Stupid Sets

[Styro]

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?

 

[Dukhat]

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?

 

[Flashover]

How many major construction sites have you been on (I have been on quite a few) and just how many real-world power plants/engine-rooms have you been in?

My guess... less than zero.

 

[number6]

I'm glad the OP took the time to finally get a few things off his chest. Now let's have a group hug and a cleansing, healthy cry. Go on let it all out. Feels so good after holding it in for so many many months.

 

[Gojira]

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.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The Enterprise engineering section wasn't a water plant but a beer brewery in San Fernando. The 2009 Enterprise was bumped up from the 300 meters of the classic one to 725m in order to fit it, the enourmous shuttle hanger and the deck behind the bridge inside.

The brewery didn't bother me one iota. Nor did the shipyard location. I'd pick a gravel driveway and a real location over a shiny, Star Wars-style blue screen/CG set.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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.

I think we should express our opinions. This is why we have message boards.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

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!.....

.....If age is the factor then we shouldn't have a section devoted to TOS which is over 40 years old!

Excellent point! There are new fans getting interested in Trek every day and new members coming to post on these forums each week. Things will sure get very quiet around here if we can only discuss all the Trek that has been produced only in the last 12 months!

Styro, this issue has come up before, but you are pretty sure to hear from some of the "regulars" here, both pro and con on the matter. I, personally, was disappointed with the use of the Anheuser- Busch brewery and hope that we'll see something more reminiscent of a Trek engine room in the next movie, even if it is essentially the idea of an expansive machinery set (as was part of the idea behind using the brewery) radiating out from a somewhat more familiar (updated, of course!) central, higher-tech-Trek-looking control room/area.

 

[bryce]

I *hated* the beer brewery engineering set too.

I also disliked the electrical plant (or whatever) it was they used for the bowels of the Kelvin...(it reminded me too much of episodes of Doctor Who, the new BSG & Space: Above & Beyond where *obvious* old factory locations were used as "spaceships"...)

Well actually, I didn't *wholly* hate them - they did add a real industrial feel to the "ships" that has been missing...and you can't replicate with plastic and plywood sets and blinky lights...it added a kind of Nostrono feel to the Kelvin, for example.

*BUT*, it also takes me out of things when I see concrete and bricks. And those big beer/water tanks Kirk & Scotty were running by just looks...well...liek water tanks - not starship parts.

So I actually wouldn't mind using real-life locations like that - but with added set extensions - CGI and real - that cover up the obvious down-to-Earth looking bits, and that add some futuristic looking starship engine/engineering parts to the location sets.

You know, as much as I loved the new movie - there were a few things I did miss from the previous film & TV series - and one of those is *set design* - and ship sets that are well thought out...where stuff we see on screen has a purpose and meaning for being there - not just to look "engine like"...their purpose and location in the ship was thought out beforehand.

Why not use the real-world sets - but bring in someone like Probert to design set extensions and to try and make the real-world parts of the set fit into an in-world engine design?

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Why not use the real-world sets - but bring in someone like Probert to design set extensions and to try and make the real-world parts of the set fit into an in-world engine design?

Sounds like a GREAT idea to me. This concept would represent the "Best of Both Worlds", if you'll pardon the pun....

 

[T'Girl]

any other insignificant detail

The engineering spaces/brewery was a featured scene, what are you talking about?

 

[shapeshifter]

Have you ever seen a Starship Production Facility of a couple hundred years hence from now?

Honestly, I didn't even know it was a brewery until I heard about it on the web. What matters most to me is, did it work during first screening, did I get taken out of the film by the set? No, it worked. I simply saw a new Enterprise engineering set.

Makeshift gravel driveway? Supplies/personnel/trash are flown in and out.

Too much water? Water is used for more than just drinking and bathing. Ever hear of Hydrogen - Oxygen? Also, it may not have been water.

Interior space? It's a much bigger ship than the original Enterprise.

 

[JarodRussell]

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!

Exactly. And this message board discusses the flaws of The Final Frontier, Endgame or These Are The Voyages and other stuff on a regular basis. Star Trek 2009 is different how?

 

[UFO]

You mean

Is there any other insignificant detail you'd like to bitch about from a year-and-a-half old movie?

isn't Klingon for:

"Hi, and welcome to the site"?

 

[JarodRussell]

You mean

Is there any other insignificant detail you'd like to bitch about from a year-and-a-half old movie?

isn't Klingon for:

"Hi, and welcome to the site"?

More like "Go away because I disagree with you."

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It's the same thing in Klingonese.

 

[Dukhat]

Sorry, I was being testy. It's just that it annoys me when people create an entire topic to bitch about something that's already been bitched about ad nauseum, as if they think they're the first ones to actually ever bring it up. My bad.

 

[number6]

Sorry, I was being testy. It's just that it annoys me when people create an entire topic to bitch about something that's already been bitched about ad nauseum, as if they think they're the first ones to actually ever bring it up. My bad.

There are other threads about this?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I admit to being confused as to why a starship engine room from the year 2258 would need WATER tanks...

 

[C.E. Evans]

I admit to being confused as to why a starship engine room from the year 2258 would need WATER tanks...

I just thought it was part of the reactor coolant system myself (maybe it's still a few years before plasma coolant is used).

Personally, I didn't mind the engineering set--although I do think there should have been a central control room for Scotty to work in rather than have him running all over the place. But now that I think about it, there did seem to be more a "cohesive look" between the Kelvin's bridge and its lower levels. On the Enterprise, not so much, but that may have been a lighting issue perhaps (maybe the engine room needed more lens-flare)...