Farragut pic is a faaaaaaake!!!!

[Vance]

You know, as a proclaimed 'hater', I missed the memo on this particular conspiracy...

But as a cute note, the "Farragut" writing is in the typeface used by the ships in the new movie, which is NOT the Microgramma variants used in the TMP-NEM era. Must have been one hell of a fraud to be able to pull THAT off. :P

 

[urbandk]

You know, as a proclaimed 'hater', I missed the memo on this particular conspiracy...

But as a cute note, the "Farragut" writing is in the typeface used by the ships in the new movie, which is NOT the Microgramma variants used in the TMP-NEM era. Must have been one hell of a fraud to be able to pull THAT off. :P

Well I guess that settles it...

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

No, it isn't the same font, though it is very similar. Both are Microgramma variants, IIRC. But the traditional one that was taken from the Nebula model is a bit thicker/smaller.

It's a bit disconcerting that there are still people claiming it is a genuine picture when it has clearly been photoshopped, especially since screencaptures that prove it are readily available.

 

[Vance]

Dude.. I make these fonts. I can spot the differences. It's definately one of the 'new ship' fonts.. not even the Amarillo variant used on the Kelvin, and certainly NOT like the Microgramma variants. And that, of course, is NOT the Nebula's saucer, nor is it the lettering thereof. Factually, you are wrong here.

So, you'll have to explain to me... why would someone photoshop this picture to 'wrongly' draw the word 'Farragut' and its registration number? Exactly what would be the point of this conspiracy? I see no potential goal for anyone involved...

I think any of us that's been around Trek for any length of time already looked at it said "Man, they screwed up that scale shot". Which is, of course, nothing new for any Trek fan... RE: Bird of Prey, RE: Oberth Class.

If there's a 'hater's conspiracy' around photoshopping this, I honestly missed the memo. And I'm pissed, 'cause I paid the dues!

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Ok, I may be wrong about the names of the fonts. But the Farragut name is not in the same font as the Mayflower name. Just look at them. One is squat and bold and the other is taller and slimmer. Farragut is also completely off center relative to the saucer, which *ahem* HAS ANOTHER NAME AND REGISTRY ON IT, visible not just in the film, but IN THE MODIFIED PICTURE as well.

I also could be wrong that the Nebula picture is the source that whoever photoshopped the image used, but I doubt that because it looks about dead on to me and it has long been readily available on the internet.

No one said anything about a 'hater conspiracy,' whatever that means, and my goal was not to speculate as to the motivation of whoever photoshopped the image. People do that kind of thing all the time for fun, etc., it's not my business. My goal was simply to point out that it is a photoshop job. I don't know why you're getting riled up about it.

 

[Vance]

I'm going to say this clearly to you, pretty solidly: You are factually wrong in your assertions. You're repeating them as fact along with assigning ulterior motives to a would-be fraudster out there, for reasons that no one is capable of fathoming.

Dude, seriously.. if you're going to say:

It's a bit disconcerting that there are still people claiming it is a genuine picture when it has clearly been photoshopped, especially since screencaptures that prove it are readily available.

Then you're saying someone deliberately photoshopped the picture in order to defraud people for some reason... Why would someone go through that trouble? Why would it make any sense?

Again, I'm riled up because there was a hater's conspiracy that I missed out on, and I'm a charter member! I want my dues returned.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Um...there are photoshop contests in Trek Art all the time and nobody is trying to defraud anyone. It's done for fun and as a test of your skills.

I do not believe I am factually wrong that the letters in the name Farragut are of different proportions than the letters in the name Mayflower or that they are off-center relative to the saucer's curve. Prove me wrong if you can. I have no ulterior motive here, I just want the facts to come forth.

There are screencaptures for both the trailer and the film itself right there for anyone to examine. Nowhere will you find the image with the Farragut name, because it was never in either. It was created by someone for reasons that I do not know or particularly care about.

Conspiracy implies the involvement of multiple individuals, of which there is no evidence I can see. It's not that difficult to photoshop such an image if you have the necessary skills, which many people do. And as for 'haters,' (of what, exactly?) I don't know how that term can be usefully applied to this conversation at all...

 

[Vance]

The Mayflower is a 'pre Verse' ship and uses Amarillo (or a variant of) on her hull. The wreckage suggests she's one of the ships of the Kelvin class (or a variant of, again).

The Farragut is closer to the Enterprise in design and uses the same lettering she does. We don't know for sure what kind of vessel she was, but we can hazard that she was meant to be similar to, if not the same as, the Enterprise - scaling issues with the shot not withstanding.

The shot appeared months ago and many, many of us were playing 'what ship is that'. I was one of the ones that saw the faded 'Farragut' on the hull, along with her NCC-16XX call numbers burning away. The shot was then 'color altered' to show the lettering in higher contrast. That's the photoshop you're referring to in the first post.

The shot is not a fake, and has not been otherwise altered.

 

[Bertie]

Regardless of Photoshop, fonts, anti-CGI derails, or anything else, the OP is absolutely, positively, without a doubt right: it is the Mayflower that appears in that first pic he linked (the ship with which the Enterprise collides a few seconds later) , not the Farragut. This is clear as day to anyone with the copies that are already, uh, "out there" and knows how to use the pause button, and will be clear to everyone in a few days when the Blu-ray is out. It really isn't even remotely hard to read at HD resolutions.

