Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

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

[M'Sharak]

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 Mighty Monkey of Mim]

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.

[startrekrcks]

I seen the pics they are fantastic

[pookha]

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

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

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

[nx1701g]

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

[strongmind]

The Mighty Monkey of Mim wrote:

---

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

Is it lergal?

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Not in the slightest.

[startrekrcks]

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

[trevanian]

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.

[Cryogenic]

trevanian wrote:

---

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:

---

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.

[barnaclelapse]

nx1701g wrote:

---

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

Pretty much.

[DiSiLLUSiON]

trevanian wrote:

---

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:

---

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.

[Cryogenic]

DiSiLLUSiON wrote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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.