shark eat Captain Crane's hand while it's dangling in the tank and he's unconscious? Too full from eating Dr. Hiller? By the way, that quick shot of a piece of her arm bobbing in the shark tank after she's been eaten is pretty gruesome -- rather Jaws-like, if you recall that arm scene.

Lastly -- THE TEMPERATURE GOOF. I've submitted this plot error to IMDb twice but they refuse to accept it as a goof, though I don't know what else you could call it. Anyway: at the UN, Nelson's fight with Zucco concerns in part the issue of temperature and timing. Zucco says the belt will burn itself out at 173 degrees. Nelson says his plan can't wait, since at the present rate of climb the temperature wouldn't hit 173 until August 30th, while he has to fire the missile on August 29th or else lose his angle of trajectory. It's the UN's rejection of his plan, and his decision to proceed with his operation, that forms the major plot point of the film. Everything is geared to that aspect -- the sabotage, the mutiny, the hunt for Seaview by UN subs. According to everything in the film, we should never learn for certain whether Zucco was right, since Nelson would fire the missile the day before Zucco's burn-out point is reached. But then, suddenly, near the end, while charting the temperature rise, Romano and Crane have an exchange: "Only 8 degrees to Dr. Zucco's burn-out point." "Well, let's hope he's right." Soon after, a chart of the temperature rise shows them still several degrees below 173 -- and this when it's made explicit that there's only 50 minutes to go before the 4 PM firing of the missile. And then, the final coup de grace: Nelson is informed that the temperature has reached 173.2 "and the fire's still burning." "I knew it," says a satisfied Nelson. "Zucco was wrong. There was no burn-out point." This wasn't supposed to happen until tomorrow! They never should have been able to know for certain. (And how did the temperature rise so quickly -- from around 171 or so on the chart all the way up to 173.2 -- in less than 40 minutes, as measured by the events and dialogue in the film?) Sure, it's meant to emphasize to everyone that Nelson was proven unquestionably right. But it all comes out of nowhere, and in direct contradiction to everything in the film beforehand, not to mention the reason behind so much of the plot's developments. Okay, maybe the temps started to rise more quickly than 2 degrees a day. But why not say this? This last-minute insertion torpedoes the entire reason and urgency behind everything that's come before. And by the way, why could no one doubt (as the Admiral states at the UN) that civilization would disintegrate if the temperature should rise to 175 degrees? What's magic about that number? Is civilization really rescued because they managed to explode the belt away from Earth at 173.2, while it would completely collapse just 1.8 degrees higher than that? (Or even if they launched at 171, a full 4 degrees less than the catastrophic 175?) At that level, do those couple of degrees make much of a difference?

Well, this is a lot, but better than starting a slew of separate threads. Just thought I'd toss this stuff out there for further intellectual discourse, if such a concept has any meaning in connection with Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Enjoy the movie!

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

Admiral Nelson: Say, where's the safety rail for the Indoor Shark Tank? I specifically called for a safety rail!

Lucius: We had to cut some corners, Admiral. Romano's trumpet cost more than we expected.

Admiral Nelson: I don't care! I want a safety rail!

Lucius: Calm down, Admiral! I'll see what I can do!

Admiral Nelson: Well, you don't want OSHA down here again!\

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

Office of
Shark
Hand
Attacks

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

hobnob, you mention that "...the latest DVD version is also missing the original red tint shown in that sequence..."

You know, it's possible that somebody thoguht they were color-correcting the scene, not knowing that it was essential to the story. It remeinds me of the story related in the book "The Making of Star Trek" how a scene involving an alien dancing girl (played by Susan Oliver) with green make-up applied kept coming back from the lab with normal skin tones, so the scene would be shot again but with darker green make-up applied and then that footage returned with the skin tones again looking normal. It was discovered that someone at the lab thought it was a mistake in the developing process and corrected her skin to match the other shots of Ms Oliver where she was not made up so.

"More cowbell!"

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

That's possible. The older DVD (and VHS) had the red tint. There's also a print out there that has one of the two outside-the-UN scenes tinted, but not the other!