And the OP is also right about Mayflower wreckage also incongruously appearing earlier in the sequence. Beats me how that one gets resolved.

 

[Vance]

Sorry, nope. At least so far as these pictures go.

First picture is the Farragut.
Third picture is the Mayflower.

Could the BluRay remix this? Sure.. that's happened before. (Re: Transformers) But we'll see then. Right now, claims of 'it's clear on this illegal bootleg that I stole!' pretty much have negative merit to me.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

The first instance of the photoshopped pic I have been able to trace on this board is from this post from this thread back in May. The context was a discussion about whether or not the Farragut (which was mentioned in the hanger sequence) could be said to have been destroyed in the course of the film. There developed an argument between those who thought so (since it appeared all the SF ships apart from the Enterprise were destroyed) and those who thought not, with the latter saying rather ridiculously that unless we could actually see the name Farragut on some of the wreckage onscreen, IT'S NOT CANON, etc.

Poster adm58 responded with a post containing the picture and the comment "here is the destroyed Farragut on screen." That could easily have been a joke, (and a funny one aimed at those who require explicit onscreen proof of everything even where there's a clear implication) but it was taken seriously and perpetuated from there, though others later pointed out (as I have) that Mayflower is visible on the same piece of wreckage in the same shot, prompting someone else to suggest the two-pieces-overlapping explanation. I've PM'd adm58 for clarification on whether he created the image or if he found it somewhere...

Vance, I can't believe you find a 'blu-ray remix' a likelier explanation than a simple (and humorous) photoshop job. That's ridiculous. Especially since two independent sources of screencaps (ariane and trekcore, one taken [presumably] from the blu-ray rip and one from the official HD trailer) show the same thing. No Farragut. And incidentally, neither the blu-ray screencaps or the HD trailer caps are mine and I have not stolen anything.

 

[Vance]

The wreckage is clearly two different ships.. the 'not there on this ship' bridge dome vs. 'still there on this ship' bridge dome may be a clue, for starters... as well as the different saucer shapes... but... whatever. There's no amount of proof from anyone that will convince you otherwise on this one, and I've got better things to do tonight than deal with it any farther.

 

[Gepard]

I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I still have no idea what's going on.

The first instance of the photoshopped pic I have been able to trace on this board is from this post from this thread back in May.

This is very confusing, because the three visible letters on the saucer on the left side are "OWE," same as the Blu-Ray caps. It took a couple of views to catch that somebody stuck in really shitty letters to represent "Farragut," though frankly it looks more like "Farfal." It was probably meant to be a joke, seeing as the original name and registry is still visible on the side.

I also fail to see how any of this is important enough for a new thread, seeing as none of us were staying awake nights wondering about hull registries on wreckage.

 

[Vance]

Not on the picture to which he's linking. What he's linking to is the Farragut wreckage, then claiming that the completely DIFFERENT wreckage with the visible OWER is the same shot and model, ignoring the vastly different patterns, battle damage and the fargin' lettering on the saucers.

So now he's claiming that the Farragut shot is a complete fake and hoax for.. some strange reason.. Actually, I can't explain that. The dialog established that the Farragut was destroyed. We see the wreckage. It's a dead ship. So's the Mayflower. End of story.

 

[Green Shirt]

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

WHAT???? Everything is a big deal here.

 

[Vance]

They're the ships, Greenie... Ships are kinda my thing. :P

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Not on the picture to which he's linking. What he's linking to is the Farragut wreckage, then claiming that the completely DIFFERENT wreckage with the visible OWER is the same shot and model, ignoring the vastly different patterns, battle damage and the fargin' lettering on the saucers.

Dude, are you even looking at the picture?

This image shows the wreckage of the Mayflower (you can see the OWE above the Enterprise's secondary hull) but has been photoshopped to include the name Farragut faintly ON THE SAME PIECE OF WRECKAGE. It has been altered. I'm done telling you the same thing over and over again, look at the screencaps for yourself.

 

[Gepard]

Not on the picture to which he's linking. What he's linking to is the Farragut wreckage,

There's two sets of markings on the hull in the old screencap. I've highlighted them here.

The "FARRAG" is absent in the Blu-ray grabs. So, while I'm still confused as to why the OP started his thread with his attitude as if we'd been waiting with baited breath for someone to solve this horrible mystery, as far as this subject goes, he does seem to be correct.

Dude, are you even looking at the picture?... ON THE SAME PIECE OF WRECKAGE...I'm done telling you the same thing over and over again, look at the screencaps for yourself.

Dude. No one cares this much except you. It's fuzzy screencaps. Ease up.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Thank you for highlighting that. The only reason I started the thread was to set the record straight. It most certainly isn't a big deal, it was just an observation. I never in my wildest dreams expected it to become this long drawn out thing, but I couldn't very well just sit by and let Vance spuriously discredit me.

The title was meant as a reference to "In The Pale Moonlight" [DS9]. I didn't mean to suggest there was any kind of "conspiracy." Just a joke that got mistaken for a fact.

 

[Vance]

Two pieces of wreckage, as the full sequence shows. The Farragut is behind the ravaged Mayflower, entering shot from above right. The camera turns quickly and we get the close-up shot of the same Mayflower wreckage with the Farragut behind it.

The 'dividing' line of the wreckage is just to the left of the "U.S.S." on the Farragut and slopes to the lower right, just as the next shots reveal. If you need MORE proof, notice that the two circular patterns of the primary hulls are in different directions...

Jesus, people.