Super Bowl ad screenshots

[Amaris]

And I can trust you to look at something I post in an objective manner? Fat chance.

Why don't you go look at the TMP promos that had a streaked refit over Kirk & Spock and see how much better the ship looks (to you) because it seems out of focus? That'd be in keeping with buying into 'haze looks better' over 'physical object lit in a vaguely realistic way' that seems to have such credibility around here.

If you go back upthread, you'll see me say that I don't understand why these shots from the film look this bad given the high quality of the profile view we've all seen of this ugly ship. I've put my remarks in context, repeatedly, which is more than I can say for most of the folks around here.

EDIT ADDON: Or if you're really serious about your post, then pay me to come up with something.

You just said you could do it. You didn't list any conditions:

I mentioned in a thread elsewhere that I could probably dig out and post some crappy pics I took in the 1980s and be able to pass them off as images from this movie, just on the basis of how flared out and blurry they look.

You didn't say "if you'd be objective", you only said you could post them and be able to pass them off.

Well, do it.

J.

 

[Skywalker]

I mentioned in a thread elsewhere that I could probably dig out and post some crappy pics I took in the 1980s and be able to pass them off as images from this movie, just on the basis of how flared out and blurry they look.

If I were human, I believe my response would be: "Put up or shut up."

If I were human.

 

[ST-One]

And I can trust you to look at something I post in an objective manner? Fat chance.

Why don't you go look at the TMP promos that had a streaked refit over Kirk & Spock and see how much better the ship looks (to you) because it seems out of focus? That'd be in keeping with buying into 'haze looks better' over 'physical object lit in a vaguely realistic way' that seems to have such credibility around here.

If you go back upthread, you'll see me say that I don't understand why these shots from the film look this bad given the high quality of the profile view we've all seen of this ugly ship. I've put my remarks in context, repeatedly, which is more than I can say for most of the folks around here.

EDIT ADDON: Or if you're really serious about your post, then pay me to come up with something.

You English speaking people have a saying:

Put up or shut up!

 

[ST-One]

I mentioned in a thread elsewhere that I could probably dig out and post some crappy pics I took in the 1980s and be able to pass them off as images from this movie, just on the basis of how flared out and blurry they look.

If I were human, I believe my response would be: "Put up or shut up."

If I were human.

Damn!
I should have read that last page first.

 

[Skywalker]

I mentioned in a thread elsewhere that I could probably dig out and post some crappy pics I took in the 1980s and be able to pass them off as images from this movie, just on the basis of how flared out and blurry they look.

If I were human, I believe my response would be: "Put up or shut up."

If I were human.

Damn!
I should have read that last page first.

I'd say that great minds think alike, but...well, that wouldn't really explain me.

 

[ST-One]

If I were human, I believe my response would be: "Put up or shut up."

If I were human.

Damn!
I should have read that last page first.

I'd say that great minds think alike, but...well, that wouldn't really explain me.

 

[Australis]

Thanks to OP for putting up screenshots, the whole thing blurred past so fast it was hard to catch details. If they ran that ad at a minute instead of 30 seconds, it might be better.

 

[trevanian]

And I can trust you to look at something I post in an objective manner? Fat chance.

It's not "for" me. It's for the forum. Or can you not do what you claimed you can so easily do?

EDIT ADDON: Or if you're really serious about your post, then pay me to come up with something.

Fine. How much do you want?

$925

That'll only cover HALF the time and cost of my turning down an article assignment to dig this stuff out, or if need be, to recreate it. And it doesn't even include buying model parts; I'll eat that part of the cost.

Think what a win-win it can be for you. if I flake, you can claim to have been swindled. If I disappear with the money off the board forever, you'll make tons of people happy and it'll be spun to invalidate anything I or anybody you tar with the 'old fan' mentality ever said or did. And of course, no matter how well it is executed, you can say it looks like shit.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You didn't say "if you'd be objective", you only said you could post them and be able to pass them off.