I remember that Robert Harris, who restores a lot of films, said that one lab kept printing the opening plane-crash sequence in The Guns of Navarone light instead of maintaining the dark blue "nighttime" tint of the original, out of stupidity or ignorance. He proudly pointed out how they had deduced that this was an error, by bits of evidence like car lights being on, which wouldn't be the case in the daytime. Yeah, well, he could have also read the opening post-credit on-screen description, which reads The first day: 0200 hours. That's kind of a subtle hint telling you it's 2 in the morning.

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

I'll throw on my VHS copy later and remember to look for that set up.

Well, time for lunch...

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

Well, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea will be
on the television next month -- WHICH WILL IT BE?

Red Sky at morning -- Sailor, take warning? or The Sunshine Life for me (if you're not in the Navy)?

US TV Schedule:Mon. May 4 2:00 AM AMC

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

Hey! Go back and add a slash / to your second bracketed i! You want the rest of the world to think we're italics illiterates here??!!

But seriously folks, I'm sorry to hear that VTTBOTS will be on AMC again next month. It's just been on FMC the past several months, where it's run uninterrupted and in widescreen. Most Fox movies rotate onto AMC every few months, for a few months, before heading back to where they're done right (usually!).

Boo to AMC: once the king of cable, but these past ten years a worthless network that mistreats its movies: cuts, ads, bad prints, squeezed end credits, edited dialogue, time compressed, grainy prints, no widescreen, peopled by morons...other than that, a fine channel. Hit the disc, or wait for FMC to get its turn again.

My lunchtime now, a bit late....

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

Whew! -- That was close! That was TOO close! Slash in!

Yes, the Hang 'em High Channel, aka AMC, sure bites the hand that feeds them. It's those infernal "Pop-ups" that I must add to your laundry list of complaints.

Here comes the dramatic moment -- the moment I've been waiting for -- the pay-off -- the lollapalooza scene -- here it comes... BREAKING BAD -- WITH MALCOM IN THE MIDDLE'S BRYAN CRANSTON TONIGHT AND EVERY NIGHT!

Come with me!
Come with me!
On a Journey
to the Seventh Planet!...

I mean..

On a Voyage
to the Bottom
of the Sea!

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

Pop-ups! Yeah! Forgot those. That's what comes from not watching the channel much anymore...and never anything all the way through.

Good thing they'll never likely get their mitts on Journey to the Seventh Planet...just as that great title tune would come on at the end, they'd squish the picture down to 1/6 of the screen, shut off the sound, and have their on-air idiots or announcers pop up blabbing endlessly, and tediously, about some piece of viewing information you don't need...when all you want is to hear Jurgen Smorgasbord or whatever his name is warble that titular Uranian ballad.

Luckily, Frankie Avalon's crooning the title song for VTTBOTS comes at the beginning of the movie, so we get to enjoy it over...and over...and over...again. Sawtell-Shefter: the indigent (or is that indignant?) man's Lerner and Lowe.

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

Perhaps you've noticed that the United Nations scene is not so very different from the one in that other TCF production Batman: The Movie (1966)(Was that the UN as well?)

Now there would have been something to talk about: Admiral Nelson meets Commodore Schmidlapp!

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

I don't remember that UN scene in the '66 Batman, but then it's been ages since I've seen it...in fact, I don't even know that I've seen all of it, though I do remember that Lee Meriweather surprisingly gave Julie Newmar a run for her money as Cat Woman...for my money the two sexiest Cat Women ever. Another incentive to check the movie out, whenever it's on again.

But if the same building is shown it was probably something on the Fox lot. Hard to believe that the present site of Century City (where, among other things, they filmed the original Die Hard, one of my faves) was once the great TCF back lot, containing their western town set (with rutted streets, seen in so many of the studio's westerns), many other standing sets...and the Sersen Tank, named after Fox's longtime special effects man Fred Sersen -- the huge tank of water where they filmed pirate movies, war films, all "seaborne" stuff. The last movie shot in the Sersen Tank before the land was sold and everything demolished was -- Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Which actually makes this film a minor landmark in Hollywood history.

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

Ruin, thy name is Cleopatra.

I was poking fun at the UN scene in Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea because the UN scene smacked of high school production. You can imagine that the one in Batman: The Movie was only worse. And I don't remember the exterior shots in that title either.

I wonder if there is a brass plate somewhere around there or street named after Sersen. The saucer from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) was parked there, too.

