The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Movies XI+ (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50)
-   -   Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers) (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=214567)

YellowSubmarine May 26 2013 02:05 PM

Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
The only cities seen in the new films are San Francisco, London and Riverside (does that count?). One would like to believe that Starfleet would have major facilities and what not in Moscow, New Delhi, Beijing, Tehran, Nairobi, Mexico City, Cairo and Buenos Aires, not counting the launch sites all over the equator and training facilities all over the globe.

It has already been mentioned that it was imprudent to hold a meeting of Starfleet commanding officers in a prominent skyscraper right next to its headquarters after a terrorist attack, with Kirk the only one suspecting this might spell trouble. I couldn't care less if they were this reckless, but all the less reason to put everything in SF. Why not hold it at a secondary meeting centre in Amman. Not only Khan's attack would be more "unexpected" under a pretence they were safer, but an important nod will be made to the fact that all of Earth is part of the Federation, not just the west. Besides, we might get some special treatment of seeing a memorial of Captain Robau near the place where he was raised (and why not another cameo from the king).

There's a diversity of characters in the films, albeit limited by the original TOS crew structure, but the diversity of locations on Earth is underlooked and extremely limited. London was a freshening, but couldn't we go a little further than that?

The Narada and the Vengeance attacks were on SF, for obviously symbolic reasons, but why should everything else happen there too? Command meeting could be held anywhere if the plot finds a good excuse. Starfleet Academy might train officers outside of its primary campus, bases should be everywhere, Vulcan's distress call could have mobilised officers from around the world due to shortage in numbers.

EnsignRicky May 26 2013 02:10 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Because all of the other cities were destroyed by the damned dirty apes.

CommishSleer May 26 2013 02:13 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
I'm looking at the recent action/alien movies as I think its a universal constant that they attack San Fran

YellowSubmarine May 26 2013 02:24 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Quote:

EnsignRicky wrote: (Post 8155882)
Because all of the other cities were destroyed by the damned dirty apes.

Apes? Yeah. A Star Trek film is not without flaws until I can complain about the lack of Bonobo officers!

But if you pardon my casual pithecophobia, with Starfleet admirals being intimate with Section 31, I'd say Starfleet's primary locations is where the damned dirty apes raged, making every other place a refreshing departure from the tentacles of this criminal organisation. Section 31's shenanigans are not taken well in future Islamabad, trust me.

MacLeod May 26 2013 02:29 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Well to be fair, about the only cities we say in Treks I-X, where SF and Paris.

SF was a given saying thats where Starfleet HQ is, as for other cities film producers tend to favour a few cities more than others, New York, London, Paris tend to be popular. Perhaps because they have more instant regonition to a worldwide audiance.

YellowSubmarine May 26 2013 02:44 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Quote:

MacLeod wrote: (Post 8155951)
SF was a given saying thats where Starfleet HQ is, as for other cities film producers tend to favour a few cities more than others, New York, London, Paris tend to be popular. Perhaps because they have more instant regonition to a worldwide audiance.

Which makes the helicopter scene a perfect place to plug in an unknown location. If the location was unrecognisable and looked foreign, with lots of Middle Eastern architecture, it would convey secrecy and caution, while contributing to location diversity well enough.

The meeting and Section 31 headquarters were the only two locations that weren't fixed by plot, circumstance and canon, the latter opportunity was utilised nicely showing us England, the former could have been used too. :)

Additional shots of departure of officers from multiple locations around the globe during the distress call in STXI would also work pretty well IMO, although it would be expensive probably?

sj4iy May 26 2013 02:55 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Quote:

EnsignRicky wrote: (Post 8155882)
Because all of the other cities were destroyed by the damned dirty apes.

Will Khan bring Charlton Heston back?

Mr. Laser Beam May 26 2013 03:13 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Quote:

CommishSleer wrote: (Post 8155900)
I'm looking at the recent action/alien movies as I think its a universal constant that they attack San Fran

Unless it's any film directed by Roland Emmerich, in which case it's a universal constant that New York City will get it. :sigh:

Belz... May 26 2013 04:38 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Which also reminds me of another observation: why does each Trek race now only has a single planet ? Romulus getting destroyed by the Hobus supernova apparently made Nero the last of the Romulan empire, and apparently Vulcan has no colonies until New vulcan. Weird. Isn't one of the points of space travel is spreading around ?

YellowSubmarine May 26 2013 04:53 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Quote:

Belz... wrote: (Post 8156470)
Which also reminds me of another observation: why does each Trek race now only has a single planet ? Romulus getting destroyed by the Hobus supernova apparently made Nero the last of the Romulan empire, and apparently Vulcan has no colonies until New vulcan. Weird. Isn't one of the points of space travel is spreading around ?

Races are spreading around, but travel and reproduction are slow processes. It will take centuries before off-planet colonies grow to millions and billions, especially if they are reproducing at the rates of a present-day developed countries, the infrastructures and cities on these colonies don't pop of nowhere and take time to be built too. I find the ten thousand figure a bit too small, but perhaps Vulcans weren't fans of colonies. I also think it was confirmed at one point that the ten thousand figure was of people surviving from the destruction, and did not include Vulcans living elsewhere. Perhaps the colonies they already had weren't suitable to be a home for the entire race.

But you can't complain there weren't enough planets depicted in the films. We saw Earth, Vulcan, Romulus (in footage), Qo'noS, Rura Penthe (in deleted scenes), Saturn, Titan and Delta Vega. These were plenty, unlike Earth locations. ;)

sj4iy May 26 2013 05:00 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Who doesn't want to see California destroyed over and over again?

M'Sharak May 26 2013 06:52 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Quote:

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: (Post 8156098)
Quote:

CommishSleer wrote: (Post 8155900)
...

Unless it's any film directed by Roland Emmerich, in which case it's a universal constant that New York City will get it. :sigh:

**finger pauses over button, twitches once, then moves on**

CorporalClegg May 26 2013 06:59 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Quote:

sj4iy wrote: (Post 8156536)
Who doesn't want to see California destroyed over and over again?

Californians?

Greg Cox May 26 2013 07:26 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
Quote:

CommishSleer wrote: (Post 8155900)
I'm looking at the recent action/alien movies as I think its a universal constant that they attack San Fran

The Avengers beg to differ.

Kestra May 26 2013 07:30 PM

Re: Why are there only two cities in the future? (spoilers)
 
There were already a lot of things going on in the movie and they probably just didn't want to make it more complicated.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.