Well, do it.

J.

It's always a giggle when someone starts talking about "objectivity," particularly regarding art. The human being has not been born who is an objective observer of anything; the best we can achieve is balance, fair-mindedness and as much detachment as possible.

This kind of cheerleading makes the New York Times look almost objective.

That kind of comment reminds me again, in several ways, why I've absolutely no respect for your thinking or taste.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

And I can trust you to look at something I post in an objective manner? Fat chance.

It's not "for" me. It's for the forum. Or can you not do what you claimed you can so easily do?

EDIT ADDON: Or if you're really serious about your post, then pay me to come up with something.

Fine. How much do you want?

$925

That'll only cover HALF the time and cost of my turning down an article assignment to dig this stuff out, or if need be, to recreate it. And it doesn't even include buying model parts; I'll eat that part of the cost.

Think what a win-win it can be for you. if I flake, you can claim to have been swindled. If I disappear with the money off the board forever, you'll make tons of people happy and it'll be spun to invalidate anything I or anybody you tar with the 'old fan' mentality ever said or did. And of course, no matter how well it is executed, you can say it looks like shit.

Guys, that's about enough of this 'pay me to back my assertion' topic.

This is a recreational message board. Not a house of commerce. Although I wish that it were a house of commerce, because if that were the case, at my billing rates as a CPA, I'd be a multimillionaire a few times over by now, given how much time I've spent here over the past 7.5 years.

Around here - you post something, you must be prepared to back your assertion. PERIOD. Not be PAID to back your assertion. Just back your assertion.

Or don't make said assertion in the first place.

Nothing new about this concept. It's sorta fundamental to participation on a message board. Or, at least on THIS message board.

 

[ancient]

There's been some improvement in technique since 1992:

No doubt at all that both are the Enterprise, though.

By that standard, the same could be said of a pizza attached to a beer can and two foot long hot dogs.

No it couldn't.

This kind of cheerleading makes the New York Times look almost objective.

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? Objectivity has no place here. None of your posts have been objective. Or mine or anyone elses, because we're fans. Fans cannot by definition be objective.

Being objective means not having any personal opinion on the matter, being unfeeling, impersonal. A lack of personal like or dislike, or any personal connection. Why would you ever want to see that here on a fan board? Or expect it? It makes no sense at all.

You didn't say "if you'd be objective", you only said you could post them and be able to pass them off.

Well, do it.

J.

It's always a giggle when someone starts talking about "objectivity," particularly regarding art. The human being has not been born who is an objective observer of anything; the best we can achieve is balance, fair-mindedness and as much detachment as possible.

Exactly. And looking for an objective review of entertainment? It just don't work that way, ever.

Maybe on the Neutral Planet:

"All I know is, my gut says maybe."
"If I don't survive, tell my wife hello."
"I have no strong feelings one way or the other."

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

This kind of cheerleading makes the New York Times look almost objective.

Ah, hyperbole at its worst. I'd expect no less. That is, of course, my non-objective opinion of the majority of your non-objective posts.

 

[I Grok Spock]

And I can trust you to look at something I post in an objective manner? Fat chance.

It's not "for" me. It's for the forum. Or can you not do what you claimed you can so easily do?

EDIT ADDON: Or if you're really serious about your post, then pay me to come up with something.

Fine. How much do you want?

$925

That'll only cover HALF the time and cost of my turning down an article assignment to dig this stuff out, or if need be, to recreate it. And it doesn't even include buying model parts; I'll eat that part of the cost.

Think what a win-win it can be for you. if I flake, you can claim to have been swindled. If I disappear with the money off the board forever, you'll make tons of people happy and it'll be spun to invalidate anything I or anybody you tar with the 'old fan' mentality ever said or did. And of course, no matter how well it is executed, you can say it looks like shit.

I have a response to this, but I'm gonna need to see a credit card before I can post it.

 

[Gepard]

Guys, that's about enough of this 'pay me to back my assertion' topic.

