SPY PHOTOS at AICN

[ticktock]

I'm sure that someone will upload the big versions to someplace like Photobucket

I just don't understand.

If all the effects are going to be CGI then why are they building actual sets and models?

Yeah, why do they even need actors?

I mean the EFFECTS.

They are usually CGI nowadays to save money,so don't see the need for actual buildinds and full scale models of shuttles.


THOSE are the control panels??? WTF? There's a 1970s washing machine selector in it! Am I missing something here? Is this a joke?

 

[ITL]

CGI is just a tool. A means to an end. There's nothing wrong with real sets and locations that actors can properly interact with.

 

[Vance]

And, somewhere, in the quiet of the day, Lucas's heart just skipped.

 

[EyalM]

I just don't understand.

If all the effects are going to be CGI then why are they building actual sets and models?

Yeah, why do they even need actors?

I mean the EFFECTS.

They are usually CGI nowadays to save money,so don't see the need for actual buildinds and full scale models of shuttles.

The buildings were already there, they are part of an actual working facility. And the shuttle isn't a full scale model, it's part of the set, and is obviously meant to have scenes filmed inside it.

 

[Devon]

I'm sure that someone will upload the big versions to someplace like Photobucket

I just don't understand.

If all the effects are going to be CGI then why are they building actual sets and models?

1. Why would having CGI effects (not sure that's even been confirmed that it all will be CGI, J.J. has said that the Enterprise will be of both the virtual and physical) stop them from going on location or using actual buildings, etc? Unless the buildings are fantasy buildings made of nothing but liquid, they can just go on location. Simple.

2. J.J. Abrams has said that he wants as much realism as possible rather than just having all the actors standing in front of green screens, etc.

3. I'm sure with as much location work as they want to do it would take a lot longer for ILM to render all the FX needed to design buildings, etc etc etc. They already have a ton as it is reportedly.

 

[ticktock]

I'm sure that someone will upload the big versions to someplace like Photobucket

I just don't understand.

If all the effects are going to be CGI then why are they building actual sets and models?

1. Why would having CGI effects (not sure that's even been confirmed that it all will be CGI, J.J. has said that the Enterprise will be of both the virtual and physical) stop them from going on location or using actual buildings, etc? Unless the buildings are fantasy buildings made of nothing but liquid, they can just go on location. Simple.

2. J.J. Abrams has said that he wants as much realism as possible rather than just having all the actors standing in front of green screens, etc.

3. I'm sure with as much location work as they want to do it would take a lot longer for ILM to render all the FX needed to design buildings, etc etc etc. They already have a ton as it is reportedly.

But that will increase the cost.

 

[Sharr Khan]

But that will increase the cost.

Unless you're employed at Paramount, I'm not sure that should matter one bit to us as fans - actually some fans preoccupation with the budget has kinda confounded me. I mean is it your money?

Me, I like the idea that they're building and going on location as much as they can rather then green screening it.

Where are people getting the notion any of that looks 1970s? Looks like some advanced but workable computers to me and a bit like a submarine's workstation or something form a navy ship.

Sharr

 

[ticktock]

But that will increase the cost.

Unless you're employed at Paramount, I'm not sure that should matter one bit to us as fans - actually some fans preoccupation with the budget has kinda confounded me. I mean is it your money?



Sharr

On location shooting is overrated.

Every one has seen every location in all the previous films.

If Abrams spends too much money and it does not male enough money then there will not be a Star Trek 12.

Some of us have to worry of the longer term.

 

[Michael]

But that will increase the cost.

Unless you're employed at Paramount, I'm not sure that should matter one bit to us as fans - actually some fans preoccupation with the budget has kinda confounded me. I mean is it your money?



Sharr

If Abrams spends too much money and it does not male enough money then there will not be a Star Trek 11.

Some of us have to worry of the longer term.

Oh, believe me, there will be a Star Trek 11. It's out on 5/8/2009.

 

[Vance]

I mean is it your money?

Eventually... yes.

 

[Tom Servo]

And, somewhere, in the quiet of the day, Lucas's heart just skipped.

True, true.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I just don't understand.

If all the effects are going to be CGI then why are they building actual sets and models?

Yeah, why do they even need actors?

I mean the EFFECTS.

They are usually CGI nowadays to save money,so don't see the need for actual buildinds and full scale models of shuttles.


THOSE are the control panels??? WTF? There's a 1970s washing machine selector in it! Am I missing something here? Is this a joke?

I don't understand waht you are trying to say...Do you think it is a waste of money to go to that pre-existing "refinery" for an on-location shoot using real sunlight? If they tried to re-create that using all CGI, it would look exactly like an all-CGI set.

