What does this mean? Edit
What's a "full service" FX company? How's it different from a non "full service" one?
I think the text could use clarification.
- I'd say they do everything in-house rather than farm certain portions of FX out to other companies. However, I have no real idea :) — Morder (talk) 12:26, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
- As one of the creators of the article, the wording used was that which was used in the Cinefax article about them. I have no idea what it means either. :) -- sulfur 13:27, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Perhaps we could at least put quotes around it: "Full Service" Special Effects company..... and have an inline citation after that referencing the Cinefax article's page number that used the term. ...?...
I tried looking the article up in Google Books/Magazine search, but Cinefex makes you pay for back issues. What I suggested is probably stupid anyway. Your speculation, Morder, and the info you supplied, Sulfur, is likely enough for anyone curious: they can just look at the talk page and see this. I doubt Cinefex described what "full service" means in that article anyway. (It's probably just FX jargon.)
- I've also read the articles in Cinefex 1 and 2 and while Sulfur is right that the term is not properly explained, I surmised this from the articles; Apogee was a company that provided all the aspects of the Visual Effects shots they were responsible for, building miniatures, filming the effects, compositing effects other than miniatures as well as editing them in post-production. They differed in that respect from other, more specialized companies working at the time on Star Trek: The Motion Picture like "Brick Price's Movie Miniatures" (only filming miniatures) or Douglas Trumbal's company (filming and compositing Visual Effects). The scenes they were responsible for were the Klingon sequence and the exterior approach of V'ger sequence. They build the models of the exterior of V'ger, the Epsilon station, the small Enterprise model and heavily modified the Klingon Cruiser, provided the other Visual effects in those scenes, filmed the lot and edited them in post-production.Sennim 09:18, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Sennim, for the additional info. Do you think it'd be worth turning "full service effects" company into a short article for explanation? Or even just folding a (very) brief summary of the above info as a parenthetical statement into this article? I know there's some user/admin around here who has a subpage/user project about FX/production companies. Perhaps it'd be worth contacting him/her to at least bring attention to this term. While it might not have a place as a separate article or even in this article, it might have a place there. ?
Or, are there enough FX companies with some being "full-service" and others not that we should create a category for full-service FX companies? Maybe as a sub-category for production companies/FX companies. ?
I guess the principal problem is citation. It seems we have only "circumstantial" and indirect evidence. Thoughts anyone? Sulfur? ;-)
Finally, I'm getting rather off-topic from discussing this article. Could/should we remove it to a different, more appropriate place. (I have no idea about this sort of thing.)
- I personally see no burning need for the actions you propose as it in my modest opinion would go, to paraphrase you, "off-topic". Yet you may take the matter up with Josiah Rowe who is the editor you refer to...--Sennim 12:40, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. If I could, I'd remove what I wrote. Sorry about the mess, all. :-/
- No you shouldn't...Keep them remarks coming and for all sakes don't take it personally...I had my share of corrections...As someone who is taking time off to comment and think about on something which matters to him, your effort is very much appreciated, no need to apologize...Keep doing your thing--Sennim 02:32, January 8, 2011 (UTC)