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

Not only is the land gone, but the props too. Whatever happened to the saucer from TDTESS, for instance?

At least the model of the original Seaview was saved for the TV show. By the way, did you note that beginning in the second season of the series they switched to a different model of the sub -- new exterior model and new interior set? They decided to make the nose window on the same level as the control room, which in one way makes more sense, and is certainly less cumbersome to shoot, though it also means the control room would flood immediately -- although they added that movable watertight bulkhead (screen) they could open or close to protect the sub in case the window was smashed, something not thought of in the movie or the first season. They also scrupulously altered the model sub to make just one row of windows in the nose, instead of the two-tier windows seen in the movie and season one. However, they cannibalized some footage from the film for one or two episodes in the second season, so in some shots in those episodes the Seaview has one row of windows in its nose, and in others a double-decked set! But, of course, Irwin never expected anybody to notice such things, like the sub being continually rocked back and forth by explosions or sea monsters, while the pencils and slide rules remain stationary on the chart table in the control room. If only Kowalski or someone had been building a house of cards when such disasters struck....

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

I believe the Interplanetary Space Craft from The Day the Earth Stood Still was cannibalized for something else. I think I read somewhere that some lights were added for another show and so it remains. I am quite sure it is in the hands of Bob Burns (maybe I saw it on the very fine EXTRA stuff on the DVD).

Yes, and I liked the original Seaview nose. When I was a boy I made the Aurora model (One Clam!)and I remember masking of the rows of tiny windows to paint it. Came out quite nice.

Later when the Flying Sub was introduced it was difficult to figure out where everything was inside the Seaview.

Ah, well -- that's Hollywood, as Tom Bosley used to day. Lucy and Desi's apartments never made much sense, nor the Romano's on Everybody Loves Raymond, nor the apartments in Seinfeld. They and others were like the TARDIS in Dr. WHO -- much bigger on the inside.

Hey! --- wait a minute! I think Klaatu's saucer was used on....

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

I never had the Aurora Seaview model and had long wished I had.

Funny, I almost mentioned the flying sub, for precisely the reason you brought it up -- when you see it launched from beneath the Seaview, it's pretty clear there's no room for anything else in that part of the ship.

Also, note that the shot of the f.s. was always the same one, and that the Seaview was on the surface (though shot from below) when the f.s. was being lowered -- clearly because they had to run a line from outside the studio tank to lower it. But for episodes where the Seaview was at a great depth when launching the flying sub, it looked, shall we charitably put it, unconvincing.

But I did think the flying sub was cool, and an imaginative innovation. Too bad they didn't have it in the movie. But then, of course, there was nothing flying anywhere in the world...which didn't prevent the f.s. from flying through the burning Southern Hemisphere in the second-season TV rip-off of the film, called The Sky's On Fire, in which only the bottom half of the planet was ablaze. A come-uppance for the Southies' smug assumptions in On the Beach, I suppose, and chalk up another Irwin Allen inconsistency.

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

The shot of the Flying Sub was one beauty shot though. Many of those Special Effects shots were beautiful. The one of the Seaview cruising the surface of the ocean was very well well done.

I remember asking my Mom to cast an eye in the direction of the tele-o-vision in an attempt to wow her with that shot. Alas!-- my Mom liked the crime shows of the day -- 77 Sunset Strip, Surfside 6, Bourbon Street Beat... so the Seaview could have stayed at the bottom of the sea for all she cared about it. I think I was somehow trying to convince her that the TV show was a class act and was even educational! Hey! -- I was 12!

That Aurora model of the Seaview was easy to build and very well done. Certainly one of the best models that Aurora ever put on the shelves. Later, the Flying Sub made ths scene and, once again, they did a stupendeous job of it. I could not afford that one, but a friend of my had one.

I think Polar Lights has re-released the Seaview, but I don't know which version. I suspect it is an arm and a leg nowadays.

When Land o' the Giants was broadcast, it was easy to see that Irwin Allen was the Roger Corman of the small screen.

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

That reminds me...there was never a surface shot of the flying sub crashing all the way through the water: they always cut away just as it hit the surface to an underwater shot of the thing diving through and leveling off. I wanted to see the splash! (Of course, it was the same shot repeated over and over and...am I hitting a theme here?)