Which is good, because there's no way in hell I'm paying $925 for some blurry photographs.

OT, I finally got to see the ad in HD the other day, and wow. It went a little too fast, but I guess they wanted to cram as much into the 30 seconds as they could. The Enterprise looks amazing in action.

 

[Irishman]

A compelling story would of been one that didn't have to involve Time Travel. Nero going back in time changes the time line. There was no time travel in any of the Star Wars prequels. Whether you liked them or not. They were the "story". It didn't have to be some "going back in time changing everything etc etc". Since they did that they can do another movie of just fixing the mess. Go back again and change it again. So what is the point really? Reset button episodes (and now movies) are just "safe" things to do. No guts to tell a real story and move things forward.

So, um, don't see it.

Noone's holding a gun to your head.

 

[Irishman]

I'm not even sure what Battlefield earth is, but chances are I'm not going to act like a movie is an abomination based off of a 30 second clip. Its one thing to not be interested in a film but its another to say its Transformers meets episode 1 when you havent even watched it.

Do you really think that Trek fans haven't done more "homework" then just watching a 30 second clip? Come on!

I don't understand why people have to wait for the accident to happen before saying or doing anything.

Well, a 30-second clip, plus all the interviews, artwork, et al, is not going to tell us whether this film is well-made or not.

Period. To ask it to do so is to simply ask it to bear more weight than it can.

 

[Irishman]

Time travel stories are boring. It has been done to death. In Treks case they do a "what if" story line and then go back to the beginning via time travel with nothing changed. It is boring as all hell now.

If you look at some of the best Trek episodes they clearly move things forward and don't rely on "gimmicks". Best of Both Words, Inner Light etc and lets not forgot a huge chunk of DS9.

So in the next movie we have Sulu going back in time to prevent Mero from changing the time line. Showing us how "Sulu" the bad ass become the navigator of the ENT? Or having Chekov going back in time to stop "Fero" from changing the time line. Showing us how Chekov was not raised in Russia instead went to Australia to become the tactical officer of the ENT. I mean this is endless nonsense. At least with STII, STIII, STVI you got a STORY. Something that couldn't easily be fixed with a "sling shot affect around the sun".

Can I forget all of DS9?

Can you say Babylon 5 ripoff?

 

[Irishman]

There's been some improvement in technique since 1992:

No doubt at all that both are the Enterprise, though.

It's amazing just how close the new model looks to the old. Sure puts the lie to the true-believers when they kvetch about how 'ugly' the new ship is.

Let's see, the new one is photographed here in a haze that would hide a multitude of sins, while in 91's TUC, it is shot in - surprise! -- an unforgiving stark environment of - gasp? - space. The tuc shot looks better too ... the new shot looks more like a flyby from the WING COMMANDER movie, though with less detail.

And that IS surprising, given the HD profile view that has been circulating. In that, you just have a bad redesign, yes, but it is tricked out with incredible detail and a genuine photographic quality that almost offsets the design. Yet in the frames from the film here, you see it in a haze (also in a haze when leaving that goofy spacedockstructure; maybe the Romulans vacuumed up all the air on earth and vented it into space to give it some aerial perspective?), making it impossible to evaluate with any accuracy.

Haze? No.

Lens flare. yes

 

[Aragorn]

A compelling story would of been one that didn't have to involve Time Travel. Nero going back in time changes the time line. There was no time travel in any of the Star Wars prequels. Whether you liked them or not. They were the "story". It didn't have to be some "going back in time changing everything etc etc". Since they did that they can do another movie of just fixing the mess. Go back again and change it again. So what is the point really? Reset button episodes (and now movies) are just "safe" things to do. No guts to tell a real story and move things forward.

So, um, don't see it.

Noone's holding a gun to your head.

But he has to see it. Probably several times, in fact. Just to tell us how right he was.

 

[Saul]

Saldana's actually quite a bit better looking than Nichols.

Nope.