Or this one, which is even more obviously Ai fakery.I too thought this might be the image @Forbin is referring to, but then I found this one, which is the more likely candidate, because this one is definitely AI generated.

Or this one, which is even more obviously Ai fakery.I too thought this might be the image @Forbin is referring to, but then I found this one, which is the more likely candidate, because this one is definitely AI generated.
I’m not sure how serious you were with the “AI slop” title or if it was just meant as a jest, but to me as an artist it’s interesting that we reached a point where people look at actual human created art and assume it must be AI generated once there’s something that maybe doesn’t look perfect about it. Are people in general having such a hard time recognizing actual AI generated images?
Bowling alley service staff.
Yeah, although many of the uniforms curiously look like Kelvinverse uniforms with the black undershirt.
My favorite details are Nathan Fillion in the top middle one and white Uhura in the one on the right below.
I too thought this might be the image @Forbin is referring to, but then I found this one, which is the more likely candidate, because this one is definitely AI generated.
![]()
Yikes! Okay, yeah, that might be the first one I saw.Or this one, which is even more obviously Ai fakery.
![]()
For reference, here are some actual AI generated TOS posters. There’s definitely models out there capable of producing more convincing results, but usually this is what I would have in mind when I hear the phrase “AI slop”.
![]()
It's interesting to me that we've reached a point where anyone would let a piece like that go out the door as a finished product. Especially in the case of Chekov's forehead, if nothing else.
As pointed out earlier, the poster is from DeviantArt from 2017, above four or five years before AI-generated art models really became available to the public.It's interesting to me that we've reached a point where anyone would let a piece like that go out the door as a finished product. Especially in the case of Chekov's forehead, if nothing else.
Yeah, based on six-fingered hands, and blobs here and there in AI-generated stuff, I did think that the image was AI....because I have never happened to encounter a 'professional' job where the end result was such bad photoshopping. I have worked with image restoration myself, for quite some time, and I have managed much better results than that with plain old paintshop, for heaven sakes. No, things don't have to be absolutely flawless, down to the proverbial gnat's hair, but I truly see no good excuse for Chekov's forehead to be left in that condition....not with what's available in today's electronic toolbag. It would not have been a time-consuming fix.
So....now we have ebay sellers claiming that is "an original movie poster".
Yeah, and Mona Lisa with a beard is original, too....
Why? This is not a “product” nor a “professional job”, this is some Trek fan’s personal fan art. Why should it ever be perfect or meet your standards and expectations? Someone spent their free time creating something out of passion and love for Trek. It doesn’t have to be anything to “go out the door”. It’s not like you or anyone paid to look at this.
![]()
Now I'm waiting for someone to come along with AI and make those infamous rumored pics of Kim Cattrall on the Star Trek VI bridge setOr this one, which is even more obviously Ai fakery.
![]()
Yes, it would appear so.Then....let me see if I understand correctly: The wide usage of it since 2017 is a case of a bunch of others latching onto it and using it in ways that the one who made it never intended?
Most certainly not, because that’s another Photoshop job. Here’s the original photo. And the one in the command tunic is from former member gazomg (Link). A tell is that he often tends to do the heads a tad bit too large (or the bodies too small).I had never chanced upon that photo in the upper left corner. That looks a lot like Kirk's alternate uniform tunic! Can it be that Bill Theiss was inspired by that?
Some of them more than just a tad!A tell is that he often tends to do the heads a tad bit too large (or the bodies too small).![]()
The Spock picture is from a promo shot for the second season.I've seen that image a lot lately. It's obviously a composite - some portrait shots of the actors, and some taken from live action, like Spock getting ready to phaser one of the parasites in "Operation: Annihilate!" and Scotty making his report from the Botany Bay in "Space Seed" - but I actually never really noticed the movie ships before. Who created this, I wonder?
The fact that the Photoshop artist had the sense to mirror the Starfleet patch on the flipped image of Spock on their poster tells you they are a fan.The Spock picture is from a promo shot for the second season.
![]()
Most certainly not, because that’s another Photoshop job. Here’s the original photo. And the one in the command tunic is from former member gazomg (Link). A tell is that he often tends to do the heads a tad bit too large (or the bodies too small).What he should really do is start adding fucking watermarks to his works, to avoid situations like these.
![]()
Not sure why it's disrespectful. It's just Saavik in a midshipmen uniform over the cadet officer uniform.Speaking of Kirstie, someone photoshopped her head onto Grace Lee Whitney's body, which is rather disrespectful to both
That one actually seems more like an old school "put the actress' head on a different body" photoshop.Or this one, which is even more obviously Ai fakery.
![]()
The Spock picture is from a promo shot for the second season.
![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.