Remember Men Into Space? That ran on CBS for just one season, 1959-1960, and William Lundigan was the only series regular. It took place at some unspecified time in the near future (as a guess, circa 1970) and offered dramatic fare geared to real or potential space problems -- no aliens or UFOs. A nifty half-hour b&w show that should have caught on but didn't. I'd love to have that out on DVD someday. I have some taped off the air from the Sci-Fi Channel over 10 years ago but I'd prefer a nice couple of discs. Also Science Fiction Theater.

I liked 77 Sunset Strip...also, Hawaiian Eye. More stuff I'd wish they release.

We need to devise lyrics for the VTTBOTS TV show to complement the song from the movie. Although...maybe not.

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

The Flying Sub must have been shot out of a cannon or a catapult was used to get it going but once it broke the surface it certainly flopped down. Or maybe it was just taped onto a stick. I never read anything about it and remember only the beauty shot discussed before and the swell shot of it soaring in flight. Nice work!

Men into Space was a neat show. Always ended with them back on earth and everything A-OK. It was very straight-laced. I suppose it wanted to get away from the Captain Video, Space Patrol, et al. expectations. Didn't Colonel MaCauly smoke Luckies?

Science Fiction Theater was a treat. The very repectful looking guy that hosted the show brought some gravity to it. To be honest, I do not remember any of the episodes. Mostly the titles and the host sitting at an impressive looking desk. Or showing off a keen robot.

So, Klaatu's saucer ended up on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea -- The Series .

Kubrick did the right thing.

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

Col. MacCauley did smopke Luckies, I believe. He smoked something not particularly conducive to respiratory well-being. Many of the closing credits of the show (not all) had a pack of Luckies (or whatever brand sponsored the program) on the bottom left of the screen, but these were rather obviously obliterated in reruns many years later. William Lundigan was later diagnosed with cancer, probably related to smoking, and after his first surgeries in the 60s became an honorary chairman of the American Cancer Society. I believe his death in 1975 at 60 was at least in part smoking- (or cancer-) related, although the proximate cause of death was something else.

Science Fiction Theater's host was Truman Bradley. Very distinguished, befitting a guy named after a president and a five-star general. I remember a few episodes: one had Warren Stevens (of Forbidden Planet) as a neighbor with something to hide, who with his wife have all sorts of futuristic gadgets, including a self-propelled vacuum cleaner called a "sonic broom". He's in the process of 'fessing up to a neighbor that there was a totalitarian future whose people had learned to travel into time, and some tried to seek refuge in the past, but just then these loud thunder claps suddenly snap up him and his wife (unseen), apparently back to the future for punishment. Ivan Tors produced that show and either all or at least many were shot in color, which nobody could see in the mid-50s. But the Sci-Fi Channel showed that series, too, late night Fridays in the 90s, alternating with episodes of Men Into Space each week.

I have the first two seasons of the TV VTTBOTS and am debating whether getting seasons three and four is worth it. Did you know that David Hedison was supposed to play Captain Crane in the movie? Irwin approached him but Hedison had just finished making The Lost World for him and wanted to do something else; that's how Robert Sterling made his big-screen comeback, and Hedison in interviews is very complimentary for the work he did. But he said he agreed to take the series because of the opportunity to work with such a superb actor as Richard Basehart, who clearly was much better than the material usually was. Basehart was up front that he took the show for the money...something I'm sure figured in Hedison's calculations. Hey, why not? This ain't charity work. Just looks it.

But Hedison would have been a better Crane than Sterling as he was closer to the age of the character. It always cracks me up when Joan Fontaine tells Barbara Eden that "Your Captain Crane is rather young for the job," as Babs was born in 1934, while Bob Sterling was born in 1917...the same year as Joan Fontaine!

[–] Philo89 11 years ago

Railings? But then they'd just be leaning all day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bSZXucTH4A

[–] escalera-2 11 years ago

Hilarious! Thanks for that, Philo88.

"Please use elevator, stairs stuck between floors."

[–] scotbpens 16 years ago

Even Barbara Eden says she argued with Allen about having her and Joan Fontaine wear heels on a submarine, but he insisted. It's not only utterly ridiculous, it's completely pointless. What does it add to the film?

Nothing, other than making Barbara Eden's legs look good. That's good enough for me!

