This is what I mean by "streaks" - maybe you should try reading and not being such a smug little thread spammer. Apparently, you don't know the difference ...
Super Hi Res Enterprise
- Thread starter Jessop
- Start date
This is what I mean by "streaks" - maybe you should try reading and not being such a smug little thread spammer. Apparently, you don't know the difference ...
That little rectangular shape in the teaser trailer screen cap is way too long to be the bridge viewer screen and proportionally wouldn't work out. You'll notice there are two of those dark rectangular shapes on the left and to the right of that as well.
but... in many films, the proportions of things don't work if you actually try and put together the different set designs into a complete whole -maybe that's the case here.
Option 3> you have waaaaaaaay too much time on your hands.
Leaving aside how practical/realistic it is for that to be a window, it sure looks like a window. It doesn't make much sense to me for the filmmakers to have it look exactly like a window and then explain it away as a viewscreen that happens to look exactly like a window.
Realistic? No. But then, neither is having the bridge up on top of the saucer where it's totally exposed.
It's a window.
Realistic? No. But then, neither is having the bridge up on top of the saucer where it's totally exposed.
It's a window.
Honestly, why are we arguing about this? It may be a window, it may not be, but the most likely explanation is that it's a VFX error that has been corrected in the Empire photo. The photo is a single frame, so they could have easily photoshopped it to change the angle.
I don't think there are any FX errors that the magazine would 'correct'. Or any errors period.
I somehow doubt the magazine editor sat down with his CGI model of the enterprise, worked out what he thought the image 'should be', then photoshopped it. That makes no sense.
Ummm, he meant the error was fixed by the time the pic appeared in Empire.
Do you honestly think people are stupid enough to believe that a movie magazine editor fixed a VFX shot in a movie still?
Publicity stills like this are commonly altered by the studio to make them look as "good" or widely palatable as possible. For example, Quinto has been very airbrushed in some of the publicity photos. The visual effects team's final product might look very different in the film that the publicity dept's product.
Ummm, he meant the error was fixed by the time the pic appeared in Empire.
Do you honestly think people are stupid enough to believe that a movie magazine editor fixed a VFX shot in a movie still?
Yes, that is what I meant. I mean this is just a publicity still. This particular still may not even end up in the final movie. I think perhaps they even edited the photo after the fact, i.e. the Empire photo is the correct one, but in the publicity still the photo was altered to show off more of the NCC-1701 painted on the hull. I am pretty sure in the final film the angles will be correct.
While Devon may occasionally forget to make use of the Multi-Quote feature, I'd consider his post content to be shaded well away from spammish. Since he did make specific mention of streaking of the stars in his first post of the thread here:
and was clearly not talking about the reflections on the surface of the viewscreen, might I suggest that a simple clarification of what you meant would have been sufficient?
There's always Option 4) A literal and serious reading may not be the only one to consider.
To be honest, I don't think that it's clear that Tom Servo meant it the way you say. If ancient misunderstood his meaning, then so what? It's really not that big a deal.
Ummm, he meant the error was fixed by the time the pic appeared in Empire.
Do you honestly think people are stupid enough to believe that a movie magazine editor fixed a VFX shot in a movie still?
That's most likely because the effects technology of the time made it either impossible or a real pain in the ass to render the surface shiny. It's much easier now.
Again, they're doing it because they can purely for aesthetic reasons, not necessarily because it makes sense. But as Trekkies, we'll make it work. We always do.
Ummm, he meant the error was fixed by the time the pic appeared in Empire.
Do you honestly think people are stupid enough to believe that a movie magazine editor fixed a VFX shot in a movie still?
Either way, it sounds to me like an attempt to discount an officially released picture in order to feed a pet theory that is still totally baseless. There is no 'error' here except in fan interpretation.
Exactly so.
I don't see how a shiney viewer makes no sense, but a shiney window that turns into a shiney viewer somehow does.
Looking at the trailer, there are shiney/glaring things everywhere. Abrams likes shiney things and lots of glare, that's part of his style. It's a shiney viewscreen, nothing more.
