RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,577
Posts: 5,514,777
Members: 25,154
Currently online: 643
Newest member: MC1367

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 13 2009, 07:56 AM   #1
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
Captain
 
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
__________________
Watch out, or I'll get you with my Andorian ice powers.
The Mighty Monkey of Mim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 08:09 AM   #2
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

There are two damaged saucers visible in your first linked picture - one recently belonging to the Farragut and one to the Mayflower, both identifiable by the lettering on the hulls. This was all solved here months ago.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 08:20 AM   #3
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
Captain
 
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

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.
__________________
Watch out, or I'll get you with my Andorian ice powers.
The Mighty Monkey of Mim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 08:54 AM   #4
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Uk
View startrekrcks's Twitter Profile
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

I seen the pics they are fantastic
startrekrcks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 08:59 AM   #5
pookha
Admiral
 
pookha's Avatar
 
Location: pookha
View pookha's Twitter Profile
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

how are there blue ray caps when the dvd isnt out yet??
maybe they were fooled with.
__________________
avatar by
?
pookha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 09:20 AM   #6
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
Captain
 
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

There's been a blu-ray rip available from torrent sites for a few weeks now.
__________________
Watch out, or I'll get you with my Andorian ice powers.
The Mighty Monkey of Mim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 09:28 AM   #7
nx1701g
Admiral
 
nx1701g's Avatar
 
Location: Aboard the Executor...
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

I'll wait until I see it on Blu-Ray for myself to decide. It's not a big deal anyway.
__________________
Not Dead Yet.
nx1701g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 10:01 AM   #8
strongmind
Ensign
 
Location: California, USA
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

The Mighty Monkey of Mim wrote: View Post
There's been a blu-ray rip available from torrent sites for a few weeks now.
Is it lergal?
strongmind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 10:06 AM   #9
The Mighty Monkey of Mim
Captain
 
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

Not in the slightest.
__________________
Watch out, or I'll get you with my Andorian ice powers.
The Mighty Monkey of Mim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 10:10 AM   #10
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Uk
View startrekrcks's Twitter Profile
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

they are so cool have you seen the ones of Chris in his yellow jumper so like Shatner there.
startrekrcks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 01:46 PM   #11
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

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...rTrek_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.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 02:20 PM   #12
Cryogenic
Lieutenant Commander
 
Cryogenic's Avatar
 
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

trevanian wrote: View Post
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...rTrek_2018.jpg
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.

trevanian wrote: View Post
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.
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.
Cryogenic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 03:04 PM   #13
barnaclelapse
Commodore
 
barnaclelapse's Avatar
 
Location: Waverly, VA.
Send a message via AIM to barnaclelapse
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

nx1701g wrote: View Post
I'll wait until I see it on Blu-Ray for myself to decide. It's not a big deal anyway.
Pretty much.
barnaclelapse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 07:15 PM   #14
DiSiLLUSiON
Commodore
 
DiSiLLUSiON's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

trevanian wrote: View Post
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...rTrek_2018.jpg
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.

Cryogenic wrote: View Post
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.
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.

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.
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).

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.
It looks realistic enough to me. Not sure if filming a model would have changed that.
DiSiLLUSiON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2009, 10:39 PM   #15
Cryogenic
Lieutenant Commander
 
Cryogenic's Avatar
 
Re: Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

DiSiLLUSiON wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
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...rTrek_2018.jpg
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.
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.

DiSiLLUSiON wrote: View Post
Cryogenic wrote: View Post
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.
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.
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.

DiSiLLUSiON wrote: View Post
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.
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).
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.

DiSiLLUSiON wrote: View Post
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.
It looks realistic enough to me. Not sure if filming a model would have changed that.
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.
Cryogenic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.