All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

Oh, I think she'd have looked just as good in flats. Or in some appropriate attire for that shark tank (minus the shark).

Funny thing was, Babs was 17 years younger than Robert Sterling. The one who was the same age as him, and more likely therefore to be his fiancee, was Joan Fontaine -- both born in 1917 (vs. 1934 for Miss E.).

David Hedison was offered the role of Lee Crane in the film but turned it down, having just done a weak sci-fi film for Irwin Allen the year before (The Lost World). By 1964, the chance to work with an actor of the stature and quality of Richard Basehart, as well as the chance to work, prompted Hedison to accept the part for the TV show. I like Bob Sterling all right but Hedison would have been better for the role, not least because he was closer to the right age.

[–] puirt-a-beul 12 years ago

Good list, hobnob, and very well written.

May I add some more, as I see them?

The minefield should have been detected far in advance by the sonar operator, in addition to the missing lookout you're already mentioned. (Though of course that would have aborted the sequence before it even began.)

The interior of the ship looks more like a dry-land army base of the period than a super-advanced submarine. The corridors have no railings or handholds; almost no bulkheads or doggable hatchways of any kind; no provision for the stability of furniture or fittings against heavy seas (let alone protection for the crew); no visible sign of drainage systems anywhere throughout the ship, with its polished linoleum flooring ... and although it was clearly meant to convey the idea of an advanced spaciousness, the very width of the hallways and (wasted!) open space throughout would have significantly increased the danger of injury in the case of turbulence. Overall, regardless of how modern or futuristic it was meant to be, the set was far from convincing as the interior of a submarine.

The Van Allen Belt(s) are not at all as they were depicted in the film, which was something like the rings of Saturn. They're closer to toruses in shape, like a whole apple that covers the globe, dipping in close to the surface at the magnetic poles. No explosion at any one point would disperse either Belt, and of course suggesting that the shot had to come from a single point on the Earth's surface made no mathematical or physical sense. The Belts are made up of ionised particles, not flammable matter, so there is no way for them to catch on fire. In addition, the function of the Belts is to protect the surface of the Earth from incoming solar radiation; destroy the Belts, and the Earth would frizzle far faster than their being on fire could ever produce. No wonder the UN was trying to stop Nelson's plan!

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Thanks, puirt-a-beul. To your points....

Minefield. We're told that both sonar and radar are out due to the sabotage of the generator, and the ship is underway for several hours before encountering the minefield, after Admiral Nelson says that "these are safe waters" and orders the sub to continue. Presumably they traveled between 50 and 100 miles from the time sonar was lost and they ran into the mines, so I doubt sonar would have picked up the field that far ahead before it went out.

Interior. I quite agree with you, the interiors look super-huge even by the super-standards of this super-sub. The fact that the opening shot of the Seaview surfacing has it shooting out of the water at a 45-degree angle would indicate that people would require handholds, railings and various other safety devices in order to survive a trip on the thing. The biggest (if coolest) room aboard the sub is the torpedo room, which looks to be about four stories tall. I wonder how all the gear stowed in that area -- the minisub, torpedoes, nuclear weapons, etc. -- handled that opening ascent? As to the remarkable stability of furniture, equipment and so forth on board a plunging sub, the real problem with this cropped up on the TV series, where every week they'd be tossed about left and right as a monster or volcano or something banged the ship around, and every week you'd see the rulers and pads and pencils on the plotting desk near the bow staying absolutely still even as the crew flung themselves back and forth and every electronic board blew up in a shower of sparks.

Van Allen Belt. Apart from your excellent observations, two more. First, as you said, the Belt is shown in the satellite TV shot from space as sort of like a ring of Saturn instead of in its true contours. But if all the flames are shown in an orbit essentially around the Equator (plus a couple of thousand miles north and south), why are there flames visible above the North Pole -- which, from space, has nothing over it? Second, not only is the Belt not composed of flammable matter, such as gases (Dr. Zucco's belief) or firewood, it's in outer space...meaning that, even if it were theoretically flammable, it couldn't catch fire because fire cannot burn in an airless vacuum...which may explain why there was never a report of fire inside Irwin Allen's head.

So how come we like this movie so much?

[–] puirt-a-beul 12 years ago

So how come we like this movie so much?

Buggered if I know.