What about the "shuttle" (or whetever that is) set. Do you want them to "CGI" that too? What about those seats they were sitting in? Maybe they could have CGI'd those chairs too -- make the actors sit in green chairs. Also, that "shuttle" had steps leading up to it, and a little doorway to walk through. Do you think they should have built a green-screen platform to CGI in the steps and the shuttle opening, then also CGI the shuttle all around the actors sitting it it?

I'm sure there will be a lot of CGI in this film. But there are certain scenes for which a location shot and real sets are better (and probably cheaper). From what I saw from these spy photos, I have to believe that it would be much cheaper (and probably more realistic) to build that "shuttle" set for this location rather than green-screening it and trying to CGI the refinery and the ship.

 

[Sharr Khan]

But that will increase the cost.

Unless you're employed at Paramount, I'm not sure that should matter one bit to us as fans - actually some fans preoccupation with the budget has kinda confounded me. I mean is it your money?



Sharr

On location shooting is overrated.

Every one has seen every location in all the previous films.

If Abrams spends too much money and it does not male enough money then there will not be a Star Trek 12.

Some of us have to worry of the longer term.

Some of us are thinking in the longer terms - we want this movie to be a good movie first and a good Trek second, which is why we are not jumping down these guys throats and giving them room to breath. Not that any fan as any such power to think otherwise is a delusion at best.

Location shooting isn't "overrated" if it can reasonably be done. I think this scene whatever that might be counts or they'd have gone a different route.

Since there's no word of "going over budget" I think its a tad reactionary to be worrying about the costs and building real sets... ect. Given the film wrapped early Abrams seems to know what he's doing.

It only eventually becomes your money if you choose to go to the movies and see it but its not as though they're gonna instill a special Star Trek XI price hike so I still see no difference.

Sharr

 

[Cyrus]

CGI is not always cheaper, especially for things like sets. Even on a TV show (which has a much smaller budget than a movie) like ENT they built the shuttlepod sets. If they can use pre-existing buildings then it's a no-brainer that it would be less costly than cgi (they will use cgi later to add some enhancements).

 

[EyalM]

When you use a real location, it will look like a real location now and five, ten and twenty years from now.
When you use CGI as a set, you risk your movie looking like a cartoon sometime down the road (and in some cases, even when it's brand new).

 

[MANT!]

It's great to see that Zinc Chromate green paint is still in use in the 23rd century..

Seriously, the future will never be entirely itouch..and the latest tech isn't always used .. how long has the B-52 been in use in the USAF?..how old is the current USS Enterprise?...updates will be made but basic tech (physical switches and the like ) will always have a use...

In my job, "Iron Gyroscopes" (consisting of mechanical spinning masses) have persisted even though laser gyroscopes and now quantum gyroscopes have entered the market mostly due to cost..and the fact that iron gyros are mature technology that the builders understand..

 

[roliver]

really, and would fit with Firefly, BSG, and See this is part of the franchises trouble its so stuck in a rut of what it should be no one can ever dare to change it which has made it dull in later years.

Quite untrue. Changes have been made in the various franchises and they still managed to maintain a Trek feel. These pics do not feel like Star Trek in any way to me.

 

[Franklin]

really, and would fit with Firefly, BSG, and See this is part of the franchises trouble its so stuck in a rut of what it should be no one can ever dare to change it which has made it dull in later years.

Quite untrue. Changes have been made in the various franchises and they still managed to maintain a Trek feel. These pics do not feel like Star Trek in any way to me.

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, but I'm not sure why these spy pictures should feel like Star Trek. They are, after all, pictures apparently taken by someone on the sly during down time in between shooting. There's no "feel" to them at all. We see a shuttle and more red uniforms. That's it. And to me, the shuttle looks very much like a TOS-era shuttle.

I will say I'm disappointed that there are seatbelts inside the shuttle. By extrapolation, I suppose they'll be restraining devices of some type on the Enterprsie as well. So, when the cameras start tilting, we won't see anyone flying around the set.

 

[Baldus885]

Nobody here can tell me any different.

And therein lies your problem, my friend, you won't be told anything. You've patently written off this movie as a bunch of crap while knowing next to nothing about it. Making feeble comparisons with something else you don't like seems to be enough for you to justify yourself in not only disliking but criticising this unfinished movie, along with anyone who has anything to do with it's production. You haven't seen a single frame of the movie, and yet you already know how similar it is to BSG?

Debating this movie with you is a waste of time, as you don't seem to be able to present a logical argument to back up your criticism - "it looks like something I don't like, so it must be crap" is what I believe is called a hasty generalisation. Comparing it to BSG - and writing off the movie - just because the set is dirty (Shuttle Full of Miners in Dirty Seat Shocker - more at 11) is almost as dumb as the complaint that the ship's registry typeface was wrong.

Still, if you're not going to see it, then more popcorn for the rest of us.

 

[dougkeenan]

I keep wondering about the "navels" on the thrusters. Could they be an attach point, to relocate for different modes of flight?