Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
Eh. It's just dumb. First of all, when will Hollywood get it through their skuls that models almost always look better than CGI?
The old shots of the Enterprise looked fine -- pretty decent, in fact. Now they're being replaced by CGI shots that look like obvious, TV-level-budget CGI.
If they want to make Star Trek look less cheesy, they shouldn't bother with the Enterprise-orbiting and transporter effects, which still look decent. They should first try adding some realistic backgrounds to their red-sky-and-plastic-rocks planetary-surface sets.
Actually, they really shouldn't bother with that, either, but if they're going to do anything, start with that.
(And don't add a bunch of Dewbacks in the background, either.)
Judge Yourself:
If there are improvements at all, it's a case of mixed results at best. CGI is better at creating busy shots with multiple moving objects, but the shots of the Enterprise lack detail and depth.
Pretty much they just throw a lot of space debris around because it's cheap to do so on a computer. It's the everything but the kitchen sink approach again, and yeah, I'm pretty darn sure I saw a Dewback floating around there somewhere.