SPY PHOTOS at AICN

[Cary L. Brown]

Please submit your irrefutable confirmation as to exactly what kind of vehicle that is here: ______________ . Thank you.

Small Unit Transport of the type the US Navy uses with transport helicopters. The apt comparison would be how well maintained a Bell is on a US Carrier.

Now, if this is a civilian refining facility or something, this changes somewhat, but only just. I imagine that regulations would require maintenance and care of equipment as well. Certainly, not US mining venture today would allow its equipment to fall into such a state while still being used.

I very often agree with you on things, but here... I'm 100% in disagreement with you.

The issue isn't that the equipment is in a state of poor repair. Why isn't that the issue? BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT EVIDENTLY IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR AT ALL.

Go to your car right now. Unless you are utterly neurotic about cleaning it every single day, you probably have crud in the carpet where you put your feet. You may have sesame seeds and even a bit of french fry down the back... who knows? The odds are, your dashboard has dust on it. And the outside? Most likely, there's some road dirt on it. Where I live now, every single car is coated with yellow pollen (I've never seen pollen like this before... after a rain, it looks like there's mustard in the gutters!)

REALITY IS NOT PRISTINE, in other words. And yes, things that look "too clean" or "too perfect" invariably strike people (myself included) as being FAKE.

The shuttle, and the fueling station it's seen at, is neither FILTHY, nor is it in a state of "disrepair." It all seems perfectly serviceable and perfectly functional. Can anyone point out anything about that which indicates that things aren't being maintained in proper working order?

Cleanliness is typically limited to "you keep things as clean as they need to be in order to serve the purpose required." Unless you're a neurotic, 200-times-a-day-handwasher or something, I s'pose...

I have NO problem with the set we're being shown. It is simultaneously consistent with what we've seen in the past, yet different (which expands that world we've seen) and is BELIEVABLE.

"Broken and filthy" does not equal "believable." You're right. But this isn't "broken" nor is it "filthy." It just looks USED.

 

[Vektor]

And thank you for backing up my point about literally hating people, and feeling free to attack personally anyone that doesn't whole-sale back up the greatness of this movie.

Um, no. I wasn't being hateful in the slightest, merely making a point of the fact that most people outside of hardcore Trek fandom would consider anyone who gets this worked up over the cleanliness of a vehicle prop in a hollywood sci-fi movie to be at least one redshirt short of a landing party and in desperate need of a real life.

As for my comments being a personal attack, if you want to assign yourself to the category of fandom that I am criticizing and take personal offense at it then that's your choice, not mine. I'm reminded of a kid I used to know when I was in about the third grade who at every recess would try to set all the rules for the games we played, and when the rest of us refused to do everything his way, he would go crying to the teacher about how much we all hated him and were "ganging up on him." Just because some people aren't willing to agree with your preconceptions about this movie--and dare to say so!--is not the same thing as personally attacking you, no matter how useful it may be to your ego to pretend that it is.

And I'm sure Akiraprise, who reads this thread every day, will give you a warning for calling everyone that doesn't like the look so far as 'freaks and weridos'.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't like the look so far who, nonetheless, do not find it necessary to fight to the death over the issue of shuttlecraft hygeine, or feel the need to persuade or browbeat everyone else to dislike it as much as they do.

I rather doubt that your attempt to mischaracterize my comments and motivations as something nefarious and intolerant are going to convince any of the mods to give me a warning, but thanks for trying.

 

[aridas sofia]

I think the challenge is simple to put into words, but almost impossible to pull off in practice -- make the ship pristine without looking fake. My reasons for preferring pristine are 1) It fits with my notion of the future, where a bunch of little nanobots will clean everything all the time and we will never, ever have to even think about dirt, and 2) it fits with the look of TOS, which was, I believe, trying to base its "cleanliness is next to holiness" look on the real-life space program. This leads to point 3, which is practical. I'd guess that no matter how advanced the technology, if we are still air-breathing humans, and space is still a void without air, then it's a much more dangerous place than anywhere on Earth. So... you wouldn't want no Frito crumbs getting stuck in your air recycler, if you know what I mean.

How to achieve my pristine little starship without it looking all fake? Very tough. I prefer to leave that to better film making folks than little ol' aridas. But if pressed, I'd begin with layers and layers of subtle detail, and every so often add a little CGI whirlwind of nanobots coming through to clean up the jam on the table.

 

[Maurice]

I'm sure it's been mentioned in one the million pages of this thread, but sets never look the same in photos like this and on film, AND the level of detail, smudges or dirt added to a set is ususallt 20-30% more than looks real because under film lighting conditions more subtle detail fails to read.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm sure it's been mentioned in one the million pages of this thread, but sets never look the same in photos like this and on film, AND the level of detail, smudges or dirt added to a set is ususallt 20-30% more than looks real because under film lighting conditions more subtle detail fails to read.

