I'm all for using real locations in order to produce a realistic look to the movie sets, but some of the ones that were used in the latest Star Trek movie were ridiculous. The star ship construction site looked exactly likely a current-day power substation. Besides, would a major construction facility really have such a makeshift gravel driveway?
Then, the water tank scene looked exactly like a water plant, as it in fact, was. There were WAY too many water tanks to be believable, and there was WAY too much space inside that room to be contained within the Enterprise and still leave enough room for regular decks. How much water does one crew need to drink and bathe in?
Is there any other insignificant detail you'd like to bitch about from a year-and-a-half old movie?
I really don't think we should discourage and get testy with people who bring up things they want to talk about concerning the last movie. That is why we have message boards...so we can talk!
Should we only allow positive discussions?
If age is the factor then we shouldn't have a section devoted to TOS which is over 40 years old!
I do agree with the OP to some extent. While real life locations are fine (I had no problem with the location of the site where they built the Enterprise) but some places, like the infamous brewery I do have a problem with it. I think for the next movie if they use real life locations I would like to see them dress them up a bit more to cover some of the aspects where the real life location is too obvious.