Possibly for similar reasons to my love for The Core and Armageddon.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

The Core was basically a high-tech rehash of a low-budget 1951 film called Unknown World, about scientists who build a vehicle that enables them to burrow into the center of the Earth to find a safe haven for mankind in case of nuclear war. What they find instead is a dead world, leading them to determine that the only path for man's survival is to learn to live in peace. The movie is slightly famous for the fact that its star, character actor Victor Kilian, was blacklisted as a Communist right after its completion. Unable to cut him out of the movie, the producers simply removed his name from the credits, making it the only Hollywood film whose star -- visible in almost every scene -- receives no screen credit. I slightly knew The Core's co-star Stanley Tucci for a while a few years back and we occasionally talked movies, but I never had the nerve to ask him about this one!

Armageddon? Blah. Deep Impact was much better.

VTTBOTS is fun -- it moves and is entertaining, and has a good cast. That's mainly why I like it. It was Fox's biggest box-office success of 1961, incidentally. It was also the last film to be shot using the studio's famed "Sersen Tank", the outdoor water tank where many sea-borne films had their model sequences filmed. It was named after longtime Fox special effects head Fred Sersen. Soon after Voyage's completion, the entire Fox back lot, which included the Tank, Fox's famed "western street", and many other familiar sets, was sold and demolished to make way for the present-day Century City.

[–] puirt-a-beul 12 years ago

I thought Stanley Tucci's hilarious blend between a rock star and Carl Sagan was the best thing about The Core. But I love the film simply because it is so derivative, and such a vivid hark-back to wet weekend afternoons when I was a kid, eating corn-and-bacon fritters and watching Irwin Allen films!

Armageddon? Blah. Deep Impact was much better.

Personal taste, obviously. Armageddon was a ride, and brilliantly assembled (I actually applaud Criterion for adding it to its Collection, as an example of remarkable technical filmmaking); whereas Deep Impact was so determinedly worthy I felt at times like I was eating cardboard. DI was clearly trying to be more intelligent and reasoned, but hey, I also love Flash Gordon. (Ahhh-aaaaaahhh!!!)

That said, I think Deep Impact has a fair few of problems for a would-be intelligent film that aren't an issue for the bull-headed Armageddon. Soap opera-level acting, for one; too-episodic construction, for another; and a very weak lead character who never evokes an emotional response in me much stronger (either positive or negative) than being mildly irked. Most pungently, the way the teenage protagonist goes all stalker-freaky on an underage girl who's his friend but not his girlfriend, essentially bullying and coercing her when she's clearly traumatised and doesn't want to be with him, is downright creepy. For me it gives the film a very unpleasant edge and a distinctly nasty aftertaste.

Ultimately, the two films live in different domains; they may derive from essentially the same scenario, but while you can personally prefer one over the other I don't think you can actually compare them.

But Voyage ... well, it's Irwin Allen, isn't it? I think that opening shot of the sub crash-surfacing sums it all up: completely impossible and impractical, but fun. It's not unrelated that my favourite TV show when I was a kid was Lost in Space.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Actually, I completely agree with your criticisms of Deep Impact. I prefer it because of its more realistic approach and seriousness (even though it becomes a wee bit overbearing in that regard, as you say). Armageddon was just too stupid, too full of idiotic characters, too outlandish, for it to be enjoyable for me...though its opening scenes of NYC being thonked by asteroids is pretty cool. Plus it had more than its share of soapy sentiment and dumbbell denizens too.

Meanwhile, I have another obvious flaw in VTTBOTS....

The shark tank. Couple of things here. One, for it to have nothing higher than an ankle-high railing to protect passers-by from falling in is utterly preposterous, an OSHA-worthy glitch...though admittedly this design flaw comes in handy at the appropriate time. But two -- and this goes back to that great opening shot -- the water -- and the sharks -- would have spilled out all over the room when the sub made that fantastic blast out of the ocean. The tank has no cover, and walls scarcely higher than the water level; the water and its hungry contents would spill out as soon as the sub made even a modest dive or ascent. Even if they covered the tank to contain the water, the sharks would have had a rough time, getting slammmed back and forth from one end of the tank to the other every time Admiral Nelson was trying to impress visitors.

Of course, the pencils in the control room never move, so that sort of evens things out.

