I've noticed there are some repeating themes in this sub-forum. One of which is the argument about only designing/building the sets for what is actually on camera
vs. what I've seen folks on here call "museum pieces." From just a filmmaker standpoint, I agree with the former; and as a fan I can understand the desire to do the latter. Trek fans are very passionate and detail-oriented. Which is why those museum pieces look so great and the CGI is often one of the best things about a fan production.
But what is best for your film? Which option will make the production process run more quickly and smoothly? It seems that a lot of pre-production on these fan films get stuck in the building stages, when maybe they only needed to build half a set and could have gotten the project completed sooner. But I digress...
Which sort of brings me to the point of this post:
This is an example of how the pros are saving time and money. And you can't even tell! So, I'm thinking, with the CGI skill of some of the fans out there, there is no reason why this can't save you
time and money as well. You build enough of the set that your characters can interact, throw green screens up (lighting them evenly
) and you can do some set extensions to make it look real.
Check out these free tutorials from the fantastic Andrew Kramer:
Anyways, just some food for thought.