That's certainly true - if you've ever seen an actor in full make-up, especially unusual or effects makeup, in full daylight the difference between that and the way they appear on film is often startling.

Because film and video remains a two-dimensional medium, it's particularly true that surfaces of many kinds can benefit from "modeling" with paint and various stains in order to bring out detail.

I suppose the streets of an American city today are a lot cleaner than those of London in 1790. That said, I don't find a pristine vision of the future at all visually plausible. That doesn't mean I don't like it, just that it does not look real or liveable to me.

The model I currently find most attractive for how these things should look - on television, if not in film - isn't BSG but "Firefly." Your mileage will doubtless vary.

 

[ancient]

I'm definitely in the non-pristine camp. It's not like it's run down, it just has a logical amount of wear. Unless you have severe obsessiveness there's no reason to replace an entire consol because it got a scratch on it. The keyboard I'm typing on right now is only a few years old, and there are little pieces of lint and dust between the keys that'll never come out. And 99% of the time it goes unnoticed so there's no real demand for an army of nanobots to do anything.

It's worth noting that humans that grow up in an overly clean environment often end up with a crippled immune system and about 10 times as many useless allergies. Human kids need to play in the dirt, it's sort of evolutionary. Otherwise their immune system may never encounter a real threat and instead decide that...corn or peanut butter is something worth fighting off. Certainly this would be a concern for people who are raised on a starship. It’s also the sort of thing we earth-bound folks never even think about.

But anyway, I’m not so much concerned about them making changes as I am about them making dumb changes and so far I like what I see.

 

[aridas sofia]

I agree re: "Firefly", Dennis, but within the context of that story. That little, old, beat-up but lovingly cared for transport, working on the outskirts of a civilized society that itself is a bundle of horrid contradictions, always without the necessary resources... that's a very distinct and different take on the future.

As for replacing a console when it gets a scratch -- no. Of course not. Only obsessive compulsives would do that, right? But this society was hyping the introduction of a little robotic vacuum cleaner that will keep your floors clean without you giving it the slightest thought in 2001! Any realistic portrayal of the future, set in the hostile environment of space but including humans going about their business just as they do here on Earth, would be pristine. It might not look right, but that's not what I was saying. I'm saying it would be right. People would have to develop the means to keep everything running perfectly, seamlessly, and without a lot of expenditure of their own thought and effort (because we would have other things to do or else we wouldn't be out there). It would just happen, and to the viewer's eye it would look... pristine.

If it didn't work like that, either the tech would be severely limited -- like the ISS in low orbit -- or there would be extreme circumstances -- and consequences -- causing it not to work perfectly.

Think about it -- we are talking about space. If an airplane doesn't work perfectly, you might be able to crash land. If a spacecraft doesn't work perfectly, the options aren't so forgiving. If dirt equals wear, and wear equals compromised performance, then spacecraft have to be pretty damned pristine.

And yet, portraying this kind of thing is rough. It infers a command over the environment that might reduce the opportunity for drama to man struggling to keep his sanity in such an unnatural place. It's a bit like sound in space -- dirt adds dimension, and its absence could become more of an issue to a story than its presence. But that wasn't really my point. Only that it would need to be clean to be believable as a viable space environment.

I absolutely agree about immune system considerations, BTW. I think that is going to be one of the big bugaboos that will need to be confronted if man is going to venture beyond the moon. But you'd think immune system considerations would be pretty passe by the time people are building 180,000 ton starships that warp space.

 

[StarTrek1701]

We don't even know on what context this shuttle is being used for yet the naysayers are slamming it because it isn't clean? No wonder we Trekkies get a bad name in press.

 

[Woulfe]

I looked at the shuttle & it's location.

~ Dilitihum Mining Complex ~

Came to my mind, THAT'S why it's dirty, is any MINING equipment going to be sparkling clean even in the far fetch future ?

I don't think so, even in the 21st century mining equipment is dirty, I don't think that'll change anytime soon.

One can only suspend disbelief so far before it gets 'Silly' & 'Unrealistic' and that's the thing Trek has been fighting from 'Average' schmoes who pointed and laughed at it these past 40 some odd years.

If fans want Trek to be taken 'Seriously' by the unwashed masses we have to let go of the whole 'Everything is pristine & clean' as to others that future looks 'Plastic' and 'Unreal' like a cheaply made set & so forth.

I for one welcome the 'Lived In' universe look of the new film.

Granted when we see the Enterprise the first time she will look pristine and clean, but that's not going to last the whole film I can tell you that right now, covering multiple time frames the film will show wear & tare on the ol' gal as the film progresses time line wise.

In other words one will have to 'Get used to it' as this is what Trek will look like this time forward. Well, unless you don't want to see it anymore.

That's a whole other matter.