[–] puirt-a-beul 12 years ago

OK, I'll see your shark tank and raise you a minisub.

Admittedly we only see its innards very briefly, but why does the minisub need two occupants? From its size and layout, the front person is pretty much sitting in the rear person's lap, and there's no panel or devices between them, which means the second person has no access to any controls and wouldn't be able to get a clear field of view to fire, say, the laser — so why's he even there? The only answer I can see is to set up Red for getting dead.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Hmmmm.... Good one. Never thought about that second passenger. Ballast? Company? A way of freeing up two bunks instead of one? I tend to agree with your point. Empathy.

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

The twist of Dr. Hiller being the saboteur felt illogical and a shock value tactic, unless I missed something. More importantly from my perspective Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea held pro-Nuclear armament through Nelson's insistent plan. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea's release during the Cold War indicates America's reasoning for their Nuclear armament. Nelson ignoring the UN, only willing to abide the US President and defying expectations to succeed emphasised American's reasoning for pro-Nuclear armament.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

We're given some very slight indications of Dr. Hiller's attitudes from the point where she's seen watching the debate at the UN on the ship's TV. The camera closes in on her face as she's listening to Dr. Zucco's negative comments, and we see she's taking them very seriously. Her increasingly hostile comments about Admiral Nelson on the subsequent trip are another indicator of her attitude. So while we have no direct indication she's the saboteur, because the person's identity needs to remain a secret until near the end in order to generate some suspense, when we finally learn it's her it's not a huge surprise when you consider what went on before.

As to being "pro-nuclear armament", while it's true that the film came out at a particularly bad time during the Cold War, I don't see anything in the film itself that's pro-armament as such. The Seaview is simply a more powerful nuclear-powered submarine that has nuclear weapons systems aboard, entirely common at that time for both the American and Soviet fleets (and later for British and French subs). Granted, it's certainly not an anti-nuclear film. When it was made there was widespread concern in the US about a supposed "missile gap" between the US and the USSR (which did exist, but in America's favor), defense spending was increasing and John F. Kennedy was elected in part on his campaign to build up America's military prowess. So in that sense the film fit in with the dominant defense policies of the day. Whether the film is an argument for such ideas is another matter. Maybe it merely incidentally reflects that dominant temperament.

In any case, the Soviet Union was arming too. In 1961 the USSR set off the largest nuclear bomb ever devised (50 megatons), a feat about which it boasted until it realized the bad publicity it received. It also built the Berlin Wall and the following year precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. The United States wasn't arming against nothing. The USSR was a growing threat and rapidly expanding its nuclear (and non-nuclear) arsenals too. That's why I'd say if VTTBOTS is "pro-nuclear armament" it's only in the sense that it reflected the temper of its time, not simply of one country, and not as an advocate as such.

Nelson's defiance of the UN and saying he'll take orders only from the US President does sound a bit jingoistic, but in fact the UN has no authority and as a serving officer of the United States Nelson in fact owed his allegiance solely to his Commander-in-Chief, the President.

[–] TVholic 10 years ago

How about the fact that they had to wear wet suits and SCUBA gear inside it, indicating it's a "wet" sub that exposes them to full ocean pressure, even after Nelson says they have no choice but to use the minisub because they're too deep for divers.

[–] Philo89 11 years ago

Just two minor thoughts:

1) Barbara Eden - not just the heels, but that pencil skirt. There are several scenes showing how awkward it was for her to step over knee-knockers (door frames) in the snug skirt.

2) The "liquor" - red syrupy stuff? Simple - cough syrup. Which also explains why he has it.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Right about the skirt. I remember reading one contemporary review that said it was "painted on". Maybe the Admiral just liked to watch her trip.

Cough syrup? He goes to his locker where he stows a plastic bottle of cough syrup and downs a big swig of it -- whereupon a crewman takes it, shakes his head in disapproval, and puts it away? It did look like some kind of over-the-counter medicine, but whatever it was, it was probably intended to be something alcoholic. But in the end it and the whole scene just looked weird.

[–] Philo89 11 years ago

Many cough syrups are 10% or more alcohol, which makes them more potent than most beers and many wines.

And yes, drinking cough syrup to get drunk can be a problem, especially in the military where other forms of alcohol are forbidden.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Yes, that's true. Better that than Sterno, I guess. Besides, they had enough fire to deal with.

