News Brent Spiner Returned for "Picard" (and you could do the CGI better in 15 minutes, we get it)
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
It's pretty much the trend now. Everything must be negatively analyzed.I still don't understand why some folks are so hung-up on a single image in a less than perfect Trailer, that appeared Five months before the show even aired?
Have they not seen the average Trailer put out for the last ten or fifteen years on other shows/movies?
What we need is a dark room for the negatives to be analyzed. But no one better turn on the lights suddenly or they'll be exposed.
…and there we go again.
What I’m seeing is that one cannot even criticize production/promotional output in constructive ways (such as the edit here as a suggested solution) without running into an ”alliance against criticism of Star Trek”. A fan is not the same as a highly-motivated supporter. Fandom serves as an external check to a property by using the enthusiasm to comment in ways a company can’t. If fans side against criticism to defend easily avoidable errors (as if Data’s face were so important to PIC it had to be shown in the trailer at all costs), then it only says something about their attitude towards the franchise: something is better than nothing; defend the fragile construct. It isn’t fragile and better is always better.
I don't want to suppress criticism. I've been on the other side. I don't like ENT. Still don't. Or the TNG Films in general (except for First Contact). I'm not a huge B&B fan. And I'm just "in the middle" on the Kelvin Films.
With what's going on with Discovery and Picard, this is my time. But I remember when it wasn't. And what it was like.
That being said, sometimes I'll crack jokes. It breaks up some of my more serious posts. I do it all the time, and I've been doing it here for 20 years. Sometimes someone else will too. Don't take it personally or in a spirit that wasn't intended. I have no problem with you. Nor did I intend anything towards you.
fireproof78 mentioned "examining" and "negative" here, I was at a Thanksgiving Dinner, had a few drinks, checked my phone, and made a silly post. I used to take Photography in high school, and I had to develop negatives from black-and-white film in a dark room. My mind went back to there. My mind works in strange ways sometimes. So I wasn't even sober when I typed up that post. So there was definitely no ill intent.
Last edited:
What about red lights?
THERE . ARE . FOUR . RED . LIGHTS!
I'm not against the fact that someone desires to criticize the show, by all means go right ahead.
But how about picking on something that actually matters in the grand scheme of all things Trek.
Once PICARD Airs, if somebody wants to tear it a new arsehole for crappy CGI, then knock yerself out, but I really don't see the need at this point to get all bent out of shape over a trailer with obvious unfinished CGI in it, that appeared five months before we see the final rendition.
(which BTW is not uncommon in the industry)
I rather doubt that in the future anyone is going to be spending any time or energy bringing up the look of a trailer that appeared FIVE months before the show aired.
Last edited:
Exactly. Criticism is always welcome, but a trailer is not the place for it, in my opinion. Largely because it isn't the full product. To me, it just comes across as looking for a reason to not like the show before it airs.
Nothing has finalized CG 5 months before release, especially on TV.
Some shows it's done only a week or 2 before airing.
Oh yeah... that had such crappy CGI in it that we've been complaining about that specifically for Twenty-seven Years.
It's so horrible that there's an entire thread about it here that has never been idle for all that time!
That’s beside the point since there is no law of physics demanding that a well-known makeup job be roughed out for a trailer at any cost. If it can’t be finished, what is wrong with a voice-based tease, as proposed by this edit?
There's nothing wrong with showing unfinished work either.
Oh yeah... that had such crappy CGI in it that we've been complaining about that specifically for Twenty-seven Years.
It's so horrible that there's an entire thread about it here that has never been idle for all that time!
Executive in charge of away missions? I want a thread on what a "Galaxy Starship" is!
There is if it doesn’t match audience expectations, since then you’re not making the right impression, putting your best foot forward, but instead have to rely on patches explaining what’s temporary and what isn’t. Rogue One of course had a problem after the film was released, with a lot of people looking at the trailer and wondering what it said about the upheaval behind the scenes.
Again, there is a difference between having a ship explode in a better way or using a different take in the final version and trying to create this unexpected reappearance, only to have it sputter due to rough makeup combined with that legacy uniform.
Ya know, yer really pizzin' into the wind with this, right?
Methinks there's much better battles to be had and won.
Who said anything about the final show? The point is merely that one could’ve trimmed down Spiner’s appearance in the trailer, thus improving on that, too. Or, if there was a contractual requirement to show his face fully, maybe take the time to just finish the few seconds?
Well, no, the fun here is to show how some fans will come up with any excuse for Data to appear fully rather than say “Fine, yes, even a mere trailer could’ve been improved upon by hiding unfinished makeup. Are we done now?” I’m trying to think if there is some kind of an unwritten sense that he absolutely needed to appear at any cost, if maybe the dearth of recent Trek from that era means people aren’t seeing Star Trek in the context of comparable nostalgic recreations such as those on Star Wars, and are more tolerant of average matching even in something that really creates that first impression of PIC?