Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

Some of you may recall the picture that was supposedly from the trailer, showing the Enterprise in front of the giant saucer wreckage with the name Farragut over Vulcan.

This caused a bit of confusion because the same wreckage in another shot was apparently labelled Mayflower.

Well, I was looking at the blu-ray caps from the film and the name Farragut does not appear on the giant saucer at all. Moreover, the name Mayflower is visible on the saucer in that scene. (Look just above the E's bridge. What's more, it's visible in the first image as well if you look just above the E's secondary hull.

It appears to me that some "clever" person modified the image, probably using the well-known closeup pics of the Nebula-class model circa GEN. Anyway, just wanted to clear that up.

There of course was a U.S.S. Farragut mentioned in the film, and one of the CGI ships may indeed have been labelled as such, but it wasn't the Mayflower wreckage.

-MMoM

 

Respectfully, that is not in fact the case. You may examine the full set of blu-ray caps for yourself if you wish:
http://reboot.trekcaps.net/

The Farragut label isn't even in the same font that was used for Starfleet ships in the movie. Someone photoshopped the picture.

 

I seen the pics they are fantastic

 

how are there blue ray caps when the dvd isnt out yet??
maybe they were fooled with.

 

There's been a blu-ray rip available from torrent sites for a few weeks now.

 

I'll wait until I see it on Blu-Ray for myself to decide. It's not a big deal anyway.

 

Is it lergal?

 

Not in the slightest.

 

they are so cool have you seen the ones of Chris in his yellow jumper so like Shatner there.

 

Some of these grabs are of much better looking stuff than they used to advertise the pic: this one in particular looks way more credible than other promo images:
http://reboot.trekcaps.net/caps/Star_Trek/ariane179254_StarTrek_2018.jpg

Does anybody else remember when the money shots used to be the best-looking cuts in a show, like the FALCON diving out of the sun toward the DS in SW? I'm guessing it all changed around the time Bruce Wilis ejected from the grounded plane in DIEHARD 2; suddenly it became more about an incredible-to-believe visual than an incredibly good-looking visual.

 

It's a decent composition, but the film never gives you a chance to drink it in, which typifies the vernacular of its beats and editing, and the mindset it springs from. Also, it's merely decent. Conceptually, the idea of a 23rd Century starship being built on the ground and surrounded by cranes and industrial chimney stacks is, well, dumb, if not an act of outright desecration. Then there is the execution. Everything in the shot has a slick CG sheen, from the surfaces of the metals to the annoying light flare that occludes a chunk of the saucer.

I do, sir! Unfortunately, a good chunk of that age seems to now be consigned to history. Then again, these things have a way of going in cycles. The last VFX shot that truly impressed me in a mainstream film is probably the opening "waterfall" shot in "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith". In terms of a recent riveting use of VFX *in* a film, I think I'd give that distinction to Alfonso Cuaron's "Children Of Men", which is stunning in its deeply-entrenched verisimilitude. If you haven't seen it, I thoroughly recommend a watch.

 

Pretty much.

 

If that one was used for promotion instead of the other "work-in-progress" picture, the size doubts some people have had wouldn't even have come up. The white lady looks absolutely huge in that picture.

My question would be: why would you want to "drink it in" in the first place? It's a nice enough event, but not that big of a deal. Especially not to non-Trek fans. Stretching a scene like that out as if it were a rubber band only serves to deaden the pacing of the movie (look at TMP for prime examples of this). It's a action/scifi movie, not a drama movie.

It has been discussed over and over that building something like that on the ground, with 24th century technology, should be easily feasible. Not to mention all the positive side effects (such as PR for Starfleet) you'd get and jobs you'd create (since not everybody needs to be able to function in zero-g).

It looks realistic enough to me. Not sure if filming a model would have changed that.

 

The way a thing looks is highly subjective, particularly with regard to true size in a non-orthographic two-dimensional image, so I'm not sure you can generalise your personal impression of the Enterprise's alleged hugeness to the assumed impression of the populace.

Since I struggle to maintain my composure, and respect for the integrity of another person, when they consciously make a drive-by bash of TMP in my presence, you'll have to forgive any acerbity, but . . .

1) It's the Enterprise. Think about that for a second.

2) "Stretching a scene" / "rubber band" = FALLACIOUS STRAWMAN

3) Many action films (to say nothing of hard Science Fiction films) have had beauty shots and more tempered editing than STXI, unless J.J. Abrams' is now the standard by which all others are judged.