[–] bridgetjones12002 10 years ago

Here I am in 2015 and watching this movie for the first time in at least 30 years (I loved it, but the TV show more because I was in love with David Hedison as a kid).

High heels? Even Barbara Eden says she argued with Allen about having her and Joan Fontaine wear heels on a submarine, but he insisted. It's not only utterly ridiculous, it's completely pointless. What does it add to the film? Another Irwin Allen specialty.

This had me laughing, but what's funnier? Joan Fontaine taking a tour of the ship in her 3 piece suit and heels, wearing gloves and carrying a handbag. 

Still love the movie and the set.

Remember us, for we too have lived, loved and laughed

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Joan Fontaine taking a tour of the ship in her 3 piece suit and heels, wearing gloves and carrying a handbag.

Well, you know, Irwin Allen was nothing if not consistent. Sometimes.

Dr. Hiller (Joan) also makes much out of Captain Crane (Robert Sterling) being so young. In fact, Fontaine and Sterling were the same age, both born in 1917. The one who was too young was Connors (Barbara Eden) -- fourteen years younger in real life than her "betrothed"! But when it comes to age, that's how Hollywood has always differently treated actors over actresses.

[–] Duncan_Idaho02 9 years ago

The Reactor Room: There would be no way the reactor would be left unmonitored. Absolutely ridiculous to believe she would have been able to get into the reactor without somebody knowing.

Super humans: somehow they were never effected by they pressures of the ocean.

Missile launch: I won't even comment on the whole launch of the missle itself as it was absurd and unrealistic. But since the movie was made in 1961 that kind of makes sense as underwater launches did not begin until 1963 if I recall correctly. But the fact they were somehow able to allow a single person to launch a nuclear missile with a mechanical timer attached to the tip of the missile was utterly insane. Assuming all the launch coordinates were already programmed into the missile and the missile was simply waiting to be set off this whole scene took a suspension of ones belief system to a whole new level.

I honestly do not know if the protocol for launching a missile was the same back then as it was when I was in the service. But when I was in it took two people in two separate areas of the submarine to launch a missile. Of course this is to prevent some crazy from deciding to launch on his own. You also have other safeguards in place as well. Again, back in 1961 it may only have taken one disgruntled person with a mechanical timer to launch a missile with a nuke on board. I highly doubt it, but it could be, I guess.

smoke from the fire: Yes, I know that gas was also being fed into the submarine ventilation system. But there was a fire and thus there was smoke. If you have ever been in an enclosed room that is on fire you know how quickly the smoke will accumulate. If you want to read a good story about a submarine and what a fire is like then read ice station zebra. while fiction the life on the submarine is somewhat accurate, especially the part with the fire. The point is that there should have been way more smoke than what you saw.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Good points, Duncan.

Reactor room -- You're right, it'd have been guarded in any normal world. Plus the alarm is supposed to sound when anyone steps in front of it.

Super-humans -- Well, they could be affected by the depth, but apparently only in certain plot circumstances.

Missile launch -- Never thought about the two-man requirement (though this is more or less common knowledge), so thanks for jogging our memories on that point. Maybe two men had engaged the keys to launch when Alvarez stopped them, so all Captain Crane had to do was swim outside and put that remote timer on. Or, maybe not....

Smoke from the fire -- As a volunteer fireman for 25 years well do I know how quickly a room can fill with smoke, with all its attendant complications. The problem is that Commodore Emery says. "It's not smoke, it's gas", which is somewhat confusing in its meaning. Obviously there's smoke; I presume he means that the toxin that's posing the critical threat is gas, even more than the smoke from the fire. Whatever, the whole scene makes little sense. It just seems like dramatic overload with no foundation. And as I mentioned in my OP, after they vent the ship no one mentions the gas ever again. We hear about the supposed cause of the fire (the Admiral's discarded cigar), which of course accounts for the smoke. But the gas? That little matter just evaporates into thin air.

[–] philoj 8 years ago

But the fact they were somehow able to allow a single person to launch a nuclear missile with a mechanical timer attached to the tip of the missile was utterly insane.

Even watching it as a teenager I remember thinking "So anyone can just swim up and launch a missile? When would that ever even make sense?"

--
Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.