Learning how to do CGI in the 2000s was a learning-lesson in how to under-whelm the entire previous generation of special-effects people.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And if you think it is a LIE that the greatest CGI accomplishment in CINEMATIC HISTORY is Star Trek: THE MOTION PICTURE(1979), then you haven't really watched that film because if JJ. Abrams(and he does believe this) thinks the pathetic 'fly-over' in this film(and he ensured it rates as a 'film' by making-it-simple as it gets and figuring-out that the modus of the population is actually not too-far-off-what-he imagines it to be in this film*)RATEs as a competitor?IT ISN'T even in the same vicinity of what they managed to accomplish in the fly-over actually of the previous version of this film in 1979: there is no way to describe the ABSOLUTE MASTERPIECE OF THE FLY-OVER, there's nothing like it in SCIENCE-FICTION barNON E(and reason the 'E' there is distinctualized is because it needs a moment's pause before registering the 'none' of the NON E) which makes the simplest statement in cinematic-history rate as something simply extra-ordinary(if you can register"that 'none' into the eternal domaine). And while that may seem academic to most people it matter's where these thoughts get inscribed because if the only place they get inscripted is into the OPINION dimension of thoughtlessness(and YOU, dear READER, need to comprehend these TWO areas*into which a thought(or a thoughtlessness)can be inscribed¹) then the end-result is a world of absolute rationalizationalism. And, if that doesn't scare you at the present moment it is either: (1) you are too young to have washed-out on the internet as a thing*that is worth a fucking shit; or, (2) are so old it matter's not what in the hell life actually is you gave up and will just need to see about it I'm sure there is something more than what this was billed-as but the truth is that there is NO FAITH dimension(that is what you moron's call this shit) to 'life'(and that is how you leave it when life itself means nothing but sex and inter-coursing with the swine of this planetoid)!....

So, lo and behold, would say Herzog('cause he has certainly come to terms with how mundane his thinking actually is at this point; at one time he really did believe his signature on cynicism was the end and all of it until he was described on this very website as a troglodite with no sense of his own limitational-nature on being quite pretentious on stupidity...), there is a 'domaine', 'out-there', 'on the horizon' in what phenomenological-LAND(cause that movement is dead as nails now, actually) would assess-to-BE an actu al it/EEE(and that long'e'sound means there is a furtherance on the nature of the sound of the 'BE' which is something other than a return to the mind of rationalization to compensate for the coincidence as explanation(i.e., a being-out-there that is further in spatialized sense?NO: that is the issue with you people, you don't take the spatial-dimension of thinking to BE ANYTHING any longer but just glance-over it and assume it is all productive of a cognitive-faculty of neurons that just leaves traces of its function in your mind like servitude-platter(which is a way of thinking your 'brain' serves you a recognizable trace of its function as if you got the full story on it in your bio-handout package from Monsantis, or whoever you DREAM will design your future DNA-registration systemalities....so fuckin' pathetic you losers are)/).

And this is where this essay will go epic-DELLeR(and THAT means***:'no more service on explaining myself you can factor this all together Christopher Nolan, perhaps!!!, of all people, MIGHT be able to comprehend this statement, but: THERE IS A dimension to science-fiction that ITSELF is in and of itself a self-made actualization of an imaginability that pertains on PRECISELY:NUTHING(and that? THAT, makes the issue one of total comformalization of an inherently nothing empirical realism combined-with an inherently SOMETHING imaginability(that is ITSELF a dimension of THOUGHT THAT masks access to a dimension of LIFE THAT NOBODY IN THIS 'version' can properly comprehensively pertain a limitational facultization on in any way shape of form unless you are willing to entertain something called 'substance' along-side of some other thing called 'truth'(that, in the natural original state of VISION is itself a way of MOLDING realisms into something that SEEMS as if it were playdough-elastic because it is NOT INHERENTLY FORMAL without a properly full-perspective and sense-access to what it is that is conformed in the mode of construing falsity and truth as substantialisms in and of themselves that can in and of themselves constitute plastic molded empiricalisms that themselves*are not maskable as anything other than false realities because they cannot endure without energetic consumption of effects that men, together, must combine to construe as a total empirical reality. And so: BINGO!!! that, if you can even begin to comprehend it it is not the most well-thought-through method*of en-scripting an explanation for the in-commen-sur-a-ble nature of fact and fiction that maskerades(NOT: masquerades because we take the whole thing to be a fictional representation across ALL MODES OF sensory access)the totalizable natural world of spiritual inhabitation in which we, as de-facto PRODUCTS(as well as 'producers' in the mode of allTogether-truthy)must falsify a method of imagining a world and a version of what we have as playdough to work with that as a whole-total itself is a NEVER BEFORE or ANYWHERE else(on account of conditions, specificities that inhere in multiplicites of ways and means and methods of activation...)seen-BEFORE enterprise of what human-beings are only than able to comprehend as either, (1), themselves the producers in awe of what they've made, OR, (2): in the mode of omniscience-perspectival INSCRIPTION on the understanding that comes from somewhere that doesn't not correlate with the former that this IS SOMETHING NEW NOVEL AND IMAGINATIVELY unknown-before...

Which is where we return to 'science-fiction', because, as explanation of all the foregoing it could also be said that these sets are not simply among the most ingenius things humans here on Earth ever made; in fact, they ARE THEMSELVES much more than anything they've certainly, since the displacement of imagination into CINEMA, had the gall to actually make(like the pointless PYRAMIDS and 'SPHINX-shits) as anything other than imaginations of worlds(which is why they are themselves so defined down to the micron-level they actually are the thing they pretend they are NOT which is why this masquerades the entire argument above because that is the nature of the whole enterprise.

So, in SHORT: I mean, just look: The Enterprise::: it's there(particularly on a PLASMA TV and the bluray edition it is no question there's nothing surpassed the special-effects"in this film in the 48-intervening YEARS!!!)!!!!!!:

Footnotes