Outpost4 I appreciate what you are saying and for the most part agree with it. I totally know about editing in the middle of a dissolve and all that, but I still stand by what I know I saw! What really chaps my ass is that there is no one on this board that can even comprehend what I am saying! That there may be some footage out there that may have not been seen yet! It is so closed minded! I am only looking for GOOD information. That is the reason I posted in the first place! I do not want to be called a lying or anything like that and for some stupid people to suggest that I think I saw something I did not, that just burns me up! I am looking for answers not BS. You know it is like walking threw a Trek con and hearing all these people talk as if they are the know all to be all about Trek! There is no one person that can say they are the know all to be all about Trek! Not even Gene himself can say That! I am looking for INFO! Not BS
Well, it would seem that folks here don't have any info to give you. Nobody else remembers ever seeing the visual effects shot you're describing. Given the already well-established time constraints the effects team was under to make the December '79 release date, I have to agree with DS9Sega, that the likelihood of them making an effects shot that would be used in a commercial, but not in the final film, is slim to none. (Using an alternate live-action take from the set, I can see... Patrick Stewart's line "The line must be drawn HERE!" was different in the First Contact trailer from the one in the final film. But special effects cost $$$ and take time to do right, so I'm just not seeing what you describe as being all that likely.) I wish you luck as you try to track down this bit of lost footage, and encourage you to not take the "no"s you'll get along the way so personally. Nobody here is bullshitting you.
Guys- and gals If I ever run across th footage I am talking about or even any info I will pass it along! Elton and Cardinal thanx!
Hey Guys! New to Trekbbs,been following this thread for some time...Amazing treasures !!! Can't wait too see more images!!- Jami
There's no need to be insulting. We comprehend perfectly what you're claiming -- we simply find the claim unconvincing. Yes, you say you have a photographic memory, but it's never been scientifically proven that eidetic recall even exists or that it's 100 percent reliable. It's the nature of human memory that it's subject to alteration and error. That's why hearsay evidence is not sufficient to prove anything. Just because we aren't willing to compromise our rationality and trust a totally unsupported allegation that flies in the face of all logic merely because you claim it's true doesn't mean we're incapable of comprehending your words. We comprehend perfectly that you're proposing the existence of unseen footage. But we also comprehend this: given that the movie was released in a temporary, rough-draft stage, that it was rushed to theaters before its effects work could be completed, that the theatrical release therefore has a number of missing or unfinished FX shots, it is therefore extremely unlikely that there could be extra completed FX shots lying around that weren't used in the final film. Your claim simply isn't credible in the context of everything we know about the production history of ST:TMP. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not closed-minded to refuse to take an unlikely assertion on faith. It's simply good judgment to insist on hard evidence. You accuse us of being closed-minded, but it goes both ways. If you want our minds to be open to the possibility that you could somehow incredibly be right, isn't it only fair that you open your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong? That our disagreement with you isn't because we're unjust or incapable of grasping your argument, but simply because the facts are not on your side? If you aren't willing to admit that possibility, then who here has the truly closed mind? Then you have a problem, because all human perception is fallible. We all remember things that didn't actually happen. We're not insulting you by claiming that your memory is imperfect, because we're saying you're no different from every other human who's ever lived, ourselves included. The first and most important step on the road to wisdom is the ability to say "I could be wrong." Now, I'm sure that most of us here would love to be wrong about this -- would be delighted to discover lost FX footage from TMP of the sort you're describing. Indeed, that's what this whole thread is all about -- our fascination with lost TMP footage. So it makes no sense to say that our minds are closed to the possibility that such lost footage could exist. But we understand that belief or desire is not enough -- we need to wait for hard evidence before we believe something. We'd love your claim to be true, but it doesn't hold up well to analysis, and one person's recollection doesn't meet the burden of proof.
If you consider this post arrogant, we have a very different definition of arrogance. It was only when ncc-1071-e insisted on his photographic memory that I told him extraordinary claims requite extraordinary evidence.
Watch you don't drool on your keyboard there, slick. Unless any of us were involved in the creation of the film, or were present at that same screening, telling someone "Sadly, you're incorrect. That never happened." about an experience they've related is simply arrogant, no matter how extraordinary the claim. You don't think it happened. It sounds incredibly unlikely. You may be right. But, as you observed, neither you or he is infallible, and neither of you should just arrogantly declare one way or the other. Doing so simply invites, and frankly deserves, the sort of responses that you've had since and are now whining about. Since ncc-1017-e has already conceded that he understands perfectly that his memory may be subject to the passage of time in his response to Outpost4, there doesn't seem to be an issue with "claims" of "photographic memory".
Memory is a really interesting thing - with the right conditions you can make people believe than a fictional event happened to them, their mind will fill in the blanks. There was a really good study where they shown some people (faked) pictures of Warner brothers characters at Disneyworld - the subjects then recalled their interactions with those characters and remember shaking hands with them...
I don't recall hearing anyone "arrogantly declare" that the footage in question can't possibly exist. All people have said, as far as I know, is that its existence is unlikely and we'd need hard evidence to be convinced. It's not arrogant to ask for evidence of a claim that conflicts with what we know. This is not symmetrical. The burden of proof lies on the person making the extraordinary claim. It's not arrogance to doubt an improbable claim in the absence of evidence; it's just good judgment. The only way it would be arrogant is if there were actual evidence that we were ignoring.
I didn't say he arrogantly declared that the footage didn't exist. I said he arrogantly declared that the related story "never happened".
Gentlemen, gentlemen. I think we should arrogantly get back on subject. Alchemist, how's the progress coming?
I third the motion to pester Alchemist about his progress with the website. The motion is passed with no objections.
You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but ...you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie. You lie. You tell the truth. But you cannot. Illogical! Illogical! Please explain. Only humans can explain their behavior. Please explain. (Screen gets dim as smoke fills room).