- W -
* Who will be seeing Star Trek May 2009 *

 

[Baldus885]

We don't even know on what context this shuttle is being used for yet the naysayers are slamming it because it isn't clean? No wonder we Trekkies get a bad name in press.

Too true. The "fans" who claim to be able to extrapolate a few crappy blurred on-set photos into an entire movie, and then claim that move is going to suck, are probably ones the rest of us can all do without. Or at least not take seriously.

 

[ancient]

We don't even know on what context this shuttle is being used for yet the naysayers are slamming it because it isn't clean? No wonder we Trekkies get a bad name in press.

Too true. The "fans" who claim to be able to extrapolate a few crappy blurred on-set photos into an entire movie, and then claim that move is going to suck, are probably ones the rest of us can all do without. Or at least not take seriously.

Yeah, we need to keep in mind that this is a shuttle at a desert fueling depot. We have no idea what the Enterprise (or any starship) will really look like on the inside.

Any realistic portrayal of the future, set in the hostile environment of space but including humans going about their business just as they do here on Earth, would be pristine.

Most likely a realistc future will just have robots exploring asteroids and no klingons or green animal women in sight. Which is why I'm willing to give up a certain level of realness while watching Star Trek! This movie looks to be trying to present a fantasy world of Klingons & Romulans to the common man, so it really needs something grounded that your common non-nerd will recognize. This is also why I don't mind the welding guy in the trailer. Realistic? Not really, but recognizable.

Think about it -- we are talking about space. If an airplane doesn't work perfectly, you might be able to crash land. If a spacecraft doesn't work perfectly, the options aren't so forgiving. If dirt equals wear, and wear equals compromised performance, then spacecraft have to be pretty damned pristine.

I don't think a scratched keyboard or chipped paint really count as something that will comprimise performance though. We humans are really dirty farting, sweating, picking, shedding, excreting beasties. But dirt, yeah, you wouldn't want that getting into the airlock seal.

... it would need to be clean to be believable as a viable space environment.

It would need to be a noiseless, boring as shit place in order to be believable as a space environment, as 2001:ASO proved at length.

I absolutely agree about immune system considerations, BTW. I think that is going to be one of the big bugaboos that will need to be confronted if man is going to venture beyond the moon. But you'd think immune system considerations would be pretty passe by the time people are building 180,000 ton starships that warp space.

There you go again with your realism. I understand your pov on this, and your right about it. But most of this is going to fly right over the heads of 99% of the audience, that's my point.

 

[Jon1701]

Man, this thread is a hoot.

In the pristine dust-free trek universe (that some of us have misremembered) I wonder what a trip to the beach is like? Does the super-futuristic anti-dust/dirt shuttle technology keep the sand from in between your toes? Does it keep the grit out of your sandwiches? Can you not get dirty, sandy or dusty in the 23rd Century?

You know, Trek has been to the desert several times over the last 41 years and I'm pretty sure there was dust. And dirt. And muck. And Grime. Even if this is a shuttle from the Enterprise (which I don't think it is), can they not just run it through the shuttle wash when they get in?

Dirt!!!! Dust!!! Abrams raped my childhood!!!

 

[Franklin]

We don't even know on what context this shuttle is being used for yet the naysayers are slamming it because it isn't clean? No wonder we Trekkies get a bad name in press.

You know, the shuttle could be parked at a shuttle washing facility. With a fuel fill, the wash is free. Detailing is extra, though.

Things like that shuttle should look used. It's not a collectible. It's not meant to be kept in mint condition at all costs. It's supposed to be taken out of its package and played with.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

....Yeah, we need to keep in mind that this is a shuttle at a desert fueling depot. We have no idea what the Enterprise (or any starship) will really look like on the inside....

True -- but we do have a very small idea what the bridge looks like (from the picture of Abrams chatting from his laptop).

Granted, we only saw very little of the bridge in that photo, but it was obvious to me that this "shuttle" and that bridge have totally different types of controls. Therefore, I'm not worried that Abram's Starfleet ships will have toggle switches and dirt on the floor -- I'm pretty sure they will be "futuristic-looking and clean".

 

[MisterPL]

Outside of the shuttle bay and hydroponics, I'm having a tough time imaging why any other part of the Enterprise would be dirty anyway.

 

[dougkeenan]

Why would hydroponics be "dirty?"

 

[MisterPL]

Did I say hydroponics? I meant "Kirk's quarters."

 

[number6]

Did I say hydroponics? I meant "Kirk's quarters."

His quarters weren't dirty, it just always smelled like Vulcan Scented Lube.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Did I say hydroponics? I meant "Kirk's quarters."

^
^^


Kirk likes his shuttles to be the same as his women...dirty and technologically backward.

 

[Shatmandu]

Anyone have these photos saved? They've been taken down.

Joe, raised up