I debated with myself as to whether to even write "on the ground" or not (since I knew someone would probably jump right on it, as you did). My more salient point was about the Enterprise being built in the grounds of something resembling a modern-day industrial complex, of which being built *on* the ground is a subset. This is what I meant by desecration. The presence of concrete chimney stacks, metal girders, transformer boxes, construction cranes and other conspicuous mid-late 20th Century, pre-futuristic details makes for a willfully anachronistic environment. Rather than a stirring vision of the future, which has been a key feature of ST since its inception, and, in many ways, is its defining attribute, Abrams has presented us with a moribund wasteland. It would almost be a chimerical re-imagining of ST were it not so vulgar in its lack of imagination and its horribly debasing effect upon, if not to say outright dismissal of, the spirit of ST itself.

In film, there is no such thing as realism, or, at the least, realisticness. That is not my issue with the shot; indeed, that is a gross mischaracterisation of my issue. Even if realisticness were possible or worth attaining in film, the idea that something could be "realistic enough" (to be satisfactory) is anathema to me, simply for the underlying sentiment that it's "good enough". No, my issue is quite different, but related to your sentiment. The problem, for me, is the tacit ease with which the shot was obviously accomplished. That's not to say it took no effort or no application of thought and skill, but simply to say that I see this dispassionate ease embodied by the shot itself, which carries over to the Enterprise, making it seem plain and ordinary and relatively hum-drum, since the Enterprise is both a product of this visual transcription of thought and will and exists within a shot composed of the same measure. This, for me, is symbolic of the whole.

 

Well, this thread went downhill.

 

There is one at every dinner party. The one you say, "Hello, great weather today," and they respond with a 10 minute diatribe about of, "young people today.... yada yada yada... back in my day... yada yada yada... no respect... yada yada... walked 5 miles in snow uphill each way... yada yada."
I enjoy a good black and white movie occasionally. I also like new movies with new ideas and adventures. Variety really is the spice of life.

 

I think trevanian's critique there, being as he's a huge practical-models-over-CG wonk is that the image in question is much more photorealisitc than, say, the nighttime matte painting of the Enterprise, with Kirk in front of it on his bike. Whether it's being built on the ground or in space or underwater is not the point.

 

Perhaps. But subjectivity is overrated; the properties of an image (and elements in such an image) do more to indicate relative size then any subjective ideas do. This is true for all sorts of design decisions. Subjectivity is only a very small part of the eventual result.

"drive-by bash of TMP"? That's a good joke. You do realize I was simply using that movie as an example, with the logic that on a Star Trek forum such as this it is one movie of which I can be sure most of you have seen?

1) Yes. Your point being?
2) I have no idea what that means.
3) Star Trek has never been (or tried to be) hard science fiction, so that comparison is useless. Furthermore, the pacing of movies has been stepped up in the later years, as the pacing of movies and series have always been evolving over the years. Many people I know can't stand the favorites of our youth; the expectations in quality and pacing are now different. Not only that, but the pacing of the Star Trek movie is hardly all that fast, compared to competitors like the last Transformers or District 9.

"Desecration" is a word I'd use when the grave of a family member is destroyed or otherwise touched by someone of ill intent. Not when the choices someone made when directing a movie do not agree with my personal vision for how it should have been.

Not only that, but the "spirit of Star Trek" is highly debatable.

I do agree in that some elements of the movie did not look as futuristic as I'd hoped. I like futuristic depictions, personally. But the more futuristic you make such things, the more "fake" they become. Our vision of the future is always both in the wrong direction and highly overblown compared to the actual future. This can be seen again and again if you look at people's ideas of the "future" in the past. In that spirit, using such "industrial" and "primitive" elements in the movie seems to make it more grounded and realistic, while retaining the futuristic element. It's supposed to depict the 24th century after all, not the 51st. At least, I think that was the intent.

Perhaps all the industrial/primitive elements can be seen as a reflection of how the future really is; an evolution, not a revolution. Personally, I love a wonderful future where any poverty, hunger, violence and crime has been abolished, where everyone is healthy and everyone can do exactly what they want to do in life. But then again, perhaps that's more "fantasy" then "scifi". It's also centuries away from us, the way the world is. Perhaps even impossible.

I understand your viewpoint. And on the one hand, I agree. I'm not a Star Trek fan for nothing; I've always adored the white lady. However, on the other hand, to these people the Enterprise is plain and ordinary. They've been making starships for a while now, and the Enterprise, while new, is no different. And to us, it shouldn't be either; we're used to spaceships by now, being Star Trek fans 'n all.

The plainer, the better -- for the Enterprise has never been a monumental accomplishment, I think. It's an ordinary starship, that goes on to do and explore extraordinary things.

 

I remember the last time people discussed this "issue"...