What was the point of that?
Title font for WRATH OF KHAN?
- Thread starter gastrof
- Start date
What was the point of that?
I made this poster with the font downloaded above (the blue lettering). Looks close enough for me.
Khan: I shall leave you as you left me... as you left her... marooned for all eternity at the center of a dead world without a sombrero to prevent sunburn. Burn alive! Burn alive!
Kirk:KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!
What was the point of that?
I'm lightening up
I made this poster with the font downloaded above (the blue lettering). Looks close enough for me.
Khan: I shall leave you as you left me... as you left her... marooned for all eternity at the center of a dead world without a sombrero to prevent sunburn. Burn alive! Burn alive!
Kirk:KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN's!
The font is 'Corporate URW'. Check out:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/urw/corporate-urw/
The myfonts site has a wonderful function called 'What The Font' where you can upload a jpg font sample then try nto identify the font from that.
Sadly, it appears to be a commercial font - I have not been able to find a freely downloadable version anywhere.
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/urw/corporate-urw/
The myfonts site has a wonderful function called 'What The Font' where you can upload a jpg font sample then try nto identify the font from that.
Sadly, it appears to be a commercial font - I have not been able to find a freely downloadable version anywhere.
The font is 'Corporate URW'. Check out:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/urw/corporate-urw/
The myfonts site has a wonderful function called 'What The Font' where you can upload a jpg font sample then try nto identify the font from that.
Sadly, it appears to be a commercial font - I have not been able to find a freely downloadable version anywhere.
THANK YOU!!!
Hmmm...
Not that I'm into buying fonts, but I think it said it was "only" $20 or so.
The only difference I can see is the "II" used for "2" onscreen doesn't match. The font has no horizontal bars on the letter "I", so using the actual font won't produce a Roman Numeral "2" that looks the same as onscreen.
I've also noticed it's very much like "Federation", except horizontal bars have that angled cutoff, and some edges are rounded.
I'd like to thank everyone who helped, as well as those who agreed with me that the traditional Trek Movie font doesn't even come close.
I just don't understand how anyone can look at the two and think they were alike. I mean, it's not a matter of perspective. It's a case of "Blue doesn't look a thing like red."
Helvetica. Definitely Helvetica.
You're crazy. It's very similar, and probably as close as he will get.
Yes, I know it's Khan's, but it look's funky on the poster (just for you though I changed it).
Helvetica is not even close.
Then... it's Times New Roman. Definitely Times New Roman.
Carpe?
How in the world you can think these two even remotely resemble each other is beyond me.
You go to a lot of work to prove someone wrong who was just trying to come up with a substitute. Now for my favorite response -
The font is 'Corporate URW'. Check out:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/urw/corporate-urw/
The myfonts site has a wonderful function called 'What The Font' where you can upload a jpg font sample then try nto identify the font from that.
Sadly, it appears to be a commercial font - I have not been able to find a freely downloadable version anywhere.
Thanks for identifying it - interesting. The font seams to have been created in 1971 by Roc Mitchell (doesn't the name have a certain Trek feel to it?), working for the famous Phil Martin. So it was a good find by someone in the graphics department for TWOK.
Later it was digitized and is marketed by a company from my birthplace - Neat!
Seriously, what's the deal with all the sombreros? I don't get it.
what sombreros?
Carpe?
How in the world you can think these two even remotely resemble each other is beyond me.
You go to a lot of work to prove someone wrong who was just trying to come up with a substitute. [/IMG]
To be fair, it's somewhat frustrating for a person to be looking for help and run into someone who not only gives a useless and wrong answer but is obstinate about insisting that it's a good and useful answer.
I agree... it is getting silly, but not in a good way. Why not have those hats with propellers on the tops of them? That would add more moving parts to those Enterprise's we see with the Shatner ramscoops and moving warp engines.
Nice find with the font... it does look late 70's/80's.
Carpe?
How in the world you can think these two even remotely resemble each other is beyond me.
You go to a lot of work to prove someone wrong who was just trying to come up with a substitute. Now for my favorite response -
The last part sort of fits in with your earlier replies.
Oh...and it wasn't a lot of work...
It also wasn't a "substitute". A substitute would be using the movie font in place of the DS9 font, or vice versa. Using Federation Bold in place of Federation Starfleet....
In this case, the one doesn't "substitute" for the other at all. Again, I'm asking for a shade of blue, and you're suggesting red.
As for your "response"... nice to see how serious you take someone's request for some help, and being presented with evidence you were "a bit" off. YOU weren't wrong...it was ME who was wrong for pointing out your error.
Poppycock.
Speaks volumes about your reliability from this point on...
Carpe?
How in the world you can think these two even remotely resemble each other is beyond me.
You go to a lot of work to prove someone wrong who was just trying to come up with a substitute. Now for my favorite response -
The last part sort of fits in with your earlier replies.
Oh...and it wasn't a lot of work...
It also wasn't a "substitute". A substitute would be using the movie font in place of the DS9 font, or vice versa. Using Federation Bold in place of Federation Starfleet....
In this case, the one doesn't "substitute" for the other at all. Again, I'm asking for a shade of blue, and you're suggesting red.
As for your "response"... nice to see how serious you take someone's request for some help, and being presented with evidence you were "a bit" off. YOU weren't wrong...it was ME who was wrong for pointing out your error.
Poppycock.
Speaks volumes about your reliability from this point on...
My god, you're way too intense.
Last edited:
Seriously. Some people in this thread take fonts way too personally.
Also, it is "you're", not "your".
I know, but lack of proofreading has done me in again (but I shall correct it). I never understood however, the need to correct everybody on every little thing. Are you way too intense as well?
I didn't correct everybody on every little thing. I corrected you on one little thing.
I didn't correct everybody on every little thing. I corrected you on one little thing.
Another thing I don't understand is taking everything so literally. Yes, I know this is a written word forum, but not everything is so black and white, not even the written word. I was referring to the habit of many users (not just you) feeling the need to correct insignificant errors, typos, etc. (and not necessarily all the time). What would be the motivation for these behaviors? The need to elevate ones own self esteem? A belief that one is teaching or passing on knowledge? An attempt to belittle others? A compulsion to correct mistakes? Boredom? I don't know.
I do find that many people are not tolerant on forums. I also think many don't actually read what others post. After registering a few words they form an instant opinion and respond without completely absorbing what was posted. This leads to misunderstandings and silly arguments that go way off topic. As an example, I'm certain that some will equate these simple observations as intolerance on my part. Oh well.
Similar threads
